|
LadyPact -> RE: Keep Our State Straight. GOP AG. (4/26/2016 9:35:22 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
This is one of the reasons I abhor you and those of your ilk. You will do anything in your power to misrepresent. It makes you a de facto liar.
You are completely entitled to your opinion.
quote:
What I was responding to was an issue of equality and I never said that my modesty was reserved for members of the opposite sex.
Michael, this is exactly part of the issue. If you're looking at this from a position of the "opposite" sex, you're kind of missing it.
I'd have been all for your college campus finding a way to split the difference. A certain amount of formerly "male" restrooms equal to the number of formerly "female" restrooms? I'd have been all for it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr from: This thread
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I've read similar discussions in other forums, and it seems that the basic underlying premise of your arguments is basically this:
- "Equal" should mean "equal" on a consistent basis, with no exceptions or double standards whatsoever.
If this is your position, then I would agree that you have a point. If one purportedly favors a system of gender equality, then it's fair comment to call them out if they support a policy or demonstrate an attitude which appears to contradict the premise of gender equality.
But I'm not sure what kind of conclusions or proposals this might be leading to. What is the solution? What would you propose?
1. Should we, as a society, become even more proactive and double-down with a no-nonsense campaign that "equality means equality" no matter what, without exceptions, double standards, indulgences, or special dispensation? Couldn't that solve most of the issues you're addressing?
or
2. Are you using these examples of double standards as evidence that gender equality is an untenable, impractical, and impossible goal to achieve and that it should be abandoned entirely? Should we go back to the old order, since we're going to have double standards anyway?
Which of these comes closer to your true position?
This post went unanswered and unaddressed.
I'll address it.
First off, my choice is option #1. While change takes time, we are a constantly flowing society. At some times, that flow needs to be slowed so that we can make sure that change doesn't destroy us.
I'm all for equality, but as a society and as individuals, we all employ double standards.
Recently, I was in a building, on campus, that I have never been in, before. I asked someone to direct me to the men's room.
When I got to the appropriate area, there were (as we have become used to) two water closets. One was marked (those stupid "shadow figures") for females and one was marked for both.
I went back to the person who had directed me there (a person of great authority on campus) and asked why there was no men's room. I was told that the school was trying to "modernize [their] outlook" in regard to trans-gendered people.
I asked why the men's room was chosen as the place where all could enter and not the ladies room. I was told that ladies "traditionally" require more protection for their modesty.
I thought the fact that the word "traditionally" was used was a bit of an oxymoron, when we're talking about change. I didn't focus on that, but I did ask: "What about my modesty?" The answer was: "Well, we had to do something"
Essentially: That's a "take it and shut up, men"
In my observation, more of the news reports of violence come from members of the trans* community needing to use the ladies room. That's a real issue, Michael. I'd have been all for it if your campus split the facilities down the middle and tried to deal with it as an equality issue.
quote:
How about the issue of reporters in locker rooms? Years ago, female reporters were allowed into male locker rooms no matter what the state of undress of the athletes. Do you think if I walked into the ladies softball team locker room, in the same manner, some eyebrows would raise (I already know the answer from personal experience)?
While I am interested in this story, I don't think this is an issue related to the transgendered population.
quote:
I've related this story here, before: years ago, when I first started shaving my head (1999? 2000?), a young lady came up behind me and touched my head (without permission) and almost got a broken arm for her mistake. When I asked her why she did that, her response was: "I just wanted to see what it felt like". I asked her: "What if I just wanted to see what your ass felt like?" I should have used "hair", but that doesn't make much difference, really.
I didn't say this on the other thread but I should have. I don't really see that kind of thing as ok any more than if some strange guy decided to walk up behind me and start stroking my hair "to see what it felt like".
<Sigh>
This is going to get ugly.
What's about to happen here is this is going to become convoluted from accidents into intent. If I were to walk up to you and make the conscious decision to feel up your head, (that didn't sound right) you absolutely, should put me in my place. However, if I bump into you by mistake on a bus, that's not the same thing. I might be accused of being careless, distracted, whatever. The intent is not the same.
quote:
The lady was indignant that I had an issue with her, touching my body without permission as if I should just "take it and shut up, dude". I'm sure, if I had run my fingers through her hair, her opinion would have been different. Do you think I might have had some big, burly, guy escort me out of the bar?
Got ahead of myself there. (No pun intended.)
For what it's worth, I don't care what gender somebody is if they try to pull the "reach out and touch" someone.
quote:
The point is: if people want to be honest, they rail about equality, but wish to reserve some special privilege for themselves or others. I don't know if it's "human nature", but I'm starting to believe it might be. Hence; the need for proceeding slowly on some issues.
Michael
The thread that this was originally pulled from was based on, very much that I believe, are the advantages that some women have in the kink world due to gender ratios. I really don't know how to fix that. I'm not going to sit here and say that dating or kink is some kind of charity or we should just start calling it "doorknob" because everybody gets a turn.
quote:
Now ... The part about modesty: There are three kinds of guys in locker rooms.
1) Those that wear a towel around their waist as they go between the shower and their locker.
2) Those that expose themselves to all
3) Those who don't shower at the facility (these are rare and are usually dis-allowed due to the potential of spreading disease that could bench the whole team).
I was always a #1, choosing not to wave my junk around because of (drum roll, please) ... modesty.
If it's really YOUR modesty, that's a constant. That doesn't change because of who else might be there.
quote:
It's nice that when you have the curse, you'll go anywhere you want. Good on ya! I think you should be allowed to do as you please. What about what pleases me? Maybe I don't want to use a stall (in a public restroom? Thank you. No).
Most people on the forums don't manage to make me feel younger. I felt antiquated just calling my cycle "Aunt Flo". I tip my hat to you for outdoing me in calling it "The Curse".
What pleases you? It's really not about what pleases anyone. The NEED to relieve oneself is going to happen whether I WANT it to or not.
quote:
On a personal note: please stop lying about me. It just shows your true colors.
Michael
With all due respect that I can possibly muster, your support of such bills is where the colors are shown. As a fellow Christian, I can not understand your position on these issues.
|
|
|
|
