Okay, I hate to sound obtuse, but again, how is trotting out breast cancer an example of how people only like feminism when it’s about stuff affecting both men and women? Breast cancer dose affect some men but mostly people think of it as a women’s problem. Caring about breast cancer at the expense of other cancers isn’t good but doesn’t it show that people are willing to care about something that’s mostly related to women?
You’ve really got to quit with the rhetorical questions. I can’t tell (and I’m not alone) what you’re trying to say. I can’t tell when the implied answer is yes or no, so I can’t tell you where you’re wrong and why.
No.
No.
No.
No.
“Certain?”
No.
Well, it’s economically inefficient. In a thoroughly mechanized information-age society, individual physical strength is less important than skills and training. So it’s wrong for a reason.
No.
No.
No.
No. Satisfaction with progress ensures that no further progress will be sought or made. I’d be happy if a woman cured cancer for the benefit of womankind, because it’s quite likely to benefit mankind as well, including me.
No.
No.
Not especially. Some women, obviously, pursue legal careers and such with the goal of battling injustice, but I don’t need “they” (i.e. all women) to dwell on it.
I can honestly say I’ve never wasted an idle wish on this.
My honest opinion is that you’re advancing a self-pitying and somewhat incoherent mess of a premise, and my lack of sympathy for it has absolutely nothing to do with my feelings about women; just my feelings about nonsense and stupidity. I have no intention or power or interest in silencing you, though I’ve no doubt you’ll claim, again, that silencing you is my goal.
Depends on the topic. Sports? No. School grades? Yes.
See above.
Yes. Like every argument ever presented to me about anything.
No.
Minus the “certain are to follow”, yes. Why would I not pounce on a lie?
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
Only when those injustices are manufactured for some RO, like, oh I dunno, proposed rape kit laws or the word “chicks”.
Yes.
Yes.
If it’s “too often”, then it’s too often, by definition. Duh.
Does anyone really care about this? Or are you just trying to give an example of a feminine lie? Has anyone ever actually heard an adult tease another adult for not liking sports? No. Because that would be retarded, and everyone realizes that.
Again, if you postulate that it’s “too much”, then it’s “too much” by postulate. What am I supposed to do with that?
What exactly are you getting at with these questions? Try posting your ideas in sentences for a change.
People, both men and women, are willing to care about a specific problem related to women. That’s a good thing.
It’s when women feel compelled to compartmentalize their complaints as specific problems to avoid the label of women’s issues, because when they try to discuss women’s issues as a problem of inequality, things swiftly degenerate into scorn and derision over whether or not women are truly equal to men in society.
Look, I guess what at bottom is whether women truly are equal to men in this society. Are they? Can people discuss whether women are equal to men in this society without it degenerating into the kind of vituperation that I’ve been attracting throughout this thread?
You see then that you consider me automatically wrong. This is not what you said when you answered my list of questions.
My question: Do you assume she is wrong?
Your answer: No.
You aren’t examining yourself very honestly.
Why do you assume that’s because you’re a woman rather than that you’re not very coherent?
Very well, I thank you for your honesty.
I see you say what I’ve said here is self-pitying nonsense and incoherent stupidity. Tell me what I’ve said that leads you to that conclusion?
Are you suggesting that sexism does not exist for either gender?
But how are they avoiding calling it a women’s issue by calling it breast cancer? That’s what it is. And the fact that it’s associated with a pink ribbon makes me think that it is thought of as a women’s issue.
I didn’t say that was because I’m a woman.
Chessic Sense said that he could not tell when the implied answers were yes or no, so he could not tell me where I was wrong or why.
Why does he assume there were implied answers? I asked for honest answers, which should never be implied.
He said because he could not tell what the implied answers were, so he could not tell me where I was wrong or why. Therefore by his own admission, he thinks I am automatically wrong. Which was a direct contradiction of one of the answers he gave to my list of questions.
None of this has to do with my being a woman.
If anyone has some tips on how to make me more coherent, they are welcome.
Because breast cancer is a health issue. And everyone is against cancer. So it’s a safe (i.e. non-confrontational) cause. Discussing breast cancer will not devolve into a slugfest like this thread. And because it won’t devolve into a slugfest, maybe something will be actually done about it. Which would be useful.
Pink is a symbol of women. Pink in itself is inoffensive. When the main reason you know that this particular issue is a women’s issue is because everyone is wearing pink, well that’s very inoffensive. Certainly it’s less offensive than actually saying that this is a woman’s issue. Because nobody wants to hear that.
Why do you suppose some men dislike to wear pink?
But how else would you go about talking about breast cancer other than as a health issue? I’m just not sure what the alternative that you’re proposing is.
That only proves you can read.
The fact that I can read, too.
I’m saying that at this point, you’ve built such a mountain of incoherence that I wouldn’t trust your word that there were two genders.
There is no alternative for talking about breast cancer.
What about wanting to talk about women’s issues with inequality?
Is there a way to talk about women’s issues with inequality without being derided as being wrong and incoherent and whatever else can be thrown at you?
I guess the final question I am asking is, and I’m trying desperately not to be incoherent here so I’m cutting it down to three basic words:
Does sexism exist?
Two Many Cats, you should just post a link to Feminism 101 and move on. People aren’t reacting well to your discussion style.
You are seriously incoherent. It’s doesn’t make much sense and is all garbled up. How any of this relates to rape kits escapes me.
I have read every word, and whatever you’re trying to say, seems like it was processed through a Sarah Palin translator. Bunches of words, empty platitudes, and almost circular thoughts. And it leaves me with the same, WTF feeling.
If my discussion style is the problem, please post an example of it. If what I have written is incoherent, please post an example of that. If I’ve written a “mountain of incoherence”, surely some poster can find a succinct example of it by using the quote function?
Truly, I want to learn from my mistakes. I want to be clearer to people. I won’t attack you for posting my mistakes. I promise.
I might try to make myself clearer. That’s the point.
Why aren’t people reacting well to this discussion? Please tell me what the problem is.
Also, please tell me, any and all posters; does sexism exist? Don’t attack anyone.
Just answer yes or no to this three word question:
Does sexism exist?
No to all. I listen politely, think about what she has said, then suggest she get back to the kitchen.
I’m just seeing the reaction of the other posters. Personally, I get what you’re saying, but I’ve had these discussions before.
I’m willing to bet that your use of the Socratic method is contributing to some of the ire.
Of course it does, and it hurts everybody.
This is where your almost incoherent wordage was all leading up to?
Yes sexism exists. The Pope is Catholic and bears shit in the woods. Duh.
And yet, the reason all rape kits are not processed is, because it would bankrupt all police departments.