Polygamy

Post Reply New Topic

^ If she was dowdy, he'd just say that she's jealous of the women who get objectified.

You cannot win. I have given up even conversing with him on this subject.

He likes the attention though!

You're silly.

Suppose I put on a clown suit, with thick makeup, and then went on TED and made a big speech about how men shouldn't dress as clowns. Would you consider me hypocritical? Or just not dowdy enough to be taken seriously?

I did, in fact, listen seriously to her speech. There is a disconnect between the substance of her speech (i.e., that women shouldn't "sexually objectify" themselves) and the effort that went into "sexually objectifying" herself for her speech.

And, now that you bring it up, she is rather dowdy, isn't she? I'm no expert on fashion, but, yeah, she's dowdy all over.



I hadn't thought of that. She is past the age where men would look at her for very long. If she doesn't miss that, then fine. However, I do agree with her that girls and women spend FAR too much time and money fussing over their appearance, and their efforts could be more profitably focused elsewhere. We'll still look at them--no need to worry as much as they do.

Go and listen to the lecture, and then come back and give us your opinions. And, don't just give us enthusiastic repetitions of familiar feminist memes in hopes of being rewarded with a little sex, because, well, it will probably work, but it isn't SUPPOSED to work!! !

Back during China's cultural revolution, there was perhaps the least differentiation that our species has yet accomplished between men and women.







There weren't any advertisements that included scantily-clad women to sell products. Divorce rates were quite low. Women put little more effort than men into their physical appearance. Still, a lot of the girls were quite good looking without all of the modern feminine trappings.

Of course, several decades later, after the irresistible tug of bourgeouis backsliding and exposure to female sexiness as presented by Japanese popstars and AV artists, Chinese women are now putting a lot more effort into their appearance. China now participates in international beauty pageants.



Are Feminists across the world aghast at this huge step backwards for women?

But, what exactly is the point being made? That women both should and should not sexually-objectify themselves, and that, in either case, men must do their utmost to ignore them?

For the ladies, some may be confused by what seems to be a contradictory message. For the gents: the message is abundantly clear.

It's kind of interesting; sometimes he seems quite invested in the whole kyriarchical complex, and other times he seems not to give a damn one way or the other, except to see if he can induce as much disgust and headbanging as possible.

What the Heck is that supposed to mean? Do you have another video-lecture handy?



Nope, not really my thing. I got a bellyfull of that garbage when I was employed. Not my thing in the least.

From what I can tell, Feminists seem to be about as angry and quick to take offense as the Angry White Men who form the base of the Republican Party. Possibly even quicker to take offense.

At least with the Angry White Men, it is easy to fathom what it is that makes them angry: perceived threats to their privileged status as White Men. If you ask an Angry White Man if he thinks that access to health care should be improved for women who are not married to privileged White men, he will tell you not only "No", but will give you an emphatic "Hell No!", as he would perceive this as a threat to his elevated status. If you ask him whether the 19th-20th century Jim Crow laws should be reinstated, he will tell you not only "Yes" but "Hell Yes!! !!" (particularly if he thinks that no third party is listening in).

Feminists are a whole lot more difficult to fathom. They have a whole lot of angry buzzwords and ostentatious theories that even they don't seem to understand. They make a speech about how women doll themselves up too much and about how there is too much advertising that uses sexy female images to sell products. If you ask them whether we should therefore see the fashions and non-sexy advertising of the Chinese Cultural Revolution as a goal towards which to aspire--they don't have an answer. All they can think of is some silly, nonsensical retort, such as "you are obviously quite invested in the whole kyriarchical complex. Shame on you!"

I really have no problem at all with women wearing Mao suits. They look comfortable and practical. Why should women feel obliged to dress themselves up and strut around like sexed-up clowns, anyway?

If a Feminists characterizes a woman as either "too dowdy" or "not dowdy enough", then the Feminist will take offense if you agree with her. And, the Feminist will also take offense if you disagree with her.

At least with the Angry White Men, you know what they are angry about, and you can often work out some way of flattering them (if you want to). As evidence: even Herman Cain figured out a formula that worked for a while. With Feminists, you're pretty much going to get a smack-down no matter what you do.

I think saying he's aligned with patriarchy is more accurate. He's quite progressive about everything except the other 51% of his species.

Either way, the motive to cause headbanging is very apparent. I value my noggin too much to get involved.

Well, I did vote for Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama in the 2000 primary, simply because I thought that she would have made the best president.

Also, I try to steer clear of social systems to the greatest extent possible. I typically have contempt for people who think that they should have power or authority over me, whether official or unofficial. Some women might have interpreted this as stemming from sexism on my part, when it really didn't.



I'm not wedded to any ideology in particular. All I know is that I am what I am, people are what people are, and ideologies are what ideologies are.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dHUfy_YBps[/youtube]

Aha! Another closeted Feminist!

Behold, it is as has been prophesied! When the pink Satanic 4th wave of feminism strikes, the veteran vanguards of the Patriarchy Of The West will either fall by the wayside or betray their cause and turn on each other at the sight of the advancing hordes of Womyn.

Oh-oh. I've been outed.

It does seem to me, though, that ideologues (by which I mean people who adhere strongly to any ideology) like to apply labels to people, and become uncomfortable if they have a hard time placing you into one unequivocal box.

For example, there was What's-His-Name, the Fox News champion. For him, if you watched Fox News as enthusiastically as he did, then you were an Heroic Conservative. If not, then you were a Pinko-Stinko Liberal. Everything was Black and White. Absolutely no shades of colours in between. For him, that's how the world was organized, and viewing the world this way made perfect sense and afforded him a great deal of comfort.

I am male, and don't adhere to a strict interpretation of Feminism. So, I must be a Patriachist or a Kyriarchist, and must adhere to a strict Patriarchal or Kyriarchistic set of views. But, I'm not, and I don't.

No need to get frustrated: just call me an Old Coot. I'm perfectly fine with this label. In fact, I fully embrace it.

In fairness, I should note that Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Baptists have similarly found me to be a frustrating subject. I actually read their material, and they don't really want to discuss it with me.

I'm not crazy about the over-labeling, either. That might be one of the few things we agree on. I'm not "married" to any other ideology other than my own. It just so happens that my ideology on a personal level matches closely in many ways to portions of ideologies of various groups of people. Sure, I grew up in a Southern Baptist tradition. Sure, I go to a SBC church. But that is something I choose to do. I'm heavily involved in the worship aspect of church meetings, not to mention the most memorable parts of my academic career focused on new music, particularly with emphasis on using computers, electronic instruments, and creating forward-looking musical art. So I'm utterly fascinated by what's coming out of the Assemblies of God and non-denominational churches. My thing is I dislike being stuck in a place where I have to wait 10-15 years before the congregation decides to adopt the good stuff.

Of course, I'm the only one keeping myself there. I could leave whenever I feel I should. I just haven't quite got there yet. Plus, I like the changes that I'm seeing.

What is more unfortunate than being labeled, though, is being bullied for bringing those ideas to the table. I say you have a right to be who you are, whether I agree with you or not. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that no one who has done any head-banging because of the views you've expressed has even considered that you might be right.

I seem to have dug my way clear through to China.