First, you should apologize for getting the first ring as rings are a sexist vestige of bride prices and you objectified your fiancé, you cock male oppressor.
Second, asking a parent's "permission" is apparently the worst thing you can do ever.
Lastly, "Skip" was the name of one of the preppie barbershop quartet country club jackoffs from the film "Trading Spaces", a movie that glorified prostitution and featured several racist stereotypes against African Americans, so you may have to just kill yourself.
Look at all of that hyperbole and strawmanning fly.
If I didn't know any better, I would say that something about discussing and thinking about this has left you in a defensive state.
Not at all. This thread has devolved to the point where outright mockery is the only sane response. Once the feminists started accusing each other of sexism, it's time to get wierd with it.
First, you should apologize for getting the first ring as rings are a sexist vestige of bride prices and you objectified your fiancé, you cock male oppressor.
Second, asking a parent's "permission" is apparently the worst thing you can do ever.
Lastly, "Skip" was the name of one of the preppie barbershop quartet country club jackoffs from the film "Trading Spaces", a movie that glorified prostitution and featured several racist stereotypes against African Americans, so you may have to just kill yourself.
Look at all of that hyperbole and strawmanning fly.
If I didn't know any better, I would say that something about discussing and thinking about this has left you in a defensive state.
Not at all. This thread has devolved to the point where outright mockery is the only sane response. Once the feminists started accusing each other of sexism, it's time to get wierd with it.
Naw, I thought it was a worthwhile exercise. I think to some extent something was lost in translation when they were trying to express themselves, but it has sense been resolved.
Mockery has its place amongst clowns, not debate and discourse.
ok I stopped reading 15 pages in could someone just tell me if I need to apologize to my fiance for asking her parents permission and buy her another god damn ring
or
whether she and I are cool because
1) When I asked her if I should get her father's blessing her skull spit open and flames started shooting out in a scene that would give Ghost Rider a hard on, and she said "You had better do this right!"
and
2) We are talking about two white kids for Canada named Skip and Aimie?
First, you should apologize for getting the first ring as rings are a sexist vestige of bride prices and you objectified your fiancé, you cock male oppressor.
Second, asking a parent's "permission" is apparently the worst thing you can do ever.
Lastly, "Skip" was the name of one of the preppie barbershop quartet country club jackoffs from the film "Trading Spaces", a movie that glorified prostitution, featured several racist stereotypes against African Americans, and warped my generation's understanding of commodities trading, so you may have to just kill yourself.
Congratulations on being the first person to know where my namesake came from. And thank you for making the blessings = permission connection more of church makes sense to me now!
Even if the origin of the practice is sexist, it seems kind of absurd to me that people still see it that way.
People say one thing and do/feel another or exist with some level of cognitive dissonance in their life.
It really isn't uncommon. Again, look at Help/Advice and the crap that gets dropped around there.
I don't see what it has to do with cognitive dissonance. It just seems like such an insignificant thing to be upset about.
Glad we agree - so why are we still maintaining it? If it's not a big deal, we can abandon crappy traditions and start new ones :P
I don't think it matters one way or the other. I don't see it as being sexist anymore (though certainly it used to be), just a tradition that nobody is forced to go through. I prefer asking for a blessing, and would definitely do so, but either way it just doesn't seem worth worrying about in the least.
Really? The two people in this thread that I am 100% sure are women are both saying they find the notification version creepy as well.
And several people have claimed there is no potential downside. I think there is a rather large one that the person you are supposed to be in love with might be highly offended that you are telling people other than her first.
Ideally you would know them well enough to figure this out, and ideally they would know your intentions well enough to forgive you. We are assuming this is a couple that truly loves each other and where there is enough mutual understanding to make marriage a not-stupid act.
You really need to recognize and respect that there is a vast amount of variation in even healthy, liberated humanity. Learning to recognize the fact is a cornerstone of modern feminism. The whole point of psychological, legal, and social freedom is to give you more options, not to remove them.
I agree. And maybe I am misreading, but it seems like 90% of the posts in this thread have been ignoring the preferences of the women involved and talking about how asking the parents for their blessing before proposing is a nice thing to do to get in good with the future in-laws and saying there is no possible downside.
I want to know what sexist jackass thinks this is a man/woman issue. Both women and men can propose. Some couples contain only men and some contain only women. And of course there is a POTENTIAL downside if the other person or their parents don't LIKE it. This is also true of kissing in public, talking dirty, and eating Chinese food.
Why shouldn't the couple go together and ask both sets of parents for their blessing? Doesn't that make a lot more sense?
That makes equal amounts of sense. No more or less. Every relationship and family is unique, and should be approached based on how THEY are and not your assumptions of how they SHOULD be.
Example: My girlfriend absolutely loves Okinawa because she grew up there, and has a fetish for traditional theatrics. If I proposed to her in the manner of the traditional Okinawan man, she would be bragging about it til the day she died, even if it involved me throwing cow pucks at her or bribing her parents or something. That's her -thing-. I would not propose to Quid that way; maybe slip it into an Apples to Apples game card or something. Because people are individuals, and should be treated as such, even if, in their place, you would personally be upset.
Really, I don't see how asking for their blessing ahead of time is going to change the parents opinion of the future child-in-law that much. If they like you they like you and if they don't they don't.
It depends on the parents. Some people are -extremely- protective of their children either by nature or because of past incidents, and would be greatly comforted by the gesture. Parents, being people, are also individuals, and should be treated as such.
This is kind of half the point of a lot of social movements.
Really? The two people in this thread that I am 100% sure are women are both saying they find the notification version creepy as well.
And several people have claimed there is no potential downside. I think there is a rather large one that the person you are supposed to be in love with might be highly offended that you are telling people other than her first.
Ideally you would know them well enough to figure this out, and ideally they would know your intentions well enough to forgive you. We are assuming this is a couple that truly loves each other and where there is enough mutual understanding to make marriage a not-stupid act.
You really need to recognize and respect that there is a vast amount of variation in even healthy, liberated humanity. Learning to recognize the fact is a cornerstone of modern feminism. The whole point of psychological, legal, and social freedom is to give you more options, not to remove them.
I agree. And maybe I am misreading, but it seems like 90% of the posts in this thread have been ignoring the preferences of the women involved and talking about how asking the parents for their blessing before proposing is a nice thing to do to get in good with the future in-laws and saying there is no possible downside.
I want to know what sexist jackass thinks this is a man/woman issue. Both women and men can propose. Some couples contain only men and some contain only women. And of course there is a POTENTIAL downside if the other person or their parents don't LIKE it. This is also true of kissing in public, talking dirty, and eating Chinese food.
Why shouldn't the couple go together and ask both sets of parents for their blessing? Doesn't that make a lot more sense?
That makes equal amounts of sense. No more or less. Every relationship and family is unique, and should be approached based on how THEY are and not your assumptions of how they SHOULD be.
Example: My girlfriend absolutely loves Okinawa because she grew up there, and has a fetish for traditional theatrics. If I proposed to her in the manner of the traditional Okinawan man, she would be bragging about it til the day she died, even if it involved me throwing cow pucks at her or bribing her parents or something. That's her -thing-. I would not propose to Quid that way; maybe slip it into an Apples to Apples game card or something. Because people are individuals, and should be treated as such, even if, in their place, you would personally be upset.
Really, I don't see how asking for their blessing ahead of time is going to change the parents opinion of the future child-in-law that much. If they like you they like you and if they don't they don't.
It depends on the parents. Some people are -extremely- protective of their children either by nature or because of past incidents, and would be greatly comforted by the gesture. Parents, being people, are also individuals, and should be treated as such.
This is kind of half the point of a lot of social movements.
You have to understand that the limed part is very progressive thinking and the reason why it is progressive is because of the permeation of sexist thought. In our society, typically the man proposes, does the asking out, and is expected to do so because assertiveness is usually attributed to the masculine gender. Consequently, assertiveness is a trait typically found amongst males due to the reinforcement they receive throughout their lives.
Pragmatically, it still operates as such, and I think that is what she was getting at. To suggest that it is "normal" (and I put that in quotation for reasons I hope you understand) for a woman to propose is ignoring cultural norms in the united states.
Even if the origin of the practice is sexist, it seems kind of absurd to me that people still see it that way.
To me, the practice of asking permission for marriage is still sexist, but the whole tradition of a ring and the actual marriage itself isn't because asking permission is still asking permission, which implies a certain level of non-self ownership.
Except that it has nothing to do with ownership, because no one in the interaction actually thinks that another person is being owned.
Even if the origin of the practice is sexist, it seems kind of absurd to me that people still see it that way.
To me, the practice of asking permission for marriage is still sexist, but the whole tradition of a ring and the actual marriage itself isn't because asking permission is still asking permission, which implies a certain level of non-self ownership.
Except that it has nothing to do with ownership, because no one in the interaction actually thinks that another person is being owned.
I'm sure many people acknowledge that they don't literally own someone.
However, there is an underlying entitlement people feel and exercise - that entitlement being the right to give permission. That's the whole concept behind being "possessive."
They do not have the right to give that, nor does it have any sort of place.
But we've already done this dance, so just check out previous pages please.
Really? The two people in this thread that I am 100% sure are women are both saying they find the notification version creepy as well.
And several people have claimed there is no potential downside. I think there is a rather large one that the person you are supposed to be in love with might be highly offended that you are telling people other than her first.
Ideally you would know them well enough to figure this out, and ideally they would know your intentions well enough to forgive you. We are assuming this is a couple that truly loves each other and where there is enough mutual understanding to make marriage a not-stupid act.
You really need to recognize and respect that there is a vast amount of variation in even healthy, liberated humanity. Learning to recognize the fact is a cornerstone of modern feminism. The whole point of psychological, legal, and social freedom is to give you more options, not to remove them.
I agree. And maybe I am misreading, but it seems like 90% of the posts in this thread have been ignoring the preferences of the women involved and talking about how asking the parents for their blessing before proposing is a nice thing to do to get in good with the future in-laws and saying there is no possible downside.
I want to know what sexist jackass thinks this is a man/woman issue. Both women and men can propose. Some couples contain only men and some contain only women. And of course there is a POTENTIAL downside if the other person or their parents don't LIKE it. This is also true of kissing in public, talking dirty, and eating Chinese food.
Why shouldn't the couple go together and ask both sets of parents for their blessing? Doesn't that make a lot more sense?
That makes equal amounts of sense. No more or less. Every relationship and family is unique, and should be approached based on how THEY are and not your assumptions of how they SHOULD be.
Example: My girlfriend absolutely loves Okinawa because she grew up there, and has a fetish for traditional theatrics. If I proposed to her in the manner of the traditional Okinawan man, she would be bragging about it til the day she died, even if it involved me throwing cow pucks at her or bribing her parents or something. That's her -thing-. I would not propose to Quid that way; maybe slip it into an Apples to Apples game card or something. Because people are individuals, and should be treated as such, even if, in their place, you would personally be upset.
Really, I don't see how asking for their blessing ahead of time is going to change the parents opinion of the future child-in-law that much. If they like you they like you and if they don't they don't.
It depends on the parents. Some people are -extremely- protective of their children either by nature or because of past incidents, and would be greatly comforted by the gesture. Parents, being people, are also individuals, and should be treated as such.
This is kind of half the point of a lot of social movements.
Yes women can propose. However, it was quite clear in the majority of the posts in this thread (which is what I was referring to) that they were discussing a man proposing to a woman (see all the discussion of the historical traditions involved in ownership of women). As men were not traditionally considered their mother's property I don't think the same argument would have sprung up around a discussion of women asking their future mother in law's permission.
I disagree with the red part. If either set of parents are imparting useful knowledge/constructive criticism, isn't it going to be more useful if both members of the couple hear it?
And yes, parents should be treated as individuals, but so should your SO. And you are theoretically trying to marry your SO in this situation so I think their individuality should take precedence over your potential future in-laws individuality.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
Yes women can propose. However, it was quite clear in the majority of the posts in this thread (which is what I was referring to) that they were discussing a man proposing to a woman (see all the discussion of the historical traditions involved in ownership of women). As men were not traditionally considered their mother's property I don't think the same argument would have sprung up around a discussion of women asking their future mother in law's permission.
The conversation has progressed. I am fairly sure that everyone has rejected Asking Permission and has moved on to Asking for Blessings and Informing Before Proposing. Any argument with me will absolutely be under the assumption that Permission is absurd, but the rest is fine. I reject the suggestion in the OP that men are the proposers in all cases, and that women are those proposed to in all cases, and I think it absurd to continue under any other assumption. I further find it absurd that the situation changes based on the gonads of the proposer and proposed to.
Those who are clinging to the Permission/Man Asks thing are mostly the people who want an excuse to be self-righteous though it has been rejected.
I disagree with the red part. If either set of parents are imparting useful knowledge/constructive criticism, isn't it going to be more useful if both members of the couple hear it?
Not if the advice is "how to propose in the best way."
It is not uncommon for people to have spoken their dreams related to coupling to their parents or friends, but not to their potential spouses, out of a desire to avoid pressuring them or making unreasonable demands.
And yes, parents should be treated as individuals, but so should your SO. And you are theoretically trying to marry your SO in this situation so I think their individuality should take precedence over your potential future in-laws individuality.
Certainly your SO comes first, but again, sometimes you're asking the parents strictly for the sake of the SO, because that is how the SO personally, as an individual, would want it.
You are not every SO, so do not assume that they would want what you want or feel what you feel in a given situation.
Offensive? Please. You taking away her choice because you know better is absolutely sexist and I'm truly sorry you can't see that.
Explain to me how my girlfriend gets to choose my actions. I haven't taken away her choice, because SHE DOESN'T GET TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT I ASK HER PARENTS ANYTHING. How are you unable to grasp that?
Don't feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for yourself.
I'm a radical feminist and even I think he isn't making sense.
I never said she was choosing your actions. But if she really wants you to do something, and you tell her you know better than her and you refuse to do it, how is that NOT sexist?
Unless its like..killing her or something.
So, are you saying that every time a guy doesn't do what a woman wants, that's sexism?
Of course not.
If you say you won't do it because you know better than her, then yes.
Also, I'm talking in regards to this thread, not in regards to something like Paragliding.
Why, because men AND women can be knowledgeable abou hangliding but only women can be knowledgable about sexism against women? All individual men are naturally inferior to all individual women with regard to this topic?
Like I said...I'm not the sexist here, you are.
If your girlfriend said 'Before you propose to me, I'd like you to take me to Europe' and you agreed, would that be sexist? She wants something from you, you agree to give it to her, transaction complete.
Saying, 'Ask my parents for permission first' means she is bound by tradition, not a sexist. You refusing makes you disrespectful to her beliefs, and means the two of you are not a good match. You need to go and find someone who hates parents as much as you do.
Even if the origin of the practice is sexist, it seems kind of absurd to me that people still see it that way.
To me, the practice of asking permission for marriage is still sexist, but the whole tradition of a ring and the actual marriage itself isn't because asking permission is still asking permission, which implies a certain level of non-self ownership.
Except that it has nothing to do with ownership, because no one in the interaction actually thinks that another person is being owned.
I'm sure many people acknowledge that they don't literally own someone.
However, there is an underlying entitlement people feel and exercise - that entitlement being the right to give permission. That's the whole concept behind being "possessive."
They do not have the right to give that, nor does it have any sort of place.
But we've already done this dance, so just check out previous pages please.
i was posting on the previous pages, and still haven't recieved an answer.
the custom was sexist in origin, but I fail to see what inherent sexism there is in the present day incarnation, understanding that, nowadays, when some one is denied permission by the parents, they will just get married anyway, as well as the fact that even if the parents say yes, the one being proposed to still has the right of refusal.
The parents are not actually making any sort of binding decision. All that this custom means anymore is that the one looking to enter in to their family is seeking the acceptances of the parents that they are willing to take them in as a family member.
Even if the origin of the practice is sexist, it seems kind of absurd to me that people still see it that way.
To me, the practice of asking permission for marriage is still sexist, but the whole tradition of a ring and the actual marriage itself isn't because asking permission is still asking permission, which implies a certain level of non-self ownership.
Except that it has nothing to do with ownership, because no one in the interaction actually thinks that another person is being owned.
I'm sure many people acknowledge that they don't literally own someone.
However, there is an underlying entitlement people feel and exercise - that entitlement being the right to give permission. That's the whole concept behind being "possessive."
They do not have the right to give that, nor does it have any sort of place.
But we've already done this dance, so just check out previous pages please.
i was posting on the previous pages, and still haven't recieved an answer.
the custom was sexist in origin, but I fail to see what inherent sexism there is in the present day incarnation, understanding that, nowadays, when some one is denied permission by the parents, they will just get married anyway, as well as the fact that even if the parents say yes, the one being proposed to still has the right of refusal.
The parents are not actually making any sort of binding decision. All that this custom means anymore is that the one looking to enter in to their family is seeking the acceptances of the parents that they are willing to take them in as a family member.
There is, of course, a wide array of human behaviors. I'd say that the vast majority of us (and probably all), here, don't subscribe to any sort of overtly sexist acts in regards to the traditions of daughter/wife-as-property.
In most cases, a conversation regarding proposal/marriage with future in-laws is a good thing, without any actual harm.
You want an example of how the sexist tradition is alive and well? Check out Purity Balls.
Now, in the practical sense most "socially liberal" (apolitical) modern persons aren't actually effected by any of what we're discussing, practically.
But it is alive and well in a minority of households and minds. Things like abstinence-only education tends to skirt this line, as well, creating unspoken but existent ties to the "values" of "traditional marriage". And that was a program the federal government tried to set up as the standard for educating young women about their sexuality. Of course this example was as divested of sexism as possible, but the general gist that "young women and men can't be trusted to be in control of their sexual activity" couples with the cultural traditions of men as dominant and women as submissive a little too well.
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
There we go. You're absolutely correct. It's why we spent nearly 10 pages nailing down the myriad of different situations, all of which are fundamentally similar, in which the act can be sexist or not. Indeed, the argument (from my perspective) ends in that the practical application is almost never sexist in a socially liberal, modern setting. The theoretical issue with asking for "permission" or a "blessing" infers ownership, and that is certainly not a genetic fallacy. While this isn't an example of practical problems, in nearly every case, it does raise questions of agency and social status.
And the biggest thing I'd like to say is that none of us are advocating being in "fear" for the very reasons as laid out above. Advocating awareness of an impersonal, objective sexism in order to continue this discourse and continue the advances made is really all we're after. There's no practical application for this, we're being lofty jackasses, when it comes down to it.
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
I think it's still pretty popular in the south. Guys holding doors open for ladies but not men, paying for their meals, and yes, parents getting all pissed off over their future son in law not asking for their permission/blessing, which to me are the same thing. If your parents WOULDN'T get pissed off, I'd say it is less of an issue.
But you're of the jewish faith, right? I ran into an interesting situation yesterday where a restaurant owner was proud of the decorations they had in their restaurant. Christmas tree, christmas presents, lots of lights and all that jazz. I asked them if they really thought about how alienating that would be to people who didn't celebrate christmas, and they just sort of shrugged it off. To me, that isn't something I would have done because while it is traditionally popular to do it, I find it really alienating to people in the community to single out just christmas when you could have went with a generic holiday theme. While this isn't anyone really saying "Fuck the jews/muslims," it kind of is - and if you ever told them to be more inclusive, they would get really defensive.
I kind of parallel that with the issue of asking for a blessing. No one would honestly say that they own their partner, however it is still implied through the act of asking for permission, and to a lesser extent, a blessing. I would feel more comfortable with going to the parents of my partner and discussing our marriage and then asking for their support (because hey, I'd like that from my friends as well).
Again, it isn't that big of a deal - but of course if it isn't, why are we still practicing it? My guess is that it will die over time with the older generation. But I think you guys underestimate how horrible people are, and maybe to some degree, I am overestimating. After living in the south for a year (Georgia, to be specific), I've seen more regressive behavior than I care to get into.
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
There we go. You're absolutely correct. It's why we spent nearly 10 pages nailing down the myriad of different situations, all of which are fundamentally similar, in which the act can be sexist or not. Indeed, the argument (from my perspective) ends in that the practical application is almost never sexist in a socially liberal, modern setting. The theoretical issue with asking for "permission" or a "blessing" infers ownership, and that is certainly not a genetic fallacy. While this isn't an example of practical problems, in nearly every case, it does raise questions of agency and social status.
And the biggest thing I'd like to say is that none of us are advocating being in "fear" for the very reasons as laid out above. Advocating awareness of an impersonal, objective sexism in order to continue this discourse and continue the advances made is really all we're after. There's no practical application for this, we're being lofty jackasses, when it comes down to it.
Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of this, but add that ideally I'd rather not see the practice and would encourage more of an open discussion similar to JHunter46's, if it's not that big of a deal to people.
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
There we go. You're absolutely correct. It's why we spent nearly 10 pages nailing down the myriad of different situations, all of which are fundamentally similar, in which the act can be sexist or not. Indeed, the argument (from my perspective) ends in that the practical application is almost never sexist in a socially liberal, modern setting. The theoretical issue with asking for "permission" or a "blessing" infers ownership, and that is certainly not a genetic fallacy. While this isn't an example of practical problems, in nearly every case, it does raise questions of agency and social status.
And the biggest thing I'd like to say is that none of us are advocating being in "fear" for the very reasons as laid out above. Advocating awareness of an impersonal, objective sexism in order to continue this discourse and continue the advances made is really all we're after. There's no practical application for this, we're being lofty jackasses, when it comes down to it.
Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of this, but add that ideally I'd rather not see the practice and would encourage more of an open discussion similar to JHunter46's, if it's not that big of a deal to people.
What is it about the practice that you oppose, though? I mean, if it feels "icky" because of its sexist roots, that's a valid psychological issue, but it's your own personal issue, and ultimately an irrational one.
Ultimately it is a societal vestige that shows respect, like tipping your hat, or wearing a tie. There is more value to these behaviors than a lot of people often given them. When you put them all together, I would argue that you get a sort of "opposite broken windows" effect, where, by following certain outlined "polite" protocols, people tend to be more "polite" in their everyday life, in general. No one piece is the key component to this, but if you start chipping away at things, you ultimately tear it all down.
No one is being harmed, and it is a polite way to show respect for your future in-laws.
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
There we go. You're absolutely correct. It's why we spent nearly 10 pages nailing down the myriad of different situations, all of which are fundamentally similar, in which the act can be sexist or not. Indeed, the argument (from my perspective) ends in that the practical application is almost never sexist in a socially liberal, modern setting. The theoretical issue with asking for "permission" or a "blessing" infers ownership, and that is certainly not a genetic fallacy. While this isn't an example of practical problems, in nearly every case, it does raise questions of agency and social status.
And the biggest thing I'd like to say is that none of us are advocating being in "fear" for the very reasons as laid out above. Advocating awareness of an impersonal, objective sexism in order to continue this discourse and continue the advances made is really all we're after. There's no practical application for this, we're being lofty jackasses, when it comes down to it.
You're runnign with inferrence instead of implication (and I'm not entirely sure that your word usage is valid, but I'm not here for pedantics,) but it still begs the questions of WHO is recieving this implication, or making this inferrence. If all parties involved understand that this is about respect for elders, and has nothign to do with ownership, then who is this other party that everyone is constantly concerned with?
The implication here seems to be that something that carries absolutely no sexism in context is somehow sexist out of context; subjectively fine, but objectively wrong. I would argue that this is moving in an impossible direction. If there is inherent sexism, that sexism needs to be able to be actually shown, not inferred or implied.
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
There we go. You're absolutely correct. It's why we spent nearly 10 pages nailing down the myriad of different situations, all of which are fundamentally similar, in which the act can be sexist or not. Indeed, the argument (from my perspective) ends in that the practical application is almost never sexist in a socially liberal, modern setting. The theoretical issue with asking for "permission" or a "blessing" infers ownership, and that is certainly not a genetic fallacy. While this isn't an example of practical problems, in nearly every case, it does raise questions of agency and social status.
And the biggest thing I'd like to say is that none of us are advocating being in "fear" for the very reasons as laid out above. Advocating awareness of an impersonal, objective sexism in order to continue this discourse and continue the advances made is really all we're after. There's no practical application for this, we're being lofty jackasses, when it comes down to it.
Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of this, but add that ideally I'd rather not see the practice and would encourage more of an open discussion similar to JHunter46's, if it's not that big of a deal to people.
What is it about the practice that you oppose, though? I mean, if it feels "icky" because of its sexist roots, that's a valid psychological issue, but it's your own personal issue, and ultimately an irrational one.
Ultimately it is a societal vestige that shows respect, like tipping your hat, or wearing a tie. There is more value to these behaviors than a lot of people often given them. When you put them all together, I would argue that you get a sort of "opposite broken windows" effect, where, by following certain outlined "polite" protocols, people tend to be more "polite" in their everyday life, in general. No one piece is the key component to this, but if you start chipping away at things, you ultimately tear it all down.
No one is being harmed, and it is a polite way to show respect for your future in-laws.
That was pretty much my intentions, I just wanted to be polite, but pretty much regardless of the outcome I was going to propose anyway, I just thought it was a nice thing to do.
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
I think it's still pretty popular in the south. Guys holding doors open for ladies but not men, paying for their meals, and yes, parents getting all pissed off over their future son in law not asking for their permission/blessing, which to me are the same thing. If your parents WOULDN'T get pissed off, I'd say it is less of an issue.
But you're of the jewish faith, right? I ran into an interesting situation yesterday where a restaurant owner was proud of the decorations they had in their restaurant. Christmas tree, christmas presents, lots of lights and all that jazz. I asked them if they really thought about how alienating that would be to people who didn't celebrate christmas, and they just sort of shrugged it off. To me, that isn't something I would have done because while it is traditionally popular to do it, I find it really alienating to people in the community to single out just christmas when you could have went with a generic holiday theme. While this isn't anyone really saying "Fuck the jews/muslims," it kind of is - and if you ever told them to be more inclusive, they would get really defensive.
I kind of parallel that with the issue of asking for a blessing. No one would honestly say that they own their partner, however it is still implied through the act of asking for permission, and to a lesser extent, a blessing. I would feel more comfortable with going to the parents of my partner and discussing our marriage and then asking for their support (because hey, I'd like that from my friends as well).
Again, it isn't that big of a deal - but of course if it isn't, why are we still practicing it? My guess is that it will die over time with the older generation. But I think you guys underestimate how horrible people are, and maybe to some degree, I am overestimating. After living in the south for a year (Georgia, to be specific), I've seen more regressive behavior than I care to get into.
You realize that many folks find a generic holiday theme EVEN MORE offensive, no? Hannukah is one of the MOST minor Holidays of the Jewish calendar, so when it is the ONLY holiday that gentiles ever aknowledge, it comes off as extremely patronizing, and actually rather discriminatory in its own way. In fact, I would FAR AND AWAY prefer a restaurant to go ahead and put up their sole Christmas tree, and then to turn around, in the spring, and offer kosher-for-Passover meals, during an ACTUALLY important holiday. The day that a gentile restaurateur wishes me a "Happy Shavout" is the day that I can finally believe that they ACTUALLy care, and aren;'t just trying to be inclusive for inclusivity's sake.
And I'll tell you, I DO hold doors for women more often than men, and I have been known to pay for a lady's dinner more often than a man's. It isn't because I think less of women, it is because there are people who expect to have that done for them, and I am not going to disrespect them by making a big scene about hwo I am "being inclusive for their own good."
I just wanted to be polite, but pretty much regardless of the outcome I was going to propose anyway, I just thought it was a nice thing to do.
Key part here is bolded.
Asking the parents has nothing to do with ownership, in modern times, because the parents' answer doesn't actually dictate anything. If the parents say no, the proposal will generally still be made (and if it isn't, you're talking about a case where the parents/family would have been creating issues even if they WEREN'T asked first.)
Furthermore, and a point that many people seem to be ignoring, if the parents say yes, the individual being proposed to can STILL say no. The parents agreeing doesn't obligate the person (generally the lady) to marriage, which is what WOULD be happening if ownership had ANYTHING to do with this scenario. A "yes" from the parents is a mere formality, and nothing with any actual weight.
You're runnign with inferrence instead of implication (and I'm not entirely sure that your word usage is valid, but I'm not here for pedantics,) but it still begs the questions of WHO is recieving this implication, or making this inferrence. If all parties involved understand that this is about respect for elders, and has nothign to do with ownership, then who is this other party that everyone is constantly concerned with?
The implication here seems to be that something that carries absolutely no sexism in context is somehow sexist out of context; subjectively fine, but objectively wrong. I would argue that this is moving in an impossible direction. If there is inherent sexism, that sexism needs to be able to be actually shown, not inferred or implied.
Not necessarily. I should clarify my framework as being modern, not postmodern. You're advocating a postmodern relationship in which demonstrative effects are the only means of measuring. It's a solid argument, and I think we're splitting hairs over our personal philosophical starting points more than disagreeing with any concrete assertion.
I maintain a certain Platonic sense of the eternal. Not "eternal" in a religious or absolute context, but "eternal" as in the existence of "pure forms" which are merely the philosophical and ethereal "perfect concepts". Ergo, the existence of this "third person" is a necessary and existent piece of any concrete application.
And I think there's an issue you betray when you refer to the objective as if it had any sort of agency. You're anthropomorphizing a concept which leads to inherent aspects of person-hood which simply don't apply. The closest thing to a "who" in this sense would be characterized as Jungian "Collective Unconscious", but I do not have the background to make any sort of assumptions of psychology.
subjectively fine, but objectively wrong. I would argue that this is moving in an impossible direction. If there is inherent sexism, that sexism needs to be able to be actually shown, not inferred or implied.
I simply do not accept that a concept-as-objective requires concrete evidence. I think that one part of my position that has been implied is that the objective measure is purely theoretical, and that as such it truly has little implication on any actions taken by a subjective person.
In other words, if a man asks for a "blessing" because of an egalitarian conversation with his partner, I can't subjectively find sexism. The concept of the "blessing" is sexist in an objective sense, but that objective judgment simply doesn't infer anything on the act itself, as we're using two separate means of evaluation which really have nothing to do with each other in any practical application. Culturally and historically the sexism inherent in acts of "possessing a woman" are still widely applicable. They just aren't applicable when you get down to actual acts, and in order for an action to be sexist it must, as you state, be concrete.
EDIT: I'm not trying to infer anything, which is part of the issue. If you look at racism as a close relative to sexism, you'll see immense gains over the last half-decade. There is still racism, but the absolute worst is behind us. It shouldn't stop us from having a discourse on race and racism, and there are slow, cultural shifts that are continually happening in order to "correct" the injustice and discrimination in the past. We need to continue the conversation. On the other side, the nitty-gritty argument is generally over if affirmative action is still necessary, which is very different from having a conversation about objective, theoretical racism.
The concept of the "blessing" is sexist in an objective sense
And where is the non fallacious reasoning to back this up?
as I've said, everything put forward seems to ultimately lie atop a genetic fallacy. Whereas, alternative legitimate reasons for seeking a blessing that have NOTHING to do with sexism have also been posited (such as showing respect to elders, or seeking to make nice with individuals who are about to become part of your family.)
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
I think it's still pretty popular in the south. Guys holding doors open for ladies but not men, paying for their meals, and yes, parents getting all pissed off over their future son in law not asking for their permission/blessing, which to me are the same thing. If your parents WOULDN'T get pissed off, I'd say it is less of an issue.
But you're of the jewish faith, right? I ran into an interesting situation yesterday where a restaurant owner was proud of the decorations they had in their restaurant. Christmas tree, christmas presents, lots of lights and all that jazz. I asked them if they really thought about how alienating that would be to people who didn't celebrate christmas, and they just sort of shrugged it off. To me, that isn't something I would have done because while it is traditionally popular to do it, I find it really alienating to people in the community to single out just christmas when you could have went with a generic holiday theme. While this isn't anyone really saying "Fuck the jews/muslims," it kind of is - and if you ever told them to be more inclusive, they would get really defensive.
I kind of parallel that with the issue of asking for a blessing. No one would honestly say that they own their partner, however it is still implied through the act of asking for permission, and to a lesser extent, a blessing. I would feel more comfortable with going to the parents of my partner and discussing our marriage and then asking for their support (because hey, I'd like that from my friends as well).
Again, it isn't that big of a deal - but of course if it isn't, why are we still practicing it? My guess is that it will die over time with the older generation. But I think you guys underestimate how horrible people are, and maybe to some degree, I am overestimating. After living in the south for a year (Georgia, to be specific), I've seen more regressive behavior than I care to get into.
You realize that many folks find a generic holiday theme EVEN MORE offensive, no? Hannukah is one of the MOST minor Holidays of the Jewish calendar, so when it is the ONLY holiday that gentiles ever aknowledge, it comes off as extremely patronizing, and actually rather discriminatory in its own way. In fact, I would FAR AND AWAY prefer a restaurant to go ahead and put up their sole Christmas tree, and then to turn around, in the spring, and offer kosher-for-Passover meals, during an ACTUALLY important holiday. The day that a gentile restaurateur wishes me a "Happy Shavout" is the day that I can finally believe that they ACTUALLy care, and aren;'t just trying to be inclusive for inclusivity's sake.
And I'll tell you, I DO hold doors for women more often than men, and I have been known to pay for a lady's dinner more often than a man's. It isn't because I think less of women, it is because there are people who expect to have that done for them, and I am not going to disrespect them by making a big scene about hwo I am "being inclusive for their own good."
I can see how the inclusion of jewish customs would be patronizing, but I still think it's better to be inclusive with a happy holidays message than a straight up christian one. Snowmen aren't necessarily christian and can be used to decorate the area :P
I don't care if you pay for another person's meals, but the practice is sexist. You may not be mentally thinking "oh hai, you can't pay for this yourself miss" but your clarification that you are essentially reinforcing what people "expect to have done for them," which is reinforcing their sexist thoughts, is pretty disheartening.
Like, when a woman always expects a man to pay for the meal, that's sexist, and while there is a benefit to her (free meal), that doesn't change the sexism in either the expectation or the action.
The concept of the "blessing" is sexist in an objective sense
And where is the non fallacious reasoning to back this up?
as I've said, everything put forward seems to ultimately lie atop a genetic fallacy. Whereas, alternative legitimate reasons for seeking a blessing that have NOTHING to do with sexism have also been posited (such as showing respect to elders, or seeking to make nice with individuals who are about to become part of your family.)
There's a difference between intent and action.
I intend on showing my respect to her family, but my actions are both sexist and showing respect.
Asking for a blessing is asking for approval, and it's a PG way of saying the R version, which is "may I have your permission to wed your daughter."
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
I think it's still pretty popular in the south. Guys holding doors open for ladies but not men, paying for their meals, and yes, parents getting all pissed off over their future son in law not asking for their permission/blessing, which to me are the same thing. If your parents WOULDN'T get pissed off, I'd say it is less of an issue.
But you're of the jewish faith, right? I ran into an interesting situation yesterday where a restaurant owner was proud of the decorations they had in their restaurant. Christmas tree, christmas presents, lots of lights and all that jazz. I asked them if they really thought about how alienating that would be to people who didn't celebrate christmas, and they just sort of shrugged it off. To me, that isn't something I would have done because while it is traditionally popular to do it, I find it really alienating to people in the community to single out just christmas when you could have went with a generic holiday theme. While this isn't anyone really saying "Fuck the jews/muslims," it kind of is - and if you ever told them to be more inclusive, they would get really defensive.
I kind of parallel that with the issue of asking for a blessing. No one would honestly say that they own their partner, however it is still implied through the act of asking for permission, and to a lesser extent, a blessing. I would feel more comfortable with going to the parents of my partner and discussing our marriage and then asking for their support (because hey, I'd like that from my friends as well).
Again, it isn't that big of a deal - but of course if it isn't, why are we still practicing it? My guess is that it will die over time with the older generation. But I think you guys underestimate how horrible people are, and maybe to some degree, I am overestimating. After living in the south for a year (Georgia, to be specific), I've seen more regressive behavior than I care to get into.
You realize that many folks find a generic holiday theme EVEN MORE offensive, no? Hannukah is one of the MOST minor Holidays of the Jewish calendar, so when it is the ONLY holiday that gentiles ever aknowledge, it comes off as extremely patronizing, and actually rather discriminatory in its own way. In fact, I would FAR AND AWAY prefer a restaurant to go ahead and put up their sole Christmas tree, and then to turn around, in the spring, and offer kosher-for-Passover meals, during an ACTUALLY important holiday. The day that a gentile restaurateur wishes me a "Happy Shavout" is the day that I can finally believe that they ACTUALLy care, and aren;'t just trying to be inclusive for inclusivity's sake.
And I'll tell you, I DO hold doors for women more often than men, and I have been known to pay for a lady's dinner more often than a man's. It isn't because I think less of women, it is because there are people who expect to have that done for them, and I am not going to disrespect them by making a big scene about hwo I am "being inclusive for their own good."
I can see how the inclusion of jewish customs would be patronizing, but I still think it's better to be inclusive with a happy holidays message than a straight up christian one. Snowmen aren't necessarily christian and can be used to decorate the area :P
I don't care if you pay for another person's meals, but the practice is sexist. You may not be mentally thinking "oh hai, you can't pay for this yourself miss" but your clarification that you are essentially reinforcing what people "expect to have done for them," which is reinforcing their sexist thoughts, is pretty disheartening.
Like, when a woman always expects a man to pay for the meal, that's sexist, and while there is a benefit to her (free meal), that doesn't change the sexism in either the expectation or the action.
When the Snowman is wearing christmas colors, and is a clear stand-in for Santa, what exactly is the point? Forced inclusion often feels worse than exclusion.
Also, I think, when it comes to sexism, you are crossing a line between practical aplication and academic catagorization. I'll make no bones about the fact that I don't really care about theoretics with no application when it comes to this stuff. Not an economist, not a philosophy major.
But you're of the jewish faith, right? I ran into an interesting situation yesterday where a restaurant owner was proud of the decorations they had in their restaurant. Christmas tree, christmas presents, lots of lights and all that jazz. I asked them if they really thought about how alienating that would be to people who didn't celebrate christmas, and they just sort of shrugged it off. To me, that isn't something I would have done because while it is traditionally popular to do it, I find it really alienating to people in the community to single out just christmas when you could have went with a generic holiday theme. While this isn't anyone really saying "Fuck the jews/muslims," it kind of is - and if you ever told them to be more inclusive, they would get really defensive.
I kind of parallel that with the issue of asking for a blessing. No one would honestly say that they own their partner, however it is still implied through the act of asking for permission, and to a lesser extent, a blessing. I would feel more comfortable with going to the parents of my partner and discussing our marriage and then asking for their support (because hey, I'd like that from my friends as well).
Again, it isn't that big of a deal - but of course if it isn't, why are we still practicing it? My guess is that it will die over time with the older generation. But I think you guys underestimate how horrible people are, and maybe to some degree, I am overestimating. After living in the south for a year (Georgia, to be specific), I've seen more regressive behavior than I care to get into.
What's the difference between the two options in the bold paragraph? I don't see how, in a modern context, "blessing" and "support" are different. They aren't literally performing a ritual to confer the blessings of some deity on your union. And I don't see why wanting the support of your partner's loved ones will die out in a generation. It's not like people owned their daughters or paid out a dowry in my parents' generation. I don't know anyone whose dad traded two horses and a goat for their mom in the 60's, and I've lived in the south for the last 17 years.
In my case, and I'd bet in most cases, the only thing that differentiates the ritualized 'asking the parents' from the casual, not-apparently-sexist 'talking to the friends' is that, in most cases, there's no real bond between the proposer and the proposee's parents. I liked my father-in-law before I talked to him about proposing to his daughter, but I didn't really know him that well. Going to see him alone and strike up a conversation was outside of our usual dynamic enough that it felt like a ritualized behavior despite not really being fundamentally different from me telling my wife's and my mutual friends that I was planning to propose.
Also, not to derail, but the Christmas thing pisses me off. If a store owner celebrates a holiday and wants to put up decorations and play holiday music or whatever in their place of business, I don't see anything wrong with that. Yes it might alienate some of their customer-base, but if they want to be surrounded with holiday paraphernalia while at work and are willing to take the hit in clientele during the season, that's their choice and I don't see where anyone gets off telling them they're wrong. Christmas and Halloween, in particular, are so consumerized and secularized these days that there's not really much to even be offended about (unless you're offended by consumerization of religious rites). I'm pretty staunchly agnostic but I love the hell out of some christmastime. The generic 'winter holiday' thing just annoys me. Chaunnukkha (or however you choose to spell it) isn't even a major Jewish holiday, I don't know why the hell any American-born, non-African-Tribal-Tradition-Adherent person is even celebrating Kwanzaa, and the Roman Catholic Church basically co-opted the yule celebration for Christmas anyway, so I don't know why wiccans/pagans/what-have-you's don't use the opportunity to take it back. It's Rich Westerners' Annual Gift Day that happens to share a name with a christian holy day.
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
There we go. You're absolutely correct. It's why we spent nearly 10 pages nailing down the myriad of different situations, all of which are fundamentally similar, in which the act can be sexist or not. Indeed, the argument (from my perspective) ends in that the practical application is almost never sexist in a socially liberal, modern setting. The theoretical issue with asking for "permission" or a "blessing" infers ownership, and that is certainly not a genetic fallacy. While this isn't an example of practical problems, in nearly every case, it does raise questions of agency and social status.
And the biggest thing I'd like to say is that none of us are advocating being in "fear" for the very reasons as laid out above. Advocating awareness of an impersonal, objective sexism in order to continue this discourse and continue the advances made is really all we're after. There's no practical application for this, we're being lofty jackasses, when it comes down to it.
Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of this, but add that ideally I'd rather not see the practice and would encourage more of an open discussion similar to JHunter46's, if it's not that big of a deal to people.
What is it about the practice that you oppose, though? I mean, if it feels "icky" because of its sexist roots, that's a valid psychological issue, but it's your own personal issue, and ultimately an irrational one.
Ultimately it is a societal vestige that shows respect, like tipping your hat, or wearing a tie. There is more value to these behaviors than a lot of people often given them. When you put them all together, I would argue that you get a sort of "opposite broken windows" effect, where, by following certain outlined "polite" protocols, people tend to be more "polite" in their everyday life, in general. No one piece is the key component to this, but if you start chipping away at things, you ultimately tear it all down.
No one is being harmed, and it is a polite way to show respect for your future in-laws.
I can understand your concern about the whole thing coming apart, and sort of the charm behind some traditions that have been removed from the blatant awfulness of their roots, however I think you can still show polite respect for your future in-laws by sharing with them, in the presence of your partner, the two adult decision to wed each other. Explaining why you want to take this step in your life, what advice they can give, and any support they would be wanting to give is more of a sign of a respect than a tradition which, whether you want to admit it or not, is subtly suggestive.
The concept of the "blessing" is sexist in an objective sense
And where is the non fallacious reasoning to back this up?
as I've said, everything put forward seems to ultimately lie atop a genetic fallacy. Whereas, alternative legitimate reasons for seeking a blessing that have NOTHING to do with sexism have also been posited (such as showing respect to elders, or seeking to make nice with individuals who are about to become part of your family.)
"Internalization of gender norms" is probably the term you're looking for.
An act which, knowingly or unknowingly, reinforces gender normative roles and attitudes.
The "Blessing" reinforces the normative concept that a woman is requiring of "guardianship".
And yes, you get no argument that "showing respect to elders, or seeking to make nice with individuals who are about to become part of your family" is sexist in the least. And we made a pretty big distinction between these earlier. But then again, I don't think that that is asking for "permission" or a "blessing". You're equating a specific act with inference of ownership of a person with "cultural niceties". In that case, I'd argue that "showing respect to elders, or seeking to make nice with individuals who are about to become part of your family" isn't seeking a "blessing" or "permission".
I feel as if you want to insist that because you toss a new definition on an old word, you feel as if you've wholly divested that word of negative connotations when your use of the word, itself, isn't really appropriate except in the fully subjective sense for Evander.
Just to put the Christmas thing to bed, I WILL say, for the record, that I DO find the overabundance fo Christmas decorations and music (oh god, the music) incredibly annoying.
I'd never request a business take them down, though. I'd simply go patronize a different business. They have their right to express themselves, and I have my right to choose where I do business, and I'm pretty sure that BOTH of us end up happy that way.
I am actually VERY MUCH against teh forced secularization of Christmas, because it implies that for some reason I WANT Christmas, and if only that Jesus guy wasn't there, I would eat it right up. It';s frankly insulting to assume that about me, and incredibly disrespectful, i feel. Like I said earlier, everyone knows what a snowman wearing a green and red scarf MEANS. Don't try to sell me your secularized religious holidays, fucking let me choose not to participate, because I'm just not interested.
Also, I think, when it comes to sexism, you are crossing a line between practical aplication and academic catagorization. I'll make no bones about the fact that I don't really care about theoretics with no application when it comes to this stuff. Not an economist, not a philosophy major.
Well, we're not really at odds because you're ignoring half the conversation. We agree completely about what you state here, and you can't be bothered to think about anything philosophical.
I am actually VERY MUCH against teh forced secularization of Christmas, because it implies that for some reason I WANT Christmas, and if only that Jesus guy wasn't there, I would eat it right up.
That's very well said. It's less about the holiday (if at all) and much more about getting consumers to shell out cash. Cold, hard economics.
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
I think it's still pretty popular in the south. Guys holding doors open for ladies but not men, paying for their meals, and yes, parents getting all pissed off over their future son in law not asking for their permission/blessing, which to me are the same thing. If your parents WOULDN'T get pissed off, I'd say it is less of an issue.
But you're of the jewish faith, right? I ran into an interesting situation yesterday where a restaurant owner was proud of the decorations they had in their restaurant. Christmas tree, christmas presents, lots of lights and all that jazz. I asked them if they really thought about how alienating that would be to people who didn't celebrate christmas, and they just sort of shrugged it off. To me, that isn't something I would have done because while it is traditionally popular to do it, I find it really alienating to people in the community to single out just christmas when you could have went with a generic holiday theme. While this isn't anyone really saying "Fuck the jews/muslims," it kind of is - and if you ever told them to be more inclusive, they would get really defensive.
I kind of parallel that with the issue of asking for a blessing. No one would honestly say that they own their partner, however it is still implied through the act of asking for permission, and to a lesser extent, a blessing. I would feel more comfortable with going to the parents of my partner and discussing our marriage and then asking for their support (because hey, I'd like that from my friends as well).
Again, it isn't that big of a deal - but of course if it isn't, why are we still practicing it? My guess is that it will die over time with the older generation. But I think you guys underestimate how horrible people are, and maybe to some degree, I am overestimating. After living in the south for a year (Georgia, to be specific), I've seen more regressive behavior than I care to get into.
You realize that many folks find a generic holiday theme EVEN MORE offensive, no? Hannukah is one of the MOST minor Holidays of the Jewish calendar, so when it is the ONLY holiday that gentiles ever aknowledge, it comes off as extremely patronizing, and actually rather discriminatory in its own way. In fact, I would FAR AND AWAY prefer a restaurant to go ahead and put up their sole Christmas tree, and then to turn around, in the spring, and offer kosher-for-Passover meals, during an ACTUALLY important holiday. The day that a gentile restaurateur wishes me a "Happy Shavout" is the day that I can finally believe that they ACTUALLy care, and aren;'t just trying to be inclusive for inclusivity's sake.
And I'll tell you, I DO hold doors for women more often than men, and I have been known to pay for a lady's dinner more often than a man's. It isn't because I think less of women, it is because there are people who expect to have that done for them, and I am not going to disrespect them by making a big scene about hwo I am "being inclusive for their own good."
I can see how the inclusion of jewish customs would be patronizing, but I still think it's better to be inclusive with a happy holidays message than a straight up christian one. Snowmen aren't necessarily christian and can be used to decorate the area :P
I don't care if you pay for another person's meals, but the practice is sexist. You may not be mentally thinking "oh hai, you can't pay for this yourself miss" but your clarification that you are essentially reinforcing what people "expect to have done for them," which is reinforcing their sexist thoughts, is pretty disheartening.
Like, when a woman always expects a man to pay for the meal, that's sexist, and while there is a benefit to her (free meal), that doesn't change the sexism in either the expectation or the action.
When the Snowman is wearing christmas colors, and is a clear stand-in for Santa, what exactly is the point? Forced inclusion often feels worse than exclusion.
Also, I think, when it comes to sexism, you are crossing a line between practical aplication and academic catagorization. I'll make no bones about the fact that I don't really care about theoretics with no application when it comes to this stuff. Not an economist, not a philosophy major.
The jist of your last post appears to be against theory because it has nothing to do with "real life." A social scientist named Kurt Lewin said that "there is nothing so practical as good theory," and by that he means that theory is very practical. They help us understand, predict, and explain what happens in our lives and the world around us. They are pretty relevant in our daily lives.
If a woman expects a man to pay for her meal, that is sexist. Paying for a woman's meal is rooted in sexism because less than 60 years ago, it was common because women were not the bread winners, weren't expected to work (and are actually still expected to be the ones to take time off from work to rear the kids), and a slew of other problems. By always purchasing a meal, rather than swapping, you are not treating the other person equally - and that equality is key to establishing some sort of feminism in a patriarchal system, even if it's on the surface.
The jist of your last post appears to be against theory because it has nothing to do with "real life." A social scientist named Kurt Lewin said that "there is nothing so practical as good theory," and by that he means that theory is very practical. They help us understand, predict, and explain what happens in our lives and the world around us. They are pretty relevant in our daily lives.
Nah, it's cool. We're perpetuating that fringe-liberal horror of insisting that people think.
The jist of your last post appears to be against theory because it has nothing to do with "real life." A social scientist named Kurt Lewin said that "there is nothing so practical as good theory," and by that he means that theory is very practical. They help us understand, predict, and explain what happens in our lives and the world around us. They are pretty relevant in our daily lives.
Nah, it's cool. We're perpetuating that fringe-liberal horror of insisting that people think.
EDIT: Holy ghost! misquote.
Thinking can be painful sometimes - and I mean that with a whole lot of sincerity.
*edit*
I'm curious as to what people's stances on the words "Fag" and "Gay" are as pejorative words. Gay used to mean happy, has also meant you are a homosexual, as well as your are lame/stupid, in the same way that Fag is.
So my question to you is can we draw a parallel between our current discussion and this term? For instance, many people say "I'm not a homophobe, I have no problem with homosexuality, but that dude is a total faggot!" or "I use gay to mean lame or stupid, not anything else," but I would say that this is ignoring the suggestive nature behind the word, and that is to say that first of all homosexuality isn't okay, and two, a man taking on feminine characteristics is not okay, where as it is okay in our society today for a woman to take on masculine characteristics (to a limited extent, ie: an assertive woman is still considered a "bitch").
I am actually VERY MUCH against teh forced secularization of Christmas, because it implies that for some reason I WANT Christmas, and if only that Jesus guy wasn't there, I would eat it right up. It';s frankly insulting to assume that about me, and incredibly disrespectful, i feel. Like I said earlier, everyone knows what a snowman wearing a green and red scarf MEANS. Don't try to sell me your secularized religious holidays, fucking let me choose not to participate, because I'm just not interested.
While I have no argument against your observation that Christmas has more or less become a secular, ultra-capitalistic holiday, don't you think life would be rather dull without something to look forward to at the end of every year? A tradition of togetherness. A tradition of temporary aesthetic change (red/green, lights, ornaments). A tradition that lets you buy shit guilt-free?
I'm very, very much in favor of the secularization of Christmas. Of course it doesn't HAVE to be "Christmas" but there should be SOMETHING, anything. Events like this serve an important psychological/sociological purpose. They are equivalent to cemeteries, and coliseums/jousts/tournaments/contests/etc. I think there's a specific word for it, but I can't recall what it is right now. Maybe a sociology major (ha, ha) will wander by and drop the name for me, if there is one.
Also, nobody is individually forcing you to celebrate. Sure, we might call you Scrooge McDuck and throw pies at you, but a pie in the face isn't really "forcing" you to do anything. Unless you're allergic to pie. Which would be pretty sad.
And can you please stop asking for people to put topics to rest? Topics die when they die. Nobody's forcing you to read a topic you don't want, but you act like the mere existence of it is some kind of skin irritant.
I'm curious as to what people's stances on the words "Fag" and "Gay" are as pejorative words. Gay used to mean happy, has also meant you are a homosexual, as well as your are lame/stupid, in the same way that Fag is.
So my question to you is can we draw a parallel between our current discussion and this term? For instance, many people say "I'm not a homophobe, I have no problem with homosexuality, but that dude is a total faggot!" or "I use gay to mean lame or stupid, not anything else," but I would say that this is ignoring the suggestive nature behind the word, and that is to say that first of all homosexuality isn't okay, and two, a man taking on feminine characteristics is not okay, where as it is okay in our society today for a woman to take on masculine characteristics (to a limited extent, ie: an assertive woman is still considered a "bitch").
While we veer a bit off topic, it's the same sort of issue as discussing the evolution of receiving a "blessing" from a bride's father.
The real equivalent that we've seen shift is the use of the "N-word".
Now, my partner is a teacher, and as such she hears the word "fag" thrown around a lot by teenagers who have little understanding of how absolutely offensive that term is to those of us who grew up in the pre-2000 world. Back when I was in school, late 90's early 2000's, if someone called someone else a "fag" there was a distinct inference of pejorative "homosexual" attitudes.
Typically, these days, kids are pretty ignorant of the real effect of the word, and there are two sides to the coin. On one hand, it is losing it's blatantly homophobic overtones, and the use of "gay" is almost entirely subsumed as a stand-in for "stupid". While this is horrific, in and of itself, it is also the result of a redefinition that is entirely still in process. I have gay friends who freely throw around the term "faggot" without negative connotations.
While marriage and sexism has been evolving toward more equitable conditions and frameworks, homosexuals are just beginning the process of winning cultural gains in the "collective unconscious". Women won some huge cultural victories in the last 10-20+ years.
Posts
I don't see what it has to do with cognitive dissonance. It just seems like such an insignificant thing to be upset about.
Glad we agree - so why are we still maintaining it? If it's not a big deal, we can abandon crappy traditions and start new ones :P
Not at all. This thread has devolved to the point where outright mockery is the only sane response. Once the feminists started accusing each other of sexism, it's time to get wierd with it.
Naw, I thought it was a worthwhile exercise. I think to some extent something was lost in translation when they were trying to express themselves, but it has sense been resolved.
Mockery has its place amongst clowns, not debate and discourse.
Congratulations on being the first person to know where my namesake came from. And thank you for making the blessings = permission connection more of church makes sense to me now!
I don't think it matters one way or the other. I don't see it as being sexist anymore (though certainly it used to be), just a tradition that nobody is forced to go through. I prefer asking for a blessing, and would definitely do so, but either way it just doesn't seem worth worrying about in the least.
I want to know what sexist jackass thinks this is a man/woman issue. Both women and men can propose. Some couples contain only men and some contain only women. And of course there is a POTENTIAL downside if the other person or their parents don't LIKE it. This is also true of kissing in public, talking dirty, and eating Chinese food.
That makes equal amounts of sense. No more or less. Every relationship and family is unique, and should be approached based on how THEY are and not your assumptions of how they SHOULD be.
Example: My girlfriend absolutely loves Okinawa because she grew up there, and has a fetish for traditional theatrics. If I proposed to her in the manner of the traditional Okinawan man, she would be bragging about it til the day she died, even if it involved me throwing cow pucks at her or bribing her parents or something. That's her -thing-. I would not propose to Quid that way; maybe slip it into an Apples to Apples game card or something. Because people are individuals, and should be treated as such, even if, in their place, you would personally be upset.
It depends on the parents. Some people are -extremely- protective of their children either by nature or because of past incidents, and would be greatly comforted by the gesture. Parents, being people, are also individuals, and should be treated as such.
This is kind of half the point of a lot of social movements.
You have to understand that the limed part is very progressive thinking and the reason why it is progressive is because of the permeation of sexist thought. In our society, typically the man proposes, does the asking out, and is expected to do so because assertiveness is usually attributed to the masculine gender. Consequently, assertiveness is a trait typically found amongst males due to the reinforcement they receive throughout their lives.
Pragmatically, it still operates as such, and I think that is what she was getting at. To suggest that it is "normal" (and I put that in quotation for reasons I hope you understand) for a woman to propose is ignoring cultural norms in the united states.
I cannot speak for other countries.
Except that it has nothing to do with ownership, because no one in the interaction actually thinks that another person is being owned.
I'm sure many people acknowledge that they don't literally own someone.
However, there is an underlying entitlement people feel and exercise - that entitlement being the right to give permission. That's the whole concept behind being "possessive."
They do not have the right to give that, nor does it have any sort of place.
But we've already done this dance, so just check out previous pages please.
Yes women can propose. However, it was quite clear in the majority of the posts in this thread (which is what I was referring to) that they were discussing a man proposing to a woman (see all the discussion of the historical traditions involved in ownership of women). As men were not traditionally considered their mother's property I don't think the same argument would have sprung up around a discussion of women asking their future mother in law's permission.
I disagree with the red part. If either set of parents are imparting useful knowledge/constructive criticism, isn't it going to be more useful if both members of the couple hear it?
And yes, parents should be treated as individuals, but so should your SO. And you are theoretically trying to marry your SO in this situation so I think their individuality should take precedence over your potential future in-laws individuality.
The conversation has progressed. I am fairly sure that everyone has rejected Asking Permission and has moved on to Asking for Blessings and Informing Before Proposing. Any argument with me will absolutely be under the assumption that Permission is absurd, but the rest is fine. I reject the suggestion in the OP that men are the proposers in all cases, and that women are those proposed to in all cases, and I think it absurd to continue under any other assumption. I further find it absurd that the situation changes based on the gonads of the proposer and proposed to.
Those who are clinging to the Permission/Man Asks thing are mostly the people who want an excuse to be self-righteous though it has been rejected.
Not if the advice is "how to propose in the best way."
It is not uncommon for people to have spoken their dreams related to coupling to their parents or friends, but not to their potential spouses, out of a desire to avoid pressuring them or making unreasonable demands.
Certainly your SO comes first, but again, sometimes you're asking the parents strictly for the sake of the SO, because that is how the SO personally, as an individual, would want it.
You are not every SO, so do not assume that they would want what you want or feel what you feel in a given situation.
If your girlfriend said 'Before you propose to me, I'd like you to take me to Europe' and you agreed, would that be sexist? She wants something from you, you agree to give it to her, transaction complete.
Saying, 'Ask my parents for permission first' means she is bound by tradition, not a sexist. You refusing makes you disrespectful to her beliefs, and means the two of you are not a good match. You need to go and find someone who hates parents as much as you do.
i was posting on the previous pages, and still haven't recieved an answer.
the custom was sexist in origin, but I fail to see what inherent sexism there is in the present day incarnation, understanding that, nowadays, when some one is denied permission by the parents, they will just get married anyway, as well as the fact that even if the parents say yes, the one being proposed to still has the right of refusal.
The parents are not actually making any sort of binding decision. All that this custom means anymore is that the one looking to enter in to their family is seeking the acceptances of the parents that they are willing to take them in as a family member.
There is, of course, a wide array of human behaviors. I'd say that the vast majority of us (and probably all), here, don't subscribe to any sort of overtly sexist acts in regards to the traditions of daughter/wife-as-property.
In most cases, a conversation regarding proposal/marriage with future in-laws is a good thing, without any actual harm.
You want an example of how the sexist tradition is alive and well? Check out Purity Balls.
Now, in the practical sense most "socially liberal" (apolitical) modern persons aren't actually effected by any of what we're discussing, practically.
But it is alive and well in a minority of households and minds. Things like abstinence-only education tends to skirt this line, as well, creating unspoken but existent ties to the "values" of "traditional marriage". And that was a program the federal government tried to set up as the standard for educating young women about their sexuality. Of course this example was as divested of sexism as possible, but the general gist that "young women and men can't be trusted to be in control of their sexual activity" couples with the cultural traditions of men as dominant and women as submissive a little too well.
The fact that sexism exists elsewhere in thew world is not reason to live our lives in fear of implied sexism to a third person narrator, though.
When it comes to asking the parents, all claims of sexism in the modern context that it is being discussed here seem to boil down to a genetic fallacy.
There we go. You're absolutely correct. It's why we spent nearly 10 pages nailing down the myriad of different situations, all of which are fundamentally similar, in which the act can be sexist or not. Indeed, the argument (from my perspective) ends in that the practical application is almost never sexist in a socially liberal, modern setting. The theoretical issue with asking for "permission" or a "blessing" infers ownership, and that is certainly not a genetic fallacy. While this isn't an example of practical problems, in nearly every case, it does raise questions of agency and social status.
And the biggest thing I'd like to say is that none of us are advocating being in "fear" for the very reasons as laid out above. Advocating awareness of an impersonal, objective sexism in order to continue this discourse and continue the advances made is really all we're after. There's no practical application for this, we're being lofty jackasses, when it comes down to it.
We had a nice conversation and I was glad I did it, but I would have never asked for permission.
I think it's still pretty popular in the south. Guys holding doors open for ladies but not men, paying for their meals, and yes, parents getting all pissed off over their future son in law not asking for their permission/blessing, which to me are the same thing. If your parents WOULDN'T get pissed off, I'd say it is less of an issue.
But you're of the jewish faith, right? I ran into an interesting situation yesterday where a restaurant owner was proud of the decorations they had in their restaurant. Christmas tree, christmas presents, lots of lights and all that jazz. I asked them if they really thought about how alienating that would be to people who didn't celebrate christmas, and they just sort of shrugged it off. To me, that isn't something I would have done because while it is traditionally popular to do it, I find it really alienating to people in the community to single out just christmas when you could have went with a generic holiday theme. While this isn't anyone really saying "Fuck the jews/muslims," it kind of is - and if you ever told them to be more inclusive, they would get really defensive.
I kind of parallel that with the issue of asking for a blessing. No one would honestly say that they own their partner, however it is still implied through the act of asking for permission, and to a lesser extent, a blessing. I would feel more comfortable with going to the parents of my partner and discussing our marriage and then asking for their support (because hey, I'd like that from my friends as well).
Again, it isn't that big of a deal - but of course if it isn't, why are we still practicing it? My guess is that it will die over time with the older generation. But I think you guys underestimate how horrible people are, and maybe to some degree, I am overestimating. After living in the south for a year (Georgia, to be specific), I've seen more regressive behavior than I care to get into.
Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of this, but add that ideally I'd rather not see the practice and would encourage more of an open discussion similar to JHunter46's, if it's not that big of a deal to people.
What is it about the practice that you oppose, though? I mean, if it feels "icky" because of its sexist roots, that's a valid psychological issue, but it's your own personal issue, and ultimately an irrational one.
Ultimately it is a societal vestige that shows respect, like tipping your hat, or wearing a tie. There is more value to these behaviors than a lot of people often given them. When you put them all together, I would argue that you get a sort of "opposite broken windows" effect, where, by following certain outlined "polite" protocols, people tend to be more "polite" in their everyday life, in general. No one piece is the key component to this, but if you start chipping away at things, you ultimately tear it all down.
No one is being harmed, and it is a polite way to show respect for your future in-laws.
You're runnign with inferrence instead of implication (and I'm not entirely sure that your word usage is valid, but I'm not here for pedantics,) but it still begs the questions of WHO is recieving this implication, or making this inferrence. If all parties involved understand that this is about respect for elders, and has nothign to do with ownership, then who is this other party that everyone is constantly concerned with?
The implication here seems to be that something that carries absolutely no sexism in context is somehow sexist out of context; subjectively fine, but objectively wrong. I would argue that this is moving in an impossible direction. If there is inherent sexism, that sexism needs to be able to be actually shown, not inferred or implied.
That was pretty much my intentions, I just wanted to be polite, but pretty much regardless of the outcome I was going to propose anyway, I just thought it was a nice thing to do.
You realize that many folks find a generic holiday theme EVEN MORE offensive, no? Hannukah is one of the MOST minor Holidays of the Jewish calendar, so when it is the ONLY holiday that gentiles ever aknowledge, it comes off as extremely patronizing, and actually rather discriminatory in its own way. In fact, I would FAR AND AWAY prefer a restaurant to go ahead and put up their sole Christmas tree, and then to turn around, in the spring, and offer kosher-for-Passover meals, during an ACTUALLY important holiday. The day that a gentile restaurateur wishes me a "Happy Shavout" is the day that I can finally believe that they ACTUALLy care, and aren;'t just trying to be inclusive for inclusivity's sake.
And I'll tell you, I DO hold doors for women more often than men, and I have been known to pay for a lady's dinner more often than a man's. It isn't because I think less of women, it is because there are people who expect to have that done for them, and I am not going to disrespect them by making a big scene about hwo I am "being inclusive for their own good."
Key part here is bolded.
Asking the parents has nothing to do with ownership, in modern times, because the parents' answer doesn't actually dictate anything. If the parents say no, the proposal will generally still be made (and if it isn't, you're talking about a case where the parents/family would have been creating issues even if they WEREN'T asked first.)
Furthermore, and a point that many people seem to be ignoring, if the parents say yes, the individual being proposed to can STILL say no. The parents agreeing doesn't obligate the person (generally the lady) to marriage, which is what WOULD be happening if ownership had ANYTHING to do with this scenario. A "yes" from the parents is a mere formality, and nothing with any actual weight.
Not necessarily. I should clarify my framework as being modern, not postmodern. You're advocating a postmodern relationship in which demonstrative effects are the only means of measuring. It's a solid argument, and I think we're splitting hairs over our personal philosophical starting points more than disagreeing with any concrete assertion.
I maintain a certain Platonic sense of the eternal. Not "eternal" in a religious or absolute context, but "eternal" as in the existence of "pure forms" which are merely the philosophical and ethereal "perfect concepts". Ergo, the existence of this "third person" is a necessary and existent piece of any concrete application.
And I think there's an issue you betray when you refer to the objective as if it had any sort of agency. You're anthropomorphizing a concept which leads to inherent aspects of person-hood which simply don't apply. The closest thing to a "who" in this sense would be characterized as Jungian "Collective Unconscious", but I do not have the background to make any sort of assumptions of psychology.
I simply do not accept that a concept-as-objective requires concrete evidence. I think that one part of my position that has been implied is that the objective measure is purely theoretical, and that as such it truly has little implication on any actions taken by a subjective person.
In other words, if a man asks for a "blessing" because of an egalitarian conversation with his partner, I can't subjectively find sexism. The concept of the "blessing" is sexist in an objective sense, but that objective judgment simply doesn't infer anything on the act itself, as we're using two separate means of evaluation which really have nothing to do with each other in any practical application. Culturally and historically the sexism inherent in acts of "possessing a woman" are still widely applicable. They just aren't applicable when you get down to actual acts, and in order for an action to be sexist it must, as you state, be concrete.
EDIT: I'm not trying to infer anything, which is part of the issue. If you look at racism as a close relative to sexism, you'll see immense gains over the last half-decade. There is still racism, but the absolute worst is behind us. It shouldn't stop us from having a discourse on race and racism, and there are slow, cultural shifts that are continually happening in order to "correct" the injustice and discrimination in the past. We need to continue the conversation. On the other side, the nitty-gritty argument is generally over if affirmative action is still necessary, which is very different from having a conversation about objective, theoretical racism.
And where is the non fallacious reasoning to back this up?
as I've said, everything put forward seems to ultimately lie atop a genetic fallacy. Whereas, alternative legitimate reasons for seeking a blessing that have NOTHING to do with sexism have also been posited (such as showing respect to elders, or seeking to make nice with individuals who are about to become part of your family.)
I can see how the inclusion of jewish customs would be patronizing, but I still think it's better to be inclusive with a happy holidays message than a straight up christian one. Snowmen aren't necessarily christian and can be used to decorate the area :P
I don't care if you pay for another person's meals, but the practice is sexist. You may not be mentally thinking "oh hai, you can't pay for this yourself miss" but your clarification that you are essentially reinforcing what people "expect to have done for them," which is reinforcing their sexist thoughts, is pretty disheartening.
Like, when a woman always expects a man to pay for the meal, that's sexist, and while there is a benefit to her (free meal), that doesn't change the sexism in either the expectation or the action.
There's a difference between intent and action.
I intend on showing my respect to her family, but my actions are both sexist and showing respect.
Asking for a blessing is asking for approval, and it's a PG way of saying the R version, which is "may I have your permission to wed your daughter."
It functions like a euphemism.
When the Snowman is wearing christmas colors, and is a clear stand-in for Santa, what exactly is the point? Forced inclusion often feels worse than exclusion.
Also, I think, when it comes to sexism, you are crossing a line between practical aplication and academic catagorization. I'll make no bones about the fact that I don't really care about theoretics with no application when it comes to this stuff. Not an economist, not a philosophy major.
What's the difference between the two options in the bold paragraph? I don't see how, in a modern context, "blessing" and "support" are different. They aren't literally performing a ritual to confer the blessings of some deity on your union. And I don't see why wanting the support of your partner's loved ones will die out in a generation. It's not like people owned their daughters or paid out a dowry in my parents' generation. I don't know anyone whose dad traded two horses and a goat for their mom in the 60's, and I've lived in the south for the last 17 years.
In my case, and I'd bet in most cases, the only thing that differentiates the ritualized 'asking the parents' from the casual, not-apparently-sexist 'talking to the friends' is that, in most cases, there's no real bond between the proposer and the proposee's parents. I liked my father-in-law before I talked to him about proposing to his daughter, but I didn't really know him that well. Going to see him alone and strike up a conversation was outside of our usual dynamic enough that it felt like a ritualized behavior despite not really being fundamentally different from me telling my wife's and my mutual friends that I was planning to propose.
Also, not to derail, but the Christmas thing pisses me off. If a store owner celebrates a holiday and wants to put up decorations and play holiday music or whatever in their place of business, I don't see anything wrong with that. Yes it might alienate some of their customer-base, but if they want to be surrounded with holiday paraphernalia while at work and are willing to take the hit in clientele during the season, that's their choice and I don't see where anyone gets off telling them they're wrong. Christmas and Halloween, in particular, are so consumerized and secularized these days that there's not really much to even be offended about (unless you're offended by consumerization of religious rites). I'm pretty staunchly agnostic but I love the hell out of some christmastime. The generic 'winter holiday' thing just annoys me. Chaunnukkha (or however you choose to spell it) isn't even a major Jewish holiday, I don't know why the hell any American-born, non-African-Tribal-Tradition-Adherent person is even celebrating Kwanzaa, and the Roman Catholic Church basically co-opted the yule celebration for Christmas anyway, so I don't know why wiccans/pagans/what-have-you's don't use the opportunity to take it back. It's Rich Westerners' Annual Gift Day that happens to share a name with a christian holy day.
Derail over. Sorry.
I can understand your concern about the whole thing coming apart, and sort of the charm behind some traditions that have been removed from the blatant awfulness of their roots, however I think you can still show polite respect for your future in-laws by sharing with them, in the presence of your partner, the two adult decision to wed each other. Explaining why you want to take this step in your life, what advice they can give, and any support they would be wanting to give is more of a sign of a respect than a tradition which, whether you want to admit it or not, is subtly suggestive.
"Internalization of gender norms" is probably the term you're looking for.
An act which, knowingly or unknowingly, reinforces gender normative roles and attitudes.
The "Blessing" reinforces the normative concept that a woman is requiring of "guardianship".
And yes, you get no argument that "showing respect to elders, or seeking to make nice with individuals who are about to become part of your family" is sexist in the least. And we made a pretty big distinction between these earlier. But then again, I don't think that that is asking for "permission" or a "blessing". You're equating a specific act with inference of ownership of a person with "cultural niceties". In that case, I'd argue that "showing respect to elders, or seeking to make nice with individuals who are about to become part of your family" isn't seeking a "blessing" or "permission".
I feel as if you want to insist that because you toss a new definition on an old word, you feel as if you've wholly divested that word of negative connotations when your use of the word, itself, isn't really appropriate except in the fully subjective sense for Evander.
I'd never request a business take them down, though. I'd simply go patronize a different business. They have their right to express themselves, and I have my right to choose where I do business, and I'm pretty sure that BOTH of us end up happy that way.
I am actually VERY MUCH against teh forced secularization of Christmas, because it implies that for some reason I WANT Christmas, and if only that Jesus guy wasn't there, I would eat it right up. It';s frankly insulting to assume that about me, and incredibly disrespectful, i feel. Like I said earlier, everyone knows what a snowman wearing a green and red scarf MEANS. Don't try to sell me your secularized religious holidays, fucking let me choose not to participate, because I'm just not interested.
Now, can we PLEASE put that topic to bed?
Well, we're not really at odds because you're ignoring half the conversation. We agree completely about what you state here, and you can't be bothered to think about anything philosophical.
That's very well said. It's less about the holiday (if at all) and much more about getting consumers to shell out cash. Cold, hard economics.
The jist of your last post appears to be against theory because it has nothing to do with "real life." A social scientist named Kurt Lewin said that "there is nothing so practical as good theory," and by that he means that theory is very practical. They help us understand, predict, and explain what happens in our lives and the world around us. They are pretty relevant in our daily lives.
If a woman expects a man to pay for her meal, that is sexist. Paying for a woman's meal is rooted in sexism because less than 60 years ago, it was common because women were not the bread winners, weren't expected to work (and are actually still expected to be the ones to take time off from work to rear the kids), and a slew of other problems. By always purchasing a meal, rather than swapping, you are not treating the other person equally - and that equality is key to establishing some sort of feminism in a patriarchal system, even if it's on the surface.
Nah, it's cool. We're perpetuating that fringe-liberal horror of insisting that people think.
EDIT: Holy ghost! misquote.
Thinking can be painful sometimes - and I mean that with a whole lot of sincerity.
*edit*
I'm curious as to what people's stances on the words "Fag" and "Gay" are as pejorative words. Gay used to mean happy, has also meant you are a homosexual, as well as your are lame/stupid, in the same way that Fag is.
So my question to you is can we draw a parallel between our current discussion and this term? For instance, many people say "I'm not a homophobe, I have no problem with homosexuality, but that dude is a total faggot!" or "I use gay to mean lame or stupid, not anything else," but I would say that this is ignoring the suggestive nature behind the word, and that is to say that first of all homosexuality isn't okay, and two, a man taking on feminine characteristics is not okay, where as it is okay in our society today for a woman to take on masculine characteristics (to a limited extent, ie: an assertive woman is still considered a "bitch").
While I have no argument against your observation that Christmas has more or less become a secular, ultra-capitalistic holiday, don't you think life would be rather dull without something to look forward to at the end of every year? A tradition of togetherness. A tradition of temporary aesthetic change (red/green, lights, ornaments). A tradition that lets you buy shit guilt-free?
I'm very, very much in favor of the secularization of Christmas. Of course it doesn't HAVE to be "Christmas" but there should be SOMETHING, anything. Events like this serve an important psychological/sociological purpose. They are equivalent to cemeteries, and coliseums/jousts/tournaments/contests/etc. I think there's a specific word for it, but I can't recall what it is right now. Maybe a sociology major (ha, ha) will wander by and drop the name for me, if there is one.
Also, nobody is individually forcing you to celebrate. Sure, we might call you Scrooge McDuck and throw pies at you, but a pie in the face isn't really "forcing" you to do anything. Unless you're allergic to pie. Which would be pretty sad.
And can you please stop asking for people to put topics to rest? Topics die when they die. Nobody's forcing you to read a topic you don't want, but you act like the mere existence of it is some kind of skin irritant.
While we veer a bit off topic, it's the same sort of issue as discussing the evolution of receiving a "blessing" from a bride's father.
The real equivalent that we've seen shift is the use of the "N-word".
Now, my partner is a teacher, and as such she hears the word "fag" thrown around a lot by teenagers who have little understanding of how absolutely offensive that term is to those of us who grew up in the pre-2000 world. Back when I was in school, late 90's early 2000's, if someone called someone else a "fag" there was a distinct inference of pejorative "homosexual" attitudes.
Typically, these days, kids are pretty ignorant of the real effect of the word, and there are two sides to the coin. On one hand, it is losing it's blatantly homophobic overtones, and the use of "gay" is almost entirely subsumed as a stand-in for "stupid". While this is horrific, in and of itself, it is also the result of a redefinition that is entirely still in process. I have gay friends who freely throw around the term "faggot" without negative connotations.
While marriage and sexism has been evolving toward more equitable conditions and frameworks, homosexuals are just beginning the process of winning cultural gains in the "collective unconscious". Women won some huge cultural victories in the last 10-20+ years.