Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Chiennes de Garde, the Guard Bitches of France.

By Electric Angst in MLP
Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 01:54:13 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

Recently in France, a new group of Feminists, dubbing themselves the Chiennes de Garde, have have begun a very public stand against misogyny in their culture. With a manifesto that states "Directing a sexist insult at a woman in public life is equivalent to insulting all women," their campaign at once helps to expose and erradicate misogyny while at once changing the perception of Feminism.

Read the article at Yahoo UK.


To entice the propigation of the link, here are some quotes from the article:

High-profile women still face the type of criticism that went out with the sexual revolution of the 1970s, either derided as "bitches" or accused of sleeping their way to the top.

It all began in 1999, when Environment Minister Dominique Voynet, meeting farmers angered by her ecological policies, was greeted with shouts of: "Take your knickers off, slut!".

"I understand very well the reaction of women who don't want to position themselves as victims," [Isabelle Alonso] told Reuters in an interview. "But at the same time it's really short-sighted. It's not by denying a problem that you solve it."

"When women are told: 'Oh, so you want to be equal to us, so we'll stop being polite, we'll stop holding doors, we'll stop considering you as women', that means that gallantry...was in fact compensation for ill treatment elsewhere."

With about 1,200 members and between 15,000 to 20,000 signatories of their manifesto, the Chiennes de Garde is proving to be a formidible Feminist force in France. Isn't it good to see, from the nation the gave us Simone De Beauvoir, a feminist movement with teeth?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Misogyny should be:
o Ignored / Accepted 40%
o Publicly denounced 59%

Votes: 22
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Yahoo
o article
o Also by Electric Angst


Display: Sort:
Chiennes de Garde, the Guard Bitches of France. | 134 comments (129 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
french (3.00 / 5) (#1)
by alprazolam on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 05:31:16 PM EST

French and foreign definitions of flirtatious behaviour reveal a wide cultural gap. In Paris, this might include groping a woman's breast in the middle of the street

Maybe the french aren't so bad after all. I wonder, could you consider misogyny a hobby?

"misogyny" (4.50 / 2) (#10)
by Delirium on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 05:51:34 PM EST

Hehe I find it funny that groping a women's breast or asking her for sexual favors is described as "misogyny." Isn't it exactly the opposite?

[ Parent ]
Equal rights and equal responsibilities (4.00 / 8) (#2)
by Delirium on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 05:34:55 PM EST

I agree somewhat with both sides in many of these arguments. The feminists are right; there need to be equal rights. But the "anti-feminists" are right too; equal rights only make sense when there are equal responsibilities. The generic anti-feminist Ms. Alonso quotes as saying "so you want to be equal to us, so we'll stop being polite, we'll stop holding doors" was alluding to this.

For example, in the United States, women can currently join the military if they choose to. However, they cannot be drafted into the military; only men can be conscripted. Why should women be given the choice but not the duty to serve in the military, while men have both the choice and duty? Is this really "equal rights"?The only way "equal rights" in this case makes sense, to me anyway, is if women are not only allowed to join the military voluntarily, but are also subject to drafts exactly as men are. However, I've seen high-profile lawsuits from women suing to be let into military academies, but I've never heard of a feminist group suing to have sexist elements of draft laws removed. Why is that?

"Equality" is your straw-man. (4.20 / 5) (#5)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 05:41:59 PM EST

Oh please. They even talk about this in the article. I believe the relevant quote is: "We want to be equal, not identical."

There's a difference between affording everyone in a culture the same amount of proper respect and oppertunity and trying to create the homogeny you suggest. Most rational people consider the former a worthwhile goal, while they recognize the latter as foolishness.


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
umm (4.00 / 2) (#9)
by Delirium on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 05:49:14 PM EST

You didn't answer the main point of my post; why is the new, feminist-favored policy of allowing women into the military but only conscripting men "more equal" than the old policy, which was a blanket "men can join and are subject to conscription; women cannot join and are not subject to conscription"? How can this be construed as an improvement in the state of equality?

[ Parent ]
Okay, one more... (4.20 / 5) (#13)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 06:08:53 PM EST

Well, simply put, since there's a very significant movement in the US to get rid of the draft (from the very progressives who got women in the millitary in the first place) why would they want to waste their time expanding something they hope to erradicate?

Yes, it sucks that men can suddenly be called into war by their nation, but why spread the suffering equally instead of simply trying to get rid of it.

Also, considering the fact that the draft hasn't been enacted in quite a long time (and possibly won't have to be ever again) I think that this was a painfully forced example for you to pull out of your hat.


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
draft (4.33 / 3) (#23)
by delmoi on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:04:22 PM EST

Yes, it sucks that men can suddenly be called into war by their nation, but why spread the suffering equally instead of simply trying to get rid of it.

Who cares? Lets assume for a moment that we are not going to get rid of the draft. Should women be able to be drafted? While the eventual eradication of the draft is a noble goal, we do have it now. And at the moment, it's sexist.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Yep, the draft is sexist... (3.25 / 4) (#26)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:13:28 PM EST

...All the more reason to get rid of it.


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
good grief (3.00 / 2) (#67)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 10:42:55 PM EST

This reminds me of the comment someone made last week to the effect of "So what if america didn't enter WW2? The Russians and allied forces would have won anyways".

But in the meantime, the casualties of these policies are okay, right?

I don't think it would matter anyway. If we abolish the draft, it'd just be brought right back come war time. They can always change that. And since women won't have previously been included in the draft (after all, they figured it would eventually be abolished so why bother, right?) then only the men will be included in the reinstatement of the draft.

Ingenious, aren't they?
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Indeed (3.00 / 1) (#16)
by 0xdeadbeef on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 06:45:38 PM EST

That chain of logic reminds me Homer Simpson. Why is that?

[ Parent ]
Funny you pick the military (4.00 / 2) (#44)
by Estanislao Martínez on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 08:47:07 PM EST

For example, in the United States, women can currently join the military if they choose to. However, they cannot be drafted into the military; only men can be conscripted. Why should women be given the choice but not the duty to serve in the military, while men have both the choice and duty?

I remember once I was talking with a (female, feminist) friend of mine, and somehow the topic of the military came up. And she pointed out something very correct: the military is an incredibly sexist institution. But even more: the military is an incredibly sexist intitutions which governments pour tons of money on.

--em
[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0) (#74)
by psctsh on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 01:20:36 AM EST

I can count on no hands the number of women on submarines in the US Navy. Which is--disregarding failure of promotion and hazing--remarkably sexist in and of itself. I'm of the opinion that the military needs to force women to live in cramped quarters along side 100's of sexually frustrated men for months on end.

To help get rid of some of the sexism.

[ Parent ]
Oh fucking go to hell, will you? (1.00 / 1) (#100)
by yankeehack on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 10:04:18 AM EST

As if you know what you are talking about.

It's kind of interesting to see people, who have no fucking idea of what it is to be in the military to opine about it and insist that there is something wrong. For six years of my life I was associated with that institution, and yes, there are problems with it. However, insisting that the institution is broken, rather than perhaps than a small amount of people in it, is idiotic.

My spouse served in probably in one of the most elite units the US Military has. He had all of the bad-ass training you could ever want, and more. And yes, he served in a all-male unit (In the Army, the combat arms branches are infantry, artillery, and armor and I think something else too). And yes, I witnessed more than a few MEN who couldn't handle being there. Let me tell you, I have no idea on how or why a woman would ever want to do the job that he did. Living in the woods for weeks at a time, existing on MREs, toileting in a trench (they don't have porta potties out there), hauling a heavy pack (maybe more depending on your job) with a gun, patrolling, doing op orders and jumping out of airplanes is physically battering and exhausting work. I just can't place words to describe this job properly.

This insistance of women needing to be there just mystifies me. Believe me, there are NO WOMEN beating down the doors to become infantry personnel.

Here's hoping that this Democratic Senator will run for President in 2004.
[ Parent ]

CORRECTION: MILITARY ACADEMIES **ARE** INTEGRATED (5.00 / 2) (#98)
by yankeehack on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 09:41:42 AM EST

The US Military Academies (West Point-Army, Annapolis-Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard) have been integrated since the 1970s. The first class with females at West Point was the class of 1980. The military academies are academic and military training instituitons which train future military officers. Almost all graduates of these academies become military officers. Female enrollment is about 10%.

The "academies" that you are referring to are the Citadel and VMI which are civilian programs which incorporate a military lifestyle (wear pretend uniforms all of the time.) and have ROTC (Reserve officer training) programs. Only about 20% or so of ROTC students at **any** college (I know that it is less than 50%) are commissioned as officers. Just a note: Many civilian colleges have ROTC programs that do not require a military lifestyle.

The feminist problem with VMI and Citadel was not because they were somehow associated with the military. The feminist problem was that both of these schools are state supported (South Carolina and Virginia) and did not allow women to attend.

Here's hoping that this Democratic Senator will run for President in 2004.
[ Parent ]

deal with it (2.33 / 3) (#4)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 05:41:02 PM EST

There's no reason to insult someone with some of the examples provided -- let alone women, but you can't legislate and thought-police everyone into being nice. Maybe when you're left to live in doors as a sheltered house-wife for centuries you get used to a certain civility, but guess what women of the world? -- the outside world sucks and most people are assholes. If you think what some women are treated like is shocking, you've never seen how guys treat each other.

This is not to say that it should be tolerated, say, by an employer at work. But there's a very broad and easily seen line between being an asshole human being and harassing someone.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.

apologies (2.00 / 2) (#6)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 05:43:52 PM EST

I don't want to piss off any French chicks. Perhaps broad should have been wide or thick.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]
Oh please. (3.33 / 3) (#7)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 05:47:54 PM EST

There's no "thought-policing" going on here. The Chiennes de Garde aren't trying to put anyone in jail, they're just pointing out to the general populis how stupid this misogyny makes those who espouse it look.

Why is it wrong to call someone on being an asshole?


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
definitely thought-policing (none / 0) (#19)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 06:49:57 PM EST

It's absolutely thought-policing. In most instances, you are not legally bound to be politically correct (in the United States), but if you do not behave and speak in the exact manner and use the correct phrases as pushed on society by the countless activist groups, you'll be severely 'punished' by your peers and associates.

For example. Look at my comments in reply to my own post. I poked fun at my use of the word broad and suggested chicks might be offended by it.

Certainly, there is no law preventing me from saying broad or chicks and it is commonly used in many circles, not to mention television, movies, news shows, books, papers, conversations, shirts and elsewhere. While there is no legal binding to avoid those words, the common practice is to deride the use of them in those contexts and to portray the speaker of those terms in an unkind light (witness the 'votes' for the comment for a further example).
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Are opinions 'thought policing' (4.00 / 3) (#24)
by Sunflower on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:10:17 PM EST

Why do you call other people commenting on what other people say 'thought policing'? If you say something that I think is totally wrong and immoral then I will of course tell you what I think of that. Is that thought policing? No thats expressing my opinion, just like you!

People who use the term 'thought policing' only use it because they disagree with what other people are saying about what they said, and it is easier to call it 'thought policing' than it is to actually justify what they said.

In this case its easier to slag off the Chiennes de Garde than it is to try and deal with the real issues.

[ Parent ]

because it /is/ thought policing (none / 0) (#28)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:30:06 PM EST

We're not just talking about opinions of people -- we're talking about organized efforts to demonize the use of words, phrases and expressions. This may be new to France, but it's been going on in America for quite some time.

And it isn't just words and phrases. It's behaviors and instincts. It's chastising little boys for being more agressive, assertive, active, excited, voiciferous than others. It all meshes together. Just because it isn't the government acting as a catylist for cultural stigmatization of these things doesn't mean it's "just opinions".

The problem isn't that a few people say "we're tired of this language" -- it's that all the "this weeks cause will be..." trend-activists crowd will pick up on it and the next thing you know, you'll be stoned for uttering anything off of political baselines.

I'm just generally tired of being told that everything I am, do or say is wrong because of my gender. Language extends into behavior extends into being. Perhaps men need to whack off their nuts and have estrogent treatment before we're no longer told that everything about us is wrong?
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Then there's nothing wrong with the thought police (4.00 / 1) (#47)
by Sunflower on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:11:11 PM EST

I do understand what you are saying, and there is some degree of merit to it...

But I think that what you are saying is just a reflection of the way that society works. We are not all individuals separate from society and so we try and get people in act in and behave in ways that we, as individuals or a group, think is best.

If we think that kiling people is wrong we make a law to punish and prevent people from killing. If we think that pushing racist ideas is wrong we say that the people pushing that propaganda are wrong, and we say why they are wrong and why they shouldn't be saying that.

I realise that there is an inherent danger in this, that we could decide that we should punish or prevent people from saying what they believe. I think that this is wrong, but I don't think that this is what is happening here.

All these people are trying to do is publically point out why they think that what these sexists are saying is wrong.

Surely it is not only allowable it is our responsibility to stand up for what we believe in. If they people who are subject to their ridicule actually believe that what they are saying is defensible, then they can defend it!

[ Parent ]

certainly (none / 0) (#54)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:34:18 PM EST

It's certainly acceptable to stand up for one's self when being attacked. There's a large difference between dealing with specific occasions and everyone at once, though. Lambasting the morons who use juvenile insults in this situation is certainly called for, but why in particular say that men can't say certain things? Women (and forgive my generalization here) are the masters of low-balling in an arguement. Ever want to know what people really think about you? Piss off a girlfriend and she'll drop to the lowest point in the range of decency and use all the male-oriented ammo she can. Genital endowment, parents, your sexual performance, eveyrthing every man in history has ever done -- it's all used against you.

So how can some men using a few choice words that presented themselves so ghastly? Obviously, we understand and expect four-letter insults if we're in public office or the public eye. When you start saying what is and isn't an acceptable insult, you're starting to become a little rediculous. If they cared about what you thought in the first place, they wouldn't be using sexual tones to their attacks. There's not a lot of difference between "you stupid asshole!" and "you stupid cunt!" other than one will prick the ears of someone particularly thin-skinned and prone to accepting a fight. I'm not sure that substituting one word for another necessarily makes those guys racists. I'd say it just makes them very adept at saying the right things to really piss their targets off. After all, I just used the word and I certainly don't hold those sexist feelings.

Your point on society 'thought-policing' itself is very relavent, but I don't think it is necessarily appropriate. Yes, society tends to pick up on something and it may eventually grow to become a standard. An expectation. A taboo. A boundary. But that doesn't make it legitimate. A lot of other society acceptances onces existed, too. Things like racism and slavery. Things like burning "witches". Things like treating women like posessions. These days, it's just a different topic -- political correctness. The danger in this is that it preys on the sheep and turns them against those who are 'different'. Tell the sheep that X religion is good and Y religion should be expunged. Great. Now all of society believes that. No big deal, right? Well, unless you're a practicing member of 'Y' religion. Tell the sheep that men are sexist pigs and that X, Y and Z words are ghastly and anyone who speaks them should be shunned by society and you've suddenly successfully censored an entire segment of society from any points they may have (or non-points for all it matters) by turning the sheep against them.

Again -- I'm not defending what these guys did directly, because I think their lame assholes who really should have a little more respect in general -- let alone for women. I'm just against turning the very simple fight between the two sets of people involved into a big public display of a battle of the sexes, which these women very obviously did by making such a display of it.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

But we have to deal with the general too (4.00 / 2) (#61)
by Sunflower on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 10:15:34 PM EST

Perhaps we can separate ourselves for a moment from the particulars of this argument. It is obvious that we are never going to get anywhere talking about gender issues, becuase we just disagree too much here.

I just want to address in a more general sense the issue of PCness (a bad abbreviation I know). We appear to agree that individuals should stand up for themselves. I think that in general we should be willing to make general comments of the nature, all promotion of racism is wrong.

But we shouldn't be able to make the statement that because some blue people make racist statements all blues are bad.

So back to the particulars for a moment, to me it seems like what you are saying is this, feminists as a group should not be able to make group statements about misogynist statements, because this is like saying all men are bad. I don't think that this is a valid statement.

I could accept it if you were saying something like, feminists should be careful about making general statements about misogeny because this could lead to anti-male sentiment.

I hope that was clear!

Back to thought policing for a moment, you are of course right in that society can and does make all sorts of wrong decisions about what is, or should be acceptable. But the question is how are those wrongs challenged? They are challenged, but among other things, people saying I thinktthat you you are doing/saying is wrong and you shouldn't do that! So sure, its a double edged sword, but a necessary one.

[ Parent ]

No, its not. (4.00 / 2) (#25)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:10:42 PM EST

So, are you saying that these women are "thought policing" because they don't agree with someone calling them whores? Because they have the nerve to voice their disagreement?

You aren't defending any rights here (since no rights have been trampled on) you're trying to shirk responsibility. Responsiblity for your actions. Responsibility to accept being treated like an asshole if you behave like one.


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
of course not (none / 0) (#31)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:47:01 PM EST

It would be stupid for saying voicing your opinions is thought policing.

Thought policing is criminalizing/demonizing someone else for their thoughts or making it outright wrong to have those thoughts and doing your best to enforce the elimination of those thoughts. Much as what these people cited in the article are doing.

As I've already stated, everyone knows it is impolite and wrong to walk around calling people names as a solution to your disagreements -- but you simply cannot restrict (either by law or by perceived politically-correct pressure) someone from saying certain things. It doesn't matter whether we're talking gender, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, political party or career choice. People seeking to do otherwise need a healthy dose of reality.

I'm pretty sure, as a feminist, you're familiar with the horrible way that women's groups tend to portray men and the things they call them. If they had their way, every man would be assumed a violent, raping, aggressive, primitive, woman-beating, child-abusing, career-oriented, close-minded, insensitive, hate-mongering, womanizing monster.

In typical style, your best defense is to accuse someone ele of offense (backed up also by your Ani DiFranco quote). You suggest that I'm not defending any rights here (who's rights would I be defending?) and that I'm trying to shirk responsibility. What responsibility? Are you back to the feminist line of "all men are responsible for everything bad in this world because it's in their evil nature"? Otherwise, I can't possibly fathom what the hell you are takling about. I'm not responsible for you being called a slut or some guy in the mall not holding the door open for you. Take your issue up with that individual.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Demonizing? (3.00 / 2) (#35)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 08:02:06 PM EST

I'm pretty sure you're the one doing the Demonizing here. Let's take a look:

[Y]ou're familiar with the horrible way that women's groups tend to portray men and the things they call them. If they had their way, every man would be assumed a violent, raping, aggressive, primitive, woman-beating, child-abusing, career-oriented, close-minded, insensitive, hate-mongering, womanizing monster.

First of all, no I'm not familiar with any of those things. I've never heard any Feminist make those kind of accusations about men, and in fact, there are some pretty prominent feminists (see: Fauldi) who activly attempt to disspell those myths.

See, unlike your post, which creates some type of mytical charge for a group to answer for, this group in France is only rebutting actual events that have happened, to the person(s) who have commited them.

If you started screaming at a random person about how they were a slut and how they should take off their clothes for you, would I be "demonizing" you if I told you that what you said was stupid? That's exactly what this group is doing, and it's sad that so many young american men can't seem to come to grips with their masculinity and sense of self enough to not take this positive action as some kind of assault they should fear and denounce.


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
Wow, you really are a muppet (none / 0) (#88)
by spiralx on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 06:34:36 AM EST

It's absolutely thought-policing.

Since when has stating an opinion been thought-policing? Oh yeah, that's right, since it was an opinion that you didn't like. Now there's a sign of maturity!

In most instances, you are not legally bound to be politically correct (in the United States), but if you do not behave and speak in the exact manner and use the correct phrases as pushed on society by the countless activist groups, you'll be severely 'punished' by your peers and associates.

And where are they saying that you should be saying anything? All they're doing is pointing out the sexist behaviour of people and how it is being accepted. By your standards Martin Luther King was engaging in thought-policing and enforcing political correctness.

For example. Look at my comments in reply to my own post. I poked fun at my use of the word broad and suggested chicks might be offended by it.

Woo-fucking-hoo. You made a poor attempt at humour. My hero.

Certainly, there is no law preventing me from saying broad or chicks and it is commonly used in many circles, not to mention television, movies, news shows, books, papers, conversations, shirts and elsewhere. While there is no legal binding to avoid those words, the common practice is to deride the use of them in those contexts and to portray the speaker of those terms in an unkind light (witness the 'votes' for the comment for a further example).

I think the votes were because it wasn't funny and it didn't add anything to the topic, not because anyone was trying to portray you in an unkind light. You're managing the latter extremely well all on your own.

You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

So (3.80 / 20) (#8)
by trhurler on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 05:49:06 PM EST

Why is it that when men insult women, whether sexually or otherwise, that's called "misogyny" and is a horrible thing, but when women insult men, sexually or otherwise, that's a good time out with the girls?

Now, if they were protesting lower wages, or discriminatory promotional procedures, or whatever, then while I don't believe those things can profitably be eliminated by force, I certainly would agree with their sentiment and wish them the best in changing peoples' minds about their issue, but they're not - they're complaining that people are being mean to them. Once again, I tell you, Dennis Leary is God, and He has spoken: "Life sucks. Get a fucking helmet." You do not have a right to be well liked, or well spoken of. That's just too fucking bad.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Oh boy... (4.00 / 4) (#12)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 06:03:17 PM EST

It seems that (and I swear this was unintentional, perhaps it was floating around in my subconscious, but I swear I didn't mean to) I've stirred up the K5 He-Man Woman Hater's Club, and unfortunantly I have to go home now, so this will be the last reply for a while...

First of all this group isn't going after normal "guys on the street" (though it is attacking the attitudes behind their actions, as well). This is primarily focused on attacks against prominent women such as the one stated in the article. Even reversing sexes, there's a big difference between a "good time out with the girls" where a group of friends say things to each other about the men around them and shouting for a male politician to whip it out in public. One can, depending on the situation, be considered just a simple act of foolery and joking around, while the other is most certainly a degrading and humiliating attack on the politician in question.

The fact that things like that are considered "normal" within the society shows a strong misogyny that needs to be countered, because for a society to ignore the humiliation and suffering of such a significant segment of its populations is simply absurd.


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
Ah (3.57 / 7) (#15)
by trhurler on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 06:32:22 PM EST

This is excellent leftie form: when someone disagrees with you, call him a child molester, or a woman hater, or say he wants to see people starving in the streets.

Wrapping this in some feminist mystique by using the word "misogyny" in order to gain presumed moral authority is horseshit; the truth is, you're arguing for self-censorship(or worse, for policies of censorship,) to suit the demands of a vocal group of whiners who don't like being made fun of. Nobody likes being made fun of; that's just too damned bad. You think I like the invective you and your ilk spew at me? Of course not - not any more than you like it when I do it to you. Are women so fragile that they cannot handle it? That hardly seems like a feminist position to me.

As for this public figures crap, that's even more nutty than the rest; public figures have MORE exposure to derision than the rest of us - not less. That's the nature of the job. Don't like it? Don't be one.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
creating an opponent (4.25 / 4) (#17)
by alprazolam on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 06:47:02 PM EST

i think it's pretty fair to expect a high ranking government official to be able to speak without being called a whore. you're calling for self censorship of the offended women. just as much as somebody has a 'right' to call a woman a name, a woman has the 'right' to call a man a name. personally i don't really believe in rights, so framing this as a political debate seems a bit odd to me.

[ Parent ]
Sure (2.75 / 4) (#18)
by trhurler on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 06:49:46 PM EST

Hell, if they mocked that woman and she told them all to go to hell and die because they were a bunch of ignorant pigfuckers from the sticks, I'd laugh and smile and have a great time. That's not what's happening. Other women are getting pissed off and trying to tell people what they can and cannot(should and should not; it is the same thing in politics,) say about public figures. That's ridiculous.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Back. (4.33 / 3) (#22)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:03:01 PM EST

(But just briefly...)

trhurler, as I've said before, these women aren't calling for any laws. They're not physically attacking the guys who say this shit. Hell, they're not even calling for censorship of anything. They're simply pointing out, through smart, strong rebuttle, exactly how stupid their misogynistic shit is. And they're doing it in public so that everyone can see exactly how stupid the misogyny is. If anything, they're taking the path that you prefer, avoiding the evil force of the state and using their own wits. Why does this seem to offend you so? Is it perhaps because your whole claim of personal choice and freedom of expression only applies to people with viewpoints you agree with?


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
agression (2.00 / 2) (#36)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 08:09:40 PM EST

Perhaps it's his pent up years of regression at being a male in a matriarchal society in which every male has been told that every aspect of his being a man is wrong, from playing GI Joe as a kid to drawing guns and playing cops and robbers in grade school to playing football in highschool to the occasional scrap-fight. Perhaps, despite the best efforts of our mostly female upbringings (from female households to female teachers and other models of authority and control throughout the first quarter of our lives) we actually are different and we resent having every manifestion of our biological differences pounded out with the hammer of feminism until we're no longer allowed to be physical, confrontational, angry, assertive, aggressive, competitive and -- yes -- even violent. Perhaps we resent being molded into girly boys and we feel our identities being threatened and our options being continually eroded. We're still held up to the standards of society where they fit the designs of women (for example, a man still is humiliated if he stays at home instead of working for a living) but not when they fit our own. We're, as a gender, stuck in this limbo between proving our manhood and being ashamed of our manhood. And the resentment and anger and frustration of so many males in this male populated place (K5) surprises you?!

Too many men are scared to death to be so blunt about these things, but when it really comes down to it, we aren't angry that a group of women are standing up for themselves and saying "look, we're tired of taking this shit from men". We're angry and incredibly frustrated at the trappings that tend to come along with these things. As I've said (only somewhat sarcastically) in another thread, many of us (if not most) seriously wonder if it will ever be enough before we have to whack our nuts off and undergo estrogen treatment during our formative years so that we don't evolve into *GASP*, men.

Just think of this article's submission as a prominant, though not direct, target of these manifestations.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

You are not Tyler Durden... (3.20 / 5) (#40)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 08:30:01 PM EST

...and this is not Fight Club.

Jeez, even Palahniuk get sick of listening to the didactic fucking speeches of little boys who haven't grown up yet trying to blame it on anyone but themselves.

You wanna know why you don't feel like a man? Because you're not one yet. Don't try and blame it on women who are just as fucked up by our society as you are, and who have to deal with the pent-up agression fuckheads like you hold towards them for your own shortcomings.

You list the traits of a "man" in your post above. You mention "angry", "confrontational", even "violent". Why didn't you mention "supportive"? "Providing"? "Discerning"?

Have you ever thought that it may be the society that promotes masculinity as the first three words and ignores the latter three that's the real problem? The same culture that tries to tell feminists that femininity is vanity, jealousy, and shame? The same culture that feminists are trying to change, from which they're trying to excise these horrible notions?

The next time you're not feeling like a man, how about you think about what a man really is, then think about why you think that. Do that and eventually you may become one...


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
proving my point (3.33 / 3) (#45)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:03:57 PM EST

You've adequately proved my point.

Obviously, you're an expert in feeling like a man. You've just completely disregarded what most men I know have voiced (though they usually won't voice it to a woman or a group of women).

We say one thing and you say "oh, you do not feel that way! you're so wrong!"

There is a vast different between the sexes. Some of it biological and instinctive. Some of it socially imposed over our centuries and cultures. Both sexes have a middle ground that can be appropriately merged on. But there are very extreme differences that simply will remain.

Men don't have a problem with "supportive" or "providing" or "discerning". But why do these traits of being a man (or a human being) have to be in opposition to angry, controntational, agressive, violent, competetive? Are you saying that the traits which are traditionally considered as feminine are more valid than the more male associated traits? This is one of the big problems. If you want men to be a little more sensitive, emotional, understanding, patient, supportive (in whatever aspects you assume that covers), that's fine. I'm not sure how you threw providing in. We've been providing for thousands of years.

What isn't fine is this pressure that starts from the earliest years of childhood to substitute the male traits for the female. It's no longer to be angry and go hit the weights or a punching bag or blow your steam in a contact sport. Instead, sit on a bean-bag and cry on someone's shoulder. Instead of getting off on Terminator and War movies or playing dodge ball, watch Notting Hill and play duck duck goose. Instead of competing in work, play and elsewhere, settle for "playing the game" and "just participating".

It's this self rightousness that I so detest. In the soceity we occupy, it's very important that men curb a lot of what was, for thousands of years, necessary traits. That means boxing and mountain climbing instead of punching your wife around and tackling the nearest elk. It means confronting people logically and assertively instead of threatening them and throwing them around the office. It means the obvious evloution of what males do and are -- not the replacement of them for an entirely seperate set.

As women become more assertive and confrontational (and trust me, as they come closer and closer to being equal, they're going to become more and more angry, controntational and possibly violent; certainly frustrated), men are becoming more and more tempered.

These are good things. But the differences still do and should remain and in large, they're good differences. I don't appreciate your attempt at skirting all of my points by saying "well, you're just behaving like a little boy". Your patronization is simple and I'm embarassed for whatever points you could have brought across had you not sunk to that level.

Don't forget, it's thousands of years of my male traits that kept our species alive and got us where we are today, to a point where we can move on and become a civilization of more equal oppertunities. If you're a pagan (as I believe you claim to be), then you may believe in the balance of things. There is light and there is dark. There is positive energy and there is negative. There isn't "dim" and there isn't "indifferent energy". There's male and there's female. Similarly, people have formed civilizations for eons based on the female and male traits, ingraining bits of each in their children. Why is it that, suddenly, one entire set of these traits should be vanquished?

I understand that you may not be one of the large number of people who are so voiciferous and pushing against these things (though you do seem to support them so far), but there are a lot who do. Thankfully, there are some people who are raising this as an issue. And some of these people are rather shocking. I do not recall her name, but the current or former leader of NOW has voiced great concern over the feminization of men in the last two or three decades. Beyond just tempering the sexes, she's concerned about the lack of male role-models and societies opression of masculine traits and what kind of men this will produce in the next generation of men (after all, look at the first such indoctrinated generation of men -- they've all left their wives and the children are being raised by -- gasp -- households of women!).

You're welcome to bury your head in the sand, but this is nothing new.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Its not female vs. male that's the issue... (4.40 / 5) (#51)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:23:45 PM EST

Its positive vs. negative.

Violence, confrontationalism, territorialism, etc. These are destructive traits. It's as if you're arguing that someone trying to keep people from turning into psychopathic maniacs is somehow interfering with their ability to be a man.

On that subject, I'm not trying to say that I'm better at being a man than you are. I was simply saying that I know without a shred of doubt that I am a masculine male, while you seem to be the one experiencing frustration and doubt.

It wasn't these asshole traits you keep mentioning that kept our species alive for so long. It was our more positive aspects, the ones that you still seem to be ignoring (and are just as much masculine traits as anything you mentioned, if not more) that caused it, and we can't let a culture of vanity, greed, and hatred try and convince us that it is somehow members of the opposite sex that are causing the problems we're facing right now.


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
good points (2.00 / 2) (#71)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 11:18:48 PM EST

There are really two sets of traits for boys, I think. There's the aggression, assertiveness, competetiveness and there's the confrontationalism, territorialism and violence.

You may not agree outright, but I would argue that all have their places, except territorialism and violence, which are largely outmoded. Territorialism served us through the times when for the good of our groups, we needed to define areas and protect them for ourselves. Violence also served a purpose through much of society, but that seems to be largely outmoded now. Agression, while a cousin of violence, is still valuable. It isn't an every-day trait of course, but when it is called for...

Assertiveness is absolutely necessary. You won't get anywhere without it. Confrontationalism is a necessity. You must be willing to be confrontational to get what you need or want -- I'm sure the women in France would agree with that one as they are exhibiting confrontational behavior right now. Confrontation doesn't need to involve violence or agression.

These traits most assuredly kept our species alive for so long. You're not going to nurture a mountain lion to death or talk a competing tribe into submission when all mankind has developed at the point is primitive grunts.

As for vanity, greed and hatred -- I have no idea where you pulled those from and they're more universal trates than the others. I'm not sure I'd call them traits anyway (not in the manner of assertiveness and aggression, certainly).

I'm still only seeing you say that male traits == bad and women traits == good. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground and perhaps that's part of the differences between the sexes in the first place.

As for frustration and doubt -- those are reserved for other people in general. Not everyone had the benifit of male role models or strong independance that you and I apparently had. The frustration comes from seeing boys treated this way and knowing how disasterous it is and will continue to be.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Is this hyprocrisy? (5.00 / 3) (#55)
by Sunflower on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:41:39 PM EST

I'll admit I agree with the basis of what you are saying, calling someone names is not a good way to address an argument (although sometimes hard to resist)

But don't you think its more than a tad hypocritical to say that only lefties do this.



[ Parent ]

you couldn't make it up (4.50 / 2) (#77)
by streetlawyer on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 02:07:07 AM EST

the truth is, you're arguing for self-censorship(or worse, for policies of censorship,) to suit the demands of a vocal group of whiners who don't like being made fun of.

....whined trhurler, demanding that people censor themselves and not make fun of him.

Do you have no sense of irony whatsoever, man? Do you know what the word means?

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

dude, you badly need a daughter (3.00 / 1) (#82)
by eLuddite on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 02:57:17 AM EST

You think I like the invective you and your ilk spew at me? Of course not - not any more than you like it when I do it to you.

First, I would expect you not to take Kuro5hin personally. I dont recall a display of personal hatred against you that wasnt the usual flammage one expects in an emotional thread. Second, your self worth has not been diminished through a lifetime of gender bias. No one has ever abused your humanity on the basis of your sex and at no point have your aspirations been compromised by someone else's expectations for your gender. Sexism is an irrational, subtle, insidious, institutionalized hatred. Anti-libertarianism is just good common sense.

Are women so fragile that they cannot handle it? That hardly seems like a feminist position to me.

Under the circumstances, I cannot see how anyone can claim that women are fragile.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Oh really? (none / 0) (#109)
by trhurler on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 12:42:33 PM EST

First, I would expect you not to take Kuro5hin personally.
I don't even think of k5 unless I'm presently reading or posting. I don't get upset over it. However, if you claim to have no preference between being insulted and not, then I just don't believe you.
at no point have your aspirations been compromised by someone else's expectations for your gender.
Want to bet? According to various people, I'm not big enough, not aggressive enough, not loud enough, not stupid enough, and so on. That's been the case for as long as I can remember. If you think it has no impact, you're sadly mistaken, but I choose to live my life rather than spend it whining about the way others spend theirs.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
what the hell are you talking about? (2.00 / 2) (#34)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:54:15 PM EST

First, you have stated over and over again that it isn't thought policing, then you state (though it is attacking the attitudes behind their actions, as well).

That's certainly more than "voicing opinions". So which is it?

Second, what world are you living in that considers it "normal" for women to be treated the way they are? I've never walked down the street and heard men shouting "slut!" and "whore!" and "bitch!" to women everywhere. I've certainly heard plenty of women chastise one another for their fashion, their hair, their clothes, their breast implants, their popularity, their lack of popularity, their sexual behavior, their life style, their career choice, their butch-level and everything else. In fact, for every male I've seen with a poor attitude toward females (unfortunate that there are a lot of guys missing out on a lot there), I've seen five or ten women who put that man to shame by out-doing him in their treatment of other women.

As for asking male politicians to whip it out in public -- when was the last time you saw a woman egged or pie-faced for their political views? It happens several times a year to male politicians -- should we slam a few women with pies and eggs to even the score and preserve the equality? Playing a game of scores is incredibly pointless here, so don't even try it.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Am I the only Feminist awake right now??? (4.00 / 3) (#37)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 08:13:46 PM EST

Well, first of all, a rhetorical "attack" on a set of corrupt values or ideals, hell, even on virtuous ones, isn't thought policing. Its disagreement, and the difference is that the person in a disagreement has no reason to worry that any right or privilige taken away from him or her by rebutting the disagreement, as they would if thought policing were happening. Sure, they may feel foolish to continue debating their position, but if it just so happens that the points made by the person disagreeing with them point out some various holes in their logic and would make it patently foolish to attempt to defend that point of view, well, they can still go and be foolish. You're trying to claim that there should be no stigma of stupidity attached to stupid actions, and I say that's, well, stupid.

Now, I'm seriously starting to worry about the way that you perceive women. First, you seem to take the sample of a small group of people you know and have attributed their failing to the entire gender. Yes, sometimes there will be women who disagree with each other and treat each other shittily, does that somehow excuse men from behaving that way?

As for the pie thing (another stupid behavior), yes, that does happen every now and then to a prominent male figure, but the question is, does it happen to the figure specifically because he was male?


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
maybe the only militant one, yes (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 08:24:24 PM EST

I think you completely misunderstand me here (or, more likely, I haven't focused on it because that isn't the gist of this article).

My viewpoint of women is just fine. Like most other modern men, I completely support not only the women in my life but women in general in their goals to attain actual equality (and I don't mean the red herring of salary differences here) in the world.

A man can wholly support women as a feminist-by-proxy, without having to be feminine and without sacrificing being a man. My problem is that it would be rediculous for me to support people who support taking away my manhood. Who are systematically (though likely not intentionally) eating away at my right to "be male" and "think and do male stuff".

Nobody demonizes a women for being "too feminine" but a man can be for being "too masculine" (and the limit of too masculine is not very far). Again, this article is merely a catylist for the way a lot of men feel.

I've seen this ironic display over and over again from discussions on television political shows to discussions with my own friends, co-workers and acquaintances -- to discussions online just like this one. Women routinely complain about men not sharing their feelings and not being "emotional beings" (whatever the hell that means). Yet, when we say "we feel like we, as a whole, are being stripped of our right to be men and our right to do man things", we're told that it isn't really the way we feel or that there isn't any justification for us to feel that way.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

No, I understand what you're saying... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 08:37:57 PM EST

I'm just saying that your anger over your lost masculinity is very misplaced.

These women are trying to be allowed the minimal respect any public figure enjoys of not being shouted slurred because of their gender while attempting to discuss policy. How the hell is it "being a man" for these assholes to call these women sluts? To harrass them and ask them to strip?

If you're saying that attempts to curb that assholish behavior is taking away from anyone's masculinity, well then you don't know what it is to be a man.

This is actually covered in the Faludi book I linked earlier, Stiffed. If you get a chance, I suggest you read it. I think that it very well might make a lot of sense to a man who's having a crisis of masculinity.


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
no, no, no... (1.00 / 1) (#48)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:12:56 PM EST

The two main threads here have gone from "mean men say bad stuff -- tough-as-nails women respond" to thurler's "why are there such double-standards?" line of thought. This is beyond the simple issue here which I'm pretty sure we all agree is a no-brainer and to the discussion that has grown from it wherein there are distinct differences between words and labels that are used when men are suddenly the targets.

On the issue of this original and rather limited article, I'm sure you and I agree. On the larger issue of the well documented feminization of boys, we very obviously disagree. I wish I could remember the title of the book I recently read regarding this issue, but it was extremely well written and cited some unusual sources on this 'feminization' -- including some interesting notable feminists. I'm sure a scan of amazon will pull up a lot of similar books though.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

The fact that you label "Feminization" a (4.33 / 3) (#53)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:32:25 PM EST

...shows that you're still not getting the point, though.

You're splitting issues into masculine and feminine when instead they should be split into positive (aka life-affirming or creative) and negative (aka life-demeaning or descructive).

There's something wrong when young boys are taught to value vanity, but there's just as much problem when they're taught to value violence. It doesn't matter what gender you choose to associate with the traits, its that they are damaging to a person and their relation to others. The fact that you're somehow trying to turn this into some kind of gender issue at all is another sign that things are wrong. You're trying to create some kind of enemy in feminism, which itself is a very noble cause, just so you can explain problems with USian males.

Just because women are gaining respect in the world doesn't somehow slander males. Its not a zero-sum game, where one's gain is the other's loss. It's ultimantly a great exercise in cooperation, and unless we stop fighting ourselves split into little factions we may prove to fail it.


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
good dreams, but not reality (3.00 / 2) (#70)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 11:04:45 PM EST

What you're saying is great in a perfect world, but that isn't how it's going down. Why are little boys being sent home as some sort of sexual offenders for pecking a classmate on the cheek in school? Why is a boy being sent home for drawing a gun on a piece of paper? Why is dodge-ball being removed from PE? Why, in general, are competitive (male-oriented notion) sports being torn apart to be "more fair"? and "less agressive"? What is so life-demeaning about drawing or showing juvenile affection or playing dogeball?

I again agree with you that promoting positive traits are great. But that is not what is occuring in society. Positive traits are being declared as largely female and most of the male traits are being labeled as wrong and done away with. Why is one so much more valuable than another? I'm not sure why you're so opposed to recognizing that this stuff is going on. We don't seem to disagree on what should happen. We just seem to disagree on what is happening. I'm not trying to detract from equality or promotion of "life affirming" things. I'm just wondering why the only things being promoted seem to be the more traditionally feminine traits and the traits the boys share seem to be "poo pooed"... You keep replying as if this is something I've made up in my own head and that it doesn't exist in the real world, but I beg you to pay attention to your television news once in awhile or to news sources other than the Utne Reader.

In short (and I really don't have anythign to say on this exhausted topic), I can't respect people who say "we should make everyone equal and promote life affirming traits" decide that only their traits make people equal and are life affirming.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

no more rush limbaugh for you (none / 0) (#99)
by alprazolam on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 09:49:03 AM EST

Why is dodge-ball being removed from PE?
liability

Why, in general, arecompetitive (male-oriented notion) sports being torn apart to be "more fair"? and "less agressive"?
umm wtf? the majority of male sports that are losing out are the less aggressive like track, gymnastics, and diving. are you complaining about the zone defense or something?



[ Parent ]

for the love of pete trhurler please recant (3.00 / 1) (#39)
by alprazolam on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 08:25:10 PM EST

Perhaps this is why the vast majority of Americans are disillusioned with politics. How can you argue that these women don't have the right to attempt or shouldn't be attempting what they are. In the libertarian view this is exactly how this situation should be handled, and Electric Angst should be arguing that private individuals have no business trying to intimidate and entire class of people.

Imagine if this was a group of people dedicated to increasing their wealth/income by means other than direct revenue. It's something I would imagine common in a libertarian society. I fail to see how this is any different. You should be arguing that this is exactly how all assumed grievances should be addressed, with no government intervention unless violence or slander start, and not before.

If you are you letting some personal bias against 'feminists' affect your 'policy' than you're doing an incredible disservice to the libertarian party and telling me you're no different from your average hypocritical republican.

[ Parent ]

because it's a stupid nitpick (1.00 / 1) (#41)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 08:32:41 PM EST

I've noticed that one side (mine) has extrapolated this incident and this article into a representation of general feminism while the other side, to justify their points, stick behind this one single, defined, name-calling/retaliation incident in their comments.

So, I'll speak directly on this individual incident without regard to the situations it potentially represents.

The reason the issue is so stupid is that, like the Dennis Leary comment -- people need to grow some fucking skin.

Can you imagine how stupid it would be if some senator were walking up the steps to the Senate in the morning and a group of women called him a "bastard" or told him he was "dickless" or called him a "cocksucker" or anything else and he retaliated by making press releases and holding a news conferences saying, in effect, "don't say mean things about me! I'm not a cocksucker or a bastard and I am not dickless!"?

Someone suggested that, if in any place, politics was not the appropriate place for this kind of language and attack on someone. Another suggested that this obviously doesn't happen in general walking down the street. So this is an incident specifically related to the levels that people will sink when they are angry about their political situation and the depths to which people will plummet to attack the opposition? If there is a more appropriate place for this kind of infantile language and the even more infantile "don't say mean things to me you dirty person!" rebuttle, I'm not aware of it.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Now you're trying to twist the actual incident... (none / 0) (#43)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 08:44:32 PM EST

This wasn't name calling on the street. This was shouting down at a public event. If the incident you mentioned happened at a public event, do you honestly think the Senator in question wouldn't even make a passing remark about the idiocy of those who hurled the stupid insults? Why is it only wrong if feminists do it?


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
happens at public events all the time (3.00 / 2) (#46)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:07:47 PM EST

Every time there's a political public event in town, there are lots of groups that gather to protest and usually end up shouting four letter words and crude statements to the attendees. It's nothing new at all. It isn't necessarily wrong to turn around and make a big deal attacking those who attacked them first -- it's merely dumb. The experienced politicians tend to ignore it completely. The last thing anyone needs to do is sink to a level of acknowledging it.

Honestly, do you expect theses guys (assuming they were really all guys) to suddenly stop because these women didn't like it? They're simply making a silly move to provoke the guys to continue it. After all, they know it really hits home on their targets.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

The difference... (4.00 / 1) (#50)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:23:19 PM EST

the difference between the public shouting-downs and the events in France are twofold. I'm going to use an ordered list here, just to make it as simple as possible...

  1. The shoutings probably have absolutly nothing to do with the gender of the public figure.
  2. It is generally assumed, by all except those doing the shouting, that the act of shouting down is one of remarkable stupidity.

So, when suddenly some farmers get irate and shout down a woman and slur her as a woman, and no one thinks there's anything wrong with that, why is it wrong for the public figure to point out the incorrect nature of the action? How is it hurting the masculinity of anyone for assholes to be called assholes?


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
because it seems so petty (2.00 / 2) (#60)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 10:08:19 PM EST

I'm sorry, but I still just don't get it.

Are you saying that if they had called the woman a "stupid horse fucker", this big response wouldn't have occured? So the difference is purely because the attack and slur involved sex? I mean, I know that's what the article leaned toward presenting, but I can't possibly understand how a group of politicians can be so petty as to pick on a few words.

Now, if these guys were following her around from even to event to event to event for no other teason than to harass her and no groups were doing this to the men in her position, then I would see a deffinate point. If the difference is just the choice of words involved, all I can suggest is that they'll get a lot more work done if they shrug it off and get to work.

I know you pointed out that they were impeding a public event by shouting them down (this occurs all the time too and has even recently occured in public school meetings for some large cities where they've had to shut down the meetings due to it), but you also indicated that it wasn't really the issue (if it were, then the article would be about some guys shouting down some women).

Now, the change of a word defines equality? "You idiotic twit!" is equality but "you bitch!" is inequality? This is where I'm beginning to see the gaping whole of pettiness.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Okay, this will be it. (4.00 / 1) (#63)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 10:22:45 PM EST

Unfortunantly, I have neither the time nor the stamina to continue this debate at this point in the evening, so I'll leave with a few points and then call it a night. (Hell, perhaps I'll start back up tomorrow...)

First of all, it was not mearly the catagory of insult that was important, it was that this catagory of insult was somehow seen as less offensive to the public (before the Chiennes de Garde's action) than any other insult would have been. It was that simply because it was a female figure on stage, the assholes thought that it should be appropriate for them to hurl that type of insult. It would be the exact same thing if the mythical antifeminist notion of "saying all men are horifically violent" was a reality. At that point, there would be significant justification towards action attempting to end those obviously unjust feelings in our society.

I can't honestly believe that you are still against this. Do you honestly believe that allowing a woman the same rights and oppertunities within a society somehow lessen's a man's place within it? Why, other than your psychobabble about not feeling manly enough, would you honestly see this as a bad thing?


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
makes sense (2.00 / 2) (#69)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 10:53:24 PM EST

Obviously what you're saying makes sense, but it reverts back to my original point that these guys (and i'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate here because I don't exactly support it) weren't so much being sexist as just picking the most effective insults. It wouldn't be very appropriate in context to call her a "son of a bitch" would it? Just as it wouldn't make any sense to call a man a "stupid bitch".

Now, the trouser part is pretty obviously grotesque and while I'm not sure I'd be willing to call it a sexist statement -- would not have been stated by men to a man (and probably not by women to a man). Do I think these guys are probably sexist pigs? Pretty likely. But the statement itself was absolutely not sexist, though the women took it as such.

As for women having equal rights imposing on men -- that is not what I have said. I have specifically said that there's no reason women can't be completely equal without imposing on men. The point is that in general that is not occuring. Men are being torn down in compensation for the equality. And as I also said, this isn't some sort of systematic conspiracy. It just "is". It's a culmination of events and causes and activities over time.

I'm all for supporting these women in their right to be insulted with their choice of epithets.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#110)
by trhurler on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 12:55:22 PM EST

If I actually believed Electric Angst's claim that they're just "pointing out" stupid things men do and have done, I'd certainly take back my comments. Even a brief history of modern French politics, however, will show you that this is both unlikely at present and impossible in the long run, even if it is what these women intend. Either they will become irrelevant and disappear into the background, or else laws will be passed. There really isn't much middle ground in a pressure group government, which is what all our "western democracies" really are at present. The French are famous for passing laws that contradict the very principles they claim to uphold, as are the US and the UK. What makes you think France, perhaps the worst of the bunch in that respect, would behave differently this time?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Oh no! (none / 0) (#111)
by Electric Angst on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 01:08:17 PM EST

So you're condeming the actions of a private group using its freedom of expression because you think that this may eventually lead to some law being passed with which you would disagree?

That sounds like a slippery-slope argument to me, man. I'm dissapointed.


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
No (none / 0) (#117)
by trhurler on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 01:31:45 PM EST

I'm saying they're ridiculous. And in fact, even if some of what they point out is true, calling yourself by a ridiculous name and going on a self righteous crusade to protect other people from something they probably haven't even complained about themselves IS ridiculous. The thing about government is, if you are viewed as ridiculous, then you go away instead of becoming the next legislative topic:) Not that it really matters, seeing as k5 is not a serious playground for French politics, but ideas matter.

By the way, a "slippery slope" argument does not prove its conclusion, but neither does Occam's razor. There are a great many good guides to action which do not rise to the standard of logical proof. Now, some slippery slope arguments are bad even for what they're meant as, but merely pointing out that the argument does not prove anything is beside the point, unless the one who presented that argument claimed otherwise.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
so are you against political actions groups? (none / 0) (#114)
by alprazolam on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 01:22:35 PM EST

presumably they would exist even in libertarian utopia, to affect the laws or society at local levels. are you trying to say that nobody should ever stand up for themselves?

[ Parent ]
Political action groups (none / 0) (#115)
by trhurler on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 01:28:05 PM EST

What could such groups possibly hope to gain in a libertarian government? That government doesn't have the power they want - they're looking to take something from other people by force and use it for their ends, or else to make the government into an instrument of social coercion, which is precisely what a libertarian government will not allow.

As long as we are not living under such a government, such special interests are necessary; they are a consequence of the government we have, and condemning people for taking part in them is like condemning an oarsman for rowing. However, that does not justify the government itself.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
anarchy? (none / 0) (#118)
by alprazolam on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 01:33:15 PM EST

are you implying that there would be no state/local government in a libertarian society? this is pretty radically different from the party position.

[ Parent ]
Nah (none / 0) (#119)
by trhurler on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 01:49:03 PM EST

State and local government probably would exist, but remember, in a libertarian society, the government probably doesn't own any land, and certainly doesn't have powers such as eminent domain except perhaps in wartime. It can't pass laws that interfere in any deliberate way in the economy, and is in fact limited to passing laws that protect recognized rights of individuals and prevent or punish aggression of various sorts by individuals against others. The function of local and state governments would be pretty much limited to criminal law and civil disputes; the entire fields of economic intervention and social policy would just disappear. No subsidies, no grants, no government loans to private businesses - so what the hell are the action groups going to lobby for? Stiffening the penalties for larceny, maybe?

Consider two groups presently big in lobbying. The Sierra Club and "big oil." Neither of them would have anything to gain, even conceivably, from lobbying a libertarian government. Their fates would depend on convincing people that they were right, and on those peoples' willingness to deal with them, and not on favors from some bureaucrat in the Department of Energy that they take out to lunch every day and dinner on Fridays, send on vacations, and so on. That's my point.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Okay... (none / 0) (#120)
by Electric Angst on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 02:01:24 PM EST

We're getting off topic here, but I have to ask trhurler a question...

In libertopia, if the government isn't allowed to own any land, where does it meet? Where does it train the troops and police it uses to enforce the contract agreements between individuals? Where does it store their equipment when not in use? Hell, where does it put people who break contracts? Oh, and best of all, where does it receive the funds to do anything at all?

You know, there's a reason the Articles of Confederation had to be abandoned...


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
Ah (none / 0) (#122)
by trhurler on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 02:37:08 PM EST

In libertopia, if the government isn't allowed to own any land, where does it meet?
Not all libertarian types agree on this particular item; some think the government should be allowed to own land for specific purposes, and not for others. I think that'd just become a back door that would lead us right back to where we are now.

Where to meet? Where to train people, store stuff, and so on? Well, I never said the government can't lease property from willing owners. I've gotten into the discussion of funding on many occasions; my answer is basically use fees. They can raise a lot more than people think, and a libertarian government would need a lot less than people think.

The Articles of Confederation had flaws other than merely lack of taxation authority, but it is notable that when you say "had to be abandoned," this was highly controversial in its day; many people were outright against any attempt to create a federal government with any real teeth. I think we've gone too far the other way today; our federal government uses its monetary clout to force state and local governments to do things its way, making them little more than rubber stamps, and centralizing power in a way that will sooner or later collapse inward on itself into what you'd probably call totalitarianism. A gradual collapse, not so noticable at any given time, but apparent every day if you actually look. We're losing more ground than we gain in areas such as civil liberties, private property, and so on. Those are always the first things that have to go to make way for the people who think they either should or simply will run other peoples' lives for them.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Okay, last time, I swear.. (none / 0) (#124)
by Electric Angst on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 02:52:24 PM EST

...at least, in this article...

So, if the government basically charges a fee for their services, of which we include enforcement of contract, how are they any different from a private security force, something you yourself said you were against?


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
use fee (none / 0) (#126)
by trhurler on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 03:26:31 PM EST

First off, these fees do not apply to things like criminal courts. Second, the difference is, whether you pay or not, the civil courts can only be appealed in their own hierarchy, and when you exhaust that, you're done. Government decisions have a finality that no arbitrator can have without the government to back him. You can ignore a private arbitrator - try ignoring a government. There is only one government(well, one with jurisdiction,) so there is no question of competition. Similarly, government police officers are all "on the same team" in a sense that competing private security agents are not. Their loyalty, presumably, is to the law rather than to their "employers." It can remain that way, as long as the law is limited in ways that prohibit it being used as a weapon against innocents.

There are a lot of subtleties here, but if you don't want to continue discussing in this article, then there's only so much to say. Clearly, if you didn't pay, you still have a right to defend yourself against lawsuits, including the action of appealing. On the other hand, countersuits might not be possible if you don't pay your fee. Lots of details to deal with.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
you must not be a harry browne fan then (none / 0) (#121)
by alprazolam on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 02:35:52 PM EST

[nt]

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#123)
by trhurler on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 02:45:04 PM EST

I think he's a good man with a lot of excellent ideas, but I think he's mistaken in his belief that government can retain the kind of land priveleges it has today and long remain libertarian. Even so, he wants to sell off the vast majority of government held lands, and keep only what is absolutely essential to the function of government.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
thought police, stigmatization & misogyny (3.75 / 4) (#49)
by eLuddite on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:19:08 PM EST

Why is it that when men insult women, whether sexually or otherwise, that's called "misogyny" and is a horrible thing, but when women insult men, sexually or otherwise, that's a good time out with the girls?

It must be because you've never been with a bunch of girls out to have a good time.

I certainly would agree with their sentiment and wish them the best in changing peoples' minds about their issue, but they're not - they're complaining that people are being mean to them... You do not have a right to be well liked, or well spoken of. That's just too fucking bad.

Telling women they have no right to be liked is a pretty compelling example of mysogyny, wildly different from women having a good time or calling men sexist. It could have been worse. You might have said the only likeable woman is the one empowering herself through porno chic, the natural function of an industrious little capitalist with tits in a man's world.

The ratings and comments in this article are a fucking joke. If women were thought police, Seumas, how come youre such a wanker? Wouldnt the handcuffs get in the way? No, the ratings and comments arent a joke, they're why you losers cant stop griping about your inability to get laid and why porn is so close to the g**k psyche. Ladies and gentlemen, wanker has left the metaphor.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

don't be an idiot. (2.50 / 2) (#57)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:54:13 PM EST

First off, don't be an idiot. If you were familiar with my postings at all, you'd know I'm not the "oh, poor me! I'm a geek who can't get laid!" type. I'm more the "burned out from not being picky; waiting for the right one" kind of geek now.

As far as the comments -- you should provide an example of what you're talking about. Have I rated things I disagree with low? I think not. In fact, even the comments I have disagreed with have generally been well though enough to get a 3 (good score, if you ask me). I'm pretty sure nothing has sucked enough to get a 2. A few comments have recieved a 4 and, sure, they tend to be the ones I agreed with -- but I rated them a 4 beause they made good points that I would have possibly liked to have made myself if I had the right words to do so.

Until your last comment in your post, I was expecting to give it a 4, too. Now, I'm not even going to bother, because I'd have to rate it low and I don't want it to be a personal thing. And up until you made the uneducated final comment, I was going to make a smart-ass comment regarding you first line to thurler. That would just sound stupid in this comment. See what you did? ;)
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

don't put words in thurler's mouth (3.50 / 4) (#58)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:59:58 PM EST

It must be because you've never been with a bunch of girls out to have a good time.

I thought that, in any given group of girls, thurler was the good time?

Telling women they have no right to be liked is a pretty compelling example of mysogyny, wildly different from women having a good time or calling men sexist. It could have been worse. You might have said the only likeable woman is the one empowering herself through porno chic, the natural function of an industrious little capitalist with tits in a man's world.

He could have said that, but that wasn't his point so it wouldn't have been appropriate, would it? His point is that people need to be realistic and realize that the world doesn't owe you respect and people don't have to like you. In fact, people are more likely to hate you than anything else and the best bet is to grow some damned skin instead of throwing a "they're meanies" press conference.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

i'm not telling people what to write (4.66 / 3) (#73)
by eLuddite on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 12:45:56 AM EST

They're doing well enough by their lonesome.

His point is that people need to be realistic and realize that the world doesn't owe you respect and people don't have to like you.

I'm sorry, one of us must aimed our mouse wrong and landed on the wrong link. The Chiennes de Garde are committed to "showing our support to women in public life who are attacked as women." Do explain the connection between yelling "take your knickers off, slut!" to the Environment Minister and her ill or well deserved reputation in Ecology. To paraphrase you, at what point do realistic people come to the realization that ecologists are sluts who arent owed respect. It must be the near the point where economists become reviled for their cuckolding studmuffinery.

If you disagree with the Minister, she is a slut. If the Minister is successful, she slept her way to the top. Do you dispute the prevalence of these attitudes in fact? Do women accuse men of sleeping their way to the top? No, they do not. In fact, on a good night out, the ladies would think this quite amusing for its basis in the male fantasy and ego. Are you confusing their bemusement with reverse sexism?

The Guard Bitches retorted with a scathing denouncement sent to all major newspapers and have used the tactic regularly as new cases crop up, fuelling acres of media coverage which has succeeded in tempering the urges of some male chauvinists.

"People are maybe becoming aware that an insult is in itself an abuse of power," said Isabelle Alonso, president of the organisation and author of the recently published "Why I Am a Chienne de Garde".

You seem to have a problem with the concept of sexism. Its simple, really, having nothing to do with "the world doesn't owe you respect and people don't have to like you respect and don't have to like you," and has everything to do with not witholding respect on the basis of gender. Telling women they dont deserve to tolerate blatant sexism on the one hand and begrudging feminists by slinging vague accusations of thought police without rhyme or reason on the other is misogyny. It's like saying we should not, under any circumstances, treat slaves badly.

You and trhurler, in the most nebulous fashion possible, have accused feminism of coercive group think, pc hysteria, religion, stigmatization, thought police, etc. These are all perfectly good strawmen and red herrings but what they are definitely not is an honest appraisal of feminism, which cares not one iota for the bleating of emasculated men, but rather the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the both sexes. This doesnt mean women want to write their name in the snow or become identical to men according to your fashion. Yes, Seumas, the differences are unimportant, you can have them. The equalities are important, you must give them up.

(They want equality but they also want us to open doors for them?!" Yes, equality means both sides should be polite. You open the fucking door and they'll tell you they came like a house on fire, ok?)

This is a very simple article with a very simple focus: assuming the equality of the sexes is a good thing, and assuming this equality has not yet been realized, are the strident tactics of the Chiennes de Garde justified? Is it an appropriate political response to carpet bomb the media when acts of sexism -- gross sexism, crossing the pc boundary, to quote the article -- against public figures occurs? Is it appropriate to shame the perpetrators of these acts of sexism? Should sexism become recognized under the law as a form of defamation?

Or should feminists be writing sensitive childrens books, instead? Cuz, you know, they've been doing that for years and all its got them is g**ks talking trash and whacking off to polygon tits.

The assumption is that you understand what feminism and sexism means. At what point in your contribution to this discussion did you understand either of these terms and begin to intelligently debate their relevance to the Chiennes de Garde?

At no point.

"There had been a very slow and effective sapping of the image of feminists which means that today, women don't tend to want to recognise themselves as feminists because they think all the cliches conveyed about them are true," said Alonso.

Thanks for trotting out all the old and tired cliches, Seumas. At some point you'll have to realize that feminism is not preventing men from becoming women's equal.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

you (none / 0) (#101)
by alprazolam on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 10:07:37 AM EST

are the one putting words in trhurler's mouth, and you're making him look stupid in the process. your characterization of the guard bitches is incredibly ridiculous and not even really worth responding to, so i don't get why people are bothing. except for eluddite, who would rather flame somebody in an attempt to grow his ego rather than have a fucking reasonable conversation. eluddite, i wish you would quit picking out the weakest link and flaming him, you seem to want to turn every argument into a fucking flamefest.

[ Parent ]
Off topic question (none / 0) (#128)
by Wiglaf on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 12:55:56 AM EST

Why did you italics on the r in trhuler's name in your paragraph? Is it soem sort of double meaning or innuendo?

Paul: I DOMINATE you to throw rock on our next physical challenge.
Trevor: You can't do that! Do you really think Vampires go around playing rock paper sissors to decide who gets to overpower one another?
[ Parent ]
its a secret sign to the gay conspiracists (none / 0) (#131)
by alprazolam on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 03:14:47 PM EST

that are trying to take over the site (the world later, but first the site). it doesn't have anything to do with people mispelling trhurlers name, over and over again.

[ Parent ]
Eh? (4.00 / 1) (#113)
by trhurler on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 01:20:22 PM EST

It must be because you've never been with a bunch of girls out to have a good time.
If by "never" you mean "not since last Thursday" ...
Telling women they have no right to be liked is a pretty compelling example of mysogyny
Either you misunderstood my meaning or else you're a blithering idiot. I don't know which. Nobody has a right to be liked. That's life. Not men. Not women. Not anyone. Certainly, if someone likes you, then that's great for you, but if not, tough shit.
they're why you losers cant stop griping about your inability to get laid
Oh, hell, man, contrary to common belief around here, anyone can "get laid." Easily. The fact that, at 25 years old, I don't really want to do so probably says more about my opinion of people than of women specifically or of myself. Every now and then, I meet someone truly worth knowing, and the rest of the time, I find myself able to easily deceive people into thinking I'm just like them, but unable to really care. Maybe I'm just too hard on people; I know I'm too hard on myself. However, that's not just some intellectual decision; it's a part of me, and it happens automatically, completely without my conscious intervention.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Baby got back (1.86 / 15) (#11)
by shoeboy on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 05:58:11 PM EST

I like big butts and I cannot lie
You other brothers can't deny
When a girl walks by with an itty-bitty waist
And a rude thing in your face
You get sprung
Baby I wanna get with ya'
And take your picture
--Shoeboy
No more trolls!
sir mix a lot (3.50 / 2) (#21)
by delmoi on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 06:53:23 PM EST

And a rude thing in your face

that should be "and a big round in your face"
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
heh (3.50 / 2) (#29)
by Delirium on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:43:04 PM EST

my anaconda don't want none
unless you got big buns hun

[ Parent ]
The effects of the feminist movement. (3.33 / 12) (#14)
by dram on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 06:29:19 PM EST

I will say that this is a trolling article if I have ever seen one. But I also do not think that this topic can be brought up without it being flamed. This is a topic that is divided right along sex lines. All women feel one way and men feel the other.

In the past thirty or forty years women have changed the things that are acceptable for men to say and do. In the US (I'm from the US and don't have first hand experience of the rest of the world) men are not allowed to do many things they once were. The enforcement for drunk driving has gone from the cops just driving you home, like one of the parts in the book The Right Stuff shows, to being arrested and getting your license revoked no matter what.

Children are no longer allowed to do things where they may hurt themselves. Skateboarding has become de facto illegal on public property and in many cities and suburbs fire works are illegal as well.

Men are expected to talk through their feelings like women do instead of doing things that release their stress. I am not talking about fighting to relieve stress; I'm talking about thinks like going to the shooting range or racing your car. These things are not acceptable anymore and nobody is teaching boys and young men how to talk about what they are feeling.

Modern Feminist movements are trying to get men to change the way they act, not just the way they treat women. Men are not suppose to act like women and that's what we, at least in America, our teaching our boys to do. There are differences between the sexes and women need to realize that.

-dram
[grant.henninger.name]

Drunk driving (3.00 / 2) (#20)
by delmoi on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 06:51:59 PM EST

The enforcement for drunk driving has gone from the cops just driving you home, like one of the parts in the book The Right Stuff shows, to being arrested and getting your license revoked no matter what.

First of all, what does that have to do with the feminist movement? Secondly, are you saying that cops should just be driving people home when they catch them driving drunk? I mean, drunk driving is one of the leading causes of non-natural death. I think strong consequences are in order here...
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Drunkards (4.00 / 1) (#86)
by brion on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 04:06:34 AM EST

The punishment for drunk drivers should be to force them to drive as fast as they can, alone, on a closed race course (an obstacle course, naturally) until they run out of gas. If they eliminate themselves from the gene pool in the process, so much the better. Unfortunately on the open road, or with passengers, they usually take other people out.

The troll's link between drunk driving enforcement and feminism might be due to the MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) campaign. It's no more a feminist issue than the temperance movements of the 19th and early 20th, namely that the movements were largely led by women who, apparently, didn't approve of the destructive effects of alcohol abuse.



Chu vi parolas Vikipedion?
[ Parent ]
Oh great, anti-troll paranoia... (3.88 / 9) (#27)
by Electric Angst on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:20:48 PM EST

All women feel one way and men feel the other.

What kind of crack-rock are you smokin', man? The very fact that my male ass brought this up and that I'm currently disagreeing with some other males in this discussion pretty much throws this comment right out...

The rest of your absurdity about some feminist plot to take away our boy's god-given USian rights to shoot guns and drive drunk is pretty lame. Feminism is just trying to get females recognized as human beings with the *gasp* same basic rights, abilities, and respect that men have (like, for example, not being called whores or asked to expose themselves when they speak at political functions.)


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
Let me explain myself... (3.16 / 6) (#30)
by dram on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:45:11 PM EST

I guess I needed to be a bit clearer. I am not saying that it was a goal of the feminist movement to do these things, but it was a result. Because of it the way men are expected to act is different. And not just the way they are expected to act towards women. The way that they act in general is different. I also did not say that this is an over all bad thing. But I also do not think that women and men should ever be expected to act the same. And the view of many feminists is that the women's way is the right way.

Another thing that is happening from men letting women in the work place (and yes I do mean letting, because this didn't have to happen.) is that women are starting to be more aggressive and act more like men. Even in the non-business world women are acting more like men, just look at how many more women are smoking cigars.

-dram
[grant.henninger.name]

[ Parent ]

I was right, you are a chauvinist. (4.00 / 4) (#94)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 07:57:05 AM EST

This summs up all:

Another thing that is happening from men letting women in the work place (and yes I do mean letting, because this didn't have to happen.)

This is one of the most patronizing statements I have read in a long, long time.
You assert, in no uncertain terms, in just a few words!, that men let women in the workplace, that it was men's gracious acceptance what allowed women to work. That men should have known better and kept women locked at home, where of course men would have continued having a position of power from where to continue abusing their servants, I mean, partners.

Your era is long gone, the world is moving, and you will be left (thank goodness fo that) behind with your memories of a world that was all so sweet, if you had a penis to brandish around.

Goodbye cowboy.

Might is right
Freedom? Which freedom?
[ Parent ]

I meant misogynist! (3.00 / 2) (#95)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 07:58:45 AM EST

The joys of the English language for us the unwashed...

Might is right
Freedom? Which freedom?
[ Parent ]
Aww, poor baby (4.00 / 2) (#90)
by spiralx on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 06:46:59 AM EST

In the past thirty or forty years women have changed the things that are acceptable for men to say and do. In the US (I'm from the US and don't have first hand experience of the rest of the world) men are not allowed to do many things they once were. The enforcement for drunk driving has gone from the cops just driving you home, like one of the parts in the book The Right Stuff shows, to being arrested and getting your license revoked no matter wh

Oh no! By not allowing me to drive while drunk and have the opportunity to kill innocent strangers with a greatly enhanced probability they're making me less of a man!!! I mean, could you have picked a dumber example of what you consider to be "masculine" behaviour? So you want the right to get a slap on the wrist whenever you decide that despite being drunk, it should be fine for you to drive, and if you do get caught before you've killed anyone, the police should waste their time driving you home?

Men are expected to talk through their feelings like women do instead of doing things that release their stress.

I mean, it's much better for men to go out and get into fights or shoot things than it is to try and deal with the situation any other way right? All those people who go into work and start shooting at their colleagues, they're just working through their stress in the time-honoured masculine way aren't they?

These things are not acceptable anymore and nobody is teaching boys and young men how to talk about what they are feeling.

Maybe they should join the classes where women get taught this. Oh wait, there aren't any!

Modern Feminist movements are trying to get men to change the way they act, not just the way they treat women. Men are not suppose to act like women and that's what we, at least in America, our teaching our boys to do. There are differences between the sexes and women need to realize that.

Wow, you're really bitter about this. Of course men and women are different, and yes, modern feminism (as opposed to whatever warped view you have of it) realises this. And as for teaching boys to act like girls, that's just a big fat strawman really.

You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Racing, fireworks and who knows what else... (4.25 / 4) (#93)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 07:46:39 AM EST

I don't know where to begin the debunking of so much nonsense:

I will say that this is a trolling article if I have ever seen one. But I also do not think that this topic can be brought up without it being flamed. This is a topic that is divided right along sex lines. All women feel one way and men feel the other.

Riiiing! Wrong.
You don't represent all men or women, so please don't generalize. And as sad as it sounds but there are many women that simpatize with the old good days in which women were little bit more than servants of their male relatives.

In the past thirty or forty years women have changed the things that are acceptable for men to say and do. In the US (I'm from the US and don't have first hand experience of the rest of the world) men are not allowed to do many things they once were.

Like what? Give us some sustantial examples of those lost privileges of the poor old boys.

The enforcement for drunk driving has gone from the cops just driving you home, like one of the parts in the book The Right Stuff shows, to being arrested and getting your license revoked no matter what.

Oh I see, it is the fault of feminists that now people don't have the freedom to be a lethal danger to themselves and to others. Sorry, but unless you ar drunk and driving I can't see what this has to do with women and women rights or with changing male habits.

Children are no longer allowed to do things where they may hurt themselves. Skateboarding has become de facto illegal on public property

Did it pass through your mind that it is perhaps to protect others?

and in many cities and suburbs fire works are illegal as well.

I can't be bothered to search for articles relating to tragedies (talking about serveral dozens of people dead here) relating to fireworks. This without counting the endless number of children (and adults) that have lost fingers, hands, arms, burned themselves or killed themsleves and others. And lets not start about the joy of terrorists going to the nearest shop to buy ingridients for their nail bomb (not that they could not do it any other way, but why should they have it so easy?). Explosives should be handled by professionals, not by children. Lame, lame example.

Men are expected to talk through their feelings like women do instead of doing things that release their stress.

Were did you rid that crap? One thing does not exclude the other. Your perceptions about expectations are pretty messed up IMHO.

I am not talking about fighting to relieve stress; I'm talking about thinks like going to the shooting range or racing your car.

I am sorry, but I have to laugh at this. Where do you want to race your car?

These things are not acceptable anymore and nobody is teaching boys and young men how to talk about what they are feeling.

Of course not. With grown up males afraid to talk themselves and fighting all the way to keep acting like brats, young men and boys find impossible to act in a more humane, responsible way towrads people around them.

Modern Feminist movements are trying to get men to change the way they act, not just the way they treat women.

The way men act usualy reflects in the way they treat women, and since men are in a position of power, it is impossible to reach real equality without changin male attitudes.

Men are not suppose to act like women and that's what we, at least in America, our teaching our boys to do. There are differences between the sexes and women need to realize that.

That is a very convenient thing to say if you have a penis: "vive la difference!" as long as the differences keep women down in a position of subordination towards men. A world in which men can get drunk and be a danger, where men can encourage boys to be stupid, where stress has to be released with a penis compensating device.

No thanks, we had that kind of world since humanity's dawn and to be honest it is time we try other models of organization in which all of humanity, not only half of it, are encouraged to reach their full potential as human beings.

Might is right
Freedom? Which freedom?
[ Parent ]

From The Washington Post (3.66 / 3) (#32)
by wiredog on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:50:22 PM EST

An column on French vs American attitudes towards women. Takes somewhat the opposite view to that expressed above.

"Anything that's invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things", Douglas Adams
The crunchies are on the march. (2.66 / 3) (#33)
by jeremiah2 on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 07:53:59 PM EST

You go... um, whatever it is you are.

It's not slutty if you only do it with your own gender.
Change isn't necessarily progress - Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit

Damage feminism has done (2.77 / 9) (#52)
by weirdling on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:31:05 PM EST

The quote you see there about holding doors is just the tip of the iceberg. It is exceptionally funny to me that once committed to a path of equal rights women are stunned to find that they lose the priveleges that used to come with the separation of the sexes. However, once in the workplace, I will not defer and I will not open doors.
There is the added concern that men are increasingly confused as to where exactly they fit in in this new scheme. However, as one poster put it, 'men are expected to change their behavior' by feminist groups yet receive no recompense for this change. No wonder it isn't really working.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
examples of trying to be a guy (4.00 / 5) (#56)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 09:47:11 PM EST

You're telling me.

When I was sixteen, I had a temporary job. It was only a couple weeks long and it was a brain-dead gig that anybody could hack. I happened to work with a short blonde girl who smoked god knows how many packs of smokes a day during work. At one point, she had to lift this large card board box and place it an a high spot well above her. Rather than see her try and muscle-it out (huffing and puffing and wheezing at the same time), I tried to help her with it. After all, I have always been raised that you seat yourself only after a woman is seated. You never let a woman lift heavy objects in your presence. You always open the door for a woman, etc. So it was just a natural instinct. Not even something I was really even thinking about. No sooner had I placed my hands on the box than she let loose with a string of shouting and angery wheezing with words sprinkined throughout the heaving breaths.

Needless to say, I was shocked. This was probably my first encounter like this where I was attacked for doing what I was always told I was supposed to do. It wasn't like I was trying to grope her or steal her purse -- I was trying to help her lift a heavy box. Damn.

Another time, I was entering Pioneer Place in downtown Portland and as I always do, I held the door open after going through for the few people behind me. A couple dudes and a handful of women -- I guess they were all in a group together.

The guys were nice enough to say "thanks man" or at least nod in acknowledgement that someone had gone out of their way for them. Two of the girls smiled and said "thank's" as well. Then the third girl came to the door. She just stood there. Then she stared. Then she said "are you going to fucking go or what?!".

"I was holding the door for you", I said.

She looked insulted, told me to fuck off and took another door.

I've even gotten insulting mumblings or angry looks from women who have dropped something and, being nearby, picked whatever it was up and returned it to them.

Certainly, most of the time people (men and women) are appreciative that someone is taking a moment out of their day to do even the smallest of things for them. But never -- not once has a man copped an attitude or attacked me for what men have always been expected to do. But there have been a good dozen women who have gotten extremely angry.

Like a lot of guys, I'm tempted to just be an asshole from that point on and fuck everyone else if they need a hand. But it's just not in my nature to do that and I always find myself reflexively bending over to retrieved a dropped something or other, sharing my umbrella, opening a door or picking up a heavy object.

Besides, I'm not sure what it is, but guys tend to really enjoy holding the door open for a lady (and no, it's not so we can check out her ass). There are times we go overboard, because we have some major crush on a girl or something, but 99.99% of the time, there's no strings attached to it other than it's a guy thing that we're supposed to do. And you know what? There are even some women who will have the good sense to do the same. Not just for older people or disabled people -- but for a guy. And as any other male will agree, having a women intentionally hold a door open for you is pretty cool.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

ah fucking diddums (3.50 / 6) (#79)
by streetlawyer on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 02:16:49 AM EST

So a few women were rude to poor ickle youuuu and you've born the grudge for years? Take some of your own advice. Fucking get over it. Try to, if it will help, be a man about it. Stop whining, it's babyish.

The abuse you've received is a tiny clue about what women have to put up with all the time. That's the whole point of this link. Women (rightly) suspect that the man who makes a big deal out of holding doors for women (why not for men?) is the man who makes stupid, uncaring remarks like this one.

"Tempted to be an asshole", heh. I see you can't resist temptation.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

Did you ask?! (5.00 / 2) (#97)
by iGrrrl on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 09:35:10 AM EST

I hold the door for people depending on where the door is and who is holding what. I've also had men let doors slam in my face in situations where I would have held it for them.

But this:

No sooner had I placed my hands on the box than she let loose with a string of shouting...

Did you just grab the box, or did you bother to ask her if she wanted help? I loaded trucks for a living as a roadie for four years, and became a serious student of practical physics. I never lifted anything I couldn't actually handle. Whenever some guy tried spontaneously to "help" me, it generally put me more in danger by throwing off my balance without warning.

Here's a clue for you: When you treat a woman as you describe -- holding doors, taking her work from her, etc. -- such behavior looks like it comes from an underlying assumption that she is not capable. This might have been true in the days of tight corsets when such behavior was codified as "polite" (heck, who can do physical labor when their ribs are compressed?). You might understand, however, that no one likes to be called incapable, even by implication.

--
You cannot have a reasonable conversation with someone who regards other people as toys to be played with. localroger
remove apostrophe for email.
[ Parent ]

of course (none / 0) (#103)
by Seumas on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 10:44:33 AM EST

I leaned over and said "here, let me get that for you". In no way does that suggest "here, I'll do that because you obviously can't".

I promise, if someone offered to give me a hand here and there just becuase they're being nice, the last thing I'm going to do is get defensive about it and bite their arm off. And it certainly isn't my duty to waste my time and say "greetings, I would like to hold this door open for you, but first, I would like your assurance that if I do, you will not presume that it is on the basis of my egotistical male belief that you are inferior, weak, incapable of doing for yourself, co-dependant on a male nor that I'm interested in you or hitting on you".

I'm responsible for being nice or mean, surely, but how is it my responsibility to account for everyone's insecurities?
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

She said "Did you ASK?" (4.00 / 1) (#107)
by Electric Angst on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 11:04:53 AM EST

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between a question and a statement, but what you did could not be considered "asking". I'm sure it would piss a person off to have someone suddenly try to lift the heavy box they were working on and almost knock them off balance as it would be to have them say "let me get that for you" and then try to grab to heavy box they were trying to lift and potentially knocking them off balance.


--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
Why Not? (3.50 / 2) (#80)
by moshez on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 02:41:36 AM EST

Why not hold doors for women? Out of some twisted sense of revenge for having equal rights? This is really idiotic. I'm a hard-core feminist (even though *gasp* I'm a guy), and I still hold doors for women, chairs for my date and even insist of paying for dates. I do not feel doing all this is somehow inconsistent with thinking people who call a woman to "take off your knickers, slut" should be publically ridicule, nor with the fact that women should receive equal pay for equal work and be able to do whatever they want in general (within the same limits all of humanity lives by, of course). More, if by some twist of fate some specific woman doesn't want me to hold the door for *her*, I won't - no sense in being an idiot. I have fun being nice to women, and they usually seem to enjoy the attention. We are equal - not identical.

[T]he k5 troll HOWTO has been updated ... This update is dedicated to moshez, and other bitter anti-trolls.
[ Parent ]
Maybe I am ignorant. (none / 0) (#127)
by Wiglaf on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 12:45:10 AM EST

Could you explain a bit more on how being a hardcore feminist allows you to also be chilvarous? I know that you feel that they are not mutually exclusive but the arguement that someone else presented was that in doing these things you are treating the other as if they couldn't do them on their own.

Paul: I DOMINATE you to throw rock on our next physical challenge.
Trevor: You can't do that! Do you really think Vampires go around playing rock paper sissors to decide who gets to overpower one another?
[ Parent ]
Ummmm....What Do You Think is The Problem? (none / 0) (#129)
by moshez on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 04:48:57 AM EST

To me, feminism means that women have an equal status in society. That means equal pay, fair representation and so on. This also means respect for women as human beings: and certainly yelling rude sexual insults does not spell respect, for neither women nor men. I seriously doubt anyone would be insulted by holding a door open for her or him. I choose to hold doors for women because I enjoy getting a thankful smile from a woman more then a thankful smile from a man. I certainly don't believe in forced chivalry (holding the door open for her when she does not want me to), so I don't see how anything I do can mean disrespect for women. And, funnily enough, no woman has ever had a problem with my attitude, even though they were all feminists.

[T]he k5 troll HOWTO has been updated ... This update is dedicated to moshez, and other bitter anti-trolls.
[ Parent ]
Not revenge (none / 0) (#130)
by weirdling on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 11:58:08 AM EST

The vast majority of women today don't necessarily want it. I'm not strictly anti-feminist; I just don't believe it when people tell me women are discriminated against and don't really feel all that sorry when I hear they're mistreated. Why? They can either stand up for themselves like men do, in which case it would be wrong and condescending of me to help, or they can find a man to stand up for them, which is against the tenets of feminism.
I guess what I'm saying is that, in my mind, if a woman wants that kind of treatment, I don't mind giving it, but, by and large, none of them want it anymore.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Are You Sure? (none / 0) (#133)
by moshez on Thu Jun 07, 2001 at 03:01:11 AM EST

Just last night, I went to the gym. Just outside, I saw some girl from my aerobic class. I kindly opened the door for her and she seemed to take it very well. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but I found I can usually guess if a woman wants this sort of treatment by just following body language clues.

[T]he k5 troll HOWTO has been updated ... This update is dedicated to moshez, and other bitter anti-trolls.
[ Parent ]
Simple rules for holding doors (4.66 / 3) (#84)
by brion on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 03:53:12 AM EST

Door opens away from you: if going through the door and letting go will result in the door smashing the next person in the face, hold the door open for them.

Door opens towards you: if pulling the door open will involve the person behind you smashing into you when you momentarily stop for the swinging of the door, open it to the side and hold it open for them.

If neither is the case, they can open the dooor themselves.

Gender isn't involved, simply convenience and flow control.



Chu vi parolas Vikipedion?
[ Parent ]
Lets see the privileges... (3.66 / 3) (#92)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 07:10:37 AM EST

Oh the jolly good old days when:

-Women were not allowed to vote.
-Women were not allowed to study (not legaly mind you, but socialy a woman wanted to stidy was a freak to be avoided at all costs).
-Women staying at home were (and still are) at the mercy of their husbands. While at home they don't get money, thus can build savings for later in life, and they get no pension.
-Women were (and still are) discriminated against in politics and work.

Oh goodness, bring those privileges for the women back please. Fast!

And on top of this men should be somehow compensated for behaving like civilized persons and not like little home tyrants. Give me a fscking break.


Might is right
Freedom? Which freedom?
[ Parent ]
Something about having cake and eating it too... (4.00 / 1) (#106)
by ScuzzMonkey on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 11:02:37 AM EST

While those are all excellent points, you seem to have made them while completely missing those of the person you're responding to. Stated more concisely, I think it runs along the lines of "Be careful what you ask for." You have to take the good with the bad; although it's true that men have had all those privileges for most of human history, they've also had the privilege of being treated like shit by other men in all those realms. While I don't buy into the rosy view of the historical treatment of women that some guys seem to, I do seem to hear a lot of feminists complaining now that they have to put up with some of the same behaviors that men have had to deal with all along.

Simply mistreating women because they are women when they come into male-dominated parts of society is wrong. But to come into a part of society and demand that it instantly change to meet your sensibilities isn't quite right, either. You can work for change, sure, but whining about it isn't going to help much. Perhaps you should consider that your view of what makes a civilized person might differ radically from that of most men, and that in order to receive respect for your views, you should have some for theirs.
No relation to Happy Monkey (User #5786)
[ Parent ]

2 wrongs don't one good make. (none / 0) (#134)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Jun 07, 2001 at 12:59:18 PM EST

If men treat each other like shit (and many seem to enjoy it) that does not mean it is in the best interest of the human race that we treat each other like that. Thank goodness women are saying "hey guys, look, this is not right". It was about time.

I know perhaps I should not go down this road, but what the heck, I hope it makes my point: many people in the 18th and 19th century considered themselves to be civilized, nevrtheless they had slaves. I for sure could not give any credit to the opinion of such a person about slavery.

Bring that into the men-women relationship context, bearing in mind that men are talking from a point in time were they are pulling all the strings, and you will see that many men's opinions about how to treat women can be qualified as uncivilized to say the least.

Enough of this for now.



Might is right
Freedom? Which freedom?
[ Parent ]
I hate to say this for fear of being shot down.... (3.00 / 7) (#59)
by Wiglaf on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 10:08:02 PM EST

It's socially acceptable for me to go out and provide for my family unit. Good. Then why can't I aggresively provide for my family? The more aggresive I am the better I can provide.

You can see where I am leading with this. Yes the female traits do help people co-exist. Big freaking deal. If I wanted to co-exist lovigly with everyone, I wouldn't be able to get anything done cause I would have to spend too much time making sure that I am not stepping on anyone's toes. SOmetimes you do have to be aggressive, violent, etc.. Evolution plays big in this. And here is where I am going to piss some people off.

MEn are wired differently the women. We think and react differently. Men interact with other men in different ways. Unlike the way women want to be fair men enjoy occasional bouts of who wants to be the Alpha. When was the last time you had your girl friends call you up on the phone insult you and your family then ask if you want to go drinking.(Exageration i know but I am not that creative.)

Paul: I DOMINATE you to throw rock on our next physical challenge.
Trevor: You can't do that! Do you really think Vampires go around playing rock paper sissors to decide who gets to overpower one another?

science (3.66 / 3) (#64)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 10:23:26 PM EST

This is where it starts to get scary.

Science makes it obvious that there are difference. Biology, chemistry, psychology. It all points to differences (as if we don't realize differences ourselves, I guess). Despite these differences, there are still hoardes of people promoting just the opposite, defying logic and science.

This is one of the main reasons equality has been so difficult. Certain traits make achieving in certain areas more effective. The most caring father could not provide the same type or extent of nurturing to a child that a woman can. The stereotypical statement that men are more logical and women are more emotional (admittedly true by a lot of women -- becoming less and less true in so far as I can observe) is benificial. This isn't to say that men are not emotional and that women are not logical, but that we each seem to be (in general) tuned to each side more accutely. I would believe that a child benifits greatly from the emotional and nurturing nature of his or her bother. Likewise, the agressive and competetive nature is what men are obviously known for. This helps excel in the workplace (previously, in the hunting fields and battle fields) to, in the end, bring home more money to provide for the family.

Without the "feminine" side of things, you have happy and caring kids with no income. On the other, you have ambitious goal-oriented children with no emotional grounding or full sense of family. I'd rather have a mix of the two rather than either one. We didn't evolve this way just because nature thought "this'll be cool!". There were reasons for it. There still are.

As politically incorrect as it seems to say these days, I believe the majority of social ills these days (violence, etc) are due to the lack of involvement by men who have abandoned their familes and duties as fathers, leaving these kids to grow up in a confused and one-sided environment. They have no examples of a strong man in control of his natural traits and know no bounds to theirs. So, they live in a largely feminine environment (again, not a dig on feminists -- they're the ones still around caring for the kid). And we wonder why boys are so fucked up when they grow up?

The issue isn't so distinctly a "militant feminists plotting to strike at the soul of manhood" as it is a "boys growing in largely male-lacking environments and growing up without understanding how to be a man". This isn't good for the women in their lives in the future (girlfriends, wives, children) and it isn't good for them. When prominent feminists start making comments about the unsettling feminization of boys in America, you know it has to be an issue.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

equality (4.75 / 4) (#75)
by poltroon on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 01:34:50 AM EST

Equal opportunity is the key. A woman shouldn't be expected to lead a life that she doesn't want to live, neither should a man. They should both be able and encouraged to pursue their dreams to the fullest. I don't think feminists are advocating that every profession or pursuit be populated by 50% of either gender. But then, maybe some are advocating that. I'm not, in any case.

Also, you mention masculine traits that make men more competitive/advantaged in "the workplace". There are plenty of typically feminine traits that offer advantage in "the workplace" too. Women aren't lacking anything. They might take different, even more innovative approaches to problems. They also might be every bit as competitive and agressive as men that they work with. I think the notion of the workplace is evolving. There isn't just one kind of workplace anymore, nor are we evolving towards one homogenous gender-neutral workplace. There might be some kinds of workplaces in which men are the minority, and typical masculine traits aren't as effective.

[ Parent ]

Spelling abilities are fading....I can't fight it. (2.40 / 5) (#62)
by Wiglaf on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 10:19:14 PM EST

Now about the gender bending issue about our society. Clear defined genders are what our society need. This melding into a bland homogenous bullshit. Little tykes need some figure that they can identify with. I have one. Gramps. Went into the WWII got shot twice by the germans. Came home after his enlistment was up. Started his own business while working the family Oyster boat. I didn't know he was in the army or had serious flashbacks after he first got out until a couple of years ago. Man had a 80% blockage in an artery due to cholesteral. Thought it was a chest cold for 5 months. And what is sad is that I think he can still kick my ass if I get to uppity.

To me that is a man. Takes his licks from the world. He also made his share of the world into what he wanted it to be. Don't tell me that by being aggressive and violent that you can't be a part of society. Wars do need to be fought and people who want things will go out and get them. And all this needs to be wiped away so that we can all hold hands?

I am sure that there is a nice mirror image for women to want to relate. But that doesn't click on primal way for me like gramps does. Nature or nuture, I dunno.

Paul: I DOMINATE you to throw rock on our next physical challenge.
Trevor: You can't do that! Do you really think Vampires go around playing rock paper sissors to decide who gets to overpower one another?

avoiding navel gazing (4.00 / 1) (#65)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 10:34:32 PM EST

I want to avoid navel gazing, but this is a great point. I lot of groups attack the traits of being male, as if that is some way to achieve equality. As these women mentioned in this article, the want equality. Equality means having equal oppertunity. I'm not sure how being called a few dirty words reduces their oppertunity. I'm not sure how my being an agressive, competitive male reduces the oppertunities. The whole point is that you can do, say and be what you want and still have the oppertunities. It seems, unfortunately, that too many groups are misguided and feel that we have to be the same to be equal.

So that being said, there are of course role models for men. There are people that show you how to be a man and how to stand up for your family. How to stand up for the women in your life. How to stand up for your mother, your children, your society and all that supposedly good stuff.

The thing is, what do women have? There aren't a lot of accurate role models in the work and every day world (that is, out of the household) for women that are not simply mirrors of men. Look at the most popular female role models in business and politics. They are women who posess largely male qualities of assertiveness, aggressiveness, competitiveness and everything else. I can see how women would find it difficult to move into the arenas that men are in (by all means, they should join us). While they're building and seeking their own role models, we (men) are running out on our responsibilities and leaving the boys without role models of how to be men. If this isn't reversing the roles, I don't know what is.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Female "role models". (4.00 / 2) (#91)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 06:58:20 AM EST

The thing is, what do women have? There aren't a lot of accurate role models in the work and every day world (that is, out of the household) for women that are not simply mirrors of men. Look at the most popular female role models in business and politics. They are women who posess largely male qualities of assertiveness, aggressiveness, competitiveness and everything else.

That is because they have to compete in an environment dominated by males and male values, and of course you remember more easily prominent females with "male attituteds" (like if somewhere engraved in nature malehood=agression, competition, etc) because society as a whole tends to favor those attitueds (what would you expect in a male dominated society?).

I can see how women would find it difficult to move into the arenas that men are in (by all means, they should join us). While they're building and seeking their own role models, we (men) are running out on our responsibilities and leaving the boys without role models of how to be men. If this isn't reversing the roles, I don't know what is.

That is a very comfy attitude when in reality females are paid less for doing the same work, are generaly overlooked for males for work promotions, have to break their carreers due to pregnancy and are usualy expected to stay at home to raise the children, usualy without the posibility of building a personal pension in the process.

To the males that think roles are reversed, I invite you to really do what your mother, sister, or partner do, for lets say 6 months. Then you will know how far of equality we are while at the same time showing to the boys how a man should be: willing to stay at home when needed, to share the house chores as required and to break some times his own carreer if that makes sense, loosing all the benefits in the meantime. Scary? Well, that is what women face every day of their lives.

Might is right
Freedom? Which freedom?
[ Parent ]

dumb men (4.00 / 2) (#66)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 10:40:08 PM EST

This is one thing I am embarassed to be associted with, as a man:

Man had a 80% blockage in an artery due to cholesteral. Thought it was a chest cold for 5 months.

I think a woman would have been smart enough to see a doctor much sooner. Being a tough guy is a good thing for a man to be, but not tough and stupid! (no offense to your grandad).

I'm more or less the same way. So was my grandfather. He was so bad at one point that he was building million dollar houses for rich guys (not as a contractor that hired out to other people but as a contractor who literally did every inch of work with his own hands). He was doing this after his 80th birthday. When he was around 75 or so, he had heart surgery for a busted mitrol valve that had to be replaced. He had been so out of energy and breath fromt he heart problem before he got around to seeing a doctor that he could not walk more than a block or two without resting. The guy did this for at least a year before deciding to see a doctor. And within two weeks after the surgery, he was back at working building expensive houses by hand again.

I myself haven't been to the doctor since I was... um... fuck, I dont' know. I was probably 10 or something. I should probably go. I have bad eyesight, I'm fat, I'm probably on the verge of god knows how many diseases that could kill me. But I'm just not interested in going to a doctor. So I guess I'm an idiot, too.

See, these are the areas in which we need to learn some skills from the women. Is it any wonder they live seven years longer than we do?!
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

Gender (4.66 / 3) (#68)
by fluffy grue on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 10:50:21 PM EST

Personally, I don't want to see homogeny in gender. I do, however, want to see variability. Having two buckets you can be classified in ("man" or "woman") is really limiting, and most people really aren't suited to be put into an either-or situation; people end up either pretending to be, or being ridiculed/oppressed/fucked up by their failure to be.

I personally don't want to see the idea of gender go away - but I think that the concept of "societal gender," i.e. the general notion that there's only two types of people and that the type of person someone is depends on what's between their legs, needs to die, and I think that there needs to be much more variability in what's accepted as a gender bucket. Preferrably there'd be no buckets, and people could use whichever pronouns they're comfortable with.

Of course, I have a personal interest in this notion...
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

completely agreed (none / 0) (#72)
by Seumas on Mon Jun 04, 2001 at 11:27:09 PM EST

You've said what I've often struggled to get across.

My gripe is not with people trying to vary the boundaries in acceptable gender behavior and traits but with people trying to destroy or "make wrong" the others.

When women say they want a "sensitive guy", I'm probably someone who qualifies for that spot. I'm also pretty agressive, assertive, and extremely competitive. Hey, I've cried at a movie and I've been a stay-at-home dad (yes it was weird).

I don't see a lot of gender boundaries being enforced these days. I think that, except for remote areas and sects of people, it's understood and expected that people are going to be wildly different and some will do extremely (traditionally) male things and others will do (traditionally) female things, regardless of their sex. No big deal.

It's just when they 1) try to merge them into one lump of clay and/or 2) try to pick and choose what traits are okay and which aren't.

Besides, I've seen the people on Earth: Final Conflict -- and I can't say they're all that attractive ;)
--
I just read K5 for the articles.
[ Parent ]

TWo things (4.00 / 1) (#76)
by Wiglaf on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 01:39:11 AM EST

1. Gramps was stupid about not going to the doc. He admited as much at a family gathering not too long ago. I didn't mean to idolize the fact that he was stuborn. What I did mean to idolize is that he didn't complain. Probally took many risk since he didn't complain but I don't think he ever really complained about anything.

2. While talking about this with my girlfriend she pointed out that even same sex relationships one usualy becomes the "man" and the other becomes the "female". Didn't think about it till she told me brought it up. I guess for a relationship to work you do need both sets of traits.

Paul: I DOMINATE you to throw rock on our next physical challenge.
Trevor: You can't do that! Do you really think Vampires go around playing rock paper sissors to decide who gets to overpower one another?
[ Parent ]

gender roles (4.00 / 2) (#96)
by iGrrrl on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 09:13:52 AM EST

While talking about this with my girlfriend she pointed out that even same sex relationships one usualy becomes the "man" and the other becomes the "female".

Not in my personal experience from dating other women, nor generally in my observed experience from knowing several long-term same-sex couples. I can think of one couple same-sex couple that fell into gender roles out of about ten. I think your girlfriend's point lies in unfounded stereotype.

--
You cannot have a reasonable conversation with someone who regards other people as toys to be played with. localroger
remove apostrophe for email.
[ Parent ]

The devil's advocate against gramps... (4.00 / 3) (#89)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 06:37:50 AM EST

Now about the gender bending issue about our society. Clear defined genders are what our society need.

Why?

This melding into a bland homogenous bullshit.

Oh I see, you can't stand your feminine side. Sorry.

Little tykes need some figure that they can identify with.

Yes, a positive figure. Male, female, if possible both.

I have one. Gramps.

Lets ee ....

Went into the WWII got shot twice by the germans. Came home after his enlistment was up.

And the merit of this is? How does this make him a better person (or man)? He went to a war he did not declare, was lucky enough to survive and come back home. So?

5 years and who knows how many million dead people later, these people in both sides made their countries proud. OK, only in your side, we know the others were all animals that did not deserve better than death.

I am just holding my tears.

Started his own business while working the family Oyster boat.

Oh my goodness! He made a living! How unusual!

I didn't know he was in the army or had serious flashbacks after he first got out until a couple of years ago. Man had a 80% blockage in an artery due to cholesteral. Thought it was a chest cold for 5 months. And what is sad is that I think he can still kick my ass if I get to uppity.

So he is, how can a put it mildly, careless enough about himself to ignore this kind of thing, and you are so unfit that don't feel you can overpower an 80+ year old with heart problems. OK, so what?

To me that is a man. Takes his licks from the world.

Oh I see, so a man has to be very macho to be one. Take the pain, suffer in silence, if possible flagelate yourself. That a man makes.

He also made his share of the world into what he wanted it to be.

By what? By making a living? By fighting a war engineered by the leaders of this world? Give me a break.

Don't tell me that by being aggressive and violent that you can't be a part of society.

No you can't. if you are violent and agressive you can go to jail. Try it and see what happens. You either supress that agression, channel it somewhere else or bite your tongue, but you can't be agressive or violent unless in very specific situations (self defense while being victim of an attack).

Wars do need to be fought and people who want things will go out and get them.

Some wars need to be fought. Those in which one country defends itself from agression unfortunately need to be fought. The agressor did not need to fight. But an agressor is in general "sick", so we are left with the grim task of containing those sick societies.

By your logic if I go now, beat the shit out of you and get your car, then I am a man and that is OK. Please send me your address.

And all this needs to be wiped away so that we can all hold hands?

It needs to be wiped away in order not to kill each other for wortheless reasons. Keep your hands to yourslef.

I am sure that there is a nice mirror image for women to want to relate. But that doesn't click on primal way for me like gramps does. Nature or nuture, I dunno.

I know many women that would laugh at your gramps "achievements", because they endured and suffered more, made their way in life all while suffering male contempt, and many men that could cry out of frustration and feel better about themselves and carry on with their lives.

Men that have feelings and show them are in my opinion more rounded human beings, humble enough to accept that things hurt.



Might is right
Freedom? Which freedom?
[ Parent ]

i'm not as worried about... (4.50 / 4) (#78)
by poltroon on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 02:13:56 AM EST

...day to day rudeness as more culturally pervasive representations of women (well, actually, not just women). I run into assholes regularly, as I'm sure you do too. I usually write them off, and when somebody goes out of their way to be nice to me, I feel really flattered. Certainly, if a woman snaps at you for a chivalric gesture, she doesn't really deserve further politeness from you, but if you're an asshole to her, please expect the same in return. I suppose there's a problem for some people with detecting what might offend someone, in which case it's good if they point it out. It doesn't mean you need to stop behaving in whatever way you were, or even give a crap that they were offended, but there's surely no point in them silently tolerating you to spare your feelings.

Anyway, my real point is that I'm more concerned about how women are represented in movies or the media. These impressions are lasting and often subtly screwed up, so people digest them without realizing what's wrong. Bell Hooks writes some interesting articles on representations of people in the movies. Here's an example, in case you're interested: Misogyny, gangsta rap, and The Piano

Wow. Follow that link. (none / 0) (#81)
by elenchos on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 02:44:02 AM EST

That article kicks ass. I didn't know bell hooks wrote like that.

The Brain, within its Groove
Runs evenly -- and true --
But let a Splinter swerve --
'Twere easier for You --
--Emily Dickinson, #556
[ Parent ]

that particular article... (none / 0) (#85)
by poltroon on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 03:56:08 AM EST

is included in her book, _Outlaw Culture_. I also especially like her book, _Reel to Real_, which collects a bunch of her articles about movies. It's captivating reading because they're movies everybody is familiar with, and she totally dismantles them, makes you see them differently. I was actually looking for that book for a while and couldn't find it at the main, obvious, even independent bookstores, but it turned out that Half Price Books had several pristine copies for like four bucks apiece...

[ Parent ]
Ripping up "The Piano" (none / 0) (#112)
by elenchos on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 01:11:19 PM EST

That was the first time I had read anything but gushing praise for "The Piano." Which is exactly her point. When you see everything from a white male point of view, you never even stop to consider, let alone critique, images of minoirites as subservient objects to be used as tools or materials serving the white male's purposes.

The Brain, within its Groove
Runs evenly -- and true --
But let a Splinter swerve --
'Twere easier for You --
--Emily Dickinson, #556
[ Parent ]

+1 if only because i'm French (2.33 / 3) (#83)
by thunderbee on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 03:44:58 AM EST

...and never heard about this! The sad truth is, they are right.

who? (none / 0) (#132)
by alprazolam on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 03:15:35 PM EST

the guy that said the environmental minister was a slut?

[ Parent ]
Is mysogyny worse in France? (3.00 / 2) (#87)
by Pseudonym on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 04:16:39 AM EST

Is this a worse problem in France than elsewhere?

I know that Parisiennes have a reputation for being rude; that's part of Paris culture. Of the half dozen or so French people I've met (one of them was from Brittany, though, so he might not count), none of them were particularly hostile to women.



sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Not on an individual level, AFAIK (none / 0) (#105)
by error 404 on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 11:02:07 AM EST

I haven't noticed it, anyway. But I understand that in political settings, it is a problem. Apparently, it is fairly common for a woman in politics to face that kind of heckling. Here in the US it might happen on rare occasions, but not enough to be a significant factor in whether a woman decides to run for office. Here in the US men might think the same about a woman in politics, but wouldn't often talk like that, in public, to her face. A man yelling "whore" at a political event in the US faces a serious risk of being slugged by the guy next to him. Even if the guy next to him agrees. It just Isn't Done.

This story is about politics. Cultural differences in politics tend to be extreme, compared to cultural differences in everyday life. Partly because politics is weird to begin with. I mean, look at the delegates at a National Convention. Can you imagine acting like that in public? About either Bush or Gore, not to mention every little functionary that takes the podium? Sheesh.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

So, where are the female bosses .. (2.50 / 4) (#102)
by Highlander on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 10:25:19 AM EST

that I can sleep my way to the top with ?

As a male, it is me who is really being discriminated against, not having that option.

Moderation in moderation is a good thing.

Chiennes de Garde, the Guard Bitches of France. | 134 comments (129 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!