But If We Started Dating It Would Ruin Our Friendship...

[gorillafuck]

*To illian*
Listen honey...

WAT.

THAT IS SO TRUE! Amen brother! American males are so terribly oppressed by these stereotypes

If you're being sarcastic (I'm bad at detecting sarcasm online), then whatever. I just have trouble believing that an average american male is THAT much more sexist than an average, say, canadian male.

I'm a communist. Which means I'm considered, by default, a mass murderer (or a supporter of mass murder), a racist (dunno, where that comes from, but it comes all the same), a baby killer, a man hater, a satanist, a hedonistic slut or whatever-the-fuck someone wants to put on the name of communism. None of them are true (well maybe except for one). Using the term 'womyn' is hardly going to fuck up my reputation (lmao!) and nor should someone conform to standard opinion in order not to be labeled 'crazy.' But what would you know, you're a useless liberal.

I just think that in real life, using deliberate misspellings will give an immediate image that will turn people away from feminism.

And don't call me a "useless liberal". It's really a ridiculous insult.

[Invader Zim]

In either senario, its the woman who decides whether there will be the possiblity of sex. Even if she is the aggressor, the opportunity wouldnt be there had she not initiated it.

I know its a blow to the male ego and all, but women hold the trump card when it comes to sex. The only exception is rape.

Or maybe when a man turns a woman down? We get to say 'no' too (we also get headaches).

[Module]

But language is not as simple as you think. Words dont have specific meanings and in it entirely depends on the sense given to those propositions by the community. The whole silly argument of womyn collapses when you realze that there are countries with "gender neutral" words who are way more sexist than english speaking countries.

I am under no illusion that language is a 'simple' thing. The point I am making is that the words one uses are in themselves a form of communication regardless of what somebody would claim the basic 'context' to be. For example, somebody saying that the use of the word 'gay' is disconnected from homophobia where it isn't used to refer to somebody who is homosexual.
On the contrary, Marmot, it's a simplification (or just a misunderstanding) to suggest that language usage is not an inherant part of the communication of information between human beings.
As for the argument of womyn collapsing because of sexist countries using gender neutral pronouns, no, I don't think that's true at all. Cultures do not form uniformly or have equivilent features to them, so it's silly to suggest that the absence of one cultural feature of Western society within a different society disproves the causes or effects of that feature.
I don't agree that the word 'woman' is relevant to modern day sexism. As I've already said. That doesn't mean that I agree that you can argue that point on the basis that language is irrelevant to social norms and structures. You can't - it isn't true.

[Le Libérer]

Or maybe when a man turns a woman down? We get to say 'no' too (we also get headaches).

Dont you see? We (women) allowed the answer whether it be yes or no. Getting a headache yet?

[black magick hustla]

I am under no illusion that language is a 'simple' thing. The point I am making is that the words one uses are in themselves a form of communication regardless of what somebody would claim the basic 'context' to be. For example, somebody saying that the use of the word 'gay' is disconnected from homophobia where it isn't used to refer to somebody who is homosexual.
On the contrary, Marmot, it's a simplification (or just a misunderstanding) to suggest that language usage is not an inherant part of the communication of information between human beings..

Don't be silly. I am not misunderstanding anything, you are misunderstanding the stuff. I never said "language" is not inherent part of communication or whatever. I said that language is created as a public activity and thus, the sense of it is given by the practices of that community. If you call some black guy a nigger, that is very different from me writing nigger right now in this post which only the craziest of crazies will deem as racist. Nobody thinks about women as being sub-men when using that word.

[Jazzratt]

I've been following the discussion LP is having and I'm afraid to say she is wrong lest she snaps at me, but as far as I've been able to work out from social interaction and the following seems to have to occur for heterosexual sex and/or relationships - both parties (disgregarding rape because it's shit) have to be up for it. If we think of the "state up for it" as 1 and "not being up for it" as 0 we can go through this more briefly. The possibilities are as follows:

Woman 1 Man 1 = Happy sexy fun time
Woman 1 Man 0 = Woman complaining to mates at pub. No Happy Sexy Fun time.
Woman 0 Man 1 = Man complaining to mates at pub. No Happy Sexy Fun Time.

From that it can be derived that the decision is mutual. The only thing that would give a person one sex the impression that they are choosing more than a person of the other sex is if they have had more chances to reject members of the other sex (i.e met more people in an up for it state). My conclusion then is that LP has run into more men that are up for it, lucky her.

[Il Medico]

Woman 1 Man 1 = Happy sexy fun time
Woman 1 Man 0 = Woman complaining to mates at pub. No Happy Sexy Fun time.
Woman 0 Man 1 = Man complaining to mates at pub. No Happy Sexy Fun Time.

What about non hetero relationships?
Men 2= Happy Sex Fun Time.
Women 2= Happy Sex Fun Time.
or
Man 1, goat 1= Weird sex, maybe fun time.
Woman 1, Horse 1= Weird Sex fun Time.
I could go one, but I think I have said enough

[Pirate Utopian]

Man 45 Woman 45 = Superhappy Sexy Fun Time

[Il Medico]

8 Men 10 Women and 2 Transsexuals = A party!

[Jazzratt]

What about none hetero relationships?
Men 2= Happy Sex Fun Time.
Women 2= Happy Sex Fun Time.
or
Man 1, goat 1= Weird sex, maybe fun time.
Woman 1, Horse 1= Weird Sex fun Time.
I could go one, but I think I have said enough

You could have read the post...

as far as I've been able to work out from social interaction and the following seems to have to occur for heterosexual sex and/or relationships

Anyway the first two would be woman 1 woman 1 and man 1 man 1 respectively. I also assumed only one partner but it was for the sake of simplicity.

8 Men 10 Women and 2 Transsexuals = A party!

You're aware that transexual and intersex are not interchangeable terms and that most transexuals are either men (ftm) or women (mtf)...

[Il Medico]

You could have read the post...

I did, I was just being an ass.

You're aware that transexual and intersex are not interchangeable terms and that most transexuals are either men (ftm) or women (mtf)...

Yes, but women who act like men and men who act like women are always fun. I think it would be good to have one of each. That is if your into orgies.

[Black Dagger]

But language is not as simple as you think. Words dont have specific meanings and in it entirely depends on the sense given to those propositions by the community. The whole silly argument of womyn collapses when you realze that there are countries with "gender neutral" words who are way more sexist than english speaking countries.

I don't think you understand the point of the 'womyn' thing, you've interpreted the action literally rather than politically (deliberate misspellings are rarely used strictly as replacements but to invoke a political message, or to stimulate discussion).

P.S. CaptainJack, i'm gonna have to have another look over your comments but from memory you're skating on very thin ice. No one gives a fuck if you're being satirical - 'i'm just joking' could just as easily be a defence mechanism as it could be a statement of fact - but even so, i don't think many enjoy your 'satire'. So yeah, please check the chauvinism - 'satirical' or otherwise, it's offensive and counterproductive.

[Il Medico]

I don't think you understand the point of the 'womyn' thing, you've interpreted the action literally rather than politically (deliberate misspellings are rarely used strictly as replacements but to invoke a political message, or to stimulate discussion).

I know it is political, but is still rather silly and doesn't tend get people to agree with you. If it goes over this bad on Revleft, imagine how less understanding and liberal people would take it. It really doesn't help.

[Black Dagger]

What doesn't help, what doesn't get people to agree with you, is this:

Listen honey, to be frank, you look silly.

I don't want to be reading users mocking, patronising or belittling the spelling of others - though in this context, the problem is more with the tangible chauvinism in these words. If you are genuinely interested in persuading others to your POV on this matter then it baffles me as to why you would choose one of the least effective debating styles (mockery/paternalism). You must realise that comments like the above are basically trolling, and will only serve to embitter respondents to this thread. If you continue with that kind of stuff in future you will receive an infraction.

Also, though i don't know PraireFire very well - i doubt she cares what 'liberal people' think of her choice of words/views

And just generally speaking? Get over it. I'm not trying to be confrontational but in all seriousness - why is this argument taking place at all? A female comrade uses a deliberate misspelling with feminist connotations, they are then bombarded by a bunch of male comrades delightfully informing her of the 'mistake' and why she is being 'silly' for even contemplating such a political statement. I never want to see that happen again on this site, do you not think PF is aware of the 'correct' spelling?

What exactly is gained from this pedantry? Nothing.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think you understand the point of the 'womyn' thing, you've interpreted the action literally rather than politically (deliberate misspellings are rarely used strictly as replacements but to invoke a political message, or to stimulate discussion).

In all due honesty, I doubt anyone outside people with heavy acquaintance with feminist theory is going to understand the "point". If I don't get the point I doubt many folks would get the point either. So the whole issue is pretty silly. It is in line with Amerikkka, Xicano, etc.

[black magick hustla]

And just generally speaking? Get over it. I'm not trying to be confrontational but in all seriousness - why is this argument taking place at all? A female comrade uses a deliberate misspelling with feminist connotations, they are then bombarded by a bunch of male comrades delightfully informing her of the 'mistake' and why she is being 'silly' for even contemplating such a political statement. I never want to see that happen again on this site, do you not think PF is aware of the 'correct' spelling?

:shrugs: I didn't post until des fleshed out a thoughtfoul post about the issue that I felt it would be interesting to reply. I think its a somewhat important issue to address because it betrays a wrong understanding of language.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who closed this thread?

[Il Medico]

Black dagger I think.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well if he wants to close it again, he can have the common fucking decency to leave a post that notifies the rest of us!

[Black Dagger]

Thread closed