Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Zulu · 17-02-2012 03:01PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is akin to castration actually.

Well, no, that would be removal of the womb really. But it's not really the salient point is it.

There were forms of male castration which involved the removal of the penis but not the testes so men were physically still capable for producing sperm and therefore reproducing

Interesting, how would the men ejuclate without a penis?

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 03:05PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

pickarooney wrote: »

400 pages and still nobody will acknowledge what Scanlas is saying?
He's just pointing out the obvious and irrefutable tenet of equality that states that if A=B then B=A.

If you look at it in terms of the simplest equation you're just going to keep banging up against the reductive reasoning of A < B so add to A until A=B.

However, the equation is more like
b = a + 2
a+y ≠ b
a+2 +y > b

Ergo, for equality to exist it's not enough to add 2 to a, you must also add y to b

Personally, I am exhausted from giving Scanlas examples of where A>B and A has campaigned to redress this so that A= B. But Scanlas isn't interested as it doesn't fit his preconceptions.

It seems to me that Scanlas only sees it as:
Where A < B = A campaigns until its - B and the roles are reversed so A> B. This is simply not true.
He also claims that where A> B that A is not doing anything to address this - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

To me it seems that Scanlas' position is that where A< B, A should accept that as any changes will result in A> B. Furthermore, where A> B the onus is on A to address this - so by the same token where A< B should the onus be on B to change that?

The onus is on no one to to do anything.

If you declare that A=B is your goal then how can you only attempt to address A>B but not B>A.

This isn't a moral argument argument, know one in this is a bad person. I'm just saying a lot of femInists don't act in alignment with their value of gender equality. That doesn't mean I'm saying their evil.

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 03:09PM

Between the "A>B"s and the graphs this thread is getting too close to a maths lecture for my liking :mad:

Lady Chuckles · 17-02-2012 03:16PM

This A/B/AB/AB stuff is confusing me... Is this still about how feminists who struggle for women's rights should also struggle for men's rights?

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 03:17PM

Zulu wrote: »

Well, no, that would be removal of the womb really. But it's not really the salient point is it.
Interesting, how would the men ejuclate without a penis?

I'm sorry but your knowledge of female anatomy leaves a lot to be desired.

The removal of the womb had no impact on the ability to feel sexual pleasure. It ends ability to reproduce.

The removal of the womb would be akin to the removal of the testes - both still capable of feeling sexual pleasure but cannot reproduce. Although the former is a far more invasive procedure as it involves opening up the body and doing some serious rearranging.

The removal of the clitoris - an organ designed only for sexual pleasure -has no effect on reproduction. It is designed only to end/reduce significantly sexual pleasure. So it would be exactly the same as removing the head of the penis - which would be considered castration.

Same way as they piss - through a straw. If 'just' the head is removed (where the majority of the pleasure nerve ending are) that's not even an issue.

It was common practice in the Ottoman Empire for slave boys to have the penis removed but not the testes. These guys became a slave warrior elite known for their ferocity (and loyalty!) - hence the fact that they were allowed to keep their testosterone producing facilities but not their might get distracted by wanting a shag abilities. Some of these guys gained their freedom, became powerful nobles and had children. Sadly the documents are silent on the mechanics of how they got the sperm from their testicles to the recipient's womb...

Bad Panda · 17-02-2012 03:22PM

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

This A/B/AB/AB stuff is confusing me... Is this still about how feminists who struggle for women's rights should also struggle for men's rights?

No. Feminists say they want equality. To a lot of them equality = more for women.

Do you not think if women (and men) want and equal society (even though they are) they should campaign for equal rights for all and not just for women?

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 03:29PM

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

This A/B/AB/AB stuff is confusing me... Is this still about how feminists who struggle for women's rights should also struggle for men's rights?

Bad Panda

No. Feminists say they want equality. To a lot of them equality = more for women.

Do you not think if women (and men) want and equal society (even though they are) they should campaign for equal rights for all and not just for women?

Yup, we are still on that ol' feminist's arn't doing enough for men's rights bandwagon.

Micky Dolenz · 17-02-2012 03:29PM

From graphs to equations to penis's to vagina's.

Progress?

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 03:31PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So it would be exactly the same as removing the head of the penis - which would be considered castration.

That's not what castration is at all.

The removal of the womb would be akin to the removal of the testes

Which is exactly what both Zulu and I said.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 03:32PM

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

From graphs to equations to penis's to vagina's.

Progress?

If there is even a hint of interpretative dance I'm out of here!

Lady Chuckles · 17-02-2012 03:32PM

Bad Panda wrote: »

No. Feminists say they want equality. To a lot of them equality = more for women.

Do you not think if women (and men) want and equal society (even though they are) they should campaign for equal rights for all and not just for women?

I think men and women both want equality. I do not think that feminists think equality means more for women. I don't get why you would think that either... Unless you have your mind set on militant extremists, but that would make very little sense since that is not what we're discussing.... :rolleyes:

There is nothing to say that a feminist isn't for equality. However a feminist will battle for women's rights to not be discriminated against and to earn equal for equal work, moreso... (hence the word feminism) And believe me, those are tough battled to fight. There is nothing that suggests s/he wants women to have "more" than men. It is possible to feel very passionately about more than one thing, you know.

But you can't fight all battles at once. You have to pick a few to start with. It would make sense that a feminist would pick a battle that means a lot to women, don't you think?

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 03:33PM

Seachmall wrote: »

That's not what castration is at all.

Which is exactly what both Zulu and I said.

What would you call the removal of the head of the penis then? It sure as ****e ain't circumcision....

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 03:35PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What would you call the removal of the head of the penis then? It sure as ****e ain't circumcision....

Castration, by definition, is the loss of functionality of the testicles.

I don't know if there's a term for removing the head of the penis but it damn sure ain't castration.

Lady Chuckles · 17-02-2012 03:36PM

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

From graphs to equations to penis's to vagina's.

Progress?

It's pitiful, isn't it? :rolleyes:

pickarooney · 17-02-2012 03:38PM

I'm about to bust out the matrices here*

*I'm going to ruin my own joke by pointing out that this is also a pun on hysterectomy

Ickle Magoo · 17-02-2012 03:38PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Castration, by definition, is the loss of functionality of the testicles.

I don't know if there's a term for removing the head of the penis but it damn sure ain't castration.

Penectomy...

pickarooney · 17-02-2012 03:40PM

Glansectomy, if we're splitting hairs

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 03:41PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Castration, by definition, is the loss of functionality of the testicles.

I don't know if there's a term for removing the head of the penis but it damn sure ain't castration.

But can we agree that the removal of the clitoris equates to the removal of the glans (called penectomies apparently - I looked it up) not to the removal of the foreskin which would equate to the removal of the labia?

So are we just arguing semantics or do you believe female 'circumcision' directly equates with male circumcision?

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 03:41PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Penectomy...

Should not have Googled that...

Definitely should not have Googled that...

...ugh

pickarooney · 17-02-2012 03:43PM

Maybe in total, if you multiply the number of male circumcisions by the pain involved it might equal the product of the torture level by the number of female circumcisions?

I think it would be over 9,000 each in any case

Ickle Magoo · 17-02-2012 03:44PM

Or if you compared the life-long ramifications it would be....

Seriously, is anyone really THAT obtuse? *shakes head*

pickarooney · 17-02-2012 03:47PM

I skipped 11 pages so have absolutely no idea what's going on but the thread is as silly and repetitive as an Australian soap so no doubt I'll catch up eventually.

Who's winning, anyway?

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 03:48PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe in total, if you multiply the number of male circumcisions by the pain involved it might equal the product of the torture level by the number of female circumcisions ?

I think it would be over 9,000 each in any case

currently 135 million worldwide apparently
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=14486

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 03:51PM

pickarooney wrote: »

I skipped 11 pages so have absolutely no idea what's going on but the thread is as silly and repetitive as an Australian soap so no doubt I'll catch up eventually.

Who's winning, anyway?

It's undecided as Team B is still complaining that members of Team A arn't playing for Team B.

Would Team V and Team P be more appropriate? Or maybe Team W and Team T? I wouldn't want to be accused of being Hierarchical by using A and B....what with semantics becoming a heated issue and all

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 03:52PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

do you believe female 'circumcision' directly equates with male circumcision?

Definitely not.

But can we agree that the removal of the clitoris equates to the removal of the glans (called penectomies apparently - I looked it up)

Yes.

pickarooney · 17-02-2012 03:55PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's undecided as Team B is still complaining that members of Team A arn't playing for Team B.

To think the last thread was originally about B-teamers who togged our for the A side!

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 04:01PM

pickarooney wrote: »

To think the last thread was originally about B-teamers who togged our for the A side!

Really? I thought it was about were A teamers who happened to be male really A Teamers or were they playing for the wrong team...

pickarooney · 17-02-2012 04:01PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

currently 135 million worldwide apparently
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=14486

Holy ****, Egypt used to do it to 99% of women until a few years back :vomit:

And here's where it gets even more nuts:

some African feminists object to what she calls the imperialist infantilization of African women, and they reject the idea that FGM is nothing but a barbaric rejection of modernity

A lot of double-negatives in there but that's just insane.

later12 · 17-02-2012 04:03PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

By seeking to make women equal to men you are seeking to make men equal women.

I really don't know how many more times this can be stated or how many times you need to be asked who is using the above definition.

Whilst feminists argue for increased rights (and not just legislative rights) for women using men as a reference point in some specific areas (i) feminists are not always using men as a reference, they simply want more adequate conditions for women (ii) many feminists feel unhappy about the conditions and rights applicable to men in society, but may feel that their cause should be championed by someone with a greater interest in and awareness of the deficiencies pertaining to those rights and conditions.

You come on here again and again and again and insists that feminism = gender equality without any reference to gender, and there is no indication whatever of anybody calling themselves a feminist using that interpretation on here.

Why are you still doing it?

Are you just going to keep on doing it regardless?

Lady Chuckles · 17-02-2012 04:12PM

Ok, what seems to be the issue here? I don't get it. I honestly don't get it.

Instead of complaining about feminism; why can't you people just take action? Why don't you form some sort of association and just go for it? Instead of complaining that feminists, who look out for women's issues, should do all the job for you!

Men's issues need to be looked after, so then why don't men go look after those issues? I don't think there would be any woman standing in your way - I'd go as far as to say I think you'd even get support! I honestly think men need to treat men nicer and support each other in important matters.

Also, since this thread is about sexism: I think it's ridiculous that whenever someone says they've been treated in a sexist manner, there will be a poster instantly saying that such never happens. It clearly did so why deny it? Why can't we just condemn sexism no matter who it happens to? It's a lot nicer than to play the game of "who has it worse"!

Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Comments