| |
|
Ok, I'm fairly pissed with this post and it's content. I'm going to try and keep to criticising the post rather than the poster, but if I make a woopsie and call you, Epop, a dickhead then it's because I'm very, very angry and because your post makes you appear to be the worst kind of pin-worm alike in the world. It's not nessascarily because you are a bad person. Though you probably are.
Also, note the cunning way in which the words I have just written above try to take account of *your* feelings as a reader. I've tried to imagine how you would respond and with that forethought managed to create a post that causes minimal offence. That is good behaviour, it is always nice not to upset people. Now, think of your post, where you (obviously) didn't go through the same process and compare it. If I had the common courtesy to tread carefull when talking about offensive posting, would it have been THAT SHARDING DIFFICULT TO TREAD CAREFULLY AROUND MATTERS OF RAPE AND RELIGION?
No, it wouldn't. I, as a rape victim, felt hurt by what you said. I, as spiritual person, felt hurt by what you said. I, as a male, felt shamed by what you said. The things you are talking about are *real* and are happening to *real* people. Try to have some fucking compassion, k? Right, I'm going to try and go through the post and deconstruct it a bit. If I go massively outside the topic of "Sexism in Magic" then someone please stop me before I destroy the thread.
XK - you say you have numbers? Ok, show me your numbers.
To me, that comes off as aggressive. There was no need to be.
Let's start with Ham Radio operators, and miniature war games. I'm *quite* well aware that there are a lot of females playing MMOs, for example, but seriously, I think that you are putting your own observations of life aside to discuss your models of the world: these fields are, by and large, almost devoid of women because, by and large, chicks simply do not dig it.
Actually, just because your subjective experience isn't the same as XK's doesn't mean that she is lying to herself about them. Don't call someone deluded because they have disagreed with you, it's a really stupid thing to do.
Yes: chicks.
Now, don't confuse this with somebody who was never exposed to "feminism" or gender equivalence thinking. I'm a Post-Feminist, if you like.In my experience the retarded approach which has been taking to dealing with the issues of gender in our culture, particularly in the academic world, are not only completely unhelpful, but their stupidity and lack of observational reality simply beggars the imagination?
I'm not sure about post-feminism, I'm not that well versed in theory. But a large group of the FI poster's here will not want to be designated as cute, fluffy, edible, disposable meat. I, personally, feel like my female assosciates (about 51% of all my assosciates) are being attacked and marginalised by that statement. It is a face-stabby statement. For you, as an individual, to come here and use that word, knowing it would upset people but not caring, is just selfishness. It's not "post feminist thought".
Secondarily, I'm really not comfortable with your scary incomplete image of feminism. I really suggest you actually research it before just dumping it in the "academic" box and moving on. Also, "retarded" is an uncomfortable word to use, so don't. Fool.
I might suggest that you, as a man, shouldn't be questioning the observational ability of women as related to their own experience as a female. Just because their (completely and totally better informed) view of female experience / identity clashes with your doesn't mean that they are wrong or that you have the right to start hurling abuses at disciplines you don't understand.
You know why women are a lot harder, on average, to get into bed than men? Start counting calories for reproduction. Take a really hard look at evolutionary biology.
You are patronising and condescending.
Secondly, in my experience (and sexually, sweetheart, I assure you it's vast) women aren't that much harder to get into bed. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that you are wrong. Very wrong. More wrong than a bag of geckos.
If their is some discrepancy between male and female bedability (which, unless you give me some peer reviewed literature, I think I'm going to doubt) then we wouldn't have to look to biology anyway. Maybe we could just look to the scary discrepancy between society's treatment of male sexuality and society's treatment of female sexuality? It's becoming a cliche, but maybe you should examine the difference between a "slut" and a "stud"? Or, maybe, you should take a "good hard look" instead.
I'm an animal. So are you. No amount of whining about fairness changes the fact that rape is the *core* of a good deal of female behavior not only in the human world, but right across the mammal and other animal kingdom. If you don't think that darwinian factors largely maul, kill and eat cultural considerations, why is it that **REGARDLESS** of "cultural" factors, roughly 10% of children were fathered by somebody other than the person who is called their father?
First off, if your going to use statistics then back them up with references. Just because you found the information printed on the back of your Kellogs doesn't make it true.
Also,I've had a good look at evolutionary biology, and as far as *I* can tell (and I'm at least as clever as you are) it doesn't really support your claim that rape is near to the core of female identity or behaviour. And, as a man, who the fuck are you to talk about it? Maybe ask some of the women here rather than tell them?
This was the point where I just wanted to get up and shoot you to be honest. To talk about rape like this, like it's an abstract and unavoidable thing, when there are almost certainly rape victims going to be reading. What are you, evil or stupid? I couldn't even tell how it applied to your (horrific mishandling of) sociobiological theory. Females being raped by males is a genetic inevitability? Is that what you are saying? Is that actually, in the 21st century, and in the abscence of severely debilitating neurological damage, what you are saying? Really? That men have no choice but to rape and that women have no option but to be raped? Without mentioning your odd notion that men don't get raped, I think that's possibly the worst thing I've ever heard someone put up as an opinion.
I have genes, I want sex. But I don't rape.
I really don't know what you where trying to say here, I can't find sense. All I can find is horrific verbal poison. I'm struggling not to just write how awful you are over and over again.
The reason it's the same across the entire human race is because it's too damn important to be left to the forebrain: 10% of kids are "garden variety" because it's something that apparently works in evolutionary terms. Same with homosexuality - whatever the payoff there is, it's clearly important enough to be replicated in all kinds of mammalian species. Maybe it's like sickle cell anemia, maybe it's something vastly more profound, but queer is everywhere.
Thanks, darling. We are indeed everywhere. Invading your cellars and stealing you kids etc. Do you not see why comparing their sexual identification with casual illicit sex might cause some gay people to get offended? I, personally, don't get a face stab from it, but others do. So try to think a bit before you starting bringing in the queers from garden.
Let me push this harder: men earn 1/3rd more than women. This is useful because women are *biologically* *attracted* to men with money, in the same way that men are *biologically* *attracted* to women with strong physical symmetry and a 1/3 waist/hip ratio. These things are hardwired and culture and personality are forces which act upon this substrate, not replace it.
Ah, and because or genes say it we *have* to do it? The above is just bollocks really. Yes, some women are attracted to money. Just like some men are attracted to money. Most people, not just men, find symetry attractive.
Do you notice the odd dichotomy you've set up here? Women are after money and men are after sex? Do you see how this characterisation is flawed? I, as a man, would like a rich dowager duchess for a bed-partner. My female friends, as women, have often commented to me about the physical desirability of a man. It's not as simple as women=whores and men=monkeys. The sex-phobic virgin-mother types, who give it all up for cash, are a descrisption of patriachal desire. They are not the norm of female experience. Neither am I, or my fellow penis owners, sex obsessed monkey dogs. I own the lump of flesh between my legs, it does not own me.
Also, that whole thing about ratios on women. It's a crock. Barbelith probably wouldn't apreciate me bringing photos on board, but I suggest you go research the pornography. Or the anthropology. Or maybe even, *dun dun duuuuuun*, the feminists who you have been so completely exposed too? But really, in a world with feeders and size-zero supermodels, how can you say that?
As for whether magic is a hobby for you or a serious profession, I can't speak to your experience, but you don't *sound* like somebody who's seen the same kind of territory I'm discussing, and - from many years of experience - if you haven't started having brushes with anhilation, you're probably in the foot hills.
Oh, please. Could you be strokin your wand any harder? Funny, for the XTREME!!! psychic traveller you try and present, you seem to be having trouble with basic communication skills.
It's not entirely relevant to sexism, though I can see how a similar process has ensured sexism in magic for a good while yet, but could you please get off your high horse? There is more than one way of being. Just because you took a particular dirt-track to Tesco doesn't mean that I can't be cycling there along the underpass too.
And, equally importantly, there's nothing at the top of the mountain. You go there because you must, and for no other reason.
Do I? Oh, good. Thanks for telling me.
Seriously, is there anything in your personal cosmology that you do because you want too? Or is it all vast, fated quests and tiny, uncontrolable genetics?
We, as a group, get that you are proud of your magical achievements. Fine. But please stop whiping your great, jism covered porn mag across our bored, dissinterested faces. If we'd asked for a "how great am I" competition we would have made a thread called "How great am I". If you really feel the need to write like this then this really isn't the thread. Or the forum.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh or unfeeling,
Then write it differently.
but I think it's very very important to really put some things in perspective here.
actually, we had one. We all have our own perspectives. That's sort of the point of a "forum". If we'd wanted a leader we would ahve joined a "cult".
Magic is fun right up until you realize that there is no law to watch your back, and that you're involved in schemes that go back six, eight, ten thousand years straight.< If you haven't met the beings I'm talking about when I say "don't give a shit about your humanity" and so forth be very, very glad. Try to keep it that way.
Seriously, Barbelith is not your cum rag. Go masturbate elsewhere.
On this Nath stuff? Go back and read about Gorakshnath and Maccsyendranath on the Island of Women. Now in the version I know of that story, Gorakshnath realizes that Maccsyendranath has become confused and deluded by the material world, so he kill and skins both of Maccsynedranath's sons and hangs the skins up for Maccsyendranath to see to wake him out of the dream he's fallen into.
And those are the good guys.
The bad guys are like Stalin or Mao... tens of millions killed in cages by starvation, mostly. Read what the Tibetans say Padmasambhava did to the mountain spirits - boiling their flesh off their bones in lakes of boiling blood, until they would submit to the "dharma" or, at least, his personal version of the Law. Really, read.
Actually, I'd imagine the people who're interested probably have read. The implication, that your seeing something that everyone else is too stupid to get, might make people think you are a pompous wanker.
Magic of any power is fucked up dangerous shit that destroys your life.
Really? So the happy, geriatric priests I heard about were all fairy stories? And the people who use pleasantly beneficial magic to improve their lives, they are just deluded? Puh-lease.
You can tell that by reading the biographical accounts of the Golden Dawn as they die in gutters, or the OTO as they go insane, blow themselves to smithereens, or also die in gutters.
And the majority of magic workers, who weren't bug fuck crazy, don't exist because they aren't in a biography?
Why in god's name don't people think this through.
%Oh, why, oh, why! Thank the Lord you're here to save us, Epop.%
Now, you might point to exceptions - magicians you know who, over all, seem to have The Good Life. They do exist. I suggest you examine them in exquisite detail and try and figure out what makes them different.
What are you, our sodding lecturer?
I'll tell you that, in my experience, usually it's because they've sold out to things man was not meant to know and are in the same position as that little light on the end of the Anglerfish's stalk.
You might wonder if I walk the talk. The answer is yes: I've put my shit on the line for years, I've got a material life which includes demonstrated and manifest global change in both the environmental and humanitarian domain and I'm kicking quite a lot of ass right now in my own way.
Actually, I didn't. But you told me anyway. %Thanks%
I'm not going to respond to the rest of the post because, to be honest, I don't mind that you have an exciting fantasy life.
I'm tired, and I've spent two and a half hours trying to get this response to be anything near adequate. I don't think it is, but I'm not really sure what to do to make it better. 2:43 is too early in the day to re-write a post that almost certainly won't have an effect anyway. Epop, I hope that we all, as a group, can salvage something from this. But I don't think we can, and I think you are awful. |
|
|
