Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: Faust on March 26, 2011, 12:36:23 pm
-
Most societies throughout the ages have had strict rules for male and female roles within society. While many religions now regard men and women as total equals, there are still differences concerning what they are expected to do to fulfil their contract with the society they inhabit. For example, even in this modern age, women are expected to have children and those that do not are considered out of the ordinary. Some women who choose a profession over having children view those that do differently as being inferior or having wasted their lives, as do some women who choose to raise a home and family over having a profession. Men do not make this choice, as they are expected in society to seek employment and provide for a family. While it does happen that you get househusbands and so forth, for the most part people have a negative view of them, some believing them to be "slackers" or taking the "woman's role" in the relationship.
Religious attitudes vary concerning the equal treatment of women, but many of the major branches of the world's Abrahamic faiths believe in gender equality. Genesis 1:27 states that "And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" and, while most people interpret this passage to mean that we are ALL created in G-d's image, some choose to claim that it reinforces gender roles due to the specific statement and splitting of male and female in this passage itself.
Related to this, Transgender people feel that they were born into the wrong body, thus have a hard time adapting to the role they are expected to fulfill in society. Those born male who feel female are unable to fulfil some of the expected roles of their preferred gender, even after surgery - they are unable to have children, do not have periods, and live with the knowledge that not every male will accept them in their new gender role. Likewise, those born female who become male are unable to fully utilise their genitalia to function as a male, are infertile, and generally suffer the same rejection from a large sector of society, sometimes resulting in situations like the movie 'Boys Don't Cry', a tale about a transman being murdered.
International Human Rights Law claims the importance of freedom of expression when it comes to gender issues:
"[/size]freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other experience of gender , including dress, speech and mannerism. Further, in Principle 3, that each person's self-defined gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom."
[/size]"The Yogyakarta Principles, which is a document on application of international human rights law, provides definition on gender identity. In the preamble, "gender identity" is understood to refer to each person's deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the person's sense of the body."
SO what are your thoughts? Are gender roles still important in our society? How far should they be encouraged, if at all? Does a man or woman who refuses to live up to gender roles still contribute in the way that they are expected to? Does a diminishing respect for gender roles leave Transgender people in a quandry concerning their condition - after all, if male and female are treated the same in society, aren't we effectively gender neutral? What hurdles might transpeople face when dealing with living as another gender?
What do you think?
-
Society still has a long way to go as far as allowing people to express themselves through their behaviors in a way that matches the way they feel inside. Most people, from my experience at least, will refer to Brandon Teena or Buck Angel as a "she," regardless of whether or not they disagree with their lifestyles. I don't know if I would go so far as to say that, without social constructs, all people would identify as gender neutral, but it's hard to say. You could argue that people would still identify as male or female, but the label would no longer carry any expectations of behavior. Then again, you could also argue that if we didn't have separate pronouns for he/she him/her, etc. that we might not even have a concept of gender other than the recognition of physical attributes, much like we have blondes/brunettes.
It's hard to say though, gender psychology is pretty complicated and I don't know of any cultures who are gender neutral, but someone more versed in humanities could correct me on that.
-
I think people complicate this a lot more than they should
-
While many religions now regard men and women as total equals, there are still differences concerning what they are expected to do to fulfil their contract with the society they inhabit.
umm
-
Yeah wait, what? what religion is this?
-
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have opinions concerning women's "duty" to have children. You can check it out in Genesis, Leviticus, and Deut. Unless you want me to bog this down by copying out the passages for you?
Let's not sidetrack this into a RELIGIOUS DEBATE immediately however. The aim of the discussion is gender roles and their importance (or lack of).
-
oh jesus stop it, none of the abrahamic religions are even close to considering women equals as men.
-
the garden of Eden story was in part created as a cop out for belittling women
-
oh jesus stop it, none of the abrahamic religions are even close to considering women equals as men.
Actually, Reform and Progressive Judaism BOTH consider women entirely equal to men. Check out any of the position papers by the rabbinical councils. Well people think of the Judges, they tend to forget the role of Deborah, a wise and fearsome judge, who rode into battle against enemies. She was female. There are many passages and stories about important women who saved the people of Israel - there are even festivals where they're honoured (like Purim which was celebrated recently). And moving on to Christianity, the Anglican faith's position concerning women is "different but equal". Anglicanism is the major religion of the UK.
So yeah, there ARE faiths which treat women as equal to men and consider women as equal to men. Just because there are many faiths that DON'T, it in no way reflects upon the entirety of the Abrahamic religions.
the garden of Eden story was in part created as a cop out for belittling women
That section of Genesis shows men in an equally negative light. Using it to belittle women specifically is a little ignorant - although I am aware that some people do that.
Then again, you could also argue that if we didn't have separate pronouns for he/she him/her, etc. that we might not even have a concept of gender other than the recognition of physical attributes, much like we have blondes/brunettes.
This is an interesting point - there've been some studies that show language being linked to understanding and how we conceptualise things. Even simple things like colour can be totally different based on our language and whether we have the words for things or not.
-
Woman was created from the man's body right? not from the earth as the man was right? Also wasn't the woman's purpose to serve the man? I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that somewhere. They weren't created equally...
-
it's a good subject, but at the same time I also kinda hate it. I've got a strong idea of how things should be, and when people argue otherwise it just annoys and frustrates me. in summary I think it's important to be able to reject gender roles, but I also don't think it's anyone's duty to do so. as a good person I think it's important for you to not attempt to enforce gender roles on other people nor judge them for not adhering to the rules. it is also important to evaluate yourself and your own opinions to that you can realize if you are judging something with an unfair bias
as for 'women choosing careers over children', all I've got to say is that if you're gonna have children you've got to be ready to put your whole BEING into caring for them and raising them, and that applies to everyone regardless of gender. how exactly that happens is up to the couple or whatever child-parent interface there is
obv only one reasonable opinion towards transgender people
so I kinda agree with mince's comment though it's impossible to to tell what he meant exactly since could it go either way
fuast what you're saying about those sects of judaism is interesting though I remain a little skeptical! kind of like how men and women are equal in america, right?
-
Woman was created from the man's body right? not from the earth as the man was right? Also wasn't the woman's purpose to serve the man? I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that somewhere. They weren't created equally...
Let's take a look at the actual story, shall we, before we jump into "Hey some dude told me such and such".
The first account in Genesis, beginning with 1:27 - the creation of humans.
27 And G-d created man in His own image, in the image of G-d created them; male and female created He them.
28 And G-d blessed them; and G-d said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth'.
29 And G-d said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food;
30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for food' And it was so.
31 And G-d saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Notice no reference to anyone "serving". Notice 1:27 - G-d created both male and female in His image.
Let's look at the SECOND account in Genesis:
2:21 - So the LORD G-d cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot.
2:22 And the LORD G-d fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman; and HE brought her to the man.
2:23 - Then the man said, "This one at last Is bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called Woman, For from man was she taken.
2:24 - Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.
Notice the equality in 2:24? The sense that man and wife make one being, becoming one flesh? I think it's quite a nice metaphor. Certainly nowhere in this account is it describing women as inferior.
That was your point right, that they WEREN'T created equally? Now I'm not going to deny that parts which come later can be interpreted negatively towards women, but we're currently arguing the CREATION of both. Nowhere in the Torah does it claim that they were created unequally, as you claim.
Anyway, Jewish tradition has it that G-d created fish before birds. He created birds before mammals, and then mammals before man. Each time, it is argued, G-d made something more wonderful and complicated. If we ARE viewing man and woman as having different worth in the eyes of G-d (which is a weird notion), surely Him created woman afterwards implies superiority? Hehe.
as for 'women choosing careers over children', all I've got to say is that if you're gonna have children you've got to be ready to put your whole BEING into caring for them and raising them, and that applies to everyone regardless of gender. how exactly that happens is up to the couple or whatever child-parent interface there is
I would concur personally. I feel that it's irresponsible of both parents to create a life and then not to put that life first, regardless of their genders.
]fuast what you're saying about those sects of judasim is interesting though I remain a little skeptical! kind of like how men and women are equal in america, right?
[Well yeah, to an extend definitely. Like there are female rabbis, but a lot less of them than men. I think that's a trend of the society that Judaism is currently a part of - we have women over here in the House of Lords, but obviously less than male members of the Lords. We have (at least by my memory of 2005) five Law Lords in this country, yet one of them was female.
I read a really great article in 'The Week' recently which countered someone's claim that women CAN succeed as long as they're willing to work harder than men. The counter-article claimed that we'd only have TRUE equality if there were as many incompetent women in the upper echelons of business and politics as men, not just competent men, incompetent men, and competent women.
-
you're assuming equality is fairness and that's a fairly massive assumption to make
-
western men are trained by our culture to be sexist and the only way we western males can keep from being sexist is to think about not being sexist every minute of every day forever
that's what i do.
-
many of the major branches of the world's Abrahamic faiths believe in gender equality.
when i read this sentence the image of a geyser of shit spewing feces mightily into the upper atmosphere just popped (pooped) into my head out of nowhere
one out of every six people on the planet belong to a religion which says that women can't serve as clergy, which is to say that only men are fit to relay the will of god.
the old testament is filled this crap that essentially amounts to "slut-shaming (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/what-is-slut-shaming/)," and other gems like dudes are worth fifty bux (http://bible.cc/leviticus/27-3.htm) but women are only worth thirty (http://bible.cc/leviticus/27-4.htm)
and oh man oh man islam is not any better. they've got your run-of-the-mill gender fascism plus an influential extremist minority to boot!
it might be fair to say that many of the major branches of the world's Abrahamic faiths don't really treat women like absolute shit, but to suggest that anything approaching gender equality exists in more than a thimblefull of abrahamic organizations is mad dumb.
-
western men are trained by our culture to be sexist and the only way we western males can keep from being sexist is to think about not being sexist every minute of every day forever
that's what i do.
I don't think that's true. the part about thinking about it all the time. probably has something to do with sexuality/relationship with women
you're assuming equality is fairness and that's a fairly massive assumption to make
so says the guy with a dual degree in philosophy and religion
-
when i read this sentence the image of a geyser of shit spewing feces mightily into the upper atmosphere just popped (pooped) into my head out of nowhere
one out of every six people on the planet belong to a religion which says that women can't serve as clergy, which is to say that only men are fit to relay the will of god.
the old testament is filled this crap that essentially amounts to "slut-shaming (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/what-is-slut-shaming/)," and other gems like dudes are worth fifty bux (http://bible.cc/leviticus/27-3.htm) but women are only worth thirty (http://bible.cc/leviticus/27-4.htm)
and oh man oh man islam is not any better. they've got your run-of-the-mill gender fascism plus an influential extremist minority to boot!
it might be fair to say that many of the major branches of the world's Abrahamic faiths don't really treat women like absolute shit, but to suggest that anything approaching gender equality exists in more than a thimblefull of abrahamic organizations is mad dumb.
Hmm, quite emotive, but I get your point. You're right - as I stated earlier, many religious groups DO use religious texts to persecute, and not just women. However, like I said, many of the branches of the major Abrahamic faiths don't. To claim that I'm being "mad dumb" for bringing up information based on the religious positions of various faiths is a little weird.
Oh, and where did I say that gender equality actually, or fully, exists? I said "considers". Just because you consider men and women to be equals doesn't mean that gender problems in society are going to suddenly be fixed. Men earn around 1/5 more money than women in the same positions when you get into the non-public sector professional world, yet we live in a society where women are proclaimed to be equal. Considering us to be equal, and then acting upon that, is not necessarily the reality.
I also pointed out that the CONSIDERING of women and men being equal doesn't fully equate that in a society where men and women aren't ALREADY equal, hence why there are so few female lords in the UK, so few female managers and so on, in comparison with men. In a society like that, it's natural that there will be fewer women vicars, bishops, and rabbis. It reflects the overall.
So YES - I will repeat, the point of the discussion wasn't meant to be religion, even though it has evolved to that. It's concerning gender roles and, more specifically, transgender people. It's fine if you consider all religions to be women-hating cults, but what do you (or anyone else) feel about gender roles in our society?
-
did anyone post Piss Christ yet good times
-
so says the guy with a dual degree in philosophy and religion
i don't understand this; i did a double major in psychology and religious studies... and what i said should be uncontroversial?
most of the arguments for equality equate to WOMEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE MEN. it's the old racist thing, "i don't even notice you're black! in my mind, we're all equally white."
men and women aren't the same and trans people are much more difficult an issue than people are making it out to be. e.g., can a male-> female transsexual be a feminist?
women should be allowed to be equal to men (by becomming
-
Like, do you mean equal to men as in terms of legal equality? because if you do then yeah but there should be a general census of equality with no difference between men or women. All of the personal, cultural, and religious stuff though is kind of a non issue as long as the law can protect either sexes from discrimination its all belief and those things are harder to control and take more time and learning for a society to accept that they're wrong.
-
i don't understand this; i did a double major in psychology and religious studies... and what i said should be uncontroversial?
here you're assuming "said" means the same thing as "posted", which is a pretty huge assumption to make. and I didn't think you actually did a double major in philosophy and religious studies.
I see what you're saying but it essentially comes down to word choice and concision, I think.
-
blah blah blah etc... etc... etc..
wow, that was a very frustrating post! you seem to have this weird schism in your head with a desire for women to be treated as full members of society on one side, and ignorance of religion's philosophy of women's roles on the other
i'll try not to belabor this point because it's pretty clear that we're on the same side of this issue, but man!
Hmm, quite emotive, but I get your point. You're right - as I stated earlier, many religious groups DO use religious texts to persecute, and not just women. However, like I said, many of the branches of the major Abrahamic faiths don't. To claim that I'm being "mad dumb" for bringing up information based on the religious positions of various faiths is a little weird.
first of all, i'm pretty sure you never mentioned religions persecuting anyone until this post. i don't know if you, yourself, are religious but your posts were a pretty one-sided defense of religion's treatment of women. that's why several posters in this thread, and i, felt the need to call you out on it. just sayin'.
second, just because a religion doesn't obviously persecute women doesn't mean they consider women to be equal. the torah, bible, and koran are the foundation of the abrahamic religions. these organizations' laws and attitudes are fundamentally tied to books that relegate women to roles in society that are separate and unequal from men. regardless of how egalitarian some splinters of these religions might try to portray themselves, they still believe in a "word of god" that lists women as unequal to men.
movin on
Oh, and where did I say that gender equality actually, or fully, exists? I said "considers". Just because you consider men and women to be equals doesn't mean that gender problems in society are going to suddenly be fixed. Men earn around 1/5 more money than women in the same positions when you get into the non-public sector professional world, yet we live in a society where women are proclaimed to be equal. Considering us to be equal, and then acting upon that, is not necessarily the reality.
i never said that you said that.
your insistence that 'saying you believe in gender equality does not necessarily equate with adopting gender equality' actually reinforces my point that "progressive" religions are only paying lip service to the idea of women as full members of society.
-
here you're assuming "said" means the same thing as "posted", which is a pretty huge assumption to make. and I didn't think you actually did a double major in philosophy and religious studies.
I see what you're saying but it essentially comes down to word choice and concision, I think.
it's a social not personal issue that text is interpreted as speech, if that's what you're getting at. or do you mean that equality and fairness are analagous to said and posted? or pointing out my use of 'fairly?'
the post was just meant to be a "think about this" but with more weight. my 2 cents. you're giving me serious post-post anxieties earlchip.
-
I was mimicking what you posted earlier about equality and fairness and I explained my reason for doing so in the second line of that post (talking about equality and fairness there, not saying and posting). I'm sorry, I just wanted to make a joke. you're making this out to be more complex than it is (the posts)
-
When I was in high school a girl in one of my classes said that women are supposed to yield to her husband.
-
I was mimicking what you posted earlier about equality and fairness and I explained my reason for doing so in the second line of that post (talking about equality and fairness there, not saying and posting). I'm sorry, I just wanted to make a joke. you're making this out to be more complex than it is (the posts)
you've made some clued up posts on feminism before and you have a habit of subtle snarkyness. i don't think people are saying 'equal' for bevity though, it really is "we should be the same (men)," if only because maleness is the default
-
wow, that was a very frustrating post! you seem to have this weird schism in your head with a desire for women to be treated as full members of society on one side, and ignorance of religion's philosophy of women's roles on the other
i'll try not to belabor this point because it's pretty clear that we're on the same side of this issue, but man!
There's no schism in my mind whatsoever. My defence of "religion" was NOT one sided, as you seem to be lumping all religions into the same boat. My point was that some Abrahamic faith branches are not only concerned with women's equal rights, but actively fight for them. I mentioned two branches of the religion that I follow that DO actively fight for women's rights, and that consider women to be equal.
I'm a little insulted by your claiming that I'm "ignorant of women's roles" in religion. The whole POINT of this debate was to DISCUSS women's roles.
I think the only one currently displaying a large amount of ignorance concerning religion here is YOU dude. You're lumping all religions together and acting as if there's a codified and unanimous opinion on the subject. You get that there are multiple faiths, right?
first of all, i'm pretty sure you never mentioned religions persecuting anyone until this post. i don't know if you, yourself, are religious but your posts were a pretty one-sided defense of religion's treatment of women. that's why several posters in this thread, and i, felt the need to call you out on it. just sayin'.
Wow, several posters "called me out"? You mean three, including yourself? That totally adds great weight to your argument! That two other people posted "women aren't equal in religion". And, again, you lump all religions together in their treatment of women. Oh, and I didn't mention persecution because that wasn't want the debate was about maybe?
You also seem to be unable to see a difference between religion itself and followers of a religion. "Religion" can't treat anyone as anything. It's the interpretation of religion by religious people that deals with "treatment" of groups.
Oh and "defended religion"? I actually specifically defended only two branches of Judaism and one branch of Christianity on the issue, so I wouldn't call that a "one-sided defence of religion".
By the way, the phrase "called you out" is a little ridiculous. It implies righteousness, as if someone has been caught out.
"Just sayin' ".
second, just because a religion doesn't obviously persecute women doesn't mean they consider women to be equal. the torah, bible, and koran are the foundation of the abrahamic religions. these organizations' laws and attitudes are fundamentally tied to books that relegate women to roles in society that are separate and unequal from men. regardless of how egalitarian some splinters of these religions might try to portray themselves, they still believe in a "word of god" that lists women as unequal to men.
Show me the "word of G-d" that lists women as unequal to men. I posted scripture earlier countering the idea that they were "created unequally', so how about you post some quotes to back up this claim that the Torah defines women as inferior to men. With a commentary or explanation of HOW they show this. I mean, you're speaking as if you're pretty clued up about religion, so why not impart some of your apparent knowledge instead of just claiming straight up that I'm wrong and "calling me out" eh?
your insistence that 'saying you believe in gender equality does not necessarily equate with adopting gender equality' actually reinforces my point that "progressive" religions are only paying lip service to the idea of women as full members of society.
Lip service? You do understand that having different roles, in society or otherwise, does not equate to being unequal? Equality does NOT mean treating everyone the same. As a past campaigner for Disabled people's rights, that's pretty much the FIRST thing you learn. Equality doesn't mean treating people the same, it means treating people with fairness and ensuring that the can access everything that people from other groups can. In terms of disability, this means access to facilities. In terms of gender, this means access to jobs and treatment. In terms of Judaism, it means female rabbis and women being allowed to read from the Torah.
The Anglican faith had the suffragettes. It also has the Women's Institute, which regularly campaigns for women's issues. It has women vicars, women bishops, hell - the HEAD of the Anglican Church is a woman. That's the national religion of my nation. Reform and Liberal Judaism allow women rabbis and full participation in all aspects of faith for women.
I can understand my slight bias, due to the fact that I am indeed religious, but what is your clear bias based on? And where's any evidence for your suggestions, aside from flat out claiming that all religions are misogynistic?
-
I find that as I've been getting older and less teen-earnest to learn about things (like the history of feminism, and stuff.) I've slid into a kind of combative area with the way I treat women. Like there is a tendency in me to think in a lot of gross, male thought patterns about women, and it's something I know I'm doing while I'm doing it and know it's wrong and have to stop myself and get back into a kind of thinking that makes sense and doesn't make me frustrated, confused, and hate myself. It's come up like this, I think, partly just cos of the course of my mind/body settling into adulthood and generally giving less of a crap (something I'm fighting in many areas), but that at least I'm still self-aware enough to call myself out on my own bullshit. I think I'll be okay, it's just maybe gonna be a difficult decade or so.
I've never had anything against any group of people, never even had the temptation to (which is why a lot of the time i just don't even get it!), but until the last couple of years I basically thought transgender = mental disorder. I always just assumed that anyone who wanted to change genders probably just had another problem they were too stupid to figure out and tried to fix it physically, but then I realized it's none of my business and who knows why anybody does anything, really, and I can't be making summary judgments on what the mental state of people I don't know is.
and so on. and so on.
I'm not really a soft-hearted person. I'm someone who needs to try to be good, instead of just being that way.
-
I think the only one currently displaying a large amount of ignorance concerning religion here is YOU dude. You're lumping all religions together and acting as if there's a codified and unanimous opinion on the subject. You get that there are multiple faiths, right?
- nope
- yes i am
- yes i do
I don't know much about eastern or animistic religions but that doesn't matter here because we have restricted the discussion to Abrahamic religions. I don't know of one holy text belonging to an Abrahamic religion (including LDS sects like Rastafariansm and Mormonism) that isn't shot through with passages that reek of misogyny. Generalizations are often bad, but sometimes, just sometimes, you can make one fairly. This is one of those times.
Wow, several posters "called me out"? You mean three, including yourself? That totally adds great weight to your argument! That two other people posted "women aren't equal in religion". And, again, you lump all religions together in their treatment of women.
Three people out of seven made posts before mine suggesting your thoughts on equality in religion were dubious. Every response to this topic directly discussing something you said in the original post brought up this point. This isn't statistically insignificant. Regardless, i guess this is almost a valid point since the number of people who believe something doesn't dictate its correctness.
Oh, and I didn't mention persecution because that wasn't want the debate was about maybe?
Ahaha dude! Okay, first things first:
I stated earlier, many religious groups DO use religious texts to persecute
This is the sort of thing I meant when I said your post was frustrating. Before reading this, I was pretty sure you were just assuming I was making points that I wasn't; That you either weren't noticing or understanding what I was really saying. Now I come to find that you don't even know what the heck YOU are talking about! Jeez!
Second: Now that we agree you never mentioned religions belittling women, it is fair to say that your assessment of gender equality was one-sided.
Third: This is not the first time you have tried to deflect criticism by restricting the scope of the discussion, and it's super-annoying. Religions dictate many of the standards of global society, so it is incredibly perplexing that you would say their views on women is not a valid topic of discussion in a thread about gender roles. ugh.
You also seem to be unable to see a difference between religion itself and followers of a religion. "Religion" can't treat anyone as anything. It's the interpretation of religion by religious people that deals with "treatment" of groups.
Ugh, god, this is just dumb, pointless semantics and you are ignoring the fact that it ought to be pretty darn clear to anyone with modest reading comprehension skills that when I say "religion," I mean "religious institutions and their constituents." Furthermore, I've already addressed the fact that adherents to Abrahamic faiths are promoting sexism simply by believing that every misogynist passage in their holy book is the will of an infallible god.
Show me the "word of G-d" that lists women as unequal to men. I posted scripture earlier countering the idea that they were "created unequally', so how about you post some quotes to back up this claim that the Torah defines women as inferior to men. With a commentary or explanation of HOW they show this. I mean, you're speaking as if you're pretty clued up about religion, so why not impart some of your apparent knowledge instead of just claiming straight up that I'm wrong and "calling me out" eh?
Remember when I said you weren't paying attention to what was going on in the discussion? Here is a quote from my first post, which features links to a passage in scripture. In this lovely reading we learn that, according to god, women are LITERALLY worth less than men.
dudes are worth fifty bux (http://bible.cc/leviticus/27-3.htm) but women are only worth thirty (http://bible.cc/leviticus/27-4.htm)
If god created men and women as equals, it sure didn't take him long to change his mind.
Anyway, asking me to provide scriptural evidence of misogyny is possibly the most obnoxious thing you could do. You insinuate that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm not familiar with scriptures like the Bible, but the fact that you don't think it talks straight shit about women proves that you've never read the damn thing yourself. Open it up and see if you can go fifty pages without running into something blatantly misogynistic. If you're still having a hard time finding what I'm talking about try reading the letters of Paul. Half of these things are just tirades against women.
Plenty of Suras in the Koran outline a husband's dominance over his wife. One, (I forget which) explicitly states that god made men superior to women. Furthermore, There is a passage from Hadith rattling around in my head that says the population of hell primarily consists of women, because women are often disobedient to their husbands.
In terms of Judaism, it means female rabbis and women being allowed to read from the Torah.
Ahaha man, I wonder what happens when they get to chapter three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus).
You never explicitly said this, but I am inferring you are a Christian?? Do you believe in the entire bible, or do you pick and chose? If someone in your church insisted that every passage in the bible is infallible, would you have the nuts to call them out?
-
also,
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
ezekiel 23:20
lol
-
- nope
- yes i am
- yes i do
I don't know much about eastern or animistic religions but that doesn't matter here because we have restricted the discussion to Abrahamic religions. I don't know of one holy text belonging to an Abrahamic religion (including LDS sects like Rastafariansm and Mormonism) that isn't shot through with passages that reek of misogyny. Generalizations are often bad, but sometimes, just sometimes, you can make one fairly. This is one of those times.
And yet, you've not provided any from the Torah so far? I asked for examples - they haven't currently been provided.
Three people out of seven made posts before mine suggesting your thoughts on equality in religion were dubious. Every response to this topic directly discussing something you said in the original post brought up this point. This isn't statistically insignificant. Regardless, i guess this is almost a valid point since the number of people who believe something doesn't dictate its correctness.
Haha, my thoughts are "dubious"? Dude, you're using "HEY OTHER PEOPLE SAID THIS" as the basis for your argument against religion! Farren insisted that the origin story of creation was anti-woman, I showed that it wasn't. What exactly are your criticisms again, aside from "HEY RELIGION HATES WOMEN"?
Ahaha dude! Okay, first things first: This is the sort of thing I meant when I said your post was frustrating. Before reading this, I was pretty sure you were just assuming I was making points that I wasn't; That you either weren't noticing or understanding what I was really saying. Now I come to find that you don't even know what the heck YOU are talking about! Jeez!
Haha, I don't know what I'm talking about? How do you figure? I feel the guy who immediately became insulting must know what he's talking about, right? I mean, you're once again criticising with absolutely no substance behind your points.
You claimed all religions were misogynistic, then refused to accept Anglicanism and branches of Judaism having an equal stance and acceptance of women, instead lumping all religions together. Great points dude, you're really proving that you know your stuff!
Second: Now that we agree you never mentioned religions belittling women, it is fair to say that your assessment of gender equality was one-sided.
Nope. I specifically mentioned that some religions view women as equals, regardless of gender roles that some feel exist. I mentioned two specific examples.
Third: This is not the first time you have tried to deflect criticism by restricting the scope of the discussion, and it's super-annoying. Religions dictate many of the standards of global society, so it is incredibly perplexing that you would say their views on women is not a valid topic of discussion in a thread about gender roles. ugh.
I love how you construe "keeping the topic on focus" to "deflecting criticism"? I haven't deflected anything - I've responded to everything. You're the one who seems to be using a topic about gender roles and transgender people to attack religion.
Ugh, god, this is just dumb, pointless semantics and you are ignoring the fact that it ought to be pretty darn clear to anyone with modest reading comprehension skills that when I say "religion," I mean "religious institutions and their constituents." Furthermore, I've already addressed the fact that adherents to Abrahamic faiths are promoting sexism simply by believing that every misogynist passage in their holy book is the will of an infallible god.
Hmm, I don't think so. And more insults, insinuating that I lack modest reading comprehension skills? Wow, I don't want to toot my own horn here, but I teach English. But of course, don't let that stop you from adding emotive bullshit to your responses. I mean, if you haven't got the substance you better sure as hell rely on those persuasive devices! And yet you haven't provided the passages, yeah?
You do understand that Reform and Liberal judaism don't even hold the Torah itself to be the word of G-d right? Or are you just assuming because some do that all religions do? Maybe you should RESEARCH some religions before randomly lumping us all together, eh?
You haven't addressed the fact at ALL, especially as it isn't a fact. You've instead made vague assertions to things.
Remember when I said you weren't paying attention to what was going on in the discussion? Here is a quote from my first post, which features links to a passage in scripture. In this lovely reading we learn that, according to god, women are LITERALLY worth less than men.If god created men and women as equals, it sure didn't take him long to change his mind.
Anyway, asking me to provide scriptural evidence of misogyny is possibly the most obnoxious thing you could do. You insinuate that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm not familiar with scriptures like the Bible, but the fact that you don't think it talks straight shit about women proves that you've never read the damn thing yourself. Open it up and see if you can go fifty pages without running into something blatantly misogynistic. If you're still having a hard time finding what I'm talking about try reading the letters of Paul. Half of these things are just tirades against women.
You don't know what you're talking about. I asked you to provide evidence from the TORAH, and guess what, you haven't, except for a mention of Leviticus later on that has restrictive rules for both genders. The fact that you keep mentioning "The bible" as a whole shows your lack of understanding of the Abrahamic faiths.
I've not only READ it, I've STUDIED it. A large part of my faith INVOLVES study and criticism.
And again, you mention Paul? Hmm, I forget where he fits into the Torah, or even the Tanakh. Remind me? I mean I AM a follower of an Abrahamic faith, I MUST be into Paul right? I'm actually a little insulted by you using Paul against me, given the personal views I have about him. Nevertheless, he isn't in the Torah, thankfully.
[quotePlenty ][/quotePlenty]Ahaha man, I wonder what happens when they get to chapter three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus).[/quote]
They attend a group every week where they can discuss what the laws in these section entail? Or they read the Talmud, with its 83000 pages of commentary, disagreements, and explanations of rules, then make their own minds up about how best to adhere to them?
You never explicitly said this, but I am inferring you are a Christian?? Do you believe in the entire bible, or do you pick and chose? If someone in your church insisted that every passage in the bible is infallible, would you have the nuts to call them out?
I'm not a Christian. I'm into Reform Judaism specifically, if you hadn't worked it out from my referencing. Reform Judaism doesn't believe the Torah as the literal words of G-d, dictated to Moses, but instead as a historical text of the Jewish people's interactions with G-d. Divinely inspired as opposed to dictated. This is the only section of the entire Tanakh that IS claimed to be dictated by G-d, even for the ultra-orthodox jews. It's believed that the prophets speak for G-d, in their own words. The writings are just that - historical writings.
If someone at my shul insisted that every word in the "bible" was an infallible message from G-d then yes, I'd definitely call them out. Nobody would there, however, even if I attended an orthodox synagogue. Unless I brought up the Torah in the latter, of course.
-
on the second year of my degree, I created a series of works based around Barbie and Action Man. They're used to like promote the idea of clear gender roles to children, girls are brought up with dolls about fashion, cooking and babies, and boys its about going to war. I perverted that by making this kind of weird bondage fetish world, the action men in gimp suits and such being dominated by these barbie dolls who had become mutations and were all hideous. There was also a cross-dressing action man on a throne screaming in a way akin to francis bacon's screaming pope paintings (bacon himself crossdressed in his youth and was homosexual).
Just thought I'd throw that out to y'all
-
you've made some clued up posts on feminism before and you have a habit of subtle snarkyness. i don't think people are saying 'equal' for bevity though, it really is "we should be the same (men)," if only because maleness is the default
maybe so. I guess I was talking mostly about myself and possibly others. it can be an important point for those who have not considered it tho, particularly if you're just like "yeah whatever we should be equal (aren't men and women equal already? (if anything women are more equal than men because you can't hit them and you have to put the toilet seat down))"
and I think I used to pretend to be at war with you for some reason I can't really remember (jokes?) but that's all water under the bridge now. I'm a new man.
-
I just want to point out that you said this:
Religious attitudes vary concerning the equal treatment of women, but many of the major branches of the world's Abrahamic faiths believe in gender equality.
And then provided only 3 examples of denominations with which this is true, two of which are only really practiced in the UK. The other, Liberal Judaism, has a little over 1 million followers, out of 14 million total followers of Judaism. For contrast, there are around 38,000 denominations of Christianity alone. I don't see why you're being so defensive about this. Almost every, if not just every major branch of Abrahamic religion has misogynistic tendencies. Just because your fringe church doesn't does not qualify as the majority.
-
I just want to point out that you said this:And then provided only 3 examples of denominations with which this is true, two of which are only really practiced in the UK. The other, Liberal Judaism, has a little over 1 million followers, out of 14 million total followers of Judaism. For contrast, there are around 38,000 denominations of Christianity alone. I don't see why you're being so defensive about this. Almost every, if not just every major branch of Abrahamic religion has misogynistic tendencies. Just because your fringe church doesn't does not qualify as the majority.
I didn't think that I needed to post tons of examples of religions as I didn't believe the fury about my claim that many of the major branches of the world's Abrahamic faiths believe in gender equality would be quite so absurd.
I'm being defensive because of the insulting nature of the discussion thus far. I'm defending the practisers of religious faiths that AREN'T misogynistic.
Which two were only practiced in the UK by the way? Actually Liberal AND Reform Judaism treat women as equals. Plus they're two totally separate branches of a faith. 42% of American Jews are Reform, meaning that 2.3 million Jews out of 5.2 million Jews in the US are part of my specific branch. Considering that the rest is split between the Liberal, the Reconstructionist (who aren't religious), the Orthodox, and the Conservatives, I don't see how you can call the religion I follow a "fringe church".
Only 25% of the Jews in Israel consider themselves "Orthodox". 7% o the Jews in America do also, whereas 42% of American Jews are Reform.
So no, it isn't a "fringe church", and it's insulting that you would say so.
In the UK, around 25 Million people proclaim to be of the Anglican faith, which is the major religion here, so also not a "fringe church". And what do you mean "only practiced in the UK"? The 77 million Anglicans are spread across many nations. 36 Million Anglicans live in the African continent, while the others are in the US (Episcopalians), Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. So also, a major world religion.
I'm being defensive about my faith due to the fact that it is being claimed that it is a misogynistic faith. You yourself are dismissing my religion as a "fringe church", and wondering why I'd get defensive?
PS: You're confusing "Jews" for followers of Judaism with your claim that 14 Million (it's 13 actually) follow Judaism. The 13 Million includes the secular jews in Israel (who are the majority), the Reconstructionist movement (who aren't religious but a cultural movement), and the many Jews that are atheists. The false use of these groups inflates the statistic, making Reform Judaism look smaller to a "majority" of Non-Reform Jews. In reality, Reform Judaism is in constant competition with Conservative Judaism for the majority position of the faith. Conservative Judaism, despite the name, is actually a very liberal faith also. So no, not a "fringe church" at all. We don't refer to it as a "church" either, by the way.
I'm fully willing to accept that the Orthodox Jews often show misogynistic beliefs and tendencies, as do a lot of the Christian faiths, as well as the Islamic. I'm not willing to accept the claims that "all religions are the same", or the they're all misogynistic either. It's insulting to my faith, my community, and is a pretty prejudiced claim to make.
-
just because you follow a progressive branch of your religion doesn't mean the actual religious texts aren't horribly misogynistic and sexist. unitarian universalism is extremely accepting and progressive, but, like the progressive branches of judaism, this is because they REJECT THE SEXIST/MISOGYNISTIC PARTS of their holy texts. if you follow the torah or the bible or the quran down to the tooth you would be one horrible motherfucker.
-
then again if anyone seriously believes any of this ridiculous shit they're pretty worthless anyway, sooo.
-
lots of long posts but nobody's really touching on the real topic ofthe week here: would you bone a hottie if she had a dong??? would you bone a dude if he had a cunny??? would your answer be the same if your buddies would find out???? let's get down to brass tacks here people...
-
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/images4.cpcache.com/product/37170344v5_480x480_Front.jpeg)
-
just because you follow a progressive branch of your religion doesn't mean the actual religious texts aren't horribly misogynistic and sexist. unitarian universalism is extremely accepting and progressive, but, like the progressive branches of judaism, this is because they REJECT THE SEXIST/MISOGYNISTIC PARTS of their holy texts. if you follow the torah or the bible or the quran down to the tooth you would be one horrible motherfucker.
It isn't about rejecting the "sexist" parts, it's about analysing and interpreting what they mean. As I said earlier, the Talmud is 83000 pages of commentary on the Torah and what it actually means. Arguments are constantly present in it, as it's a collection of articles written by rabbis over a thousand year period. Even the Orthodox argue about the reasoning behind each mitzvah.
Case in point - Lesbians. There's no Torah prohibition about Lesbians whatsoever. However, in the Talmud, there are articles saying that Lesbians are absolutely fine, and others saying Lesbianism is a bad thing as it leads to less future Jews. Neither is more correct than the other religiously, so you're free to make your own mind up.
Reform Judaism holds that Judaism needed to modernise to fit in with a modern world. Anyway, all branches of Judaism are "progressive" aside from Orthodoxy. Thus only a small fraction of Jews actually practice a "non-progressive" religion.
My argument has NEVER been that all religions preach equality between the sexes. Just that ALL religions aren't misogynistic.
then again if anyone seriously believes any of this ridiculous shit they're pretty worthless anyway, sooo.
Wow, that's also quite insulting. So if anyone is religious they're worthless? I mean weird or deluded I could shrug off, but WORTHLESS? Seriously?
By the way, I find it weird that you would say this, given that when Xanqui and I were mocking a religious anti-homosexual website before in IRC you started saying that we were "AWESOME ATHEISTS" and we thought we must be better than religious people due to being "AWESOME ATHEISTS". You were pretty indignant about it.
-
Awesome Atheists...now there's an AA meeting I could get on board with....
-
By the way, I find it weird that you would say this, given that when Xanqui and I were mocking a religious anti-homosexual website before in IRC you started saying that we were "AWESOME ATHEISTS" and we thought we must be better than religious people due to being "AWESOME ATHEISTS". You were pretty indignant about it.
lol what are you talking about
but yeah, i'd say worthless is a good adjective for followers of organized religion.
-
God sounds like The Straight Male Gamer, lesbians rule but gays drool. Sodom and gomorrah? pwned bitch, lemme see some girl on girl
-
are you confusing god with queen victoria?
-
ol what are you talking about
but yeah, i'd say worthless is a good adjective for followers of organized religion.
That's incredibly offensive, but ok. You're down on various communities that you perceive as being prejudiced against groups, yet you're decrying every follower of an organised faith as being worthless? Are you being intentionally insulting to make a point, or are you genuinely saying that I (along with billions of others) are actually worthless?
God sounds like The Straight Male Gamer, lesbians rule but gays drool. Sodom and gomorrah? pwned bitch, lemme see some girl on girl
Sodom and Gomorrah isn't about homosexuality. In the entire Talmud (the commentary book of Judaism) the only references to the sins of Sodom is their inhospitality and criminal acts towards strangers (outsiders). In the book we use for Shabbat service there's a few pages about the "Sins of Sodom" also - nowhere in the list of crimes is anything vaguely sexual mentioned.
Of course, there's always good ol' Lev 18:22 to fall back on. Unless you're aware that even the Orthodox believe that only applies to Jews themselves and NOT gentiles (thus gentiles are fine for as much bumsex as they like AND still G-d will love them). The other branches of Judaism (making up the huge majority) see it in various ways. Conservatives has that it applies to only the act of anal sex itself, Reform has it that it applies to a Jewish man playing the passive role. Liberal Judaism has no restrictions on it at all.
None of the interpretations are against the DESIRE of homosexuality, merely against certain acts themselves. Even the Orthodox Jewish Rabbinate of the US put out a statement last year saying that homosexuals were NOT to be persecuted or shown prejudice in any way or form. The non-Orthodox Jewish faiths here are actively campaigning for gay marriage to be legal and called "marriage", alongside the Quakers.
-
yeah mark, i'd bone a hottie with a dong. ive chatted a few up before but they got very weird and sexually aggressive... and not in the good way
-
Wow, how did i miss this topic? Any way, i can post my views which might help the topic seeing as i'm yah know, an actual trans person. Whilst you can argue all you want about how in society were effectivly equal, were not, and as far as i can tell were not equal in two ways.
The first is in how men percive women and vica verca, what i mean is like how men are (as far as i know) payed more, get promotions easier and so on becuase men are percived as better by other men and perciced as diferant but not better by women; women however often get payed less, have to work harder to achive there goals and as much as i hate to admit it resort to using the fact there women to get what they want. This is becuase, no matter how you want to spin it is a male oriented world, from the way buisness to even how we interact in simple transactions, i'ts done in the way of men, even inovasion and changed caused by women are still done in a male way and unless this can change men and women won't ever be equal.
The other way men and women are not equal is emotionally, the male gender steryotypicaly has to effectivly "Be the man" as far as i can tell this is usally, trying to be the strong one, do every thing theselves, and above all else be stoic whilst women are the opposit. You might disagree but that's what i feel from what i've read on this topic, men and women have diferant pressures and this results in a differance emotionale presures. afterall why are "nancy-boys" or queers or gay boys and so on thought of as beeing less male? becuase they tend to be more open about everything including ther emotions and often ridiculed for this, same for lesbians by women(well in the opposit way, being butch i mean).
Yes it could be thought of as gut reaction to protect there masculinty/femininity that for some reason being queer is a threat against (closet gay?) but either way it won't change that it happens that way.
Honestly speaking i think if both gender's truley were open to anything then the world would be a better place, after all prejadice is becuase of differance and no matter how similair a man and women are you can't get any more differant.
-
Swordfish that is really interesting, it's always useful to get a minority's perspective concerning issues relating to them. You're totally correct about women getting paid less over a lifetime, but this itself is an issue which affects the already well-paid. Like over here, there are so many people earning minimum wage that both genders are pretty much screwed over on the bottom rung. When you get into management though, women tend to be paid a 1/5 lower, depending on the position. In the Public Sector professions we have PAY SCALES so both genders earn the same. I think there are steps being taken in the right direction on this front, but women suffer at the top due to the discrepancy of pay as WELL as the fact that so few manage to achieve the positions in comparison with men.
I can't remember whether or not I've already mentioned this idea, but in 'The Week' this week there was an article claiming that we can never claim to have true equality in society until there are just as many incompetent women in the top rungs of management as there are men. Currently the upper circle is apparently made of competent men, competent women, and incompetent men. Women have to prove themselves (that they're "as good or better") than men to get these jobs.
I've been reading a pretty good book recently called "Queer Theory and the Jewish Question". It's a series of articles about perception and representation of LGBTQ people and Jewish people. There are so many links between the two communities, and perceptions of those communities, it's pretty weird. I mean you mention the idea of gay people being "less male" than "normal" men, which is a common perception. Effeminacy is used in a derogative way, implying that it's a negative thing to have female qualities when you are male.
I love the implication that gay people are a threat too, and the idea of the "GAY AGENDA". As far as I'm aware, the gay agenda seems to be "please don't be prejudiced against any gay people", but certain groups here instead interpret it as "RECRUITING MORE GAY PEOPLE".
Can I ask (as a sidenote) are you a transman or transwoman?
-
I'm a transwomen, I wasn't insinuating that men are less manly because they show emotion, It's just that's what i feel as to the reason as to why there attacked by other men, personaly i think that men that can show emotion are more manly becuase to do so would mean there confident in there own masculinity to not feel threatend that showing emotion would make them less so.
The only reason that i can see that a man might fear homosexuality is becuase it might cause people to view them as being less manly when viewed in comparison or less manly becuase other's can see similarities in the man to a gay man and thus not wanting that to happen attacks what they belive to be the cuase of the fear.
In other words it's usualy becuase men fear that being near a gay person will reveal the "gayness" inside, this usualy has two reactions, One) attack the gay person, Two) overboard it on the machoness to make them feel more masculine (on a note, thats what gay men are atracted to so won't that make them more atractive to gay men?).
I've done a BOAT load of reading on the subject of differance between genders, from the way we think to how we physcally move so whilst i don't know know as much as say professional i do know enough to form some coheront idea's on the subject (well i'd like to think so at least).
EDIT: want to see a picture?
EDIT: I'm kinda tempted to start a "ask a transperson" type thread for those who whom are curious.
-
I'm a transwomen, I wasn't insinuating that men are less manly because they show emotion, It's just that's what i feel as to the reason as to why there attacked by other men, personaly i think that men that can show emotion are more manly becuase to do so would mean there confident in there own masculinity to not feel threatend that showing emotion would make them less so.
Oh I didn't mean to imply that I thought that YOU meant that, just that many others do think that. It's a stereotype of gay men, being weak and flamboyant and more inclined to comment on shoes than sports.
PS: Picture? Sure!
PPS: A thread might be a good idea as I was talking with someone the other day about how you can't really understand where a minority is coming from without interacting with that minority. I mean, you can never see through each other's eyes really, but it's nice to be more clued up into things like this.
-
All right, i'll do that, ill post a new thread, should be interesting.
On gender rolls, in an ideal world any man/women could do any job, but this is reality and men and women do have diferances, physical and mental and a such these diferances leade to being more suitable at certain jobs, personaly i think women are far better at being managers, men are far better at on jobs that require long periods of concentration. Whilst any job CAN be done by any person, men and women will exceed at certin jobs that the opposit gender won't, fact of life; i think that's partialy why gender rolls came around and we just pulled it in from what jobs you can do to litteraly how a man and women should live/act.
-
hey peeps. like, Swordfish, i also have much personal stuff to contribute to this discussion!
first off let me just remind you all that i am no longer the prejudiced little girl in denial that i used to be. i am still much the same-- i mean, i didn't just "grow up" and suddenly change every belief i've ever had. like, i'm still a Christian, for example, but i have made my faith my own. so to those who thought i was still the same as i was when i first started posting on GW (at age SIX, ffff): uhh, don't be surprised at all the stuff i'm about to say. (i've talked about this stuff in IRC before but imma post it here now)
so yeah. i am almost 17 nowadays, and i have become involved in the LGBT community within the last 2 years or so. it started when i became best friends with 2 people from my art class, one of whom was a transgender girl (physically male), and the other was a pansexual girl. they were dating at the time that i first met them. long story short, they changed my life.
nowadays i identify as a pansexual polyamorous genderqueer. i'm pretty set with this label. i used to be totally in denial of everything relating to this stuff, but now i'm open and happy. but yeah, i don't believe in the gender binary, and i don't like things that distinguish by sex or gender. i am pretty androgynous. i don't really think of myself as either a guy or a girl; i am fine with either. i prefer the pronoun "they" to any other, even when referring to a singular person. and i am pansexual, so i am pretty much gender-blind. i don't consider gender when developing a romantic interest in someone. i have a slight physical preference for guys though, but maybe that is just because that's what i've had more experience with :P currently i have an awesome girlfriend though, who i've been with for just over a month. :3 but yeahh. gender roles are silly, and i encourage their defiance~
i'll explain more about my views later if i feel like it, or if anyone else has questions or something.
-
nowadays i identify as a pansexual polyamorous genderqueer.
-
I was about to do the same thing
fucking kids these days
there is no definitive classification for male or female except for the sexual organs and the following physiology everything else is subjective
-
Actually Queer isn't a new term for LGBT people. Queer tends to be either an umbrella term, or alternatively a term for people who find the traditional "homo/bi/heterosexual" labels to be misleading or restrictive. Genderqueer is a newish term, implying discomfort with traditional male/female labels. Pansexual just means that it goes beyond bisexuality in that they find sexual attraction to all people regardless of genitalia. I'm a bit confused about pan-amorous (it sounds like some form of attraction to kitchenware), but I don't think mocking someone for using a term to define themselves is acceptable.
Farren, sexual organs aren't a reliable indication of gender. How would you account for people suffering with intersex conditions, of which there are dozens (conditions that is, millions of people globally). Where chromosomes are male or female, but genitalia is ambiguous or of the opposite gender? Genitalia can usually be a reliable guide to gender, but it isn't the be all and end all. I mean, if we're entirely going by physical exterior genitalia as a guide, how would you describe someone born with ovo-testicular tissue instead of ovaries/testicles, and streak gonads? They don't fit into either male or female in terms of their sexual organs - you'd have to base it on chromosomes instead.
And then, oh shit, what if they also (as is quite likely) have YXX or XYY or are "males" with XX?
As a SIDE NOTE - I've always been considered androgynous (hey remember the 2001-2003 GW meme "FAUST LOOKS LIKE A GIRL/ FAUST LOOKS LIKE AVRIL LAVIGNE LOLZ"), but it's something that's actually bugged me quite a lot. It used to bother me sometimes back at GW, but it was something overall I learned to live with. I can't grow facial hair, so I don't really have a quickfire way to change it. I just thought adding a FLIPSIDE to the coin - a man who defines himself as a man yet for the last decade has regularly had people flat out ask his gender OR make comments about it - was relevant. I imagine that my face will become more RUGGED when I get into my thirties, and I'll probably go bald, so it won't be so much of a problem then. But it's pretty fucking infuriating when it happens at the moment, especially as I usually wear a clearly male suit whenever I leave the house nowadays.
-
Pansexual always does and always will forever and ever just make me think of the Greek god Pan, and therefore makes me think of someone who has sex with goats.
-
Man i envy you faust, i wish i didn't grow facial hair and i can't shave everyday since my skin is sensative it flares up easily and gets sore, and i refuse to use an electric now since it's horrible on my face and a razor cuts closer. If i'm going out i try to leave a day or two before hand i don't shave so my face doesn't look like i was just suberged in boiling water.
I still think i might be Instersexed, i mean i have way to many female body features to simply put if off to simply genetic disposition, despite what the tests they've done might have said.
i've always wondered why we actualy evolved such a binary view on gender, i mean i can understand how it happend through evolution but not in the sense of that it makes sense so why do it this way?
EDIT: what do you look like faust?
-
Pansexual always does and always will forever and ever just make me think of the Greek god Pan, and therefore makes me think of someone who has sex with goats.
That is fair!!
EDIT: what do you look like faust?
A total douchebag.
Actually, for ease of imagining, let me post the photo of me again.
(http://gaygamer.net/forum/image.php?u=15227&dateline=1280936643&type=profile)
There's no mistaking, I'm ONE HOT TOMATO ho ho ho, but I'd prefer to look like Al Pacino or some shit. He's the for real deal.
-
but I don't think mocking someone for using a term to define themselves is acceptable.
she's in the stage when teens think stuff like this, so I wouldn't worry about it. hormones etc. like 3 of the girls I talked to in hs identified as bisexual or 'maybe bisexual' and back then that was OUT THERE
-
Haha yes, the perils of youthful hormones! They are confusing things!
-
thing is, with gender stereotypes, like how being 'emotional' is seen as feminine, you kinda have to be careful a bit I guess, like, I am seen as a very 'emotional' person (i am actually mentally disabled, and such but let's not get into that!!), but am generally quite a guy, and fulfill all stereotypical male roles, from physical labour and whatnot, and my interests are all quite male-y. Yet one of the girls I live with, follows very traditional 'masculine' features, in how boisterous she is etc etc.
Gender roles are kinda, while we feel like we're somehow LIBERATED and more ADULT about it all, everything falls into the same stereotyupes. On BBC Iplayer right now, there's a documentary 'sex and the sitcom', which tries to place sexuality and gender roles in context to sitcoms and british culture, which is worth a watch, if anything to see how shit and backwards 'on the buses' is (RANDOM NOTE: because of how it was filled with innuendo, but no actual confirmed sexuality outside of winks and 'oooh errr', my counsellor(who is also a songwriter/singer) made a song about on the buses, and how Reg Varney is gay, but is sooo in the closet that he makes these patronising remarks to hide his inner desires. It's pretty cool, like in his mind, Reg runs through a number of scenarios about the female passengers, and one of which is that they are guys in drag, and so he wants to fuck them)
-
Speaking of gender roles in media, I have talked about this book before but there is a book called Takarazuka: Sexual Politics and Popular Culture in Modern Japan about the all-female Takarazuka theater in Japan. It's a really interesting read even if you don't know much about or don't care much about the theater because it's more about how the theater is a reflection on Japan's attitudes towards gender. Like there's this big thing about how Takarazuka appeals to a lot of homosexuals in Japan because it basically gives them an out. Men can be attracted to the actors as men but they have the excuse "oh but they're really women". Women can be attracted to them as women and go "oh but they're disguised as men". It's even got a chapter on why dickgirls are a THING in Japan and why such a thing would come about (FINALLY THIS MYSTERY SOLVED). There's also plenty of stuff about what we're talking about as far as gender roles in society go. If you're interested in gender roles like this I'd recommend it, it's not too long of a book and it's pretty interesting stuff.
-
Gender roles, IDK. I've felt like I fit into a lot of the stereotypes. but most of them are the male 'interests' and 'hobbies' rather than personality traits (I like guns, cars, technology, violence in entertainment, etc). I generally reject 'macho-ness' as being generally stupid, risky, and destructive however. And being extra emotional as being illogical, irrational and just as destructive as 'macho' behavior.
When I say macho I mean focusing on physical strength, being confident when you should be cautious (or just being universally confident). Being domineering and grabbing for power and control in areas that you shouldn't, etc.
The main difference in a emotion on the level of gender is that both feel an equal amount of emotion but that men are expected to contain it and that women are expected to expel it en masse. Both are equally terrible expectations. Containing emotion is generally self destructive, and the constant expelling of emotion is generally externally destructive. (though either can be both) People should be trying to find a balance to minimize the damage.
I also kind of reject gender roles in relationships (like who should be the 'bread winner' vs 'stay-at-home', however, I understand that there are consequences (besides the social ones) to going against the grain in that manner.
Whether this stuff is cultural or human nature is irrelevant IMHO. Its stupid shit. Makes life harder than it needs to be.
Am I right? Anyone else feel this way?
-
hey peeps. like, Swordfish, i also have much personal stuff to contribute to this discussion!
first off let me just remind you all that i am no longer the prejudiced little girl in denial that i used to be. i am still much the same-- i mean, i didn't just "grow up" and suddenly change every belief i've ever had. like, i'm still a Christian, for example, but i have made my faith my own. so to those who thought i was still the same as i was when i first started posting on GW (at age SIX, ffff): uhh, don't be surprised at all the stuff i'm about to say. (i've talked about this stuff in IRC before but imma post it here now)
so yeah. i am almost 17 nowadays, and i have become involved in the LGBT community within the last 2 years or so. it started when i became best friends with 2 people from my art class, one of whom was a transgender girl (physically male), and the other was a pansexual girl. they were dating at the time that i first met them. long story short, they changed my life.
nowadays i identify as a pansexual polyamorous genderqueer. i'm pretty set with this label. i used to be totally in denial of everything relating to this stuff, but now i'm open and happy. but yeah, i don't believe in the gender binary, and i don't like things that distinguish by sex or gender. i am pretty androgynous. i don't really think of myself as either a guy or a girl; i am fine with either. i prefer the pronoun "they" to any other, even when referring to a singular person. and i am pansexual, so i am pretty much gender-blind. i don't consider gender when developing a romantic interest in someone. i have a slight physical preference for guys though, but maybe that is just because that's what i've had more experience with :P currently i have an awesome girlfriend though, who i've been with for just over a month. :3 but yeahh. gender roles are silly, and i encourage their defiance~
i'll explain more about my views later if i feel like it, or if anyone else has questions or something.
quotin' for posterity.
seriously though, were you really 6 when you starting posting on GW? that seems so nuts. i mean i was like ... 11 or 12 when I first started lurking, but 6? damn. this site has probably fucked you up so hard hahahaha
-
gw babysat when mommy wouldnt
-
pansexual polyamorous genderqueer
a lot of this stuff is just really NUTS. categories and stuff i mean. i spend way more of my day eating and sleeping than i do having sex or doing anything that requires a gender division. though ruining this thought, i suppose some people do define themselves by what they eat too (vegetarians, lesbians)
-
you're only 17 anyway mkk, you should prob work more on finishing high school and finishing puberty than picking handfuls of adjectives to describe what you're essentially saying is an indescribable gender and sexual alignment
-
I don't think the genitalia is really the issue, frisky. a lot of times teenage experimentation is more cranial and emotional and doesn't include sex.
-
yeah i understand that "everyone is bisexual in high school" idea; i have the same perception of that as you guys. teenage experimentation etc etc... but i'm definitely not like that! i'm not just one of those slutty chicks who is just greedy for sex or something. you guys can go ahead and think whatever you want, but i'm just saying that i like both guys and girls and i have felt that way for many years, but that i only accepted it all within the past couple years. i'm not even much for experimenting. i'm not just going to parties and getting drunk and making out with girls and being like "ohmigawd i think i'm bi!" xP
earlchip is right in saying that the sexuality stuff is not about sex. it's more of a mental thing-- i have only recently come to accept myself. i had crushes on my female best friends in middle school and i hated myself for it. i hated myself for lusting throughts of all kinds. but then i grew up and realized that the Bible is not about encouraging self-hatred and bigotry, and i changed my outlook on a lot of things. so now i am comfortable being both Christian and pansexual.
so it is an emotional issue, not just physical. i mean yeah, i've had some "experiences", but only with 3 people ever, who i had been in committed relationships with. as mentioned earlier: i have dated one guy (for almost 2 years), a transgender girl (MtF), and a feminine girl. those were the only people i've ever had any sort of real relationship with, and the variety in sex/gender was not simple curiosity. i'm pansexual-- i like people for their personalities. i really don't care at all about anything else until AFTER i already like them. knowing their gender or sex are just things that are part of the "getting to know them" process-- it's like, okay they have 2 brothers, their parents are divorced, they have a penis, they love art, they identify as female, they have a really cute puppy, etc... sooo maybe that explains things a little better. i am pansexual because i have realized that i just like people for who they are and not for what sort of vessel they interact with the world through. i definitely can enjoy the physical things too, though-- and strictly sexually, i do have a slight preference for male-bodied individuals. but emotionally i have had greater success with females. but hey, i'm open to everything with everyone-- that's not to say that i am promiscuous though; not in the slightest. i make good choices.
you're only 17 anyway mkk, you should prob work more on finishing high school and finishing puberty than picking handfuls of adjectives to describe what you're essentially saying is an indescribable gender and sexual alignment
i'm still 16 currently but yeah. what makes you think that stuff? i am currently doing awesome in high school. i am in 5 Advanced Placement classes and i'm studying college-level material in a very good school district. i love learning and i have very ambitious plans for the future. my cumulative GPA average for all of high school is a 3.95 and rising. i'm in my junior year and i just finished all my standardized testing and i'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of my score reports. fyi i went through puberty long ago; a lot of girls tend to be done with that by age 13 or so. guys are the ones that don't finish developing until their late teens or early twenties. i'm growing up fast and within a year, i will hopefully be living on my own and attending a good university.
i'm not just randomly picking labels or something. i'm just really happy that i learned to accept my own feelings and urges and not be so freakin repressed. i'm enjoy being active in the LGBT community these days and it's not wasting my time or anything like that. so i would appreciate if you would not assume things, nor perceive my choices and natural predispositions as arbitrary adolescent frivolities :\
i like to identify as genderqueer. that simply means that i do not identify strongly as either male or female and i think gender is kinda just BS anyway.
story time: i grew up being very masculine, a "tomboy"-- honestly, i considered myself to be a boy. i had no idea what any sort of gender issues were. i knew that boys and girls had different private parts but i still knew inside my head that i wanted people to call me a boy. when i was only 7 years old, that's the kind of stuff i thought. all my friends were boys and we did normal guy things like playing videogames and basketball and talking about girls. i dressed in all guys' clothes. i really consider myself to have been a little boy. i was homeschooled for several years around that time, so i had no peers to shape my gender identity. when i went back to school in 5th grade, age 10, i had a rude awakening-- i got bullied really badly for being an ugly and weird girl, and when i insisted that i was just "one of the guys", i got beat up by the very guys who had been my closest friends. i was an aggressive little boy so i ended up slamming a locker on my ex-best-friend's hand and breaking 2 of his fingers but hah that's another story and i ended up getting anger management therapy so that was all resolved. anyways i was a guy until age 12, when i started caring about what other people thought of me and i got sick of being bullied. so i started being more girly, and i started making friends, and life got a bit better.
anyways that was a lame background story but yeah i have always had "gender issues". i identify as genderqueer because it means that some days i feel like a girl and some days i feel like a guy. my gender EXPRESSION is largely feminine but that doesn't mean anything. on the inside, i don't care about gender and i don't really see myself as having just one; i'm both.
polyamorous just means that i believe that humans are not monogamous and they shouldn't try to be. i believe that it's possible to be in love with multiple people at the same time. polyamory doesn't really have to affect my relationships though; it's not a CORE thing about me. it simply means that i am very open in my relationships-- i would never get mad at a significant other for cheating on me. i tell people i'm polyamorous just so they know that i don't care if they like other people at the same time that they like me. that doesn't mean i am okay with them just fooling around with a ton of people-- that's what distinguished polyamory from just "open relationships". all i know is that i was in love with 3 different people at the same time and so we all dated each other, and it lasted for about a year. those were good relationships. we were all polyamorous; i wouldn't be poly unless my SO was also poly or was okay with it, because i don't want to be perceived as a "cheater". anyways its not a big deal it's more of a philosophy than anything else but yeah.
i am very happy with being pansexual polyamorous genderqueer and i have legitimate reasons for choosing those terms, because they describe my feelings and beliefs very well :> it's not just a matter of wanting to identify as something or being experimental. i'm simply putting words towards describing the way that i have always been. so... that's me.
oh oh oh AND, a thought on gender roles:
i also dated this one guy for about a month earlier this year but it was a very un-serious relationship and we never did anything and we were just a very awkward match. it was hardly a relationship :P but anyways it made me realize how much i haaaatte traditional gender roles and social rules. he was an incredibly normal guy. and being with him, i realized how stupid it was that he would always hold the door open for me and pull out my chair for me and let me go first and things like that, simply because i was "the girl" in the relationship. i basically told him in the very beginning, "please don't treat me like a girl; let's just hang out and play videogames and be bros a'ight?", but uhhh i guess he didn't understand. it was sorta sickening going out on a quadruple date with him and his friends, getting a table for 8 at a restaurant and all. it was just sooo traditional and while the other girls may have found it charming or chivalrous or something, i just felt suffocated and restrained. i wasn't comfortable talking about anything that wasn't normal for girls to say. anytime i mentioned something un-ladylike i got awkward looks from everyone, including my then-boyfriend. adskgakglj it was just really weird. i hate having guys treat me like a weak little lady. >_<;
blahh that post was a lot longer than i had planned for it to be! imma just, uh, leave this here now...
-
some of you are fucking dicks and should be ashamed of yourselves
-
some of you are fucking dicks and should be ashamed of yourselves
Good to see you're as constructive as always. :-)
-
don't be timid marmot. name some names.
i'm not just randomly picking labels or something. i'm just really happy that i learned to accept my own feelings and urges and not be so freakin repressed. i'm enjoy being active in the LGBT community these days and it's not wasting my time or anything like that. so i would appreciate if you would not assume things, nor perceive my choices and natural predispositions as arbitrary adolescent frivolities :\
having thoroughly thought all this out doesn't change anything, so don't act indignant. no matter what age you are you're pretty much at the mercy of your body chemistry. this is particularly apparent in teens, when your chemistry is abruptly changing and you've got to find some way of dealing with it. the three girls I mentioned weren't exactly frivolous in handling their sexuality, either; only one was the type to kiss girls at parties, and afaik she's the only one who still goes either way. another went lesbian furry and the other preferred ultra-effeminate (but not trans) men, sometimes going for fancy girls too. these two are both straight now, like nothing ever happened. so don't worry about it too much, it's fine as long as it's doing something positive for you. and I guess it doesn't hurt to try and get a handle on something that might be sticking with you for the rest of your life but at the same time it's important to understand that people change and all this might not seem so important a few years down the road