-
It may oversimplify things somewhat, but we are simply people, who have a myriad of behaviours and characteristics that define who we are - none of which are dependent on gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or otherwise. The sooner society learns that, the better.
very well put
-
Men and women throughout history would beg to differ, however we're lucky enough to live in an age where we're generally free to be and do whatever we want.
I am by no means defined by my biology, no more so than I am my ethnicity or my sexual orientation. The fact that society may choose to do so isn't my problem.
Masculinity? Femininity? These are both social constructs - characteristics we define as 'male' or 'female' when at the most basic level, they're simply characteristics, and are not exclusive to either sex.
It may oversimplify things somewhat, but we are simply people, who have a myriad of behaviours and characteristics that define who we are - none of which are dependent on gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or otherwise. The sooner society learns that, the better.
They are social constructs only in that they are names society has given to traits which are more or less split down gender lines. Not exclusively, I agree, but mostly.
The rest is a nature / nurture debate and needs biologists and physchologists, rather than me. I don't see anything wrong with admitting our differences and celebrating them.Nature has seen fit to make me male short, white, ginger, prone to being overweight, allergic or intolerant to all sort sorts of foods that would make me less prone to being overweight, and while fairly intelligent and creative, also fairly dyspraxic and dysgraphic. It's also made me heterosexual, able-bodied and largely healthy.
You bet your boots that who I am, what I do and how I think and act have a hell of a lot to do with all that. If any one of those things I consider an accident of birth was different I think I would be a completely different person.Nonetheless I wholeheartedly agree that none of the above gives anyone the right to define me. I am very much an individual. I merely accept that the type of individual I am can be ascribed to my genetics, and some of my individual qualities can also be recognised in other individuals who share some of my genetic predelictions.
-
Ok, firstly i apologize to forum members as this is getting really boring now.
Nhatt, maybe the reason you 'get' Ashe so well is because you've been a hypocrite too?
That spotted thread was a fine example...someone tells a story of how a girl commented that she liked their lock, they comment back that they liked her bike and outfit and you pounced straight on them, calling it lame and predatory...bollocks in the first place anyway as it was neither. You then find out it's a girl and she says she's not being predatory and suddenly it's hugs all round...what, no lecture like you've previously done to any guy who dared to pass comment on any female rider and then explain that they weren't meaning it in a predatory way? There's a surprise.
You claim to hate all the bullshit sexist comments and how it's off putting to women reading it and yet here you are defending somebody who has blatantly slagged off skinny people, told us how he wouldn't rule out shagging beth ditto and how he'd do lfgss proud...how she could have a caramel baby and she could 'try out' a black guy...""you, me and a tub of something greasy"..."unicorn impression ON"...etc...but wait...we can let all that slide because Nhatt 'gets' Ashe...and she speaks for all women. Besides...he was sticking up for 'the fatties and it was just a joke anyway'.
Let's take another example shall we. You claim to hate all this blokey shit with people talking about Halle berry's tits...etc...it's so lame...women don't want to read it...and then lo and behold, there you are on the south east beers thread laughing and joking along with the guys about Reeen chatting up the barmaid and getting her number despite already having a girlfriend. laugh and joke about how we should put a picture of him on a t shirt with a slogan under it....laughing along as he talks of roofies and what his ex used to do...chuckle, chuckle...but wait...that's all ok cos Nhatt is involved, so it can't be seen as off putting to anyone.
You see Nhatt i do plenty of reading on here...i don't argue for the sake of it despite what most people think...i just hate to see this kind of double standard where it's so appalling for guys to make sexist comments and not take the subject seriously and yet here you are defending Ashe despite him making blatantly sexist comments himself....claiming he's explained himself when all he's done is pass off his own sexist and prejudiced comments as 'jokes'....and double standards from you claiming to find guys commenting on girls on the spotted thread so lame and degrading to women despite you being happy to indulge in conversation about a guy at SE asking out a girl when he already has a girlfriend and laugh as he tells everyone what his ex used to do.
Maybe you and Ashe should do more reading too, like of your own posts for example...maybe then you'd see all the holes in both your theories that i see.
For now we can just write it all off as jokes though eh....so long as you 'get' them.Sorry for dragging this out again people but how the hell anyone can defend such blatant hypocrisy is beyond me.
This made me so angry, I rose to the bait. I lashed out a reply that was defensive and scathing.
That was totally the wrong thing to do. I forgot that I like Scott, that he is my friend, and that being right isn't nearly as important as being nice. For the honor of trying to salvage a friendship, I will happily let you refer to me as both hypocritical and sexist, if that's what you believe, and I will do what I can to prove you wrong by being who I believe myself to be.
-
We don't have stereotypes about, say, Welsh people having a great interest in shoes or Scousers preferring playing with dolls to cars or trains because there's no evidence to support either assertion. We do on the other hand hold these as stereotypes about women, largely because the majority of them conform to these stereotypes.
the majority (even though this may not be true) conform to these stereotypes in our country/culture. It is pretty rash to say the majority of women like shoes and dolls in the whole world - it's pretty likely there are places where kids don't play with dolls, and that shoes aren't considered in regards to fashion - that is 1.5 billion people plus.
-
Men and women do have characteristics and patterns of behaviour that are massively governed by their gender and the hormonal balance that goes into the development of their brains. Things like cognitive processes, interests, likes and dislikes, talents and so forth differ significantly and consistently between the sexes. These are either reinforced or accommodated by upbringing and society to strengthen the stereotype. Of course we generalise and some men and women do not conform to their stereotypes (which is usually considered admirable), but the majority do. And that's no bad thing either.
Is that why you ride a bike with a wicker basket on the front of it? ;o)))
-
Why, are you going to punch me in the face?
Crispin Glover, I have always tried to shy away from violence. I am normally capable of resolving differences with words. I am good with words. Violence is always extreme, and in my view a last resort that is used far too often for my liking by others. It would take alot for me to become violent, and I really don't think you would be able to push me that far. So, no.
Ha! I was just thinking this appears to be the point where GA2G, hopelessly backed into a corner having had his double-standards exposed yet again, starts making threats.
I don't know about double standards BMMF, and I don't know how many people you know.....but of nearly all the people I know, everyone has 2 sides to their character and their behaviour. It may be true that Wayne's GA2G the Oscillator tag, may have more than a modicum of truth to it. Maybe I'm schizoid (awful American term we used to use at school in Florida, but the one appropriate to my dimmed mood), and am not aware of it. Though I would not accept couch time from the Freuds of this forum. As for threats - I had had enough of being jumped on in the past day, and repeatedly by a couple, of whom I could not fathom their great display of ire in my direction. As has been witnessed, I have apologised, and been as polite, and tried to be as understanding as I possibly can. Eventually, I felt that enough of the ganging-up-on had taken place, and I showed my dispeasure. I'm pretty sure that I have behaved quite well considering the kicking I was getting. I just felt that Tiswas didn't need to jump on me as well. I think it would have been better for him to have pulled up a ringside seat, and enjoy Scott and Bendix laying into me. As for me saying to Bendix that I would now treat as a man (in any furtherment of the attacks on me); does anyone know what that meant? I said that I would never treat VeeVee or Bella (or Clefty for that matter) as anything other than a lady, and a friend. However, my politeness on this forum was being tested, and if anyone has seen me being almost sideswiped by a car-driver in New Cross, then they will know how I would address a man when I am very angry. Its with words, and those are then without restraint. I am polite normally, but when attacked, I may lose my composure eventually.
I consider myself quite human in this respect.
"Your view is nonsense until I decide it's now my view, therefore it's the truth, and I'll patronise/ignore/misinterpret anyone who begs to differ."
"My completely insensitive comment was actually a joke; I thought you'd be man enough to realise that; your insensitive comment is absolutely uncalled for."
"If you continue to undermine my authority I will beat you up (but I'm a lover not a fighter)."
If thats how you see me, fine. If thats how others see me also, fine. I don't have a problem with not being what others want me to be. I am really happy and comfortable as I am. It may annoy others, but I wasn't born for the amusement of others. I was born to fulfill my own life's path.
Blahdy blah. If work's quiet, perhaps a new hobby? Or a new job? How about becoming a gravedigger - you've spent enough time on yours.
Why again so personal? My job is not a job, its a chosen career. At times it has been brilliant, and at times it has been really bad, or disappointing. I don't think its necessary to tell me that you suggest a new job for me, and better yet, that a gravedigger would suit me. I do understand the reference, insofar that a gravedigger's jobs is a rather anti-social one, without much public regard...and suited to those that lack social benefits that others enjoy. I do get it. But again, its a personal attack, that I suppose I will just have to take with grace.
If anyone took the time to read all that you have written regarding me, since I've joined this forum, they will wonder how I have remained as unmoved as I am displaying now. There's alot of unfairness here, but I am easily tough enough to cope with nearly all of it.
Please, whenever it next best suits you, do not hesitate to try to insult my life. I won't mind. If there is anyone else that feels the need to do so (come on Winston, get it off your chest, you will feel better for it), please also pile in. Its a new sport don't you know?
But trust me on this, I am totally unaffected by it. So, lash away.
-
Anyway Jimie Carr summed it all quite nicely:
"Sexism is wrong because birds can't take it."
-
I don't think you did 'understand the reference', GA2G. Perhaps you should take some of your own medicine and realise it was just a joke. It makes use of a popular idiom involving the words 'dig', 'own' and 'grave'. Perhaps the American education system dulled your sense of irony? Stereotypically speaking, it's something people often lack over there, isn't it.
You started with the heavy handed attacks first, just because I dared to question the validity of list-making so many moons ago. If you dish out shit, you've got to expect a little in return, particularly during a fevered period of monopolising the forum with your prescriptive attitude.
I'm not insulting your life. I'm responding to your increasingly weird and superfluous posts.
-
You are the Hoff and I claim my £5.00.
You can have the £5 but you're not getting the .00.
-
17/6/07-11/9/09
Scott, if you're considering leaving the forum, please don't. You are without doubt, one of the most important and well liked members here. You are not just useful, you are generous, thoughtful and a lovely egg. I also like you, and I think you should know that.
Ashe to you, GA2G to most of the others.
-
Please, whenever it next best suits you, do not hesitate to try to insult my life. I won't mind. If there is anyone else that feels the need to do so (come on Winston, get it off your chest, you will feel better for it), please also pile in. Its a new sport don't you know?
I can't insult your life, I know nothing about it.
deleted
bq
!Nhattattack!
GA2G
ehren_fried_chicken
BringMeMyFix
LdnGrrl
Oliver Schick-
Post a reply
About
Puerile sexist shite
Posted by
@freddo
Men and women throughout history would beg to differ, however we're lucky enough to live in an age where we're generally free to be and do whatever we want.
I am by no means defined by my biology, no more so than I am my ethnicity or my sexual orientation. The fact that society may choose to do so isn't my problem.
Masculinity? Femininity? These are both social constructs - characteristics we define as 'male' or 'female' when at the most basic level, they're simply characteristics, and are not exclusive to either sex.
It may oversimplify things somewhat, but we are simply people, who have a myriad of behaviours and characteristics that define who we are - none of which are dependent on gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or otherwise. The sooner society learns that, the better.