welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2012-06-21: One Shade of Grey
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5170
Location: No.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samsally wrote:
(she hasn't formally been named yet)


YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT |WHATEVER RANDOM NAME MM GOT US TO GO ALONG WITH| ISN'T CANON?
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ashland



Joined: 15 May 2012
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Here is the deal though....when there is a conversation about things like "white male privilege" "misogyny", or "sexism" and the like, barging in with white male problems and how these effect everyone blah blah blah is kind of like being the morbidly obese child who has already had three cupcakes reaching over and licking the last one so that they can be sure it belongs to them too.

It is douchey behavior sir.. and I am calling you out on it.


Who's a fat kid with cupcakes? I'm one of the guys who spends a lot of money on nice dates, and I worry about my lady friends. I think of them in high regards and talk them up in conversations with third parties. The women I prefer to associate myself with are smart, they're hard workers, they're educated, and I feel their time is valuable. I never make final goals when dating them - I just set out to have fun, and I enjoy the mild chemical euphoria that is entailed with their company. I know they do the same.

I'm telling you that all it takes for a person to get grabby and overzealous in a relationship is for them to decide it's within their rights. It's not a gender thing, it's just a people thing. If a man spends every session of sex making sure a girl's needs are met before he moves on, then a guy can put himself in a situation where the girl doesn't want no to mean no because sex develops a very high value.

It's about wants.

I mean, it reminds me of that strip Tat did where Liberty and Sam sat down to "discuss" their feelings. Goddamnit, I've had those discussions. You know how they go?

"Honey, I've composed a list of things that are wrong with you that I need you to change," says the girl.
"Sweetheart, you can go to hell," says the guy. "If we spend even one minute talking about your personal defects, then I am so far beyond in trouble it's not funny, and I'd prefer it if you left me to my devices like I must leave you to yours!"

Know why that happens? Because nobody likes being told what to do! Not the girl, not the guy! Just because you "sit someone down" in the pretext of having a "civil" discussion doesn't mean you're carefully considering compromises and have developed a strategy to make the both of you happy. In fact, when you merely sit down and tell your partner what he or she needs to do differently, you're basically dumping that more tactical planning into their lap for them to deal with. Sitting down and telling your partner what they need to change means, "I need you to scheme up a plan, because I'm unhappy and sometimes it's hard to say why."

For fuck's sake. Gender politics be damned. It rarely has anything to do with that.
_________________
Everyone thinks they are individuals who follow their own rules. However, man is a being of patterns. He has habits because without them he would cease to be. Though perhaps possessed of creativity, he will always be merely human.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17040
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

in your example, it seems to have to do with both people involved being jerks.

i mean, seriously - if person a says to person b (in any context) "i have a list of things that are wrong with you", person b is going to be pissed. if person a really wants person b to change, they need to approach the situation with a little more tact - like, maybe, one issue at a time, and in a little less confrontational way, would be a start. but seriously, anyone who gets into a relationship and then figures they have to change the person they are involved with is in the wrong relationship.

and as to telling someone 'go to hell' - well, why on _earth_ would you say that to someone you cared about?

no, your two people just need to accept that they are not a good match, split up the furniture, and move on.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ashland



Joined: 15 May 2012
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
and as to telling someone 'go to hell' - well, why on _earth_ would you say that to someone you cared about?


Well I'm not going to type out an entire marital argument.

Generally, this is what a lot of fights boil down to. Person A is unhappy and they think it has to do with x, y, and z reasons, so they tell Person B that something needs to happen regarding x, y, and z.

Person B then says no, Person A can go to hell. The reasoning that facilitates "go to hell" doesn't really matter because the same conclusion is arrived in essence, no matter how good the process is.

Then Person A tells Person B that they can go to hell because Person B is not "understanding" enough to want to sit down and "fix the relationship", or something along those lines. It varies and changes, the rhetoric evolves or take new shapes, but when it comes to these kinds of disputes you can boil them down to the same old tripe over and over again.

Usually it's not that both people are assholes, but that one or both are just unhappy and they aren't sure how to be happy. The cause of unhappiness can be uncertain - could well be unrelated to one or the other partner, but it's there. So they tell off their partner. It never ends well. Whether the man does it or the girl, "communicating" is always a mess if both people don't understand at once that no two people can win an argument, and while it's easy to say that when departed from the episode, during a fight it's a tall order. Emotions just run high.
_________________
Everyone thinks they are individuals who follow their own rules. However, man is a being of patterns. He has habits because without them he would cease to be. Though perhaps possessed of creativity, he will always be merely human.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10593
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ashland wrote:
I'm telling you that all it takes for a person to get grabby and overzealous in a relationship is for them to decide it's within their rights. It's not a gender thing, it's just a people thing. If a man spends every session of sex making sure a girl's needs are met before he moves on, then a guy can put himself in a situation where the girl doesn't want no to mean no because sex develops a very high value.

Or you can just not date selfish people.

Quote:
I mean, it reminds me of that strip Tat did where Liberty and Sam sat down to "discuss" their feelings. Goddamnit, I've had those discussions. You know how they go?

"Honey, I've composed a list of things that are wrong with you that I need you to change," says the girl.
"Sweetheart, you can go to hell," says the guy. "If we spend even one minute talking about your personal defects, then I am so far beyond in trouble it's not funny, and I'd prefer it if you left me to my devices like I must leave you to yours!"

Or you could not date shallow, selfish people.

Quote:
Know why that happens? Because nobody likes being told what to do! Not the girl, not the guy!

Relationships involve compromise. No one tells me what to do, but that doesn't mean a girlfriend can't tell me things about me that bother her. And I'm damn sure going to tell her how I feel when she bothers me. Mature people recognize these as opportunities to grow, to examine their behavior, and to come to a mutual understanding (to stop doing something, to do something differently, or to modulate when or how frequently they do it).

AKA, or you could not date selfish people.

Quote:
Just because you "sit someone down" in the pretext of having a "civil" discussion doesn't mean you're carefully considering compromises and have developed a strategy to make the both of you happy. In fact, when you merely sit down and tell your partner what he or she needs to do differently, you're basically dumping that more tactical planning into their lap for them to deal with. Sitting down and telling your partner what they need to change means, "I need you to scheme up a plan, because I'm unhappy and sometimes it's hard to say why."

This doesn't make sense. Who said this is how anyone does anything? Who says normal adults don't consider options before bringing up and issue, or have the intention of working together to find a mutually agreeable option?

It's weird that you went from, "the ladies don't like being criticized," to, "people don't know how to communicate." The first is just sexist - it's one of those inappropriate generalizations we talked about - and the second is random and irrelevant. Maybe you should date more mature people, it might improve your opinion of them.

Quote:
For fuck's sake. Gender politics be damned. It rarely has anything to do with that.

Unless you want to criticize a woman, AMIRITE!?
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wingcap



Joined: 09 Sep 2011
Posts: 161
Location: Advocating the Devil.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yinello wrote:
daveshan wrote:
Case and point, we've seen Tat rage against the patriarchy that degrades women. Has she ever raged against the norms that degrade homosexuals and transgenders? How about people of different skin color? Religion; regardless of where one falls on the spectrum? How about inequalities or violence towards men from women? I've never seen that. It's only been for the betterment of who she associates herself with while condemning those who aren't with her, all under the guise of wanting equal treatment for all. That's what I never liked about these characters.


Let's throw this argument around. Daveshan, because I haven't seen you protest against anything, you must obviously hate all women, minorities and gay people.


I HAVENT READ FARTHER THAN THIS PARTICULAR POST BUT LET ME JUST STOP YOU RIGHT THERE. (And yes I noticed you are using his arguement against him but you are doing it wrong).

Resorting to saying that Daveshan "must obviously hate all women, minorities and gay people", is the sort of thing I have seen a lot of lately and I think it should stop.

I'm not going to take a side on the whole feminism thing. Ever. It just seems like SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE will find an excuse to flame me, even though my point has no foul intentions, something I'm sure any of the other points people are making lack as well.

Please stop shouting abuse at people just because you dislike their arguement. Please. It's entirely useless, it doesn't help anybody, and it certainly doesn't help anyone's arguments.

Just chill.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yinello



Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 2638
Location: Behind you

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wingcap wrote:
Yinello wrote:
daveshan wrote:
Case and point, we've seen Tat rage against the patriarchy that degrades women. Has she ever raged against the norms that degrade homosexuals and transgenders? How about people of different skin color? Religion; regardless of where one falls on the spectrum? How about inequalities or violence towards men from women? I've never seen that. It's only been for the betterment of who she associates herself with while condemning those who aren't with her, all under the guise of wanting equal treatment for all. That's what I never liked about these characters.


Let's throw this argument around. Daveshan, because I haven't seen you protest against anything, you must obviously hate all women, minorities and gay people.


I HAVENT READ FARTHER THAN THIS PARTICULAR POST BUT LET ME JUST STOP YOU RIGHT THERE. (And yes I noticed you are using his arguement against him but you are doing it wrong).

Resorting to saying that Daveshan "must obviously hate all women, minorities and gay people", is the sort of thing I have seen a lot of lately and I think it should stop.

I'm not going to take a side on the whole feminism thing. Ever. It just seems like SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE will find an excuse to flame me, even though my point has no foul intentions, something I'm sure any of the other points people are making lack as well.

Please stop shouting abuse at people just because you dislike their arguement. Please. It's entirely useless, it doesn't help anybody, and it certainly doesn't help anyone's arguments.

Just chill.


Um, did you read the rest of my post saying that the statement I made is ridiculous?

I'm not flaming anyone, I'm not shouting at anyone. Daveshan put up something for debate and I disagreed with him, trying to use an example of why I think he's wrong. If I truly disliked him, I simply would tell him he's an idiot and never talk to him. But I don't, I just disagree with him.

If you think the example I used is wrong, feel free to provide me with an alternative. You're more than welcome to join in the debate, but disagreeing and debating is absolutely not abuse.

Also out of all the posts where people have been calling each other morons, idiots, whores, jerks and assholes, you chose mine. O.o
_________________
Help. Help, my eyes are stuck from rolling so hard. Help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kylra



Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

daveshan wrote:

Until now, I've hated her completely because I saw as a straw feminist exactly the way Samsally defined straw-[anything].
    1)She pushed her way of thinking on everyone else.
    2)She only rallied for a group that she was a part of.
    3)She looked down on anyone who didn't agree with her and did it very bitterly.
    4)She focused on issues that are a person's own choice (the way you dress, what you do for a living) instead of legal matters like equal pay for equal work.
    5)Never tried to have her group be equal in terms of responsibility by making signing up for the draft mandatory for women or make signing up for the draft not mandatory for men.
    6)Also, she never goes after women who profit from making women appear as sex objects; unless we're to assume that no women in the Sinfest universe run swimsuit magazines, porn studios, nor are there any female pimps with female hookers.


Understand now? This was just about Tat.

1) Whether you disagree with her trying to convince people about feminism or not is a matter of if you support patriarchy or not.
2) That's all you've seen so far, but that doesn't mean that is necessarily the case.
3) "Oh no! A feminist disagrees with patriarchal norms! This calls for condemnation of her and her alone! Why no, I don't support patriarchy. Why do you ask?"
4) Whether or not those first things are really a choice for all women who ostensibly do choose it is very up for debate because women are punished for not choosing the "right" things, which is largely "what appeals to men". "Equal pay for equal work" is a significant but still small part of the overall problem. Focusing only on "equal pay for equal work" type stuff will never end patriarchy or the oppression of women.
5) What makes you think she doesn't actually have a belief like that? Most feminists I know actually have one of those two opinions, it's just not something discussed very often because it's either agreed upon or gets the job done and the likely-never-to-be-used-again draft overall isn't considered that big a deal today.
6) There is a very large difference between a man doing those things and a woman doing it thanks to the power dynamics involved. Trying to make women out to be an equal part of the problem is fallacious because women hold less power, and cannot by force get men to stop oppressing and objectifying women. At least not any way you might consider ethical.
Quote:

There are places to have serious intellectual debates about social and political issues. A webcomic forum isn't the one I typically choose.

Patriarchy doesn't care where it gets fostered and thrives pretty much anywhere it is allowed to. Why should anyone arbitrarily decide to not fight it certain places?
Ashland wrote:

I'm telling you that all it takes for a person to get grabby and overzealous in a relationship is for them to decide it's within their rights. It's not a gender thing, it's just a people thing. If a man spends every session of sex making sure a girl's needs are met before he moves on, then a guy can put himself in a situation where the girl doesn't want no to mean no because sex develops a very high value.

One side of that grabbiness is culturally supported far more than the other. It's when men do it, and most men don't realize it because they usually only focus on when it happens to their money, which they get more of thanks to patriarchy and is one thing coercing women to depend on men. Media generally only likes to highlight the harm that affects those in power, which in this context is men, and that leads to people only considering the "harm" to those that are more powerful (again, in this case this is men) as actual harm.
Quote:

For fuck's sake. Gender politics be damned. It rarely has anything to do with that.

That just means you haven't really thought it through. It's inescapable in today's society.
Wingcap wrote:

I'm not going to take a side on the whole feminism thing. Ever. It just seems like SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE will find an excuse to flame me, even though my point has no foul intentions, something I'm sure any of the other points people are making lack as well.

Please stop shouting abuse at people just because you dislike their arguement. Please. It's entirely useless, it doesn't help anybody, and it certainly doesn't help anyone's arguments.

Just chill.

You've taken a side whether you want to or not. The main battle anthem of patriarchy isn't openly "oppress women" but "Who cares stop making such a big deal of it. It can't be that bad being oppressed."

You can still support patriarchy despite the best of intentions. It happens all the time. The important thing is to LEARN and do better next time instead of resort to "who cares" and change nothing.


Last edited by Kylra on Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:50 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vox Raucus



Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 1252
Location: At the Hundredth Meridian

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wingcap wrote:
Resorting to saying that Daveshan "must obviously hate all women, minorities and gay people", is the sort of thing I have seen a lot of lately and I think it should stop.

Clearly you're only saying this because you also must hate all women, minorities and gays.
_________________
The cat's indifferent or he's just furious, it seems that he's never neither
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yinello



Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 2638
Location: Behind you

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vox, I won't lie, I gigglesnorted.
_________________
Help. Help, my eyes are stuck from rolling so hard. Help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cixelsyD



Joined: 09 Oct 2010
Posts: 1354

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SA_Penguin wrote:
Alternative for cell #4:

"So she took her copy of The Rules and threw it in the trash"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rules



Ewww... and you know there are crazy people who base their lives off of that...
_________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")o
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6314

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kylra wrote:
Wingcap wrote:
I'm not going to take a side on the whole feminism thing. Ever. It just seems like SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE will find an excuse to flame me, even though my point has no foul intentions, something I'm sure any of the other points people are making lack as well.

Please stop shouting abuse at people just because you dislike their arguement. Please. It's entirely useless, it doesn't help anybody, and it certainly doesn't help anyone's arguments.

Just chill.

You've taken a side whether you want to or not. The main battle anthem of patriarchy isn't openly "oppress women" but "Who cares stop making such a big deal of it. It can't be that bad being oppressed."

You can still support patriarchy despite the best of intentions. It happens all the time. The important thing is to LEARN and do better next time instead of resort to "who cares" and change nothing.

Mostly I just wanted to quote this so what Kylra said gets repeated because YES. This is the core of the problem, right here.

I cannot even express how frustrating and silencing and unhelpful it is for someone to say "just chill". Saying "just chill" is -definitely- a stance, and that stance is "just shut up I don't care what you think". This isn't intended to be a flame, I legitimately want you to see why saying such a thing is such a harmful thing to do.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
daveshan



Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm just posting in this thread again to remind everyone that I thought 'Tat' was the name of the feminist girl. It was my first day, didn't know her name was 'Glossy' and that Tat was short for Tatsuya.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yinello



Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 2638
Location: Behind you

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

daveshan wrote:
I'm just posting in this thread again to remind everyone that I thought 'Tat' was the name of the feminist girl. It was my first day, didn't know her name was 'Glossy' and that Tat was short for Tatsuya.


I know. ^_^ Misunderstandings can happen rather easily on a forum.
_________________
Help. Help, my eyes are stuck from rolling so hard. Help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wingcap



Joined: 09 Sep 2011
Posts: 161
Location: Advocating the Devil.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yinello wrote:
Wingcap wrote:
Yinello wrote:
daveshan wrote:
Case and point, we've seen Tat rage against the patriarchy that degrades women. Has she ever raged against the norms that degrade homosexuals and transgenders? How about people of different skin color? Religion; regardless of where one falls on the spectrum? How about inequalities or violence towards men from women? I've never seen that. It's only been for the betterment of who she associates herself with while condemning those who aren't with her, all under the guise of wanting equal treatment for all. That's what I never liked about these characters.


Let's throw this argument around. Daveshan, because I haven't seen you protest against anything, you must obviously hate all women, minorities and gay people.


I HAVENT READ FARTHER THAN THIS PARTICULAR POST BUT LET ME JUST STOP YOU RIGHT THERE. (And yes I noticed you are using his arguement against him but you are doing it wrong).

Resorting to saying that Daveshan "must obviously hate all women, minorities and gay people", is the sort of thing I have seen a lot of lately and I think it should stop.

I'm not going to take a side on the whole feminism thing. Ever. It just seems like SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE will find an excuse to flame me, even though my point has no foul intentions, something I'm sure any of the other points people are making lack as well.

Please stop shouting abuse at people just because you dislike their arguement. Please. It's entirely useless, it doesn't help anybody, and it certainly doesn't help anyone's arguments.

Just chill.


Um, did you read the rest of my post saying that the statement I made is ridiculous?

I'm not flaming anyone, I'm not shouting at anyone. Daveshan put up something for debate and I disagreed with him, trying to use an example of why I think he's wrong. If I truly disliked him, I simply would tell him he's an idiot and never talk to him. But I don't, I just disagree with him.

If you think the example I used is wrong, feel free to provide me with an alternative. You're more than welcome to join in the debate, but disagreeing and debating is absolutely not abuse.

Also out of all the posts where people have been calling each other morons, idiots, whores, jerks and assholes, you chose mine. O.o


Well, my most sincere apologies for any misunderstandings, and I certainly don't mean any offense (that'd be a bit rich), but you see my point.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group