As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Politically Correct: Is It Correct, You Silly Goose?

1910111214

Posts

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2010
    How do you go about teaching children to ignore the gender training that basically fills their whole world?

    Most of that gender training isn't so much pushed on them from external forces vis a vis advertising and the like. Toddlers don't watch advertising.

    It's learned behavior that starts at home. If kids have a passive and submissive mother and a domineering father, that's what their ideal and expectation of gender roles becomes.

    That, and reinforcement directly from parents. Parents, especially when they have two or more different-gender kids, love seeing how their little boy totally likes trucks but their little girl totally is dressing up with jewelry and stuff and isn't it funny how they're so different already. Which isn't evil or anything. You just unconsciously reinforce behavior and interests from a very early age.

    Hell, people are generally nicer to female babies. As though at 6 months the little boys can totally take it.

    Edit: Actually, a good example that's a bit more large-scale:

    How many ladies do you know who totally throw like girls? Hilariously limp-wristed and all that?

    Well, my sister doesn't do that. She throws a mean fastball. Why? Because my dad made up a game when we were kids involving hucking a superball at a tower of blocks and trying to knock it over. It was awesome, and it helped teach us how to throw decently from a very early age. It's a behavior that almost all boys are taught, and almost no girls, for no particular reason.

    I won't do that to my kids, mainly because I'm really fucking cheap and my family is full of packrats. Son or daughter, my kid'll be playing with my old crap. Actually, it'll be my brother's old crap, as he's autistic and never stopped wanting Thomas merchandise, so his stuff makes up the lion's share.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    Toys that were marketed in a gender neutral way would be a fantastic cultural advance.

    I've never met a woman who's played with Legos. I've never met a man who hasn't played with Legos. This is pretty fucking disturbing, yet it seems to me that Legos have mostly been marketed in a fairly gender-neutral way.

    I wouldn't blame marketing. They'll try to sell whatever they think people would buy; they don't shape society. It's all about the parents and their attitudes. If your parents are silly geese and fuck you up, neither the education system nor the free market can do much for you.

    Look at the commercials. Hardly gender neutral. They did a good job of marketing that idea to you though.

    Aside from "build together" and the pink bullshit, the ads are actually fairly gender neutral (and Pink Bullshit is an abomination of a commercial, no matter who it's aimed at). Sure, pirates and medieval castles appeal more to boys than to girls, but that's not Lego's fault, and there's very little in those ads that can be interpreted as actively reinforcing those gender roles.

    1. There's not a single girl in those ads and I dare you to find another ad where a girl is in such an active roll building anything other than a stereotypically feminine object.

    2. Pirate's and medieval castles - battle-like imagery and aggression - two realms that it's okay for a man to occupy and traditionally, not okay for a woman to occupy.

    We learn behavior from seeing people like ourselves through media. Those commercials are reinforcing what it stereotypically means to be a man or woman.

    SkyGheNe on
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I think so much of the public PC discussion has to do with people being ignorant of, forgetting, or not believing that character traits are down to both nature and nurture, and that it's often impossible to say how much is down to the one and how much to the other. It's often people who have set ideas on what is "natural" who deny that there even is a discussion, but it doesn't help that people on the left (me included) can have a tendency to deny the nature part of the equation too much.

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2010
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Too bad your hypothetical doesn't operate even remotely close to reality. You're using fantasy to prove a point - sure it's interesting speculation, but it isn't relevant.

    Those portrayals are often used to oppress or restrict. A stereotypically gay man was literally a living joke in movies - and still is to an extent. Hell, they are in games (See Gay Tony in GTAIV). Please watch the Celluloid Closet to get a better idea of what I'm talking about. Or hell, black face? A black man acting as those caricatures?

    Princess peach was seen as acceptable because it was a woman. I guarantee that if you put a man in place of her - less people would buy the concept of an emotional man. While the younger males are better at communicating their feelings, being a "man" still greatly hinges on your ability to hide your emotions and be tough, with very few exceptions. If you do show emotions, it's under extreme stress rather than in an attempt to communicate prior to a problem.

    Some media goes beyond this idea of masculinity though...

    I'm not saying that those portrayals can't or aren't used to subjugate someone based on race/sex, I simply disagree that a person of a certain race or sex can not simply be portrayed a certain way because of "political correctness".

    I bring up the Princess Peach game because every character, male and female, suffered the same curse in the game, where their emotions had run amok. The game was, IIRC, not marketed specifically for women, either.

    I have not played Ballad of Gay Tony. Is it ridiculous and stereotypical, or is Gay Tony just a gay guy who has his own game?

    Sheep on
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    Too bad your hypothetical doesn't operate even remotely close to reality. You're using fantasy to prove a point - sure it's interesting speculation, but it isn't relevant.

    Those portrayals are often used to oppress or restrict. A stereotypically gay man was literally a living joke in movies - and still is to an extent. Hell, they are in games (See Gay Tony in GTAIV). Please watch the Celluloid Closet to get a better idea of what I'm talking about. Or hell, black face? A black man acting as those caricatures?

    Princess peach was seen as acceptable because it was a woman. I guarantee that if you put a man in place of her - less people would buy the concept of an emotional man. While the younger males are better at communicating their feelings, being a "man" still greatly hinges on your ability to hide your emotions and be tough, with very few exceptions. If you do show emotions, it's under extreme stress rather than in an attempt to communicate prior to a problem.

    Some media goes beyond this idea of masculinity though...

    I'm not saying that those portrayals can't or aren't used to subjugate someone based on race/sex, I simply disagree that a person of a certain race or sex can not simply be portrayed a certain way because of "political correctness".

    I bring up the Princess Peach game because every character, male and female, suffered the same curse in the game, where their emotions had run amok. The game was, IIRC, not marketed specifically for women, either.

    I have not played Ballad of Gay Tony. Is it ridiculous and stereotypical, or is Gay Tony just a gay guy who has his own game?

    You bring up a really good point about princess peach!

    Gay Tony, when shot at, runs around with his arms flailing, screaming in a high pitched voice. He is very reminiscent of the "sissy," a hollywood caricature of homosexuality that appeared in early movies.

    In the main game - you also have a character named Bernie - Niko's war comrade who suffered the same horrors. During the war, he was in the closet - when Niko encounters him again, he is out of the closet, and suddenly he becomes a walking gay stereotype that isn't just unwilling to fight or do dirty work, but is unable to. It's as if being a homosexual fundamentally changed him, which send a really disgusting message.

    That being homosexual somehow transforms you and does something to your character, as well as likes and dislikes.

    SkyGheNe on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2010
    Ah. That's surprising about the Gay Tony thing. I checked some cut scenes after making my previous post and they seemed very non stereotypical, so I can definitely see the issue with Gay Tony if there's a drastic change of character when it's can serve a comical but damaging end.

    However, as far as Bernie, and this is anecdotal and that don't mean shit, but I know a handful of men that did start gravitating towards the "sissy stereotype" after they came out of the closet. That's how they acted, or would have acted, if they weren't forced to live in fear/in the closet.

    It would have been a nice lesson in morality if Bernie got to say something to that effect in GTAIV. "I was always like this, I just had to hide it because of homophobic assholes".

    But yeah, giving the impression that to be gay you have to act a certain way, is outlandish in itself, especially when that perception is actively ingrained into someone else.

    Sheep on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    GTA5 Utopia City : Use light rail to navigate around the city exploring quaint historical landmarks. Meet sophisticated women or men at art galleries for passionate love making on their terms. Help old ladies through the crosswalk. Talk about the challenges of running a small business in a multi-culturally diverse city. Volunteer at a center for troubled youths. Participate in a community-police partnership effort to improve your neighborhood.

    Using GTA games as an example of Racism/Sexism/Homophobia is pretty silly. Its not like they went lets make a gay character, and Tony was what they figured a realistic gay person would be like. The games are chocked full of stereotypes intentionally, because they meld with the rest of the over the top elements pretty well.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2010
    We're using Gay Tony specifically. I think your point stands with the rest of the series as a whole. Specifically San Andreas which does a decent job of handling that whole LA/Drug/Cop scene from the early 90s.

    Sheep on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Was no one tipped off when he was called "Gay Tony" instead of just Tony?

    Yar on
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    However, as far as Bernie, and this is anecdotal and that don't mean shit, but I know a handful of men that did start gravitating towards the "sissy stereotype" after they came out of the closet. That's how they acted, or would have acted, if they weren't forced to live in fear/in the closet.

    Alternatively, when they were first able to admit to themselves and others that they were gay they may have latched on to the only things they associated with homosexuality, which would be extreme stereotypes. It's not like ancient Greek homosexuals were yearning to be sissies.

    Cervetus on
    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited January 2010
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    However, as far as Bernie, and this is anecdotal and that don't mean shit, but I know a handful of men that did start gravitating towards the "sissy stereotype" after they came out of the closet. That's how they acted, or would have acted, if they weren't forced to live in fear/in the closet.

    Alternatively, when they were first able to admit to themselves and others that they were gay they may have latched on to the only things they associated with homosexuality, which would be extreme stereotypes. It's not like ancient Greek homosexuals were yearning to be sissies.

    There's also the fact that once they're out, they're no longer bound to some ridiculously restrictive idea of what they have to be. If a straight guy starts to act feminine, he gets funky looks, people whisper, question his masculinity, all that.

    If a gay guy does people will think he's... gay? What?

    At the point that someone's out, they're out. They're not as rigidly bound to what they can and can't do, partially because they're already socially unacceptable, so to speak.

    I mean, this is a gross oversimplification, but it does contribute.

    Shivahn on
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    However, as far as Bernie, and this is anecdotal and that don't mean shit, but I know a handful of men that did start gravitating towards the "sissy stereotype" after they came out of the closet. That's how they acted, or would have acted, if they weren't forced to live in fear/in the closet.

    Alternatively, when they were first able to admit to themselves and others that they were gay they may have latched on to the only things they associated with homosexuality, which would be extreme stereotypes. It's not like ancient Greek homosexuals were yearning to be sissies.

    There's also the fact that once they're out, they're no longer bound to some ridiculously restrictive idea of what they have to be. If a straight guy starts to act feminine, he gets funky looks, people whisper, question his masculinity, all that.

    If a gay guy does people will think he's... gay? What?

    At the point that someone's out, they're out. They're not as rigidly bound to what they can and can't do, partially because they're already socially unacceptable, so to speak.

    I mean, this is a gross oversimplification, but it does contribute.

    But that doesn't mean a homosexual male can't act in a 'stereotypical hetero male' fashion. Liking masculine things and not mincing around and such.

    Like anything, people can be a wide variety of archetypes. But finding out a man who would otherwise be considered 'normal' is gay, also causes people to look at them strangely. It's probably a big factor in the 'gay panic' crap anyway. The fear that you really can't tell the difference...

    Besides, it shouldn't be so hard to accept that adults might radically change their behaviour based on a choice or realisation or whatever. That shit happens all the time. How many adults do you know who suddenly decided that 'glassing' the Middle East was a good idea after 9/11? Though I don't know if I'm necessarily qualified to comment on the reasonableness or rightness or whatever of such personality shifts.

    It still doesn't change the notion that humans tend to present themselves mostly as others expect them to, rather than what they necessarily want.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    *Sigh*

    Baby, why you gotta make me pull out my gender and communication book.
    "What gender means and how we express it depend on a society's values, beliefs, and preferred ways of organizing collective life....

    To realize the arbitrariness of the meanings of gender, we need only consider varying ways different cultures define masculinity and femininity. Many years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead (1935/68) reported three distinct gender patterns in the New Guinea societies she studied. Among the Arapesh people, both women and men conformed closely to what we consider feminine behavior. Both were passive, peaceful, and deferential, and both nurtured others, especially young children.

    The Mundugumor tribe socialized both women and men to be aggressive, independent, and competitive. Mothers were not nurturing and spent very little time with newborn babies, weaning them early instead.

    Within the Tchambuli society, genders were the reverse of current ones in America: Women were domineering and sexually aggressive, whereas men were considered delicate and taught to wear decorative clothes and curl their hair so they would be attractive to women."

    ~Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture by Julia T. Wood. Page 26-27.

    I could go on, she provides more examples, but I'm kind of tired of typing.

    However, our gender norms have negative effects because they essentially restrict what we can, or in some cases want to be. Read that book - or more on the issue to get a good understanding of it.
    Mead's work in this field is highly questionable. It basically boiled down to "Go someplace almost impossible to follow, find super primitive tribes that have nothing anyone wants and make claims that are fairly unverifiable that just happen to support my underlying thesis."

    And besides, tribes in New Guinea were fucked. I don't mean that in a value judgment way. But if you take isolated unstable little tribes at a primitive development stage in harsh situations and then add on colonial encroachment which always results in societal instability and upheaval, you're going to get some pretty wacky micro-societies.

    And that's all the "societies" that Mead were studying were. The "Tchambuli" were less than 1000 people (now called Chambri, known only because of Mead's claims and their refutation) The Mundugumor have never been located by anyone by Mead who claimed they were literally savages as they had been cannibals and headhunters living in the jungle and they no longer exist. What little "society" existed was almost certainly transitional and the result of the upheaval colonial powers brought to the region. Mead's descriptions of Arapesh were immediately seen to be contradictory and her husband published a number of works pointing out that she was full of it. The whole book is kinda crap. Here's a recent anthro article describing some of the problems including primary fieldwork among the Arapesh.

    Gender roles are not purely societal constructs. Society reinforces and emphasizes whats already there, which can prove harmful or limiting by turning tendencies into requirements

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    PantsB wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    *Sigh*

    Baby, why you gotta make me pull out my gender and communication book.
    "What gender means and how we express it depend on a society's values, beliefs, and preferred ways of organizing collective life....

    To realize the arbitrariness of the meanings of gender, we need only consider varying ways different cultures define masculinity and femininity. Many years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead (1935/68) reported three distinct gender patterns in the New Guinea societies she studied. Among the Arapesh people, both women and men conformed closely to what we consider feminine behavior. Both were passive, peaceful, and deferential, and both nurtured others, especially young children.

    The Mundugumor tribe socialized both women and men to be aggressive, independent, and competitive. Mothers were not nurturing and spent very little time with newborn babies, weaning them early instead.

    Within the Tchambuli society, genders were the reverse of current ones in America: Women were domineering and sexually aggressive, whereas men were considered delicate and taught to wear decorative clothes and curl their hair so they would be attractive to women."

    ~Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture by Julia T. Wood. Page 26-27.

    I could go on, she provides more examples, but I'm kind of tired of typing.

    However, our gender norms have negative effects because they essentially restrict what we can, or in some cases want to be. Read that book - or more on the issue to get a good understanding of it.
    Mead's work in this field is highly questionable. It basically boiled down to "Go someplace almost impossible to follow, find super primitive tribes that have nothing anyone wants and make claims that are fairly unverifiable that just happen to support my underlying thesis."

    And besides, tribes in New Guinea were fucked. I don't mean that in a value judgment way. But if you take isolated unstable little tribes at a primitive development stage in harsh situations and then add on colonial encroachment which always results in societal instability and upheaval, you're going to get some pretty wacky micro-societies.

    And that's all the "societies" that Mead were studying were. The "Tchambuli" were less than 1000 people (now called Chambri, known only because of Mead's claims and their refutation) The Mundugumor have never been located by anyone by Mead who claimed they were literally savages as they had been cannibals and headhunters living in the jungle and they no longer exist. What little "society" existed was almost certainly transitional and the result of the upheaval colonial powers brought to the region. Mead's descriptions of Arapesh were immediately seen to be contradictory and her husband published a number of works pointing out that she was full of it. The whole book is kinda crap. Here's a recent anthro article describing some of the problems including primary fieldwork among the Arapesh.

    Gender roles are not purely societal constructs. Society reinforces and emphasizes whats already there, which can prove harmful or limiting by turning tendencies into requirements

    Enlighten me. What's already there?

    You also make a lot of assertions without citations. So - cite?

    SkyGheNe on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    GTA5 Utopia City : Use light rail to navigate around the city exploring quaint historical landmarks. Meet sophisticated women or men at art galleries for passionate love making on their terms. Help old ladies through the crosswalk. Talk about the challenges of running a small business in a multi-culturally diverse city. Volunteer at a center for troubled youths. Participate in a community-police partnership effort to improve your neighborhood.

    Using GTA games as an example of Racism/Sexism/Homophobia is pretty silly. Its not like they went lets make a gay character, and Tony was what they figured a realistic gay person would be like. The games are chocked full of stereotypes intentionally, because they meld with the rest of the over the top elements pretty well.


    so you would be fine if GTA featured only black characters that were noticeably more violent and primitive than white people, as well as stupider. Also they would drink 40s and eat fried chicken and sound like a minstrel show. And would be illiterate.

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    You're right. I would argue that gender roles are really only 95% constructed.

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    You're right. I would argue that gender roles are really only 95% constructed.

    Roles are 100% socially constructed; you can't have a role in society without the society part.

    The origin of behaviors is open to debate.

    Hachface on
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited January 2010
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    However, as far as Bernie, and this is anecdotal and that don't mean shit, but I know a handful of men that did start gravitating towards the "sissy stereotype" after they came out of the closet. That's how they acted, or would have acted, if they weren't forced to live in fear/in the closet.

    Alternatively, when they were first able to admit to themselves and others that they were gay they may have latched on to the only things they associated with homosexuality, which would be extreme stereotypes. It's not like ancient Greek homosexuals were yearning to be sissies.

    There's also the fact that once they're out, they're no longer bound to some ridiculously restrictive idea of what they have to be. If a straight guy starts to act feminine, he gets funky looks, people whisper, question his masculinity, all that.

    If a gay guy does people will think he's... gay? What?

    At the point that someone's out, they're out. They're not as rigidly bound to what they can and can't do, partially because they're already socially unacceptable, so to speak.

    I mean, this is a gross oversimplification, but it does contribute.

    But that doesn't mean a homosexual male can't act in a 'stereotypical hetero male' fashion. Liking masculine things and not mincing around and such.

    Of course he can. My main point was in response to people acting, well, gay, when coming out of the closet. Part of that might be them adopting that, but another part of it might be that as people in the closet, they're afraid to act in a way that might be effeminate. That's a fear that hits cissexual straight white men as well.

    Once they're out as being gay, stuff that would typically get a funny look won't affect them as much, because they'll be getting it anyway. If that makes sense.

    Shivahn on
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    No, it makes sense. I was merely making an effort, for a baseline sake, to point out the obvious. Mainly, that people can choose to present themselves in all sorts of ways that don't necessarily indicate anything particular about themselves. Or something.

    It's an eggshell topic, to be sure.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited January 2010
    No, it makes sense. I was merely making an effort, for a baseline sake, to point out the obvious. Mainly, that people can choose to present themselves in all sorts of ways that don't necessarily indicate anything particular about themselves. Or something.

    It's an eggshell topic, to be sure.

    Oh, I see. Of course. People can choose to express themselves how they want. I just wish more people did, or that we didn't have cultural expectations restricting us.

    Really, either way the role restrictions will die.

    Shivahn on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I recently enjoyed a visit with my Mom and Grandma - is it alright for elderly people to be slightly racist? She told me twice during the State of the Union speech that she was sure Obama was going to give more to Black Americans. "More what?," I asked. Jobs and money and he was going to 'get White people back' because the Whites treated the Blacks so badly when she was a little girl. "Now it's their turn to be bigshots."

    She's in her late 80s so I shrug this nonsense off...we don't expect senior citizens to ever be politically correct, right? Or is that ageism and also politically incorrect? :P

    emnmnme on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    old people don't have any excuse to be racist.

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    *Sigh*

    Baby, why you gotta make me pull out my gender and communication book.
    "What gender means and how we express it depend on a society's values, beliefs, and preferred ways of organizing collective life....

    To realize the arbitrariness of the meanings of gender, we need only consider varying ways different cultures define masculinity and femininity. Many years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead (1935/68) reported three distinct gender patterns in the New Guinea societies she studied. Among the Arapesh people, both women and men conformed closely to what we consider feminine behavior. Both were passive, peaceful, and deferential, and both nurtured others, especially young children.

    The Mundugumor tribe socialized both women and men to be aggressive, independent, and competitive. Mothers were not nurturing and spent very little time with newborn babies, weaning them early instead.

    Within the Tchambuli society, genders were the reverse of current ones in America: Women were domineering and sexually aggressive, whereas men were considered delicate and taught to wear decorative clothes and curl their hair so they would be attractive to women."

    ~Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture by Julia T. Wood. Page 26-27.

    I could go on, she provides more examples, but I'm kind of tired of typing.

    However, our gender norms have negative effects because they essentially restrict what we can, or in some cases want to be. Read that book - or more on the issue to get a good understanding of it.
    Mead's work in this field is highly questionable. It basically boiled down to "Go someplace almost impossible to follow, find super primitive tribes that have nothing anyone wants and make claims that are fairly unverifiable that just happen to support my underlying thesis."

    And besides, tribes in New Guinea were fucked. I don't mean that in a value judgment way. But if you take isolated unstable little tribes at a primitive development stage in harsh situations and then add on colonial encroachment which always results in societal instability and upheaval, you're going to get some pretty wacky micro-societies.

    And that's all the "societies" that Mead were studying were. The "Tchambuli" were less than 1000 people (now called Chambri, known only because of Mead's claims and their refutation) The Mundugumor have never been located by anyone by Mead who claimed they were literally savages as they had been cannibals and headhunters living in the jungle and they no longer exist. What little "society" existed was almost certainly transitional and the result of the upheaval colonial powers brought to the region. Mead's descriptions of Arapesh were immediately seen to be contradictory and her husband published a number of works pointing out that she was full of it. The whole book is kinda crap. Here's a recent anthro article describing some of the problems including primary fieldwork among the Arapesh.

    Gender roles are not purely societal constructs. Society reinforces and emphasizes whats already there, which can prove harmful or limiting by turning tendencies into requirements

    Enlighten me. What's already there?

    You also make a lot of assertions without citations. So - cite?
    I actually made one more citation than you did but regardless.

    If I post primate studies you'll just say "not human!" If I post human studies you'll say "prove it wasn't all society!"

    The fact is that human behavior maps to primate behavior on a some fundamental levels. This makes sense because we came from them. We aren't magic beings of rationality and reason, we're animals with brains grafted on as a very late adaptation. In an animal society, males and females have differing roles. This leads to the selection of traits. Some of those sex-based tendencies have passed down to the relatively minuscule amount of time (on an species scale) that we have been post-hunter-gatherer.

    When an attribute (gender-based tendencies) exists in man and it exists in the vast majority of the closest genetic ancestors/relatives of man, it is not a reasonable position to say the burden of proof is on those who say that expectations of attributes or roles based on gender can be entirely or almost entirely blamed on society. Its never all nature and its never all nurture. There's a non-trivial biological element whether you want to believe it or not. Hormones aren't imaginary. The evolutionary record is not imaginary.

    And whether or not its "natural" is irrelevant to whether woman should be able to have a man's job, a little girl can play with trucks or man can wear makeup. If something is natural we don't have to condone it. A prohibition on rape is societal construct. The concept of equal rights is a social construct. There's no reason to try to project gender equality into some kind of pre-societal origins. Humanity has realizes that women and men are equal in dignity and each deserve equal respect and opportunity. Pretending it was always that way until society got in the way is silly.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2010
    old people don't have any excuse to be racist.

    Sure they do. I'm not saying it's right, but there's a pretty traceable reason for many of the elderly to have the attitude they may have. Many of them grew up in large communities and time frames where racism was not only rampant, but was encouraged.

    I imagine it's hard to shake decades of rhetoric being drummed into you.

    Sheep on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    old people don't have any excuse to be racist.

    She knew what she was saying was racist. She did not excuse herself.

    And my excuse for not speaking up is it's way too tiring to argue with my Grandma. :mrgreen:

    emnmnme on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2010
    PantsB wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    *Sigh*

    Baby, why you gotta make me pull out my gender and communication book.
    "What gender means and how we express it depend on a society's values, beliefs, and preferred ways of organizing collective life....

    To realize the arbitrariness of the meanings of gender, we need only consider varying ways different cultures define masculinity and femininity. Many years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead (1935/68) reported three distinct gender patterns in the New Guinea societies she studied. Among the Arapesh people, both women and men conformed closely to what we consider feminine behavior. Both were passive, peaceful, and deferential, and both nurtured others, especially young children.

    The Mundugumor tribe socialized both women and men to be aggressive, independent, and competitive. Mothers were not nurturing and spent very little time with newborn babies, weaning them early instead.

    Within the Tchambuli society, genders were the reverse of current ones in America: Women were domineering and sexually aggressive, whereas men were considered delicate and taught to wear decorative clothes and curl their hair so they would be attractive to women."

    ~Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture by Julia T. Wood. Page 26-27.

    I could go on, she provides more examples, but I'm kind of tired of typing.

    However, our gender norms have negative effects because they essentially restrict what we can, or in some cases want to be. Read that book - or more on the issue to get a good understanding of it.
    Mead's work in this field is highly questionable. It basically boiled down to "Go someplace almost impossible to follow, find super primitive tribes that have nothing anyone wants and make claims that are fairly unverifiable that just happen to support my underlying thesis."

    And besides, tribes in New Guinea were fucked. I don't mean that in a value judgment way. But if you take isolated unstable little tribes at a primitive development stage in harsh situations and then add on colonial encroachment which always results in societal instability and upheaval, you're going to get some pretty wacky micro-societies.

    And that's all the "societies" that Mead were studying were. The "Tchambuli" were less than 1000 people (now called Chambri, known only because of Mead's claims and their refutation) The Mundugumor have never been located by anyone by Mead who claimed they were literally savages as they had been cannibals and headhunters living in the jungle and they no longer exist. What little "society" existed was almost certainly transitional and the result of the upheaval colonial powers brought to the region. Mead's descriptions of Arapesh were immediately seen to be contradictory and her husband published a number of works pointing out that she was full of it. The whole book is kinda crap. Here's a recent anthro article describing some of the problems including primary fieldwork among the Arapesh.

    Gender roles are not purely societal constructs. Society reinforces and emphasizes whats already there, which can prove harmful or limiting by turning tendencies into requirements

    Enlighten me. What's already there?

    You also make a lot of assertions without citations. So - cite?
    I actually made one more citation than you did but regardless.

    If I post primate studies you'll just say "not human!" If I post human studies you'll say "prove it wasn't all society!"

    The fact is that human behavior maps to primate behavior on a some fundamental levels. This makes sense because we came from them. We aren't magic beings of rationality and reason, we're animals with brains grafted on as a very late adaptation. In an animal society, males and females have differing roles. This leads to the selection of traits. Some of those sex-based tendencies have passed down to the relatively minuscule amount of time (on an species scale) that we have been post-hunter-gatherer.

    When an attribute (gender-based tendencies) exists in man and it exists in the vast majority of the closest genetic ancestors/relatives of man, it is not a reasonable position to say the burden of proof is on those who say that expectations of attributes or roles based on gender can be entirely or almost entirely blamed on society. Its never all nature and its never all nurture. There's a non-trivial biological element whether you want to believe it or not. Hormones aren't imaginary. The evolutionary record is not imaginary.

    And whether or not its "natural" is irrelevant to whether woman should be able to have a man's job, a little girl can play with trucks or man can wear makeup. If something is natural we don't have to condone it. A prohibition on rape is societal construct. The concept of equal rights is a social construct. There's no reason to try to project gender equality into some kind of pre-societal origins. Humanity has realizes that women and men are equal in dignity and each deserve equal respect and opportunity. Pretending it was always that way until society got in the way is silly.

    Yet, whenever you look at a different historical period, masculine and feminine behavior are different. Hell, I'd say that majority of history has been occupied by societies that thought that men were sophisticated and sensitive and women boorish and crude. You'll have to prove that the behavior associated with each gender are the ones you claim they are. On top of that, you are the one claiming something exists, so the burden of proof is always on you. That's how objective analysis works.

    On Burnie, the main issue is that he loses all of the abilities he used to have when he came out as gay.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    old people don't have any excuse to be racist.

    Sure they do. I'm not saying it's right, but there's a pretty traceable reason for many of the elderly to have the attitude they may have. Many of them grew up in large communities and time frames where racism was not only rampant, but was encouraged.

    I imagine it's hard to shake decades of rhetoric being drummed into you.

    50.gif

    Julius on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    PantsB wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    *Sigh*

    Baby, why you gotta make me pull out my gender and communication book.
    "What gender means and how we express it depend on a society's values, beliefs, and preferred ways of organizing collective life....

    To realize the arbitrariness of the meanings of gender, we need only consider varying ways different cultures define masculinity and femininity. Many years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead (1935/68) reported three distinct gender patterns in the New Guinea societies she studied. Among the Arapesh people, both women and men conformed closely to what we consider feminine behavior. Both were passive, peaceful, and deferential, and both nurtured others, especially young children.

    The Mundugumor tribe socialized both women and men to be aggressive, independent, and competitive. Mothers were not nurturing and spent very little time with newborn babies, weaning them early instead.

    Within the Tchambuli society, genders were the reverse of current ones in America: Women were domineering and sexually aggressive, whereas men were considered delicate and taught to wear decorative clothes and curl their hair so they would be attractive to women."

    ~Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture by Julia T. Wood. Page 26-27.

    I could go on, she provides more examples, but I'm kind of tired of typing.

    However, our gender norms have negative effects because they essentially restrict what we can, or in some cases want to be. Read that book - or more on the issue to get a good understanding of it.
    Mead's work in this field is highly questionable. It basically boiled down to "Go someplace almost impossible to follow, find super primitive tribes that have nothing anyone wants and make claims that are fairly unverifiable that just happen to support my underlying thesis."

    And besides, tribes in New Guinea were fucked. I don't mean that in a value judgment way. But if you take isolated unstable little tribes at a primitive development stage in harsh situations and then add on colonial encroachment which always results in societal instability and upheaval, you're going to get some pretty wacky micro-societies.

    And that's all the "societies" that Mead were studying were. The "Tchambuli" were less than 1000 people (now called Chambri, known only because of Mead's claims and their refutation) The Mundugumor have never been located by anyone by Mead who claimed they were literally savages as they had been cannibals and headhunters living in the jungle and they no longer exist. What little "society" existed was almost certainly transitional and the result of the upheaval colonial powers brought to the region. Mead's descriptions of Arapesh were immediately seen to be contradictory and her husband published a number of works pointing out that she was full of it. The whole book is kinda crap. Here's a recent anthro article describing some of the problems including primary fieldwork among the Arapesh.

    Gender roles are not purely societal constructs. Society reinforces and emphasizes whats already there, which can prove harmful or limiting by turning tendencies into requirements

    Enlighten me. What's already there?

    You also make a lot of assertions without citations. So - cite?
    I actually made one more citation than you did but regardless.

    If I post primate studies you'll just say "not human!" If I post human studies you'll say "prove it wasn't all society!"

    The fact is that human behavior maps to primate behavior on a some fundamental levels. This makes sense because we came from them. We aren't magic beings of rationality and reason, we're animals with brains grafted on as a very late adaptation. In an animal society, males and females have differing roles. This leads to the selection of traits. Some of those sex-based tendencies have passed down to the relatively minuscule amount of time (on an species scale) that we have been post-hunter-gatherer.

    When an attribute (gender-based tendencies) exists in man and it exists in the vast majority of the closest genetic ancestors/relatives of man, it is not a reasonable position to say the burden of proof is on those who say that expectations of attributes or roles based on gender can be entirely or almost entirely blamed on society. Its never all nature and its never all nurture. There's a non-trivial biological element whether you want to believe it or not. Hormones aren't imaginary. The evolutionary record is not imaginary.

    And whether or not its "natural" is irrelevant to whether woman should be able to have a man's job, a little girl can play with trucks or man can wear makeup. If something is natural we don't have to condone it. A prohibition on rape is societal construct. The concept of equal rights is a social construct. There's no reason to try to project gender equality into some kind of pre-societal origins. Humanity has realizes that women and men are equal in dignity and each deserve equal respect and opportunity. Pretending it was always that way until society got in the way is silly.

    the vast majority of humanity has not realized this in a meaningful way

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    old people don't have any excuse to be racist.

    Sure they do. I'm not saying it's right, but there's a pretty traceable reason for many of the elderly to have the attitude they may have. Many of them grew up in large communities and time frames where racism was not only rampant, but was encouraged.

    I imagine it's hard to shake decades of rhetoric being drummed into you.

    tolerance doesn't magically appear. it comes from people that are willing to make a conscious decision not to look down on other people.

    people in their 50's 60's 70's and so on aren't retarded. they make a conscious choice to retain their hatred, 'ingrained' or not.

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    old people don't have any excuse to be racist.

    Sure they do. I'm not saying it's right, but there's a pretty traceable reason for many of the elderly to have the attitude they may have. Many of them grew up in large communities and time frames where racism was not only rampant, but was encouraged.

    I imagine it's hard to shake decades of rhetoric being drummed into you.

    tolerance doesn't magically appear. it comes from people that are willing to make a conscious decision not to look down on other people.

    people in their 50's 60's 70's and so on aren't retarded. they make a conscious choice to retain their hatred, 'ingrained' or not.

    I don't know about conscious choice, but the presence of many open-minded and enlightened old people gives the lie to excusing it.

    However, I don't think any of us had conscious choice in choosing our societal attitudes. We are a product, in great part, of our society.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • DemerdarDemerdar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    GTA5 Utopia City : Use light rail to navigate around the city exploring quaint historical landmarks. Meet sophisticated women or men at art galleries for passionate love making on their terms. Help old ladies through the crosswalk. Talk about the challenges of running a small business in a multi-culturally diverse city. Volunteer at a center for troubled youths. Participate in a community-police partnership effort to improve your neighborhood.

    Using GTA games as an example of Racism/Sexism/Homophobia is pretty silly. Its not like they went lets make a gay character, and Tony was what they figured a realistic gay person would be like. The games are chocked full of stereotypes intentionally, because they meld with the rest of the over the top elements pretty well.


    so you would be fine if GTA featured only black characters that were noticeably more violent and primitive than white people, as well as stupider. Also they would drink 40s and eat fried chicken and sound like a minstrel show. And would be illiterate.

    So wait, who's the the one stereotyping people?

    Demerdar on
    y6GGs3o.gif
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2010
    Demerdar wrote: »
    GTA5 Utopia City : Use light rail to navigate around the city exploring quaint historical landmarks. Meet sophisticated women or men at art galleries for passionate love making on their terms. Help old ladies through the crosswalk. Talk about the challenges of running a small business in a multi-culturally diverse city. Volunteer at a center for troubled youths. Participate in a community-police partnership effort to improve your neighborhood.

    Using GTA games as an example of Racism/Sexism/Homophobia is pretty silly. Its not like they went lets make a gay character, and Tony was what they figured a realistic gay person would be like. The games are chocked full of stereotypes intentionally, because they meld with the rest of the over the top elements pretty well.


    so you would be fine if GTA featured only black characters that were noticeably more violent and primitive than white people, as well as stupider. Also they would drink 40s and eat fried chicken and sound like a minstrel show. And would be illiterate.

    So wait, who's the the one stereotyping people?

    So I'm guessing that you don't know the difference between documenting stereotypes and believing them?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    The people who recognise racism are the real racists.

    Leitner on
  • DemerdarDemerdar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    GTA5 Utopia City : Use light rail to navigate around the city exploring quaint historical landmarks. Meet sophisticated women or men at art galleries for passionate love making on their terms. Help old ladies through the crosswalk. Talk about the challenges of running a small business in a multi-culturally diverse city. Volunteer at a center for troubled youths. Participate in a community-police partnership effort to improve your neighborhood.

    Using GTA games as an example of Racism/Sexism/Homophobia is pretty silly. Its not like they went lets make a gay character, and Tony was what they figured a realistic gay person would be like. The games are chocked full of stereotypes intentionally, because they meld with the rest of the over the top elements pretty well.


    so you would be fine if GTA featured only black characters that were noticeably more violent and primitive than white people, as well as stupider. Also they would drink 40s and eat fried chicken and sound like a minstrel show. And would be illiterate.

    So wait, who's the the one stereotyping people?

    So I'm guessing that you don't know the difference between documenting stereotypes and believing them?

    I don't understand how actively reinforcing stereotypes, be it by documenting them or believing in them ever helps them go away.

    Demerdar on
    y6GGs3o.gif
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Demerdar wrote: »
    GTA5 Utopia City : Use light rail to navigate around the city exploring quaint historical landmarks. Meet sophisticated women or men at art galleries for passionate love making on their terms. Help old ladies through the crosswalk. Talk about the challenges of running a small business in a multi-culturally diverse city. Volunteer at a center for troubled youths. Participate in a community-police partnership effort to improve your neighborhood.

    Using GTA games as an example of Racism/Sexism/Homophobia is pretty silly. Its not like they went lets make a gay character, and Tony was what they figured a realistic gay person would be like. The games are chocked full of stereotypes intentionally, because they meld with the rest of the over the top elements pretty well.


    so you would be fine if GTA featured only black characters that were noticeably more violent and primitive than white people, as well as stupider. Also they would drink 40s and eat fried chicken and sound like a minstrel show. And would be illiterate.

    So wait, who's the the one stereotyping people?

    these are clearly stereotypes of black people, just as being a limp wristed sissy is clearly a stereotype of homosexuals

    EDIT: i was arguing that displaying black people in this manner was as harmful and wrong as displaying a homosexual (even in GTA4) the way Gay Tony or whatever is.

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • DemerdarDemerdar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Demerdar wrote: »
    GTA5 Utopia City : Use light rail to navigate around the city exploring quaint historical landmarks. Meet sophisticated women or men at art galleries for passionate love making on their terms. Help old ladies through the crosswalk. Talk about the challenges of running a small business in a multi-culturally diverse city. Volunteer at a center for troubled youths. Participate in a community-police partnership effort to improve your neighborhood.

    Using GTA games as an example of Racism/Sexism/Homophobia is pretty silly. Its not like they went lets make a gay character, and Tony was what they figured a realistic gay person would be like. The games are chocked full of stereotypes intentionally, because they meld with the rest of the over the top elements pretty well.


    so you would be fine if GTA featured only black characters that were noticeably more violent and primitive than white people, as well as stupider. Also they would drink 40s and eat fried chicken and sound like a minstrel show. And would be illiterate.

    So wait, who's the the one stereotyping people?

    these are clearly stereotypes of black people, just as being a limp wristed sissy is clearly a stereotype of homosexuals

    EDIT: i was arguing that displaying black people in this manner was as harmful and wrong as displaying a homosexual (even in GTA4) the way Gay Tony or whatever is.

    I understand your point, I was just breaking your balls :).

    Am I the only one who doesn't give a shit about other people?

    I'm very indifferent to this shit, actually.

    I think I'm done with this "debate".

    Demerdar on
    y6GGs3o.gif
  • edited January 2010
    Demerdar wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    GTA5 Utopia City : Use light rail to navigate around the city exploring quaint historical landmarks. Meet sophisticated women or men at art galleries for passionate love making on their terms. Help old ladies through the crosswalk. Talk about the challenges of running a small business in a multi-culturally diverse city. Volunteer at a center for troubled youths. Participate in a community-police partnership effort to improve your neighborhood.

    Using GTA games as an example of Racism/Sexism/Homophobia is pretty silly. Its not like they went lets make a gay character, and Tony was what they figured a realistic gay person would be like. The games are chocked full of stereotypes intentionally, because they meld with the rest of the over the top elements pretty well.


    so you would be fine if GTA featured only black characters that were noticeably more violent and primitive than white people, as well as stupider. Also they would drink 40s and eat fried chicken and sound like a minstrel show. And would be illiterate.

    So wait, who's the the one stereotyping people?

    So I'm guessing that you don't know the difference between documenting stereotypes and believing them?

    I don't understand how actively reinforcing stereotypes, be it by documenting them or believing in them ever helps them go away.

    Well I'm a little bit confused about how you expect to combat stereotypes if you don't want to discuss them at all.

    bongi on
  • DemerdarDemerdar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    bongi wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    GTA5 Utopia City : Use light rail to navigate around the city exploring quaint historical landmarks. Meet sophisticated women or men at art galleries for passionate love making on their terms. Help old ladies through the crosswalk. Talk about the challenges of running a small business in a multi-culturally diverse city. Volunteer at a center for troubled youths. Participate in a community-police partnership effort to improve your neighborhood.

    Using GTA games as an example of Racism/Sexism/Homophobia is pretty silly. Its not like they went lets make a gay character, and Tony was what they figured a realistic gay person would be like. The games are chocked full of stereotypes intentionally, because they meld with the rest of the over the top elements pretty well.


    so you would be fine if GTA featured only black characters that were noticeably more violent and primitive than white people, as well as stupider. Also they would drink 40s and eat fried chicken and sound like a minstrel show. And would be illiterate.

    So wait, who's the the one stereotyping people?

    So I'm guessing that you don't know the difference between documenting stereotypes and believing them?

    I don't understand how actively reinforcing stereotypes, be it by documenting them or believing in them ever helps them go away.

    Well I'm a little bit confused about how you expect to combat stereotypes if you don't want to discuss them at all.

    Doesn't that just perpetuate them? If you keep bringing them up, how will they ever go away?

    Hint: They never will, so lets just stop discussing it?

    Demerdar on
    y6GGs3o.gif
  • edited January 2010
    Demerdar wrote: »
    bongi wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    GTA5 Utopia City : Use light rail to navigate around the city exploring quaint historical landmarks. Meet sophisticated women or men at art galleries for passionate love making on their terms. Help old ladies through the crosswalk. Talk about the challenges of running a small business in a multi-culturally diverse city. Volunteer at a center for troubled youths. Participate in a community-police partnership effort to improve your neighborhood.

    Using GTA games as an example of Racism/Sexism/Homophobia is pretty silly. Its not like they went lets make a gay character, and Tony was what they figured a realistic gay person would be like. The games are chocked full of stereotypes intentionally, because they meld with the rest of the over the top elements pretty well.


    so you would be fine if GTA featured only black characters that were noticeably more violent and primitive than white people, as well as stupider. Also they would drink 40s and eat fried chicken and sound like a minstrel show. And would be illiterate.

    So wait, who's the the one stereotyping people?

    So I'm guessing that you don't know the difference between documenting stereotypes and believing them?

    I don't understand how actively reinforcing stereotypes, be it by documenting them or believing in them ever helps them go away.

    Well I'm a little bit confused about how you expect to combat stereotypes if you don't want to discuss them at all.

    Doesn't that just perpetuate them? If you keep bringing them up, how will they ever go away?

    Hint: They never will, so lets just stop discussing it?

    Yes, yes, the way to stop prejudice is to not discuss it.

    bongi on
  • DemerdarDemerdar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    bongi wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    bongi wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Demerdar wrote: »
    GTA5 Utopia City : Use light rail to navigate around the city exploring quaint historical landmarks. Meet sophisticated women or men at art galleries for passionate love making on their terms. Help old ladies through the crosswalk. Talk about the challenges of running a small business in a multi-culturally diverse city. Volunteer at a center for troubled youths. Participate in a community-police partnership effort to improve your neighborhood.

    Using GTA games as an example of Racism/Sexism/Homophobia is pretty silly. Its not like they went lets make a gay character, and Tony was what they figured a realistic gay person would be like. The games are chocked full of stereotypes intentionally, because they meld with the rest of the over the top elements pretty well.


    so you would be fine if GTA featured only black characters that were noticeably more violent and primitive than white people, as well as stupider. Also they would drink 40s and eat fried chicken and sound like a minstrel show. And would be illiterate.

    So wait, who's the the one stereotyping people?

    So I'm guessing that you don't know the difference between documenting stereotypes and believing them?

    I don't understand how actively reinforcing stereotypes, be it by documenting them or believing in them ever helps them go away.

    Well I'm a little bit confused about how you expect to combat stereotypes if you don't want to discuss them at all.

    Doesn't that just perpetuate them? If you keep bringing them up, how will they ever go away?

    Hint: They never will, so lets just stop discussing it?

    Yes, yes, the way to stop prejudice is to not discuss it.

    Is really all that harmful for somebody to think a black man likes to eat fried chicken? Is it really? Is anybody stupid enough to bring it up to a black person without it being in jest?

    Demerdar on
    y6GGs3o.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.