[ QUOTE ]
As for Crimson, I'd say that there's things you could explore without a relationship. For example, I know that he's had to turn down several ladies who were interested in him due to his orientation. What would happen if they didn't take no for an answer? What if they fell for him? Could he find himself attracted to a hetero hero? Or even worse, falling for a girl?
[/ QUOTE ]
So far, he's managed to avoid actively turning anyone down, as he's still largely in the closet as far as the wider world goes! He has become a little more adept at side stepping the issue though...so long as he isn't drunk! 
I have actually given all of those questions some thought in the recent past, and while I have some answers I hope it'll be more fun to play them out in-game and see how Crimson reacts. Why do we love putting our boys/girls through so much angst!? 
Formerly @Crimson Archer, now @CA
The Militia - Protecting Paragon City through roleplaying since June 2006!
Because angst is champion?
I virtually never play male characters in CoH so I don't really have much opportunity or need for guy/guy relationship stuff for my characters. For the record though, I have:
Sara: Pretty much straight. Used to be confused but got over it. Dating a guy.
Arachidamia: The question has never arisen, but I always picture her as Bi, not for any other reason than I just saw her that way in my head.
Sylpheed: AI, with part of the personality of a late-teen girl. No sexuality to speak of, anything she did would be somewhat "going through the motions" as her stage of development stands. May throw some plot in later.
Penumbral Song: Difficult one. Half of her just finds sex and sexuality an interesting academic part of human behaviour, and the other half of her has been too busy adapting to the alien half to really consider the matter. Human host originally straight, would probably become more.. adaptable later on.
Starforge: Somewhat similar to song, but more of a geek girl. Probably mostly straight however.
Andromeda Fortune: Straight. Doesn't date much because her family is a little... odd.
Josie Ironside: Picky, but unfussy. Male, female, robot, as long as it's got cool cybernetics and metal and stuff, she likes it. A cyberfetishist primarily.
Sarane: Has only shown attraction to one person, who is female, so can probably be assumed to be lesbian. Not sure how much of that is simply obsession, however.
The others, I haven't really used long enough to think through what they would be as it's never really arisen.
when it comes down to it though, I don't think I ever conciously sit down and say "This character is X, or this character is Y" when it comes to this subject, it just sort of evolved naturally, as it were.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[ QUOTE ]
In most cases I would suggest a healthy mixture of both. I really don't know why you would deny any biological influence in this matter.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't deny the existance of some biological influence, I just deem it too small to influence how we treat people (or how we raise children).
[ QUOTE ]
True, we don't understand everything yet, but I think it's a little bit of a stretch to call our knowledge "not the faintest clue". It seems your information is a little bit dated. You can show in experiments how differently the sense of orientation of men and women works, how men's perception "favours" different things than women's and even that different regions of their brains react to the exact same stimulus.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, the tests subjects are hardly blank slates. How do you know they haven't been trained to react differently to the same stimulus?
[ QUOTE ]
Most of these things can not be explained in the least by modern socialization (and it would even less explain why these differences persist in many cultures with little semblance to ours), but would make incredibly much sense if they would have been "learned" in prehistoric times leading to an adapted evolution. Rashly dismissing those theories because there is no final proof strikes me as somewhat naive.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even if they are somewhat biologically defined - so what? Is that a reason to continue doing the things we've always done? Is mankind a static species? Hardly.
There are theories, certainly. But there are pretty credible theories on both sides. I simply chose a side based on the favorable outcome - and that is the maximation of the realization of each individual's potential. And I don't think that'll happen until we do away with the socialized gender (not the biological one).
[ QUOTE ]
If it eases you I can assure you that these things get more and more uncommon where I live. Unfortunately, this has also some more unpleasant side effects (due to over-zealous feminist preaching) as some people get a bit oversensitive to perceived sexist behaviour.
[/ QUOTE ]
The same thing is happening here - but we also have a very unpleasant side-effect: Conservatism. A lot of people are doing funny faces and going "let men be men and women be women" and continue claiming such nonsense as it's natural for women to have low-status jobs, less pay for the same amount of work, etc etc. In short, there's a strong backlash right now - and frankly, I'm disgusted. Not that I mean to imply that you're one of those people, but the biological perspective ("cherich the differences!") is all-too-often used by conservativa forces who strive to maintain the so-called "traditional family model".
[ QUOTE ]
I, for example, consider it good manners to open the door for a lady (or anybody else who passes the same door I am about to pass or have just passed) and I am quite irritated if this is answered by a rude remark by a woman who sees this as sexist behaviour. Very sad!
[/ QUOTE ]
Sad, but understandable. Now, if the standard in sociaety would be to open doors for everyone (regardless of gender), it would be a different matter. My female friends have had similar reactions to my behaviour (I, too, am a door-opener) but have grown accustomed to it as they've seen me open doors for men and women alike.
Likewise, some people say "don't hit a woman". Well, why make that gosh darn gender distinction? Don't hit anyone, I say.
[ QUOTE ]
And I would never doubt that there are caretaker men and mechanic women. Being predisposed towards something (as I said) is not the same as not being able to do something else and as already mentioned there are always mavericks (which has nothing to do with job statistics).
[/ QUOTE ]
I just believe those "predispositions" are more vagie and more easily overcome than generally percieved in the general debate. I see no merit in being limited by our biology unneccessarily.
As someone said, "feminism is the radical idea that women are people". As long as you're with me on not treating men and women differently, not paying them differently, not encouraging them differently, and not bringing them up differently - then we're on the same track.
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you suggest that biology draws a distinct line between things like male and female or any other biological phenomenon? If your sources tell you something like that you should clearly take their advice with a big fat grain of salt.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I might very well have misunderstood you completely. Most likely due to an overreaction based on your usage the kind of arguments made by people whose conservative opinions I kind of loathe.
There's a difference between agreeing there might be biological differences, and allowing those differences to influence how you treat people. Social and biological gender. Dig?
(And I do hope you understand that I'm not trying to offend you or anyone you care about. If I have, please accept my deepest apologies.)
heh if you want to go for something really stereotypical homosexual perhaps creating something like this guy:
Ash from Bare Knuckle 3
He was cut from the European and US version of Bare Knuckle 3 (better know as Streets of Rage 3 to us in Europe) for obvious reasons.
Have been tempted to make him ingame, but males can't get the stockings and high-heels options...
Badge Earned: Wing Clipper
A real showstopper!
[ QUOTE ]
Far from it, it's really a method of Enlightenment. Enlightenment does not come from being condemned, annoyed or berated, it comes from being taught a lesson. In this case, by introducing empathy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Completely agreed. What, we have a telepathic connection or something? =)
[ QUOTE ]
Damn right, because it's popular! Nothing about pushing boundaries, trying something different, adding character detail, or giving the Crimson Archer a friend. No, all humans act on shallow impulses to be popular all the time. Of course! Lets abandon our projects now, because it's far too selfish to hold any merit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Irony is the sh*t.
[ QUOTE ]
We have far too many of the same ideas, Krank, for it to be healthy for this planet. Let's team. ^_^
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely!
At the very least, we should meet. Just drop me a line whenever you see me online, I'm never to busy to swing down to Pocket D for some refreshments... =) You got my global, right?
(Man, I REALLY need to get Disco Fever out of mothball storage. Him at Pocket D... Disco isn't dead! Disco is LIFE!)
And I'm still hoping for that heroic anarchy-related character of yours =)
[ QUOTE ]
So, my final thought;
Before you assume that every G*y character spawned from this thread will be a horrible affront to the Homosexual community and try to make us stop and think about the pink calamity we're about to unleash on Pocket D. Just remember, we're smarter than that. We're Role Players. 
[/ QUOTE ]
Damn right!
And really, I can think of worse things than a Pocked D flooded with wild queens, pinkoes, Tom of Finlands, and just ordinary g*y blokes =)
[ QUOTE ]
Peace, Happiness and Love for All,
- Hatesman
[/ QUOTE ]
There's something inherently funny about that closing statement... =)
[ QUOTE ]
Have been tempted to make him ingame, but males can't get the stockings and high-heels options...
[/ QUOTE ]
And that's too bad, really. Darn anti-queen game creators! Why can't we be allowed to mix and match as we damn well please, huh?
Right, I'm going over to the Suggestions forum... *stomps angrily*
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have been tempted to make him ingame, but males can't get the stockings and high-heels options...
[/ QUOTE ]
And that's too bad, really. Darn anti-queen game creators! Why can't we be allowed to mix and match as we damn well please, huh?
Right, I'm going over to the Suggestions forum... *stomps angrily*
[/ QUOTE ]
Male characters have access to the Mesh Tights costume option - they can double up nicely as fishnets, if you're careful with matching colours.
I was joking about creating him, i think Ash from Bare Knuckle 3 is probably about as stereotypical as you can get.
Biker hat, bushy beard, vest top, thong, stockings and high heels.
ingame he giggles like a girl, has the woman 'death scream' (once his energy hit's 0) as opposed to the male one and cries once you've beaten him...oh and he minces when he runs...
Hey if you want a go at creating an Bare Knuckle 3 Ash (not to be confused with the uber-cool Evil Dead Ash)then be my guest.
I reserve the right to require a 5 minute break from the game for laughing so hard though, think it would be wonderfully hilarious to see for quite a few reasons but i think the image Ash portrays of a homosexual male kind of went out the window in the mid-90's.
Badge Earned: Wing Clipper
A real showstopper!
[ QUOTE ]
Male characters have access to the Mesh Tights costume option - they can double up nicely as fishnets, if you're careful with matching colours.
[/ QUOTE ]
Reminds me I wish I could use the male "sit" postures with one of my (female) characters, Stormrise.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
In most cases I would suggest a healthy mixture of both. I really don't know why you would deny any biological influence in this matter.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't deny the existance of some biological influence, I just deem it too small to influence how we treat people (or how we raise children).
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I wouldn't rate those influences separately at all, because they are so strongly intertwined that it is really difficult to tell them apart. There are some things that are clearly of biological nature and some that are clearly of social nature, but those extremes are really a minority. So, in an argument it's possible for both sides to 'claim' a majority of some kind, but this is always omitting a part of the truth, something I am not particularly fond of.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
How do you know they haven't been trained to react differently to the same stimulus?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because it makes no sense in a modern setting. For example the sense of orientation: Women's orientation is highly adapted to limited areas while men's orientation is highly adapted to longer travels, just because of the way it works. Learned in a modern setting this would be a very strange and highly unlikely coincidence, but back in prehistoric times this specialization was a key to survival given the distinct roles of men and women back then.
In modern society this gives women an edge for some activities while it's a drawback for others. However, that's still a very long way from telling a woman how her sense of orientation should work and what she should do with it. It's just a given fact the majority of people has to live with, nothing more, nothing less.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Even if they are somewhat biologically defined - so what? Is that a reason to continue doing the things we've always done? Is mankind a static species? Hardly.
There are theories, certainly. But there are pretty credible theories on both sides. I simply chose a side based on the favorable outcome - and that is the maximation of the realization of each individual's potential. And I don't think that'll happen until we do away with the socialized gender (not the biological one).
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course these biological predispositions are by no means a reason for promoting a 'static species'. To the contrary: Change is good as change has made us what we are today after all. But that doesn't say that every proposed change is necessarily a good idea despite the high goals.
I don't choose a side based on the favourable outcome. In fact, I don't choose a side at all. This would be the same as leaving the thinking to others which would be an incredibly stupid thing to do in my case. I don't care about ideology. Ideology makes blind. Always. And why should I choose between theories when they are not mutually exclusive? I don't like limiting myself like that.
The realization of the maximum potential of the individual is a very personal thing. Some might tell you that it's necessary to eliminate the socialized gender, but, frankly, that's rubbish as that would be same as healing glaucoma by removing the eyes. All we need to get rid off is the restrictions that are associated with it. Away with that truckload of "should" and "shouldn't", but spare me women who behave like men.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
A lot of people are doing funny faces and going "let men be men and women be women" and continue claiming such nonsense as it's natural for women to have low-status jobs, less pay for the same amount of work, etc etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's a long way from "let men be men and women be women" and claiming that women are meant to have inferior jobs.
The one is just stating that it's a good thing that men and women are different, a statement that I would subscribe any day since I would not want to live in a dull world without that difference. (And no, again I am not talking about anatomy... although that's certainly a point. )
The other is putting a price tag on a gender and saying that one is worth less than the other. I think I have made it clear that I can't sympathize with that.
Sure, realizing that something is different is a prereqisite to claiming that this something is worth more or less, but the same is not true vice versa. And saying that two things are not different when they clearly are, just because the difference could be used by the ideological opposite doesn't make one more believable.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Sad, but understandable. Now, if the standard in sociaety would be to open doors for everyone (regardless of gender), it would be a different matter. My female friends have had similar reactions to my behaviour (I, too, am a door-opener) but have grown accustomed to it as they've seen me open doors for men and women alike.
[/ QUOTE ]
You think a rude reaction to opening a door for someone is understandable? Well, I most certainly don't tend to answer a favour with rudeness, just because I want to insinuate some bad motives behind the favour done. How would that help me? It's an indignity to be forced to disprove false insinuations contracted by nothing but good behaviour.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
I just believe those "predispositions" are more vagie and more easily overcome than generally percieved in the general debate. I see no merit in being limited by our biology unneccessarily.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is just what I said. Having a head start in one activity doesn't force you to pursue that activity. And there are more than enough examples of well-paid jobs where man and women handle things differently, but achieve similar results.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
As someone said, "feminism is the radical idea that women are people". As long as you're with me on not treating men and women differently, not paying them differently, not encouraging them differently, and not bringing them up differently - then we're on the same track.
[/ QUOTE ]"Feminism is the radical idea that women are people" is a nice example of rethorics, but unfortunately the message sent by feminists is a little bit different. Like I mentioned above, damn ideologies. The moment you adopt an ideology you should be able to hear your IQ plummet down. 
And I treat all people differently based on the individual which has very little to do with gender or any other superficial criterion. Well, there are special 'treatments' that are gender-exclusive for me, but I don't think I can be blamed.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Well, I might very well have misunderstood you completely. Most likely due to an overreaction based on your usage the kind of arguments made by people whose conservative opinions I kind of loathe.
There's a difference between agreeing there might be biological differences, and allowing those differences to influence how you treat people. Social and biological gender. Dig?
(And I do hope you understand that I'm not trying to offend you or anyone you care about. If I have, please accept my deepest apologies.)
[/ QUOTE ]
No offence taken. Sometimes one hears a keyword and the associations and assumptions take over, right or wrong. That's why we are talking about it: to not be ruled by false assumptions.
If it has eyes, you can blind it, if it has blood, you can make it bleed, if it has a mouth, you can make it scream.
[ QUOTE ]
Because it makes no sense in a modern setting. For example the sense of orientation: Women's orientation is highly adapted to limited areas while men's orientation is highly adapted to longer travels, just because of the way it works. Learned in a modern setting this would be a very strange and highly unlikely coincidence, but back in prehistoric times this specialization was a key to survival given the distinct roles of men and women back then.
In modern society this gives women an edge for some activities while it's a drawback for others. However, that's still a very long way from telling a woman how her sense of orientation should work and what she should do with it. It's just a given fact the majority of people has to live with, nothing more, nothing less.
[/ QUOTE ]
The thing is, there are a lot of things we are taught, which don't make sense. Most training is covert, as I'm sure you're aware.
[ QUOTE ]
but spare me women who behave like men.
[/ QUOTE ]
Spare me men who behave like "men", and spare me women who behave like "women". I absolutely loathe the ridiculous gender roles assigned due to the biological gender.
[ QUOTE ]
The one is just stating that it's a good thing that men and women are different, a statement that I would subscribe any day since I would not want to live in a dull world without that difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well then, there's the difference between us. I do. That would bring us one step closer to perfection.
I'm not saying women should behave "like men". I'm not saying men should behave like "men". I loathe both the masculine and feminine gender identities, and I want nothing to do with them. They're just another border between people. Tell people often enough that they "can't communicate" and it'll become true. We have thousands of years of training to be "different". We should, in stead of trying to create more "men" and "women", create more individuals.
[ QUOTE ]
You think a rude reaction to opening a door for someone is understandable?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, since it's tied togeather with archaic ideas about the "weaker sex", so-called "gentlemanism" and other sexist structures - frankly yes, it's understandable. See the big picture.
[ QUOTE ]
It's an indignity to be forced to disprove false insinuations contracted by nothing but good behaviour.
[/ QUOTE ]
But continually being seen and implied to be the "weaker sex" isn't?
"Good behaviour" is a matter of perspective.
[ QUOTE ]
"Feminism is the radical idea that women are people" is a nice example of rethorics, but unfortunately the message sent by feminists is a little bit different.[7quote]
Read a lot of feminist theory, about heternonormativity etc, have you? The point is that men are what women are compared to. Men (as in the social "men", not as in the physical gender) are what's "normal", the "default".
[ QUOTE ]
Like I mentioned above, damn ideologies. The moment you adopt an ideology you should be able to hear your IQ plummet down.
[/ QUOTE ]
The difference between someone why says they ascribe to an ideology and one who doesn't, is that the one who doesn't isn't aware of his or her ideology. There's no such thing as "common sense".
[ QUOTE ]
No offence taken. Sometimes one hears a keyword and the associations and assumptions take over, right or wrong. That's why we are talking about it: to not be ruled by false assumptions.
[/ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, several of my assumptions, like you being one of those who want to "celebrate" what I see as mostly socially constructed "differences" between genders.
(And just so we're clear on the terminology: "Gender" is the socialized role; women wearing pink, makeup and high heals, being incomprahensible to men and "mysterious", etc etc. "Sex" is the biological gender. They influence eachother, absolutely - but historically speaking, what it means to be a "man" and a "woman" has changed a lot depending on social class, time in history, and culture)
This debate is educational to follow (if you can muster the energy to read the prodigious amount of text ) but has really derailed from Crimson Archers topic.
The differences of the genders/sexes have nothing to do with homosexual superheroes/villains in this game. Really.
And since you clearly have conflicting views of WHY there's a difference between the genders/sexes there's really no point in venting it any further. You can't change each others oppinions here. Okay?
Personally I'm a heterosexual man (I've tried to swing in the other direction in my youth, but it wasn't for me) who like beer, violent movies, scantily clad women and various sports. Have I become like this because of biology or upbringing? I don't know and I really don't care. I like being me.
Do I think that women are of less worth than men? No chance in Hell! Men and women are of equal worth (regardless of sexual orientation, religion etc...) and should be treated/paid/etc on equal terms. But we are fundamentally different.
Now I will leave this topic, reach into the unused-alt-storage, and start to play with my homosexual toon Dr. Discharge again.
[ QUOTE ]
Now I will leave this topic, reach into the unused-alt-storage, and start to play with my homosexual toon Dr. Discharge again.
[/ QUOTE ]
Teehehehehehe. Ahem.
Serious topic. Very serious.
Cough.
/em snicker
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I will leave this topic, reach into the unused-alt-storage, and start to play with my homosexual toon Dr. Discharge again.
[/ QUOTE ]
Teehehehehehe. Ahem.
Serious topic. Very serious.
Cough.
/em snicker
[/ QUOTE ]
So grateful you had that thought too.
Me three!
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
The thing is, there are a lot of things we are taught, which don't make sense. Most training is covert, as I'm sure you're aware.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sound like a nice phrase to pseudo-disprove anything. So, how would you imagine this "training" to look like when the result is the same for so many different cultures?
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Spare me men who behave like "men", and spare me women who behave like "women". I absolutely loathe the ridiculous gender roles assigned due to the biological gender.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you still need to learn a lot about the more subtle differences between men and women. You are talking about stereotypes.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
The one is just stating that it's a good thing that men and women are different, a statement that I would subscribe any day since I would not want to live in a dull world without that difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well then, there's the difference between us. I do. That would bring us one step closer to perfection.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most certainly not! That would bring us one step closer to being biorobots. Your statement would make sense if all but the anatomical differences between men and women were exclusively of social origin. In all other cases it would be a recipe for evolutionary and social stasis.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
I'm not saying women should behave "like men". I'm not saying men should behave like "men". I loathe both the masculine and feminine gender identities, and I want nothing to do with them. They're just another border between people. Tell people often enough that they "can't communicate" and it'll become true. We have thousands of years of training to be "different". We should, in stead of trying to create more "men" and "women", create more individuals.
[/ QUOTE ]
We should become aliens? Sorry, but I have to put it that way since the race you describe is clearly not mankind. Again, it would make sense if all but the anatomic differences were of social origin, but things being as they are it's just thinly veiled propaganda.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
You think a rude reaction to opening a door for someone is understandable?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, since it's tied togeather with archaic ideas about the "weaker sex", so-called "gentlemanism" and other sexist structures - frankly yes, it's understandable. See the big picture.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I see the big picture. So, how do you say I would profit from insulting someone opening the door even if he was a sexist?
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
It's an indignity to be forced to disprove false insinuations contracted by nothing but good behaviour.
[/ QUOTE ]
But continually being seen and implied to be the "weaker sex" isn't?
"Good behaviour" is a matter of perspective.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hardly. I am not talking about rules of etiquette. The way I hold a spoon certainly won't make the world a better place, but doing someone a favour, even if it's a small one like opening the door, should never provoke an insult unless the person in question wants to insinuate ulterior motives which is an insult in itself.
I can understand such a reaction if I slam the door shut right before a man approaching the door next and tell her something like "So, now that I have opened the door for you that you could have never opened with your weakling arms you can bear my children in return, wench!", but I have never tried this modus operandi. (Perhaps I should... )
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
"Feminism is the radical idea that women are people" is a nice example of rethorics, but unfortunately the message sent by feminists is a little bit different.
[/ QUOTE ]
Read a lot of feminist theory, about heternonormativity etc, have you? The point is that men are what women are compared to. Men (as in the social "men", not as in the physical gender) are what's "normal", the "default".
[/ QUOTE ]
So what? Would it be any better if it was the other way around? Or would you prefer being compared to bacteria or something equally genderless?
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
The difference between someone why says they ascribe to an ideology and one who doesn't, is that the one who doesn't isn't aware of his or her ideology. There's no such thing as "common sense".
[/ QUOTE ]
Not for the followers of ideologies at least, although that makes common sense quite uncommon. Nice rethoric phrases won't cover the fact that those who follow ideologies leave the thinking to others. Others don't require such help.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
On the other hand, several of my assumptions, like you being one of those who want to "celebrate" what I see as mostly socially constructed "differences" between genders.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you on the other hand seem to "celebrate" total equality, something that can not be achieved without limiting freedom since those two concepts are mutually exclusive. I am not particularly fond of that, too.
And about the rest... Well, I have said before that you still argue like someone from the "purely social" faction which leads your whole reasoning ad absurdum.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
(And just so we're clear on the terminology: "Gender" is the socialized role; women wearing pink, makeup and high heals, being incomprahensible to men and "mysterious", etc etc. "Sex" is the biological gender. They influence eachother, absolutely - but historically speaking, what it means to be a "man" and a "woman" has changed a lot depending on social class, time in history, and culture)
[/ QUOTE ]
Just so we're clear on the terminology: What you call "socialized gender" is a mixture of bad taste, urban myth and superficial gender-stereotypes. Perhaps it's that difficult to understand you because from all the differences with social origin you seem to reduce your focus on these few things... actually you seem to reduce all differences apart from anatomy to these things. Don't you really see the rest?
If it has eyes, you can blind it, if it has blood, you can make it bleed, if it has a mouth, you can make it scream.
Who the hell wants to be an androgynous biorobot anyway? Hallelujah to the differences of the genders I say!
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[ QUOTE ]
Sound like a nice phrase to pseudo-disprove anything. So, how would you imagine this "training" to look like when the result is the same for so many different cultures?
[/ QUOTE ]
...because most cultures, if not all, are fundamentally connected to eachother through history?
[ QUOTE ]
I think you still need to learn a lot about the more subtle differences between men and women. You are talking about stereotypes.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you are talking about "subtle" variants of the same stareotypes.
[ QUOTE ]
Most certainly not! That would bring us one step closer to being biorobots. Your statement would make sense if all but the anatomical differences between men and women were exclusively of social origin. In all other cases it would be a recipe for evolutionary and social stasis.
[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely not. We can still make the dirty, regardless of how we work socially or mentally.
Getting rid of "gender" is the same as getting rid of ideas regarding "race" (some races simply work differently). Sure, there's an aesthetic difference. There may even be cultural differences. But they shouldn't influence how you treat, talk to, or raise new human beings.
[ QUOTE ]
We should become aliens? Sorry, but I have to put it that way since the race you describe is clearly not mankind.
[/ QUOTE ]
So what if we become "aliens"? It sould be a definite improvement.
Personally, I see mankind as it is today as having a deeply flawed culture on all fronts. There is a sickness in the heart of the human cultures that needs to be cured.
[ QUOTE ]
Again, it would make sense if all but the anatomic differences were of social origin, but things being as they are it's just thinly veiled propaganda.
[/ QUOTE ]
I could say the exact same thing about any "biologically" focused perspective.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I see the big picture. So, how do you say I would profit from insulting someone opening the door even if he was a sexist?
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say people benefited. I didn't even say I though women should do it. I can simply understand why. Understanding and agreeing are two very different animals. I, for instance, understand your view - but I don't agree with it.
[ QUOTE ]
Hardly. I am not talking about rules of etiquette. The way I hold a spoon certainly won't make the world a better place, but doing someone a favour, even if it's a small one like opening the door, should never provoke an insult unless the person in question wants to insinuate ulterior motives which is an insult in itself.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're still focusing on the individual issue, while I see the action taken as a part of a larger structure. Women are constantly looked down upon. We men "have to take care of " those "defenceless little creatures". I'm not saying that you, or anyone, are conciously trying to uphold that kind of a belief system, and practically noone actually says it like that anymore - but the same structures remain, both structurally and individually. The simple action of holding up a door is more than a "simple action". It's a highly symbolic act, connected with all the rest of the [censored].
[ QUOTE ]
I can understand such a reaction if I slam the door shut right before a man approaching the door next and tell her something like "So, now that I have opened the door for you that you could have never opened with your weakling arms you can bear my children in return, wench!", but I have never tried this modus operandi. (Perhaps I should... )
[/ QUOTE ]
Like I said - symbolic act.
[ QUOTE ]
So what? Would it be any better if it was the other way around? Or would you prefer being compared to bacteria or something equally genderless?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd prefer us to not have a gender-based standard at all.
[ QUOTE ]
Not for the followers of ideologies at least, although that makes common sense quite uncommon.
[/ QUOTE ]
Common sense is simply the sum of your preconceptions...
[ QUOTE ]
Nice rethoric phrases won't cover the fact that those who follow ideologies leave the thinking to others. Others don't require such help.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bull. Your "own thinking" is still determined by your experiences, what people you like think, etc. There's not a single person on this planet who "thinks for him/herself". Your thinking is an effect caused by your surroundings and experiences.
As for the ideology issue, how do you know it's not the other way around? Let's say I found myself annoyed at macho idiots and the ridiculus ideas some people have regarding gender. Say I find I want to try and help raise the issue. Well then, feminism just happens to be an ideology that fits. Ideologies are flexible. Just look at stuff like democracy. How many different kinds of democracy is there? Definitions? Etc? Quite a lot. And still, believing in democracy makes you, theoretically, a democrat (not as in the off-to-the-right american political party, mind you - that's a whole different story)
[ QUOTE ]
Just so we're clear on the terminology: What you call "socialized gender" is a mixture of bad taste, urban myth and superficial gender-stereotypes. Perhaps it's that difficult to understand you because from all the differences with social origin you seem to reduce your focus on these few things... actually you seem to reduce all differences apart from anatomy to these things. Don't you really see the rest?
[/ QUOTE ]
So, just because I'm obscenely curious about the way other people think:
So far, you've put down all my examples of gender diefferences as "stereotypes". What, then, are the "real" differences (but believe me, the stereotypes are alive and well. You should see the studies done on how young women construct "femaleness")?
What makes a man a man? What is a "man"?
What makes a woman a woman? What is a "woman"?
(and if you have any plans on quoting John Grey, we'd better end this discussion right about now. I tend to become quite angry when I think about that stinking pile of doo-doo. The only other person even coming close to making me angry is Ayn Rand. Not much makes me actually angry)
[ QUOTE ]
Who the hell wants to be an androgynous biorobot anyway? Hallelujah to the differences of the genders I say!
[/ QUOTE ]
You really see gender as being that central to your identity? Your hobbies, interest, sexual preferences, cultural background, favorite books, parents, occupation, favorite color, what movies you like, what food you like... Those don't matter? Your identity is 100% Being A Man, and if you take away that, there's nothing left?
If so, how sad. But I don't believe you really believe that. Gender is only one part, and not necessarily an important part, of a person's identity.
I've got a nifty idea. How about you get on with being male, and let us women tell you when we feel you are keeping us down?
That sound good to you?
[ QUOTE ]
I've got a nifty idea. How about you get on with being male, and let us women tell you when we feel you are keeping us down?
That sound good to you?
[/ QUOTE ]
you go girl!
seriously though, its all fine and good championing feminism and whatnot, but ONLY a woman can know what a woman wants (okay, that may explain the increase in the number of lesbians... or that a majority of men are morons. Either way, who gives a damn. lets get back to talking about [censored] heroes!)
[ QUOTE ]
us women
[/ QUOTE ]
You see, here's where you make two pretty weird basic assumptions. You kind of assume you "women" are a heterogeneous group. You also assume that no person who happens to have is genitals on the outside of his body could ever even begin to understand, sympathize, or wish to change things.
To me, both assumptions are simply wrong. First of all, I know enough women to know you aren't a heterogeneous group. You have more or less the same range of personality, interests, knowledges etc as "men".
Women have, for most of human history, been taught to like being in a certain way. That doesn't mean it's a good way. "What people like" is determined by the culture in which they exist.
And no, I won't go on "being male". I don't see myself as "male". I prefer to see myself as "human". My gender isn't that big an issue when it comes to my identity.
[ QUOTE ]
ONLY a woman can know what a woman wants
[/ QUOTE ]
Sexually, perhaps - but otherwise, again, gender doesn't have to be all that important.
And as I said, "what a woman wants" is culturally defined. I've read enough history and various studies to know that much.
do you get cranky once a month?
[ QUOTE ]
Dr_Mechano: The [censored] aspect sounds fun, I hope you post screenies soon!
[/ QUOTE ]
Working on it Blackdove. Always thought of using it to create interesting roleplay in that only ONE of his forms is homosexual the others are straight...and considering he's going to begin shifting through them at random instead of under his own control (genetic tinkering really does have a down side) it's going to create some enjoyably awkward moments to RP.
Mechano is already in a relationship with Misty Logic his female assistant, not quite sure how she's going to take to the new side of him popping up at random. Though the word 'open relationship' really much covers Mechano and Misty's relationship so hopefully wont be too much trouble there.
Badge Earned: Wing Clipper
A real showstopper!