Posts by Lace Sabatons

I'll hold down the fort until you're back at your post, mon capitaine.

Oh for sure, the forums are doing great. They've got a strong community that is growing at a steady pace. All signs point to continued growth. We're doing just fine.

I've never been accused of excessive optimism. =P

It's not as though the forums are moving at a snail's pace. They're just moving at a comfortable pace, which the current staff have been able to keep up with easily. I suppose it falls to me to pick up some of Kaynil's posting slack, since she's unable to be around right now.

Though I'm considerably less likable than she is.

This is honestly very unexpected.

Given the site's relatively low traffic, I don't know if I'll be too aggressive about bringing another moderator onto the team. But I'll keep an eye out for anyone who seems suited to the role.

Quote

Psychologically, it created a new phase of our relationship. People love to categorise and name things. It was like saying, 'So we've done the meeting and the building, our relationship is mature and secure, let's sign that off and carry on.' Which is nonsense, because we're always working on being better partners for each other, but it was nice to stop, take a rest, and reflect on how far we'd come.

See, that's interesting, because I can see it from both angles on this.

On the one hand, I have a certain appreciation for ritual. I can see the value in taking time to gather the people we love and say "Hey. I'm serious about this. For reals. Now eat cake."

On the other hand, the prevailing idea seems to be that marriage is the end goal of a relationship. But really, the marriage isn't the important part, and if you actually let yourself think that marriage is the "end" of anything, then you're probably going to fuck your marriage up pretty badly. Relationships need maintenance, as I'm sure you know.

I suppose, as with so many many things in life, the ritual can be great. The problem really arises when people start to focus more on the ritual than they do on the people.

*coughreligioncough*

Ahem.

Quote

Propriety is something I'm not a big fan of, along with etiquette, chivalry etc. But marriage, I feel, is changing in ways the older generation did not intend. For a start, the whole 'no sex before marriage' thing? My father-in-law said, sardonically, 'These days, it's no marriage before sex!' But actually, he's right. And good thing, too. Getting married before sex is naive and hugely risky. I'm a firm believer in no marriage before sex. I'm glad he hasn't gotten his way on that point. And, my wife didn't take my name, I took hers. The thing to bear in mind is that no matter how much the older generation tries to claim ownership and authority over things like marriage, the concept of marriage predates any of their cultural constructs. It predated Christianity. It predates pretty much everything. And it has always been changing.

It is funny how people who talk about "tradition" are often woefully ignorant of history. When they say "Traditional," what they mean is "the prevailing ideology when I was a young adult." Which isn't a very longstanding tradition.

Honestly, who cares what old people think? If they wanna get in here and make their case, let 'em. Otherwise, there's no point giving too much attention to their antiquated views. "No marriage before sex." is a pretty good way of putting things. I like that.

Quote from Silent Lion

Muahaha it worked!

Said as if it's difficult to get me to ramble endlessly about literally any topic ever. =P

Quote

Yes, it is a scam. We got around a lot of that by finding a venue that was lovely and cheap (jackpot), who charged not much above cost. She also picked out her dress from a charity shop for £30.

Morrie has always said she'd like to get married in a Pizza Hut if we can manage it.

Quote

The dad giving away the bride is something that troubled me. Ultimately, I went along with it because it's what she wanted. I feel like I failed a little, because I think weddings should be updated to reflect the 21st century western values that we uphold. But I let Safron have her way because I felt it should be more her day than mine. that a wedding day is one of the few things aimed at women that men respect.

Arooooo.....

1. We're talking about your marriage and wedding now, which I'm not going to comment on. You seem very happy with it, and I'm happy for you. I do not denigrate anything you chose to do.

2. We're having a discussion, though, so I'm going to take the scenario you outlined, and talk about how I would handle it if it were Morrie and I. Which is what would be right for me, not what I think would be right for you.

Compromise is a big part of a relationship. So if I was getting married and the lady I was with wanted to be given away by her father, I'd tell her I wasn't a fan of that tradition, I'd tell her why I wasn't a fan of that tradition, and I'd be interested in having a discussion about it. But, like you, I think I'd concede immediately that if it's something she wanted, then it's something we would do.

But I certainly wouldn't merely turn the whole ceremony over to her. I mean, what we're talking about is a ritual celebrating a relationship, and symbolically making it a permanent bond. If the entire thing is orchestrated by only one half of the couple, then I feel like it's failed at being an effective ritual. The ritual should represent both of the people participating in it. It should be two visions coming together to create a singular event, the same way two minds are coming together to create a single life together.

BUT THAT'S JUST ME BEING ALL ARTSY FARTSY. Like I said, I have a thing for symbols.

Quote

Women are always 'proving' their equality by stating how much they like that one guy-ish film, or sometimes wearing guy-y clothes, or reminding us of that one woman who loves Call of Duty. Bringing women into all the things considered masculine. Essentially, bringing them towards us. That's not equality.

For sure it's not equality if it's an act. But if a woman actually likes those things, then it's just a shared interest.

If it's an act then that's weird, lying behavior. If Morrie someday told me she hates video games I'd be just as hurt as I would be if she cheated on me. That's fucked up.

Quote

When's the last time a guy went out in a dress purely in support of gender equality?

I mean, I know a lot of guys who wear dresses. And I suppose that in some ways they know they're making a statement. But mostly they do it because they like dresses.

Quote

Or tried to convince anyone they liked chick-flicks more than Star Wars or Lord of the Rings?

Does anybody like bad movies more than good movies?

Honestly, for most definitions of "chick-flick," it's really just synonymous with "bad movie." Which says a lot more about how the media views women than it does about the real state of gender equality on the ground. =P

Quote

Would I be right in saying that it's not weddings you disagree with, but the form they take? Is there a 'version' of a wedding and/or marriage that would better celebrate or express your vision of love?

I keep starting this, then deleting it and starting it over.

In the end, a marriage I could accept would be a marriage that doesn't look any different than the relationship that came before it. And a wedding I could accept would be a public affirmation of that relationship. One which focused on the individuals binding themselves together. No officiant or anything like that.

Quote from Silent Lion

Monogomy is a topic that confuses me. I used to be all for free loving. I mean, what is sexual restraint except a socially indoctrinated OCD? Just like ideas of etiquette, honour, or anything else that distracts from the simple goal of finding / giving happiness. But then whenever someone I've been with was involved with someone else, it hurts. It's not a sensation I associate with normal jealousy, like a child covets someone else's game. What struck me was that it hurt deeply even despite my free sex values.

I've got this ex. She was, and I'm sure still is, an amazing person. We were monogamous with one another, because when we started dating I was still a good little Catholic homschooled kid. By the time we stopped dating I had reached pretty much my current opinion on the subject: monogamy is silly, but it works for some people. She wanted to be monogamous and I wanted to be with her, so we remained monogamous and I was fine with that.

Our breakup was...difficult for me, to say the least. Knowing that she's involved with someone else still aches when I allow myself to think about it. But it's not the fact that they're having sex that bothers me, it's the fact that my relationship with her is one of the best things that ever happened in my life, and it kills me to know that it's truly gone for good. Which isn't to say I don't love my current girlfriend, I do. But my current girlfriend will never be able to reminisce with me about good times she wasn't there for. The sex is a symbol of that. The thought of her having this deeply intimate experience with other people just reminds me that I will never have that intimacy with her again.

Put concisely: the fact that I get sad about my ex having sex with other people doesn't mean that the sex is the thing that makes me sad. The sex is a symbol of something deeper.

I'm not trying to talk you out of monogamy or anything. If it makes you happy, I support it. But I think my experience provides a relevant counterpoint to your argument.

Quote

Especially when my previous fiancee cheated on me. I felt like I wasn't worth anything - which isn't a logical response. It affected me for a long time.

That's a totally different thing. If my girlfriend goes out and fucks somebody, then comes home and tells me how great the sex was and how he did this thing with his finger that she wants me to try, that doesn't bother me at all. BUT, if my girlfriend tells me she never wants to fuck anybody else but me, then she goes out and fucks somebody else anyway, and tries to keep it secret? That's a totally different thing. That's a lie. A betrayal. Not the same.

I'm sorry you had to go through that.

Quote

So then I started thinking, maybe the desire for sexual exclusivity isn't socially learnt. What if it's inherent in our natures? Furthermore, there was a problem with my assumption that my emotions were illogical. That is, the thing which I am aiming for, by nature, is happiness. My happiness is largely determined by my emotional state. Thus, logic is a tool which should be used in the service of finding a happier emotional state. Logic is a tool which can help me achieve that. It isn't the other way around - to try and use logic to dictate my emotions is not only unrealistic, it's missing the point. So, I accept that sexual exclusivity is a condition of my happiness, and that it's probably the same for most other people.

I honestly don't know whether sexual exclusivity is socially learned or not. I suspect that we naturally want to pair ourselves with someone. And I suspect that we are naturally inclined towards non-monogamous sex. But the real important thing is that I know that none of us want to be lied to, or made a fool of.

You are correct though: you don't get to logically deduce what should make you happy. We are creatures of emotion, and we must pursue our emotional needs sometimes.

Quote

That said, there seems to be a fraction of the population - some old friends of mine, and perhaps you too - that seem genuinely unbothered by it. It may be that these people's brains are wired differently, or that their response to whatever causes sexual 'jealousy' is different, I have no idea. But for these people, sexual unfaithfulness causes no misery, and so for them, it's perfectly moral. I suppose the difficulty would be if one of those people got with someone who was affected by it - it would then be a test of the former's discipline and trust in what their partner was claiming. But, if two people are happy in an open relationship where they have sex with other people, it angers me when society demonises them. It should never be enforced that what makes me happy should make you happy. People have always been intolerant of diversity. THAT is definitely a natural human vice. The dark side of the theory of self.

So, I guess I'm not for or against monogamy as a stand-alone concept, because each relationship is unique. But I do judge people harshly who cheat when they had reasonable knowledge that their partner would be hurt. Just like any act that causes suffering.

It baffles me the way people are so eager to demonize others over something as personal as what kind of relationship makes a person happy. It doesn't affect anyone! If two people find some happiness together, who fucking cares how they find it?

Quote

Love should never be unconditional. It often is, because it's outside of our control - most abused spouses still love their partners. but I'm getting off-topic.

Do they really feel love for their partners, or do they feel trapped?

The only people I've spoken with about their abusive relationships are people who have acknowledged that their relationship is abusive (either before, or after leaving it). But my general impression is that it's less about feeling love for a person than it is about feeling that the abuser represents security. If they leave their abuser they'll have nowhere to go, or something like that.

But this is a topic I'm super uneducated on.

Quote

For us, becoming married was a formalising of what we already were. We were already behaving in all the ways expected in marriage - we lived together, shopped together, banked together, etc. We were very secure. I feel that, had we not gotten married, we would still be together for a very long time. So, from that point of view, nothing is added. But it does serve a few purposes. The legal thing, obviously.

Obviously.

Quote

Also, it's a handy social statement. Calling yourself boyfriend and girlfriend has an air high-school immaturity that you then have to go to some length to elaborate on before people understand it fairly. Being married means you fall into a convenient social construct that more aptly describes the situation.

I can get that. I also don't like the girl/boyfriend phrasing, though I'm fine adhering to it for now for myself. Morrie has referred to me as her Gentleman Friend, or as her Life Partner. I also wouldn't mind simply saying Morrie and I are husband and wife. Whose gonna argue?

Quote

There is also, admittedly, an element of pressure - we know our relationship will be more respected, and that family will see it as more permanent, because we are married. But we don't feel that we're promising anything we hadn't already committed to.

See, I'm way too eager to fight about this kinda thing. I usually shy away from confrontation, but if someone actually tries to call me out on my life choices I will take pleasure in verbally annihilating them with all the rhetorical skills life has given me. To paraphrase Sargon of Akkad: when I'm done there is not be a place for birds to perch away from the ground.

Quote

banked together,

I super don't understand banking together. Do you have individual accounts that you both have access to, or do you actually pool your money? I think my girlfriend and I would breakup in a week if we did that. x'D

Do you mind if I throw the serious discussion tag on this thread?

I'll start out by saying that this is a subject I am not yet settled on. I have ideas, and they suffice for guiding my actions. But my examination of marriage has not been exhaustive. Unlike, for example, my examinations of feminism and metaphysics. In those subjects I may learn new things, but I feel very secure in believing what I believe.

Quote from Silent Lion

are you married / plan to get married / would like someday to get married?

I am not married. However, I currently live with a woman, whom I love and am committed to. We have lived with one another since early 2011. I feel secure in this relationship, and would like to stay with her for a long time.

We don't really 'plan' to get married, but we agree that we probably will. The agreements we make will not be those of a typical marriage (neither of us believe in monogamy, neither of us believe in staying together 'forever.') But marriage is a very handy & inexpensive way to take care of a lot of legal agreements. It's easier to get married than it is for me to go to a lawyer and make her my medical proxy + the primary beneficiary of my will + etc. etc. etc.

Would I like to get married? I'm honestly pretty apathetic about it. It doesn't seem important to me anymore. I was passionate about getting married when I was a younger man, but I think that I only wanted to get married because marriage seemed like magic to me back then. Once you got married, you got to have sex! Except a sexual relationship actually works a whole lot better if you focus on your partner, rather than on a legal agreement. Once you get married, you know someone will love you forever! Except that's nonsense. People fall out of love all the time, and being married doesn't stop it from happening. All it does is, perhaps, encourage people to stay in situations that make them miserable because of social pressure.

There is no such thing as unconditional love. That terrifies us, so we try to find all these ways to pretend that love isn't conditional. But it is. All love is conditional, and I think we'd all be happier if we accepted that.

Quote

What's that about for you?

I can't quite figure out what you mean by this question that is distinct from other questions here. Could you elaborate on what you're asking for me, if it's relevant?

Quote

And on the other side, from more of a pan-social point of view, how do you see weddings and marriage and their place in society?

A marriage is, at its core, an agreement between two people. And as far as I'm concerned, it's super super super not my place to critique that. We're all trying to find happiness in our lives, and so much of happiness comes from feeling that you are loved. I never want to be the guy who criticizes the way that someone finds happiness and love. I can criticize concepts or assumptions and how I relate to them. And I can perhaps call out social trends which I think are harmful or dishonest. But an individual marriage is really just the iceberg tip of a complicated relationship between two complicated people who have a hundred billion different thoughts and emotions that I don't understand. In their pursuit of happiness, I wish them nothing but the best.

That being said, I think that the purpose of marriage is security. We've been fed a fairy tale that once you get married, the person you marry will love and support you forever, and you'll never have to worry about being alone again. It's a fairy tale that fell apart for a lot of us, given the divorce rate of the previous couple generations. But there's still a powerful emotional urge to believe it. Because, ya know, being loved and supported forever sounds pretty fucking awesome, am I right?

There's also the weight of history to consider. People from older generations tend to think that there's a "right way to do things." People who are my age don't tend to buy into that nonsense, but a lot of us have parents who pressure us to get married. In their eyes we're not really adults until we bind ourselves to someone. So there's that aspect to consider. Marriage is really important to older folks for reasons of propriety and tradition; and they pressure younger folks to adhere to their views.

Quote

I support what I have come to perceive as a 'modern marriage' - one of equality, and one that comes about after a relationship has matured, rather than a reactionary decision based on pregnancy or pressure.

"What is a modern marriage?" is a pretty deep question all its own.

If I may ask you: if the relationship has matured, what benefit does marriage add?

Quote

What do you think?

This wasn't really relevant elsewhere, but since you so graciously asked what I think in such a broad way...=P

As I've said before, symbols are important to me. I've come to respect that I am, perhaps, in the minority in this regard. When I see a father giving away his daughter on the altar, I see a statement that "THIS HUMAN BEING IS PROPERTY WHICH IS BEING PASSED FROM ONE MAN TO ANOTHER AS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION." It freaks me the fuck out that people are okay with that, and I don't ever want to be part of it myself. Buuuuuuuuuuuut I think most people really just see it as a quaint tradition with no real meaning anymore. Which is fine. You do you, ya know? Just don't ask me to participate. =P

-ALSO- there's the whole economic part of marriage to consider. The wedding industry is a fuckin SCAM. If you call a florist and ask for flowers, it costs $100. If you ask for wedding flowers, it costs $1500. It's seriously in the top 5 of corrupt industries in the U.S. Right up there with the death industry, and the prison industrial complex.

My condolences.

Never have I ever watched a Markiplier or Pewdiepie video.

LS Points: 7

Never have I ever attended a highschool class.

LS Points: 8

The youth have a clear advantage in this competition.

Never have I ever: used a smartphone for more than 60 seconds at a time.

LS Points: 9

I'm always happy to delve into the mishmash of my makeup. But this thread is just about celebration, not dissection.

Quote

"our parents had intercourse"

STOP CENSORING ME!!! =P

Seriously though, that was interesting to read, thank you Kaynil.

I don't have much to say in response, but there is one passage here I'd like to comment on.

Quote

I don't think anything big will happen when I die. The world we keep on moving. When I moved to Australia things changed slowly for my family. Their neighbourhood. I wouldn't have felt the pass of years and I wouldn't have trouble remembering things taht actually took place if I still was living there. I removed myself from the only place I've ever known. My family and the whole country kept on moving. I never was that important. When I die it will be the same.

In a sense, you're right. In the grand scheme of things, few people really matter as individuals. I guess if a world leader or a celebrity dies, it can have widespread impact, but for most of us, our deaths will go unnoticed on the grand scale.

But 'important on the grand scale' really just means 'important to people who've never met or really cared about you.' We are, each of us, a mental universe unto ourselves. For me, Nick Whelan, my own experiences, and thoughts, and perspective, are MY entire universe. Your death would affect me deeply, because even if we lose touch again you'll still have played an important role in my life. And I'm sure there are a LOT of people whom you've affected more deeply than I. We don't even know one another all that well.

We DO impact our environments, but we do it slowly. Bit by bit. For example, you're probably the only Mexican that a lot of people on the Internet or in Australia have ever known. And when those people hear about something shitty happening in Mexico, I imagine they're more likely to feel a greater degree of compassion because of you. Perhaps that compassion translates to positive action, like voting for more Mexico-friendly politicians. And so on, and so forth.

I feel like I'm not articulating myself well. It sounds like I'm trying to talk you out of suicide or something. My point is really just that we DO have a much bigger impact than is apparent to us. And even if it's not obvious, The world is different for us being here.

Just go watch 'It's A Wonderful Life.'

Best to stick to taking dumb stuff seriously. Once we start taking serious stuff seriously, I go balls to the wall. =ppp

Motherfucker I was BORN in trouble.

Yeah, these are screenshots from Hey! Arnold. Which somebody has drawn over.

Looks good though. I'd watch it.

Those first few hours of Christmas morning were always such a rush. The period of endless possibility before the presents came open and collapsed the happiness wave function. The rest of the day could never really live up to that.

I've struggled to really pin down traditions for myself since going out on my own. I love finding gifts for people, so that's always really fun. Although money never seems quite as cooperative as I wish it would be. =P

This year I'm making an effort to be more proactive about the holiday. Doing stuff like making specific holiday plans, baking, making presents for people I can't afford to shop for, that sorta stuff.

As for specific memories, there are many. The year I got my N64 really stands out though. My family was poor, we didn't own any expensive things, really. And my parents have always hated computers and video games. Never in a million years did I expect to open anything that cool. I'm sure I acted just like the N64 kid that day.

And star fox 64 was suuuuuuch a perfect bundle game. Damn.

There's also Christmas 2007. I was moving out, up to university, a few days after the holiday. I remember walking the house late at night, the last night I would ever really 'live' in that house, with all the decorations still up. It was weird thinking that the next time I was there, it would be as a guest. By that point, my parent's home was not a happy place for me, but it was still the only place I'd ever known. It was so surreal, sitting in the dark by the tree and knowing it was the last time.

On a happier note, there's last year. My lady and I were too poor to really do much, so we weren't. Christmas isn't very important to her, so I don't think she knew how really unhappy I was. We talked about it one night, and the next day she came home with a bag full of decorations and little dollar store toys. We have a little potted pine tree, which she brought in from outside and decorated. It may not seem like a lot, but my eyes are teary now recalling it. She made Christmas happen for me, and my mood made such a complete 180. I was over the moon for a month after that.

I managed to get her something really great this year. She deserves it. I'm so fuckin' excited.

Given that you pretty much agreed with everything I said, I suppose I don't have a whole lot of reply to make. Just 3 points.

1. For serious if you're interested in that marriage discussion, start that thread. It's something I'm passionate about, but don't spend a whole lot of time discussing. So I'd be excited to get into it.

2.

Quote

Kudos! She may have been among the worst things to happen to feminism.

So, I get that this is an offhanded comment intended as a simple "Yay, we agree!" But I think this phrasing is interesting. It's indicative of a way we all tend to think, which can be harmful: the idea that powerful women have a duty to feminism. That a 'bad' woman somehow sets the movement back. It's a mode of thinking that we all tend towards when we talk about marginalized groups, and it's the kind of thing we would never think about white guys.

A bad white man is an individual. His actions are attributed to him, and him alone. But a bad woman or a bad black person is somehow a poor reflection not only on themselves, but on their entire group.

I'm not saying that you're over there thinking "Margret Thatcher was bad, and ergo women are bad!" Of course you aren't, we just had this big conversation where we agreed on a ton of stuff. I imagine you're proooobably thinking from a tactical standpoint. I imagine your thought process is "Margret Thatcher was bad, ergo it will be harder for good women to rise through the ranks in politics, and that is bad!"

None the less, it's a standard we only hold for marginalized groups. Which is a bummer. As a storyteller, I'm sometimes faced with the issue that if I make a character a white man, then I'm allowed to do whatever I want to him. But if I make the character a woman or a black dude, then suddenly there are standards that must be upheld so that the character is a good representation of their group.

Bet you didn't expect me to write 4 paragraphs about that comment, didja? I'm a fucking madman.

3.

Quote

I appreciate the lengths you've just gone to to be courteous about what could easily be offensive. In future though, don't worry about it. I feel like I've read enough of your material to trust that flaming or down-talking is not in your intentions, and plus I'm notoriously difficult to offend. So, if the feeling takes you, feel free to summarise to "If you don't know much about it, how come you're participating?"

I do, however, disagree. I don't reply to Pokemon threads either, not only because of my ignorance, but because I've no interest in it. However, I have a huge vested interest in gender equality - we all do. The way I view the genders has the potential to affect most of my waking life - how I see my place in society, and how I expect to be perceived by others in this 21st century world. I can abstain from having an opinion about Pokemon. I can do no such thing about gender. Additionally, how is someone supposed to develop their understanding if they feel the need to opt out of any discussion where they might actually learn something from people more knowledgable than themselves? Finally, the fact that this is a public discussion is relevant. It's the purpose and concept of a forum in the first place that topics be discussed communally. Not only does an interjection not prevent you from tagging the other person and continuing your original conversation (if you didn't want to start a private conversation with them), but the forum would soon fill with junk if I made a separate topic every time I wanted to talk about something I felt poorly informed about.

I may have covered that minor point a little too thoroughly, but it may come up in other topics, so it seemed worth typing.

That's not to say you are obliged to specifically teach me anything. We're all here primarily for our enjoyment, and if the feeling doesn't particularly take you, I've no problem with being passed over or told 'I've not really the time to teach you all that' or 'that goes against my knowledge, don't really want to get into it' or some such. It's cool you've gone to the effort, I was hoping you would, and I think I'll benefit from it, so thanks. But just saying. I don't want to be a leech.

I feel like somewhere between what I meant to communicate, and what you understood, there was a mixup. I don't think my post was very clear, I apologize. The pokemon comment was meant to be a bit of glib humor, but I think it really skewed the way my post was read. My point really wasn't about this forum. You are of course welcome to participate in this, or any other thread on this forum.

But lets say there's a completely different forum called "Feminist 400" or something. The forum is aimed towards people who have studied feminist theory for years of their lives. They discuss gender politics at a very high level of understanding. They use terms like "FlibFlabs," which to you mean absolutely nothing, but to them "FlibFlabs" is a handy term for some super complicated concept that would otherwise require a full paragraph to identify.

If you joined that forum and started posting very basic questions in their threads, you would be a disruptive presence. The members of that forum want to have a conversation with people who have a similar level of understanding to their own, they don't want to explain basic concepts for probably the 10,000th time in their life.

It'd be like butting into a conversation Stephen Hawking is having to insist he explain Newton's laws. "Go read up on it yourself" is just about the most polite response you could expect.

This kind of attitude is a persistent problem in feminist spaces. Because it is such a divisive issue which affects all of us (like you say, none of us can really ignore it) we feel as though we're entitled to participate in any discussion about it. All I'm saying is that it's important to try and recognize the difference between a basic conversation (like this one) where everyone is free to participate and voice their opinions; and an advanced or specific conversation, which it would be impolite to butt in on.

Quote from Silent Lion

Love this topic, but geeze there's a lot there. This should be interesting, because I regard myself as representing a certain type of onlooker: I try to be rational and logical, but I do not try to be educated. Purely for reasons of time. Just like so many things, I simply do not have time to become fluent in the names of feminists or MRA participants, in the history, or the legalities. I have to make do with the underinformed conclusions I can draw during my family/work-filled life. Even reading this thread is something I had to plan into my week. All too often people are pleaded with to 'read about it and educate yourself'. It's not going to happen. If I take the time to educate myself, I'm depriving that same time to my wife and daughter. And I think that applies to a great mass of people. How do you engage people like me? As an aside, this isn't strawman-ing what's been said by anyone here, it's an independent observation I've made prior to reading any of this.

I seem to recall glossing over this issue somewhat in the 14-page monster I posted above, but you're completely correct. It takes LOADS of time to learn and understand this stuff. Those who are trying to promote social change should not act as though it's super simple stuff that everybody ought to know already. No. It's confusing, and it's contrary to what we've learned all of our lives. (Cuz, ya know, we wouldn't need social CHANGE otherwise, right?) Unfortunately, people who promote social change rarely seem to be great communicators. And then there's the tumblr effect, where people spend all their time learning the arcane laws of the social justice movement just so they can treat people who don't follow those laws like garbage, and feel self righteous about it.

We must be more tolerant of ignorance. We could probably use a little more tolerance of intolerance even. And if we actually want to convince people that we know what we're talking about, then we must do more than tolerate. We must engage, and we must do it without anger, condescension, or assumed authority.

All that being said, it's also true that no one is obligated to be a teacher. If two people are having a conversation about feminist theory and some third party interjects to make the kind of banal objection someone who knows nothing about feminist theory tends to make, then the conversation's original two participants are well within their rights to be annoyed. "Read about it and educate yourself" is a fairly polite and tolerant response in that situation. Just because a conversation is happening in public does not mean anyone is invited to join. It's the same reason I don't involve myself in any of the pokemon threads that happen here.

Quote

And that doubles as something of a disclaimer for the opinion I'm about to express: Shouldn't men make better leaders? This is a difficult thing for me, because my logic is contradicting my social desire to regard the genders as equal. So, if anyone wants to disagree with me, that would actually be super useful. The reasons are evolutionary. Men are predisposed to be physically more able. We also seem to enjoy watching violence more than women. Fearless and 300 are two of my favourite movies, dumb as they are. My wife thinks they're boring because they're 'just full of fighting'. These psychological and physical traits, from an evolutionary point of view, would suggest that men are built to do the fighting/hunting whatever. Which gives us the advantage in claiming leadership. Men became in charge (the oppressors) for a reason. Nature isn't fair. None of that by itself makes men better leaders - everything so far is explanatory, rather than providing justification. But following on, wouldn't evolution select for better leadership in men? Especially considering the vast majority of human history occurred before the agricultural revolution when evolution still held sway. Futhermore, both men and women seem predisposed to see men as leaders ahead of women. Which, even if a man and a women are equally able, if the population more effectively follows the man, that must also be considered.

So, as I said earlier, it's really just not a good idea for anyone to try and use evolution to explain the way humans are unless they really, really, really, really know what they're talking about. You seemed to accept that, so I figure this point is mostly addressed. Because, for real, human evolution is the most god damned complicated shit ever oh my fucking god. Although, one of the points you brought up here is something I know a tiny bit about.

Bear in mind that I'm not double checking or posting my sources on this. I'm trying not to get carried away. If you're really curious I can try to find some verification for this later. But, anyway, here's my understanding:

Men and women probably had a much more equitable relationship prior to the agricultural revolution. We are biologically different, and in the harsh realities of an untamed world, those differences were more prominent. Yes, men probably did most of the hunting, women probably handled more gathering and tended to tasks closer to camp. But men and women would both have had a voice in decisionmaking. There are low contact / uncontacted tribes which support this idea.

Agriculture may actually have been the thing that really began the subjugation of women. After all, what's the biggest change to human society during the agricultural revolution? We stopped moving. We became stationary, tied to the land. Which meant we started viewing the land as property, and we started viewing that property as quintessential to our lives. And once we had property that was THAT important, we started to worry about who got to own it after we were dead. Which meant we started caring who our children were.

See, in pre-agricultural tribes, what we think of as a family unit probably didn't exist. Again, based on evidence from hunter gatherer tribes that have survived to the modern day, it's likely that the adults all had sex with one another, and the kids were viewed as children of their mother, and the responsibility of everyone in the tribe. Which isn't to say that men and women didn't pair off into couples, but if you want your man to go out and get some really nice meat, motivating him with promises of fucking the hottie in the hut next door are sure to get him going. Furthermore, there's evidence that a lot of folks assumed that children could be the result of more than one man. So if a woman wanted a baby, she'd fuck the strongest guy to make her baby strong, the smartest guy to make her baby smart, the richest guy to make her baby fortunate, etc. etc. etc.

BUT, that shit doesn't fly if you want to make sure that your land gets passed on to someone who is undoubtedly YOUR child. Ergo, a man started caring a whole lot about making sure his lady didn't fuck anybody else ever. Because if she only fucked him, then any children she had must be his.

Control over sex was the biggest bargaining chip that women had in primitive cultures. So when it was taken from them, the equity between the genders broke down.

But again, this is all very poorly understood, and it is further filtered through my own ignorance.

Quote

I feel a vague embarrassment about expressing this sort of opinion. And I think that's a big problem in society. I'm expressing it here because I'm very happy for people to change it, and because the internet provides a safer environment for this sort of thing. But I would never utter any of this at a dinner table. And opinions that are bottled often become radicalised, which explains a lot of the anger I've seen in MRA.

I've put a fair amount of study into this issue, and I come down firmly on the feminist side of things. But emotionally, I have the ability to access that angry 15 year old hidden deep inside my brain who thinks the MRAs are making a lot of sense. I have a certain empathy for them. If nothing else, I think they are mostly pretty sincere in their attempt to be rational. They just don't question their assumptions deeply enough.

And most people aren't very good at conversing on touchy subjects.

Quote

But even if everything I've said so far is true (which I'm suspicious of, to be honest) it still gets more misty. There is also obviously an element of social indoctrination that is difficult to separate from biological forces. Also, when any group of people (in this case it's men) end up in charge, things get better for the leaders and generally worse for those without a voice. And our progress as a species is largely a matter of defying our natures. I, as an illustration, am a vegetarian. This is against nature, I am biologically an omnivore, but I choose to override nature because I believe my morality to be philosophically superior to my 'nature'. Similarly with gender - if men really are better leaders, it still isn't fair, and therefore should be overridden. But when a country faces some immediate crisis, people will often vote for the more masculine candidate who is seen as more powerful and better able to deal with the crisis. And as there is always an immediate crisis, well that makes things strategically very difficult for the feminist movement.

I've found that socialization as a source of gender disparity usually makes a lot more sense to me than biology.

But yeah, we are biologically animals, but all of human history is an attempt to overcome that limitation. I mean, fuck, just look at science as a philosophy. The scientific method, most people would agree, is the best way for us to explore and understand our universe. But our brains just aren't wired to think that way. That's why it took the vast majority of human history before we figured out the scientific method. It's why we have to spend a huge chunk of our lives learning to use the scientific method, and it's why huge swaths of our population still end up ignoring or outright rejecting the scientific method as a set of guiding principals. We struggle to rise above our nature, it's an important part of being human. "It is the natural state of things" is a bullshit argument, no matter what you're talking about.

Quote

@LinkSkywalker , I'd be very interested to hear your views on marriage. I don't see that it enforces gender discrimination. Maybe it did once, but nowadays I think it does the reverse.

Marriage and relationships are kind of a whole other issue for me. In this thread, we're talking about how two halves of the population treat one another, and live together in a single society. Marriage and relationships are about two individuals. So my thoughts about it follow a completely different structure. It's not about what I want for the world, it's about what I want for myself. And I'm not looking to convince anyone else that my views are 'correct.'

Briefly, I'll say that it bugs me the way we bundle agreements together, and assume that anyone who agrees to one thing must also agree to two dozen other things or they're "doing it wrong." I love my girlfriend very deeply. I love supporting her, I love that I can rely on her, I love living with her, I love spending time with her and I love having sex with her. NONE of that means that I would be upset if she had sex with other people. Her body is her body. I hate sleeping in the same bed as her. We have separate beds, and often don't even sleep in the same room. And while the two of us haven't ruled out marriage or children, neither of those things is necessarily part of our future.

As a personal matter, I'm big on symbols. Symbols matter to me. So stuff like the father giving away the bride, the bride's dress indicating her virginity or lack thereof, these things bother me a lot. And as an antitheist, all the religious fluff on top of the ceremony also bothers me. Once you strip away everything about weddings and marriages that bothers me, you're left with a handful of legal and personal agreements which most people wouldn't recognize as "marriage."

I'd be happy to talk about that more, as I find the subject fascinating. (Brief, for me, is 3 paragraphs apparently). A conversation about the symbols in a marriage ceremony is actually part of what set me on my path to majoring in philosophy. But this thread really isn't the place.

Quote

And, as you mentioned it, here's the figures from UK government: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-…tner-abuse.html

The NHS (UK) summarises as "1 in 4 women" and "1 in 6 men" (http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/abuse…lence-help.aspx). Don't ask me about America. I read that as being more men than people might think, but still more women. I lived under an abusive relationship for a while, and I'll admit it's skewed my perceptions. I'm working to bring them back.

That's a tough battle. When you've personally been a victim, it's easy to feel like tragedies similar to your own are of paramount importance. Particularly when society does its best to downplay and erase your pain. Mad respect for the effort.

Quote

For this reason the one-way-violence thing is a very sore subject for me. And it's enforced in a lot of media. If anyone's had the misfortune of watching 'made of honor' , you'll know what I mean. But it's in a lot of movies. Even apparently forward films like Frozen. Anne decks the backstabbing Hanz. Yay, he deserved it! Probably did. How many movies end with a woman being decked?

Gender representation in media is...well, it's a bummer. On the one hand, something Zak Smith said once resonated with me. I'm sure I'll butcher it when I'm trying to paraphrase, but it was something to the effect of "It confuses me when people are upset by the failings of mass produced entertainment. It's like they don't realize it's all capitalist-motivated garbage in the first place." But at the same time, our mass produced entertainment is our culture. So it does matter.

My ladyfriend and I always get excited when we see a woman who is an equal participant in violence in film or television. The worst thing ever is a female character who kicks the ass of every man in the room, and effortlessly dodges every punch thrown at her until she's attacked by another woman. Because only women can defeat women. Bleugh.

Quote

As for the split between theory and practice, it depends on how courageous and selfless you're prepared to be. The only way to make something acceptable is to normalise it. The more people defend themselves regardless of the risks, the less likely the next set of people is to be treated with the same disdain. Martyring yourself is easier said than done, of course. But the principle is true.

Yeah, basically. Although personally I've made it to 28 years old without ever being in a situation where violence was necessary. I've had certain benefits to be sure, and I've been lucky on top of those. But I'm confident in saying that most violence can be avoided, and probably should be.

Quote

There is often a claim that feminism has gone too far and that things are going in reverse. I generally disagree with that, but there is an exception I'd like to raise - sexuality. It does seem that sexual promiscuity is what defines a "Womaniser" or a "Liberated woman", depending on your gender. Feminists seem to disagree about whether promiscuity is something that liberates women or something that is forced upon them by a leering male audience. But there seems to be more agreement about promiscuity being a bad thing in men.

People disagree about sex a lot. For a hundred million different reasons.

I haven't noticed that feminists are consistently anti-male-promiscuity. That has not been my experience. If it is true, then it is of course bad and wrong.

Quote

A final observation, about people's fucked up gauge, how a room with equally mixed men and women will be seen as having more women. I think it's more complicated than simple social indoctrination. Music production 101 theorises that high-pitched sounds gain the attention and grate on the ears more than low-pitched sounds, which often go unnoticed as they subliminally affect your feelings. This would not only explain the fucked-up gauge thing, but a lot of male leadership tendencies. As a case in point, Margaret Thatcher took vocal lessons. The coach taught her that when she wants to speak over other people, she should lower her pitch rather than raise it. Her political success was pretty instantaneous after that. Unfortunate, really, because I hate Thatcherism.

Well yeah, Thatcher was an asshole. =P

I'd be interested to know how the researchers involved would respond to that claim. However, I seem to recall that the experiment was also conducted with silent groups. Like "Here's 30 people, a mix of men and women, quick: are they equal, or is there more of one than the other?"

Though I don't have a source on that handy, so whoOooOoOOooOOooO knoOOoOOOOOoOOOOOOoooooows?

I appreciate your candor, and I respect the courage it took to be honest about thoughts which you know have a good chance of making you a target for the Internet outrage machine.

My time is super limited atm, but I will try to get back to you soon with the best response my also-uneducated ass can conjure.

One thing I did want to say, becaue it's one of my favorite axes to grind. Regarding human evolution, we don't understand it. Human evolutionary science is one of the most complicated fields there is. It is to biology what rocket science is to physics and brain surgery is to medicine. Even the person who knows the most in the world doesn't reeeeeeeally know much for certain.

So for you or I to take a highschool understanding of the basic evolutionary process and try to suss out the solutions to human issues...it's just not a great idea.

(Of course, what do I know?Maybe you're an evolutionary biologist and I'm just sitting here looking like a dumbass)

Sausage: 15 (+1)
Eggs: 0 (-1)
Muffins: 0 (-1)
French Toast: 16 (-1)