Gendered nouns, nonstandard and otherwise

Look just because someone believes they are something doesn't mean they are. Just like how Otherkin aren't actually wolves/rabbits/dragons and dictators are literally gods..

 

Sure it is. Up until fairly recently in human history, it was believed that cooking was a woman's job. That males who cooked were, by definition, homosexual. Express that opinion at a Texas grilling competition and see how alive you are by the end of the night.

Skirts were originally worn by men, and never women. They were functionally the only legitimate way to wear heavy armor on horseback... and then it became a non-military fashion. And somehow... eventually... for whatever reason... became a "woman" thing to wear instead of for men. Same deal with makeup and bright colors...

Not even that. Simply the "rules of behavior you're to follow because you have certain body parts". It's not a matter of a boy being raised to think they're a girl and thus should wear a dress. It's the matter of a boy being raised to think that it's normal for boys to wear dresses.

Men don't cry. Women are subservient. Men never turn down sex and thus cannot be raped by a woman. The list goes on. But I think the ultimate proof of gender mutability (IE: arbitrary and sometimes stupid rules that can be changed pretty easily) is the following logic train:

Men can wear cotton boxers or briefs.
Men can wear silk boxers.
Men cannot wear silk briefs.
Because those are panties.

 

Umm... that's an awful comparison. If you accept that a person can be a different gender than their bits say, then you have to assume that they can be raised into a specific gender.

Wat? Aren't panties a shape of underwear, not dictated by what it's made of?

 

Spoiler: Resizing isn't working for some reason

On the left top, fruit of the loom men's briefs, made of cotton and in a five pack. On the right bottom, a single pair of women's panties.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of design differences between them.

NO ONE can be the gender their parts say. Because parts say nothing about gender in the first place. Parts are a matter of sex (biological)... gender is a matter of cultural programming (language)... and the only influence one has on the other is what we choose to allow.

You can be raised into speaking French instead of English, too. But if you are, you'll likely just assume that it's normal to speak French. As opposed to thinking it's normal to speak English. When in fact, both are identically valid. And both are exactly as valid as those gender roles we're taught.

 

Um, those are things that are culturally expected of certain genders but not the actual gender itself. Just like how having sex doesn't necessarily make a boy a man or being a virgin doesn't make a man a boy. He's a man once he's reached adulthood. Also those things very from culture to culture. Scots still wear kilts, most of the western world has basically said fuck it to who's the provider and home spouse. Those aren't what define gender, that's just what people expect of you after it's already been defined. Likewise if a woman goes through the standard initiation for manhood in a culture that doesn't suddenly make her a man in their eyes or vice versa. If a boy wears a dress it's still a boy, if a girl wears pants it's still a girl.

 

Let's just stop you there. Gender *IS* the cultural expectations. That's it. That is literally the extent of what gender is.

You're confusing Gender with Sex. Still. Again.

Sex is biological. Baring certain genetic, epigenetic, congenital and occasionally chemical or surgical alterations, it's both absolute and binary... at least, it is in our species.

Gender is cultural: a set of behaviors, taboos and traits attributed (almost always erroneously) to and/or expected of the sexes... it is ever changing with the tides of opinion and culture, mutable in the same way language is mutable.

 

What the hell definition are you using? This sounds like when those femanists try and redefine racism and sexism. There is a simple definition in the dictionary, that is not it.

 

It's been the primary definition for over a century now... so... what did the feminist movement look like circa WW1?

Seriously, though. The term's modern usage originated in the relatively early days of social and abnormal psychology. A lot of our modern phrases came from that... hell, it birthed a whole new world of insults, with words like moron, idiot and retard originally being "clinical" terms to describe mental or physical disabilities. Those words really didn't exist in English prior to that, either.

I believe gender as such was popularized by the camp Freud created... after his time, but before Erikson... the same general period that came out with phrases like "Identity Crisis" and "Penis Envy".

 

Gender descends from genus, which is yet another word for "category".

EDIT:

"Give us the vote"

 

Psst. Rhetorical question.

Also... thanks for reminding me that once upon a time, feminism was actually a force for good in this world. Before the SJWs and other nutjobs came along and turned it into what it is now.

... It's like seeing the Mona Lisa used as toilet paper by Rosie O'Donnell after Taco Bell week. Using telescopic zoom.

 

You might find this discussion interesting if you want to know a little about what happened to feminism and how it was stolen from the actual women's rights activists. It's quite interesting.

 

Seriously? Is this where we're going to go with this thread?

 

Really, it's more like where it started than where it's going.

Ooh! Speaking of those crazies... I forgot to mention it here, but I got death threats a few weeks ago because my book includes a male character being raped by a female one... and apparently that's disrespectful to "real" rape victims... I dunno, I was too busy marveling at the sheer idiocy of the whole thing to pay attention.

 

I can post examples of "feminist" nutjobs if you want. Like that one that advocates camps for males, to isolate them from females.

Also killing off most of them.

 

There have always been crazies under any popular-but-unregulated label. I'd bet I can post examples of vegetarians being a million times worse, and that's a way more clear-cut label.

Also: (bold mine)

 

Yeah. But usually MOST of the normal members of those labels actively try to reject and distance themselves from the psychos, attacking them even harder than "outsiders" do in an effort to send the whole "that psycho's not one of us" message as loud as possible to the rest of the human race.

The new wave of feminism embraces, encourages and praises their loons. Just look at Sarkeesian.

 

I don't actually know much about Anita Sarkeesian, other than that there was a big Internet brouhaha about her approximately forever ago in Internet time. Tell me what you consider relevant and problematic about her.

 

Oh my god! Sarkeesian! That lunatic that made... No I can't say it... It's too horrible... Youtube videos! EEP! I said it!

Or the woman who did something offensive and then suffered from such a massive wave of clearly bigoted hate that she became something most serious feminists could point at and say, "fuck whatever she said, if you can look at the mountain of sewage she's buried under and pretend we don't have shit to clean up you're blind and crazy." Because I can get hating Sarkeesian and not being a misogynist, but pretending that because a few lot of people did makes all those very real and obvious misogynists innocent by association is pretty fucking hypocritical.

 

She's known for fabricating things to make it seem like everyone is attacking her. I'd be careful about using anything that happens to her for proof one way or another. It's how she makes her money.

 

I was using her as neither source nor character witness. I don't care what lies she told or fabricated, I wasn't there to hear them. When I talk about the shit tsunami that spawned, I talk only of the actual shit I actually had to wade through.

 

If a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch, why shouldn't we decry anti-skeletons on the grounds that some of them are crazy whackos too?

 

Way to actually address the point. /sarcasm


Seriously, though. Lemme know when you're ready to talk like an adult and I'll acknowledge you.

 

Please tell me you aren't stupid enough to believe that feminism is an actual united monolithic block instead of lots of multiple factions that sometimes compete with each other on the best way to help their goals.

FFS TERFS, sex positive feminists and political lesbianism ARE ALL COMPLETELY SEPARATE!

 

You haven't answered my first question.

I know Anita Sarkeesian made some youtube videos about sexism in videogames, and that there was a shitstorm about it. What makes her a loon?

 

Her videos are piles of shit with no basing in reality being that she hasn't actually played many of the games she harps on? How she harped on a game for having a "Save the princess" plot?

 

Well, to start with, she flat out lies in her videos... misrepresenting material at times, and outright prevaricating in others... Often spouting off much the same nonsense rhetoric as Jack Thompson before her. Long story short, what she said wasn't exactly new, original, or honest... and she got torn to shreds for it, much as Thompson did.

And both of them did the exact same thing after. They played the "I'm the victim" card. Didn't work so well for Thompson... I guess it's hard to get a lot of public sympathy when you're a rich, middle-aged, white, lawyer...

When Sarkeesian gets destroyed, she screams sexism and that she's the victim of a systematic conspiracy by men against her. And- this is where she's different from Thompson- people believe her shit. Because she's a "feminist", other feminists rush to her defense. Instead of treating her the way basically everyone treats Thompson.

And on the cycle gets fed. She plays the god damn victim card like her life depends on it... because it's the only one she has and she knows it.

But all of that is secondary. A symptom of the disease. The disease itself, the cancer at the heart of feminism, is the people who defended her. Not because she was right, or because she was being wronged- after all, if they believed in that, they'd be defending Thompson as well- they defend her because she's "one of them".

I don't believe one bad apple spoils the bunch.

I do believe that if you lay down with dogs, you wake up with flees.

 

Could you give some examples?

 

Pretty sure you're wrong here. It's somewhat recent that certain roles were swapped. All the chefs were men. Blue, for example, used to be a woman's color and red (along with pink) used to be for men.

Because Jack Thompson never had to deal with mass criticism.

Off the top of my head, (only because I don't look for her videos), her video on the 'outrageous sexism' in Hitman. 1 mission out of 25 or so takes place in a strip club. You're penalized for killing anyone other than the target, but Anita plays it up like you're supposed to kill the women you see.

 

Huh, someone that knows what they're talking about. Yay!

Of? Need something specific here, he talked about many different things in that post.

 

Because its such a shitty fucking cliche that is way way way overdone

I'd be more willing to entertain your spiel if I didn't personally see total fucking brain dead idiots who have no ability to entertain interpretations or into allegories or actually pass basic fucking high school English doing a lot of the shit flinging and whining about how she's a liar and a scammer because they're too stupid to analyze themes and messages in a work or believe it has absolutely none what so ever (idiots like Circle and Captain Titus for example).

Jack Thompson actually deserved the criticism andthe bolded is some of that failure to analyze I talked about.

No Tananari just vomited out his bile rant without ever actually providing evidence or specific examples other than his own opinion