homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » Love!   » Guys, Guys, Guys!   » Geek men and feminists (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Author Topic: Geek men and feminists
boo
Highlie
Member # 5991

Icon 1 posted March 13, 2007 21:06      Profile for boo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Feminism is largely a human rights issue, in my opinion. Any and all people should ideally have the right to pursue their goals, dreams, aspirations, what-have-you, without being constrained by circumstances beyond their control. I.E. gender, race, eye color, i.q. etc. The world would be a much easier place to navigate if all people would operate under such logical assumptions.

Enter the "human element." The flaws that pit one group against another. Stupid really, and a huge waste of time. But anyway, like so many causes, feminism likely grew out of necessity but some didn't jump off when the pendulum swung back. They just kept on swinging and that's how we now wind up with the distasteful extremist form of the philosophy. I think there are few people who would find fault with such basic human rights concepts as "equal pay for equal work." But when some demand unreasonably long maternity leave (with pay) for a woman with no such equal for a man, it leaves me scratching my head.

Personally, I believe there is a reason we have two sexes and I believe it's a good thing. I think we are all equally 'important,' but most definitely different. I don't have a problem with the differences. If anything, I celebrate them. But some people seem to think that "different" means "lesser" in the case of women. Sadly, it's often women who believe this.

One of my biggest gripes about the current feminist movement is the masculinization of women. I don't find women like that appealing, either as women or people. I also have a problem with feminists (like so many others) who believe they are better qualified to tell me or anyone else how to live our lives than we are able to decide ourselves. As someone pointed out, if one woman chooses to marry, have children and raise those children herself, who is another woman to tell her she is not "fulfilling" herself or whatever. This is especially amusing yet hard to swallow when the woman making the accusation has made a mess of her own life.

Feminists have also sold women (and some men) a false bill of goods in the "you can have it all," category. It's cousin, the "get your career established and then you can have kids" train of thought is another lie, as has been discovered by so many thirty something women who are having difficulty conceiving. And I won't even get started on the "it's my body" balogna.

So, to sum it up (aren't you thankful?) [Big Grin] I do think feminism has helped the cause of people in some ways, but I think it has also hurt the cause of women, in others. And it has definitely caused friction between the sexes (and not the good kind).

As for whether or not geek men are attracted to feminists, (this is a generalization) it is my experience that men are ultimately attracted to more feminine types of women than non feminine. Fortunately, many women are capable of being both feminine and intelligent. The ideal combination.

Posts: 775 | From: us of a | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
boo
Highlie
Member # 5991

Icon 1 posted March 13, 2007 21:13      Profile for boo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ScholasticSpastic:
I understand that women are visual. I've been to a ChippenDales show in drag. Please, keep comments about appearance centered on me. I love my friend very much and it makes me sad when people call her scary looking. I think she's lovely. You can call me scary-looking if you like.

For male nudity in cinema, nothing beats Borat! I must admit that I may have been the only one in the theater who didn't cover their eyes during the naked wrestling with a rubber fist scene, though. He was quite striking in the monokini as well.

I haven't seen Borat but I can pretty much guarantee that I wouldn't care to see him naked, lol. [Big Grin]

As for your friend, I'm sorry if that hurt you because I didn't intend to, though I can see how I came across that way. But the truth is, she IS scary looking to me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't speak to her or like her or find her interesting if I met her.

For whatever reason, she has chosen to project that image of herself and if others have also suggested that she is scary, then she must be okay with that.

As for you being scary .. nah. [Big Grin] [Wink]

Posts: 775 | From: us of a | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
ScholasticSpastic
Highlie
Member # 6919

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 13, 2007 21:42      Profile for ScholasticSpastic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is it the boots?

--------------------
"As in repeating a well-known song, so in instincts, one action follows another by a sort of rhythm; if a person be interrupted in a song, or in repeating anything by rote, he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought..." (Darwin, The Origin of Species)

Posts: 540 | From: Vernal, UT | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 13, 2007 22:10      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ScholasticSpastic:
You can call me scary-looking if you like.

You're scary looking. [Razz] But in a good way. I have this weird thing about guys with long hair, especially if it's clean and well-kept long hair. They automatically land in my "worth getting to know category" but I'm always very anxious because I'm afraid I won't be cool enough for them. So then I get all shy and nervous and not cool enough for them...

/me is a dork

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
boo
Highlie
Member # 5991

Icon 1 posted March 13, 2007 22:41      Profile for boo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ScholasticSpastic:
Is it the boots?

Nah, you just look like a nice guy.
Posts: 775 | From: us of a | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
ScholasticSpastic
Highlie
Member # 6919

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 13, 2007 22:51      Profile for ScholasticSpastic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Xanthine wrote:
/me is a dork

You see, we have that in common, too! All these things we learn about each other when we get over being shy.

quote:
Boo wrote:
Can't judge a book by it's cover or a geek man by his picture (scary comment not repeated).

(my parenthetical addition)
and
quote:
Nah, you just look like a nice guy.
Don't worry, I'll only use your words against you when you say nice things about me.

--------------------
"As in repeating a well-known song, so in instincts, one action follows another by a sort of rhythm; if a person be interrupted in a song, or in repeating anything by rote, he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought..." (Darwin, The Origin of Species)

Posts: 540 | From: Vernal, UT | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
boo
Highlie
Member # 5991

Icon 1 posted March 13, 2007 23:10      Profile for boo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ScholasticSpastic:
(scary comment not repeated).

That was cute. ^^^^^^^

quote:
Nah, you just look like a nice guy.
quote:
Don't worry, I'll only use your words against you when you say nice things about me.
Use them any way you like. [Smile]
Posts: 775 | From: us of a | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
GameMaster
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1173

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 13, 2007 23:14      Profile for GameMaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hecta, your inconsistent. You can't have it both ways. Either it is right or it's not. If it's acceptable to keep men from going to a girl's gym because of what the men might be thinking about when they see a woman working out; then, it must also be just as acceptable to exclude a girl from a "men's night gaming" which will let the men not worry about what the women looking at them are thinking.

You say:
First, it seems to me that regardless of the reasoning, excluding an individual from some activity based on his or her sex is, by definition, sexist. The question is whether it's acceptable sexism.
...
In the case of women's gyms, men are required to find another gym, which, as the case happens to be, will probably be bigger, better-equipped, and cheaper. And the reason women want a women's gym? Not because they "can't be themselves," but because women are often sexually harassed, gawked at, etc. by men at normal gyms.
So you argue that because men can to an equal or better gym, the fact that they are separate and excluded is alright... I think I've heard of this idea, isn't that "separate but equal?"

because women are often sexually harassed, gawked at, etc. by men at normal gyms. I am not saying, of course, that all or even most men behave this way at gyms, but a significant number of men do, and that's enough to make it a pretty unpleasant and possibly dangerous experience.
And most men who play D&D are often harassed, called names, etc. by women. I am not saying, of course, that all or even most women behave this way, but a significant number do, and that's enough to make it pretty unplesant and possibly dangerous experience.

Beyond any of that, what the heck is going on that these men can't be themselves with women present?
Beyond any of that, what the heck is going on that these women can't be themselves with men present?

I mean, this is an honest question.
ditto.

I could imagine not being able to be myself around someone who is a fundamentalist christian and might get offended if I, I dunno, talk about evolution, or someone who's a staunch supporter of our esteemed President, but women come with all sorts of views, beliefs, outlooks on life, standards for acceptable social behavior, sexual preferences, etc.
ditto. s/men/women

What is it that all women have in common that would make a person not be able to be himself?
What is it that all men have in common that would make a person not be able to be herself?

You have made no single, significant distinction between the two cases.

Let's keep going...
First, yes, I _can_ fault anyone for excluding someone else based solely on that person's sex. I don't claim I should be able to make them stop doing it--but I can say they're being sexist and immature, and I can dislike them personally. (And yeah, I dislike her boyfriend and friends personally. In her boyfriend's defense though, he did try pretty hard to get his friends to not be idiots in this particular case.)
Then you _HAVE_ to fault these gyms to. You admit it's sexist, but it's somehow "acceptable" in one case and "imature" in another.

First, I wasn't suggesting anyone should search out a woman to include.
ditto s/woman/man

I was suggesting that when a woman who's always been very accepting and "a good sport", and by all evidence is a hardcore gamer asks to join, you let her sit in on a session.
I was suggesting that when a man who's always been verry accepting and "a good sport", and by all evidence is a very fit person asks to join, you let him sit in on a session.

If things go badly? Well, if things go badly with anyone, by all means, kick them out!
ditto.

"Safer"?
You called it "dangerous" to work out with these men, you tell me.

So you think it's an acceptable, mature, kind thing to do, to not give someone a chance because one session might be ruined?
ditto.

You don't think I have a right to say that someone who does that is, at least in this respect, a bad, sexist person?
ditto.

The part that sucks is that for many of us, that means we have to give up some awesome hobby (like gaming).
s/gaming/working out

That's just not cool.
No, it's not.

I'm still going to have to disagree. Excluding someone solely based on sex is by definition sexism. Period. You can say what you want about whether it's a bad thing--but I'm pretty sure it is sexism.
Ditto.

Also, according to my personal moral standards, excluding or discriminating against someone based on their race, sex, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, gender identification, etc., is wrong. Which is why I can say that someone who acts in such a way is a bad person, with respect to that particular act.
I agree, but this isn't what you said about the gym. Somehow, you magically make that sexism "all right," and even call it "acceptable" even though you just said that excluding people based on their sex is morally wrong.

You're free to have your own moral standards, of course, which say that those kinds of acts aren't wrong.
Proof that moral relativity cannot exist:
Assume Moral relativity exists in the world. Then, relativity would be universal. Moral relativity is the lack of universal moral code. Universal Relativity is thus a logical contradiction. So either, such things as morals don't really exist, or morals are universal; either case, moral relativity can't exist.

Expansion:
Case 1: Morals don't exist.
If morals don't, weather or not something is sexist or not has no moral consequence because morals don't exist. Thus, this argument is silly and meaningless.

Case 2: Morals are universal.
If morals are universal, then difference in what people think is moral and isn't moral isn't a debate over the fundamental categorical, but rather a argument over other "scientific" beliefs about the way the world works. We can argue this either using measurements of "good" or "utility" following the "Greatest Happy Principle" or we can talk about if this is a "maximum" that we could "reasonable legislate the universal legislative."

Talking about the former (amount of utility) would be futile because each person on either side of this assumes that their "goodness" outweighs the other. So, let's instead ask the question, "Could I reasonably legislate that no one ever be excluded from anything based solely on gender"?

Remember that answering this affirmatively would also apply to restroom "girl talk", "boys night out", and a host of other issues on which we currently divide down gender lines. While men and women are biologically different, I think we could reasonably legislate such universally; but society has a lot of change to under go first -- I say we start with all the "mens clubs" and "women's gyms."

--------------------
My Site

Posts: 3038 | From: State of insanity | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
boo
Highlie
Member # 5991

Icon 1 posted March 13, 2007 23:22      Profile for boo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
"Could I reasonably legislate that no one ever be excluded from anything based solely on gender"?

No.
Posts: 775 | From: us of a | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
skinfaxi
Newbie Larva
Member # 7525

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 05:39      Profile for skinfaxi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Boo says: "One of my biggest gripes about the current feminist movement is the masculinization of women. I don't find women like that appealing, either as women or people. "

So, what you are saying is that women that would like to be treated equally are trying to be men? That only men get to be equal?

Or is it that feminist women that aren't willing to do the feminine drag well enough just don't appeal to you? You do realize that men can do this feminine drag just as well (or much better, in some cases) as women? It's fake. Anyone can buy makeup, dye their hair, pluck, shave, dilapidate and get breast implants. Is that what you really want? You can go to a store and buy most of that stuff, put it in a bag, and call it your ideal woman.

Posts: 5 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
boo
Highlie
Member # 5991

Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 05:56      Profile for boo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
test
Posts: 775 | From: us of a | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
boo
Highlie
Member # 5991

Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 06:05      Profile for boo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boo:
Boo says: "One of my biggest gripes about the current feminist movement is the masculinization of women. I don't find women like that appealing, either as women or people. "

Originally posted by skinfaxi:
quote:

So, what you are saying is that women that would like to be treated equally are trying to be men? That only men get to be equal?

Um, not even close. You seriously didn't think that, did you?


quote:
Originally posted by skinfaxi:

So, what you are saying is that women that would like to be treated equally are trying to be men? That only men get to be equal?

Equal to what? [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 775 | From: us of a | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
skinfaxi
Newbie Larva
Member # 7525

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 08:31      Profile for skinfaxi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, what "masculinization" are you referring to? Not wearing bras? Not shaving? Not being quiet in mixed company? Or is it all those beards the feminists are growing?
Posts: 5 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 08:47      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hecateluna:
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
You've never noticed it, such as when a guy suddenly realizes a woman is in the room? I've found it to be quite common, particularly in younger men and teenagers, but it's not unusual for guys to be that way all their lives. The tendency seems to be particularly noticable when the guy is immature and the woman is fairly attractive. The actual reaction can vary a lot; whereas some become more withdrawn, others may get rather obnoxious.

So, what's the difference between saying this, about those men, and saying that those men are having trouble viewing the woman in the room as a rational being/person/whatever?

Anyway, the problem with the distinction you made, between excluding people from specific group meetings, and the activity in general, is that (tabletop) roleplaying games are the kind of thing where there is no such distinction. If everybody doesn't show up every time, things sorta start to fall apart. And often, gamers (well, the ones I know anyway) are the kinda people to game *every time* they all happen to be in the same room. And besides. I'm still going to have to disagree. Excluding someone solely based on sex is by definition sexism. Period. You can say what you want about whether it's a bad thing--but I'm pretty sure it is sexism.

OK. I think we've been thinking of a slightly different definition.
quote:
sex·ism –noun
1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women.

I've mainly been using the former definition, while it sounds like you were using the latter. My thinking was just that excluding women from certain types of events may not mean that those men believe them to be less capable. I don't really know this particular situation; I just tend to think about alternate possibilities.

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
ScholasticSpastic
Highlie
Member # 6919

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 09:12      Profile for ScholasticSpastic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bralessness and hairiness are silly things to fixate on. Many women wear bras when they don't have to. I, as a man, have always been somewhat intrigued by women and undergarments (go figure), so here's my oppinion: Bras are probably a good thing for running. I can't think of a lot of other uses for them, beyond enhancing secondary sexual characteristics. I honestly can't see why a woman would or should want to constantly act like a bitch in heat and display her body, however. Sometimes it should be okay to spend some days with no concern about whether one's breasts are adequately sized and shaped.

I am similarly confused by our societal aversion to hairy legs. It's been my experience that hairy legs (and armpits, etc.) can be just as lovely and shapely as shaven ones. I've always made it clear to women who I'm sexually involved with that I don't care one way or the other. What I don't like is sporadic shaving. That's just painful. There are some trimming practices that can facilitate certain erotic interactions, but they're still entirely optional IMO.

Quiet in mixed company = sick and wrong. This man likes outspoken women.

Bearded women = [Eek!] ! Okay, so there's a line I can't cross. Please, let's not have a lot of facial hair, okay girls? I keep mine trimmed and will even shave it off entirely if it nets me more kisses. I expect to be allowed to ask the same of women.

--------------------
"As in repeating a well-known song, so in instincts, one action follows another by a sort of rhythm; if a person be interrupted in a song, or in repeating anything by rote, he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought..." (Darwin, The Origin of Species)

Posts: 540 | From: Vernal, UT | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
WinterSolstice

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 934

Member Rated:
3
Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 09:14      Profile for WinterSolstice     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Personally I don't like hair on either gender, but that's just me.

Only reason I don't do anything about mine is my wife doesn't care for that look - she prefers men with body hair.

--------------------
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.

Posts: 1192 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Just_Jess_B

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 2161

Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 09:38      Profile for Just_Jess_B   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then I'm happy I shaved today.

--------------------
Opinion is not Truth; that is why each has its own definition. Illiteracy sucks.

Posts: 1370 | From: Whaddya mean, Arizona? | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
boo
Highlie
Member # 5991

Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 09:48      Profile for boo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ScholasticSpastic:
I, as a man, have always been somewhat intrigued by women and undergarments (go figure), so here's my oppinion: Bras are probably a good thing for running. I can't think of a lot of other uses for them,

There are a lot of reasons for wearing a bra. The need is necessitated by the size and condition of the woman's breasts. If she has large breasts, the bra will be useful for more reasons than just jogging. Sometimes the simple act of walking or bouncing up a flight of stairs, dancing or doing other types of exercise is enough reason. Large breasts bounce around and that can be painful if it goes on for too long.

There are also posture and back pain problems that can arise.

Additionally, modesty is another reason to wear a bra. Many women don't want their nipples poking through the fabric of a blouse or t-shirt or they don't want their breasts so easily defined and highlighted if wearing something rather form-fitting.

But even if none of those reasons apply to a particular woman, she might just like wearing them because they're soft and silky and make her feel pretty. Especially when paired with matching panties.
[Smile]

Posts: 775 | From: us of a | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
boo
Highlie
Member # 5991

Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 09:51      Profile for boo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WinterSolstice:
Only reason I don't do anything about mine is my wife doesn't care for that look - she prefers men with body hair.

Sensible woman. [Smile] It's one of the things that makes a man a man. Not that a less hairy man would be a deal breaker, but hair is one of those distinctly masculine traits that I personally, like. (well, backs excluded, lol) [Big Grin]
Posts: 775 | From: us of a | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Just_Jess_B

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 2161

Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 10:31      Profile for Just_Jess_B   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, a fuzzy tummy is snuggly. As for any other hair-removal things he and I do, like a shower, it's private. [Wink]

--------------------
Opinion is not Truth; that is why each has its own definition. Illiteracy sucks.

Posts: 1370 | From: Whaddya mean, Arizona? | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
hecateluna
Maximum Newbie
Member # 7568

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 12:08      Profile for hecateluna     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, I'm going to try very hard to respond concisely to everyone who responded directly to me, but it's a lot, so this is going to be a monster-post and probably I'll miss things.


quote:
Originally posted by nerdwithnofriends:
Hecate: I said myself that it /was/ sexism.

Maybe you need hobbies that are less people-dependent, so that you can easily switch to a diferent group of people.

I don't really game in any way, shape, or form, so I don't really know the details there. However, may I suggest you start playing beerpong with the local league- it always makes for a good time [Smile]

Ok, well, I was responding to you saying "And if they only do it occasionally, you can't even call them sexist." (Sorry, shoulda made that more clear.) As for switching hobbies, do you really think it's "right" that some people have to switch hobbies because others want to exclude them based only on gender? I didn't say I couldn't deal with the world or OH MY GOD I'M GOING TO DIE!!!! (ok, so I exaggerated a little when talking about it with regard to my professional life--it would affect my professional life, but I should hope not that much--I should try remember that I'm not actually funny to anyone but myself). What I meant is it's not right, it is sexist, and I dislike the people who do those kinds of things consistently. As for beer pong, I hate you. [Smile] I recently started medication that interacts badly (uh, and dangerously) with alcohol, and man I'm missing my beer.


DMan, thanks for the sympathy, but my friends are actually pretty cool (I think they may have simply blocked out the whole has-breasts thing, actually, but whatever works). My sister's, uh, acquaintances (and some of my acquaintances in the past) are the sexists in question. And yeah, I get kind of angry when people f*** with her. I mean. She's my little sister.


Sxeptomaniac: Yeah, I should have defined what I meant by sexism earlier than I did. The reason I like the latter definition is that the former is problematic (it's not like I can ever really know what they intended), and because I'm not particularly concerned with people's intentions, I'm concerned with the effects their actions have on the world. If their actions hurt people (including but not limited to woman-shaped people), there's a problem. People who sit in their basements not interacting with anyone, thinking women are stupid? Not so much an issue to me.


GameMaster: Yeah, I realized I wasn't a hundred percent consistent in that post--I actually originally had more explanation, but deleted it because it was WAY TOO LONG. So I guess I'll have to explain now, instead.

First, general comment: Yes, I absolutely agree that it's wrong and unfair to have _anything_, including women's gyms, that excludes someone based on gender. However, I think that some of those things, in the real world as it exists right now, are more reasonable or necessary than others, which is what I was calling "acceptable sexism." It's still wrong, but it's there for a good reason. Also, at the end of your post, there is mention of legislation, I should emphasize very strongly, I am not talking about legislation (I know you didn't attribute that to me, I'm just making that clear). I don't want this kind of legislation. I'm not trying to say there should be laws saying people can't create women's only (or men's only) private clubs, gyms, whatever. That being said, let me address some individual things.

quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
Either it is right or it's not. If it's acceptable to keep men from going to a girl's gym because of what the men might be thinking about when they see a woman working out; then, it must also be just as acceptable to exclude a girl from a "men's night gaming" which will let the men not worry about what the women looking at them are thinking.

Only, this isn't all we're talking about going on at mixed-sex gyms. We're talking about _sexual_ harassment, including not only gawking, abusive language, etc., but also physical acts, like grabbing, or worse. And we're talking about a context where a complaint to management probably won't get the offender kicked out. Beyond that, there's lots more real-world context to consider, but I don't really think it's even necessary. When I said "dangerous," I didn't mean dangerous to us women's poor little psyches, I meant dangerous physically. (Yeah, there are other things that are dangerous physically for women, like mountain-biking, which I do, or like walking on the street late at night, which I also do, but that doesn't mean I don't support other women's rights to lead a safer life.)


So you argue that because men can to an equal or better gym, the fact that they are separate and excluded is alright... I think I've heard of this idea, isn't that "separate but equal?"

No, actually it's "together with other women and men, and better." But like I said, in principle I don't support the idea (personally, I do support people's rights to have it, though).

And most men who play D&D are often harassed, called names, etc. by women.

By women who want to game with them? I'm talking about men at the mixed gyms, not men on the street. Also, I'm talking about physical harassment--and I think that men who play D&D* are probably physically harassed by (or have legitimate fear of physical harassement from) men more often than women. I'm talking about a situation in which one person is harassed with fear of physical assault by someone who is capable of doing a good deal of harm, in a situation where they cannot get the offender kicked out. You're talking about a situation in which a group of people may get verbally abused (with bad psychological effects, of course), but has the power to say "get the f*** out of my house, b***". In my view, these are two very different situations.

Beyond any of that, what the heck is going on that these women can't be themselves with men present?

I never said they couldn't. I said they couldn't be safe, or work out in peace. I mean, seriously, if the girl you let come out to your gaming group makes fun of the way you smell or the way you dress, or whatever you (general, not you specifically) might be afraid of, kick her out. Get rid of her. The point is that you have that power in a gaming group. At a mixed gym? Not so much.

What is it that all men have in common that would make a person not be able to be herself?

Answered, but to re-iterate, not a thing. The problem isn't "not being herself," the problem is physical (and verbal) harassment. I can be myself just fine with men harassing me--myself happens to be angry and possibly violent, but that's definitely being myself. That doesn't mean I want to be harassed.

Then you _HAVE_ to fault these gyms to. You admit it's sexist, but it's somehow "acceptable" in one case and "imature" in another.

Explained, I think, but if it's not clear to you the distinction I'm making, feel free to ask. To re-iterate, the difference largely involves (1) power to make the situation stop if harrassment happens, and (2) level and kind of harassment. (There are other differences, but I don't see why they are important once those are already on the table.)

I was suggesting that when a man who's always been verry accepting and "a good sport", and by all evidence is a very fit person asks to join, you let him sit in on a session.

I actually never saw you suggest that. However, in a case when this man is really "a good sport" and puts up with his own harassment (for example, a femme gay man who's harassed at mixed-sex gyms, or a transgendered person of either persuasion who's also probably harassed at mixed-sex gyms), then, absolutely by all means, if I were in charge of the gym, I'd give him a trial membership! Perhaps you're not understanding what I mean by "a good sport," though, so let me clarify. "a good sport" is short for "has been put through some sort of [probably mild] harassment and didn't complain or 'take it seriously'".

"Safer"?
You called it "dangerous" to work out with these men, you tell me.


Sorry, not getting your point here. (I'm really not.) But a shot in the dark--the men who it's dangerous to work out with and the men who I** might want to game with are generally different people.

So you think it's an acceptable, mature, kind thing to do, to not give someone a chance because one session might be ruined?

With a mixed-sex gym, it's not just "one session." Like I pointed out before, trying to get harassers kicked out doesn't really work well. Would it be better for a company who wanted to start a women's gym to promise pro-kick-harassers-out policies instead? Or offer membership to anyone who had been harassed at other gyms? Maybe, but that's a HECK of a lot harder to actually implement.

The part that sucks is that for many of us, that means we have to give up some awesome hobby (like gaming).

Uhhhhh.... you have to give up working out because you can't go to a women's only gym? I mean, is there actually a place in this country where the _only_ gym is a women's-only gym? I mean, possibly there is, and then it's slightly more comparable, but I sorta doubt that. (I even doubt that there's a place where the best gym is a women's-only gym.)

That's just not cool.
No, it's not.


Agreed. I'm not arguing that it's good. I'm arguing that it (may be) more acceptable, because of some of the benefits.

I don't really have time to address your "proof." Aside from anything else, it isn't particularly relevant to the point I'm trying to make. The basic assumption I'm making coming into this discussion is ONLY that harming people, especially based on their sex, race, whatever, is something that shouldn't happen. I may well be making some leaps from that which aren't clear to everyone, though--I have a tendency to do that. Feel free to ask, I'll be happy to explain.


*I don't actually play D&D, I'm a big indie-rpg geek.

**Hypothetical situation. I personally work out at a mixed-sex gym.

Posts: 17 | From: Ohio | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
hecateluna
Maximum Newbie
Member # 7568

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 12:15      Profile for hecateluna     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Just_Jess_B:
Well, a fuzzy tummy is snuggly. As for any other hair-removal things he and I do, like a shower, it's private. [Wink]

Shower.... private... you're married... *confused*

Um, anyway. I have no idea what I'm arguing about here (with GameMaster). Oh, yeah, it's that excluding women from a gaming group is very different than excluding men from a particular gym. Ok. That's the short version. Don't read all that up there. It's boring. (Unless you really want to or have lots of free time.) But read the stuff at the beginning. Maybe.

Sorry for all the... lengthiness.

Posts: 17 | From: Ohio | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 12:29      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's curious how everyone identifies themselves and others with labels, even though nobody ever quite fits the exact definition of the labels used.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
boo
Highlie
Member # 5991

Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 12:48      Profile for boo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
It's curious how everyone identifies themselves and others with labels, even though nobody ever quite fits the exact definition of the labels used.

Are you telling me you're not a cultured geek? [Razz]
Posts: 775 | From: us of a | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 14, 2007 13:09      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some food for thought...

Parts of this thread are reminding me of discussions I've had with labmates, both male and female. The general consensus is that the sterotypical girlie things, such as shaving legs, applying make-up, styling your hair, and submitting to fashion trends are not enforced by men, encouraged by men, nor done for the pleasure of men. The pressure is really coming from othr women. It's a subtle game we play with each other, a subtle game of eroding other women's confidence in themselves and thereby eliminating them from the competition for mates and jobs and so on. It's so subtle most of us aren't even aware of it, so subtle that even if we are aware we don't realize how often we're falling victim to it. Boo's comments about finding certain womn unattractive were bothersome to me until I realized that, honestly, what do I care about being attractive to boo? Or anyone really? There're the attraction standards of society that we all buy into at some point in some way, but, truth be told, the rules of attraction are as wide and diverse as the people who make friends and/or fall in love.

And, while discussing hobbies and genders, here's a story to chew over. I do aikido. I've been doing it since I was twelve. I have a second degree black belt. These days, I don't train much. And this is why.

I grew up in a dojo with a "hot mat". Once you had reached a certain level of skill, you were expected to give and receive hard fast throws. This was espcially true for the younger, less-injured crowd. Men and women were held to that standard. There weren't many women in th dojo, but that's another story. I myself never felt unwelcome. I would somtimes b the only girl on th mat, but that nver made me uncomfortable. And I was/am flexible and reckless enough to take very hard and fast falls without batting an eye. Then I went to where I am now. I attend a famous dojo led by a famous instructor. And there is a double-standard here. The women are not expected to give or receive the sam level of throws the men are. We are not supposed to give or receive a good pounding. It took me a while to catch on. I'm lazy, so I don't fall or throw any harder than I have to (the garbage in, garbage out principle - attack me like you're going to kill me and I'll throw you like I don't want you to kill me, attack me like a limp rag and I'll throw you like a limp rag). As a result, I just got kinda mopey that I couldn't train like I used to. And then one day I started to notice what was happening, and my brother did as well. So one day, before class, he just out and out attacked me, and we spent a good five or ten minutes tussling before class was called to order. But we thrashed each other good, and for a while after I started to stand up for my own abilities and right to be held to the same standard. And then I started getting nudgd into line by....wait for it...the ranking dojo women. Not the men. The women. They liked their double-standard. They were enforcing their double-standard. And I've been getting this unwelcome vibe. So I've cut way back on the aikido. It sucks, because aikido was good for my soul. But the atmosphere wasn't. It can suck to be a chick. It can suck even harder to be a chick who won't conform. Too bad it's the only game in town.

One final qustion: what and who defines what is masculine and feminine, anyway? Beyond, the standard biological traits, that is.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam