Posts by Silent Lion

Love this - Thunder by Maia Dietrich
[MEDIA=soundcloud][media][media][media][media][media][media][media][media][media][media][media][media][media][media][media][media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/media][/MEDIA]

Actually, I was so dumb I played the whole game to the end and still didn't get the Sheik / Zelda thing. When the big reveal comes around, Sheik says something like "There's somebody who wants to meet you", then Sheik disappears and Zelda appears. So I just thought Sheik had vanished as he always does and summoned Zelda on the way out, if you get my meaning. Then Zelda says "sorry about the disguise" and I was like, what disguise? Looks like normal Zelda to me. Then several weeks later I watched my brother play the same section and he was like, omg! Sheik is Zelda! Man I felt so dumb.

I always thought it was straight disguise, because the graphics in OoT aren't that definitive. But seeing some of the artwork, I'm starting the change my mind.

Barrinade always felt a little claustrophobic to me. Same reason I didn't vote for Bongo Bongo, even though I loved the atmo. Just like the dungeon. Is there a favourite dungeon thread? I should look that up.

Quote

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.

In other ways, the wedding was tailored to me. I think it leant slightly towards her ways because it was her childhood fantasy, not mine. But to bring it back to the bigger picture.

Weddings are changing. I don't know what it's like where you live, but around here, our sort of marriage (non-religious, woman not necessarily losing her name) is pretty common. Before long, the kind of wedding symbolism that you're talking about may become a minority choice, not a mainstream representation. It may even become a thing of the past (and good riddance).

Quote

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.

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.

Ah, no, not that. What I'm trying to get at is a social habit. What follows is my own observation, which is hard to quantify, maybe it tallies to yours, maybe not. Take a woman who likes some things which are considered masculine, like 300, but also a lot of feminine things. If someone makes some sexist remark, like "women like such girly things", she's likely to respond with "That's not true! I love watching 300 with my boyfriend" or some such objection. What she's less likely to respond with is "yes, that's right, I am girly. I like lots of girly things. And you know what? That makes me equal to you." Or when someone tries to argue that men and women are not so different after all, they're likely to do so with examples of women breaking their stereotypes rather than examples of men breaking their stereotypes. It's like men don't need to break their stereotype because we're already considered good enough.

Our equalitarian society still looks up to the male sphere as the ultimate social role-model. That needs to change.

Quote

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.

Makes sense. I have nothing to say on this. But you answered my question, and it was what you closed your post with, so it seems somehow ignorant not to acknowledge it. So, uh, there we go. Good for you!

Quote from LinkSkywalker

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 agree with that. What I don't know if I could ever see sex with my wife as anything other than a symbol of something deeper. Do I feel the need for the sex to be exclusive because it was the agreement when we got together? Or is it pre-determined in my neural makeup (and maybe not in other people's)? So, from a values point of view, if I had entered the relationship as a sexually open one, a) would we have bonded quite so strongly and b) if we had, would we get to a point down the line where I/she started feeling the need to make the sex exclusive? Does the exclusivity of sex make us feel romantically dependant on each other? And if so, there's potentially a big debate about whether that's a good thing or not. The unifying point in all that, for me, is that there's just too many unknowns. Sexual exclusivity starts to look like a very safe bet. In the end, is it inevitable that sex will become a symbol of something deeper? So -

Quote

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.

Not necessarily. Firstly, if you're right that the sex is a psychological symbol of something deeper, does it make a difference in practical terms? If the symbol cannot be separated from the action, then in practice, don't the two become almost synonymous? Secondly, you and I may simply be wired differently - maybe if I somehow experienced the same relationship you are in, I WOULD be bothered, for reasons that are more genetic than psychologically traceable. I'm not trying to degrade your choices, as I'm sure you know, but to the overall question of the value of monogamy, they seem like relevant questions. They are questions I find difficult to answer, and that uncertainty is part of what leans me toward monogamy, because that's safe. And such a long-standing and healthy relationship is something I like to keep as far away from risk as I can. Not that we couldn't handle it, but if it made us permanently less happy in some way we couldn't overcome, it would be a big price to pay to satisfy my curiosity. And to add to that uncertainty -

Quote

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.

My need for sexual exclusivity may be a semi-traumatic response to that experience. It could also be socially learnt. It could be hardwired. It could be something that's built into this particular relationship. So many possibilities, only one option that works for all of them.

I think at this point, I'd like to clarify the discussion by separating monogamy as a value (holding it as morally superior) from monogamy as a practice (a behaviour or preference). If we're talking about the former, I agree that it's silly. With the latter, well, with so many uncertainties, who knows, quite frankly. I have a theory that a great deal of the world's ills are caused by people's tendency to confuse preferences with morals. But I guess that's another topic.

Quote

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

Well, that's true for a lot of people. But my ex was shitty (details skipped for now, I'm not trying to appeal to emotion), and I loved her regardless, convincing myself there were reasons for her behaviours and that she was a good person at heart, like an addict rationalising his addiction. Even now I sometimes find myself trying to persuade my wife that it wasn't an abusive relationship, when I know it was. That would in fact support your view against marriage, in that it would make it more difficult for the abusive relationship to end had we gotten married (we were engaged). Having a long relationship before you get married helps somewhat, but to resolve this aspect of marriage we'd have to have a very lengthy discussion about domestic abuse. Solving the problem comes down to two avenues - dissuading marriage, or developing better means of detecting and intervening in abusive relationships. I opt for the second one.

Quote

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.

Nobody actually questioned the seriousness of our relationship before we were married. In many ways it was a self-inflicted pressure based on the assumption that people would take us more seriously. It was a bad reason to get married. Luckily, it wasn't the only reason.

Quote

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

A bit of both? We have separate accounts, but also a series of joint accounts for various purposes. We didn't at first, but when we started shopping together, instead of taking turns or trying to split it, we set up a bank account to store our shopping budget. More convenient to pay by card. Then when we lived together, we had a budget for the rent. Before long we were planning all our finances together. When we were saving hard for the wedding / honeymoon, we had to account and plan for every penny. And now that I stay at home and look after the kid, I'm not earning any money I could call my own if I wanted to. And now we're saving for a house. We still have our separate accounts, but we've been working together for the same goals for so long that it feels strange to think of my money or her money. It's just money.

Quote from LinkSkywalker

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."

Yes, that's what I was trying to say! Amazing.

Quote

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.

Fully agreed. Marriage can be an achievement and a milestone, if you're into that. Some people get married because they think it will magically fix their relationship. Bad news.

I haven't talked religion in years! I got myself quite the notoriety once. Good ol' days... :I<3U:

Quote

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

Muahaha it worked!

Quote

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.

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. 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. 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. When's the last time a guy went out in a dress purely in support of gender equality? Or tried to convince anyone they liked chick-flicks more than Star Wars or Lord of the Rings? So, a wedding day is something, in many ways, quite girly - all the wedding-themed movies, the pretty dress - a feminine event that is held up on a pedestal. Given all the shit women still take, they deserve a day like that.

And finally, as a celebration, it's nice to celebrate our relationship publicly.

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?

Quote from alakazam

Where did you meet her, if you don't mind my asking?

I'd just broken up with a girl and I was travelling back to uni (college). As I got off the train, I bumped into a friend. I was feeling empty and exhausted, like I just wanted to be on my own. But she managed to harass me into going out with her and her mates for a drink. One of her mates was Safron, now my wife. I'm not socially gifted. At all. Especially with girls and charm. But it was her who did all the work trying to chat me up. It was the weirdest experience - actually being chatted up? That was a first. Suffice to say, she didn't have to try very hard. Luckily for me, she was also a lovely person. And so here we are now.

Quote from LinkSkywalker

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

Good idea. Congratulations, btw, on finding happiness. It's like escaping a desert.

On to the potential disagreements :^o^:

Wall of text, here we come.

Quote

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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?

Nothing really. I was worried that people might answer 'Why yes, I do', to the first question, so I added that just to be sure.

Quote

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.

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

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

Sergei flinched. After all these years, he was still a wreck. It didn't sound like a straight brawl. It had the distinctive tone of the many preying on the few. Therefore, there would be no spoils - at least not enough to risk investigating. A protective hand felt for the scar beneath his heart. A silly habit, really. The scar had stopped hurting decades ago, and the last thing he wanted to do was draw attention to it. You could never be sure that nobody was watching.

He continued on quietly, confident that the ridge between him and the road would shield him from notice. He had a very, very long way to go, and it was no time for stopping.

Yes! Not normally a massive SW fan, but I enjoy them. I'm curious to see how Disney will impact the saga.
And that broadsword-style sabre! If they use it well, I'm excited. I hope it's not just a gimmick - if they have any sense they'll think of a practical application and purpose for it being that way.
I'm also excited to finally have questions answered like - what happens to the stormtroopers now?

Quote from alakazam

I'm not married, I would love to get married someday, but I've accepted the fact that it will probably never happen because the chances of me finding a partner whom I would love and who would love me are almost inexistent.

That's quite a statement! Love is unpredictable - cheesy but true. When I broke up with my partner for cheating, I'd completely given up on love or that anyone would value me in that way. That was also the day I met my wife. I know there's nothing more irritating than someone giving you sickly-sweet messages of hope when you're feeling hopeless. But, well, I do pride myself on being irritating.

So here it is - the marriage thread.

This could be a broad topic, but I'd be keen to know your individual thoughts on marriage - are you married / plan to get married / would like someday to get married? What's that about for you?

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?

Most of my thoughts are pre-emptive responses to what I think other people think, so I'll keep those to myself for now. I will say that, in general, marriage is a good thing when it is honoured, but that some of the traditions and circumstances that lead to marriage, and how that marriage should look, are often not good at all. 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 do you think?

Quote from LinkSkywalker

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.

Will do soon, but up to my eyeballs and not sure I can commit to another discussion quite yet. Gimme a week or summat.

Quote

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

No sir, just an addict ^^
Yeah, was meant as a tactical thing, mostly in terms of how women are perceived by the general public.
And it's telling that I automatically said 'general public' when I wrote that, when I really meant men, as if the two were equivalent. Looks like my mind needs some work done to it.

In terms of art and culture, I think easing off those standards is the last step of equality. It's that final step where we at long last turn off the spotlight and mentally absorb the formerly marginalised group as just another bunch of humans. It feels like we're close to that, although I can only talk about my own residence. Maybe you should start discarding those standards.

Quote

My point really wasn't about this forum.

Ahhhh ok. More agreeance.

I feel like we should let this thread hang open. It might be a good place to bring up any news on the issue in future.

Voted! @Kaynil, it's giving me the option to change my vote. Intentional?

Sorry for the jump-in post, I will read everything shortly. Just found this and feel very happy about it, seems relevant to the topic. https://i-d.vice.com/en_gb/article/…-uk-translation

^ So yeah, that rocks. ^

Anyhow, a lot of good stuff there. A few troubles, though, as in any good discussion. Incidentally, if you're ever short on time, don't feel obliged to respond to me in any particular timeframe. The TLDR version of what's to follow is that I've changed my mind about evolution, and agree on pretty much everything except whether or not I should have interjected. Let's have a looksee...

Quote from LinkSkywalker

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.

Well said. I do sincerely wish that gender equality activists gain some better tactical skills. It seems like they know the issues and the facts inside out, but neglect the most important weapons of social change - empathy and marketing. Empathy to understand the driving forces behind sexism and the reluctance to change, and marketing to change it.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

I had no idea about any of that. I always assumed sex jealousy was a preprogrammed part of our brains, as it is in the animal kingdom. I'll trust you on the sources and say that clears up a lot for me.

Quote

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.

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.

Makes sense to me. I'll concede that evolution is a pretty poor avenue to enter feminist debate.

Quote from LinkSkywalker

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.

Fully agree that nature /= morality. I therefore think that if the oppression of women is in any way natural (which, as I take it, is poorly understood), it doesn't tell us anything about how we should behave. It does, however, provide invaluable information that will affect how best to tackle sexism. It's hard to change something you don't understand. If, in the future, some field of psychology finds some cause of sexism that supplements the social causes, that can only be a good thing for gender equality. For now, though, as I said earlier, it seems as though scientific research has yielded little of use on this particular subject, so I'm happy to leave the 'natural causes' thing.

Quote

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.

Fair enough. I'd love to talk about it in some other topic at some future time. Happy to leave it alone in here.

Quote

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.

I wasn't really referring to feminists, more society/culture in general. But that's a bit vague, so meh, whatever.

Quote

Well yeah, Thatcher was an asshole. =P

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

Quote

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?"

Another thing I had no idea about - fair enough.

Well, that pretty much covers it.

Holographic tape! Old christmas lights (not LEDs), the smell of fake snow spray. These are the things that take me back to primary school. I have strong memories of nativity plays, staying up trying to spot the sleigh, and watching the Snowman as a 5-yr-old.

Behold, my face!

Obvs not. Cool man, I look forward to it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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. 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

No Zelda forum's complete without an RP section! Awesome! And I'm actually for not having any extra plugins. I always liked RP threads that were pure story based rather than game based. I guess we'll see how it goes. Role on!

I'm not that comfortable with instinctual morals. I know that makes me unqiue/bloody odd but I think there's a danger in mistaking tastes for morals. Like when people say 'that crap music she listens to' or 'what is he wearing?', it's people taking things that are subjective taste and trying to turn them into objective fact. If it can't be linked to anything intellectual I'd be suspicious.

^ HAHAHAHAHA!!!
< Likes cheesy jokes
V Cheddar ou brie, monsieur?