If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
And while I get that there are sexist assholes, I do see a sort of "vicious circle" developing because of an apparent acceptance of mysandry in education and often in the public forum. Hell, it's pretty much the basis for family court law, it seems, men get hosed in divorce.
This is bullshit of the highest order, chiefly pushed by anti-feminists. One: the vast, vast majority of divorces proceed amicably and with minimal court participation. Two: When it does go bad, men frequently pay more because they were the primary earner. Three: When men actually want their children and sue for custody they are awarded it in something like 8/10 cases, primarily because they earn more. Four: For every bloke that does get screwed over by crap lawyers or terrible judges, there are ten more women behind him wondering what the hell just happened and how to claw their way out of the shelter with no work experience in the last decade or more. Don't push this stuff, it is lies.
"I understand that men sacrifice a great deal in traditional marriage as well. We make great demands upon your income and time, whereas your single friends blow all their money on their hobbies and have a great deal of freedom to do what they want when they want. We know it's hard to 'forsake all others' and give up all other women for one, while you may have had so much variety and excitement in your single days. We appreciate this sacrifice you make for us."
I think the first female for president to say things like this, to treat men like people, not pigs, and yeah, who sees how the phrase "All men are pigs" is sexist might actually do very, very well and be our first, well-liked female president.
Oh, what a load of fucking tripe. Quite apart from the fact that you'll never hear 'all men are pigs' from actual feminists (but quite frequently from self-declared conservative women, as I've noticed), as if the women in these marriages didn't give up the same freedoms and take on the same vulnerabilities? These speeches only work if you rate women as some kind of complicated household appliance, with no lives of their own before some bloke slapped a ring on them. You are ridiculous.
My dad had to give up a lot in my parents' divorce. He only had to give up that much though because his sense of honor dictates that he cannot leave my mom to support my little sister on nothing but a bank-teller's wage. Which isn't "getting hosed" so much as it's "having a pair".
I must say, I did recognise those quotes and couldn't help but chuckle. Half the citations do not support her argument or make only fleeting remarks on the point she's making. One is just a textbook with no page or line reference and after that I stopped reading them.
The Female Brain was not a well written or researched piece of literature. It recieved the 2006Becky Award for greatest scientific misinformation and was a hoot to read, to boot!
To be fair, the citations were just links that I found to abstracts and book descriptions, in her actual book she has specific page numbers and what not, I just wasn't being thorough and wanted to throw out the sources for examination, also, I just threw out sources that were related to the author cited, looking back not all of them were necessarily for the quotes I posted. So, yeah, my bad :oops:.
That is a good bit on the embarrassing side, I do admit that I definitely should have looked more into the author herself before suggesting that anything she could've said was true (believe me, I'm not that resistant to the idea of her being totally wrong). That's my own folly, and I apologize profusely for wasting your time with it. I'll look more into it.
From what it seems, the Becky was awarded primarily for a sentence that cites information from a self-help book. That's quite a huge error, even though she removed the line in later printings. I am interested in reading more in-depth criticism of it, though. I want to know what exactly is false.
In many European languages, including English, the word for "right" (in a directional sense) also means "correct" or "proper". Throughout history, being left-handed was considered as negative - the Latin word sinistra (from which the English word "sinister" was derived, along with various Romance language derivatives) meant "left" as well as "unlucky". There are many negative connotations associated with the phrase "left-handed": clumsy, awkward, unlucky, insincere, sinister, malicious, and so on. The French word gauche means both "left" and "awkward" or "clumsy", whereas the French word droite, "right," is akin to droit, "straight," "law," and "right" as in "human rights." The name "Dexter" derives from the Latin for "right". As these are all very old words, they would tend to support theories indicating that the predominance of right-handedness is an extremely old phenomenon.
Black magic is sometimes referred to as the "left-hand path."
The Inuit believed that every left-handed person was a sorcerer.[citation needed] A Japanese man could divorce his wife if he discovered that she was left-handed.[citation needed]
Until very recently in Taiwan, left-handed people were strongly encouraged to switch to being right-handed (or at least, switch to writing with the right hand). In general, it is considered more difficult to write legible Chinese characters with the left hand than it is to write Latin letters, though difficulty is subjective and depends on the person in question. Because writing when moving one's hand away from its side of the body can cause smudging if the outward side of the hand is allowed to drag across the writing, it is considered easier to write the Latin alphabet with the right hand than with the left. Conversely, right-to-left alphabets such as the Arabic and Hebrew are considered easier to write with the left hand in general.
It has been hypothesized that some sun worshipers have grown to associate their left sides with evil, since people facing north would see the sun set on their left. The evidence for this is very weak, however, as the opposite conclusion can be drawn when one considers a person facing south (the opposite direction). It has been suggested that there may be a preference for northern hemisphere dwellers to face the North Star when making direction judgments. This may, however, be related to the fact that more landmass, and therefore, more people, exist in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere.
In Christianity, frequent references reinforce the positive aspects of "right" and "right hand" (side). In particular, the Bible indicates that Jesus sits at the right hand of God, or indeed is the right hand of God. Thus, faith may guide followers toward right-side preference. Christianity has had far-reaching effects on many societies throughout history, potentially strengthening the spread of right-side preference.
:rotate:
--
One of the big problems with our educational system is that people are rarely taught the actual philosophy of science and how to figure the world out.
Instead, people come in with their preconceived notions, most of which come from ancient societies, and try to press them into the developing understanding of the world as if the crazy fuckers who thought the sun was a dude on a chariot and other "Golden Age" garbage, and then they try to wrap science and fact AROUND those notions, no matter how poorly it fits.
And rarely is it worse than when the question is "Why is that person different than me and what does it mean?"
Incenjucar on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited March 2008
On attraction: I wonder if attraction is not what we want, but what we think we want. I do not think that men in the 1920's or today actually desire waifs, but that society desires that men desire waifs. It is a common knowledge that models, more often than not, are not very beautiful; rather, there is something fashionable about them. Models since Twiggy have been about the heroine chic. In the same time period, minimalism and transpractical furniture have become all the rage: think Ikea's laque tables, which can function as coffee tables, dining tables, stools, card tables, etc. Is it coincidental that another time period where the waif look was in, from the end of WWI to the great depression, was a period of economic prosperity?
Heroine Chic is just one of several common ideals out there. It just gets a lot of attention because it's dangerous and shocking and therefor attention-grabbing.
I don't think it's actually considered truly attractive by most people. Hell, most people wouldn't actually ask a model out on a date unless they were incredibly drunk.
If it's anything, it's marketers not wanting to have to adjust to social changes. Hence why sexism is still all over the place in marketing even though women like greasy burgers and men like fattening salads.
Incenjucar on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I don't think it's actually considered truly attractive by most people. Hell, most people wouldn't actually ask a model out on a date unless they were incredibly drunk.
Hrmm... the only other arch-model of attraction I can think of is the porn star, and that really only strengthens my point.
I don't think it's actually considered truly attractive by most people. Hell, most people wouldn't actually ask a model out on a date unless they were incredibly drunk.
Hrmm... the only other arch-model of attraction I can think of is the porn star, and that really only strengthens my point.
Sir Mixalot would like to have a word with you, as would the Japanese.
Incenjucar on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I don't think it's actually considered truly attractive by most people. Hell, most people wouldn't actually ask a model out on a date unless they were incredibly drunk.
Hrmm... the only other arch-model of attraction I can think of is the porn star, and that really only strengthens my point.
Sir Mixalot would like to have a word with you, as would the Japanese.
Well discussing Sir Mixalot seriously, if we grant that the societal ideal of African-America is curvacious women, it would take a little bit longer than I would seriously want to talk about :P
I'm not very familiar with Japanese culture. Care to elaborate?
Well discussing Sir Mixalot seriously, if we grant that the societal ideal of African-America is curvacious women, it would take a little bit longer than I would seriously want to talk about :P
I'm not very familiar with Japanese culture. Care to elaborate?
Lolicons. :P
Not a whole-society thing, obviously, but it's disturbingly visible.
Also for the love of god do not GIS it gah my eyes.
Japan's depravity goes deeper than just lolicon. I mean, chicks with cocks, water sports, mutilation...
They have a awful lot of fetishes, or at least they are more open about a lot of fetishes.
I for one actually like really thin. Not totally emaciated, but ribs sticking out a little, I don't mind it. Then again, that's almost certainly due to f'ed up body image issues.
I think a strong argument can be made for universal aesthetic, like classical architecture and even art. I think attraction might be a little bit more complex, and is probably far from universal.
Japan is only really significant in the visibility of their fetishes.
Every culture is full of them.
Anyways. Many people also greatly appreciate -muscular- forms, fat fetishers are all over the place, etc.
I think the heroine chic thing just comes down to the fact that it's associated with the upper class, since healthy food is a luxury compared to unhealthy and fattening food.
Well what the fuck makes it "actual human nature!" What the fuck makes it ultra-relevant and what the fuck are you doing if not playing Devil's Advocate by going on, and on, and on about it? You're going to stop at nothing to prove that oh yes, these differences exist, infinitesimal and irrelevant though they may be!
There's a reason people are "afraid" to face these facts and it's because the ones that we do have are incomplete. For the 'wealth' of information we have regarding neural development for infants and children, we have a corresponding dearth for most of the rest of the human life -- for every bit we have about the 'control' cases, we lack the foresight to see into the future if this is even really a control specimen.
You can talk about the facts; you can talk about what happens, using numbers and figures and models, but you can't glean any conclusions about it applicable to our lives at present. All that you do is serve to divide -- this is knowledge that, did any application exist, it would both start and end with 'brain surgery.' All that you're doing is taking things away from people with this stupid, stupid, stupid determinism.
At least do me a favor, and if you're going to play this game, and find studies done on the brains of cisgendered people versus transgendered -- it's the most extreme example and likely the only one where this determinism is very relevant, and of course it's an issue 'close to my heart.' Hurr. Hurr hurr.
Do that for me if you can!
This is where you get to the fun science like size differences in the hypothalamus and such. I know that there have been studies on homosexual and heterosexual brains to look at the structural differences with interesting results, but the sample size was insanely small and, of course, all the "participants" died prematurely, many of AIDS, so who knows how that could affected the study.
I'm not familiar with any pertinent studies about transgendereds, but I absolutely expect it to be biological in nature.
I'm fully aware of the field. That does not change the fact that a fully-functioning human brain is going to function in a different manner than one that has been damaged. You can judge a whole lot about a thing by its broken pieces, but it's not the same as judging a pristine version. It's similar to the problem of observation changing the results of an experiment.
--
Widowson: Many people confuse "feminism" to mean "pro-female." The term is a misnomer that was produced in an age with far more contrast. Misandry and misogyny are both horrible, stupid things, and are both against the "core ideal" of feminism. I'm a feminist myself, and a vocal one at that, but while I fucking hate patriarchal culture, I have also experienced, and hate equally, matriarchal culture. They're both extremely creepy and irritating.
The problem with politics is that most of our country is still sexist. My office is full of misogynists, including the women. We have a dingbat secretary who called herself an anti-feminist, even though she is a young woman who is working.
You're going to have a hell of a hard time getting elected if you don't, at the very least, -act- a bit bigoted.
But there should be a Men's Entertainment Network!
This is basically what you're saying. Arguing about how, since it's called "feminism" rather than a more egalitarian name, it's an exclusivist movement is a pretty shoddy. It doesn't need to include men because men are already included in everything.
Well what the fuck makes it "actual human nature!" What the fuck makes it ultra-relevant and what the fuck are you doing if not playing Devil's Advocate by going on, and on, and on about it? You're going to stop at nothing to prove that oh yes, these differences exist, infinitesimal and irrelevant though they may be!
There's a reason people are "afraid" to face these facts and it's because the ones that we do have are incomplete. For the 'wealth' of information we have regarding neural development for infants and children, we have a corresponding dearth for most of the rest of the human life -- for every bit we have about the 'control' cases, we lack the foresight to see into the future if this is even really a control specimen.
You can talk about the facts; you can talk about what happens, using numbers and figures and models, but you can't glean any conclusions about it applicable to our lives at present. All that you do is serve to divide -- this is knowledge that, did any application exist, it would both start and end with 'brain surgery.' All that you're doing is taking things away from people with this stupid, stupid, stupid determinism.
At least do me a favor, and if you're going to play this game, and find studies done on the brains of cisgendered people versus transgendered -- it's the most extreme example and likely the only one where this determinism is very relevant, and of course it's an issue 'close to my heart.' Hurr. Hurr hurr.
Do that for me if you can!
This is where you get to the fun science like size differences in the hypothalamus and such. I know that there have been studies on homosexual and heterosexual brains to look at the structural differences with interesting results, but the sample size was insanely small and, of course, all the "participants" died prematurely, many of AIDS, so who knows how that could affected the study.
I'm not familiar with any pertinent studies about transgendereds, but I absolutely expect it to be biological in nature.
The idea of my brain being dissected after my death and being found to have more in common with the female brain than the male one is so massively vindicating that I am crying right now just thinking about it.
Just listen to the "View" or a TV show or a college professor and if they say something snarky about men, substitute it with black american, arab, or even women and say it again.
It's still different, because you're making fun of the group that is in power. For instance, making fun of white people is enormously more acceptable than making fun a minority group, but that's because white people haven't really ever been on the bad end of the oppression stick (lest it was other whites oppressing). Likewise, this whole thread was based off the concept that men don't find themselves being oppressed by women very often.
More to the point, negative stereotypes against white men don't, for example, prevent white men from getting hired, or result in white men being more likely to be convicted of crimes, or anything of that variety.
Thing is, it promotes disharmony and is still harmful. Ideally, we respect each other, again, MLK > Wright.
And let's not forget the Duke Lacross Scandal. It was a bunch of white guys who were almost convicted of a crime they didn't commit because of their demographics and the hostility people felt twords them, the "evil rich white guy" steryotype.
That's what makes some people nervous they were "white men being more likely to be convicted of crimes" because of who they were.
You're kind of defeating your own point here. The argument could be made that their race led to increased exposure of the story, which is why you can say they almost got convicted.
Also, one case in a million where black men and women are wrongfully convicted, or white people get off because of their race.
Well discussing Sir Mixalot seriously, if we grant that the societal ideal of African-America is curvacious women, it would take a little bit longer than I would seriously want to talk about :P
I'm not very familiar with Japanese culture. Care to elaborate?
Lolicons. :P
Not a whole-society thing, obviously, but it's disturbingly visible.
Also for the love of god do not GIS it gah my eyes.
This is basically what you're saying. Arguing about how, since it's called "feminism" rather than a more egalitarian name, it's an exclusivist movement is a pretty shoddy. It doesn't need to include men because men are already included in everything.
Well, let's be precise here. Sexism affects men too. It's just feminism is about that too.
This is basically what you're saying. Arguing about how, since it's called "feminism" rather than a more egalitarian name, it's an exclusivist movement is a pretty shoddy. It doesn't need to include men because men are already included in everything.
Well, let's be precise here. Sexism affects men too. It's just feminism is about that too.
It amazes me how people don't get that you can't have free and happy women without free and happy men, and that society screws men over in lots of ways (just not as obviously as it has women). By the same token, a tremendous amount of men are champions of their own oppression, arguing for social structures that lock them into roles where they suffer. They don't seem to have had that awakening that women did mid-last-century. Case in point: men's rights activists that campaign to have female domestic violence shelters shut down or defunded because they don't take men (for obvious reasons) instead of doing the hard yards and setting up services for abused men themselves.
This is basically what you're saying. Arguing about how, since it's called "feminism" rather than a more egalitarian name, it's an exclusivist movement is a pretty shoddy. It doesn't need to include men because men are already included in everything.
Well, let's be precise here. Sexism affects men too. It's just feminism is about that too.
It amazes me how people don't get that you can't have free and happy women without free and happy men, and that society screws men over in lots of ways (just not as obviously as it has women). By the same token, a tremendous amount of men are champions of their own oppression, arguing for social structures that lock them into roles where they suffer. They don't seem to have had that awakening that women did mid-last-century. Case in point: men's rights activists that campaign to have female domestic violence shelters shut down or defunded because they don't take men (for obvious reasons) instead of doing the hard yards and setting up services for abused men themselves.
That sounds like it involves being productive instead of complaining. I'm more a fan of complaining than making the world a better place.
If we had abused women's shelters and abused men's shelters, where would you have abused trangendered people go? Would those shelters be reserved for the cisgendered? The binary stratification of services like this is really uncomfortable for me and others in my position, a demographic which also could sorely use them but has a very hard time scaring up the funding on our own -- and when we do get the funding, those centers often close because of lack of use (though even that lack of use is a complicated issue).
EDIT: This is just a question of curiosity for The Cat, and I guess anyone else; sorry if it's a bit too tangential, but we've gone so far astray from the topic I can't really be bothered. ;D
Honestly, Oro, on average, I would assume people of non-standard gender would have to go to a third option simply because of the logistics of bigotry, much like having seperate shelters for abused men and abused women works due to sexism.
Similarly, abused homosexual persons of either gender would be a fricking headache to protect en masse.
In a perfect world there would just be a singular abuse center where everyone can learn to be treated like human beings together, but abuse centers exist specifically because the world is nowhere near perfect.
Yeah ... I thought about it myself and I couldn't think of any other option. It's just a community-action problem of funding, since not enough people are coming out to make it legitimately necessary, but they're not coming out because of the lack of such resources and protections.
There just really isn't a very good answer for that kind of thing. Until there is a vast social change wherein people drop the stupid reasons to hate each other, it's still a struggle to help the most helpable of people, much less the more difficult cases.
Even the standard model of abuse shelters for women are going to have problems for a variety of reasons, whether from isolation from healthy male presences, to the psychological dangers of being surrounded by people with as bad or worse stories which can overwhelm, to the fact that people raised in a pecking order may just establish a different pecking order when they're no longer at the bottom of it...
...And all of that is before bigotry and sexual attraction and identity come into the picture.
Well, if there was an abused men's center, I don't see very many appropriately needy men going because of social pressure about masculinity, so it might be predominately homosexual men for a while.
Yeah ... I thought about it myself and I couldn't think of any other option. It's just a community-action problem of funding, since not enough people are coming out to make it legitimately necessary, but they're not coming out because of the lack of such resources and protections.
Basically, yeah.
My experience with social services is that if you don't fit into a clearly defined category - for example: [heterosexual, relatively physically healthy adult woman abused by her male spouse] being the most common category - they really have no idea what to do with you. If you like in a major metropolitan area with a large homosexual population, maybe there are resources if you're gay... but if you're transgendered, physically disabled, or have multiple confounding risk factors (i.e., substance abuse problems, major psychiatric disorder, major physical disability, etc.) they just don't know what the hell to do with you and you end up bouncing from one social service to another all the while getting the impression that the social workers really wish you would just go away and stop making their jobs more complicated than they already are.
There really need to be facilities for these odd cases and social workers who are trained and charged to sort these hard cases out. Don't fit in in a battered women's shelter because you had the misfortune to be born with a Y chromosome? Then we'll find someplace to put you, even if it means living in a studio apartment in county-funded low-income housing for six weeks. But in a lot of places, especially where real estate prices are high, facilities simply don't exist. (The waiting period for homeless shelters in my county is 6-9 months. And that's assuming you don't have a drug problem, criminal record, and can navigate a flight of stairs.)
More money is not sufficient, but it is necessary, to fix this problem.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Again straying too far off-topic, but you basically hit my experience on the head. If I didn't constantly feel as if I was being "referred" just to get me out of the one person's hair, I might someday go back to social services. I have never found a "support system" which was actually supportive, and so now I eschew them entirely because they have always done more harm than good.
Anyway, sorry for the brief derail, and thanks for the responses.
If we had abused women's shelters and abused men's shelters, where would you have abused trangendered people go? Would those shelters be reserved for the cisgendered? The binary stratification of services like this is really uncomfortable for me and others in my position, a demographic which also could sorely use them but has a very hard time scaring up the funding on our own -- and when we do get the funding, those centers often close because of lack of use (though even that lack of use is a complicated issue).
EDIT: This is just a question of curiosity for The Cat, and I guess anyone else; sorry if it's a bit too tangential, but we've gone so far astray from the topic I can't really be bothered. ;D
Wherever you felt comfortable, I guess. The gender separation part of DV shelters is just a matter of practicality, since the women in them are so often pursued violently. Anyway, how strict a shelter is about this stuff really depends on who's running it - some just keep names and photos of relatives to watch for, but I've heard of ones that don't even allow male children over a certain age to stay, because a lot of the women in those places are at a stage where they freak out at the sight of a guy, or at least become likely to up and leave because they feel uncomfortable (and then they have nowhere). Getting those women past that stage is held to be a more important use of the shelter's resources.
I find it interesting, by the way, that you're all assuming these shelters will be majority occupied by gay men. In other threads like this, there've always been posters at great pains to argue that straight men are abused 'just as much' by women as the other way around and thus must have shelter access. The perception from the past few posts, however, seems to suggest a tacit acceptance that men still do most of the physical abusing, and other men will be the victims. Someone care to make a coherent position on this?
I find it interesting, by the way, that you're all assuming these shelters will be majority occupied by gay men. In other threads like this, there've always been posters at great pains to argue that straight men are abused 'just as much' by women as the other way around and thus must have shelter access. The perception from the past few posts, however, seems to suggest a tacit acceptance that men still do most of the physical abusing, and other men will be the victims. Someone care to make a coherent position on this?
My perception is that straight men, when leaving an abuse relationship, are more likely to tough it out on their own, whether due to greater financial resources (somebody with a job is more likely to afford a cheap motel) or social pressure (not willing to admit weakness, etc.). So even if abuse of straight men is as common as abuse of women, I don't think straight men would avail themselves of social services remotely as often.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Feral what you are saying is nice and all, but it is sort of the nature of big systems that rare cases will be supported badly. How can you have someone trained to handle rare/unique cases?
There are a lot of abused men, but they'll be abused like fricking hell by their peers if they seek a shelter, whereas people are slightly more inclined to accept that women are being pushed around unfairly. Slightly though.
As for shelter bouncing, honestly, a lot of it comes down to matters of efficiency.
You have a better chance helping two borderline cases with X(Time+Money) than one could-write-a-book case.
How can you have someone trained to handle rare/unique cases?
...
You train them to handle rare and unique cases.
I'm not sure how much more I can break it down than that. I'm kind of parsing your question as I would somebody asking, "How does 2+2 equal 4?" That's not meant to be an insult, I'm just having trouble understanding where the disconnect is.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I find it interesting, by the way, that you're all assuming these shelters will be majority occupied by gay men. In other threads like this, there've always been posters at great pains to argue that straight men are abused 'just as much' by women as the other way around and thus must have shelter access. The perception from the past few posts, however, seems to suggest a tacit acceptance that men still do most of the physical abusing, and other men will be the victims. Someone care to make a coherent position on this?
My perception is that straight men, when leaving an abuse relationship, are more likely to tough it out on their own, whether due to greater financial resources (somebody with a job is more likely to afford a cheap motel) or social pressure (not willing to admit weakness, etc.). So even if abuse of straight men is as common as abuse of women, I don't think straight men would avail themselves of social services remotely as often.
I don't know, I think it depends. Younger men and teenagers would be more likely to, I think, particularly if escaping family abuse - their socioeconomic status is a lot shakier. And I don't think its a good idea to fall into the trap of characterising gay men as being like women in the way this conversation has so far (that's accidental, but assuming that gay men would use shelters while straights wouldn't strikes me as being pretty silly).
I don't think the services for men should neccessarily be a carbon-copy of DV shelters for women either though, given that as you say, they would likely feel uncomfortable using them. Things like support hotlines, or office-based services where one can go to get one's finances and such sorted out might be more appealing, with the emotional-support stuff offered in a less up-front manner.
Posts
...awww, but that doesn't sound as cool, or insulting! ;_;
This is bullshit of the highest order, chiefly pushed by anti-feminists. One: the vast, vast majority of divorces proceed amicably and with minimal court participation. Two: When it does go bad, men frequently pay more because they were the primary earner. Three: When men actually want their children and sue for custody they are awarded it in something like 8/10 cases, primarily because they earn more. Four: For every bloke that does get screwed over by crap lawyers or terrible judges, there are ten more women behind him wondering what the hell just happened and how to claw their way out of the shelter with no work experience in the last decade or more. Don't push this stuff, it is lies.
Oh, what a load of fucking tripe. Quite apart from the fact that you'll never hear 'all men are pigs' from actual feminists (but quite frequently from self-declared conservative women, as I've noticed), as if the women in these marriages didn't give up the same freedoms and take on the same vulnerabilities? These speeches only work if you rate women as some kind of complicated household appliance, with no lives of their own before some bloke slapped a ring on them. You are ridiculous.
To be fair, the citations were just links that I found to abstracts and book descriptions, in her actual book she has specific page numbers and what not, I just wasn't being thorough and wanted to throw out the sources for examination, also, I just threw out sources that were related to the author cited, looking back not all of them were necessarily for the quotes I posted. So, yeah, my bad :oops:.
That is a good bit on the embarrassing side, I do admit that I definitely should have looked more into the author herself before suggesting that anything she could've said was true (believe me, I'm not that resistant to the idea of her being totally wrong). That's my own folly, and I apologize profusely for wasting your time with it. I'll look more into it.
From what it seems, the Becky was awarded primarily for a sentence that cites information from a self-help book. That's quite a huge error, even though she removed the line in later printings. I am interested in reading more in-depth criticism of it, though. I want to know what exactly is false.
Anyone got any stories about how their little left-handed niece just did something typically left-handed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinister
Social stigma and repression of left-handedness
Black magic is sometimes referred to as the "left-hand path."
The Inuit believed that every left-handed person was a sorcerer.[citation needed] A Japanese man could divorce his wife if he discovered that she was left-handed.[citation needed]
Until very recently in Taiwan, left-handed people were strongly encouraged to switch to being right-handed (or at least, switch to writing with the right hand). In general, it is considered more difficult to write legible Chinese characters with the left hand than it is to write Latin letters, though difficulty is subjective and depends on the person in question. Because writing when moving one's hand away from its side of the body can cause smudging if the outward side of the hand is allowed to drag across the writing, it is considered easier to write the Latin alphabet with the right hand than with the left. Conversely, right-to-left alphabets such as the Arabic and Hebrew are considered easier to write with the left hand in general.
It has been hypothesized that some sun worshipers have grown to associate their left sides with evil, since people facing north would see the sun set on their left. The evidence for this is very weak, however, as the opposite conclusion can be drawn when one considers a person facing south (the opposite direction). It has been suggested that there may be a preference for northern hemisphere dwellers to face the North Star when making direction judgments. This may, however, be related to the fact that more landmass, and therefore, more people, exist in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere.
In Christianity, frequent references reinforce the positive aspects of "right" and "right hand" (side). In particular, the Bible indicates that Jesus sits at the right hand of God, or indeed is the right hand of God. Thus, faith may guide followers toward right-side preference. Christianity has had far-reaching effects on many societies throughout history, potentially strengthening the spread of right-side preference.
:rotate:
--
One of the big problems with our educational system is that people are rarely taught the actual philosophy of science and how to figure the world out.
Instead, people come in with their preconceived notions, most of which come from ancient societies, and try to press them into the developing understanding of the world as if the crazy fuckers who thought the sun was a dude on a chariot and other "Golden Age" garbage, and then they try to wrap science and fact AROUND those notions, no matter how poorly it fits.
And rarely is it worse than when the question is "Why is that person different than me and what does it mean?"
Heroine Chic is just one of several common ideals out there. It just gets a lot of attention because it's dangerous and shocking and therefor attention-grabbing.
I don't think it's actually considered truly attractive by most people. Hell, most people wouldn't actually ask a model out on a date unless they were incredibly drunk.
If it's anything, it's marketers not wanting to have to adjust to social changes. Hence why sexism is still all over the place in marketing even though women like greasy burgers and men like fattening salads.
Hrmm... the only other arch-model of attraction I can think of is the porn star, and that really only strengthens my point.
Sir Mixalot would like to have a word with you, as would the Japanese.
Well discussing Sir Mixalot seriously, if we grant that the societal ideal of African-America is curvacious women, it would take a little bit longer than I would seriously want to talk about :P
I'm not very familiar with Japanese culture. Care to elaborate?
Lolicons. :P
Not a whole-society thing, obviously, but it's disturbingly visible.
Also for the love of god do not GIS it gah my eyes.
They have a awful lot of fetishes, or at least they are more open about a lot of fetishes.
I for one actually like really thin. Not totally emaciated, but ribs sticking out a little, I don't mind it. Then again, that's almost certainly due to f'ed up body image issues.
I think a strong argument can be made for universal aesthetic, like classical architecture and even art. I think attraction might be a little bit more complex, and is probably far from universal.
Every culture is full of them.
Anyways. Many people also greatly appreciate -muscular- forms, fat fetishers are all over the place, etc.
I think the heroine chic thing just comes down to the fact that it's associated with the upper class, since healthy food is a luxury compared to unhealthy and fattening food.
This is where you get to the fun science like size differences in the hypothalamus and such. I know that there have been studies on homosexual and heterosexual brains to look at the structural differences with interesting results, but the sample size was insanely small and, of course, all the "participants" died prematurely, many of AIDS, so who knows how that could affected the study.
I'm not familiar with any pertinent studies about transgendereds, but I absolutely expect it to be biological in nature.
This is basically what you're saying. Arguing about how, since it's called "feminism" rather than a more egalitarian name, it's an exclusivist movement is a pretty shoddy. It doesn't need to include men because men are already included in everything.
You're kind of defeating your own point here. The argument could be made that their race led to increased exposure of the story, which is why you can say they almost got convicted.
Also, one case in a million where black men and women are wrongfully convicted, or white people get off because of their race.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
God damn you Humbert Humbert.
Well, let's be precise here. Sexism affects men too. It's just feminism is about that too.
It amazes me how people don't get that you can't have free and happy women without free and happy men, and that society screws men over in lots of ways (just not as obviously as it has women). By the same token, a tremendous amount of men are champions of their own oppression, arguing for social structures that lock them into roles where they suffer. They don't seem to have had that awakening that women did mid-last-century. Case in point: men's rights activists that campaign to have female domestic violence shelters shut down or defunded because they don't take men (for obvious reasons) instead of doing the hard yards and setting up services for abused men themselves.
That sounds like it involves being productive instead of complaining. I'm more a fan of complaining than making the world a better place.
EDIT: This is just a question of curiosity for The Cat, and I guess anyone else; sorry if it's a bit too tangential, but we've gone so far astray from the topic I can't really be bothered. ;D
Similarly, abused homosexual persons of either gender would be a fricking headache to protect en masse.
In a perfect world there would just be a singular abuse center where everyone can learn to be treated like human beings together, but abuse centers exist specifically because the world is nowhere near perfect.
Even the standard model of abuse shelters for women are going to have problems for a variety of reasons, whether from isolation from healthy male presences, to the psychological dangers of being surrounded by people with as bad or worse stories which can overwhelm, to the fact that people raised in a pecking order may just establish a different pecking order when they're no longer at the bottom of it...
...And all of that is before bigotry and sexual attraction and identity come into the picture.
(But yes, all good points.)
https://medium.com/@alascii
I really think you underestimate homophobia.
But I'll be very very happy if I'm wrong.
Basically, yeah.
My experience with social services is that if you don't fit into a clearly defined category - for example: [heterosexual, relatively physically healthy adult woman abused by her male spouse] being the most common category - they really have no idea what to do with you. If you like in a major metropolitan area with a large homosexual population, maybe there are resources if you're gay... but if you're transgendered, physically disabled, or have multiple confounding risk factors (i.e., substance abuse problems, major psychiatric disorder, major physical disability, etc.) they just don't know what the hell to do with you and you end up bouncing from one social service to another all the while getting the impression that the social workers really wish you would just go away and stop making their jobs more complicated than they already are.
There really need to be facilities for these odd cases and social workers who are trained and charged to sort these hard cases out. Don't fit in in a battered women's shelter because you had the misfortune to be born with a Y chromosome? Then we'll find someplace to put you, even if it means living in a studio apartment in county-funded low-income housing for six weeks. But in a lot of places, especially where real estate prices are high, facilities simply don't exist. (The waiting period for homeless shelters in my county is 6-9 months. And that's assuming you don't have a drug problem, criminal record, and can navigate a flight of stairs.)
More money is not sufficient, but it is necessary, to fix this problem.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Anyway, sorry for the brief derail, and thanks for the responses.
Wherever you felt comfortable, I guess. The gender separation part of DV shelters is just a matter of practicality, since the women in them are so often pursued violently. Anyway, how strict a shelter is about this stuff really depends on who's running it - some just keep names and photos of relatives to watch for, but I've heard of ones that don't even allow male children over a certain age to stay, because a lot of the women in those places are at a stage where they freak out at the sight of a guy, or at least become likely to up and leave because they feel uncomfortable (and then they have nowhere). Getting those women past that stage is held to be a more important use of the shelter's resources.
I find it interesting, by the way, that you're all assuming these shelters will be majority occupied by gay men. In other threads like this, there've always been posters at great pains to argue that straight men are abused 'just as much' by women as the other way around and thus must have shelter access. The perception from the past few posts, however, seems to suggest a tacit acceptance that men still do most of the physical abusing, and other men will be the victims. Someone care to make a coherent position on this?
In some communities, yes, they do.
My perception is that straight men, when leaving an abuse relationship, are more likely to tough it out on their own, whether due to greater financial resources (somebody with a job is more likely to afford a cheap motel) or social pressure (not willing to admit weakness, etc.). So even if abuse of straight men is as common as abuse of women, I don't think straight men would avail themselves of social services remotely as often.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
https://medium.com/@alascii
As for shelter bouncing, honestly, a lot of it comes down to matters of efficiency.
You have a better chance helping two borderline cases with X(Time+Money) than one could-write-a-book case.
No, it's the nature of resource-limited systems that rare cases will be supported badly.
...
You train them to handle rare and unique cases.
I'm not sure how much more I can break it down than that. I'm kind of parsing your question as I would somebody asking, "How does 2+2 equal 4?" That's not meant to be an insult, I'm just having trouble understanding where the disconnect is.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't know, I think it depends. Younger men and teenagers would be more likely to, I think, particularly if escaping family abuse - their socioeconomic status is a lot shakier. And I don't think its a good idea to fall into the trap of characterising gay men as being like women in the way this conversation has so far (that's accidental, but assuming that gay men would use shelters while straights wouldn't strikes me as being pretty silly).
I don't think the services for men should neccessarily be a carbon-copy of DV shelters for women either though, given that as you say, they would likely feel uncomfortable using them. Things like support hotlines, or office-based services where one can go to get one's finances and such sorted out might be more appealing, with the emotional-support stuff offered in a less up-front manner.