Author Topic: Les  (Read 2676 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 24530
  • Karma: 1260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Les
« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2013, 12:14:45 AM »
I'm gonna reply to that elsewhere so we can actually get on with the callout

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Les
« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2013, 07:24:41 AM »
There has been a severe shortage of call-outs here lately :M

So, go on, Les

I don't see how me not being personally "familiar" with a culture (ie Iraq or sixteenth century whatever) means I shouldn't view their treatment of women as sexist.

Your "it's not sexism; it's just that women are so valued by men they must be locked away for protection" argument is, quite frankly, bullshit.

Viewing women as a possession rather than a person is sexism, end of. And sexism (as well as homophobia, racism and transphobia etc) is something I just "don't get", you're right

Please come up with a better argument

Although try and keep it to fewer than 1000 words. Cheers.

Now let's be clear that men and women having different roles in a society is not sexist or oppressive. It by no means says that it is not sexist BUT the claim has to have some basis other than "Men have penises, so they are sexist".

So how to assess what is and is not sexist is both a matter of opinion and logical sense. In most instances, logic should win the day. When a ideology has been promoted and pushed over half a century, there are probably going to be many assumptions and presumptions about the things that we then base our "knowledge" on things and the framing or filter we see them through.

One aspect is the men did not give women the choice and took away those options for women. I think this is extremely simplistic. It lends itself to the even sillier opinion of "Yes men may have made themselves the protectors and ones of risk of harm wherever possible BUT they were doing this in a sexist way and taking away women's want to go hunting and warring and did it because they liked to die disposabily"

It does not make sense. It does not make sense that a gender would oppress another gender and risk their lives so haphazardly for the other gender whilst not expecting anything from the other gender.

They COULD have raped the women, stolen and raised any kids that they may have wanted to be Father to, IF she survived and left her to fend for herself and put themselves through a lot less risk.

No it was a social contract with two parties. The women wanted to be safe and protected. The women did not want to hunt. The women did not want to war. They saw the advantage in staying safe and warm and secure. Let the men do that and in return they were happy to trade-off their safety for more power in the relationship. Effectively being a prized possession.

In terms of identity too it made sense. She would be safe from unwanted advances by attaching a possession narrative to her identity. She would also not need to take responsibility for any problem that may occur as they become her husband's problems to fix or make restitution for. (In a similar way to a parent paying or fixing results of problems they cause).

So Yes she WAS a little in many ways with the power of the child BUT also when her Father handed over his daughter, he was essentially saying to the husband "OK mate, I have tried my very best to look after her and keep her as safe and protected from the world as I can. Could you please try to do the same." So.....that is sexist! Yes, yes those men colluded and sort to keep the girls ignorant and as children and that was sexist, right?

Wrong. There was no abortion, birth control and lousy infant mortality rates and so parents by and large tried to have a lot of kids and keep having them. More kids virtually guaranteed a few would survive to childhood and in a parents old age, they would have someone to look after them. It also meant that they would have someone to live to child bearing age. This was not sexist. Female girls would be lucky enough to survive childhood with diseases we now designate as third world claiming many. Further to this though, they would generally marry and generally have children. The chances of them surviving multiple childbirths and to menopause, wasn't great. IF they did survive that long, they would on average not have a long window to the end of their lives. They would have to hope that their husband had saved and provided enough to sustain them. IF such a situation existed and the women's risk to life was so severe, then men keeping them safe and cosseted made good sense as did racing around and working for them and protecting and providing for them. But it would also make sense that SHE would see the sense in saying "My body clock is ticking I want to be a Mother, notwithstanding the fact it may kill me at any time I give birth, I can not be relied on to provide for these kids. I can not assume positions in society that my be compromised by me dying prematurely and chances are I will be giving birth within one year of marrying. A birth which is a good chance to kill me. Please take on that role. Look after the finances. Be the face of our family. Look after my interests and our kid's interests." That is not sexist for her to want this nor he.

Now with this mindset and this society, would it be possible for such a obligation on the part of the woman to be that she wil obey her husband" Looking at it from modern day mindset will not work. But from such a society and desperate times, it does make sense. It was a time that pretty much everyone could talk about a dead child. Either a son or a daughter or a brother or a sister, because every family and every person was affected. It was not the shocking news story and look for answers it is today. Back them it was ingrained in the psyche.

Why were the man's obligations to women not noted in such church services? I think. Again it is conjecture, but I am reasonably sure that in the same way men did not just bail on their women, that it was simply understood.

See in looking at these things I take an approach of looking at the big picture and taking the opinion that people on average are generally average people. Sounds self-evident. I think that taking the approach that men did X in society because they are sexist is simplistic. Who was sexist? Which individuals. It begs the answer of "all". Like the possession thing. Was that for men to marry a woman to have a fucktoy? Is that the kind of impression you may get with the word possession? A woman to continually rape and beat for pleasure and keep imprisoned in the house? You know, I am sure that some men did exactly that. I do not doubt it BUT I do not thing for a moment that is why it was made or its purpose or the way men or women viewed the arrangement. That is because I am not fucking stupid.

It was a social environment different to what we know or perceive BUT what we do know is that generally parents love each other and their kids and seek to do the best for them. Adults of both sexes generally will seeking out companionship and love and sex and want to have kids and raise them best they can. These are givens. Yet it is very easy for people to point to different times in history and different cultures and cry sexism.

Sexism - like racism, ageism, or whatever bigotry you want to cast, is not a positive thing or a way of life. To say, ok it was sexist and what I mean to say is different, is not cool. Sexism is sexism and different roles in society MAY mean sexist or may mean other things as well. A company  IT may be called sexist because it employs a smaller number of women BUT women tend not to choose hard science or hard Math or IT positions in the workplace. In these areas, the male to female ratio is high. It is a difference but it is not sexist.

But there is another point too. Extreme and crazy practices by religious fundamentalists which make crazy religious laws, many which are especially now, sexist and cruel. Now I will not contest that some practices and preaching are anything short of.....crazy. It is however something to note that when talking about men and women in a country or of a culture and saying "they believe in this or they are like that", that you are not actually saying "the worst of their religious crackpots believe that". Not a fan of Christianity BUT I will concede that mostly they are simply people who believe in God and Jesus and probably an appreciation of some of the aspects of religious teachings.

The Mullahs, Taliban, Tribal Warlords, Westboro Baptists and so on are examples of such racalised fundamentalists wackos. I do not for a moment define all Americans or all American Christians by these wackos. It would be dishonest in the extreme......as it is when people try defining the people of Iraq, Iran, Egypt or Afganistan on the basis of the teachings of the most crazy fundamentalists. Really dishonest.

By all means call some of the worst practices crazy, stupid and sexist and you will not get me disagreeing. Say that a people are sexist then unless you are talking specifically about the crazy fundamentalists themselves then I am happy to call bullshit.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Les
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2013, 07:25:48 AM »
I think I was a little over 100 words.  :lol1:
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Les
« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2013, 08:21:02 AM »
OK it is getting late. I will be going to bed soon. My going to bed doesn't mean I consider the callout over. If I do not post for many hours tomorrow, that too doesn't mean that it is over. I am going shopping with my kids and visiting friend and having dinner at friends. Then packing lunch for kids for school on Monday.
Just to let you know Adam, in case you jump too quickly to silly conclusions. Furthermore IF I do post tomorrow morning, I will likely be pressed for time and possibly will not be able to answer much. This does not mean I have given up either. It simply means that it is my weekend and I am busy.
See how silly some of your assumptions are and how unnecessary this is to explain?
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline Adam

  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 24530
  • Karma: 1260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Les
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2013, 08:36:24 AM »
the claim has to have some basis other than "Men have penises, so they are sexist".

I find this peculiar. Where abouts in my previous posts have I even implied that I think "men have penises, so they are sexist"?

Really, Les, this is kind of stupid even for you. Surely I would be the last person to say that. I am a man myself. (I'm setting you up there for another one of your hilarious jokes btw... go on, take it! ;) )


Quote
They COULD have raped the women, stolen and raised any kids that they may have wanted to be Father to, IF she survived and left her to fend for herself and put themselves through a lot less risk.
Given how much you seemed to think you knew about earlier human societies and relationships, I'm surprised you say such a thing. You clearly don't know much evolutionary biology. There is a reason why are species generally raise their offspring as a couple. Sure, take any opportunities to impregnate other females when and if you can, but in order to ensure you have a good chance of passing on your genes for another two generations, you need to stick around.

Also, the scenario you just described DID happen a lot. In the kind of environment you seem to have conjured up, if one tribe attacks another tribe, the men will likely be wiped out/driven out, the women raped and the existing kids killed or enslaved.

So yes, a man could just rape his women and leave them to fend for themselves, but that wouldn't really make good evolutionary sense. It's not this big self-sacrifice. It's what's right for THEM too if they want to make sure their kids reach an age where they can go on and reproduce themselves.

Hang on, where are we even going with this? Why the "cavemen" talk again? HOW human society got to be sexist is not what this callout is about. I'd rather read a book on this topic than discuss it with you of all people

Quote
No it was a social contract with two parties. The women wanted to be safe and protected. The women did not want to hunt. The women did not want to war.

Jesus Christ. Hunting again? We're not talking about prehistoric huntergatherers. We're talking about relatively modern legal marriage and present-day Iraq etc. To say, "women aren't allowed out on their own in Saudi Arabia because Mrs Flintstone wanted to stay home while Mr Flintstone went out hunting" is just fucking stupid. Irrelevant. That somehow makes it ok to ban women from driving or only let them leave their house with a male escort?


Quote
They saw the advantage in staying safe and warm and secure. Let the men do that and in return they were happy to trade-off their safety for more power in the relationship. Effectively being a prized possession.

Can we PLEASE, for the love of god, travel through time away from this cavemen shit?
I think many Iraqi women would take issue with you saying they WANT to be locked in their house.
We're going round in circles here.


Quote
There was no abortion,
Hmm. When are we talking about here? Maybe no legal abortion or birth control, but I think you'll find there was some.

Quote
birth control and lousy infant mortality rates and so parents by and large tried to have a lot of kids and keep having them.
Yes. Correct.

Quote
I think that taking the approach that men did X in society because they are sexist is simplistic. Who was sexist? Which individuals. It begs the answer of "all".
It is the society itself, the culture, the laws etc etc that is sexist. Until recently, rape within marriage was not legally recognised. etc etc. The further back you go, the less rights the women will have. If a woman doesn't even have a SAY in whether or not she wants to marry her "suitor", I don't see how that can be anything other than sexist.


Quote
Like the possession thing. Was that for men to marry a woman to have a fucktoy? Is that the kind of impression you may get with the word possession? A woman to continually rape and beat for pleasure and keep imprisoned in the house? You know, I am sure that some men did exactly that. I do not doubt it BUT I do not thing for a moment that is why it was made or its purpose or the way men or women viewed the arrangement. That is because I am not fucking stupid.
Um, by "possession", I mean exactly that. Possession. Husband owns wife. Simple as. I'm sure their sex life varied and isn't really of any interest

Quote
Yet it is very easy for people to point to different times in history and different cultures and cry sexism.
That's because, throughout history, women generally HAVE been viewed as inferior to men. That's just fucking obvious lol. Just like pointing to racism in 19th century scientific books. Yeah, it was a different time. Yeah, I'm sure they didn't realise just how bigoted they were being. Yeah, they had their reasons for thinking like that. But it was STILL RACISM.

Quote
A company  IT may be called sexist because it employs a smaller number of women BUT women tend not to choose hard science or hard Math or IT positions in the workplace. In these areas, the male to female ratio is high. It is a difference but it is not sexist.

Bad comparison. Women CAN at least study computing, apply for a job at an IT company etc etc. Clearly that is, as you said, simply a difference in the number of women wanting to go into IT. Not the same as a woman not being ABLE to get a job in computing.

Quote
when people try defining the people of Iraq, Iran, Egypt or Afganistan on the basis of the teachings of the most crazy fundamentalists. Really dishonest.
Lol you don't get it, do you? We're talking about sexism in Iran, Iraq etc because it is LEGALLY ENFORCED.
For example, the WBC homophobia is not legally enforced in the US. Gays aren't killed for being gay. In Iran they are. If I was to judge America based on the WBC, that would be silly. To judge Iran as homophobic (AS A COUNTRY, ie legally, politically) is perfectly sane though - they execute them.

No one's judging all Iranians or Iraqis based on what an extreme religious minorty say. We're talking about sexism that is actually legally enforced. 

Quote
Say that a people are sexist then unless you are talking specifically about the crazy fundamentalists themselves then I am happy to call bullshit.
We're saying the country itself is sexist. Its regime or whatever. Not necessarily every member of the population.

Apologies to anyone reading this. I don't have the energy to put this into words properly, so I'll admit it is likely very rambling.

Offline Adam

  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 24530
  • Karma: 1260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Les
« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2013, 08:38:10 AM »
OK it is getting late. I will be going to bed soon. My going to bed doesn't mean I consider the callout over. If I do not post for many hours tomorrow, that too doesn't mean that it is over. I am going shopping with my kids and visiting friend and having dinner at friends. Then packing lunch for kids for school on Monday.
Just to let you know Adam, in case you jump too quickly to silly conclusions. Furthermore IF I do post tomorrow morning, I will likely be pressed for time and possibly will not be able to answer much. This does not mean I have given up either. It simply means that it is my weekend and I am busy.
See how silly some of your assumptions are and how unnecessary this is to explain?

Lol, I never said I assumed you'd given up because you hadn''t been on for a few hours.
I said I assumed you'd given up because you came in, replied only to one little bit that wasn't even related to the callout, then left and started posting elsewhere.

My fault though - I should have realised that it clearly takes you several hours to make each response.

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Les
« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2013, 10:47:37 AM »
the claim has to have some basis other than "Men have penises, so they are sexist".

I find this peculiar. Where abouts in my previous posts have I even implied that I think "men have penises, so they are sexist"?

Really, Les, this is kind of stupid even for you. Surely I would be the last person to say that. I am a man myself. (I'm setting you up there for another one of your hilarious jokes btw... go on, take it! ;) )

It is meant to be stupid. It seems often a default. When unsure, blame men. Men are quite happy to set up a culture that places them in much more danger than the women they married and who they are supposed to be oppressing and that makes it a life's purpose to provide and protect. Doesn't make a lot of sense. I think rather than really consider things, people quite often just call sexist.


Quote
They COULD have raped the women, stolen and raised any kids that they may have wanted to be Father to, IF she survived and left her to fend for herself and put themselves through a lot less risk.
Given how much you seemed to think you knew about earlier human societies and relationships, I'm surprised you say such a thing. You clearly don't know much evolutionary biology. There is a reason why are species generally raise their offspring as a couple. Sure, take any opportunities to impregnate other females when and if you can, but in order to ensure you have a good chance of passing on your genes for another two generations, you need to stick around.

Also, the scenario you just described DID happen a lot. In the kind of environment you seem to have conjured up, if one tribe attacks another tribe, the men will likely be wiped out/driven out, the women raped and the existing kids killed or enslaved.

So yes, a man could just rape his women and leave them to fend for themselves, but that wouldn't really make good evolutionary sense. It's not this big self-sacrifice. It's what's right for THEM too if they want to make sure their kids reach an age where they can go on and reproduce themselves.

Hang on, where are we even going with this? Why the "cavemen" talk again? HOW human society got to be sexist is not what this callout is about. I'd rather read a book on this topic than discuss it with you of all people

Then do, by all means.But then you did the callout. Now you are stuck with me. It was quite your own fault.

Now obviously hunting was replaced in most societies to other employment but the roles remained unchanged. Making money to get food rather than go out and kill for it. If you see hunt, you can replace it with get work.

As to what species do. No I am talking about humans. Species don't drive cars, worship gods or land on the moon. We are talking about Humans. So rather than see this in terms of some biological drive which overrides any thought, you will have to do a little better. It is a simplistic cop out. Men then, like men now, most likely loved their kids and probably more than fancied their wife.

Some men would have been a little more barbaric. There may have been different politics and customs and social dynamics. 

Women did not have long life expectancies. This has only started improving dramatically in relatively recent years in respect to recorded history. Men protected the Mothers of their children because both they and the children were valued. They could "afford to" throw themselves on an opposing tribe but they could not risk exposing such harms to the women or kids.

Quote
No it was a social contract with two parties. The women wanted to be safe and protected. The women did not want to hunt. The women did not want to war.

Jesus Christ. Hunting again? We're not talking about prehistoric huntergatherers. We're talking about relatively modern legal marriage and present-day Iraq etc. To say, "women aren't allowed out on their own in Saudi Arabia because Mrs Flintstone wanted to stay home while Mr Flintstone went out hunting" is just fucking stupid. Irrelevant. That somehow makes it ok to ban women from driving or only let them leave their house with a male escort?

Everything has its origin. However their are more than one of those forces here.
 
If I told you that many of the old women in Iraq have an education and many were working for much of their adult life, what would you say? What if I said that most of the younger women do not? Would that suggest to you some big change in society? If I told you that the Iraq of the past was a very progressive place and very much advanced, would you deny that? Why then is it stymied now? But here is the big one. If it is going backwards in becoming this restrictive culture then is that likely that the reason for it is something along the lines of, that is because the people of and in Iraq agree it is best OR a small but controlling population within Iraq is trying to dominate the country with laws and impose a culture that oppresses all of them and that they do not want or need"?

Think about it.

Quote
They saw the advantage in staying safe and warm and secure. Let the men do that and in return they were happy to trade-off their safety for more power in the relationship. Effectively being a prized possession.

Can we PLEASE, for the love of god, travel through time away from this cavemen shit?
I think many Iraqi women would take issue with you saying they WANT to be locked in their house.
We're going round in circles here.

Sorry was the question whether I think that Iraqui women wish they could go outside and risk being blown away or badly assaulted daily OR stay home and not be? Is this like, an honest question? Because I COULD say no, they really want to risk getting killed and the ones that have no choice but to go out normally rejoice in freedom that they have to do so. Something like that?

Quote
There was no abortion,
Hmm. When are we talking about here? Maybe no legal abortion or birth control, but I think you'll find there was some.
Around the time of the creation of the Vows that you object to , I dare say there was not much on offer. Look I am more than aware that animal intestines were used as a makeshift condoms way back in the day but they were not proper widely distributed stocked on supermarket mostly reliable condoms or pharmacy mass produced birth control pills.

Some, does not say a lot.


As for abortion back then? I don't think I even need to go there do I?

Quote
birth control and lousy infant mortality rates and so parents by and large tried to have a lot of kids and keep having them.
Yes. Correct.

I know

Quote
I think that taking the approach that men did X in society because they are sexist is simplistic. Who was sexist? Which individuals. It begs the answer of "all".

It is the society itself, the culture, the laws etc etc that is sexist. Until recently, rape within marriage was not legally recognised. etc etc. The further back you go, the less rights the women will have. If a woman doesn't even have a SAY in whether or not she wants to marry her "suitor", I don't see how that can be anything other than sexist.

Society forces its will on its citizens and obliges them.
You know why they gave 18 year old men the right to vote and allowed them to be recognised as men? Because they were obliged to be drafted and not allowed to vote. Objectioning "draft-dodgers" were jailed on the basis that they were obliged to look after the country and go to war. (Women got the vote too. Society does not oblige them to war. Women were a good source of getting young 18 year old boys to go to war. They would hand out white feathers to shame boys to conscripting). But I am getting sidetracked. None of this was sexist. It was about defined social obligations in return for a set of treatments.

As for whether a woman not choosing her suitor, remember the bit about the Father having to make decisions for the daughter when she is a child and the husband take responsibility for the girl when he marries her? This was part of that. She basically was allowing Father carte blanche and then the Father says, "OK so you are no longer a child. You are marriageable age. Your life with me is over. I have assessed given all the best aspects of our station and what I could possibly hope in respect of what man may look after you like I have. I have had some enquiries by rather nervous men and of them all Mr X is best bet to be able to provide and look after you."

In the same way that society obligated the man to be the breadwinner and the man in charge of everything (HE had no choice) and be the one to protect (No choice there either)She too had obligations to allow the man this power in return for her comfort and safety (She had no choice)

Were both obligations sexist?

Quote
Like the possession thing. Was that for men to marry a woman to have a fucktoy? Is that the kind of impression you may get with the word possession? A woman to continually rape and beat for pleasure and keep imprisoned in the house? You know, I am sure that some men did exactly that. I do not doubt it BUT I do not thing for a moment that is why it was made or its purpose or the way men or women viewed the arrangement. That is because I am not fucking stupid.

Um, by "possession", I mean exactly that. Possession. Husband owns wife. Simple as. I'm sure their sex life varied and isn't really of any interest

Possession is way of identifying in the context of the marriage contract. X is Y's wife. It is to say X is obliged to look after Y. X is responsible for Y's social actions. If you try to hurt or both Y then you will need to answer to X.

But in as to why a woman may WANT this status or situation?

Quote
More kids virtually guaranteed a few would survive to childhood and in a parents old age, they would have someone to look after them. It also meant that they would have someone to live to child bearing age. This was not sexist. Female girls would be lucky enough to survive childhood with diseases we now designate as third world claiming many. Further to this though, they would generally marry and generally have children. The chances of them surviving multiple childbirths and to menopause, wasn't great. IF they did survive that long, they would on average not have a long window to the end of their lives. They would have to hope that their husband had saved and provided enough to sustain them. IF such a situation existed and the women's risk to life was so severe, then men keeping them safe and cosseted made good sense as did racing around and working for them and protecting and providing for them. But it would also make sense that SHE would see the sense in saying "My body clock is ticking I want to be a Mother, notwithstanding the fact it may kill me at any time I give birth, I can not be relied on to provide for these kids. I can not assume positions in society that my be compromised by me dying prematurely and chances are I will be giving birth within one year of marrying. A birth which is a good chance to kill me. Please take on that role. Look after the finances. Be the face of our family. Look after my interests and our kid's interests." That is not sexist for her to want this nor he.

Now if we consider this and its implications, that is why it may well not be sexist then but would be today in our society.

Quote
Yet it is very easy for people to point to different times in history and different cultures and cry sexism.
That's because, throughout history, women generally HAVE been viewed as inferior to men. That's just fucking obvious lol. Just like pointing to racism in 19th century scientific books. Yeah, it was a different time. Yeah, I'm sure they didn't realise just how bigoted they were being. Yeah, they had their reasons for thinking like that. But it was STILL RACISM.

Why did men let the women considered inferior to them on the lifeboats whilst they took an uncomfortable dip in the Ocean? I mean they DID consider them inferior beings right? Surely they would be hurling them overboard in order to get to the lifeboats themselves?
No? Maybe this is the bit where you are supposed to say "The Patriarchy hurts men too". No?

You want more examples of why your concept just went the way of the Titanic?

As for trying to introduce racism. Yup great analogy. Now just tell class how the White master worked the fields hard all day whilst his black slave stayed at home looking after his children, or how he defended his black slave from any violence or threats and when you consider all these kind of angles please get back to me and tell me how horribly ill thought out your analogy is.

Quote
A company  IT may be called sexist because it employs a smaller number of women BUT women tend not to choose hard science or hard Math or IT positions in the workplace. In these areas, the male to female ratio is high. It is a difference but it is not sexist.

Bad comparison. Women CAN at least study computing, apply for a job at an IT company etc etc. Clearly that is, as you said, simply a difference in the number of women wanting to go into IT. Not the same as a woman not being ABLE to get a job in computing.

No not at all because some make the claim it IS sexist. Why? Because either they are not incentivising women enough or they are conditioning young girls away from it. See at base tacks the most innocuous thing or disparity could be turned around to a nonsensical "Sexist because men have penises".

Quote
when people try defining the people of Iraq, Iran, Egypt or Afganistan on the basis of the teachings of the most crazy fundamentalists. Really dishonest.
Lol you don't get it, do you? We're talking about sexism in Iran, Iraq etc because it is LEGALLY ENFORCED.
For example, the WBC homophobia is not legally enforced in the US. Gays aren't killed for being gay. In Iran they are. If I was to judge America based on the WBC, that would be silly. To judge Iran as homophobic (AS A COUNTRY, ie legally, politically) is perfectly sane though - they execute them.

No one's judging all Iranians or Iraqis based on what an extreme religious minorty say. We're talking about sexism that is actually legally enforced. 

You don't get it do you? The people controlling the country are not "the people". If overnight France successfully invaded England and replaced their laws with French laws would you say in a month from now IF you were being law abiding that you were accepting and believed in the laws and the new customs and everything OR would you be going along with it because you had no choice?

Quote
Say that a people are sexist then unless you are talking specifically about the crazy fundamentalists themselves then I am happy to call bullshit.
We're saying the country itself is sexist. Its regime or whatever. Not necessarily every member of the population.

Apologies to anyone reading this. I don't have the energy to put this into words properly, so I'll admit it is likely very rambling.

Or hell, most people in the population. As per my French example above
« Last Edit: August 03, 2013, 11:33:13 AM by Al Swearengen »
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Les
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2013, 11:34:56 AM »
OK it is getting late. I will be going to bed soon. My going to bed doesn't mean I consider the callout over. If I do not post for many hours tomorrow, that too doesn't mean that it is over. I am going shopping with my kids and visiting friend and having dinner at friends. Then packing lunch for kids for school on Monday.
Just to let you know Adam, in case you jump too quickly to silly conclusions. Furthermore IF I do post tomorrow morning, I will likely be pressed for time and possibly will not be able to answer much. This does not mean I have given up either. It simply means that it is my weekend and I am busy.
See how silly some of your assumptions are and how unnecessary this is to explain?

Lol, I never said I assumed you'd given up because you hadn''t been on for a few hours.
I said I assumed you'd given up because you came in, replied only to one little bit that wasn't even related to the callout, then left and started posting elsewhere.

My fault though - I should have realised that it clearly takes you several hours to make each response.

I agree it was silly assumptions all around by you and yes, it was your fault.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline Adam

  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 24530
  • Karma: 1260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Les
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2013, 03:14:15 PM »
a culture that places them in much more danger than the women

Again, the fact that men are generally more at risk of being killed in armed conflict etc means nothing in this argument. Sure, men are more liekly to die fighting. So? Does that automatically mean there's no sexism? Your logic really is failing abysmally on that one


Quote
I think rather than really consider things, people quite often just call sexist.
Yep. True. Much like people sometimes play the race card or disability card. Doesn't mean there isn't also genuine racism etc. Nowadays, people can often be way too quick to call something sexist, and it gets ridiculous. I really don't think you can say that women being legally prevented from leaving the house falls into that category though. Nor does husbands being allowed to rape their wives fall into that category.


Quote
Then do, by all means.
I have. Clearly you haven't.
Have you ever read a book in your entire life?

Quote
But then you did the callout. Now you are stuck with me. It was quite your own fault.
Lol. No. I did the callout yes. The callout had absolutely NOTHING to do with "cavemen" and their sex lives though.


Quote
As to what species do. No I am talking about humans. Species don't drive cars, worship gods or land on the moon. We are talking about Humans. So rather than see this in terms of some biological drive which overrides any thought, you will have to do a little better.

Uh, aren't humans biological animals too? I thought you were trying to explain your "point" though some kind of pseudo-scientific bollocks. So I thought I'd respond with some basic biology too. Now you tell me to stop talking about biology?

Quote
It is a simplistic cop out. Men then, like men now, most likely loved their kids and probably more than fancied their wife.
Generally, yes. Of course. And? Butterflies made an excellent point about this in the peanut gallery. I won't bother repeating it here.


Quote
If I told you that many of the old women in Iraq have an education and many were working for much of their adult life, what would you say? What if I said that most of the younger women do not? Would that suggest to you some big change in society? If I told you that the Iraq of the past was a very progressive place and very much advanced, would you deny that? Why then is it stymied now? But here is the big one. If it is going backwards in becoming this restrictive culture then is that likely that the reason for it is something along the lines of, that is because the people of and in Iraq agree it is best OR a small but controlling population within Iraq is trying to dominate the country with laws and impose a culture that oppresses all of them and that they do not want or need"?

Finally you're actually (kind of) getting to the point of the callout!
But you're still kind of missing it at the same time. Regardless of WHY women are treated as inferior in Iraq, the fact is that they are. And that in itself is clearly sexism in its most basic form. You deny that?

Quote
Think about it.
That, coming from you, is kind of like George Bush and his "is are children learning?" quote. Being told to "think" by you of all people. Haha!

Quote
But I am getting sidetracked.
Really? I think you were getting sidetracked in your first post

Quote
As for whether a woman not choosing her suitor, remember the bit about the Father having to make decisions for the daughter when she is a child and the husband take responsibility for the girl when he marries her? This was part of that. She basically was allowing Father carte blanche

Wtf? She was ALLOWING her father to make those decisions? No. She had no choice. That's the point.


Quote
No not at all because some make the claim it IS sexist. Why? Because either they are not incentivising women enough or they are conditioning young girls away from it. See at base tacks the most innocuous thing or disparity could be turned around to a nonsensical "Sexist because men have penises".
Again, isn't this callout meant to be between me and you? Not you arguing with an invisible enemy of feminists? As I've already said, people are often accused of sexism unjustly. That has fuck all to do with this though. The callout is about what I was calling sexist. I am not saying society is sexist because there are less women in IT. So why the hell are you arguing with me about that?

And again, "sexist because men have penises"  - surely you can grasp by now that that "argument" REALLY doesn't apply to me?

Quote
You don't get it do you? The people controlling the country are not "the people".
Lol. OMFG. I never said they are. Jesus Christ. I am saying the LAWS, the LIFE of women, the SOCIETY is sexist. Not every fucking Iraqi. Of course the laws aren't made by every Iraqi man. The laws ARE sexist though.

Fuck me, this is like arguing with a brick wall.

Quote
If overnight France successfully invaded England and replaced their laws with French laws would you say in a month from now IF you were being law abiding that you were accepting and believed in the laws and the new customs and everything OR would you be going along with it because you had no choice?
The laws would still be French though. Yet you'd be sat here arguing with me that they were German.


Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Les
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2013, 08:19:44 PM »
a culture that places them in much more danger than the women

Again, the fact that men are generally more at risk of being killed in armed conflict etc means nothing in this argument. Sure, men are more likely to die fighting. So? Does that automatically mean there's no sexism? Your logic really is failing abysmally on that one

Says you. It would make a rather compelling argument if it was women setting up men to spend their time getting killed off battles to defend the women's lands, Defending her honour, undertaking dangerous jobs to make more money to provide for her or defending the house (extension really of the country) to keep her safe.
That would make a perfectly good argument for sexism......against her.
You are not saying that though and nor am I. You are saying "Who cares if all of the above is what a man risks, it makes him superior than her. It is a culture that he has done to put himself at risk and not her, and he has cleverly done this without women's knowledge or consent?". (Stupidest plan in the world)
I do not find that logic follows at all.

Quote
I think rather than really consider things, people quite often just call sexist.
Yep. True. Much like people sometimes play the race card or disability card. Doesn't mean there isn't also genuine racism etc. Nowadays, people can often be way too quick to call something sexist, and it gets ridiculous. I really don't think you can say that women being legally prevented from leaving the house falls into that category though. Nor does husbands being allowed to rape their wives fall into that category.

Again are you talking about what the wacko fundamentalists preach OR are you talking about what the Iraqui people practice. Are you prepared to talk about Christians and cite the Westboro Baptist as your inspiration for the American Christian's values and morality?

If you aren't then perhaps citing a nation's morality or values is a bit rich.
If you say "Yes OK not all..." No that too is not nearly good enough either as in fact MOST does not meet that concession. "Not all" gives the impression of a few decent ones but most attach themselves to a large faction of religious zealots trying to drag the society into the Dark Ages.
That is as best misleading.
I think you would be better either saying "a small minority of Iraqui people" or perhaps just saying the religious fundamentalists and their supporter" both would be accurate and fair "The Iraqui people is not" nor are pronouncements made on behalf of them based on the preaching and practices of the religious zealots who enforce these practices on an oppressed Iraqui people.

Make sense? No. I know Adam. You struggle.

Quote
Then do, by all means.
I have. Clearly you haven't.
Have you ever read a book in your entire life?

I have a few extra years on you, so rather ironically there is a good chance I have read more than you.
But we are not going to try and turn this into a I have read more than you, debate are we? Be like having a debate who has the worst Dad or something. Complete bullshit derailment. Stupid question.

Quote
But then you did the callout. Now you are stuck with me. It was quite your own fault.
Lol. No. I did the callout yes. The callout had absolutely NOTHING to do with "cavemen" and their sex lives though.

Yes you did make the callout. It was your choice whether to or not. You can not control what I type or the quantity or the quality or me saying the things you want me to say or taking the callout where you would want.

Bad luck Adam. It is not going the way you want and I simply don't care.

I would stop moaning about it if I were you and get on with it

Quote
As to what species do. No I am talking about humans. Species don't drive cars, worship gods or land on the moon. We are talking about Humans. So rather than see this in terms of some biological drive which overrides any thought, you will have to do a little better.

Uh, aren't humans biological animals too? I thought you were trying to explain your "point" though some kind of pseudo-scientific bollocks. So I thought I'd respond with some basic biology too. Now you tell me to stop talking about biology?

Yes we are biologically driven but that can not be your answer if men do something non-sexist (or worse that makes a case against the culture being sexist) that they just did that because they are biologically driven BUT when they do something that looks like it could possibly make a point for your case that it is a thought out rational response to oppress women, because men consider themselves the superior gender and women inferior.

Arguments do not work that way.

Quote
It is a simplistic cop out. Men then, like men now, most likely loved their kids and probably more than fancied their wife.
Generally, yes. Of course. And? Butterflies made an excellent point about this in the peanut gallery. I won't bother repeating it here.

Then that is a point you have not made in this callout. I am cool with that. I will not bother discussing this with Butterflies or addressing Peanut Gallery comments here, using you as a medium to channel Butterflies.

Quote
If I told you that many of the old women in Iraq have an education and many were working for much of their adult life, what would you say? What if I said that most of the younger women do not? Would that suggest to you some big change in society? If I told you that the Iraq of the past was a very progressive place and very much advanced, would you deny that? Why then is it stymied now? But here is the big one. If it is going backwards in becoming this restrictive culture then is that likely that the reason for it is something along the lines of, that is because the people of and in Iraq agree it is best OR a small but controlling population within Iraq is trying to dominate the country with laws and impose a culture that oppresses all of them and that they do not want or need"?

Finally you're actually (kind of) getting to the point of the callout!
But you're still kind of missing it at the same time. Regardless of WHY women are treated as inferior in Iraq, the fact is that they are. And that in itself is clearly sexism in its most basic form. You deny that?

Men and women are both equally oppressed in different ways by a religious fundamentalist regime. The men risk their lives by going out onto the streets each day, but they have no choice, they must. The women who used to work side by side with their men can no longer do this and have to stay inside.

Both are oppressed and neither the man or the woman has a choice.

The laws and the religious practices by which they zealots (not the mainstream) preach and practice are oppressive to both genders equally but in very different ways.

Quote
Think about it.
That, coming from you, is kind of like George Bush and his "is are children learning?" quote. Being told to "think" by you of all people. Haha!

Because you are in a position to gauge intellect I suppose Adam? Yes? You kill me Adam. I often find myself at the stage where I think "I don't know how much further I can break this down for Adam. He truly can not join the dots. Either he is just trying to have a lend of me by pretending to be stupid OR he is not pretending.

Quote
But I am getting sidetracked.
Really? I think you were getting sidetracked in your first post

Incorrect use of the word "think". I do not believe you were thinking when you wrote that sentence

Quote
As for whether a woman not choosing her suitor, remember the bit about the Father having to make decisions for the daughter when she is a child and the husband take responsibility for the girl when he marries her? This was part of that. She basically was allowing Father carte blanche

Wtf? She was ALLOWING her father to make those decisions? No. She had no choice. That's the point.

In your imaginary world, men have obligations that come with a set of treatments and women want the set of treatments in every instance and every culture but just without the obligation or expectation that comes with it.

It is not true. Even if you really, really want it to be true.

Many woman do not want to have the right to go outside their house because the men's right to go outside the house comes with an obligation that they must go out of the house and if the are obliged then they risk getting shot, harassed, beaten and whatever. They need the right to which to affix the obligation.

Similar to a policeman may have the right to be carry weapons or arrest people (unlike the public) because (unlike the public) he will have the obligation to use the weapons and arrest people

Men in Iraq have the right to work and the obligation to provide for the family. If Iraqui women had the right, then it would be attached to a similar set of obligations.

If you say that most women want this, then I say the thinking thing that you mentioned you are doing, you aren't.

Men have the obligation to making decisions in the interest of the family in this culture and olden day cultures. They also are responsible for every decision and every problem that comes up as a result of. There is no "Ok I want to be able to make decisions on this, this and this but I don't want any responsibility or to take on everything". If she were to want to fix any problem in respect to something she has stuffed up on, the she would not have the obligation nor the associated rights to fix it . So again the obligations she gives away. It has become a social rule accepted.

Now, personally, I can comment on today's Western society's division of rights and responsibilities and say it is more or less right in respect to where we are in terms of political, cultural, medical, technological standard. Trying to imprint our rights, responsibilities on Iraq or Sixteeth Century society is rather silly.

You know what is even sillier? I can see you looking at this point and say "WTF have police got to do with Iraq and Iraqui women? Iraqui women can not become police!" and I will shake my head and sigh and say "Ah Adam, how can I break this down for you?"


Quote
No not at all because some make the claim it IS sexist. Why? Because either they are not incentivising women enough or they are conditioning young girls away from it. See at base tacks the most innocuous thing or disparity could be turned around to a nonsensical "Sexist because men have penises".
Again, isn't this callout meant to be between me and you? Not you arguing with an invisible enemy of feminists? As I've already said, people are often accused of sexism unjustly. That has fuck all to do with this though. The callout is about what I was calling sexist. I am not saying society is sexist because there are less women in IT. So why the hell are you arguing with me about that?

And again, "sexist because men have penises"  - surely you can grasp by now that that "argument" REALLY doesn't apply to me?

Feminism has infused itself into society. When people think feminism they automatically parrot "I believe in Feminism, I believe in equal rights for women/for equality" or "I am a Feminist I believe in equal rights"

They do this in the same way that people thinking about Autism "Yeah Autistic people are good with numbers and have special talents..."

People do not think and are happy to ascribe sexism where it doesn't exist or look at women and overlook the man and his plight completely. It is a blindspot. It also means that they focus on seeing inequities where they do not exist, for fear that they may still exist or that fear-mongering may root out any issue to be dealt with.

It is conditioned into society. Therefore the instinct is to jump to defence of women. Sometimes it is simply unwarranted and men's issues ignored. It is "invisible" not feminists like you claim, they are more visible. 

Treating people differently even according to gender is not sexist. Sorry, but it just is not. Treating another gender as inferior is sexist. If you think that men in society do and always have then I have a seat on the Titanic for you. I want you to tell me before you sink if you are surrounded by men or inferior women.

Quote
You don't get it do you? The people controlling the country are not "the people".
Lol. OMFG. I never said they are. Jesus Christ. I am saying the LAWS, the LIFE of women, the SOCIETY is sexist. Not every fucking Iraqi. Of course the laws aren't made by every Iraqi man. The laws ARE sexist though.

Fuck me, this is like arguing with a brick wall.

Believe me I feel the same, I persist though, despite your anchoring the debate.

Quote
If overnight France successfully invaded England and replaced their laws with French laws would you say in a month from now IF you were being law abiding that you were accepting and believed in the laws and the new customs and everything OR would you be going along with it because you had no choice?
The laws would still be French though. Yet you'd be sat here arguing with me that they were German.

No I would be arguing that the people being accused of being French, were actually English, and with English sensibilities, and not invested in the French culture thrust on them. I would also be arguing how fucking stupid you were as an oppressed Englishman arguing that you were not oppressed for being occupied and beholden to laws and practices you do not agree with. Which is the position I am taking here isn't it?

Silly comparison Adam. Very silly.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2013, 08:45:45 PM by Al Swearengen »
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Les
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2013, 08:21:20 PM »
OK it is getting late. I will be going to bed soon. My going to bed doesn't mean I consider the callout over. If I do not post for many hours tomorrow, that too doesn't mean that it is over. I am going shopping with my kids and visiting friend and having dinner at friends. Then packing lunch for kids for school on Monday.
Just to let you know Adam, in case you jump too quickly to silly conclusions. Furthermore IF I do post tomorrow morning, I will likely be pressed for time and possibly will not be able to answer much. This does not mean I have given up either. It simply means that it is my weekend and I am busy.
See how silly some of your assumptions are and how unnecessary this is to explain?

Lol, I never said I assumed you'd given up because you hadn''t been on for a few hours.
I said I assumed you'd given up because you came in, replied only to one little bit that wasn't even related to the callout, then left and started posting elsewhere.

My fault though - I should have realised that it clearly takes you several hours to make each response.

Yes making rather stupid assumptions with no merit is your fault.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline bodie

  • Reflective Katoptronaphiliac of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14394
  • Karma: 2113
  • Gender: Female
  • busy re arranging deck chairs on board the Titanic
Re: Les
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2013, 02:23:04 AM »
Quote
Treating people differently even according to gender is not sexist. Sorry, but it just is not. Treating another gender as inferior is sexist.

the free dictionary.com
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

blah blah blah

Offline Adam

  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 24530
  • Karma: 1260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Les
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2013, 03:58:49 AM »

Again are you talking about what the wacko fundamentalists preach OR are you talking about what the Iraqui people practice. Are you prepared to talk about Christians and cite the Westboro Baptist as your inspiration for the American Christian's values and morality?

:facepalm:

Les, I'm getting tired of having to repeat things when you either ignore them or don't understand them

As I've already said, that is entirely different as the WBC don't make policy in the US. If they did, if gay people were locked up for example, then yes, I'd say the US is a homophobic country.


Quote
I think you would be better either saying "a small minority of Iraqui people" or perhaps just saying the religious fundamentalists and their supporter" both would be accurate and fair "The Iraqui people is not" nor are pronouncements made on behalf of them based on the preaching and practices of the religious zealots who enforce these practices on an oppressed Iraqui people.

Lol, do you actually read my responses to you? Can't you grasp that I am talking about "Iraq" legally, politically etc. Not every single fucking Iraqi? The fact is that women are treated as inferior in Iraq. Whether or not every single Iraqi man views his wife as inferior is irrelevant to the argument.

Quote
Yes you did make the callout. It was your choice whether to or not. You can not control what I type or the quantity or the quality or me saying the things you want me to say or taking the callout where you would want.
Your're right - I can't control whether or not you actually address the callout or not.

Yes, men are at more risk of being killed when they leave their homes. obviously.

Whether something is sexist or not (and this applies to you Titanic thing too) is not based on a calculating of exactly how it AFFECTS each gender. It comes much earlier than that - motives, reasons WHY they are in that position. Not what happens because of it.

The REASON women are kept inside is sexist. The outcome of that is irrelevant.

The sooner you grasp that, the sooner we can actually properly discuss the topic at hand. Please try.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 04:13:30 AM by Adam »

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Les
« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2013, 05:49:00 AM »

Again are you talking about what the wacko fundamentalists preach OR are you talking about what the Iraqui people practice. Are you prepared to talk about Christians and cite the Westboro Baptist as your inspiration for the American Christian's values and morality?

:facepalm:

Les, I'm getting tired of having to repeat things when you either ignore them or don't understand them

As I've already said, that is entirely different as the WBC don't make policy in the US. If they did, if gay people were locked up for example, then yes, I'd say the US is a homophobic country.

Adam stop whinging. I want you to consider this really hard, I do not care what you like or dislike or want or don't want. I don't care. It makes no difference how you want me to post or what motivates you or what works best for you. I certainly am not going to accommodate you. In fact the more you try to reframe the callout or get me to adhere to a set of rules the more I am happy to ignore or actively seek out the opposite.

"Having to repeat yourself"? You don't have to. Do you? It makes no difference to me. Really if whatever you post made no impression first time around it is a bit stupid to think it will second time around is it? Think about it. Am I right?

I would say in your example that you would be wrong and I would have said it first time around.

This is called a difference of opinion.

Quote
I think you would be better either saying "a small minority of Iraqui people" or perhaps just saying the religious fundamentalists and their supporter" both would be accurate and fair "The Iraqui people is not" nor are pronouncements made on behalf of them based on the preaching and practices of the religious zealots who enforce these practices on an oppressed Iraqui people.

Lol, do you actually read my responses to you? Can't you grasp that I am talking about "Iraq" legally, politically etc. Not every single fucking Iraqi? The fact is that women are treated as inferior in Iraq. Whether or not every single Iraqi man views his wife as inferior is irrelevant to the argument.

Yes I read your responses and I disagree with your assertions.
You can not grasp what I am talking about. I disagree with what you are talking about.

News just in. "Al does not HAVE to agree with Adam because Adam believes something."


Most Iraquis do not agree with the Mullahs and religious fundamentalists and warlord. Not "some don't" or "not every single Iraqui" MOST do not subscribe to the version of wacky fundamentalism. All but those who are part of the fundamentalists that are taking a wrecking ball to their society are oppressed by this. Women, Man and child. I know I know, YOU think this makes women more inferior or more oppressed AND more inferior.

Again, I disagree. I think they are both equally oppressed, and in completely different ways.


Quote
Yes you did make the callout. It was your choice whether to or not. You can not control what I type or the quantity or the quality or me saying the things you want me to say or taking the callout where you would want.
Your're right - I can't control whether or not you actually address the callout or not.

Yes, men are at more risk of being killed when they leave their homes. obviously.

Whether something is sexist or not (and this applies to you Titanic thing too) is not based on a calculating of exactly how it AFFECTS each gender. It comes much earlier than that - motives, reasons WHY they are in that position. Not what happens because of it.

The REASON women are kept inside is sexist. The outcome of that is irrelevant.

The sooner you grasp that, the sooner we can actually properly discuss the topic at hand. Please try.

Adam, you do not get it. You do not get what you are saying, and the way you are saying it. To prove that your argument holds no water I will make a slight change

Edited for effect.

Quote

Your're right - I can't control whether or not you actually address the callout or not.

Yes, women stay inside their homes. obviously.

Whether something is sexist or not (and this applies to you Titanic thing too) is not based on a calculating of exactly how it AFFECTS each gender. It comes much earlier than that - motives, reasons WHY they are in that position. Not what happens because of it.

The REASON men are at more risk of being killed when they leave their homes is sexist. The outcome of that is irrelevant.

The sooner you grasp that, the sooner we can actually properly discuss the topic at hand. Please try.

See what happened there?
Yes that is right, sword cuts both ways.

Quote
The sooner you grasp that, the sooner we can actually properly discuss the topic at hand. Please try.
What this says to me is "The sooner you agree with me and my opinion is the sooner we can share our mutual opinion together.

You forget what this is Adam? Do you forget who made the callout and for what purpose?

I did not make this callout. I would not have made it. It is an unpopular viewpoint and not one I wanted to argue over. You did want to and you made a callout. I was always going to accept. I do not run from any callout.

So here we are and here is you asking me to just agree with you and I say, "No". Not because you want. Not because your opinion is more popular. Not because you are tiring discussing it. Not because you dislike my answers.

If it really is that rough for you that a couple of pages in, you are whinging, then I strongly suggest you should not have started the callout in the first instance. Just as you probably ought not have made that initial (Yes Shleed, I see you lying in the Peanut gallery about who started insulting who) insult at me if you did not want me to insult you in the beginning of the callout. Earlier you made comments about my apparent (to you) inability to think. Neither of these shows great foresight Adam.

Between you and me, I am not nearly done with this debate.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 08:24:20 AM by Al Swearengen »
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Les
« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2013, 08:55:23 AM »
Quote
Treating people differently even according to gender is not sexist. Sorry, but it just is not. Treating another gender as inferior is sexist.

the free dictionary.com
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Thank you for poking your head in Bodie

Have a look at the introductory post and see which definition that you believe Adam is attaching to "sexism"

There has been a severe shortage of call-outs here lately :M

So, go on, Les

I don't see how me not being personally "familiar" with a culture (ie Iraq or sixteenth century whatever) means I shouldn't view their treatment of women as sexist.

Your "it's not sexism; it's just that women are so valued by men they must be locked away for protection" argument is, quite frankly, bullshit.

Viewing women as a possession rather than a person is sexism, end of. And sexism (as well as homophobia, racism and transphobia etc) is something I just "don't get", you're right

Please come up with a better argument

Although try and keep it to fewer than 1000 words. Cheers.

I believe it is not the bolded bit that you tried to inject in this discussion and I further believe that trying to change the meaning over to that bolded meaning will not only muddy the waters but potentially change the arguments. I am happy to forgo such interference.

OK. So thank you for trying to join in with Adam but he has the more popular viewpoint and has been here a while. He should be able to hold his own. You have said your bit I hope ,and I hope that you will not be posting further in this callout. Thanks
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap