catalyst

Stiletto One,

You have a PM.

ju'iblex

tut tut. I'm not at all worried about my political or religious persuasion. however, if i said "reconciliation should go ahead and everyone is equal" <which would have been close to my answer given a more apt context>, then wouldn't that have just *given* it away? I think you give yourself a little too much credit in the cleverness stakes, I'm not about to fall for some very very easy ploy to get me to tell you my answers. And what on earth does rap have to do with it? I don't listen to rap at all actually, and yes, white guys do. Take... oohh... say.... i don't know, one of the most famous singers at the moment, eminem say?

Oops, what's this? I've just given a very good counter to your ridiculous generalisations, which renders them false? Oh, I'm sorry, god knows I'm one to let bullshit assertions live and love like anything else.

well, the only bit you got right was the 17 bit, not exactly difficult either since i saw you checking my profile. I am in fact female, and you called me "he" and said "are you really that small" and "beating a rhythm on a pole", which was a referrence to my penis size. Sorry hon, I'm female. I live in part of the lower class area of sydney, and attend school in the racially diverse areas. All my friends are in fact, women, mostly chinese but also bangladeshi, european and african. But not that any of it matters, my love, because I have nothing to prove, nor does catalyst. In fact, it is you who has something to prove, and may i say, this bollocks about race/sex shit, you've failed miserably at proving that. You couldn't even pick my sex, let alone what nationality i really am.

I find your self-righteous horror at this so-called "objectification" of women in this thread, not only silly, but really quite amusing. Whilst you are defending "us" as actual people rather than reducing us to the sum of our parts, you have inadvertantly done exactly what you are revelling against. wild generalisations have been flying in this thread, mostly cast by yourself, let's take a little look-see.

dear oh dear. On one hand, we have id's telling us not to look at the body part, but the person and their inner strength. On the other, we have id.s who seems to make it clear they are black authors, that objectification is what men are all about and white male's objectify women.

It's all very nice espousing your bullshit arguments id.s, but please be a dear and be good enough not to contradict yourself whilst doing so. You don't look like such a clever boy that way.

And i suggest when you have some comprehension of the subject and how human relationships work, then you come back and make a fool of yourself.

Face it, you screwed up big time.

id.s

Perfect. Since when do you think I looked at your profile- not a chance, but nice try. I'm only interested in the conversation Ju Jube. Besides I also said you were probably a Lezi so- Partially right. Besides being right isn�t all that important. your question was immature. Even you could be lying, as most have to hide who they are on this site. C'mon You're a cougar aren't you. Sorry about the wanker bit. Australian politics are a minor thing over here( even if you are bedding amerika). As for Eminem, Silly white boy going the way of Vanilla Ice; copy artists imitating blacks, thinking they know oppression, who appeal to the simple pathetic white mind. Don't forget, the rap album that has sold the most copies worldwide was Ice Ice Baby- a blue man who cannot sing the whites. Maybe eminem has sold more CD�s, but for 10 years Vanilla Ices� was the top selling rap CD. The Black music industry is minuscule compared to the white Country AND Western, pop, rock dominate the CD buying public. Rap occupies a small segment of the music scene and is only significant because it targets youths, especially young men. Of all races. Most oppressed people are drawn to this music. I like rap, and my napster file of over 2000 downloads has hundreds. Even in Canada, Our native brothers are rapping, and they�re good.
I put you as a child because you actually support the idea of micro aggressions against women. You excuse it as normal while espousing the fact that you don't see anything wrong with it or that you can�t see a connection between race, class and sex. Then you infer that I went to your profile- Sorry you're searching for excuses but there are none. I'm aware that most of you are young and don't see what�s wrong with this sexist behavior. There may be laws against this but how enforceable are they. Besides, it's a "victimless" crime and we can excuse it as "natural". We're hardwired that way so it's totally "normal". So if I say you're hardwired to believe too, so what do you believe and why? See, caught in a belief structure. But if you're aware of it you can safely adopt a belief system that is not harmful to others. The same can be done with objectifying women, as well as bigotry, hatred and aggression, Of course learning to cope with your"Hard wired "brain is not something a youthful mind has much success with. What with the exposure to countless (tele)visions of sex and violence before you reach the age of 13. The impression of a persons worth are shaped in us all our lives- that comes with wisdom about what �s really important in life.
As for beating on a pole that was better than saying inserting a pole while you fantasize your over indulged libido. I tried to be nice. But you�re pretty good and take it all in stride.Anyway, back to the objectifying thingy we were discussing once.
Conventional first amendment doctrine is beginning to show signs of strain. Outsider groups and women argue that free speech law inadequately protects them against certain types of harm. Further, on a theoretical level (Quantum), some scholars are questioning whether free expression can perform the lofty functions of community building and consensus-formation that society assigns it. IOW your attempts to argue through negation are predictable as this is the pattern of thinking we all use- men, objectively, and women who haven't been co-opted into a male sphere (Maggy Thatcher comes to mind- Ju Jube not far behind) subjectively. In feminist legal theory, as in the dominant culture, it�s mostly white, straight, and socioeconomically privileged people who claim to speak for all of us, a phenomenon called white solipsism, where theory has confused the condition of one group of women with the condition of all. This gives control of feminist theory to the concerns of white middle class women. Face it you're caught up in your youthful exuberance and are clueless about the thoughts of older thinking feminists who see a pattern of aggression that starts with a catcall and ends with "well, she WANTED it" at the rape trial. But it's ok . It's natural. Yeah ask Mike, ask Kobe- they"ll tell you fucking is NATURAL. Makes a difference when, where, and why you put it there though, doesn't it? On the public and theoretical situations, the source of the difficulty is the same:- failure to take account of the way language and expressions work. You women have been invented in this society and will never get together. Women are marked with the caste of servant in a society still determinately male. As a result ,women are shaped, molded, changed, from what they might have been.... into what they are. Much of that invention is miraculous, but much of it is far from praiseworthy, scarred as it is by the marks of oppression. Like Newtonian Physics enabled us to explain the phenomena of daily life but required modification to address the larger scale, first amendment theory will need revision to deal with issues lying at its farthest reaches.

RevDahlia

id.s,

paragraph breaks would make your posts a lot easier to read.

id.s

Physics ushered in considerations of perspective and positionality. I try to not reason by negation(it's tough)and present newer ideas that may seem extreme, but conventional wisdom certainly hasn't a hope. Negation replicates itself endlessly, easily, and painlessly, arriving at a conclusion that typified the incident of say a sexist remark. I notice it constantly on this site. The beginning of wisdom is to understand and, insofar as we may, work around our limitations. Time for a new approach to mating- perhaps a total redefining of marriage and its function in society. Teaching children collectively to respect each other; cast off stereotypes of sex and allow the person to come out of the child. the four directions of life are:- Mastery -Generosity - Independance - Belonging. Teach your children well and sexism may not be a problem in the future.
How much more of this can you take . What have I missed? You tell me.

id.s

ditto . was in a hurry- have to leave- back in an hour.

Stiletto One

Eck. I hate picking apart non-linebreaked (?) posts.

Mind laying off on the personal insults/namecalling? And also, she's a mod; think about that. (WRT knowing if you checked her profile)
I might be reaching, but most of us younger forum-goers don't bother watching most TV, because most TV is trash. (The kind you're mentioning, anyway) I agree with you that we need to tone down the sex/violence on shows before prime time, and for those shows, parents REALLY ought to either not allow their kids to watch, or supervise their viewing so that kids don't go to bed with the message "Oh, killing/raping is COOL!". Power Rangers and such are bad enough for teaching kids how to behave in public. *wince*
OK, so now you're being racist. (Yes, the term does apply to discrimination against white people) Also, Vanilla Ice was rather untalented; however, and rather amusingly, Eminem is one of the best rap artists out there, as far as actually putting together meaningful 'songs' goes. I still don't like rap (I'll stick with classical/jazz/funk/WHATEVER, thank you), but I respect Eminem a lot more as an artist than I do, say, Juvenile. Another note: MINORITIES ARE NOT INFALLIBLE! Also, in case you're questioning my qualification to judge people as musicians, I play a trumpet, and I HAVE played a trumpet in top-level ensembles for...oh...seven years now. Not a whole lot of experience, but I have had quite a bit of experience in proper full-orchestra music, and I think I can pick 'bludgeoning of the eardrums' and actual music apart.
Huh? First off, quantum mechanics has no bearing on society. Second, who are outsider groups, and in the meantime, you're lumping all women into one group. Oh yeah, first amendment isn't supposed to PROTECT people from harm, unless you're talking about libel/slander clauses. At any rate, if I'm thinking about what I think you're talking about, said 'outsider groups and women' are the same ones who rant that (hypothetical situation) a movie is sexist and male/white-chauvanist because a woman/minority figure is depicted in a negative light. Anyway, what alternative do you suggest? Of course people are going to disagree on things. That's a good thing. The only reason it's a BAD thing, as things stand now, is because the vast majority of voters (whether in political or organizational bloc decisions) simply do not think issues through thoroughly, and often don't even know what a given decision MEANS, much less what all of the individual options mean. This is going on statistical information (polls, mainly), by the way.
Just like you're caught in your own belief structure, that anyone who disagrees with you in more than superficial manners is an idiot?
Will you quit patronizing people and making lewd/off-topic remarks? It's irritating.
Did we ever say rape was OK? Or domestic violence? Or other extremes of violence against women? For one thing, you're in the wrong thread (that discussion is 'Why is it wrong???'), for another, the argument is that defending yourself against aggression from a female should be OK. I know I would get slightly riled if some random woman came up and started trying to flay me with her fingernails.
Point conceded, some cultures are still legally patriarchal; at least ours is down to 'merely' being patriarchal by culture. Anyway, as current generations age out and get replaced, sexism will go down, if the people I'm usually around are any indication for hope. On the other hand, a lot of people in my age group are fscking idiots. Anyway, women are far from 'servants' in our society, and while far too many women put far too much emphasis on their appearance (as per 'standards' set by popular culture), plenty of women get along just fine. Also, what 'might' a woman have been in the absence of cultural influences? For that matter, what 'might' a man have been? Keep in mind that standards of attractiveness are, to a certain degree, instinctual�an attractive human is one that is reproductively fit, not (normally, anyway) one who meets arbitrary criteria for 'beauty'.
Again, many of the people I choose to hang out with are quite enlightened about sexism.

***Switching gears***
As for argument by negation, you mean arguing by blocking all of your opponent's choices, right? I could say that it's a perfectly valid method for argument, but that would be trite.

Actually, I'm going to say it any. ARGUMENT BY NEGATION IS A PERFECTLY VALID MEANS OF ARGUMENT! IF it's backed up by some degree of thought. I mean, really, what are we supposed to do? Completely ignore everything that you say and go off on our own tangents? You have to address the opposing party at some point in time.

...and I still fail to see how we're 'objectifying' women in this thread. Again, we (guys mostly) are going through and stating which aspects of a woman's physical appearance appeals to us the most. Plenty of people have already stated that they really go on personality more than physical attractiveness, and we ignored them because they were off topic�not because we're a bunch of chauvanists.

Now, for something completely different!
Amen!

catalyst

ACtually, you will note that certain people have avoid doing this very thing since they started posting in this thread.

Stiletto One

Really? I didn't notice!
</irony>

Stiletto One

Anyone else notice that id.s hasn't been active on the forums for a couple of days now?

I hope he just went out of town or something; he's fun (if maddening) to argue with.
</OT>