Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Genderfuck you.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5(6)

14:19 / 29.01.02

quote:Originally posted by The Planet of Sound:
Not sure about public schools, which seem designed to generate hypocritical hatred.

Is this a swipe at Haus, or do you really believe this to be the case?

quote:If we're talking purely sexual discrimination/gender fascism, again, unlikely. There will always be hateful people in the world

Sure, but theirs won't always be the majority view. In what seems like a scant decade or so, the prevailing view of homosexuality (in the UK, anyway) has changed enormously. The bigots still exist, or course, but they're a lot less confident about voicing their opinions outwith their own little enclaves. My parents' generation knew almost nothing about gay men and women; my generation's a lot less ignorant.

Positive change can and does happen. Slowly - and actual equality legislation inevitably lags behind - but it does happen.

14:20 / 29.01.02

quote:
"but what am I?".

Ive outlined my position quite clearly. excuse me for expecting someone to actually not only clarify what theyve said but to honestly respond to the ideas Ive actually posted, without stooping to attacking my character or something that I didnt even imply. forgive me

14:25 / 29.01.02

It's a 'Simpsons' reference, Bitchiekittie. A nod to facile playground exchanges of the "'you're a big poo'; 'I know you are but what am I'" variety. He's not actually enquiring about your viewpoint...

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

14:34 / 29.01.02

Ganesh - Thank you. The personal, I freely admit is the political, but not *that* personal and *that* apolitical it isn't, BK.

BK - Hypothesis. If one accepts your thesis that the "common people" are unsaveable scum, then why should there be any incentive for them to change what they believe, and why should anyone make any effort to help them to do so? So, why should they not continue to express beliefs and act on beliefs like the ones I proposed? And if we accept that the majority of the populus is too stupid to change its opinions or beliefs, why should we bother with argument or reason at all?

If you don't want to discuss the implications of your statements in the Head Shop, please start a theory-free "we hate Haus" thread in the Conversation or something. I'm sure many will rally to your banner.

PoS - By infintely ignorant, do you mean that there is a finite capacity for knowledge and an infinite amount of knowledge? Not sure I understand you...

14:39 / 29.01.02

...which is yet another point. when, if ever, is there anything other than a personal attack involved in his posts?

Im too fucking frustrated with you haus, Ill remove the thorn of my presence from your life for today

14:44 / 29.01.02

quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:
...which is yet another point. when, if ever, is there anything other than a personal attack involved in his posts?

Um. In the last one. And the one before that, and...

I'll admit it's easy to be blinded by the occasional sting of Haus's posts, but accusing him of empty personal attack is just plain wrong.

Gah. This whole dialogue's frustrating me; I feel like a Haus apologist (or interpreter). I'm off to lie down in a darkened gimp-suit.

14:48 / 29.01.02

my apologies, I missed the last one

however, when I have time and patience I will prove you wrong

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

14:48 / 29.01.02

Oh no. I feel terrible. Who will we nervously fear ever to disagree with for fear of tear-stained repercussions now?
Where's Kali when you need her?

Moving the thread possibly back from Falcon Crest territory, I think Ganesh makes a very valid point. Possibly prejudice cannot be eradicated, but it can be *diluted*. On a parallel (in some ways), a 94-year old woman has been in the UK news lately. At first it appeared that she had not been washed or had her clothes changed when she arrived at hospital, covered in blood and unable to do it herself. Decline of NHS, New Labour scandal, etc. Then it turned out that she had in fact refused point-blank, and become quite abusive when the attempt was made, to be touched by a non-white nurse (IIRC). How much greater would the likelihood of that be in a 94-year-old than a 24-year old.

Question is, is there a comparable drift? Are TSes and TGs more able to live freely, or is it just a question of finding safe spaces? I have a gut feeling, for example, that those dens of hypocritical hatred in the public school system might be a "safer" place for a TG teacher than a state school in many ways, and a University a safer space yet, although "safety" is not necessarily any more desirable a long-term goal than "tolerance".

And, to turn SFD's question about lesbians allowing TGs into safe female space, how much safe trans space is there, ultimately? Does the outside world still demand that horrible limbo bar of "passing" be...passed under?

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:49 / 29.01.02

Okay, gotta say - I can see exactly why bitchiekittie might have reason to be pissed off. This:

quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Hair-Pulls and Kicking:
if I was so minded, I could taje the fact that my point went over your head as a sign that you are a hopeless case, and will always be trapped in your "us/them, patricians/plebs" dualism, and just give up.

...is pretty unnecessary. It could be that you're trying to parody the attitude that you're accusing bk of having Haus - ie, believing that certain people just can't be educated - but you don't really make this clear, and it's too easy to interpret it as playground sneering. Surely it's also a bit unfair to ask other people not to assume that there is a general populus to whom it isn't even worth trying to explain certain ideas, and then not be willing to explain your own arguments to people who say they don't quite understand them?

If I was really a Haus deputy, I'd pick you up on "taje" as well...

[ 29-01-2002: Message edited by: Flyboy ]

14:53 / 29.01.02

This bit

quote:Hypothesis. If one accepts your thesis that the "common people" are unsaveable scum, then why should there be any incentive for them to change what they believe, and why should anyone make any effort to help them to do so? So, why should they not continue to express beliefs and act on beliefs like the ones I proposed? And if we accept that the majority of the populus is too stupid to change its opinions or beliefs, why should we bother with argument or reason at all?

could certainly be perceived as a "personal attack" if one were minded to see it as such, but it's a much more general (and pertinent) questioning of your original assertion re: the ignorance of the masses.

And this

quote:PoS - By infintely ignorant, do you mean that there is a finite capacity for knowledge and an infinite amount of knowledge? Not sure I understand you...

seems to be an attempt to get Planet of Sound to clarify/sharpen his statement.

Not empty personal attacks. Argument.

Now, I really must go zip myself into something less comfortable...

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

14:55 / 29.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Flyboy:
It could be that you're trying to parody the attitude that you're accusing bk of having Haus - ie, believing that certain people just can't be educated.

Well of course I fucking am, Fly. Hence "If I was so minded". Because I'm not. Point being, there is always somebody who will feel entitled to write you off, so if you go down that "they just can't ever learn" route, unless you are Adrian Veidt or Varro you should expect other people with the same view to see you (erroneously, obviously) as equally resistant to learning.

Ancient Greek has little words to signify antithetical balance in a sentence. Maybe we need little flags to express the idea that however tempting it may be to get out the slappy gauntlet, a rereading of the post in the broader context of the argument in general might be wise.

You're absolutely right about "taje", though. I have big burns on my fingers and was up all night. Thus I have typing skills of special boy. But then I *always* have typing skills of special boy...

[ 29-01-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Hair-Pulls and Kicking ]

[ 29-01-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Hairbraids and Knitting ]

14:56 / 29.01.02

Let's stick to the subject...

14:57 / 29.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Ierne:
Let's stick to the subject...

We lost sight of that a lo-o-ong time ago.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

15:00 / 29.01.02

No, let's. I posted some questions a bit further up, if anyone's minded to grab the ball...

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

15:01 / 29.01.02

No, let's. I posted some questions a bit further up, if anyone's minded to grab the ball...

15:26 / 29.01.02

Thanks, but my balls have been grabbed more than enough already in this thread.

Alas, there is a lack of understanding of my intentions in your previous post. (And no, that's not a snide reference to a certain Gallic psychoanalyst not renowned for his feminist tendencies, though doubtless you'll interpret it thus.)

In a nutshell: I try to explain something to someone who hasn't studied as much crit. theory as us and I am branded an "anti-intellectual". I cite an empirical fact and I am suspected of "right-wing antifeminism". I am accused of irony when I am not being ironic (the red hair sacking is well-documented). I use - with obvious reservation - the term "hard science" and then my understanding is said to be "fucked"?!!!

%I can't imagine why people are saying the Head Shop is full of bullies, cliques and unacceptable debating practices and leaving the board because of it.%

<cliques heels together three times and vanishes>

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

15:31 / 29.01.02

God help me, I think I'm with Bill here - I think alas went in *wery* hard on a series of possible interpretations. But at the same time....is alas part of a "Head Shop Clique"? Haven't seen hir around that mu-

What the Hell am I doing?

To the mines of Ontopica!

16:50 / 29.01.02

quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Hair-Pulls and Kicking:
To the mines of Ontopica!

Ha-heyy! Where the chief export of Selfawaria is produced!

20:18 / 29.01.02

First--i think i did write that answer a little strongly; i apologize for my tone, Bill.

I'm going to try again, more respectfully this time: basically, I still believe that the oversimplification of "theory people" as "people scared of science" who just want everything to go back to people just being people, sounds like a way to pick a fight, rather than a genuine attempt to explore an issue respectfully. I'm a Humanities PhD. The mythos of science in this culture is, in my opinion, the dominant religion in academe. All disciplines must try to pass as "science," even though we all know that only the "hard" sciences are the "real" sciences. ..

(Oops--getting tetchy again. I admit that last time I should have waited till I could be more respectful, less angry, when I composed my riposte. "Be the change you want to see in the world," as Ghandi apparently said.)

Second, I still can't see where you were coming from with the examples about women being allowed to retire earlier and red-haired men being unfairly discriminated against in fishing jobs. It's not that I think the red-haired incident didn't occur, but I do think that the overall point SEEMED to be that women, as opposed to men, have unfairly benefited[?] from the economic status quo in the same odd way that this red-haired sailor was discriminated against . . . the analogy lost me.

I do hope that's better. I do so want to be ONE with the Head Shop . . .

14:45 / 30.01.02

Now that I have recovered from the shock of being on Haus' side and the sting of your response to my post alas, I too must 'pologise: "theory people" was admittedly overgeneralisation and to stereotype an overgeneralisation constitutes a double error on my part.

As for the other bit, I truly didn't mean the retirement thaang (which has either been changed or is about to change) or the red-hair thing to imply that women do not have it by far the worst in this world of ours (and as far as I know, the black ones have it worse than the white ones). Those points were not meant to be totalising or generalised from. I just thought they would save me, a white man, from commiting the unforgivable sin of speaking for women or people of colour. Despite my privilaged position, I am trying. Though to you at least, I guess I am very trying.

If I'd really wanted trouble, I would have mentioned that the male suicide rate in the UK is four times the female suicide rate, wouldn't I?

16:35 / 30.01.02

bill--when I re-read your post in what I _think_ was the tone you intended, it all makes more sense to me. and trying is important...

re: suicide rate. I think weird things are happening regarding gender right now (duh--the original topic makes that clear)--although I cringe at the potential implications of what I'm about to say, sometimes we (and i include myself) can seem to be more about establishing some kind of hierarchy of victimization than exploring the ways that the current gender constructions create peculiar constraints ON EVERYONE, including those who occupy privileged positions.

So: rather than looking at white male suicide under the implicit rubric of "see they're victimized" I'd like to explore the following question: does the way our culture currently construct masculinity create a context where it is more "masculine" to see suicide as a viable solution to problems--more viable than, oh, say, seeking out a therapist, sharing your problems with your friends?

10:13 / 31.01.02

First response: hmm... not so much that suicide is 'masculine', but prolly that the alternatives are 'feminine'. Which is near as dammit but not quite the same.

But I am multivalent on this. Other responses:

1. Suicide rates have been argued to be totally unreliable; some people therefore disregard such 'data' totally.
2. Women have much higher rates of 'mental illness' (whatever that is) than men. Both 'mental illness' and suicide cd be broadly considered as a rejection of social reality. (Unless of course we want to argue that a male-biased psychiatric system over-diagnoses mentall illness in women and that stat is also invalid.)

Dunno...

10:15 / 31.01.02

There's so much to say about this one, it really deserves its own thread...

Page: 1 2 3 4 5(6)