Have you seen the videos of me breaking passing world records with another juggler? That's Ben Beever.
F'serious? I only heard about it secondhand, I've not seen any explicit details, but on further grilling, it seems said first hand got it from Small World News Service, who are not the most reliable. Asking him yourself is probably the best solution, but I'll keep my eye on it, just in case. It's the sort of story other news services - probably UK sources, like the Guardian or BBC - would pick up and run, if it were true.
I'm not going to ask him about it. He's not a close friend, and it would be weird to not chat for a year or so, and only now get in contact. I'll meet him again in the summer, and if it comes up we'll chat about it then.
Hey, I just remembered Ben hasn't been a school teacher for almost 2 years! Last time we spoke he said he was no a private tutor, and that it suited him better than teaching. He didn't go into the details about leaving his job, though I do remember him mentioning it. Not sure why this slipped my mind.
Sort of like Julie Bindel, who has spent many years promoting transphobia and transmysogyny/transmisandry pretty hardcore? Or the Suffragettes, who refused to allow African american women to join, and many of whose arguments were incredibly racist? Or the Birth control rights movement, the origins of which lie in preventing poor women from breeding, protection of 'racial integrity', and prevention of disability. As Margret Sanger - the one of the main originators of the movement - herself put it "birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives." The movement which is one of the two main sources of anti-porn hysteria, and actively disparages and ostracises any woman who has chosen to work in any part of the sex industry, with the only exception being when they treat them like victims instead of women who made a choice. The movement which trumpets the Male-female pay gap, but ignores the pay gap between White women and black women? Who ignore domestic violence as an issue unless directed against women? The movement who when you raise many of those points says "Not our problem, but we'll get to it eventually"?
The feminist movement is far, far from what it's cracked up to be, and even further from the definition of Feminisim - which is seeking equality for women, in all areas possible, without any distinctions of whom or what those women are, and without grinding anyone else under your stiletto heel to raise yourself up.
Hey, I just remembered Ben hasn't been a school teacher for almost 2 years! Last time we spoke he said he was no a private tutor, and that it suited him better than teaching. He didn't go into the details about leaving his job, though I do remember him mentioning it. Not sure why this slipped my mind.
Not really. I chatted to some friends online, and they said he told them he had been suspended, but didn't want to go into the details. The details are now up on this website. Sounds like someone not suited to working with teenagers was trying to be a teacher.
Not really. I chatted to some friends online, and they said he told them he had been suspended, but didn't want to go into the details. The details are now up on this website. Sounds like someone not suited to working with teenagers was trying to be a teacher.
Heh, I'd looked that up from the last time you pointed to the site and was coming back to report the details, but you got there first. Your assessment of the situation is what I'd consider the most accurate so far, though - Dude just wasn't suited for the job he was trying to do.
Sort of like Julie Bindel, who has spent many years promoting transphobia and transmysogyny/transmisandry pretty hardcore? Or the Suffragettes, who refused to allow African american women to join, and many of whose arguments were incredibly racist? Or the Birth control rights movement, the origins of which lie in preventing poor women from breeding, protection of 'racial integrity', and prevention of disability. As Margret Sanger - the one of the main originators of the movement - herself put it "birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives." The movement which is one of the two main sources of anti-porn hysteria, and actively disparages and ostracises any woman who has chosen to work in any part of the sex industry, with the only exception being when they treat them like victims instead of women who made a choice. The movement which trumpets the Male-female pay gap, but ignores the pay gap between White women and black women? Who ignore domestic violence as an issue unless directed against women? The movement who when you raise many of those points says "Not our problem, but we'll get to it eventually"?
The feminist movement is far, far from what it's cracked up to be, and even further from the definition of Feminisim - which is seeking equality for women, in all areas possible, without any distinctions of whom or what those women are, and without grinding anyone else under your stiletto heel to raise yourself up.
Most modern feminists are aware of all that stuff; head to most feminist sites and you'll see just as many articles on homophobia, transphobia or racism as you will on traditional sexism. The Third Wave is mostly about self-awareness and some of the biggest issues it faces are disentangling itself from some of the baggage of the first and second waves.
Also, large movement spanning more than a hundred years has had, and continues to have, members with fucked-up views, which people use to try and discredit the core messages and goals of the movement. News at 11.
Most modern feminists are aware of all that stuff;
Most? Citation needed, mate, It's only a very small minority that I've ever been able to observe, both through the internet and in person - in fact, most of the people who I see who are aware of these things are breaking away from feminism and the feminist movement, both because of these things, and because the majority of the movement either Doesn't know or doesn't fucking care - Shit, I've had fights with feminists and feminist groups, one of whom who petitioned to have me banned from every university campus in the city, because I was outright saying that they were supporters of a moment that has done all these horrible things, and continues to do all these horrible things - And don't give me that first and second wave bollocks till Greer, Bindle and the like are not upheld or given platforms as the voice of the feminist movement, because as much as there are a few bloggers which might be aware of the facts of the matter, Blogger does not equal "Popular media columnist and regulars in The Guardian, amongst others, with readership in the hundreds of thousands" - and that they absolutely must consider new directions and tactics for the moment if they want to remain relevant and respected in modern society, instead of the laughing stock and stereotype of hairy-legged man-hating harridans that they have become to the populace at large.
Of course, the problem is I said this on broadcast, to a listenership of a few hundred to a bit over a thousand internet listeners(most of them uni students or alumni), and to an audience of undetermined size(but of roughly the same size, it is estimated) on the FM band - thus making them somewhat angrier than if I'd just been saying it around the lunch table, since that's quite a decent audience for a campus station, particularly in England. However, I made it entertaining, but I was not abusive, nor did I rant, and I backed up my claims. But, because I disagreed with them, and because they thought I was attacking them and making things up, instead of reporting verifiable facts, they tried to have me run off campus.
Face it - Feminism and the majority of modern feminists are a group led by a very specific demographic, and are only concerned with the interests of that very specific demographic, and is a movement that will do anything to advance itself, even over the backs of other women.
Need an amusing example to try in your own hometown? A Feminist seeks gender equality, but by raising themselves up, not by oppression of others or at the expense of others, and regardless of any other designation. A Masculist seeks gender equality, but by raising themselves up, not by oppression of others or at the expense of others, regardless of any other designation. Therefore, it stands to reason, that a Feminist and a Masculist are, in fact, fighting for the same cause. Now, find a local feminist group(PROTIP - this works for Men's rights groups too, most of whom are not actual Masculists), or grab one of your friends who is a self declared feminist, and observe as the vast majority of them descend into a lovely frothy rage at the concept. Bonus points if they argue that this is impossible, because Masculists are for men's rights, and Feminists are for women's rights, without realizing that Gender Equality, regardless of which side you approach it from, means that everyone is equal in their rights and treatment, regardless of gender.
Also, large movement spanning more than a hundred years has had, and continues to have, members with fucked-up views, which people use to try and discredit the core messages and goals of the movement. News at 11.
Oh piss off. Half problem is that they'll let any crazy shitbag hitch their wagon onto the train, as long as they play to the demographic and declare themselves a feminist. Another part of the problem is that they forget their own history, and continue that history by both forgetting it occurred, and by saying that any problem that isn't their specific demographic either isn't a problem or that it isn't their problem (But they'll get to it eventually, maybe).
How about this - An organization which has done a whole host of fucked up things for fucked up reasons continues to behave in a fucked up manner, because it's members choose to forget or ignore the organization's fucked up history, and/or ignore problems that don't fit their extensively detailed criteria of "Is this our issue" which falls back being a simple "Can we get out of caring about this since it isn't our specific demographic?" quandry. I'm not wearing any pants, and The Popcorn you're eating has now been pissed in. News at eleven.
The feminist movement is far, far from what it's cracked up to be, and even further from the definition of Feminisim - which is seeking equality for women, in all areas possible, without any distinctions of whom or what those women are, and without grinding anyone else under your stiletto heel to raise yourself up.
Actually, most of the feminists I know, including myself, strive for erasure of social stratification and bigotry in general. I find it always a shame when any oppressed group rejects another, such as the black community in California voting for prop 8. I think all in all any movement that strives for equality of people is pretty good, but like any human endeavor of course it has its flaws and bad apples. Sometimes, I think that you, as a white man, feel put upon by "feminism" judging from your comments. I also think that you tend to judge it by the most obnoxious individuals you have come in contact with. Whenever we (feminists) state that things still aren't equal, those in the privileged group get all annoyed and cry "but what about the mens!?" As a feminist, it means to me nothing more than the equal distribution of power. Often those in power view that as a threat, but need to understand that while feminists want to spread around the excess power that non-feminists are using to make life difficult for us, we don't seek a reversal of the situation, but merely don't want to get sat upon all the time. Also, feminists generally don't like stilletos. They are ouch and a symbol of our status as a sex class.
Edit: Wow, Churba, you really are kind of oblivious about feminism. It is not an organization. It just means "equal rights for women." Some feminists fight for it by doing their own thing and being friendly and forming allegiances with others, and some are crazy angry people who want all men to die in a fire. They are both feminists, just like the scary lolicon reading otaku and the professional animator girl both are animation fans and want animation to get popular. I cannot say that that scary otaku is not an animation fan, but that doesn't mean that I will stop calling myself one.
I'm not saying that the feminist movement is perfect. It's got it's problems, it's got some serious blind spots, it has some shitty history. It's that shit I spend most of my time in profeminist circles trying to change. But guess what? Feminists ought to be trying to raise themselves up at the expense of men. You can't have equality when the other side is more than equal. Look up the concept of privilege sometime, just try to grasp all the stuff you take for granted as a straight white male (From what I can tell from your personal information, that is what you are). There are sacrifices that men are going to have to make so women can be equal, and I understand if you can't handle the concept but it's true.
True enough. All I'm saying is that one can be a feminist, equalist, humanist, pro-nerd, pro-(insert culture/race/class here). All it takes for you to be included is to believe that women are equal to every other group and should not be oppressed. You can be a bad person and believe this, or you can be a good person. You are still a feminist. To say otherwise is a "No True Scotsman."
There are sacrifices that men are going to have to make so women can be equal, and I understand if you can't handle the concept but it's true.
Indeed. But it's just basically like raising taxes on the rich so the poor don't starve. We are taking away some of men's power, but only to equalize things. To whit: When men can own women and tell them what to do, they have more power, but it is unfair. We do want to take away that extra mean power, but we don't want to oppress them in our stead.
Edit: Solidarity Llama FTW. I also thought of a good example. Crazy woowoo hippies care about rabbits. I care about rabbits. I am not going to say I am not pro-rabbit because some crystal reiki homeopathy granola lady also likes them. I am not going to stop calling myself a feminist for the same reason.
Emily, Sketchbook, apologies for length. Everyone else, meh, you're going to scroll past it anyway, get that finger working.
Actually, most of the feminists I know, including myself, strive for erasure of social stratification and bigotry in general.
That's merely the definition - You fall under the definition, but that doesn't mean you have to ONLY do those things. According to Dictionary.com, feminisim is defined as - 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
And By Wikipedia as "...a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women."
And that's the most basic definition I'm going by. It does not exclude anything else. Not only does being for gender equality not mean that you can't also be for racial equality nor vice versa, logically, if you're seeking equality for women, then you're going to have to address some issues of race, disability, sexuality, and so on, too. If you are seeking the attainment of such rights, then you are looking to acquire rights equal to those of others, not remove rights from others so that they are brought down to your level.
ometimes, I think that you, as a white man, feel put upon by "feminism" judging from your comments.
Absolutely Wrong. I feel annoyed by people who behave in the manner of the majority of feminists - I provided my own example, since I'm extremely familiar with it, and expected to be grilled about the situation, so I figure, go with what I know. In that case, I was pretty certainly put upon, but not because I'm a white male, but because I was speaking of facts and expressing an opinion they didn't like, which they then tried to suppress instead of disprove. It's similar to if I were a teacher, teaching evolution, and there was a creationist protest group trying to run me out of town for it - I'm not being targeted because I'm an atheist, but because I'm saying something factual that disagrees with their point of view. They got angry because I expressed dissent as a feminist with the direction of the overall movement, and with particular attention given to many higher profile feminists, with the horrors of feminist history being told because that's the very history the movement that need to be avoided.
Also, I'm legitimately shocked you made that assumption - as I would consider it of itself a sexist assumption, as you think that it's an issue of gender, not behavior, and it seems out of line with your previously stated position. My annoyance and distaste with feminists would be exactly the same if the issue was race, sexuality, disability, or any bloody thing. I'm even more annoyed with the majority of the Masculist/Men's rights movement, for mostly the same reasons, just with the genders reversed. It's about their behavior, not their cause, and has nothing to do with my gender or race, or their gender or race. Unacceptable behavior is unacceptable behavior, regardless of the source or cause they subscribe to.
I also think that you tend to judge it by the most obnoxious individuals you have come in contact with.
Well, yes, because the vast majority of Individuals I come into contact with who identify with the movement are most obnoxious. The feminists such as yourself and Mrs Macross who tend towards actual equality and the erasure of all bigotry and discrimination are the minority, not just of Feminists I've encountered(of which feminists like yourself are so small of a minority that it's like an ant standing on an elephant), and unfortunately, bigots like Greer and Bindel are still the leaders(in the vague sense that the movement has leaders), heroes, and some of the most vocal and popular spokespeople for Feminism. If the Majority I encounter or can observe are most Obnoxious then is it not reasonable to judge the majority of the group as obnoxious, with a minority of people who are not?
Whenever we (feminists) state that things still aren't equal, those in the privileged group get all annoyed and cry "but what about the mens!?"
I'm not saying "what about the Mens!?", I'm saying "What about this absolute bullshit way you're conducting yourself?" - And yes, I include you in the larger group which is behaving in a bullshit fashion, because you are including yourself into that group, because while I don't hold you personally responsible for such things(you don't behave in that fashion) I do hold you responsible for the actions of an overall group you are a self declared member of. Yes, There is a pay gap between Men and women. But why is the pay gap between white women and black women never mentioned or fought about - if you want to put it in catchphrase terms, It would be a much more powerful point to campaign that White women make 72.6% of what White men do on average, and that black women make only 61.9% of what your average white man makes.
It might be because then it would also have to be said that Asian women make 81.1 percent as much as White men, which doesn't sound as good. But it would also be shown that black women make only 85.27% less than white women on average. Or that Asian women make 111.7 percent of what White women make, 131% of what black women make, and 159.8% of what hispanic women make. Or that White and asian women make, on average, more than black, hispanic or native american men. And all of that that would draw attention away from the fact that white women are only paid, on average, 72.59% on average of what white men are paid, which is coincidentally, one of the statistics about the pay of women you hear trumpeted the loudest.
As a feminist, it means to me nothing more than the equal distribution of power.
As what would be best described as both Masculist and Feminist, Ditto. When you're talking gender politics specifically, because otherwise we'd be here all night listing "ists" that amount to the base position that we both agree that bigotry or discrimination of any stripe is unacceptable.
Wow, Churba, you really are kind of oblivious about feminism. It is not an organization. It just means "equal rights for women."
I already previously covered this, however, to repeat - Wikipedia defines feminism as "...a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women" and the Dictionary.com definition includes the definition of "an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women." While it is not an organization in the same way as a sporting club, corporation, or church, it is a larger movement which encompasses many smaller movements on individual issues which share a common goal.
Some feminists fight for it by doing their own thing and being friendly and forming allegiances with others, and some are crazy angry people who want all men to die in a fire. They are both feminists, just like the scary lolicon reading otaku and the professional animator girl both are animation fans and want animation to get popular.
No, they're absolutely not both feminists. The former group are, indeed, feminists. The latter group are not, as they are not seeking equality by gaining equal rights, they are seeking the oppression of others by putting their rights ahead of other people's. Essentially, instead of introducing equality, simply reversing the direction in which the inequality flows. You Can't get around this problem by just saying " Well, They want to oppress the more powerful group instead of raising everyone up to the same level, gut they have some things in common with me, so I guess it's okay they they call themselves feminists."
For example, the Suffrage movement in America was NOT, by definition, a feminist movement, because they excluded black women. The founder of the Reproductive rights movement was not by definition a feminist, as she was doing it for racial purity and to weed out people with disabilities though eugenics, and Not only openly said so, but still promoted birth control for those very purposes up until the day she died, In the midst of the 60's feminist movement, who were celebrating her and her role in creating the contraceptive pill.
There was a movement down here to allow women in public bars in the 70s - That WAS a feminist movement, as it was about all women gaining the right to drink in Australian public venues. The Australian women's suffrage movement WAS a feminist movement, because it made no destinctions of race or class, it called for ALL Australian women to have the right to vote, including black women, despite that indigenous Australians did not officially have the legal right to vote till the 60s(though this law was often ignored or circumvented, including by South Australia, where the state itself outright refused to enforce or follow the law.)
See what I'm getting at here? You can push for equality for women by ignoring the plight of the majority of women, nor can you push for equality by trying to oppress or tear down someone with those rights. To Raise Yourself without lowering others.
Emily, I honestly do not understand why - when you call yourself part of this larger movement - that you do not seem concerned nor seem willing to speak out against the actions of others within your group which are not in line with your supposed common cause, even when these actions are absolutely fucking abhorrent. While I don't expect such a large reaction from you - It's no secret that I'm a very loud, mouthy bastard, particularly when it comes to my favored causes - I will certainly attest that as a Feminist, I am absolutely furious at the behavior of some people who call themselves Feminists and yet use the name of feminism to spew bigotry, such as Julie Bindel(to pick up a dead horse of an example and continue to flog it), who contradicts the very feminist principles she laid out as fundamental principles of the feminist movement, which are(with said contradictions in brackets) that Gender is a social construct and malleable(unless you try to change yours), That Biology is not destiny (except men are always men and women are always women), that Bodily autonomy is something all women struggle for(but not something trans women are competent enough for) and that Misogyny is evil(unless it is directed at a trans woman, even if, as is often the case, no one knows she is trans). She's also very vocally against the sex industry, particularly against Pornography and the legalization and regulation of prostitution, and has stated in the past that she's against the idea that men can be feminists. I am truly and honestly baffled why you seem utterly unconcerned with this, while simultaneously self-identifying as a feminist.
Bisexual white male, but pretty much.
It's really rather a bit more complex than that - but yes, if you want to really give the words a good stretching to save time and pissing about, "White, Bisexual and male" propably fits the bill well enough. Thank you correcting, by the way.
I'm not saying that the feminist movement is perfect.
I never said you did. However, I am saying the movement as a whole is like an old abandoned house - There's good wood in there, but much of it is rotting, warped broken, and needs to be either corrected and fixed, or removed and replaced.
It's got it's problems, it's got some serious blind spots, it has some shitty history.
Absolutely - Problems and blind spots that need to be either corrected, or excised like a tumor, and history that needs to be known and taught as a lesson, so that it's not repeated, not just blindly celebrated without any examination of it's problems.
It's that shit I spend most of my time in profeminist circles trying to change.
Onya mate. Don't give up.
But guess what? Feminists ought to be trying to raise themselves up at the expense of men. You can't have equality when the other side is more than equal. Look up the concept of privilege sometime, just try to grasp all the stuff you take for granted as a straight white male (From what I can tell from your personal information, that is what you are). There are sacrifices that men are going to have to make so women can be equal, and I understand if you can't handle the concept but it's true.
Aaaand you're wrong.
As much as I'm tempted to get rather angry and instead of arguing and simply scorch the earth because of your condescending, patronizing bullshit like "Look up the concept of privilege sometime", I won't, because while that would amuse me, it would achieve little. Better to disabuse you of your incorrect assumptions and teach you better than to make the same stupid mistake again, than it would be to abuse you for those assumptions, no matter how much you could learn about skilled verbal abuse from such an exchange.
First, The concept you're looking for is Male Privilege, not just Privilege. Privilege is something enjoyed by a certain person or group above the advantage of others, often in the form of a special(but not fundamental) right or immunity, and both as a concept and as a defined term, has nothing to do with being a straight white male, or any other combination of sexuality, gender/biological identity, and race. Male Privilege is the specific that men are granted specific privileges not afforded to women or Transgendered people, and I'm already extremely familiar with the concept.
Equal rights is, essentially, the reason I'm both a card-carrying feminist, and a card-carrying masculist. Because Men deserve equal rights to women, and women deserve equal rights to men. Privilege is what goes above and beyond one's rights. If you are advocating for men to lose some rights, then that is not raising women up, it is dragging men down. The removal of Male Privilege will occur when women have equal rights to men, simply because when women have exactly equal rights to men, Male privilege is not possible.
Allow me to give you an example - There was an expo down here which was to occur, which targeted itself at Men, called Blokesworld Exhibition. It was full of Entertainment, products, shows, health, fitness, leisure, fashion, and so on for men. It was strongly protested by feminist groups(amusingly, to the outrage of many of the women employed at the event, especially some erotic entertainers, who the feminist groups were actively portraying as victims.) Women were perfectly welcome to the event, if they chose, they were in no way barred or discouraged from coming - in fact, they were outright encouraged to come along. Eventually, they compromised on one area, and removed the male focus from the adult entertainment area, with the reasoning that a Man should not only be able to enjoy his own erotic entertainment, but should also be able to share erotic entertainment with his partner, and thus, the adult entertainment area was re-focused to both genders equally. This expo was forced out of existence 15 hours before it opened even then, by the city council, under continued pressure from feminist groups.
Pop quiz - Is stopping this expo from occurring feminist, or sexist?
Surprising answer - It's absolutely sexist. Every year, the Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre hosts The Women's Exhibition, which includes Entertainment, products, shows, health, fitness, leisure, fashion, and so on for Women - though men are not banned, they are not encouraged in any way to come, nor are they really ever mentioned - which includes an adult entertainment section, which is exclusively focused on women, and which has included male strippers previously(Which I'll admit were particularly well done, and I enjoyed immensely). If equality was actually sought in this case, then the event would have gone ahead, simply because if it is acceptable for one gender to have such an event, it is acceptable for the other gender to have such an event. Equal rights do not mean that women should have a free pass to have such an event, while Men cannot.
Also, Please familiarize yourself with Female privilege. I'm sure that there are quite a few female privilege checklists which are good counterparts to the much spoken of male privilege checklists, and if not, here's a good place for you to start and compose one - if you actually care about equality - As a woman, I am less likely to suffer domestic abuse than a man, likewise less likely to suffer serious violent domestic abuse, and if I am one of the unacceptably high percentage of women who suffer domestic abuse, not only am I more encouraged and likely to report it, I have access to much, much more in the way of support services. And let me inform you as a victim of domestic abuse - a long ordeal which culminated in her breaking a coffee mug over my head, fracturing my skull, and then playfully tugging the phone away from me by the cord when I tried to crawl to it to call an ambulance. I was in a coma for three days, and she got Jail time. Just kidding, she got sentenced to anger management counseling and a domestic abuse counseling, which she got out of after a month - there is fuck all support for male victims of domestic abuse.
If you're really about equal rights and not just reversing the flow of oppression and privilege, then I extremely strongly encourage you to consider your position and what you know about feminism and being a feminist.
Nice, Churba! Okay, that was a good response! Sorry I said you were panty-bunched about the feminists. I just think that some times you bitch about this vague movement, and that's the only reason. I will always speak out against jerky people even if they are on my side, and I agree, the women who want to make the patriarchy a matriarchy are not feminists by the "equal" definition. I guess that as long as a person conforms to the vague definition, I can't No True Scotsman them, nor am I going to stop calling myself a feminist.
If you are advocating for men to lose some rights, then that is not raising women up, it is dragging men down. The removal of Male Privilege will occur when women have equal rights to men, simply because when women have exactly equal rights to men, Male privilege is not possible.
Not rights, but power. You know, the kind that lets men treat them women like slaves and do genital mutilation and stuff in some parts of the world. No one should have the power that limits other's rights. But I guess it's just like how I feel about physical strength and karate skills! I don't want to be strong so I can beat up others! I want to be strong so I don't get beat up!
Re: Porn. I've stated before that porn is totally sexist and objectifying, but that is only because society is this way. A society's weird hang-ups find their way into the porn and the sex in a big way. I have no problem with people engaging with consensual sex or making pictures about it. I think it was partly the name of the Expo. It was "blokesworld?" Why not Sexy World! It makes it sound like it is only catering to men's sexual desires. I don't like that like I don't like the dopey woman's network on Television.
And let me inform you as a victim of domestic abuse - a long ordeal which culminated in her breaking a coffee mug over my head, fracturing my skull, and then playfully tugging the phone away from me by the cord when I tried to crawl to it to call an ambulance. I was in a coma for three days, and she got Jail time. Just kidding, she got sentenced to anger management counseling and a domestic abuse counseling, which she got out of after a month - there is fuck all support for male victims of domestic abuse.
We just got into an argument about hitting girls at work, myself defending the idea that while it is not nice to hit someone weaker than you, if they come after you, you should use reasonable self-defense. I think that it should be totally equal, and it should be about size, rather than gender. If you would be legally justified in hitting a man of the same strength and size, you should be justified in hitting a woman as well.
We just got into an argument about hitting girls at work, myself defending the idea that while it is not nice to hit someone weaker than you, if they come after you, you should use reasonable self-defense. I think that it should be totally equal, and it should be about size, rather than gender. If you would be legally justified in hitting a man of the same strength and size, you should be justified in hitting a woman as well.
So this guy I know - Toki Redbeard - told me a story about one of the only female knights he had ever heard of in the SCA.
See, to be a knight, you have to be a heavy fighter, and well-rounded in other areas. You also need to be chivalrous and shit, which usually manifests as being courteous to ladies. A little patronizing, perhaps, but everyone involved knows what they're getting into, so it's all good.
Part of the knighting ceremony involves the king (naturally) being the one doing the elevating. You get a bunch of stuff, tons of respect, swear fealty and so on, and then - at the end of the ceremony - the king does something awesome.
He says something to the effect of "Let this be the last blow you take unanswered," and then punches you in the fucking face.
So there was this one particular female heavy fighter - a rare sight to be sure - who managed to fight her way to knighthood. At the ceremony, the king was, naturally, torn; do you uphold the virtues of chivalry as you've sworn, or do you go through with the ceremony as though she were any other knight? After some deliberation, and baited breath, he did the right thing.
He said, "Let this be the last blow you take unanswered" and punched her in the goddamn face.
The moral of this story is: gender equality needs to mean equality. If you want to "run with the big boys," that's fine, but we're going to treat you exactly like one of us. To do anything else is selling everyone short.
You know, I still firmly believe that every office should have at least one cot that's always ready for people to use it. I would be using the shit out of it right now.
Nice, Churba! Okay, that was a good response! Sorry I said you were panty-bunched about the feminists. I just think that some times you bitch about this vague movement, and that's the only reason. I will always speak out against jerky people even if they are on my side, and I agree, the women who want to make the patriarchy a matriarchy are not feminists by the "equal" definition. I guess that as long as a person conforms to the vague definition, I can't No True Scotsman them, nor am I going to stop calling myself a feminist.
It's okay - I hope I didn't come across as being narky at you, I tried hard not to be dickish, and I don't know so much if I succeeded. While shocked, I'm not offended by the assertion - I know you didn't mean it with mallice, you were just speaking what you thought was most likely to be the truth, and I've never really made crystal clear my position before. Looking back, it was a somewhat reasonable call to make, considering.
Not rights, but power. You know, the kind that lets men treat them women like slaves and do genital mutilation and stuff in some parts of the world. No one should have the power that limits other's rights. But I guess it's just like how I feel about physical strength and karate skills! I don't want to be strong so I can beat up others! I want to be strong so I don't get beat up!
That I agree with - In retrospect, I should have said that when women have rights equal to men, Male privilege becomes untenable, and will then die out, which is a much more accurate representation of my line of thought - It won't be instant, but after all, when women have the same rights as men, then it becomes unreasonable and illogical to continue male privilege, to the point of it becoming rapidly - as in, within a generation - impossible. Because if women are truly equal to men, then there is no reason for men to have any privileges above that which women receive, barring a small few based on biology - for example, a woman should be given extra consideration for, say, time off around when she's giving birth, even though men obviously can't have that privilege.
Re: Porn. I've stated before that porn is totally sexist and objectifying, but that is only because society is this way. A society's weird hang-ups find their way into the porn and the sex in a big way. I have no problem with people engaging with consensual sex or making pictures about it.
I agree wholeheartedly. We - western society in general - need to relax about consenting naked people and pictures of them in such a state.
I think it was partly the name of the Expo. It was "blokesworld?" Why not Sexy World! It makes it sound like it is only catering to men's sexual desires. I don't like that like I don't like the dopey woman's network on Television.
There was a reason for that - because it was hosted, run, organised, and conceptualized originally by a show called Blokesworld - which was essentially the same Parody of men, male behavior and male stereotypes that you get from The Man Show, combined with genuine health and sexual advice from, say, Dr Drew on loveline, and the entertainment, and news sort of things from Oprah, with some food channel thrown in for fun. Essentially, the show was the TV version of the Expo, and since it was the first occurrence of this, and blokesworld was nationally recognized for being what it was, the logical step was to call it The Blokesworld Expo.
Actually, one of the despicable things I heard from the feminists responding to the issue was "Sure, We have The Women's Expo, but They have The Brisbane Motorshow AND the Brisbane boat show!" You have not yet seen me so apoleptic with rage as I was at that moment.
Because if women are truly equal to men, then there is no reason for men to have any privileges above that which women receive, barring a small few based on biology - for example, a woman should be given extra consideration for, say, time off around when she's giving birth, even though men obviously can't have that privilege.
In Sweden (and elsewhere as well, increasingly) I know that they have "parental leave," where anyone becoming a new parent can opt to take a sabbatical for a maximum of 480 days, paid, without losing their job, and can often opt for more unpaid time after that. Lots of European nations are trying to get equality for working parents.
On a similar note, I think Selective Service should be expanded to include women. No reason why only men have to register for the draft.
I agree. I remember when there was a girl who made a big deal because her male friends had to sign up and she didn't and people were like "WTF, you crazy?!" I am not going to fight specifically to get drafted, but if that is a side effect of true equality so be it. You have to take the bitter medicine with the good.
Actually, one of the despicable things I heard from the feminists responding to the issue was "Sure, We have The Women's Expo, but They have The Brisbane Motorshow AND the Brisbane boat show!"
OMGWTFBBQ. I can see why you get pissed off at these commentators. People be dumb.
The moral of this story is: gender equality needs to mean equality. If you want to "run with the big boys," that's fine, but we're going to treat you exactly like one of us. To do anything else is selling everyone short.
It's like Rym talking about playing games. If you don't try your hardest against someone, that is an insult to their ability. If you take it easy on girls, it is no good. Not at all saying you should go around punching people, but if a girl contests you at anything for serious, to treat her as less than a worthy opponent is to demean her.
We just got into an argument about hitting girls at work, myself defending the idea that while it is not nice to hit someone weaker than you, if they come after you, you should use reasonable self-defense. I think that it should be totally equal, and it should be about size, rather than gender. If you would be legally justified in hitting a man of the same strength and size, you should be justified in hitting a woman as well.
Pretty much, yep. If someone is actually attacking you, defend yourself by whatever means necessary and reasonable. Someone tries slap you across the face, just block it, no need to break them. However, someone goes for their gun and will not stop till you are dead, you slot them, immediately. No warning shots, warning shots are bullshit - if you shoot, you shoot to kill. If you don't shoot to kill, then you do not shoot at all.
You also need to be chivalrous and shit, which usually manifests as being courteous to ladies.
This sentence made me grin like an idiot.
On a similar note, I think Selective Service should be expanded to include women. No reason why only men have to register for the draft.
Actually, that's something that shits me off severely about the US and Australian forces - Women do not serve, for the most part, in combat roles, and are generally not eligible for combat pay.
Fuck. That. Noise.
Do you have control of your mental faculties and Can you handle yourself competently in combat? In other words - Can you do your fucking job? Yes to all of the above, then here's your rifle, go go go. Last I checked, your standard issue Mark I Mod 0 Genitals, Human do not affect how you fire your weapon, or if you can do your fucking job. In fact, if you can do your job, then your genitals are not any of my fucking business, nor do I care to make them so. If Soldier gonna soldi competently, who gives a toss?
And yet, you get resistance from all sorts, for all sorts of ludicrous reasons - though, I must admit, I did find it incredibly amusing when it came up on the news recently here, and they interviewed a Nam veteran about the issue, and he said "Women in the infantry, you can't have that. You get a woman in your foxhole, you know what'd happen, ay, you know what'd go on." and then he suddenly shouts "YOU'D BE TRYIN' TA' ROOT HER!" and I just completely lost it.
I agree. I remember when there was a girl who made a big deal because her male friends had to sign up and she didn't and people were like "WTF, you crazy?!" I am not going to fight specifically to get drafted, but if that is a side effect of true equality so be it. You have to take the bitter medicine with the good.
Agreed. The draft is not exactly the best thing in the world, however, the reason women are excluded from Selective service is because the system is aimed at drafting combat troops, and as previously mentioned, women are not allowed for the most part to take active combat roles. If women are allowed to take on active combat roles, then I'd say Selective service registration will come soon after, which is entirely reasonable - If you're going to be eligible to be a combat trooper, you shouldn't be excluded from the selective service system - as you say, gotta take the Bitter medicine with the sweet.
OMGWTFBBQ. I can see why you get pissed off at these commentators. People be dumb.
Agreed. The draft is not exactly the best thing in the world, however, the reason women are excluded from Selective service is because the system is aimed at drafting combat troops, and as previously mentioned, women are not allowed for the most part to take active combat roles. If women are allowed to take on active combat roles, then I'd say Selective service registration will come soon after, which is entirely reasonable - If you're going to be eligible to be a combat trooper, you shouldn't be excluded from the selective service system - as you say, gotta take the Bitter medicine with the sweet.
The thing is, I no longer think this is really relevant. There are so many non-combat and semi-combat roles in the military these days that women, even if still barred from combat, can still serve an active role. Someone has to drive supply trucks, fly scouting helicopters (women current do this), and so on. Actually, and I may be wrong here, I think the only combat roles women aren't allowed to serve in these days are boots on the ground infantry. I already mentioned they are allowed to fly scouting helicopters and I believe they are allowed to fly combat aircraft. About the only argument against women serving ground infantry that kind of makes sense to me is if they feel that women are unable to meet the physical demands of the role. This is certainly plausible, given how all other things being equal, men are physically stronger than women and that difference in strength may come into effect if you're marching into combat with 40 lbs of equipment strapped to your back. However, there is no reason to bar them from more skill-oriented roles.
About the only argument against women serving ground infantry that kind of makes sense to me is if they feel that women are unable to meet the physical demands of the role.
While I personally disagree - if only because if a woman couldn't do that, then she wouldn't make it through training for that role, and therefore, she wouldn't do it, and if she can, she can - I see your point. And no, we certainly shouldn't bar them from any other roles, but I suppose the argument just comes down to "If she can make it through and do her job competently, why shouldn't she be allowed?" - of course, part of doing her job competently means making it through the training. If you can't make it through, then you don't get through, just like the men.
About the only argument against women serving ground infantry that kind of makes sense to me is if they feel that women are unable to meet the physical demands of the role.
While I personally disagree - if only because if a woman couldn't do that, then she wouldn't make it through training for that role, and therefore, she wouldn't do it, and if she can, she can - I see your point. And no, we certainly shouldn't bar them from any other roles, but I suppose the argument just comes down to "If she can make it through and do her job competently, why shouldn't she be allowed?" - of course, part of doing her job competently means making it through the training. If you can't make it through, then you don't get through, just like the men.
Agreed. It's entirely possible a woman can make it through basic training (which may involve marching with 40 lbs of equipment strapped to your back), but may not be able to handle special forces training which is more strenuous. Then again, there may also be the uncommon woman who can also do the special forces training.
Comments
Zach Braff will eat your soul!!!
The movement which is one of the two main sources of anti-porn hysteria, and actively disparages and ostracises any woman who has chosen to work in any part of the sex industry, with the only exception being when they treat them like victims instead of women who made a choice.
The movement which trumpets the Male-female pay gap, but ignores the pay gap between White women and black women? Who ignore domestic violence as an issue unless directed against women? The movement who when you raise many of those points says "Not our problem, but we'll get to it eventually"?
The feminist movement is far, far from what it's cracked up to be, and even further from the definition of Feminisim - which is seeking equality for women, in all areas possible, without any distinctions of whom or what those women are, and without grinding anyone else under your stiletto heel to raise yourself up. Curiouser and curiouser.
Also, large movement spanning more than a hundred years has had, and continues to have, members with fucked-up views, which people use to try and discredit the core messages and goals of the movement. News at 11.
Of course, the problem is I said this on broadcast, to a listenership of a few hundred to a bit over a thousand internet listeners(most of them uni students or alumni), and to an audience of undetermined size(but of roughly the same size, it is estimated) on the FM band - thus making them somewhat angrier than if I'd just been saying it around the lunch table, since that's quite a decent audience for a campus station, particularly in England. However, I made it entertaining, but I was not abusive, nor did I rant, and I backed up my claims. But, because I disagreed with them, and because they thought I was attacking them and making things up, instead of reporting verifiable facts, they tried to have me run off campus.
Face it - Feminism and the majority of modern feminists are a group led by a very specific demographic, and are only concerned with the interests of that very specific demographic, and is a movement that will do anything to advance itself, even over the backs of other women.
Need an amusing example to try in your own hometown? A Feminist seeks gender equality, but by raising themselves up, not by oppression of others or at the expense of others, and regardless of any other designation. A Masculist seeks gender equality, but by raising themselves up, not by oppression of others or at the expense of others, regardless of any other designation. Therefore, it stands to reason, that a Feminist and a Masculist are, in fact, fighting for the same cause. Now, find a local feminist group(PROTIP - this works for Men's rights groups too, most of whom are not actual Masculists), or grab one of your friends who is a self declared feminist, and observe as the vast majority of them descend into a lovely frothy rage at the concept. Bonus points if they argue that this is impossible, because Masculists are for men's rights, and Feminists are for women's rights, without realizing that Gender Equality, regardless of which side you approach it from, means that everyone is equal in their rights and treatment, regardless of gender. Oh piss off. Half problem is that they'll let any crazy shitbag hitch their wagon onto the train, as long as they play to the demographic and declare themselves a feminist. Another part of the problem is that they forget their own history, and continue that history by both forgetting it occurred, and by saying that any problem that isn't their specific demographic either isn't a problem or that it isn't their problem (But they'll get to it eventually, maybe).
How about this - An organization which has done a whole host of fucked up things for fucked up reasons continues to behave in a fucked up manner, because it's members choose to forget or ignore the organization's fucked up history, and/or ignore problems that don't fit their extensively detailed criteria of "Is this our issue" which falls back being a simple "Can we get out of caring about this since it isn't our specific demographic?" quandry. I'm not wearing any pants, and The Popcorn you're eating has now been pissed in. News at eleven.
Sometimes, I think that you, as a white man, feel put upon by "feminism" judging from your comments. I also think that you tend to judge it by the most obnoxious individuals you have come in contact with. Whenever we (feminists) state that things still aren't equal, those in the privileged group get all annoyed and cry "but what about the mens!?" As a feminist, it means to me nothing more than the equal distribution of power. Often those in power view that as a threat, but need to understand that while feminists want to spread around the excess power that non-feminists are using to make life difficult for us, we don't seek a reversal of the situation, but merely don't want to get sat upon all the time.
Also, feminists generally don't like stilletos. They are ouch and a symbol of our status as a sex class.
Edit: Wow, Churba, you really are kind of oblivious about feminism. It is not an organization. It just means "equal rights for women." Some feminists fight for it by doing their own thing and being friendly and forming allegiances with others, and some are crazy angry people who want all men to die in a fire. They are both feminists, just like the scary lolicon reading otaku and the professional animator girl both are animation fans and want animation to get popular. I cannot say that that scary otaku is not an animation fan, but that doesn't mean that I will stop calling myself one.
[Link to come later.]
All I'm saying is that one can be a feminist, equalist, humanist, pro-nerd, pro-(insert culture/race/class here).
All it takes for you to be included is to believe that women are equal to every other group and should not be oppressed. You can be a bad person and believe this, or you can be a good person. You are still a feminist. To say otherwise is a "No True Scotsman." Indeed. But it's just basically like raising taxes on the rich so the poor don't starve. We are taking away some of men's power, but only to equalize things. To whit: When men can own women and tell them what to do, they have more power, but it is unfair. We do want to take away that extra mean power, but we don't want to oppress them in our stead.
Edit: Solidarity Llama FTW.
I also thought of a good example. Crazy woowoo hippies care about rabbits. I care about rabbits. I am not going to say I am not pro-rabbit because some crystal reiki homeopathy granola lady also likes them. I am not going to stop calling myself a feminist for the same reason.
According to Dictionary.com, feminisim is defined as -
1.
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2.
(sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
And By Wikipedia as
"...a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women."
And that's the most basic definition I'm going by. It does not exclude anything else. Not only does being for gender equality not mean that you can't also be for racial equality nor vice versa, logically, if you're seeking equality for women, then you're going to have to address some issues of race, disability, sexuality, and so on, too. If you are seeking the attainment of such rights, then you are looking to acquire rights equal to those of others, not remove rights from others so that they are brought down to your level. Absolutely Wrong. I feel annoyed by people who behave in the manner of the majority of feminists - I provided my own example, since I'm extremely familiar with it, and expected to be grilled about the situation, so I figure, go with what I know. In that case, I was pretty certainly put upon, but not because I'm a white male, but because I was speaking of facts and expressing an opinion they didn't like, which they then tried to suppress instead of disprove. It's similar to if I were a teacher, teaching evolution, and there was a creationist protest group trying to run me out of town for it - I'm not being targeted because I'm an atheist, but because I'm saying something factual that disagrees with their point of view. They got angry because I expressed dissent as a feminist with the direction of the overall movement, and with particular attention given to many higher profile feminists, with the horrors of feminist history being told because that's the very history the movement that need to be avoided.
Also, I'm legitimately shocked you made that assumption - as I would consider it of itself a sexist assumption, as you think that it's an issue of gender, not behavior, and it seems out of line with your previously stated position. My annoyance and distaste with feminists would be exactly the same if the issue was race, sexuality, disability, or any bloody thing. I'm even more annoyed with the majority of the Masculist/Men's rights movement, for mostly the same reasons, just with the genders reversed. It's about their behavior, not their cause, and has nothing to do with my gender or race, or their gender or race. Unacceptable behavior is unacceptable behavior, regardless of the source or cause they subscribe to. Well, yes, because the vast majority of Individuals I come into contact with who identify with the movement are most obnoxious. The feminists such as yourself and Mrs Macross who tend towards actual equality and the erasure of all bigotry and discrimination are the minority, not just of Feminists I've encountered(of which feminists like yourself are so small of a minority that it's like an ant standing on an elephant), and unfortunately, bigots like Greer and Bindel are still the leaders(in the vague sense that the movement has leaders), heroes, and some of the most vocal and popular spokespeople for Feminism. If the Majority I encounter or can observe are most Obnoxious then is it not reasonable to judge the majority of the group as obnoxious, with a minority of people who are not? I'm not saying "what about the Mens!?", I'm saying "What about this absolute bullshit way you're conducting yourself?" - And yes, I include you in the larger group which is behaving in a bullshit fashion, because you are including yourself into that group, because while I don't hold you personally responsible for such things(you don't behave in that fashion) I do hold you responsible for the actions of an overall group you are a self declared member of. Yes, There is a pay gap between Men and women. But why is the pay gap between white women and black women never mentioned or fought about - if you want to put it in catchphrase terms, It would be a much more powerful point to campaign that White women make 72.6% of what White men do on average, and that black women make only 61.9% of what your average white man makes.
It might be because then it would also have to be said that Asian women make 81.1 percent as much as White men, which doesn't sound as good. But it would also be shown that black women make only 85.27% less than white women on average. Or that Asian women make 111.7 percent of what White women make, 131% of what black women make, and 159.8% of what hispanic women make. Or that White and asian women make, on average, more than black, hispanic or native american men. And all of that that would draw attention away from the fact that white women are only paid, on average, 72.59% on average of what white men are paid, which is coincidentally, one of the statistics about the pay of women you hear trumpeted the loudest.
As what would be best described as both Masculist and Feminist, Ditto. When you're talking gender politics specifically, because otherwise we'd be here all night listing "ists" that amount to the base position that we both agree that bigotry or discrimination of any stripe is unacceptable. I already previously covered this, however, to repeat - Wikipedia defines feminism as "...a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women" and the Dictionary.com definition includes the definition of "an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women."
While it is not an organization in the same way as a sporting club, corporation, or church, it is a larger movement which encompasses many smaller movements on individual issues which share a common goal. No, they're absolutely not both feminists. The former group are, indeed, feminists. The latter group are not, as they are not seeking equality by gaining equal rights, they are seeking the oppression of others by putting their rights ahead of other people's. Essentially, instead of introducing equality, simply reversing the direction in which the inequality flows. You Can't get around this problem by just saying "
Well, They want to oppress the more powerful group instead of raising everyone up to the same level, gut they have some things in common with me, so I guess it's okay they they call themselves feminists."
For example, the Suffrage movement in America was NOT, by definition, a feminist movement, because they excluded black women. The founder of the Reproductive rights movement was not by definition a feminist, as she was doing it for racial purity and to weed out people with disabilities though eugenics, and Not only openly said so, but still promoted birth control for those very purposes up until the day she died, In the midst of the 60's feminist movement, who were celebrating her and her role in creating the contraceptive pill.
There was a movement down here to allow women in public bars in the 70s - That WAS a feminist movement, as it was about all women gaining the right to drink in Australian public venues. The Australian women's suffrage movement WAS a feminist movement, because it made no destinctions of race or class, it called for ALL Australian women to have the right to vote, including black women, despite that indigenous Australians did not officially have the legal right to vote till the 60s(though this law was often ignored or circumvented, including by South Australia, where the state itself outright refused to enforce or follow the law.)
See what I'm getting at here? You can push for equality for women by ignoring the plight of the majority of women, nor can you push for equality by trying to oppress or tear down someone with those rights. To Raise Yourself without lowering others.
I am truly and honestly baffled why you seem utterly unconcerned with this, while simultaneously self-identifying as a feminist. It's really rather a bit more complex than that - but yes, if you want to really give the words a good stretching to save time and pissing about, "White, Bisexual and male" propably fits the bill well enough. Thank you correcting, by the way. I never said you did. However, I am saying the movement as a whole is like an old abandoned house - There's good wood in there, but much of it is rotting, warped broken, and needs to be either corrected and fixed, or removed and replaced. Absolutely - Problems and blind spots that need to be either corrected, or excised like a tumor, and history that needs to be known and taught as a lesson, so that it's not repeated, not just blindly celebrated without any examination of it's problems. Onya mate. Don't give up. Aaaand you're wrong.
As much as I'm tempted to get rather angry and instead of arguing and simply scorch the earth because of your condescending, patronizing bullshit like "Look up the concept of privilege sometime", I won't, because while that would amuse me, it would achieve little. Better to disabuse you of your incorrect assumptions and teach you better than to make the same stupid mistake again, than it would be to abuse you for those assumptions, no matter how much you could learn about skilled verbal abuse from such an exchange.
First, The concept you're looking for is Male Privilege, not just Privilege. Privilege is something enjoyed by a certain person or group above the advantage of others, often in the form of a special(but not fundamental) right or immunity, and both as a concept and as a defined term, has nothing to do with being a straight white male, or any other combination of sexuality, gender/biological identity, and race. Male Privilege is the specific that men are granted specific privileges not afforded to women or Transgendered people, and I'm already extremely familiar with the concept.
Equal rights is, essentially, the reason I'm both a card-carrying feminist, and a card-carrying masculist. Because Men deserve equal rights to women, and women deserve equal rights to men. Privilege is what goes above and beyond one's rights. If you are advocating for men to lose some rights, then that is not raising women up, it is dragging men down. The removal of Male Privilege will occur when women have equal rights to men, simply because when women have exactly equal rights to men, Male privilege is not possible.
Allow me to give you an example - There was an expo down here which was to occur, which targeted itself at Men, called Blokesworld Exhibition. It was full of Entertainment, products, shows, health, fitness, leisure, fashion, and so on for men. It was strongly protested by feminist groups(amusingly, to the outrage of many of the women employed at the event, especially some erotic entertainers, who the feminist groups were actively portraying as victims.) Women were perfectly welcome to the event, if they chose, they were in no way barred or discouraged from coming - in fact, they were outright encouraged to come along. Eventually, they compromised on one area, and removed the male focus from the adult entertainment area, with the reasoning that a Man should not only be able to enjoy his own erotic entertainment, but should also be able to share erotic entertainment with his partner, and thus, the adult entertainment area was re-focused to both genders equally. This expo was forced out of existence 15 hours before it opened even then, by the city council, under continued pressure from feminist groups.
Pop quiz - Is stopping this expo from occurring feminist, or sexist?
Surprising answer - It's absolutely sexist. Every year, the Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre hosts The Women's Exhibition, which includes Entertainment, products, shows, health, fitness, leisure, fashion, and so on for Women - though men are not banned, they are not encouraged in any way to come, nor are they really ever mentioned - which includes an adult entertainment section, which is exclusively focused on women, and which has included male strippers previously(Which I'll admit were particularly well done, and I enjoyed immensely). If equality was actually sought in this case, then the event would have gone ahead, simply because if it is acceptable for one gender to have such an event, it is acceptable for the other gender to have such an event. Equal rights do not mean that women should have a free pass to have such an event, while Men cannot.
Also, Please familiarize yourself with Female privilege. I'm sure that there are quite a few female privilege checklists which are good counterparts to the much spoken of male privilege checklists, and if not, here's a good place for you to start and compose one - if you actually care about equality - As a woman, I am less likely to suffer domestic abuse than a man, likewise less likely to suffer serious violent domestic abuse, and if I am one of the unacceptably high percentage of women who suffer domestic abuse, not only am I more encouraged and likely to report it, I have access to much, much more in the way of support services.
And let me inform you as a victim of domestic abuse - a long ordeal which culminated in her breaking a coffee mug over my head, fracturing my skull, and then playfully tugging the phone away from me by the cord when I tried to crawl to it to call an ambulance. I was in a coma for three days, and she got Jail time. Just kidding, she got sentenced to anger management counseling and a domestic abuse counseling, which she got out of after a month - there is fuck all support for male victims of domestic abuse.
If you're really about equal rights and not just reversing the flow of oppression and privilege, then I extremely strongly encourage you to consider your position and what you know about feminism and being a feminist.
Sorry I said you were panty-bunched about the feminists. I just think that some times you bitch about this vague movement, and that's the only reason. I will always speak out against jerky people even if they are on my side, and I agree, the women who want to make the patriarchy a matriarchy are not feminists by the "equal" definition. I guess that as long as a person conforms to the vague definition, I can't No True Scotsman them, nor am I going to stop calling myself a feminist. Not rights, but power. You know, the kind that lets men treat them women like slaves and do genital mutilation and stuff in some parts of the world. No one should have the power that limits other's rights. But I guess it's just like how I feel about physical strength and karate skills! I don't want to be strong so I can beat up others! I want to be strong so I don't get beat up!
Re: Porn. I've stated before that porn is totally sexist and objectifying, but that is only because society is this way. A society's weird hang-ups find their way into the porn and the sex in a big way. I have no problem with people engaging with consensual sex or making pictures about it.
I think it was partly the name of the Expo. It was "blokesworld?" Why not Sexy World! It makes it sound like it is only catering to men's sexual desires. I don't like that like I don't like the dopey woman's network on Television. We just got into an argument about hitting girls at work, myself defending the idea that while it is not nice to hit someone weaker than you, if they come after you, you should use reasonable self-defense. I think that it should be totally equal, and it should be about size, rather than gender. If you would be legally justified in hitting a man of the same strength and size, you should be justified in hitting a woman as well.
See, to be a knight, you have to be a heavy fighter, and well-rounded in other areas. You also need to be chivalrous and shit, which usually manifests as being courteous to ladies. A little patronizing, perhaps, but everyone involved knows what they're getting into, so it's all good.
Part of the knighting ceremony involves the king (naturally) being the one doing the elevating. You get a bunch of stuff, tons of respect, swear fealty and so on, and then - at the end of the ceremony - the king does something awesome.
He says something to the effect of "Let this be the last blow you take unanswered," and then punches you in the fucking face.
So there was this one particular female heavy fighter - a rare sight to be sure - who managed to fight her way to knighthood. At the ceremony, the king was, naturally, torn; do you uphold the virtues of chivalry as you've sworn, or do you go through with the ceremony as though she were any other knight? After some deliberation, and baited breath, he did the right thing.
He said, "Let this be the last blow you take unanswered" and punched her in the goddamn face.
The moral of this story is: gender equality needs to mean equality. If you want to "run with the big boys," that's fine, but we're going to treat you exactly like one of us. To do anything else is selling everyone short.
Actually, one of the despicable things I heard from the feminists responding to the issue was "Sure, We have The Women's Expo, but They have The Brisbane Motorshow AND the Brisbane boat show!"
You have not yet seen me so apoleptic with rage as I was at that moment.
More when I get back from working.
Fuck. That. Noise.
Do you have control of your mental faculties and Can you handle yourself competently in combat? In other words - Can you do your fucking job? Yes to all of the above, then here's your rifle, go go go. Last I checked, your standard issue Mark I Mod 0 Genitals, Human do not affect how you fire your weapon, or if you can do your fucking job. In fact, if you can do your job, then your genitals are not any of my fucking business, nor do I care to make them so. If Soldier gonna soldi competently, who gives a toss?
And yet, you get resistance from all sorts, for all sorts of ludicrous reasons - though, I must admit, I did find it incredibly amusing when it came up on the news recently here, and they interviewed a Nam veteran about the issue, and he said "Women in the infantry, you can't have that. You get a woman in your foxhole, you know what'd happen, ay, you know what'd go on." and then he suddenly shouts "YOU'D BE TRYIN' TA' ROOT HER!" and I just completely lost it. Agreed. The draft is not exactly the best thing in the world, however, the reason women are excluded from Selective service is because the system is aimed at drafting combat troops, and as previously mentioned, women are not allowed for the most part to take active combat roles. If women are allowed to take on active combat roles, then I'd say Selective service registration will come soon after, which is entirely reasonable - If you're going to be eligible to be a combat trooper, you shouldn't be excluded from the selective service system - as you say, gotta take the Bitter medicine with the sweet. Aye.