Sexism in Online Gaming.

[Llama LluxaLlot]

Society definitely has a negative side for both female and male gender roles. The expectations hurt both sexes. However, we are talking here about harassment. Lux allows some cursing, some name calling, some personal attacks, some of everything. If you lose a game and say "fuck you" nobody is going to say anything. If you keep going with that language you are going to be warned. If you keep going more, you will be banned. Same with sexist remarks.

Notice that Symbi called mnemo boring, you called her dishonorable, rhye called her style of play Lazy, and symbiosis made a self identified sexist jab at her, yet no one has been banned. We have people here from all over the world, with different cultures and different standards. Offenses that you will be banned for will most likely be clear for everybody.

[kitty on catnip]

you called her dishonorable

Please point to where I said these words

[Llama LluxaLlot]

Llama LluxaLlot wrote:
The congratulation threads for weekly, monthly, MOTM, seeds and tournaments shall henseforth be reserved for honoring play.



What if it was won through dishonorable means?

I took this to mean you though Mnemo played dishonorably. I admit you may have meant in general. You usually own what you say. If you did not mean this for mnemo, I believe you.

[Deep Blue]

What if it was won through dishonorable means?

I thought he was referring to his quibble with Will.

[kitty on catnip]

You usually own what you say.

Get out of my Brainzzzz

(But yes it's true, I do.)

[Pars]

and symbiosis made a self identified sexist jab at her

I have been following this thread.
I understand most of it well, but this part I don't understand, even google fails to translate it for me.

What does it mean when you say "made a self identified sexist jab at her"?
jab?

Also pls quote symbiosis when he did the sexist jab so I understand it better.

[n00less cluebie]

Since we don't want to rehash the same homophobia arguments we had before how about we compare this with racism. More specifically how both sides here aren't agreeing on what the argument is....

[hoodie]

Llama covered it, but I was talking about harassment. Guys simply don't get harassed in the same way in passing.

That doesn't mean there aren't pressures that are immense - you pointed a bunch of them out. That doesn't mean guys don't get harassed either in different ways. It DOES mean that there's a strange ownership that people seem to expect over women that is extremely pervasive.

Kitty, I noticed in your rant that it seems you see validating what is going on with people complaining somehow invalidates your experience. It doesn't. You can have your experiences too, and let us know when we're treating you wrong.

What this all comes down to, to borrow your cat analogy, is that some cats like some things, and other cats like other things. One of my cats LOVES being picked up, and purrs like crazy. This is wonderful for him. The other cat loves to be with me all over the place, about 1.5 feet away. If I pick him up, he gets anxious. What is wonderful for one cat is torture for the other cat.

If they start clawing the furniture, I'll totally correct them. And their preference for being picked up or put down is respected in that. One might be picked up and taken away, another might get a sharp no or distracted by a toy.

Same thing here. Criticize away about gameplay. But some people here have stated a preference -whatever their reason for the preference is their own - that we stay away from gendered language when we criticize. Doesn't mean don't criticize, but do it in a way that respects their preferences.

You posted your list about gendered pressures in a way that makes me feel like this is something that deeply impacts you. Maybe its the gendered pressures, maybe its not wanting to feel controlled in your actions. Whatever it is, I hope to work in ways that work and connect with you too. Rather than feeling controlled and restrained in what you can say, I hope you can reframe it as treating someone according to their preferences. Pick up the cat that loves it. Sit next to the cat that loves that. Everyone has the thing they respond well to. Might not be easy, but its rewarding when it all clicks.

[kitty on catnip]

I also did not point out the fact that women win child custody cases a higher % of the time.

Well thought out post, hoodie.

These issues are not near and dear to me. I am not part of any male advocacy group or whatever. I just think feminism is a huge annoyance in our society and deeply hypocritical. They never speak about the ways in which women are superior to men in many many ways but they also wish to claim their rights to be treated equally.

As for what you posted about your 2nd cat, I almost coughed up my lungs.

My cat will follow me around everywhere and sleep by my feet all night. But If I place my hand on her for more than 20 seconds, she'll move 3 inches away to where my hand can't reach her. I do it again and she moves 3 more inches away. Then I grab her and cuddle with her until she begins to meow and fight me to get away cause I love her so much and just want to cuddle with my little baby girl

But she love love loves to be pet. Just hate hate hates when my hand is just sitting there touching her and not petting her. She's a total weirdo.

[Big Will E Style]

That makes two of you.

[kitty on catnip]

oh yes, also male to male homosexuality is considered to be far far far worse than female to female homosexuality.

or to put it a different way, gay males are bullied and disowned by their parents at a higher rate than gay females.

[mnemosyne]

ok, so you had to go starting a thread near and dear to my heart, not so much for me anymore because my days in this mortal coil are dwindling, but for the four young women who have lived under my roof (who have mostly shuffled off to college and/or life), and, quite honestly, the future of everyone.

first things first: hoodie, never knew you much before, but maximum respect continues to grow. your recent posts at appropriate junctures are deeply appreciated. we need people who set a new tone for this place because it has turned to and is now mired in almost constant negativity, and you have been contributing mightily to bring us back to the positive. as someone who shares my house with 3 cats, all of whom have remarkably different personalities, your metaphor was right on point!

a few items that emerge from the discussion that deserve more attention:

1. there is no 'feminism.' is is reductionist to talk about it as a monolithic thing. there are "feminisms" for sure, some more compelling than others (/me is partial to the third wave for what its worth).

2. discourses of masculinity and femininity are both social constructs with tremendously significant (and often negative) material consequences. you articulate a lot of those, based mostly off general claims and anecdotal evidence, but as hoodie points out, those are totally representative and noteworthy experiences of some, perhaps even a lot (although certainly not all) of men. the interesting question here, at least as far as i am concerned, is who is driving that particular frame (for both men and women), and what is their end game? /me has my theories, but i wouldn't want to bore symbi to death /me keeps dropping books on you, i know, but you should read susan faludi's stiffed in which she (a feminist! gasp!) lays out a compelling argument that men have gotten the same bad deal as women.

3. since you do such a nice job of articulating the lived experiences of some men, it seems like those of women deserve equal time. historically, and even currently in some places, women were/are treated as property, as little more than chattel to be bought, sold, exploited, sexually assaulted . . . pick your poison. since you are throwing heavyweight stats around about custody cases, take a look at the stats re: domestic violence and violent sexual assault please. let's face it, even in the *progressive* united states, women have only held the right to even f&cking vote since 1920, less than 100 years ago! but i guess everything is peachy keen now (despite continuing pay inequality, among other things). in other countries, women are not allowed to leave the home, and can never be seen or heard in public, let alone be educated. they are routinely stoned to death if they are found outside the company of a husband or close male relative. if they try to go to school, they have acid thrown in their faces, or their noses cut off. i don't even want to get into the issue of forced female genital mutilation. /me shudders . . .

/me quotes hoodie to break up the dense text (/me knows you young grasshoppers want more pictures and hypertext and emojis):

It DOES mean that there's a strange ownership that people seem to expect over women that is extremely pervasive.

so, since i have not used up all my snark chips yet. yes, it is a grave injustice that nfl running backs get kicked off the baltimore ravens (this one's for you silken!) for b&tchslapping their partner in a casino, but to say that it rises to the level of being beaten half to death or forced into a life of sexual slavery is incredible. and anybody who really believes that being a stay at home parent, so to speak, is a 'cushy job' clearly does not have, or has never raised, children!! yes, more men fight in wars (there's the small issue that women weren't allowed and such, a symbolic holdover of an inherently and historically sexist society), but guess who has to clean up their bloody messes? read florence nightengale's notes on nursing and related texts for fun and to learn more about sickening consequences of modern warfare (world war 1 in this case), brought to you, for the most part, by your not so friendly neighborhood men (and, yes, i do mean men, not just the generic term for humans, lol)! that raises another final point that merits its own number . . .

4. as if things weren't stirred up already . . . does anyone dispute that besides destroying each other in war, we are destroying our planet? perhaps agent smith was right in the matrix when he called humans a virus, out equilibrium with the planet. and let's be honest: who has taken us on this trajectory? remember, women have only had any modicum of agency for just under 100 years in more *progressive* societies (sure there were some queens and such here and there, and some women have contributed and continue to contribute to the problem, but it has been predominantly men). it should not be terribly controversial to place the blame pretty squarely on the men and continuing patriarchal influences in exploitative corporations, massive militaries, corrupt governments, drug traffickers, human traffickers, toxic polluters, logic/rationality/science (not that these are bad things, its just that they preclude other things like valuing emotion and holistic/alternative medicine and/or dispute resolution, e.g.), our language (to the point of the thread), you name it. in short, in my humble estimation, (some) men were given a chance, and they blew it. it strikes me, then, why not give something other than the patriarchy a try while we still can? its pretty clearly a failed and morally bankrupt model. note: this is not to continue to essentialize men v. women; instead, it calls upon a different mode of being that can be embodied by either men, or women. let's fight the power together!! this divide and conquer strategy is intentional and driven by forces that are largely out of our hands!

/me issues an invitation to one and all . . .

maybe sting said it best . . .

♪♫ I don't want to bring a sour note
Remember this before you vote
We can all sink or we all float
'Cos we're all in the same big boat . . .

one world is enough . . . for all of us ♪♫



/me shakes symbi awake, breaks out the dog and pony show . . .


m

[Deep Blue]

3. since you do such a nice job of articulating the lived experiences of some men, it seems like those of women deserve equal time. historically, and even currently in some places, women were/are treated as property, as little more than chattel to be bought, sold, exploited, sexually assaulted . . . pick your poison. since you are throwing heavyweight stats around about custody cases, take a look at the stats re: domestic violence and violent sexual assault please. let's face it, even in the *progressive* united states, women have only held the right to even f&cking vote since 1920, less than 100 years ago! but i guess everything is peachy keen now (despite continuing pay inequality, among other things). in other countries, women are not allowed to leave the home, and can never be seen or heard in public, let alone be educated. they are routinely stoned to death if they are found outside the company of a husband or close male relative. if they try to go to school, they have acid thrown in their faces, or their noses cut off. i don't even want to get into the issue of forced female genital mutilation. /me shudders . . .

Yes.yes. This is the shit I was talking about. Not some stupid sentence. I don't think the analogy with the wetback is right, that's different. It's racist.
Sym's sentence was at most a jab and paternalistic. I consider myself to be a feminist, but some things go to far for me, like the language thing.
sorry princess. is this sexist?

[AquaRegia]

+1 Hoodie

For me, it's really just about not making things uncomfortable for others. Keeping our public discourse friendly and inclusive. I would never call someone a "pussy" in real life... why would I think it's OK in Lux?

I don't want to fire anybody up, but kitty seems to be the champion of the "boys will be boys" side; frankly, as an adult white US male, I find more than a few of his comments troubling.

How about when mass murders happen in movie theaters and the young hysterical girls are crying about how their boyfriends body protected them but say nothing about how they didn't deserve it just because they were born with a vagina?

There are valid evolutionary reasons for men to protect women - simply put, we are expendable and they are not. One man can father 100 children a week; a woman can typically only manage 1 per year. "Women and children first" has a rational basis in physical fact. Cultures who don't value women over men go extinct.

What about hearing about how the male to female inmate gender percentages are 93% to 7%?

2011 arrest data from the FBI:
Males comprised 98.0% of those arrested for forcible rape
Males comprised 89.0% of those arrested for robbery
Males comprised 85.0% of those arrested for burglary

Effect, meet cause.

What about hearing too many times how being a stay at home mother is hard work ...

How many kids do you have? All I can say here is that I hope you have found a wife who "knows her place".

You punch us and we complain? We are just being little sissies and need to grow a pair.

Another thing I would never say to anyone face to face. The implication that having testicles means you are tough is just as demeaning to all of us than the implication that having a vagina means you are tender. I understand the ORIGIN of these stone-age phrases... what I find baffling is why you WANT to keep using all these old-fashioned idioms?

We make the egregious mistake to slap you after finding out you filed for a divorce after calling us cheaters and a bad father when in fact we were the ones working to put food on the table and you were the one going out to Monday night salsa nights with your new found 'male friend'. We go to jail.

YES. It's called assault, and it's a CRIME. Using physical violence to "work out your relationship issues" is CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. Clear?

If your wife cheats on you, feel free to file for divorce instead of beating her up.

If we cheat on you it's not because you stopped putting out or you nagged us too much or you let yourselves go - It's because we are assholes

I'm speechless here. How long have you been married, and how is it going?

[kitty on catnip]

Let me just rattle off a few points.

1.) Aqua you do not get to make that argument in 2016 - to say that men still have an obligation to body-bullet-protect their girlfriends in a movie theater mass shooting is sickening to me - If you do not conclusively say it should not currently be the norm if women truly want equality - Then I feel your judgement is just simply put - biased towards women being the fragile one of the duo.

Although, I must also say, if I was in the situation, I would probably have a natural inclination to do the same - But this does not mean it should be considered the go to plan in a discussion about sexism.

2.) Mnemo, I agree with 100% of everything you said in your last post - One of the many reasons I am extremely anti-theist - Is that theism promotes the subjugation and outright torture of girls and women through abhorrent means. It's also sickening.

3.) Aqua, your FBI data is missing the point entirely. Go search for data vs men and women in relation to the same crime being committed.

4.) Aqua, to suggest I can't understand what it's like to be a stay at home mother is severely sexist. How could I, I am just a dude who has probably never spent more than 30 minutes around a child in my life, right?

Stay at home mother = hard work. Teacher working with dozens of children every day, for most of the day, many times children that are much much more troublesome than your little princess Jenny = Just a job.

5.) Yes, men are currently in this society programmed to be the ones that get shit done under stressful and scary as fuck circumstances.

Case in point - Family gathering around a 10 foot pool - 3 year old niece decides it would be a good idea to crawl into the deep end while her mother isn't looking - I was the only one who noticed her innocence about to drop to the bottom like a rock - I immediately screamed out, climbed out of the shallow end to save her from certain doom - upon noticing every male in the family immediately diving into the pool to save the little innocent - Her father fully dressed - While her mother and every other female who were wearing swimsuits stood on the edge of the pool screaming hysterically.

^ Important note I'd say to show the clear differences between the sexes.

(Yes yes, not true in all cases but do not deny it IS true in most of them.)

6.) You totally ignored the point made if the woman hits the man. Well played, sir. You went directly to the next line saying it's CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. CLEAR?

7.) Women have to deal with a tremendous amount, for sure. And I am totally on board with fighting for a higher social standard in the overall treatment of women. But to nitpick little things like 'not becoming' or perhaps 'got it princess?' , etc is just completely off putting to myself at least when there are real issues that need to be fleshed out.

8.) Is it sexist to desire a woman who holds traditional family values and wishes to gain value out of treating her man like a king while I respect her and love her fully for who she is and what she does in our relationship? Such as staying at home, taking care of the house, the children, while I am the one that goes off to work and support her? I remember a video clip of Christopher Hitchens telling how he doesn't want his wife to work, but for him to support her. Upon being accused of being completely sexist , he puts on his little smirk and puts in the caveat "Well...she can work if she wants too. But she doesn't have too. No no, I mean I would never prevent her from working. But I'd prefer to support my wife"

Millions of women in this country also choose 'the man' in online dating profiles when asked "Who would you like to have as the head of the household?"

But GOD FORBID a man answers the same to that same question - Then they are sexist!

Last point for now - Mnemo, I actually agree with you 100% in a very serious way to imagine a world that is dominated by women and ran by women which would in turn stop wars and increase world peace. Men are not good for positions of true and absolute power. We are easily corruptible.

[mnemosyne]

/me very much appreciates the thoughtful replies here from various perspectives.

this was not a thread of my making, but since it is personally relevant, i wanted to chip in my .02.

kitty, i agree with you on many points and continue to validate your experiences and observations. it is a hasty generalization to say that all women are great and will save the world, or all men are jerks and will destroy the planet. i am not particularly fond of the bikini clad women who stand by idly while screaming *hysterically* (if you are interested in the language thing, that's a word in particular that has a revealing etymology). it was very noble of you to save the day, especially since i know how much kittens fear the water! there are clearly bad actors on both sides. i tend to cut both men and women some slack, though, because they are largely performing learned gender roles constructed by others for purposeful reasons. it cuts close to the bone, as well, because i watch with some regret as my own daughters fall into the trap (e.g. my first two just joined a sorority, and i am already seeing a not so subtle shift in the way that they appear, their attitudes, and, worst of all, their agency. it seems like they now feel that their only function in college is serve as fodder for frat parties, this despite the fact that my eldest is a women's study major!)

and blue, i agree with you that of all the issues, the language thing is the least concerning to me (let's stop the violence first!). but, it is also part and parcel of the entire package. our gendered language is both a sign and a symptom of an inherently sexist society (it also contributes to and reinforces the same). my concern on that front is that our language shapes the way we see the world (the same thing that malcolm x realized when he read the dictionary from cover to cover while in prison, focusing esp. on all the positive connotations associated with the word 'white' and all the negative connotations associated with the word 'black'). take, for example, the french language, that assigns genders to all nouns. it is difficult not to perceive the world in gendered ways when the very words themselves assign inherently masculine or feminine characteristics. its subtle, its not as significant as getting acid thrown in your face, but its real, and its important.

finally, and for the record, i was not terribly offended by symbi's remarks. they were like water off a turtle's shell. i certainly don't think he should be banned or anything. at the end of the day, i still like old symbiosis (both the theory and the player). my point there was to argue for consistency in the way the rules are applied (e.g. i don't think rogue should have banned for posting a fairly funny picture, but if he is on the grounds of 'personal attacks' then let's punish all personal attacks equally, not just cherry pick a few that happen to hit closer to home for some). my larger point was that words have consequences regardless of the intentions of the sender. if we can all agree to keep it cool, and stay away from words that are likely to provoke a heated response, lux . . . and the world, will be better places.

warmly,

m



p.s. am i up to 83 posts already?! oh the horror! i am now way past my quota for the year! /me tries my hardest to stop the madness!

p.p.s. could superman v. batman come at a more appropriate time?! /me is very excited (esp., of course, because wonder woman is finally getting some long overdue screen time!! lol).

[Naraku]

I wasn't going to post anything in this thread for various reasons, but I 'll just share this little fun factoid.

The Wonder-Woman animated movie (the only one ever made for her in comparision to the 30+ movies and or stand alone cartoon shows for batman/superman) was a failure bringing in a mere 9.8 Million $$$$ but the same time there was a batman/superman cartoon with just them in it and it made only 5.4 million $$$ was considered a smashing success and then went on to order another 1/2 dozen shitty films while WW was then updated to be a barbarian bimbo from what I've seen in the last animated JLA movie and has 0 more stand alone scheduldied so far. I am so happy that she A) FInally gets some air time on the silverscreen after over a dozen batman/superman movies with real people and B) her stand alone movie so far looks really good. C) I just know that Wonder Woman doesn't even get equal air time or treatment from hollywood that really underlines or shows the shocking bias in our culture to favor Men over Women in most things.

/me spins around a few dozen times until this place looks like Earth A and not Bizarro Luxtopia

[imapickle]

This is partly a response to some early posts in the thread and elsewhere which i drafted last night. I am too slow to keep up with you folks. Sorry if i repeat what was already said.

The trend for women gamers is overwhelmingly on the side of harassment rather than being treated like a "queen" (a statement in another thread for those just joining us.

As a man i notice male players treating known female players like a queen quite a lot. It is rather a regular occurrence. An extreme example - I remember one time a male player was raging at all the other players and then a female came into the room and suddenly he was quite literally talking about fluffy bunnies. It was an extraordinary transformation.

Whether women perceive they are being treated like a queen is another matter. I see men do it all the time, that is their intention, often unconscious probably. But it may not register as such with the recipient or it may be unwanted. It depends on what kind of attention you want to receive, if any. I can see the point Will made about men pretending to be women. If you are an attention seeking person and you understand the kind of special attention men give, i could see there could be an advantage in such a subterfuge.

The other side of the coin is probably easier to spot because the motives and intentions are clear. Also if you are not particularly looking for positive attention, just to be treated normally, then any positive attention does not make up for hostility and crude comments - they dont cancel out. Therefore I can see why such negative incidents stick in the mind and accumulate in the memory. Also, attention does not compensate for a lack of respect, unless one is a pathologically attention-seeking person, which is not the norm. Most people, both men and women it seems to me, prefer to be respected.

About "fainting": In cultures which strongly value direct communication, I think indirect attacks are definitely more of a womans thing, because men have an advantage in overt interpersonal aggression because they were trained in it from an early age. In cultures which dont value directness of speech, I have observed that men can be just as indirect as women, but it probably takes slightly different forms. The kind of "I am going to sabotage myself in some way and then you will be sorry" passive attack (which is presumably what symbiosis referred to as fainting) is not so favoured by men because they are usually brought up to hide weakness, so the idea of using weakness as a weapon is rejected. They do do it sometimes and i see men doing it on here, but probably less frequently than women, considering the relative populations.

About sexism and misogyny: I think that people are a jumble of all sorts of motives. There is probably these attitudes lurking in everyone somewhere. Women can be misogynistic sometimes too, I know one clear example of a woman in my life who is profoundly misogynistic. It gets passed down in families, both by absorbing opinions and by receiving negative messages about women.

About being told you are oversensitive: There are cultural factors here. The culture of Lux is basically North American, which has a very robust attitude towards verbal communication. I get told i am oversensitive on here too. I suspect if you were to go to Japan, for example, men would have a very different attitude. Or if you think of the European aristocracy of the not too distant past, women were positively expected to be sensitive to comments and men would fight duels over an ill spoken word etc, so it was the opposite extreme.

(Edited to clarify an unclear sentence.)

[imapickle]

1. there are numerous compelling studies that indicate young women are turned off of games, especially computer and video games, at an early age (despite rare exceptions to the rule, like llama) because they are linear games that favor, as rhye notes, 'math and logic' and have an often pre-ordained conclusion (its one of the reasons i do not particularly like classic; it seemed too much like a set mathematical formula . . . take a continent that only needs to be defended by 2 soldier borders, build a huge satellite in asia, farm china like a big circle jerk, and wait for the time to be right in card turn order to let the killing begin. q.e.d. granted there were little nuances like blocking, or placing a few armies in a protected space, but that was the essence of the game. and you thought turtling was a simplistic strategy, lol!). its one of the related reasons why there are so few women drawn to the *stem* disciplines. in that masculine mode of thinking/acting, sun tzu is not relevant to lux because it is 'not logical,' it 'does not compute,' and it is not the way lux 'should' be conceptualized, or played.

I remember reading an article about women´s chess. It seems that women are equal with men in the tactical part of the game but lag behind in the positional/strategic part and in particular in formulating a plan. This is interesting because the tactical part is about performing calculations precisely and quickly, over and over again. Ability at strategic planning is about how you build intuition based on pattern recognition. So based on chess it would seem that women are ok with more linear part but have trouble with the more nonlinear part, i.e. the opposite of what you claim. But that would be a bit wide of the mark. Probably better to say that the tactical part of the game is about precise directed thinking and the strategic and positional is more about geometrical thinking i.e. more visual in some sense. It is often said that men are more visual than women, not sure exactly what is the evidence in terms of neurology, but it sounds reasonable to me. So i claim that geometrical thinking is more of a male thing. but not exclusively so: It also seems to be more of an introvert thing and in extreme cases, according to Minkowski, schizophrenics are very big on geometrical thinking.

With risk you have two aspects: one is calculating the numbers. The other is to do with pathing, blocking etc. As an aside here, I object to calling the calculating part of the game "math," because maths isnt really about calculating. The kind of thinking involved in pathing etc is more close to what maths is. A true mathematician only does a calculation once then loses interest, they would regard repeated calculations of the same type as something for engineers. This is the chauvinism of mathematicians. An extreme example of someone good at calculating is that of a savant. Many of the famous savants could do very long calculations in their heads but couldnt do maths at all and never proved a theorem.

Based on the chess example we might expect savants to be women and mad geniuses to all be men. But in reality both extreme categories tend to be heavily populated by men. That might be purely cultural bias or it might be something with some biological basis, I dont know.

[Dangerous Beans]

I would venture to say if you go back in time long enough, just about everyone alive today had an ancestor who gave birth out of rape- we are all products of rape.

Just a fun sidetopic to think about.

[Dangerous Beans]

does anyone dispute that besides destroying each other in war, we are destroying our planet? perhaps agent smith was right in the matrix when he called humans a virus, out equilibrium with the planet. and let's be honest: who has taken us on this trajectory?

The other side of the coin is that humans are the only species able to ensure the survival of life on earth indefinitely. Without humans, eventually an asteroid will come and wipe out the earth, we have the potential to destroy or deter the path of the asteroid. We are also the only species capable of taking a "Noah's Ark' of sorts outside of the solar system and replanting the seed. You wish to call this a virus, I call this a blessing.

why not give something other than the patriarchy a try while we still can? its pretty clearly a failed and morally bankrupt model.

If having a matriarchy was more advantageous to patriarchy throughout human evolution, you would have seen a lot more female-run societies throughout history, not just the fabled 'amazons'.

[kitty on catnip]

If having a matriarchy was more advantageous to patriarchy throughout human evolution, you would have seen a lot more female-run societies throughout history, not just the fabled 'amazons'.

I must disagree completely with this statement. We originated in small hunter gatherer clans. The men were better at fighting beasts and fighting other clans that tried to steal your food and dare I say land/women.

A woman has mostly been a prized possession - The more the better in many cultures. So what easier way to continue the exponential growth of our species than to keep them 'protected' *wink wink* by controlling them and making them yours to do as you see fit.

So women have always been the most important possession a man could have to continue our species. And since men are stronger, it is not a far cry to say we began controlling them and treating them like livestock, if not a bit better or worse in different cultures.

But now we are no longer in hunter gatherer societies and have evolved richly diverse cultures of politics and economics and education, government, etc.

Take another example. You can get turned on by a video or a magazine or even listening to audio of a woman during sex.

It would not be correct to say that just because sex with a fembot would not continue the growth of our species, that sex with a fembot would be 'wrong' or 'feel bad' - you would still receive sexual gratification even more so in some instances than with a real woman. But you still know this sexual encounter will not produce a child - just like when using a condom you can relatively sure no child will be produced either.

We do many things outside of the circle of evolutionary propagation of our species that include great feelings of euphoria or detrimental things like starting wars with neighboring countries for land/oil, etc.

[kitty on catnip]

I would venture to say if you go back in time long enough, just about everyone alive today had an ancestor who gave birth out of rape- we are all products of rape.

Just a fun sidetopic to think about.

Actually if you read the old testament accurately and objectively, most of the cities God told Moses and the other prophets to wipe out and annihilate, also told them to keep the women and young virgins as war gifts. It also states that a raped woman must marry her rapist. This was very common practice in the old days of war to take women as your war bounties. So yes, you are quite correct. I wouldn't be surprised to find if a scientific study showed that 100% of our current population ascended from a previous rape.

But obviously this doesn't make rape ok, it just means it was a fairly common happening in primitive pre womens rights societies.

Hell my father said a few years ago over a family dinner that there is no such thing as a woman being raped by her husband because it's her civil duty to have sex with him as his wife. And he's not a total redneck bible thumper either. He's fairly secular and non religious.

[kitty on catnip]

i am not particularly fond of the bikini clad women who stand by idly while screaming *hysterically* (if you are interested in the language thing, that's a word in particular that has a revealing etymology).

I am simply reporting to you what I clearly remember with my own eyes as I saw it.

Hysterical

1.
of, relating to, or characterized by hysteria.
2.
uncontrollably emotional.
3.
irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock.
4.
causing hysteria.
5.
suffering from or subject to hysteria.


If you have a problem with how a woman reacts emotionally to discovering her baby girl plummeting to the depths of a 10 foot pool, then you should criticize that instead of using a word that correctly describes the reaction

P.S. Men can be hysterical too but I did not use the word in relation to men in that exact post because there was no story to be told about hysterical men

[n00less cluebie]

I put this in it's own thread, but Imma leave this link right here

[mnemosyne]

i am not disputing your use of the word hysterical as one of many different ways one could describe the emotional reaction of certain women in the situation you encountered, kitten, i just said that the word hysterical has a revealing etymology, and it helps illustrate some of the points i have been trying to make about how the language we use shapes our perception of 'reality.'

giving 'definitions' of a word is not etymology--that is a synchronic rendering. what is more interesting (to me, at least) is how the word originated (and why), and how it has been used across time (i.e. diachronic analysis), and to what end.

as far as the word 'hysterical' goes on that front (and other terms associated with our construction of 'madness'), i would chat a bit about foucault, but i don't want to muddy the waters. instead, here is a simpler explanation from the guaurdian:

"The distinct feminisation of madness in our language is an insane semantic state of affairs. It's an unsavoury tradition, stretching back through literature and language, that obscures the way women are viewed and discussed to this day. Delving back into etymology and fiction – and a consideration of how these linguistic roots have branched into a modern weed of unfairness – can help us better understand the social consequences of the words we choose.

Let's start with etymology. Hysterical. It's a word with a very female-baiting history, coming from the Latin hystericus ("of the womb"). This was a condition thought to be exclusive to women – sending them uncontrollably and neurotically insane owing to a dysfunction of the uterus (the removal of which is still called a hysterectomy). Here's another: loony. Coming from lunacy – a monthly periodic insanity, believed to be triggered by the moon's cycle (remind you of anything?). These etymologies have cemented a polarisation of the female and male mental states: men being historically associated with rationality, straightforwardness and logic; women with unpredictable emotions, outbursts and madness.

Think about how that plays out today. Let's invent a character. This person is quirky, outspoken and highly intelligent – sometimes to the bewilderment of those around them. If he's a man, he's a "bearded eccentric intellectual", "misunderstood" or a "tortured genius". But what if our invented character is a woman? My guess is that she would be described as "shrill", "unhinged", "depressed", "bonkers" and almost certainly "hysterical". We seem to describe hyper-intelligent women and men using different value judgments."

its a good article that continues further (if anybody is interested: http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-y ... on-madness), but that's a snippet that communicates the basic idea.

m

[kitty on catnip]

actually I can easily think of other ways to describe this conjured up male character

off his rocker
lost his marbles
completely and utterly mad
insane
creepy
unique (with a slight twist of the voice)
(and depressed)

It is true the word hysterical would be used in more frequency in regards to women but that does not make it sexist - It makes it accurate. Just the same as the word Tall would be used more frequently to describe a man rather than the use of the word petite.

I am of the politically incorrect position that believes stereotypes exist for a reason.

I have also had women in the workplace apologize after saying/doing something completely irrational - by telling me (and others) they are on their period and going through a difficult time.

Are we to ignore that women act differently when they are on their period?

And no I do not mean every woman, I mean a large portion of women.

Also, eccentric could easily be used to describe a woman of the same nature.

[Dangerous Beans]

If having a matriarchy was more advantageous to patriarchy throughout human evolution, you would have seen a lot more female-run societies throughout history, not just the fabled 'amazons'.

I must disagree completely with this statement. We originated in small hunter gatherer clans. The men were better at fighting beasts and fighting other clans that tried to steal your food and dare I say land/women.

A woman has mostly been a prized possession - The more the better in many cultures. So what easier way to continue the exponential growth of our species than to keep them 'protected' *wink wink* by controlling them and making them yours to do as you see fit.

So women have always been the most important possession a man could have to continue our species. And since men are stronger, it is not a far cry to say we began controlling them and treating them like livestock, if not a bit better or worse in different cultures.

But now we are no longer in hunter gatherer societies and have evolved richly diverse cultures of politics and economics and education, government, etc.

Take another example. You can get turned on by a video or a magazine or even listening to audio of a woman during sex.

It would not be correct to say that just because sex with a fembot would not continue the growth of our species, that sex with a fembot would be 'wrong' or 'feel bad' - you would still receive sexual gratification even more so in some instances than with a real woman. But you still know this sexual encounter will not produce a child - just like when using a condom you can relatively sure no child will be produced either.

We do many things outside of the circle of evolutionary propagation of our species that include great feelings of euphoria or detrimental things like starting wars with neighboring countries for land/oil, etc.

Here comes kitty with his sex robots again

I would argue that there have been numerous women in ruling positions throughout history, yet they did not venture off from the norm of the time (i.e. plotting, warring, torture, etc.). I am sure you can find examples of women who did good things, and women who did bad things. Of course you could say that these women were put in a position of power in an already male-designed world. Yet with the same rules and guidelines as men, they did not do anything differently from their male counterparts. So women in power abiding by the same rules & guidelines in other time periods (such as surviving as a tribe) would have had similar outcomes as men, and I highly doubt the world would be much different today if women had been the majority in controlling society/civilization. To blame the state of the world (i.e. the affects of competition over limited resources) vastly as the fault of men and then to say that the world would be a much better place if women were in charge is ludicrous.

Another side point of women in ruling positions would be pregnancy. Part of the reason men were more successful as rulers and creating dynasties was the ability for them to have a bunch of children. A women-king would have had to either choose not to get pregnant( and thereby give up her right to a successor of blood) or spend 9 months ruling as a pregnant women, which would have been the ideal time for usurpers.

[kitty on catnip]

or spend 9 months ruling as a pregnant women, which would have been the ideal time for usurpers.

[Dangerous Beans]

Usurpers would use it as a sign of weakness.