Sexism and Sports [Archive]

Tower of Bebel

21st November 2007, 16:08

I think the link with masculinity comes from the Greek Olympics. One of the 4 main virtues was courage which was link to the 'agon'. Agon can refer to the spirit of winning, winning to become the best and becoming the best to be honored as the best; It's a virtue of the individual, to please yourself. which is something you might not find in Egyptian culture of that time for example.

This virtue (in which 'agon' and courage are also included) is defined by the word 'Andreia' in which you recognise the Greek word for 'man': Andros(?).

So during the Greek Olympic games virtues of courage and the spirit of winning are linked to masculin characteristics. The Romans integrated this way of thinking and it has been a characteristic of European society ("Western") since then.

This is my opinion though, I'm not sure, it's something I recall from my history and filosophy lessons :) .

EDIT: Of course, I must add to this that since sexism is a feature of this society, sports can make it even worse as sports are seen as a "masculin" event.

Sorry if this might sound like bullshit.

RevMARKSman

21st November 2007, 23:28

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 21, 2007 12:23 am
I do love sports but there does seem to be a obvious practice of hyper masculinity which some argue brings forth instances of sexism.

Here is an artilce from today;

EAST RUTHERFORD, New Jersey: At halftime of the Jets' home game against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday, several hundred men lined one of Giants Stadium's two pedestrian ramps at Gate D. Three deep in some areas, they whistled and jumped up and down. Then they began an obscenity-laced chant, demanding that the few women in the gathering expose their breasts.

When one woman appeared to be on the verge of obliging, the hooting and hollering intensified. But then she walked away, and plastic beer bottles and spit went flying. Boos swept through the crowd of unsatisfied men.

Some Jets fans enjoy their ritual of sexual harassment (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/20/sports/FANS.php)
Fuck the Jets anyway, they beat the Steelers.

But seriously, I think it's something that needs to be addressed - not by making sports "less competitive" to "accommodate" women but to get rid of the idea that women are less competitive in the first place and instead have every sport for both genders.

21st November 2007, 23:43

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 21, 2007 05:23 am
I do love sports but there does seem to be a obvious practice of hyper masculinity which some argue brings forth instances of sexism.

Here is an artilce from today;

EAST RUTHERFORD, New Jersey: At halftime of the Jets' home game against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday, several hundred men lined one of Giants Stadium's two pedestrian ramps at Gate D. Three deep in some areas, they whistled and jumped up and down. Then they began an obscenity-laced chant, demanding that the few women in the gathering expose their breasts.

When one woman appeared to be on the verge of obliging, the hooting and hollering intensified. But then she walked away, and plastic beer bottles and spit went flying. Boos swept through the crowd of unsatisfied men.

Some Jets fans enjoy their ritual of sexual harassment (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/20/sports/FANS.php)
As much as I dislike sports, how does that actually have anything to do with sports exactly? Groups of drunk straight men sexually harass random women in lots of contexts. Its not worse really than what you can get in areas with a high concentration of nightclubs and bars at night, but you wouldn't say that walking-while-drunk is an "obvious practice of hyper masculinity."

I mean, if a guy groped you on a crowded subway car would you think 'must be a result of subways encouraging hyper-masculinity?'

Neutrino

22nd November 2007, 03:14

Originally posted by TragicClown+November 21, 2007 11:42 pm--> (TragicClown @ November 21, 2007 11:42 pm)
Pawn [email protected] 21, 2007 05:23 am
I do love sports but there does seem to be a obvious practice of hyper masculinity which some argue brings forth instances of sexism.

Here is an artilce from today;

EAST RUTHERFORD, New Jersey: At halftime of the Jets' home game against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday, several hundred men lined one of Giants Stadium's two pedestrian ramps at Gate D. Three deep in some areas, they whistled and jumped up and down. Then they began an obscenity-laced chant, demanding that the few women in the gathering expose their breasts.

When one woman appeared to be on the verge of obliging, the hooting and hollering intensified. But then she walked away, and plastic beer bottles and spit went flying. Boos swept through the crowd of unsatisfied men.

Some Jets fans enjoy their ritual of sexual harassment (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/20/sports/FANS.php)
As much as I dislike sports, how does that actually have anything to do with sports exactly? Groups of drunk straight men sexually harass random women in lots of contexts. Its not worse really than what you can get in areas with a high concentration of nightclubs and bars at night, but you wouldn't say that walking-while-drunk is an "obvious practice of hyper masculinity."

I mean, if a guy groped you on a crowded subway car would you think 'must be a result of subways encouraging hyper-masculinity?' [/b]
I agree. The connection is more of an incidental one, and is related more to alcohol than to sports. But that's not to say there aren't overriding currents of machismo in sports, which of course tend to perpetuate sexism.

Pawn Power

23rd November 2007, 19:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:42 pm

As much as I dislike sports, how does that actually have anything to do with sports exactly? Groups of drunk straight men sexually harass random women in lots of contexts. Its not worse really than what you can get in areas with a high concentration of nightclubs and bars at night, but you wouldn't say that walking-while-drunk is an "obvious practice of hyper masculinity."

I mean, if a guy groped you on a crowded subway car would you think 'must be a result of subways encouraging hyper-masculinity?'
Point taken. And I agree to an extent. However, I think that there is some relation given that that at many sporting events a there is a majority of men and that the sport itself is often a display of masculinity at is the role of the fan base/hooligans what have it. There are some sporting events that I would not recommend young children, women, men who don't what to be roughed up to go to. I would say that there is some relation between the atmosphere of the event, maybe not the sport, that contributes to the expression of a certain hyper-masculine mentality. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with sports or even masculinity but there is a problem when it turns into violence and sexism.

counterblast

27th November 2007, 04:51

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/cover/2000/kournikova/main/coverlarge.jpg

http://www.celebritydetective.com/martina.jpg

"Why is it necessary for women athletes to prove themselves as women first, and talented athletes second?"
-Martina Navratilova

AGITprop

4th December 2007, 17:56

it probably boils down to the age ld argument that men are just stronger than women. for that reason men are expcted to play the rough physical games, women not so much. i have alot of female friends who play rugby and they kick ass. dfinitely chicks i wouldnt mess with but this argument is as old as time itself and was a product of the days were sexsm wasnt recognised as sexism but just as the way life is. Today i dont think hat there is much more discrimination against women in sports. but in response to women having to prove themselves s women before hey prov themselves as athletes is still a problem, an ever diminishing problem but stil a problem.

LOTFW

4th December 2007, 19:02

"Why is it necessary for women athletes to prove themselves as women first, and talented athletes second?"
-Martina Navratilova

Because I'd rather fuck Kurnikova than Navratilova.

AGITprop

4th December 2007, 19:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:01 pm

"Why is it necessary for women athletes to prove themselves as women first, and talented athletes second?"
-Martina Navratilova

Because I'd rather fuck Kurnikova than Navratilova.
well put

spartan

4th December 2007, 19:13

Because I'd rather fuck Kurnikova than Navratilova.
Yeah i would to but why is that important for an athlete taking part in an athletic sporting competition?

All that matters in a sporting event is who wins and who loses not how pretty the people taking part are (Though the Capitalist sponsers would probably disagree with me there).

They way i see it is women shouldnt be judged on there beauty (Unless of course it is a beauty competition) but on their skill just like any man is.

Well that is what it would be like in a perfect world but we unfortunately dont live in a perfect world well not yet anyway.

LOTFW

4th December 2007, 19:25

Just having fun, spartan. But my humor is well justified.

Most of the men I know and hang with both, at one and the same time, are capable of viewing women as both capable and impressive human beings, while, on another equal view, check out her tits and ass.

We had an athlete stay at our place a few months back. She was on a college's women's volleyball team. A damned good player. And I respected her for that. But I also "accidentally" walked into the bathroom, and "accidentally" and quietly pulled the shower curtain aside for a few seconds and checked her out.

I fully respect women and would have no problem, in a post-Revolution society, accept them as equals. But I'd also continue to "accidentally" pull open her shower curtain.

Revolutionary and Pervert. I have issues.

AGITprop

4th December 2007, 19:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:24 pm
Just having fun, spartan. But my humor is well justified.

Most of the men I know and hang with both, at one and the same time, are capable of viewing women as both capable and impressive human beings, while, on another equal view, check out her tits and ass.

We had an athlete stay at our place a few months back. She was on a college's women's volleyball team. A damned good player. And I respected her for that. But I also "accidentally" walked into the bathroom, and "accidentally" and quietly pulled the shower curtain aside for a few seconds and checked her out.

I fully respect women and would have no problem, in a post-Revolution society, accept them as equals. But I'd also continue to "accidentally" pull open her shower curtain.

Revolutionary and Pervert. I have issues.
:o ....... :lol: ..... :D .....

..... <_< not coool

counterblast

4th December 2007, 20:01

counterblast

4th December 2007, 20:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:24 pm
I fully respect women and would have no problem, in a post-Revolution society, accept them as equals.
Well then please take your sexist rhetoric to the Opposing Ideologies forum until "after the Revolution", thanks.

LOTFW

4th December 2007, 20:07

Too bad neither have that low of standards.

True, true.

But, ironically, I'm the friend of a man who's the husband to a very famous former tennis player from the 80's. I coached his kids in little league and we became friends. I occasionally see her when we hang out.

I do have a Navratilova story for you from the friendship:

My friend was on the phone with his wife, and trying to explain to her what a "cup" is, becuase he left it behind and one of his sons was going to play catcher, where you have to wear one. (A cup is a box in the UK). I teased him, saying, "---- doesn't know what it looks like; they never used that in women's tennis."

He replied, "Oh yeah, there are a couple who could have."

I replied, "Navratilova?" And we both laughed.

Ah, to be a male. So mature.

I fully respect women and would have no problem, in a post-Revolution society, accept them as equals.

I have no problem viewing them as equals in today's society as well. I just want to think of them as equals, and take them to bed all at the same time. If that to you is sexist rhetoric fit for the Opposing Ideologies forum, we have differing views on the world.

counterblast

4th December 2007, 20:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:06 pm
I have no problem viewing them as equals in today's society as well. I just want to think of them as equals, and take them to bed all at the same time. If that to you is sexist rhetoric fit for the Opposing Ideologies forum, we have differing views on the world.
No one is denouncing your sexuality or your sexual attraction to women. I am denouncing your blatant sexism;

Because I'd rather fuck Kurnikova than Navratilova.

How is that even relevant to an athletes competitive performance in tennis?

4th December 2007, 22:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:24 pm
Just having fun, spartan. But my humor is well justified.

Most of the men I know and hang with both, at one and the same time, are capable of viewing women as both capable and impressive human beings, while, on another equal view, check out her tits and ass.

We had an athlete stay at our place a few months back. She was on a college's women's volleyball team. A damned good player. And I respected her for that. But I also "accidentally" walked into the bathroom, and "accidentally" and quietly pulled the shower curtain aside for a few seconds and checked her out.

I fully respect women and would have no problem, in a post-Revolution society, accept them as equals. But I'd also continue to "accidentally" pull open her shower curtain.

Revolutionary and Pervert. I have issues.
I hope she "accidentally" calls the police and presses charges and the DA "accidentally" gets the judge to subpoena your internet records for evidence.

Herman

5th December 2007, 00:11

We had an athlete stay at our place a few months back. She was on a college's women's volleyball team. A damned good player. And I respected her for that. But I also "accidentally" walked into the bathroom, and "accidentally" and quietly pulled the shower curtain aside for a few seconds and checked her out.

Hmm... there's something fishy going on here. Too many accidents... and they happen one after another...

But seriously, spying on women is not a good thing. People enjoy having showers in privacy, you know.

spartan

5th December 2007, 00:16

But seriously, spying on women is not a good thing. People enjoy having showers in privacy, you know.
Dont you mean the majority of people enjoy privacy?

You have to remember that no matter how sick you may feel it is some people actually get off from shit like this and it looks like LOTFW is one of those people.

LOTFW

5th December 2007, 00:22

Hoping the cappie judge and county deputy district attorney function?!? Don't worry...your secret's safe with me.

spartan is right. I'm one of those people who blur the line between privacy and both exhibitionism and voyeurism.

Is voyeurism "sexist"?

This is an interesting and serious question. For I can make a movie, and create a point of view that can shift the "wrongness" of it. I can make a scenario where the creepy guy spies on the girl in the shower and we hope he gets his comeupance. And I can make another movie, where the woman finds herself with the opportunity that if she enters a certain area, she can see the college rugby team showering, and have the whole audience on her side.

Mujer Libre

5th December 2007, 00:31

You may get of on voyeurism, but I'm sure the non-consenting woman in this situation does not.

TC is totally right. Jerk.

Ander

5th December 2007, 00:45

But I also "accidentally" walked into the bathroom, and "accidentally" and quietly pulled the shower curtain aside for a few seconds and checked her out.

I fully respect women

Wow, you're a huge tool. This is probably one of the most idiotic things I have read in a long time. What are you, 14? Grow the fuck up.

As for sexism and sports, what do people think about gender segregation in sports? Is it justified to separate the sexes when it comes to athletics? Should there really be a woman and man's league for each sport or should they be combined? Isn't this somewhat similar to having a different league for sports when it comes to skin colour?

Please share your thoughts and tell me if I'm wrong. (TC I'm looking at you!)

LOTFW

5th December 2007, 01:03

Is it justified to separate the sexes when it comes to athletics? Should there really be a woman and man's league for each sport or should they be combined? Isn't this somewhat similar to having a different league for sports when it comes to skin colour? Please share your thoughts and tell me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, you're wrong.

Technically, the segregation of male and female is sexist. But nature is sexist; our bodies are sexist; it is possible the way we think and act is sexist. We are certainly generally different in the way we approach sexuality. At least for the most part.

But separating genders for certain sports just makes sense. Football comes to mind. It's sexist, but hardly reactionary or facsist. But why are you hung up on the major professional sports? Throughout all of America, physical education classes are coed. All the way up to 12th grade. It's just the league stuff that's divided by gender. That's about 5%. No one's stopping us from getting together as a mixed group and playing what we want. You have that power right now, Jello. You're s guy, and can create a pick up game with whom ever you want. So can a group of women.

What do you do when you see a group of women playing softball? Walk up to them and ask to join? Have you tried it?

Zurdito

5th December 2007, 01:23

LOFTW, how long till you get restricted or banned? as far as I can see you've got a pretty unmarxist attitude to women. what kind of women goes for a guy like that anyway? none of the ones I know...

LOTFW

5th December 2007, 01:28

as far as I can see you've got a pretty unmarxist attitude to women.

Funny. I don't recall Marx writing all that much about how sports w/ single genders on some occasion fed the beast of capitalism.

Why not try responding to some of the political points I've mentioned? Stop obsessing over some of my earlier comments that may be out of place but are hardly going to prevent Revolution and stick to the topic.

Answer the points I mentioned.

Zurdito

5th December 2007, 01:37

Funny. I don't recall Marx writing all that much about how sports w/ single genders on some occasion fed the beast of capitalism.

try engels history of the family unit.

Why not try responding to some of the political points I've mentioned?

I stopped reading after your second post. 2 chances are enough.

Stop obsessing over some of my earlier comments that may be out of place but are hardly going to prevent Revolution and stick to the topic.

1.I'm not obsessing, you're the one who has flooded the thread with posts
2.All chauvinistic attitudes ultimately undermine revolutionary politics and feed into the status quo, by dividing the working class.

Mujer Libre

5th December 2007, 01:44

Funny. I don't recall Marx writing all that much about how sports w/ single genders on some occasion fed the beast of capitalism.

Are you deliberately missing the point or are you really that dense?

Sure, the small picture in this thread is about sport, but the bigger picture is about a discussion of the oppression of women in general, which occurs in society as a whole. And surprise, surprise, sports are a part of the society we live in.

Perhaps Marx didn't have much to say on women's participation in sport. He did however have much to say on the oppression of women and its linkage to capitalism. Other theorists have since expanded and built on feminist theory. I suggest you read some of it.

Also, Marx is not the be all and end all of theory- and invoking Marx's name won't get you out of a situation where you say something blatantly discriminatory.

LOTFW

5th December 2007, 01:45

okay. I'll address this in a different thread. There is an important issue here that all the writers of Marxism haven't (and probably can't) address.

Black Dagger

5th December 2007, 03:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:55 am
Today i dont think hat there is much more discrimination against women in sports.
How do you know this?

counterblast

5th December 2007, 07:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:44 am
As for sexism and sports, what do people think about gender segregation in sports? Is it justified to separate the sexes when it comes to athletics? Should there really be a woman and man's league for each sport or should they be combined? Isn't this somewhat similar to having a different league for sports when it comes to skin colour?
Men are not inherently stronger than women.

The physical strength differences of men and women primarily depend upon sexist social roles.

Although western women have generally been liberated on an intellectual level, they are still oppressed physically.

It is socially taboo for the western woman to get too physically fit. Those who do are abhored as "unfeminine" or "unattractive". Exercise is a tool to be used by women only to "lose weight" or "look younger", to improve the muscle too extensively threatens the role of the female as the damsel and the male as her protector.

If we ever hope to have a unisex team of athletes competing side by side; women must first reclaim muscle just as they've reclaimed brains, and men must examine their own primitive concepts of "female beauty".

counterblast

5th December 2007, 08:08

For example; ask which woman is more attractive, and the general population will overwhelmingly say the latter.

[img]http://www.hantelparty.de/xt/female-bodybuilder.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

[img]http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000M8UG3Q.01-A8NGTDCMCO53E._SCLZZZZZZZ_V48278560_.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

However, with images of muscular/skinny men you'll get far more varied responses.

Herman

5th December 2007, 08:32

Dont you mean the majority of people enjoy privacy?

Well yes, the majority of people enjoy privacy. Of course you might have those who like voyeurism. I'm not going to stop them or anything. Personally I just don't like having my own private moments to be public.

long_live_the_revolution

5th December 2007, 10:06

what about chess, are there females separated form males?
if yes, what could a man concluded form it?

Black Dagger

5th December 2007, 11:41

Originally posted by counterblast+December 05, 2007 06:07 pm--> (counterblast @ December 05, 2007 06:07 pm) For example; ask which woman is more attractive, and the general population will overwhelmingly say the latter.

[img]http://www.hantelparty.de/xt/female-bodybuilder.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

[img]http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000M8UG3Q.01-A8NGTDCMCO53E._SCLZZZZZZZ_V48278560_.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

However, with images of muscular/skinny men you'll get far more varied responses. [/b]

This is true, though personally, i don't find 'body-builder' type men or women attractive :P

As a general rule i prefer some flubber around any muscle tissue ;)

Not being able to squeeze a lover because their body is hard and rock-like = fail.

LLTR
what about chess, are there females separated form males?
if yes, what could a man concluded form it?

I'm not sure that i understand your question - what are you getting at?

apathy maybe

5th December 2007, 12:09

"This is true, though personally, i don't find 'body-builder' type men or women attractive tongue.gif "

True dat. I was going to say, too much muscle, not a good look.

On chess... Chess is a mental thing, I don't know whether men or women are generally better at it or not. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same sort of thing as with mathematics. That is, women are often socialised not to be as good... (or something, it is a while since I looked at/studied this area...).

Marsella

5th December 2007, 12:24

My old maths teacher (a female) remarked that male's brains are more suited to structural-type thinking, hence they achieve better marks in geometry for example.

Is that true?

Also, is there an inherent bias against females (in that they were unfortunate enough to have to bear a child)?

Is any form of sexism natural? (Not that it being natural gives an excuse anyway, I am looking more for an explanation).

I'm just throwing these things up to be discussed, don't beat me up! :P

LOTFW

5th December 2007, 14:41

It is socially taboo for the western woman to get too physically fit. Those who do are abhored as "unfeminine" or "unattractive".

What are you smokin', dude???

Also, your photos are bullshit. In BOTH cases, the women must work extra hard to achieve a result beyond the norm. It's telling that you chose representations of women that both require a personal trainer and good dieting.

There are plenty of women who are "fit and healthy", but not marketable toys, like the ones you've represented.

Both are far from average reality.

LOTFW

5th December 2007, 14:42

Chess is not a sport, it's a board game. It doesn't belong as part of this discussion.

Devrim

5th December 2007, 15:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:34 am
Men are not inherently stronger than women.

The physical strength differences of men and women primarily depend upon sexist social roles.

I don't think that this is true. Humans have slight sexual dimorphism. This doesn't mean that all men are stronger than all women, but in general men are stronger than women, and even at the top for example 100m, the fastest men are fastest than the fastest women.

Devrim

5th December 2007, 16:00

Originally posted by Herman+--> (Herman)
Hmm... there's something fishy going on here. Too many accidents... and they happen one after another...
[/b]

Oh, yah, sexually harassing someone who is dependent on you for housing is *funny*~!

Originally posted by Spartan+--> (Spartan)
Dont you mean the majority of people enjoy privacy?

You have to remember that no matter how sick you may feel it is some people actually get off from shit like this and it looks like LOTFW is one of those people.
[/b]

Yes, people get off from rape too, the "no matter how sick you may feel it is...its OKAY!" only works when you're talking about mutually consenting individuals.

[email protected]
Hoping the cappie judge and county deputy district attorney function?!? Don't worry...your secret's safe with me.

Err, would you prefer her to "accidentally" take the law into her own hands and go for the garden sheers?

LOTFW

spartan is right. I'm one of those people who blur the line between privacy and both exhibitionism and voyeurism.

Is voyeurism "sexist"?

This is an interesting and serious question. For I can make a movie, and create a point of view that can shift the "wrongness" of it. I can make a scenario where the creepy guy spies on the girl in the shower and we hope he gets his comeupance. And I can make another movie, where the woman finds herself with the opportunity that if she enters a certain area, she can see the college rugby team showering, and have the whole audience on her side.

Getting off on seeing someone who has deliberately exposed themselves to you is not the same opening a closed door and pulling back a closed shower curtain.

The former isn't inherently offensive,

The later is the equivalent of stripping someone without their consent. Its basically sexual assault.

Herman

5th December 2007, 16:33

Oh, yah, sexually harassing someone who is dependent on you for housing is *funny*~!

Oh, lighten up you.

5th December 2007, 17:17

Wow, you're a huge tool. This is probably one of the most idiotic things I have read in a long time. What are you, 14? Grow the fuck up.

As for sexism and sports, what do people think about gender segregation in sports? Is it justified to separate the sexes when it comes to athletics? Should there really be a woman and man's league for each sport or should they be combined? Isn't this somewhat similar to having a different league for sports when it comes to skin colour?

Please share your thoughts and tell me if I'm wrong. (TC I'm looking at you!)

I think segregating sports and any other non-sexual non-intimate activity by sex is sexist, but the alternative would be unacceptable for most competitive athletes of both sex.

However if professional sports were mixed the result would be lots of sports were given the competitive advantage that male athletes have, there would be few if any women at the top levels.

Segregating sports allows female athletes who are competitive among other female athletes but not competitive in the general population the chance to compete.

An alternative would be to have mixed leagues (at the top) and women's only leagues as a parallel, but that would both deprive the women's league of its best athletes and arbitrarily exclude men who are not competitive in the general population of athletes but would be competitive among female athletes.

Originally posted by LOTFW+--> (LOTFW)
Technically, the segregation of male and female is sexist. But nature is sexist; our bodies are sexist; it is possible the way we think and act is sexist.[/b]

I wont dispute that the way *YOU* think and act is sexist, but nature and bodies are categorically non-sexist, having an ideological position or discriminating requires agency which nature and bodies as distinct from people's minds lack.

Originally posted by LOTFW+--> (LOTFW)

What do you do when you see a group of women playing softball? Walk up to them and ask to join? Have you tried it?[/b]

Walking up to a group of strangers and asking to play with them is creepy.

Originally posted by LOTFW
Funny. I don't recall Marx writing all that much about how sports w/ single genders on some occasion fed the beast of capitalism.

Marx was writing when women in some classes were basically treated as transferable property of their fathers and husbands, when women couldn't vote or attend universities, and when labour was divided by gender. Needless to say, segregated sports would have ranked pretty low on the list of problems at the time so you can pardon him or not getting to them.

Originally posted by Zudito
as far as I can see you've got a pretty unmarxist attitude to women. what kind of women goes for a guy like that anyway? none of the ones I know...

LOL how ironic

Translation: "Dude, if you talk like that you're never gonna get laid!"

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Zudito

try engels history of the family unit.

Thats relevant to the Marxist view of gender relations and family; clearly the family and gender division of labour is sexist and oppressive from a Marxist perspective, but that doesn't really answer the question posed on whether segregated teams sports are sexist.

Originally posted by Counterblast
Men are not inherently stronger than women.

The physical strength differences of men and women primarily depend upon sexist social roles.

Men might not be 'inherently' stronger than women but they are statistically stronger, both on average (in part just because they're larger on average and have more musculature on average) and with training.

You have it completely reversed, men are not stronger because of sexist social roles, there are sexist social roles because men are naturally stronger.

Strength is of minimal advantage to hunter gathers so hunter gathers tend to be more egalitarian, but strength is of significant advantage in producing consumable goods to people practicing heavy pre-industrial agriculture or with animal husbandry. Thats how the gendered division of labour which is responsible for patriarchal family relations was able to develop.

Similarly strength is of minimal advantage in industrial societies which is why they create the material conditions for gender equality.

[email protected]

It is socially taboo for the western woman to get too physically fit. Those who do are abhored as "unfeminine" or "unattractive". Exercise is a tool to be used by women only to "lose weight" or "look younger", to improve the muscle too extensively threatens the role of the female as the damsel and the male as her protector.

If we ever hope to have a unisex team of athletes competing side by side; women must first reclaim muscle just as they've reclaimed brains, and men must examine their own primitive concepts of "female beauty".

Its just a physical fact that a body with lots of testosterone can grow bigger muscles with less effort than a body without much testosterone. Women and men doing the same exercises for the same amount of time will not look the same (unless they're taking steroids).

Counterblast
For example; ask which woman is more attractive, and the general population will overwhelmingly say the latter.

The general population also overwhelmingly sexually prefer athletic male bodies to body building steroid shooting male bodies. Those muscles on a man would be unattractive to most as well.

Dimentio

5th December 2007, 17:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:22 am
LOFTW, how long till you get restricted or banned? as far as I can see you've got a pretty unmarxist attitude to women. what kind of women goes for a guy like that anyway? none of the ones I know...
Under current circumstances, it could well mean higher levels of injuries to women if we have mixed football teams for example, since women generally are weaker than men. But I do not see why such games should'nt be allowed.

Marx was quite misogynic, as were almost all men during the 19th century.

Zurdito

5th December 2007, 17:37

Under current circumstances, it could well mean higher levels of injuries to women if we have mixed football teams for example, since women generally are weaker than men. But I do not see why such games should'nt be allowed.

Therefore we should treat women as sex objects?

why are you adressing that point to me? do you think that's the kind of thing I was objecting to? I suggest you read what LOFTW was actually saying.

Marx was quite misogynic,

1.)where is your evidence that Marx was misogynistic whilst writing the works we base our beliefs on?

2.) What would it prove anyway?

3.)what about the marxist analsis of the family unit which calls for the liberation of women?

5th December 2007, 18:49

Originally posted by Martov+--> (Martov)My old maths teacher (a female) remarked that male's brains are more suited to structural-type thinking, hence they achieve better marks in geometry for example.

Is that true?
[/b]

I think the belief that males are generally better at math and, conversely, that the smaller percentage of women at the top math academia is necessarily completely the fault of sexism, are both incorrect.

The majority of people with atypical neurological organization aspergers are male, people with aspergers tend to be more interested (and possibly better at) math than neurotypical people.

If you're willing to accept that, it would then follow that a disproportionate number of people with enough interest in math to be really good at it are male, and not just male but males with a particular type of personality.

It would not however follow that the typical male is more suited than the typical female for math. The average however might be affected by exceptional outliers. I think most men and most women find math incredibly boring and not worth pursuing.

This was covered in more detail here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45479&st=75

Originally posted by [email protected]

Also, is there an inherent bias against females (in that they were unfortunate enough to have to bear a child)?

Women don't "have to bear a child." The Republican Party platform is not a biology text.

Martov

Is any form of sexism natural? (Not that it being natural gives an excuse anyway, I am looking more for an explanation).

No.

1.)where is your evidence that Marx was misogynistic whilst writing the works we base our beliefs on?

He doesn't have any evidence, he's projecting.

Ander

5th December 2007, 20:08

Originally posted by counterblast+--> (counterblast)For example; ask which woman is more attractive, and the general population will overwhelmingly say the latter.[/b]

I don't think this is a fair example. The first picture is quite an extreme case as the majority of women do not look like that.

And besides, if you replaced the woman's head with that of a male, I would still think it is incredibly unattractive. That kind of extremely muscular body on anyone is really, really unappealing to me.

Would it be sexist to say that this lady has taken on physical aspects of a man? I mean, would most women be attracted to a man with breasts or who wears lipstick and a skirt?

Originally posted by [email protected]
Oh, lighten up you.

I have found myself agreeing with you quite a bit lately, but here I think you're crossing the line.

There's nothing funny or ok about violating someone's privacy like that.

TragicClown
I think segregating sports and any other non-sexual non-intimate activity by sex is sexist, but the alternative would be unacceptable for most competitive athletes of both sex.

So, as unfortunate as it may be, is this the kind of sexism we just live with? Is there anything we can really do?

Bad Grrrl Agro

5th December 2007, 21:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:07 am
For example; ask which woman is more attractive, and the general population will overwhelmingly say the latter.

[img]http://www.hantelparty.de/xt/female-bodybuilder.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

[img]http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000M8UG3Q.01-A8NGTDCMCO53E._SCLZZZZZZZ_V48278560_.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

However, with images of muscular/skinny men you'll get far more varied responses.
I don't know. It's a tough decision. But what I like on the first is those muscles. But those veins scare me a little bit.

counterblast

5th December 2007, 21:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:16 pm
You have it completely reversed, men are not stronger because of sexist social roles, there are sexist social roles because men are naturally stronger.

Women and men doing the same exercises for the same amount of time will not look the same
To an extent -- yes -- I believe men are naturally stronger (potential-wise). I won't even try to dispute that. As you suggested, it is a biological fact.

What I am suggesting is that so much of that advantage is gained through male-oriented social activities and roles. Meaning; the inherent difference in female and male strength isn't as significant as it is publicized to be.

Also, the woman I posted previously does not use steroids or testosterone.

Comrade Rage

5th December 2007, 21:37

Originally posted by petey+December 05, 2007 03:02 pm--> (petey @ December 05, 2007 03:02 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:07 am
For example; ask which woman is more attractive, and the general population will overwhelmingly say the latter.

[img]http://www.hantelparty.de/xt/female-bodybuilder.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

[img]http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000M8UG3Q.01-A8NGTDCMCO53E._SCLZZZZZZZ_V48278560_.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

However, with images of muscular/skinny men you'll get far more varied responses.
I don't know. It's a tough decision. But what I like on the first is those muscles. But those veins scare me a little bit. [/b]
Anyone who could potentially kick my ass scares me a little bit. :D

Jello
And besides, if you replaced the woman's head with that of a male, I would still think it is incredibly unattractive. That kind of extremely muscular body on anyone is really, really unappealing to me.
I concur. I would never want to look like that, and when I see a man who looks like that, I'm slightly repulsed. Same goes for women with those attributes.
Those bodybuilder types don't even look like human beings!
There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

But seriously, although women are definitely capable of competing in sports, they are biologically designed with less upper body strengh. They are, however capable of kicking the same as men, from what I know, and so I don't advocate women's only leagues in lower body strengh sports (such as soccer, which is almost exclusively foot-only).

counterblast

5th December 2007, 21:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:07 pm
Would it be sexist to say that this lady has taken on physical aspects of a man?
I certainly think it would be, whether intentionally or not.

If I don't shave my armpits or legs, that doesn't mean I've "taken on the physical aspects of a man".

It means that my body doesn't fit into the socially accepted body image of a woman.

Ideally, it would be great if radicals challenged gender stereotypes (of both genders) with as much passion as we exhibit towards class struggle.

long_live_the_revolution

5th December 2007, 22:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:41 pm
Chess is not a sport, it's a board game. It doesn't belong as part of this discussion.
chess IS sport, and womans and mans have separated competitions, and which could suggest that males are more inteligent from woman

LOTFW

5th December 2007, 23:56

I believe that one CAN have separate sport activities between men and women and not threaten socialism. I simply do not find it a form of harmful discrimination. I disagree w/ those who believe it is part of the whole.

If there's a women's swim competition, I don't see how males not being allowed to join it is the equal of oppression.

A lot of people here are focussing on the small picture.

If you told me there could be a world socialist revolution tomorrow, but the price of it would be that some of the sports would always be separated by gender, I'd jump at it.

This is the "goofy" part of revolutionaries who are trying to tack on to discussions their narrow minded view of socialism: that a males only sport or females only sport is a "step backward". I say it goes nowhere.

Women have strengths. In many areas they are stronger than men. But it's about many other things. Also, there's nothing wrong w/ separate genders wanting to be together for separate things. Especially if they choose to be by their own decision.

Comrade Rage

6th December 2007, 00:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:40 am

It is socially taboo for the western woman to get too physically fit. Those who do are abhored as "unfeminine" or "unattractive".

What are you smokin', dude???
Challenge the argument, dude.

Herman

6th December 2007, 00:27

I have found myself agreeing with you quite a bit lately, but here I think you're crossing the line.

There's nothing funny or ok about violating someone's privacy like that.

What line? What am I doing wrong? I have said myself that it's wrong to spy on others, regardless of their gender.

Seriously, what next? "You're sexist for making fun of someone's post!"

I have done nothing wrong. Nothing. Everyone really needs to relax for a moment before making accusations of this or that.

Let's not be so stuck up.

LOTFW

6th December 2007, 01:42

It is socially taboo for the western woman to get too physically fit. Those who do are abhored as "unfeminine" or "unattractive". Challenge the argument, dude.

Crum,

Okay, I see what you're getting at. Your issue is with the word, "too", in the example of the woman body builder photo. But here you're wrong about "Western society". I wrote, 'what are you smoking?', cause I thought you believed we in the west don't want to see women who work out, and of course that's not the case; just the opposite.

Then you threw in the pic of the body builder, and now I understand why you used, "too".

ALL people, west, east, north south, Marxist, Capitalist, Democratic-Socialist, and Libratarian, AS A GENERAL RULE, are turned away from extreems of any kind, whether it be too weak, too strong, too tall, too short, too fat, too skinny. Most people have some kind of norm in their minds. This aint a western thing. The number of guys in the East who'd admire your body builder photo have an equal number of admirers in the West. It's an extreem, but there are those drawn to the extreems. I, in fact, am not attracted to her, as she is "too" buffed out, and it's not attractive to me to look at her. But viva la differance. There are others who will appreciate her.

Black Dagger

6th December 2007, 06:13

Originally posted by long_live_the_revolution+December 06, 2007 08:54 am--> (long_live_the_revolution @ December 06, 2007 08:54 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:41 pm
Chess is not a sport, it's a board game. It doesn't belong as part of this discussion.
chess IS sport, and womans and mans have separated competitions, and which could suggest that males are more inteligent from woman [/b]

Or that women are more intelligent than men; though in a patriarchal society i'm sure the decision was not made under that assumption.

Herman
What line? What am I doing wrong?

You were being condescending (smelled a bit of male chauvinism), 'o hai relax chick! No need to get all huffy about sexism!' - though obviously not in those words, the essence was essentially the same.

Devrim

6th December 2007, 06:36

Originally posted by long_live_the_revolution+December 05, 2007 10:54 pm--> (long_live_the_revolution @ December 05, 2007 10:54 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 02:41 pm
Chess is not a sport, it's a board game. It doesn't belong as part of this discussion.
chess IS sport, and womans and mans have separated competitions, and which could suggest that males are more inteligent from woman [/b]
What suggests that the ability to play chess is connected directly to intelligence?

Devrim

counterblast

6th December 2007, 07:20

Originally posted by Devrim+December 06, 2007 06:35 am--> (Devrim @ December 06, 2007 06:35 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:54 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 02:41 pm
Chess is not a sport, it's a board game. It doesn't belong as part of this discussion.
chess IS sport, and womans and mans have separated competitions, and which could suggest that males are more inteligent from woman
What suggests that the ability to play chess is connected directly to intelligence?

Devrim [/b]
I still haven't figured out how chess falls under the category of "athletic competition".

It must be my inferior intelligence.

Herman

6th December 2007, 08:27

You were being condescending (smelled a bit of male chauvinism), 'o hai relax chick! No need to get all huffy about sexism!' - though obviously not in those words, the essence was essentially the same.

Huh?

Okay, let's see what I said:

Hmm... there's something fishy going on here. Too many accidents... and they happen one after another...

1. Making fun of the previous post

Now read what I said after:

But seriously, spying on women is not a good thing. People enjoy having showers in privacy, you know.

There is a trend in the left that we should call everyone sexist for anything.

Stop it.

Black Dagger

6th December 2007, 08:40

Originally posted by Herman+--> (Herman)Huh?

Okay, let's see what I said:[/b]

I was actually referring to this post:

Originally posted by [email protected]

Oh, yah, sexually harassing someone who is dependent on you for housing is *funny*~!

Oh, lighten up you.

Which is kinda like saying 'oh get over it!' As if TC was not making a perfectly valid point - that the gross behaviour LOTFW was describing is not something to be joked about or treated lightly.

Herman
There is a trend in the left that we should call everyone sexist for anything.

Stop it.

Can't say that i've observed that particular trend; nor did i ever call you a sexist, defensive much?

Though that said, i do think it's quite common for men to get overly defensive during discussions of sexism, often dismissive as well. The latter is particularly ironic during discussions of male chauvinism.

Those are some real trends - and ones that should be discussed.

long_live_the_revolution

6th December 2007, 10:12

Originally posted by counterblast+December 06, 2007 07:19 am--> (counterblast @ December 06, 2007 07:19 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:35 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:54 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 02:41 pm
Chess is not a sport, it's a board game. It doesn't belong as part of this discussion.
chess IS sport, and womans and mans have separated competitions, and which could suggest that males are more inteligent from woman
What suggests that the ability to play chess is connected directly to intelligence?

Devrim
I still haven't figured out how chess falls under the category of "athletic competition".

It must be my inferior intelligence. [/b]
it doesn't belong to athletic competition, but it belongs to SPORT, and that is the title of this tread, not athletic competition.

in other sports, which are most phisical, women and men are separated becouse ''women are phisicaly inferior'', but in chess phisical strenght means nothing, so only thing left is inteligence

Herman

6th December 2007, 10:33

Which is kinda like saying 'oh get over it!' As if TC was not making a perfectly valid point - that the gross behaviour LOTFW was describing is not something to be joked about or treated lightly.

When I said, "Lighten up you", I was referring to my previous post which she was referring to.

I did not mean to imply that she wasn't making a good point. In fact I agree with her and she would have realized this had she read my whole previous post instead of just reading one line and criticizing me for saying it.

She doesn't think it's funny. Fine, but that doesn't mean I automatically agree with what he [LOTFW] said.

Can't say that i've observed that particular trend; nor did i ever call you a sexist, defensive much?

My apologies. I dislike being called something I am not, especially when it's insulting. This part of your post ticked me off:

You were being condescending (smelled a bit of male chauvinism),

Especially when I wasn't saying that she should be be "chill axing" when talking about sexism. I was referring to what she said about my post, which again has nothing wrong.

Devrim

6th December 2007, 12:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:11 am
in other sports, which are most phisical, women and men are separated becouse ''women are phisicaly inferior'', but in chess phisical strenght means nothing, so only thing left is inteligence
I can see that it is a bit off the point, but it is interesting.

I think it is wildly believed that women are better at learning languages than men. Does that make them more intelligent?

Men are better chess players*. Does that make them more intelligent?

They can't both be more intelligent.

Is Chess, or language learning directly related to intelligence?

Devrim

*This could be due to opportunity.

Black Dagger

6th December 2007, 14:32

Originally posted by Herman+December 06, 2007 08:32 pm--> (Herman @ December 06, 2007 08:32 pm)
Which is kinda like saying 'oh get over it!' As if TC was not making a perfectly valid point - that the gross behaviour LOTFW was describing is not something to be joked about or treated lightly.

When I said, "Lighten up you", I was referring to my previous post which she was referring to.

I did not mean to imply that she wasn't making a good point. In fact I agree with her and she would have realized this had she read my whole previous post instead of just reading one line and criticizing me for saying it.

She doesn't think it's funny. Fine, but that doesn't mean I automatically agree with what he [LOTFW] said.

Can't say that i've observed that particular trend; nor did i ever call you a sexist, defensive much?

My apologies. I dislike being called something I am not, especially when it's insulting. This part of your post ticked me off:

You were being condescending (smelled a bit of male chauvinism),

Especially when I wasn't saying that she should be be "chill axing" when talking about sexism. I was referring to what she said about my post, which again has nothing wrong. [/b]
Fair enough, sorry if i offended you.

Devrim

Is Chess, or language learning directly related to intelligence?

That's difficult - since i don't think there is an acceptable definition of 'intelligence'.

I've been playing chess regularly for a couple of months now - IMO the most important thing that i've observed in that time is that the more i play the stronger my abilities. This is because the more games i play the more i learn about how to handle particular situations,what tactics tend to work (or not)- to put it simply; learning through experience. In terms of important attributes, i think patience and foresight are critical - combined these two attributes help a player avoid falling victim to traps, as well as making silly mistakes (or mistakes generally). From this POV i think linking chess ability to an orthodox conception of 'intelligence' is dubious.

LOTFW

6th December 2007, 16:25

but that doesn't mean I automatically agree with what he [LOTFW] said

I automatically agree with what LOTFW says!

6th December 2007, 18:03

1. chess has nothing to do with intelligence in the proper sense of the word; cheap computer programs are superior to humans in chess performance but you woud not say they were more intelligent, they are not articulate in conversation, original in thought or capable of presenting new ideas persuasively. Nor would you assume that chess players are.

2. There are likewise more professional level female ballet dancers, is this evidence that women are just better at it? No because the population of kids who do ballet is disproportionately female so the initial pool of talent is skewed that way. Same with chess except the other way around.

3. The theory of any sort of general intelligence is extremely dubious, speculative, and relies on grouping arbitrary mental tasks together with arbitrary weightings. If there is no natural general intelligence then any particular mental display cannot be said to be a sign of superior intelligence.

long_live_the_revolution

6th December 2007, 19:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:02 pm
1. chess has nothing to do with intelligence in the proper sense of the word; cheap computer programs are superior to humans in chess performance but you woud not say they were more intelligent, they are not articulate in conversation, original in thought or capable of presenting new ideas persuasively. Nor would you assume that chess players are.

2. There are likewise more professional level female ballet dancers, is this evidence that women are just better at it? No because the population of kids who do ballet is disproportionately female so the initial pool of talent is skewed that way. Same with chess except the other way around.

3. The theory of any sort of general intelligence is extremely dubious, speculative, and relies on grouping arbitrary mental tasks together with arbitrary weightings. If there is no natural general intelligence then any particular mental display cannot be said to be a sign of superior intelligence.
of course I didn't mean that man are more inteligent than women becouse they are better chess players, and discusing about it is stupid, including your post
my point was: why are women and men chess competitions seperated

btw. females are relativly better at balet, becouse thair body is generaly more flexibile

Devrim

6th December 2007, 19:50

Originally posted by long_live_the_revolution+December 06, 2007 07:10 pm--> (long_live_the_revolution @ December 06, 2007 07:10 pm) my point was: why are women and men chess competitions seperated

[/b]
They are not separated in the same way as other sports. Women can play in the same competition as men.

Judit Polgar plays in the men's competitions:

Wiki
Polgar is ranked number 20 in the world on the October 2007 FIDE rating list with an Elo rating of 2708, the only woman on FIDE's Top 100 Players list, and has been ranked as high as number eight. Polgár has defeated almost all the world's top players, including former World Champion Garry Kasparov (the highest-rated chessplayer of all time), former #1 Veselin Topalov, and current World Champion Viswanathan Anand.

She is, however, exceptional. Of course things like the size of the player pool have an influence, but it could also be true that men are better chess players than women. I don't think though that it has any direct relationship to intelligence.

Devrim

Guerrilla22

6th December 2007, 20:44

Honestly though, the kind of behavior exhibited by the Jets fans is common place in our society. Unfortunately I see this kind of behavior quite often. Assholes hollering at women and makinng obsence gestures. They feel they are exerting their masculinity, however the ir behavior suggest that they have been unsuccesful at attracting Women as I suspect is the case with LOTFW, other wise he wouldn't feel the need to spy on women in the bathroom.

LOTFW

6th December 2007, 20:48

You suspect wrongly, Guerrilla22. And I'm more a Giants fan than a Jets fan. Though Roman's promise to win the Super Bowl WAS cool. (Also, only a sicko spies on a woman in the bathroom. She was in the shower.)

Jazzratt

6th December 2007, 21:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 08:47 pm
(Also, only a sicko spies on a woman in the bathroom. She was in the shower.)
HAHAHA...NO.

Here's hoping you have your penis cut off.

LOTFW

6th December 2007, 21:11

Here's hoping you have your penis cut off.

My girl threatens to do so daily. :(

Herman

6th December 2007, 22:39

(Also, only a sicko spies on a woman in the bathroom. She was in the shower.)

What's the difference!?

Jazzratt

7th December 2007, 00:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:10 pm

Here's hoping you have your penis cut off.

My girl threatens to do so daily. :(
Your girl?

So you spy on people in a creepy and unwanted fashion, you claim possession over girls and you come onto the internet to write misogynistic rants? Why don't you make the world a happier place by dousing your crotch in kerosene and setting it on fire?

LOTFW

7th December 2007, 01:28

Your girl?

So you spy on people in a creepy and unwanted fashion, you claim possession over girls and you come onto the internet to write misogynistic rants? Why don't you make the world a happier place by dousing your crotch in kerosene and setting it on fire?

Yeah. How do you refer to your girlfriend? The People's Committee Approved Partner for the Duration of Unknown Time?

Also, I've never written a misogynistic rant. Go and cite it for me. Why don't you set what serves you for a brain on fire?

Mujer Libre

7th December 2007, 01:33

Your partner, perhaps?

Rather than using the possessive, and infantilising her by referring to her as a child?

LOTFW

7th December 2007, 02:04

Mujer Libre,

I know men and women in their 50's who call each other boyfriend and girlfriend. Personally, I don't think my using the term will prevent world socialism.

Enough said about it. I got my style, and you got yours. As I wrote before, I have no problem viewing women as my equal in every sense of my life. She calls me her boyfriend, though I'm in my late 20s. I don't feel belittled.

My immediate boss (at my cappie high school) is a woman. I just called her a woman. But if we dated (she's about 15 years my senior) I'd call her my girlfriend. Go figure.

If I wanted to worry about all of these language issues I'd be at the MIM board viewing myself as an oppressor-rapist. No thanks.

I don't believe that having men's sports and women's sports separate in some situations, such as tennis, is a bad or anti-socialist thing. Many here disagree with me. But I see first hand mens and womens tennis at ages 16 through 18, and keeping them separated for competition is not a bad thing. If that's misogynistic to some here, we don't have a point of view connection, and nothing I write will please such people, so who cares?

Thanks for your point of view, which I don't belittle or think "over the top". It's just not mine.

Mujer Libre

7th December 2007, 02:33

Girlfriend=/= "girl"

And the MIM comparison is a strawman.

I also don't think you've adequately responded to the sexual harassment issue.

LOTFW

7th December 2007, 02:45

Girlfriend=/= "girl"

My girlfriend and I just finished watching Dexter. She said to me that Dexter also was in the show "Six Feet Under". She told me he owned a mortuary in the show and was homosexual. I told her I knew that much, and that I also knew his boyfriend was a police officer.

Boyfriend. Ha!

Looks like I can't be converted. Oh well, guess you'll have to just chalk me up as communist with a girlfriend.

I'm satisfied that my use of the term is not derogatory. You perhaps believe otherwise. There's room in the world for both of us.

What's the sexual harassment issue?

Mujer Libre

7th December 2007, 02:49

Originally posted by OFTW
My girlfriend and I just finished watching Dexter. She said to me that Dexter also was in the show "Six Feet Under". She told me he owned a mortuary in the show and was homosexual. I told her I knew that much, and that I also knew his boyfriend was a police officer.

Boyfriend. Ha!

Looks like I can't be converted. Oh well, guess you'll have to just chalk me up as communist with a girlfriend.
What are you rambling on about?

You didn't address what I said at all and just went ff on a rambling tangent. Just saying "I don't think I'm sexist" doesn't make it so.

What's the sexual harassment issue?
FFS, the issue of you spying on women in the shower.

What the fuck else could it be?

LOTFW

7th December 2007, 03:05

I didn't write that I didn't think I was sexist. i wrote that I am not sexist for a fact.

Australia must have a different approach to sexual harassment than the United States. Here there are only two types of sexual harassment.

One is something like, "I'll give you the raise if you go to bed with me."

The other's more difficult to argue. It's a continuous, and intentional use of unwanted sexual references or advances on another. Like a Playboy calendar hung on the coffee break room wall that one asks to remove and it isn't, or the guy who makes comments about a woman's breasts, or sexual jokes to the group at large. It requires someone complain and that the person doing the wrongful speech have some kind of notice.

The shower thing falls into niether of these, it was voyeurism, which cannot be harassment, by its nature.

It's probably an abuse or violation of privacy. Obviously it's a wrongful thing to do. Interestingly, I wonder how you'd classify it if I spied on someone, only to find that it was a male. I'm hetro, and though I wouldn't have gotten excited over it, I would have still trespassed on (in this imaginary situation) HIS privacy. I don't think that would have been sexual HARASSMENT.

But I didn't know you wanted to discuss this further. I became disinterested in this thread, and avoided it, because a lot of people started calling chess a "sport", of which I disagree. Might as well call Monopoly or tic-tac-toe a sport. A lot of people are touchy about a lot of non-socialist issues. Chess. Gees!

I hope this helps you with whatever it is you wanted to know about my views. As I wrote before, I'm not interested in discussing this further, as you don't seem to have ANY acceptance of my views on some of this. I'm really not in touch with your hyper-perfection over language either. I'm more elastic in my use of terms, and perhaps life as well.

Mujer Libre

7th December 2007, 03:11

Ugh. There's no point continuing as you're incapable of debate.

I look forward to your restriction. ;)

One last thing- I'm sure you've heard racists beginning a sentence with "I'm not racist..." Think about it.

By the way- violating someone's privacy for your sexual enjoyment = harassment. Idiot.

LOTFW

7th December 2007, 03:56

Ugh. There's no point continuing as you're incapable of using your mind.

I look forward to your getting a brain transplant.

One last thing- I'm sure you've heard racists beginning a sentence with "I'm not racist..." Think about it.

That's your BIG argument?!? That's debate? Are you fucking stoned or just stupid to believe THAT comment means ANYTHING.

Will you ever achieve anything outside of being a fucktard?

Herman

7th December 2007, 07:51

The shower thing falls into niether of these, it was voyeurism, which cannot be harassment, by its nature.

It's probably an abuse or violation of privacy. Obviously it's a wrongful thing to do. Interestingly, I wonder how you'd classify it if I spied on someone, only to find that it was a male. I'm hetro, and though I wouldn't have gotten excited over it, I would have still trespassed on (in this imaginary situation) HIS privacy. I don't think that would have been sexual HARASSMENT.

"Voyeurism"? As you have said, she didn't know you were there. She didn't want to be seen. That's privacy. And you simply ran over it.

It is equally bad to spy on a man without him knowing.

If you want to prove that you're really not a sexist, don't do it.

Black Dagger

7th December 2007, 08:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:55 pm
Ugh. There's no point continuing as you're incapable of using your mind.

I look forward to your getting a brain transplant.

One last thing- I'm sure you've heard racists beginning a sentence with "I'm not racist..." Think about it.

That's your BIG argument?!? That's debate? Are you fucking stoned or just stupid to believe THAT comment means ANYTHING.

Will you ever achieve anything outside of being a fucktard?
Please chill on the flames.

(This goes for other people as well).

Thank you.

7th December 2007, 16:38

The shower thing falls into niether of these, it was voyeurism, which cannot be harassment, by its nature.

By the way- violating someone's privacy for your sexual enjoyment = harassment. Idiot.

I think thats letting LOTFW off way too easily.

Telling a dependent who isn't into you that you want to see them naked showing is sexual harassment.

Actually going into a bathroom and pulling back the curtains on anyone other than a sexual partner is sexual assault.

Merely non-consenting voyeurism would be to say, spy on a stranger who was getting changed in front of an open bedroom window in a distant apartment building, and while that would be offensive, it would be essentially passive and not an invasion of privacy to the same extent because while the expectation of privacy existed in a way that it wouldn't in say a nude beech, the would be no obvious violation of someone's personal space and privacy in a graphically intimate and confrontational way.

Its gross to spy on someone who happens to have exposed themselves, but its categorically more violating to expose them, which is what opening closed doors and closed curtains (as opposed to just glancing through already open ones from a distance) entails.

Honestly, I think 99 out of 100 people would feel less violated being propositioned by strangers for sexual favours (as in the original post) or even groped by a stranger on the street or a bus or something, than having their land lord barge in on them while they're showering!.

LOTFW

7th December 2007, 18:13

Actually going into a bathroom and pulling back the curtains on anyone other than a sexual partner is sexual assault.

I'm really not interested in discussing this as much as other people seem bent on doing so, but you should know that this statement of yours has no agreement from any legal authority. All assaults requie that the victim believe they are about to be battered. PERIOD. The language on this is so screwed up it's scary. For example, I had to correct administrators at my high school, who were telling female students that if another student groped them on their breasts or buttocks, that was sexual harassment, and that they should report it to the counselor. I had to interrupt the assembly and tell them all that that was battery, and that they should contact the school police, and that the person should be arrested.

This is not a word-game argument. For an assault to occur, there must be apprehension.

This is not justifying my actions; I really am over discussing it. Just helping you out so you don't create an entirely new theory of tort the law will not support.

7th December 2007, 18:29

Uh, in most common law jurisdictions 'assault' is any personal physical threat, in england and wales the definition is broader and in the US the line between assault and battery are different in different areas.

Barging in on someone naked, not just through a door but through a curtain (which is *obviously* deliberate given that anyone in a bathroom would obviously know that someone was showering) constitutes obviously threatening behavior.

If you don't see why thats threatening and menacing than you're a moron. If you do than you're just trying to explain away your weird male entitlement.

LOTFW

7th December 2007, 18:42

All rulings of assault in the United Kingdom, to this date, have required apprehension on the part of the one threatened. This has in fact remained unchanged since about 100 years after your invasion occurred. No court in your jurisdiction would classify anything to be an assault if the victim remained unaware of the threat. I'm sorry, but you will not find a UK case or US case where this is not so.

Regarding your last "entitlement comment", I make no such claim, and will not discuss it.

I'll tell you what Tragic Clown: To prove to you that I've moved beyond this, I'll let you finish this discussion of my conduct and I won't respond about it WHATSOEVER. I WILL NOT RESPOND TO THIS ISSUE BY ANYONE ELSE AGAIN.

You may have the last word on this subject; it will remain closed to me.

And since I've already given my views that a) separate gender sports are not anti-Revolutionary, and, b) chess is not a sport; I feel confident not discussing matters on this thread again. (I'm in the clear minornity on these other issues anyway, and don't think I'm going to change any minds on the subject.

So I may read, but won't comment further, on this thread.

Vanguard1917

7th December 2007, 23:22

There's nothing inherently sexist about calling a woman 'girl'. PC speech-police like Mujer Libre need to get a life.

Having a sneaky peek at a woman having a shower is pervy, sad, inappropiate, vulgar, indecent, immature, lewd, etc.

But it's not sexual assault. Sexual assualt is a very serious offense which should never be trivialised through such comparisons.

Jazzratt

7th December 2007, 23:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:21 pm
There's nothing inherently sexist about calling a woman 'girl'. PC speech-police like Mujer Libre need to get a life.
Aside of course from the way it trivialises and infantalises that woman.

Having a sneaky peek at a woman having a shower is pervy, sad, inappropiate, vulgar, indecent, immature, lewd, etc.

But it's not sexual assault. Sexual assualt is a very serious offense which should never be trivialised through such comparisons.

TC would have trivialised things if she said what he'd done was rape as it is I fully agree with her analysis.

Vanguard1917

7th December 2007, 23:54

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 07, 2007 11:37 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 07, 2007 11:37 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 11:21 pm
There's nothing inherently sexist about calling a woman 'girl'. PC speech-police like Mujer Libre need to get a life.
Aside of course from the way it trivialises and infantalises that woman. [/b]
Calling a woman a '****' does far, far worse. Ask any woman and she'll tell you the same. I very much doubt that there are any mentally healthy women out there who would prefer to be referred to as '****' than 'girl'.

Vanguard1917

7th December 2007, 23:59

TC would have trivialised things if she said what he'd done was rape as it is I fully agree with her analysis.

Then this wholly depends on our definition of 'sexual assault'. If rape is sexual assault and being a sad old voyeur is sexual assault, then 'sexual assault' is being defined quite liberally.

Jazzratt

8th December 2007, 00:05

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+December 07, 2007 11:53 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ December 07, 2007 11:53 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:37 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 11:21 pm
There's nothing inherently sexist about calling a woman 'girl'. PC speech-police like Mujer Libre need to get a life.
Aside of course from the way it trivialises and infantalises that woman.
Calling a woman a '****' does far, far worse. Ask any woman and she'll tell you the same. [/b]
:lol:

Even on this board there have been very few women who find the term objectionable. Don't be a silly twat.

I very much doubt that there are any mentally healthy women out there who would prefer to be referred to as '****' than 'girl'.

Your dichotomy makes no sense. No mentally healthy person wants someone to call them a **** because it's a fucking insult.

Then this wholly depends on our definition of 'sexual assault'. If rape is sexual assault and being a sad old voyeur is sexual assault, then 'sexual assault' is being defined quite liberally.

Rape is rape. Sexual assault includes things like direct and active attacks on people's privacy for sexual gratifaction.

spartan

8th December 2007, 00:10

Yeah but the word "assault" in "sexual assault" usually implies a physical attack on another person that results in unwanted sex being forced on the person being attacked does it not?

I think that unconsenting voyeurism is sexual harrassment not sexual assault as voyeurism usually involves the watching (Not a physical attack) of someone (Who is, if in an unconsenting situation, unaware of the fact that he/she is being watched) not the attacking of someone which is what rape and sexual assault usually imply in my mind.

There is still no fucking excuse for it though as it is still (Usually) unconsenting and therefore illegal (It is one of the few things that i think the majority of people will agree should stay illegal).

Mujer Libre

8th December 2007, 00:23

I think TC has a point, in the sense that voyeurism of this sort puts the person being watched a directly vulnerable position, whereas say, propositioning someone inappropriately does not necessarily do that.

Quibbling over whether is constitutes "assault" is neither here nor there. It's fucking disgusting behaviour that does constitute an implied threat, because in that situation the power is with the voyeur.

Marsella

8th December 2007, 01:24

But it's not sexual assault. Sexual assualt is a very serious offense which should never be trivialised through such comparisons.

No this was sexual assault.

Then this wholly depends on our definition of 'sexual assault'. If rape is sexual assault and being a sad old voyeur is sexual assault, then 'sexual assault' is being defined quite liberally.

'Rape' is clearly defined.

It includes:

(a) penetration of the vagina, the anus, or the urethra of any person with —

(i) any part of the body of another person; or

(ii) an object manipulated by another person,

(b) to manipulate any part of the body of another person so as to cause penetration of the vagina, the anus, or the urethra of the offender by part of the other person’s body;

© to introduce any part of the penis of a person into the mouth of another person;

(d) to engage in cunnilingus or fellatio; or

There is a big difference between sexual assault and voyeurism (which is still illegal).

In sexual assault, the person generally has to be aware of the assault. (It is different for battery) You cannot be assaulted if you do not know you are being assaulted. This assault must raise an imminent fear of bodily contact.

So voyeurism cannot be sexual assault, because the victim does not know of it.

If she/he did become aware of it, and feared for her/himself, then it may well be assault.

It seems to be a matter of proximity.

Yeah but the word "assault" in "sexual assault" usually implies a physical attack on another person that results in unwanted sex being forced on the person being attacked does it not?

No it does not, at least in most common law countries. You are thinking of battery.

Sexual assault includes actual violence or any implied threat of it. It does depend on which country, however.

Hence, walking towards someone with your fists raised can be assault; threats are assaults.

Opening someone's shower curtain, without their consent, especially when they are under your dominion, could be construed as a threat of imminent violence. Especially given the fact that anyone is particularly vulnerable when showering or naked.

Legislation in fact provides that shining a light on someone is assault. This has sometimes been extended to photographing. I remember reading a case where a celebrity, who was incapacitated in hospital, was photographed by paparazzi. He successfully won his privacy by this measure.

That's not even to mention that photographing someone naked without their consent is illegal in most countries.

I think thats letting LOTFW off way too easily.

Telling a dependent who isn't into you that you want to see them naked showing is sexual harassment.

Actually going into a bathroom and pulling back the curtains on anyone other than a sexual partner is sexual assault.

Merely non-consenting voyeurism would be to say, spy on a stranger who was getting changed in front of an open bedroom window in a distant apartment building, and while that would be offensive, it would be essentially passive and not an invasion of privacy to the same extent because while the expectation of privacy existed in a way that it wouldn't in say a nude beech, the would be no obvious violation of someone's personal space and privacy in a graphically intimate and confrontational way.

Its gross to spy on someone who happens to have exposed themselves, but its categorically more violating to expose them, which is what opening closed doors and closed curtains (as opposed to just glancing through already open ones from a distance) entails.

Honestly, I think 99 out of 100 people would feel less violated being propositioned by strangers for sexual favours (as in the original post) or even groped by a stranger on the street or a bus or something, than having their land lord barge in on them while they're showering!.

I completely agree with that.

Vanguard1917

8th December 2007, 02:11

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 08, 2007 12:04 am--> (Jazzratt @ December 08, 2007 12:04 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:53 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:37 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 11:21 pm
There's nothing inherently sexist about calling a woman 'girl'. PC speech-police like Mujer Libre need to get a life.
Aside of course from the way it trivialises and infantalises that woman.
Calling a woman a '****' does far, far worse. Ask any woman and she'll tell you the same.
:lol:

Even on this board there have been very few women who find the term objectionable. [/b]
Women on this board don't find it 'objectionable' to be called **** but they find it 'objectionable' to be called 'girl'??

No mentally healthy person wants someone to call them a **** because it's a fucking insult.

Yes, and compared to 'girl', it's a much bigger insult. So, someone who calls women '****' is in no position to lecture anyone because they called someone 'girl'.

Quibbling over whether is constitutes "assault" is neither here nor there. It's fucking disgusting behaviour

It might be disgusting behaviour, but it's not in the same league as rape. It's not even the same sport.

Ask rape victims.

Black Dagger

8th December 2007, 02:27

Originally posted by Vanguard
It might be disgusting behaviour, but it's not in the same league as rape. It's not even the same sport.

Ask rape victims.

Right - but the point ML is clearly making is that both things are disgusting - end of. You're being argumentative for the sake of it.

8th December 2007, 02:30

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)
Yes, and compared to 'girl', it's a much bigger insult. So, someone who calls women '****' is in no position to lecture anyone because they called someone 'girl'.

[/b]

**** is an infinitely more insulting word but the degree to which a word is insulting to women isn't necessarily indicative of the degree to which its sexist. "Girl" is a much less insulting word but can in some instances carry more sexist connotations even when used in a psudo-'complementary' fashion... You seem to be mixing categories here.

Vanguard1917

It might be disgusting behaviour, but it's not in the same league as rape. It's not even the same sport.

Ask rape victims.

Wow i'm surprized that a spiked-online supporter would resort to the bullshit "ask a rape victim" line to shut down debate. Are you the Met Police telling people to stay sober and pay for Ken's blackcab's now?

To say that something is sexual assault is not to say that its in the same "league" as rape, 'assault' covers much wider ground. Spitting in someone's face and shooting someone with a gun are both assault, as contrasted with mere harrassment, but no one would think that the two types of non-sexual assault were implied to be in the same "league." Similarly no one implied that any sexual assault was comparable to rape.

Using the "ask a rape victim(tm homeoffice)" line is kindof like appealing to the holocaust to make people take whatever your line on ethnic cleansing happens to be.

counterblast

8th December 2007, 04:31

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 07, 2007 01:32 am
Your partner, perhaps?

Rather than using the possessive, and infantilising her by referring to her as a child?
I don't entirely find the term "girl" oppressive, but rather the implication behind its use.

I view it much like calling someone "gay" -- while there is nothing wrong with being gay or using the word in casual conversation, it is the degrading context in which the speaker uses the word to objectify someone as unimportant or substandard that makes it so terrible.

So while I agree with you, lets remember that children are oppressed too. They shouldn't be stereotyped as insignificant, ignorant, or inferior persons, either.

Vanguard1917

8th December 2007, 14:47

Originally posted by TragicClown+December 08, 2007 02:29 am--> (TragicClown @ December 08, 2007 02:29 am)
Originally posted by [email protected]

Yes, and compared to 'girl', it's a much bigger insult. So, someone who calls women '****' is in no position to lecture anyone because they called someone 'girl'.

**** is an infinitely more insulting word but the degree to which a word is insulting to women isn't necessarily indicative of the degree to which its sexist. "Girl" is a much less insulting word but can in some instances carry more sexist connotations even when used in a psudo-'complementary' fashion... You seem to be mixing categories here. [/b]
I see what you're saying. So then, compared to what you may call 'less sexist' language (like '****'), sexist words (e.g. 'girl') are not actually all that bad?

Vanguard1917

It might be disgusting behaviour, but it's not in the same league as rape. It's not even the same sport.

Ask rape victims.

Wow i'm surprized that a spiked-online supporter would resort to the bullshit "ask a rape victim" line to shut down debate. Are you the Met Police telling people to stay sober and pay for Ken's blackcab's now?

My point is simply that raping a woman is a million miles away from peeking at her in the shower - as women who have been raped will confirm.

Is it sexual assault? I don't think it is. Sexual assault implies sexual violence/physical contact. We need to be a lot more careful with our definitions here.

Vanguard1917

8th December 2007, 16:00

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+December 08, 2007 02:26 am--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ December 08, 2007 02:26 am)
Vanguard
It might be disgusting behaviour, but it's not in the same league as rape. It's not even the same sport.

Ask rape victims.

Right - but the point ML is clearly making is that both things are disgusting - end of. You're being argumentative for the sake of it. [/b]
She said that it's not important whether it constitutes sexual assualt or not: 'Quibbling over whether is constitutes "assault" is neither here nor there'. This is not a 'quibble'. You can't just call things sexual assault because they're 'disgusting'.

Jazzratt

8th December 2007, 18:45

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+December 08, 2007 02:10 am--> (Vanguard1917 @ December 08, 2007 02:10 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 12:04 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:53 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:37 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 11:21 pm
There's nothing inherently sexist about calling a woman 'girl'. PC speech-police like Mujer Libre need to get a life.
Aside of course from the way it trivialises and infantalises that woman.
Calling a woman a '****' does far, far worse. Ask any woman and she'll tell you the same.
:lol:

Even on this board there have been very few women who find the term objectionable.
Women on this board don't find it 'objectionable' to be called **** but they find it 'objectionable' to be called 'girl'??
[/b]
The word **** is insulting but not (generally) sexist but the word girl can be sexist.

This is like asking if a homosexual person would rather be called "a gay" or "a fuckwit". It's apples and fucking oranges.

Don't even start on the "**** refers to a vagina and is therefore sexist" crap, it can be used to refer to a vagina but most of the time when someone uses the term the meaning behind it is clearly "an objectionable person [of either sex]".

Yes, and compared to 'girl', it's a much bigger insult. So, someone who calls women '****' is in no position to lecture anyone because they called someone 'girl'.

I wasn't "lecturing", the point is that girl is a word that is used a lot more because it is not generally taken to be an insult by those who use it but it still has incredibly worrying undertones, whereas the word **** is simply an insult like dickhead, twat, cock or whatever.

It might be disgusting behaviour, but it's not in the same league as rape. It's not even the same sport.

Ask rape victims.

Right.

Sexual assault != Rape, thank you captain obvious. Meanwhile most people recognise that sexual assault is a way of asserting power and dominance, it shouldn't simply be defined through whether there is physical contact because that kind of definition lets off people who do these disgusting crimes of power.

praxis1966

8th December 2007, 19:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:01 pm

"Why is it necessary for women athletes to prove themselves as women first, and talented athletes second?"
-Martina Navratilova

Because I'd rather fuck Kurnikova than Navratilova.
Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, but I think you've (both of you) touched on the crux of the matter. Thing is, sex appeal is a double edged sword.

I can say from personal experience that women often times watch sporting events as much for the sex appeal of the atheletes as men do. Take for instance my girlfriend and my mother.

My mother, who should certainly at her age be above schoolgirl crushes, never particularly cared about watching soccer/football on television. This was until she discovered James Beattie two seasons ago. After that she was a huge Everton supporter, often chearing just as loudly as myself. As soon as Beats lost his spot in the starting XI, well, let's just say the shine was off the diamond.

Same for my girlfriend with baseball. She claims to be an Oakland A's fan, but really she just liked looking at Mark Mulder and Barry Zito's asses. As soon as they got traded, she couldn't have cared less about the team.

Although, I can't say I haven't been guilty of the same thing. To return to the discussion of tennis, that's why I like watching Maria Sharapova better than any other women's tennis player. Not only is she friggin hot (and IMHO hotter than Kournikova), but when she plays I know I'm going to get treated to a good match of tennis as well. I used to feel the same way about Stephie Graf when she was in her prime. Amelie Mouresmo? Good tennis player, but she looks like a man, so I don't watch her very often.

At any rate, I think everyone hear will admit that when it comes down to it, humans aren't much more than products of our biology. And, as far as I'm concerned, the need to mate should be placed along side our other primal needs (food, water, shelter, etc.). The difference is, we've all been programmed to believe, whether through ethical, religious, or political means, that sex and mating shouldn't be a primary concern. In fact, we're made to feel guilty for wanting it. Hence, the older I get, the more I think Freud was right.

In any event, to address the original concern of the thread: The incident, as has been said, has more to do with alcohol than anything else. However, I would have argued (and I'm certain that at least one or two women would agree with me) that the woman who got spit on should have known better. Not that she deserved to be assaulted, but use some common sense and don't place yourself squarely in the middle of an obviously volatile situation.