|
Post by Rhiflect on Aug 21, 2010 10:13:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 21, 2010 15:33:10 GMT
^ Excellent!
Also Joeb, after nine pages of good back-and-forth discussion and exploration of everyone's views on this topic, it really seems like the most pointless thing in the world to start this again. If you don't get where I'm coming from, just read the thread over and over again until you do. If not, then well, just don't worry. It's really not that important.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 21, 2010 17:09:16 GMT
*punches regardless of gender*
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Aug 21, 2010 17:10:25 GMT
hey we should make the most of joeb actually making sense
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 21, 2010 17:48:38 GMT
I'm I the only who doesn't find Joeb that hard to understand?
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 21, 2010 18:01:27 GMT
nope. i actually think it's really rude the way people act like he's spouting gibberish when he's actually a very intelligent person who just phrases things in a non-typical way.
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 21, 2010 18:58:59 GMT
For the record, I was just saying that all the questions Joeb is asking of me I have answered in the rest of the thread, and I didn't want to repeat myself - not that I couldn't understand what he was saying (other than not being sure of sarcasm or not on the previous page, which is a common internet dilemma). Thanks for the punch, though.
If anyone else wants to take up this discussion again, that's fine, but I think I've said all I can on this one.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 21, 2010 19:06:26 GMT
i was challenging your take on 'being nice regardless of gender is great [except when it's not because i say so despite any evidence with the exception of my own preconceived notions of men]'. which i'm pretty sure didn't get covered yet. to me it smacks of legitimizing female-to-male-based prejudice. if you feel that is your right to make those calls because you're the oppressed, then fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 21, 2010 19:11:07 GMT
Lets all let off steam after this fascinating yet exhausting bout of intellectual intercourse by beating the shit out of each other. Joeb has the right idea.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 21, 2010 19:19:42 GMT
Also... just to finish this played out debate.
I'm guessing the feminist responce to what Joeb said would be that female to male prejudice (reverse prejudice) doesn't exist because of male privilege?
I've TOTALLY been paying attention.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 21, 2010 19:22:38 GMT
i think that's only in regards to sexism, not prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Aug 21, 2010 19:27:40 GMT
i've never understood that. just because people are "priviledged" doesn't mean there isn't any prejudice/sexism towards them, plenty of women are taught from an early age the whole 'all men are pigs' shit
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 21, 2010 19:34:36 GMT
i think that's only in regards to sexism, not prejudice. Aye I think you're right! Obviously you've been paying attention better. Also.. we're going back into the privilege debate! I remember the first time we did this one it was Tara vs the world, and everyone was giving her hard time for her views.. now a good chunk of wolfboard subscribes to all that. In short what I'm saying is Tara is to wolfboard ideology what the Velvet Underground where to music. Actually isn't funny how a lot of the most popular/noteworthy wolfies stir up a minor bit of controv and aren't exactly the prom queen at first? I'm thinking Tara, Rhi, Sibz... myself though I'll always be a massive twat. Yellowbelly for best overall poster by 2011 says I.
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 21, 2010 20:54:28 GMT
Joeb - Okay then, I probably didn't explain myself properly. I'm not saying that my position as the 'oppressed women' gives me a right to go round labelling men sexist pigs as I choose – of course it doesn't. And that's not something I do. I'll elaborate with a fun real-life example, and lot's of rambling. Earlier this year, at my old sixth form, I had a friend, and he had a thing for me, which is y'know, fine. But he was quite old fashioned (like oldy-world chivalrous romantic type that J osh keeps mentioning). He would always hold doors open for me in a very sweeping (and entirely earnest) way and wait for me to walk through first, or he'd stand back and wait for me to sit down first (we sat next to each other on a desk). We worked together great, similar thoughts on the texts and everything, but when we were having group/class discussions he would either talk over me constantly in a very polite manner (no doubt in an attempt to 'help' articulate what I was saying), or he'd put his hand up and explain "Florence's excellent thought on this passage..." to the teacher, and when he did let me speak, it was often after a thoughtful announcement of "ladies first". This boy was a complete sweetheart, and no way was he your typical sexist male, or trying to make me feel bad deliberately. He was trying to be nice. But seriously, can you imagine how that all made me feel? Suffocated is the word. You said that I'm "using my preconceived notions of what a sexist male is". But chivalry doesn't equal sexism - not deliberate sexism (and I don't think I ever said I did). I am saying that society is inherently sexist, and that chivalry is just an expression (or consequence) of this inherent sexism. Because really, chivalry is socialised into very polite and kind young men, like my friend, or like Jos h with his offers of bag-carrying, and they aren't sexist consciously, and wouldn't consider themselves sexist. The thing is, you can't help the way you are brought up. When you're raised thinking 'this is a charming, positive thing', you don't necessarily stop and think... Why am I actually doing it? How does it make her feel? Where has this idea that women can't manage heavy doors actually come from? How come, if I believe that women are equal to men, and equally capable (which I do).. how come I'm still doing this? Or even, how would I feel if someone did the same to me? What you can help is whether you take on board that the behaviour you've been taught might be belittling, offensive etc. and you can decide to challenge the inherent sexism of society by changing it. And if you're fully aware of how questionable your actions are, but you keep going because it makes you feel good, or because you don't think it matters that you're validating the notion that women are the weaker sex - then you're a sexist pig Second point: I'm sorry if I came across as... whatever, by implying that I'm entitled to make a judgement call which you are not. ..But it's true. You've never experienced chivalry, so the distinction I'm making is probably confusing, or seems ridiculous or whatever. Bur what distinguishes chivalry from just plain helpfulness is that chivalry... it's a way of men being nice, but it's not actually helpful! If I can already open a door myself, and I'm closer - or I'm able to explain my thoughts in lessons all by myself, then my friend wasn't helping. I had a google to find some more Acts of Chivalry (our examples are getting a bit worn out): - If it's raining, hold the umbrella.
- If it's icy or pouring rain, play valet and go get the car so she doesn't have to brave the elements.
- When walking with her, take the side closest to the street. This removes her from the dangers of traffic.
- Even if you just run into an acquaintance on the street, introduce her.
- Help her onto the train/tram/etc.
- Help her with her coat.
Erm... chivalry is ridiculous! And chivalry is not help. If I'm putting on my coat, or getting on the tram, is having a man 'helping' me actually helpful? No. It is, however, quite imposing, and (just a thought) another way that men can assert physical ownership/dominance over 'his lady' at regular intervals – holding my arm, directing me the safest way (not to mention always introducing me to randoms on the street.) Okay.... I really didn't think I could over-analyse this topic any more. Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 21, 2010 21:20:54 GMT
argh, i wasn't even defending chivalry. i was defending the 'selfless person', the person who would do anything for anyone of any gender, from a backlash based on perceived sexism in their actions because the person they happened to make a kind gesture toward in a hypothetical scenario was a woman. going back to not making reactionary assumptions about why someone is doing what they're doing. and i'm talking about common courtesy, the stuff that makes sense! it's plainly obvious what your classmate in your example was doing, but it gets really inane if: a man who opens a door, notices people of undetermined gender in his periphery arriving immediately after he does [they happen to be women], and just letting them go through for maybe no other reason than the fact that they have momentum and he's standing, is met with the same feelings.
i apologize for dragging this out, and for my tone getting a bit much . let's give up.
|
|
|
Post by Rhiflect on Aug 21, 2010 21:23:03 GMT
[/li][li]Even if you just run into an acquaintance on the street, introduce her. [/quote] THAT counts as chivalry?! I always just thought that was genuine politeness, i.e. this is a friend we may see in the future, this is his name. And it's not like it oppressive cos the woman can't do it herself since she doesn't know the guy? Fair enough if you care about him, but it's only fair to introduce people, no?* *lots of question marks because i don't want to get flamed or anything, i just want to find out why this is bad conduct to a feminist. I'd introduce my male friends to 'randoms on the street', as I would pretty much any one else in my life!
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 21, 2010 21:27:13 GMT
argh, i wasn't even defending chivalry. i was defending the 'selfless person', the person who would do anything for anyone of any gender, from a backlash based on perceived sexism in their actions because the person they happened to make a kind gesture toward in a hypothetical scenario was a woman. going back to not making reactionary assumptions about why someone is doing what they're doing. and i'm talking about common courtesy, the stuff that makes sense! it's plainly obvious what your classmate in your example was doing, but it gets really inane if: a man who opens a door, notices people of undetermined gender in his periphery arriving immediately after he does [they happen to be women], and just letting them go through for maybe no other reason than the fact that they have momentum and he's standing, is met with the same feelings. i apologize for dragging this out, and for my tone getting a bit much . let's give up.Logically, there must be occasions where men are just being helpful, gender is coincidental and women take it the wrong way. So I do see what you mean. But I don't expect it happens very often, firstly 'cos there is little overlap between chivalrous acts and helpful acts, and also because women have a lifetime's experience of random kindness and chivalry, and so can generally tell the difference. But yes, let's give up. I think we both now completely and utterly understand what the other person means, haha
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 21, 2010 21:33:09 GMT
[/li][li]Even if you just run into an acquaintance on the street, introduce her. [/quote] THAT counts as chivalry?! I always just thought that was genuine politeness, i.e. this is a friend we may see in the future, this is his name. And it's not like it oppressive cos the woman can't do it herself since she doesn't know the guy? Fair enough if you care about him, but it's only fair to introduce people, no?* *lots of question marks because i don't want to get flamed or anything, i just want to find out why this is bad conduct to a feminist. I'd introduce my male friends to 'randoms on the street', as I would pretty much any one else in my life! [/quote] arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh no! I'm sorry Rhianne, I love you and everything but there is literally no part of me that wants to pick this apart and analyse it and explain to you my motives for putting it in the example.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 22, 2010 2:03:35 GMT
argh, i wasn't even defending chivalry. i was defending the 'selfless person', the person who would do anything for anyone of any gender, from a backlash based on perceived sexism in their actions because the person they happened to make a kind gesture toward in a hypothetical scenario was a woman. going back to not making reactionary assumptions about why someone is doing what they're doing. and i'm talking about common courtesy, the stuff that makes sense! it's plainly obvious what your classmate in your example was doing, but it gets really inane if: a man who opens a door, notices people of undetermined gender in his periphery arriving immediately after he does [they happen to be women], and just letting them go through for maybe no other reason than the fact that they have momentum and he's standing, is met with the same feelings. i apologize for dragging this out, and for my tone getting a bit much . let's give up.Logically, there must be occasions where men are just being helpful, gender is coincidental and women take it the wrong way. So I do see what you mean. But I don't expect it happens very often, firstly 'cos there is little overlap between chivalrous acts and helpful acts, and also because women have a lifetime's experience of random kindness and chivalry, and so can generally tell the difference. But yes, let's give up. I think we both now completely and utterly understand what the other person means, haha i dunno, i think that's quite pessimistic. i think the majority of people do stuff like holding doors for people out of politeness, and that's absolutely fine. however, in response to joeb, i would say that... it's not exactly a priority. i guess there's potential for someone to get pissy with you, but if your intentions are good and fair then you can just tell them that. i mean, there are few situations where that would occur anyway (i.e.:who helps someone put a coat on? unless they have a broken arm or something) ultimately, anyone who truly believes in gender equality wouldn't be fussed about someone questioning their motives about this, as it's a sign of progression if a woman doesn't want to receive privileges based on their gender. thousands of years of female oppression vs. the potential of having your motivations called into question is kind of a no-brainer. (written terribly, headache)
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 22, 2010 8:03:48 GMT
i guess there's potential for someone to get pissy with you, but if your intentions are good and fair then you can just tell them that. invaluable fail-safe: 'it's a sociological experiment, lady. for gender studies.' on second thought, i hope my posts' magic eyes don't resemble the slow-cured patriarchicalonormative drippings of the swine of the earth: men.
|
|