Sal Limones

I'm not saying that there is no difference, only that it's not biological in nature and therefore the factors that make it thus are external. Also just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that the opposite is that common. If there were a female version of that app I wouldn't use it simply because there's too much danger involved in advertising yourself as sexually available to anonymous men that may also have that app. Regarding women who like sex for sex: just because you live outside of the norm doesn't mean that you are completely over every single societal pressure! It's not just about a desire to conform, it's about things you have been raised your entire life to believe that are true, that are validated constantly in mainstream media and generally by existing in public, and that if you step out of too much you may be putting yourself in actual physical danger. A lot of guys don't just think "oh hey this lady wants to have sex and so do I, awesome let's do it", sometimes you get scary bros who decide that if you're sexually available you are a slut, and therefore unworthy of respect, and that your boundaries must not be real. Anecdotes aren't gonna get us anywhere, I might have one to counter every one you do and they don't mean anything other than "none of these statements are ALWAYS true", which is what the crux of my point is. That we're not hardwired that way. It's not biology.

I posted this in the pre-podcast thread but this one seems more active. ¬¬ Just finished it yesterday, in audiobook form. Since I was working at the time I didn't bother to get up and turn off the device before it looped, so I listened to the whole first chapter again -- it is SO full of foreshadowing! Almost every single thing they say or speculate about turns out to be important later.

Sure, but while this fits nicely into our preconceived ideas of how things should be, it doesn't have any actual scientific backing. If men were socially expected and perceived as just as monogamous as women (again I have anecdotes here but anecdotes are not any kind of evidence), one could just as easily say that it's because offspring has a much better chance of survival and thriving if the father is present and bla bla bla. In the animal world, there are tons of examples of this sort of thing - penguins, seahorses, keas, red foxes, owls, etc. If most of society instead were more like the Mosuo tribe I mentioned, where babies are taken care of by all the women, you also have a lot of animal examples; hyenas, lions, elephants, etc. You could even go the exact opposite way and say something like, women are too unstable or careless or promiscuous to care for kids, that's a father's job, and you could recur to the many species of animal mothers that eat or abandon their young. For any of these situations, we would have no problem making up a sensible narrative about why things are as they are, but so long as there aren't any actual scientific studies proving it, it's no more than a just-so story. That is what the problem is, here. The study that "proved" that men are just naturally more promiscuous than women was flawed and most likely wrong. I'd actually never heard about this so I looked it up, and it seems Scientific American disagrees. The article's got links to several studies occurring after the one you reference, with the most recent one being from 2007. But women get super mad about being cheated on too, even if there's no baby involved? And I think this, also, depends on the person -- what about adoption, or marrying a single mother, or finding out 15 years later that your babies were switched at birth at the hospital?

Raising a child for 18 years is also a societal thing, it's an expectation born of the fact that a child isn't considered an adult able to get a job and function in society until that age. This is not set in our biology, we are not physically incapable of doing anything but that. And sure, it would help if the dad was around, but that's a rational choice and not a hardwired biological one; there are societies, like the Mosuo, where the child is raised by a group of people that doesn't include the father. What this discovery does is basically destroy the biological grounding that gives weight to ideas that men should be excused for or expected to be promiscuous, and women being desirous of many partners is unnatural. This is simply not the case. Hell yeah I'd love to have lots of NSA sex if pregnancy, fear of potential violence, blackmail, STDs or the judgement of my peers weren't problems. Which they are, but they don't have to be because we're not irremediably wired that way, and society's outlook re: promiscuous women can be changed. This is not to say that all society-created ideas about sex are harmful, but this one is. Addendum: I do personally know several intelligent women who have cheerfully had 30+ sexual partners in less than 30 years of life, as well as men who aren't interested in that sort of thing. This doesn't make any of them defective in any way.

Well, if it isn't biological, then the cause is external. There are many reasons not to accept that proposal, such as fear for one's own safety and fear that one's reputation will be slandered (because promiscuity in women is still very much frowned upon, and the internet makes it super easy to divulge images/video and information to a large population in a relatively short amount of time). There are also a lot of deeply ingrained societal pressures or repressions that are very difficult to break out of, even when you rationally know better.

Check it out, science! Turns out the 1948 experiment that decided that males are naturally promiscuous and females choosy had a very important flaw, and recent studies point towards that conclusion being false. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120626092714.htm Wikipedia Brown, that is an excellent article. I'm glad these sort of writings are becoming more common in gaming media.

edit: moved this post to the other thread in booksbooksbooks.

¡De nada!

It's Latino pop star Esteban Freír!

This list of books to read makes me excited! http://www.upworthy.com/101-books-to-read-this-summer-instead-of-50-shades-of-grey?c=ufb1&utm_source=PolicyMic+Newsletter&utm_campaign=5cb2efbb49-New_Newsletter2_29_2012&utm_medium=email

Hahaha, the Spy baby is wearing sock garters.

But you said that the fact that feminism usually gets publicity at the hands of a woman does not help the fact that people think that feminism is about women fighting against men. This implies that it would be better or less confusing if it got publicity mostly at the hands of men, does it not?

Yes but why is that a problem at all

Commenting? Ain't nobody got time for dat! Ain't nobody got time for dat! Ain't nobody got time Ain't nobody got time Ain't nobody got time for dat!

∆

Adults should only wear full suits and smoke from pipes and go to the opera.

The best part of it is that they're expected to feel honored to be chosen to represent their districts, and in fact the richer districts (the ones that produce luxury goods, like fancy fabrics) do, with some kids training for it all their lives and being all OO-RAH about it. The poorer districts spend most of their lives hustling for food, so they don't have the time, resources or emotional energy to give a shit about the Capitol.

Yeah, it's part tribute of conquered people and part punishment/intimidation. I'm reading David Graeber's Debt right now and there's a couple of passages that make something like the Hunger Games seem less far-fetched: wild stuff

Hahaha, sorry about the misspelling, I read it in audiobook form. The whole time I thought she was just saying "Peter" with a nonsensical British accent, and didn't get it until later when I saw the bread pun mentioned online.

I really enjoyed the explorations of marketing and propaganda. Yeah it's kids killing each other in a not exceptionally strong concept of a dystopia, but it's also very much about propaganda, revolutions, political figureheads and the way the media (particularly reality TV) is manipulated and used to manipulate. I thought that was a cool concept to explore in a YA book. Shame about the romance subplot though. I mean it's great the way that it, itself, is used as a propaganda tool, but

To be fair, I think Nachimir read it that way too. But yeah, I misunderstood it and I apologize. My reaction came from what you said about the movement needing someone to come up with a new word - my stance on it is that's probably not a good idea as the movement is fairly old by now and changing its name would only muddle things, people should just learn the definition. The thing is, the definition and all kinds of info about feminism are available for whoever's interested in looking for it, but many people aren't motivated enough to actually do that (and that is where what I said about people caring and getting informed came from). It isn't impossible to change that; making this info available is what people like the article writers Iosef Stalin mentioned are doing, and internet threads, and stuff. Unfortunately they often don't get received very well. I'm referring to these things as information because that is what they are. They're not opinions, and there is no grey area. I'm talking about things like hard statistics, personal experiences, and things that men may not know because it's never come up in their day to day lives. If you don't know about these things, it's not your fault! I didn't know a ton of things either until fairly recently, when I was kinda reluctantly forced into listening to them by a Gender Studies teacher (it was a required class and I am SO GLAD). It's difficult to have this conversation in a forum because one can choose to not respond to certain things and it can look as if they were being ignored, regardless of value or actual impact. also this is very true I'm trying really hard I'm sorry :sad:

I was trying to avoid rehashing the same discussion. We have not in fact rehashed anything since the restart of the thread. Sorry I phrased it in a way that came off as condescending, I didn't mean to do that. But I don't think your accusation that I'm taking over the thread is valid. I've only posted thrice in the last four pages. What places is it going that it shouldn't? I think there is still a lot that is worth discussing, as evidenced by how the thread is still going, and with really long posts by a variety of different people to boot. "Feminism is good" is not the end of it, there's lots of details that merit exploration. Lemme rephrase what I said: "We've been over this and already explained that the word 'feminism', despite its looks, does not mean it's about advancing women's rights over everyone else's, and it would be best if we do not rehash a discussion that already happened." I do firmly believe that if one is for equal rights there is no reason to react negatively to feminism in general (this is not to say there aren't divisions and problems within the movement itself, but I mean from an outside perspective) unless one is not informed about it, or actually hates women. I do not think anyone here hates women, which is why I said what I said. I apologize, again, for putting it that way. I'm not trying to create conflict.

Twig, we've gone over the word "feminism" already earlier in the thread, near the beginning of it, and I see no useful reason to have the same discussion again. If you'd like to get informed about it please reread that part of the thread. As for feminism usually getting publicity from women, that may be true but I don't see how it is a bad thing. It would be pretty absurd if the movement was spearheaded by men, considering the fact that they are the group that is benefited by the status quo. Picture any other civil rights movement - do they also suffer from bad marketing, or are you buying into the narrative being put out by those who want things to stay as they are? Bra-burning feminists, the homosexual agenda recruiting our youth, Black Panthers organizing to kill whitey - these are all things that didn't and don't happen, but tons of people think they did and do. If you care about any of these groups of people, you owe it to them to get informed. If you don't care, there's not much we can do for you here. Consider, though, that in this thread you have mostly been reading really well-researched, insightful, empathic posts about feminism from men.

Just finished this book, having picked it up based on this post only. I went in not even knowing who John Waters was, and now I feel excited about counterculture as a whole again. It's really a wonderful book; technically a memoir, feels more like a collection of short stories, and functions as a manifesto against the tyranny of taste. I recommend it especially if you feel like you don't understand contemporary art.

Well somebody has to do it. Men often do not realize what it is like to be a woman, white men often don't realize what it's like to be black/asian/hispanic/whatever, but EVERYBODY knows what it's like to be a white man, because mainstream media is chock full of them, their troubles, their voices, their goals, and their aspirations. Things written from other points of view tend to be automatically categorized as "niche". I will elaborate more on this in a second: This is because you are the default. You are the everyman. You're what is "normal", and everything that deviates from white male is exotic. It's like that question about why there isn't a white history month or a men's history month: it's because you already have the entire year. If I were to talk about what it's like to be a person in society as myself, I'd be automatically exoticizing the experience without meaning to, to you. Because I am not a man nor am I white, my experience will differ from yours and you may feel that I'm harping on things that are different and that you can't relate to. It's going to stand out, because there isn't nearly as much media out there covering my experience as there is covering yours and the possibilities you have. I would LOVE to just be a person in society! I strive to do that every day! Unfortunately I am constantly reminded of my status as "woman" when I get honked at by passing cars, cat-called, flirted with (and subsequently yelled at for not reciprocating), being referred to as "sweetie" or "honey" by complete strangers, and so on and so on. These things are all part of my experience and my life story, and removing them would be dishonest and incomplete. Pointing out differences does not equal advocating those differences. If I talk about how certain situations are more difficult for women because of the way society is built, I'm most likely not just observing it for the sake of observing it; I'm pointing out that this difference should not be there, is problematic, or is unnecessary. Most of my favorite writers are men too. That's because there's A LOT OF THEM. Not many women in the fields you mentioned get published, but that doesn't mean they aren't there, or that they aren't good. This may have a lot to do with their automatic niche status; publishers may assume that their market would not be interested in reading stuff about women (even if they aren't actually about women). I'm only well informed in Art History, so this is the only concrete example I can confidently give you, but: if you pick up an art history book at random, one that doesn't have a stated focus on women artists, you will find that an overwhelming majority of the artists are men. This is not because women are less good at art or less inclined to do it. It's because of the way the institution was and is built to favor men. If you dig a little you can find many women artists that were just as good or BETTER than their contemporaries, but did not make it into the spotlight of history simply because it wasn't deemed proper or, by virtue of them being women, didn't have as much merit or nobility. Another quick example: Mozart's sister was just as good as he was at a young age, but "from 1769 onwards she was no longer permitted to show her artistic talent on travels with her brother, as she had reached a marriageable age." One would like to think that these prejudices are gone now, but that is sadly not the case. Many women writers in fantasy and sci-fi use gender-neutral initials, or male pen names. I recommend you read some Ursula LeGuin, if you haven't already. Her stories are really good, and are not all about being a woman.