Don't understand the objection to the word "sexism" at all -- it's just a thing that things can be. Sometimes more definitely so, other times there are margins and boundaries and stuff but...??? Arguing that something that is aimed at a subset of people to make them afraid or change their behavior based on personal characteristics shouldn't be characterizes as such, is like Repubs arguing against hate crimes legislation because they secretly DO think that gays and etc really are inferior/wrong...? It's neither crazy nor confusing.
ctdr, I am not calling you sexist or your ideas sexist or w/e, but I don't get why you can't call a simple thing what it is because the word might...scare people?
― WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:07 (fourteen years ago) link
in this case i think a comparison w/ racism is totally legit -- i disagree, much like w/ race, regardless of the 'intent' -- as if that can be measured -- simply ignorance/lack of awareness is not an excuse for being inappropriate xp
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:07 (fourteen years ago) link
Sorry, I actually went home from work and slept a couple of hours. I don't know what's wrong with me but everything is too close to the surface today.
this is like when ppl were arguing whether or not kramer's racist ... its like, if hes not, then who is?? yes its more discursively useful to regard actions as sexist & not worry about trying to divide ppl up into "sexist" & "not sexist" camps, because otherwise ppl w/ sexist ideas are constantly saying 'i'm not a sexist' & think that gives them a pass to say sexist shit. But at the same time, just as we casually call dudes 'creeps' i think casually calling dudes 'sexist' is pretty reasonable.
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:10 (fourteen years ago) link
for the purposes of this abstract discussion, i mean
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:11 (fourteen years ago) link
i think thats one of the things that the sexism debate has over the racism debate -- that debates about race often come down to "i'm not a racist," while i'm not sure the same is true for sexism, that ppl are more likely to identify sexist *actions* and less likely to worry about 'being a sexist'
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:12 (fourteen years ago) link
it's on another level entirely and i'm not saying that about anyone here, but it reminds me of tucker max's defense that he "loves women, they're his biggest fans," etc
― jØrdån (omar little), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:13 (fourteen years ago) link
XPOST MINDMELD This is beginning to remind me of the Michael Richards thread and the argument over whether the dude was incontrovertibly a RACIST versus a guy who behaved in a racist fashion (or even, to take the R-word out of the equation entirely, a guy who acted thoughtlessly and tastelessly).
― Nuyorican oatmeal (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:14 (fourteen years ago) link
its like, if hes not, then who is??
Someone who exhibits a long history of prejudice and discrimination against those of another race?
― Nuyorican oatmeal (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:15 (fourteen years ago) link
No one has accused anyone here in this giant clusterfuck thread of Being An Sexist. I used the word like twice to refer to actions.
― WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:16 (fourteen years ago) link
right but what does that guy have to do w/ michael richards? its like, brownie points for not being hitler but you're still an asshole xp
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:16 (fourteen years ago) link
but it reminds me of tucker max's defense that he "loves women, they're his biggest fans,"
right, that's like the classic "i can't be a misogynist, i love women!" defense
― hey trader joe's! i've got the new steely dan. (Jordan), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:17 (fourteen years ago) link
laurel, exactly -- thats what im saying. im agreeing w/ you and disagreeing w/ contenderizer
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:17 (fourteen years ago) link
Well, sure, he's an asshole, but I'm not sure he's a racist.
― Nuyorican oatmeal (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:17 (fourteen years ago) link
my point was that in debates about racism, there's a subtext that someone is always trying to identify "a racist" -- even when its never stated -- while i think w/ debates about sexism it tends to get into debates about actions, whether particular actions are sexist. I think that in terms of discussion, on some level that makes debates about sexism more productive
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:18 (fourteen years ago) link
yeah guys like that love women who adore them, but if women challenge them the misogynist comes out
― jØrdån (omar little), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:19 (fourteen years ago) link
xxxp
jaymc, i disagree, but i think that arguing about it is kind of useless & pointless -- its a question of semantics
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:20 (fourteen years ago) link
"love" i should say
― cantus in memory of benjamin bratt (omar little), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:20 (fourteen years ago) link
in my semantic definition of 'a racist,' kramer is probably 'a racist,' although really having determined what that means is ultimately not really engaging w/ any of the actual pressing problems at hand
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:21 (fourteen years ago) link
I agree w/this.
― Nuyorican oatmeal (jaymc), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:22 (fourteen years ago) link
see, whatever laurel's rhetorical equivalence of racism and sexism (and i think posters have adequately dealt with that, incl. laurel herself), this thread can be summed up as
laurel: my fellow human beings disgust and depress meother ppl: smelltheglove.wav
so yeah, laurel otm
― goole, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:23 (fourteen years ago) link
it's okay to have thoughts of whatever kind in your own head.
people have sexual thoughts about other people sometimes. there is nothing wrong with this, ever, at any level.
we should not be so ready to believe these things imo.
― goole, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:25 (fourteen years ago) link
yah otm
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:25 (fourteen years ago) link
yes
― cantus in memory of benjamin bratt (omar little), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:26 (fourteen years ago) link
What? That's crazy.
― bear say hi to me (ENBB), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:26 (fourteen years ago) link
I completely disagree.
― bear say hi to me (ENBB), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:27 (fourteen years ago) link
so confused
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:27 (fourteen years ago) link
Expecially when it comes to something as complex and natural as human sexuality.
― bear say hi to me (ENBB), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:28 (fourteen years ago) link
We should all post every questionable thought we may have throughout the day and then y'all can tell us which we should be shamed for.
― hope this helps (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:28 (fourteen years ago) link
i think the opposition w/ laurel got set up cuz a bunch of ppl voted for the joke answer from the perspective of "despite being creepy & weird & awkward of that dude to say anything publicly, that chick is pretty hot tbh" & thinking that voting that way was kinda edgy/lol -- laurel pointed out it was a depressing result -- ppl got defensive cuz they felt she was conflating them w/ the creep ... or something idk
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:29 (fourteen years ago) link
xp to granny dainger -- never understand why ppl come in to threads where folks are having reasonable mature discussion & act like its some crazy clusterfuck insanity thread ... this isnt exactly brits-buys-a-bottle-opener stuff here
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:30 (fourteen years ago) link
x-post Yes agreed but I don't think that was ever in question. In fact, I thik that was the whole point of her original post!
― bear say hi to me (ENBB), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:30 (fourteen years ago) link
― goole, Wednesday, December 2, 2009 4:25 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
To clarify this is what I was disagreeing with.
― bear say hi to me (ENBB), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:31 (fourteen years ago) link
I wouldn't have gone that far (xxxxxxp), I think all you can reasonably ask of people is that they keep their inner monologues to themselves, but I am intrigued with the idea. Honestly although you can't prosecute or condemn someone for their thoughts, you can sure as hell think of less of them for it if they tell you something that indicates they are out of line, in your estimation.
― WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:31 (fourteen years ago) link
i can think of a lot of thoughts its not ok to have in your head
― max, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:32 (fourteen years ago) link
if actions can be more or less good, then thoughts too. i mean, what's the difference? yeah yeah, whether it affects others, but the "don't affect anyone w/ yr bullshit" is more of a political issue than a moral one.
xp eh 'natural' -- as far as human sexuality even is such, so what?
i don't have any grand solutions, but i'm dissatisfied with a state of affairs where "don't [act like] a creep" is fine but "don't [think like] a creep" is like 10 steps too far. why?
― goole, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:32 (fourteen years ago) link
1mx xps
― goole, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:33 (fourteen years ago) link
i must not think bad thoughts
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:33 (fourteen years ago) link
ENBB i think its perfectly legit to critique personal sexual ideas as much as anything else! just because it occurs to someone 'naturally' doesnt mean its above consideration -- a lot of 'natural' ideas of sexuality are actually the result of environmental stimuli anyway
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:33 (fourteen years ago) link
*having thoughts furiously*
― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:33 (fourteen years ago) link
deej i never understand why some people think they need to be schoolmarms.
― hope this helps (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:33 (fourteen years ago) link
Ppl have been very open and I think the range in how much ppl feel free/threatened wrt sex talk/thoughts in public is perhaps the most significant thing. It would be harsh to ask ppl to take responsibility for how vulnerable they feel their identity is to the gaze of others. I guess I think it would be best if the strange man at the liquor store was disempowered, if that expression made him vulnerable rather than the woman whose ass it was, if him doing his "I have a boner" thing was more of a risky personal confession than a landgrab. But, def as long as we're young and hot enough to be desired and probably forever, the sexual threat is going to bear way more on women, and that can give any guy's thoughts/looks/behaviour an extra potency to women they're dealing with, regardless of intention. So I think that puts the onus on guys to be aware of potentially very different levels of comfort/openness w/expressing/receiving desire. I don't think the answer is to try and find a standard of behaviour you can justify, and say that beyond that, if anyone is uncomfortable it's their problem. Sometimes that is hard and there's probably an 18 year old woman in rural Afghanistan who would never be comfortable talking to me alone, not my fault, but what can you do?
― ogmor, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:33 (fourteen years ago) link
sorry to interrupt your sexy time, granny danger, perhaps there are other whole entire internets out there for you
― goole, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:35 (fourteen years ago) link
ilxor.com: your source for schoolmarms
― curtest hipness (Curt1s Stephens), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:36 (fourteen years ago) link
dude sorry my negative reaction to people being all "yes let's start questioning people's baser thoughts, that will surely be really productive and something that always works well for the human race" rankled you so
― hope this helps (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:37 (fourteen years ago) link
Laurel's original post was fine.
Laurel's second post was idiotic lashing out at black people a la Michael Richards.
Only horseshoe and I called her on it and she never actually apologized for doing it.
I'm still fucking pissed off about it but, on balance, not really surprised, because this is pretty much exactly what I expect from all of you; it's still disheartening, though.
― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:37 (fourteen years ago) link
― hope this helps (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, December 2, 2009 3:37 PM (4 seconds ago) Bookmark
no one asked for peak inside your brain im fairly certain
― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:38 (fourteen years ago) link
I think it's time this thread got laid. Then maybe it can have a snack and go to sleep happy.
― Of course I want frosting. I'm a Scorpio. (kenan), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:38 (fourteen years ago) link
Hahahah Dan you are doing EXACTLY WHAT I PRAISED YOU FOR, which is policing these boards for levels of EVEN JOKEY racism that might read as fucked up or offend normal readers (and mine was purposefully way beyond that). My point EXACTLY is that no one does this for any other issue on ILX. And see? You can't let it go either.
― WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:39 (fourteen years ago) link