RE: Benevolent Sexism

RE: Benevolent Sexism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/15/2015 1:45:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The irony of the topic of benevolent sexism, and the discussion and showing or display of "hitable"dream women, is giving me the giggles. Thanks chaps have a great sunday No giggles! You are SUPPOSED to be feeling oppressed right now since they are using their male privilege to discuss women they would be willing to have sex with IN PUBLIC! And it is considered NORMAL! Because. . . ya know. . . nice ladies do not do that sort of thing. Only sluts. After typing that and then re-reading it, it is lucky for my computer that my coffee cup is currently empty. Mine too:) by the way if anyone gets out of my post that I am calling sexist or sexism, please notice that I offered thanks chaps, and to have a good day. I was having fun watching the posters....not being a bitch...of course....if you prefer to think I was, then thats your problem not mine.

GotSteel -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/15/2015 5:26:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Ah. So being straight, and courting only one sex or flirting with only one sex is sexism? Got it. So, only 100% bisexual people have any chance at all of being non-sexist. Hopefully you don't treat your significant other the same as you do perfect strangers. If you treat one gender as a whole one way and the other gender another, that's sexism.

Kirata -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/15/2015 6:20:28 PM)
Signs of the times... [image]local://upfiles/235229/EEA5E83816DE42F584D003E715D67A27.jpg[/image] K.

dcnovice -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/15/2015 6:36:11 PM)
OMG, that is hilarious! Where'd you come across that?

Kirata -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/15/2015 6:51:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice OMG, that is hilarious! Where'd you come across that? It first appeared here, and went viral from there. K.

Aylee -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/15/2015 9:18:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Signs of the times... [image]local://upfiles/235229/EEA5E83816DE42F584D003E715D67A27.jpg[/image] K. It goes right next to the gendered donuts and the gendered yogurt. [8\|] Somewhere one this site I believe you can see them: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2014/03/15/new-in-pointlessly-gendered-products/

CreativeDominant -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/15/2015 9:58:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Signs of the times... [image]local://upfiles/235229/EEA5E83816DE42F584D003E715D67A27.jpg[/image] K. It goes right next to the gendered donuts and the gendered yogurt. [8\|] Somewhere one this site I believe you can see them: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2014/03/15/new-in-pointlessly-gendered-products/ But don't you know...somewhere out there, Hell...maybe even on here...someone is saying to themselves "as it should be"?

tweakabelle -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 1:11:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Signs of the times... [image]local://upfiles/235229/EEA5E83816DE42F584D003E715D67A27.jpg[/image] K. It goes right next to the gendered donuts and the gendered yogurt. [8\|] Somewhere one this site I believe you can see them: But don't you know...somewhere out there, Hell...maybe even on here...someone is saying to themselves "as it should be"? Perhaps they have a point, even if it is expressed a little haplessly. In English we attribute gender to a cornucopia of things that are naturally genderless. For example countries, cars, colours, materials, even pipe fittings. I could go on but the list would be endless. And other languages (eg French Italian) are even worse offenders than English in this respect. The odd thing is not that someone advertises genderless gingerbread but that someone attributed an exclusively masculine gender to gingerbread in the first place. Even stranger is the fact that we gender so many neutral things promiscuously and assume/insist that it is natural and accurate to do so, inspite of it being so obviously and self evidently not so.

NookieNotes -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 1:42:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Ah. So being straight, and courting only one sex or flirting with only one sex is sexism? Got it. So, only 100% bisexual people have any chance at all of being non-sexist. Hopefully you don't treat your significant other the same as you do perfect strangers. If you treat one gender as a whole one way and the other gender another, that's sexism. So, I am to either flirt with everyone, in the interest of being fair, or to flirt with no one, until they somehow become my significant other, and THEN I can completely change my behavior, because then they are now a sexual human being to me. Got it. No. That's a lie. I don't. Men and women have differences. Knowing those differences, and basing my behavior on them saves me (and others) a lot of time and effort over the long run. It is not sexist to go by your own experience in what works and what does not. Here's the thing that I think many people fail to understand: WHY you treat people a particular way is FAR more important than what others say it means. I believe that the men in my life who hold doors for me do it because they love to make me smile. So, I smile at them, and they hold more doors. It's a win-win. Sexist? Nope. Just fun. Significant others? Not all of them. Women? No. We have other ways of interacting, even when I flirt with them, I tend to take on the role of the pursuer and wooer, then. Sexist? Not by a long shot. It's learned behavior. It's what works most often for me, in the people I find myself surrounded with and who respond to my energy. Simple. Oh, and the other thing is: I don't care if someone who holds the door for me is sexist. They can be sexist all they want. If they come into my life with actual sexist beliefs and try to make me conform, they are not in my life anymore. That's simple, too.

Kirata -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 1:55:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Perhaps they have a point, even if it is expressed a little haplessly. In English we attribute gender to a cornucopia of things that are naturally genderless. For example countries, cars, colours, materials, even pipe fittings. I could go on but the list would be endless. And other languages (eg French Italian) are even worse offenders than English in this respect. The odd thing is not that someone advertises genderless gingerbread but that someone attributed an exclusively masculine gender to gingerbread in the first place. Even stranger is the fact that we gender so many neutral things promiscuously and assume/insist that it is natural and accurate to do so. English (the language) doesn't gender anything except people. And in that regard, females alone own the feminine gender. The masculine gender is obliged to serve for both males and the general case, which may include both genders, as in "mankind," or neither, as with a "gingerbread man." Also for your information, pipe fittings are most definitely gendered. And not only that, they're exclusively heterosexual. If you don't believe me, try mating two male or female fittings. See where it gets you. Beyond people, gender in English usage is symbolic or metaphorical. It is not a feature of the language. Cars, for example, may be regarded as either male or female or a little of both. My Sebring, to take one case, is a tomboy. She's pretty, but she'll kick your ass. Moreover, there's nothing unnatural or "promiscuous" about it. Civilizations around the world symbolize the feminine as containing and soft; the masculine as penetrating and hard. Thus, ships are female because a hull is essentially a container. Everything isn't political, tweak, no matter what critical social theory says. Where is the poetry in your soul? K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 2:20:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Perhaps they have a point, even if it is expressed a little haplessly. In English we attribute gender to a cornucopia of things that are naturally genderless. For example countries, cars, colours, materials, even pipe fittings. I could go on but the list would be endless. And other languages (eg French Italian) are even worse offenders than English in this respect. The odd thing is not that someone advertises genderless gingerbread but that someone attributed an exclusively masculine gender to gingerbread in the first place. Even stranger is the fact that we gender so many neutral things promiscuously and assume/insist that it is natural and accurate to do so. English (the language) doesn't gender anything except people. And in that regard, females alone own the feminine gender. The masculine gender is obliged to serve both males and the general case, which may include both genders, as in "mankind," or neither, as with a "gingerbread man." Wrong. English has a neuter gender which uses the pronoun "it" to describe all things not feminine/masculine. "Pipe fittings' "gingerbread" and the like are all neuter gender. They are "it(s)". People use language to inscribe gender on things not naturally gendered such as gingerbread. Only through the addition of language to the situation can a pipe fitting or gingerbread be inscribed with a gender 'sensibly'. Language is the primary vehicle chosen to inscribe gender and to try to downplay/eliminate the role of language in constructing gender is to make an elementary and critical error. quote: Everything isn't political, tweak, no matter what critical social theory says. Where is the poetry in your soul? Finally gender is just one of many things that can both inspire poetry or be used to oppress people. Insisting on some accuracy in using language is geared towards eliminating the latter. If your vision of poetry is so limited that you cannot imagine it without conventional gender, the problem is your inadequate vision, not others' (alleged) lack of a poetic soul. Deal with it. Therapy is available but you need an open mind for therapy to be successful. Good luck with that.

Kirata -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 2:36:20 AM)
Well that's technically true, we use "it" to refer to things that don't have a gender, i.e., that aren't people (or animals), and in the lexicon of grammar "it" is indeed referred to as "neuter" gender (i.e., no gender). As to the content of the rest of your post, get a life. K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 3:34:21 AM)
FR - this is interesting. Excerpt: "Can grammatical gender influence speakers’ cognitive processes when they’re speaking another language entirely? In 2002, researchers set out to answer that question. They created a list of 24 objects that have opposite genders in Spanish and German; in each language, half of the objects were masculine and half were feminine. Speaking English and using materials written in English, the researchers asked a group of native Spanish speakers and a group of native German speakers —all of whom were proficient in English— to generate three adjectives for each item on the list. Across the board, object gender influenced the participants’ judgments. For example, the word “key” is masculine in German and feminine in Spanish. German speakers in the study tended to describe keys as hard, heavy, jagged, metal, and useful. Spanish speakers, on the other hand, used words such as golden, intricate, little, lovely, and tiny when describing keys. The word “bridge” is feminine in German and masculine in Spanish. Sure enough, German speakers described bridges as beautiful, elegant, fragile, pretty, and slender, while Spanish speakers said they were big, dangerous, strong, sturdy, and towering. In the same study, German and Spanish speakers looked at picture pairs. Each pair included a picture of a person and a picture of an object. The participants rated how similar the two pictures were. There were no written labels, and participants did not speak during the task. Both Spanish and German speakers judged pairs to be more similar when the grammatical gender of the object matched the biological sex of the person in the picture. A pair consisting of a bridge and a man, for example, seemed quite similar to a Spanish speaker but not similar at all to a German speaker."

NookieNotes -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 5:34:06 AM)
There are many studies and theories that correlate our verbal choices with out thought patterns and vice-versa. This is one reason I tend to be specific in my language use, and ask others to clarify their points of language.

bounty44 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 5:46:08 AM)
i think that's fascinating... and one of the first things that came to mind when reading your post is---are the people who tend to hold to innate differences between the genders more okay with gendered language than the people who would rather eradicate notions of differences.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 7:49:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 i think that's fascinating... and one of the first things that came to mind when reading your post is---are the people who tend to hold to innate differences between the genders more okay with gendered language than the people who would rather eradicate notions of differences. That's an interesting question and, if I read it, correctly, I may be a bit of an outlier. My guitars and weapons have always had female names (with the exception of one weapon which was named "Sigmund" because I was, obviously, over-compensating [:D] ). I have never seen cars or other machinery as feminine (or masculine). In fact, my drum sets have always been "neuter" and I remember my step-father, constantly giving me shit because I refused to refer to his boat as "she". I firmly believe (and I think some research bears me out) that there are some very basic differences between the large majority of men and women. I recently saw a study where women (on the whole) remember conversations better than men because they "listen" with a different part of their brain. They're more geared to extract details out of the person to whom they're speaking (asking questions). There are other examples. The point being: I believe that men and women (generally speaking) are different from each other. However, that doesn't discount the individuals who "cross lines", naturally. Michael

tj444 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 9:38:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 in seriousness though... what the researcher is saying however is "true" if you come from the perspective that deference shown towards women, is a tacit understanding by women that the deference is rooted in their being in need of that deference, that is, that they are somehow weaker/less than men, that they need men, and that this is a way for men to show (and perpetuate) their dominance. it's a really small version of "the patriarchy!" its a hard core feminist position and its a rejection of the traditional roles most of us have grown up with. I don't see opening a door for someone or holding it open for them as a show of dominance.. people have opened the door for me, I say thank you and other times I open a door for other people.. I do it equally no matter the sex of the other person/people.. its just polite to do.. and shows at least a little consideration for other human beings.. if offering a seat to a female is sexism then the front seats on buses (you know, those ones with the sign that says they are for seniors & handicapped) is discrimination/ageism/etc.. Sometimes I will take a seat offered by a guy and sometimes I haven't (like if I am near my stop), but if I don't take an offered seat its not cuz I am a feminist, its for other reasons.. now things I definitely don't appreciate are things like getting catcalled as I am walking down the street.. and getting paid less than a man would get.. and having to pay more for a haircut than a man would be charged.. [8\|]

bounty44 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 9:50:33 AM)
just to be clear tj--I don't subscribe to what I wrote, I was merely pointing out the feminist thinking behind the researcher's position. but that said---does it require more skill, or take longer for a barber/stylist to cut your hair?

bounty44 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 9:59:32 AM)
I think you are getting what im saying yes... but id say we don't even need (for sake of my point) to go as far as considering boats to be "she", or cars, or guns, etc. what I am thinking/wondering about is evident at the simple generic use of the pronoun "he." likely to most of us, "he" is innocuous, to others, its oppressive or exclusionary. I wonder if the folks who are in the latter camp also reject gendered objects. that is, if I make a fuss about "he" to refer to people of indiscriminate gender, am i more likely to reject calling my boat a she. by the way, speaking of boats---i noticed above kirata mentioning boats are referred to in the feminine because essentially they are containers. that was new to me. i had always thought men referred to boats in the feminine because they were prized possession that they loved, enjoyed, cared for and took great pride in. and i think in Russia, boats are "he"---though im not sure about that.

tj444 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/16/2015 10:11:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 just to be clear tj--I don't subscribe to what I wrote, I was merely pointing out the feminist thinking behind the researcher's position. but that said---does it require more skill, or take longer for a barber/stylist to cut your hair? Yes, I know that is what the feminist thinking was, but a lot of things are in how each person feels about the same act, how they interpret it.. I don't consider it sexist as I do it for others and I see it as a sign of politeness.. that's it.. and,.. I sorta feel the whole door opening thing is an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.. there are much more serious and far reaching sexist fights to be taken on, rather than this.. why doesn't the researcher take those on instead? and my hair cutting takes almost no time or effort at all.. I have long hair with bangs.. cut a straight line along the bottom of my long hair (1/2 to 1 inch off the bottom) and trim the bangs.. that's it.. it is less effort than cutting a man's hair, in truth.. I hate going to get my hair cut so much that now I just cut it all myself.. takes me 2-3 minutes.. I keep my hair this way cuz its very fine and so my hair-do options are non-existent.. plus no hair stylists really know how to deal with it..

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625