Sweden Moves Towards Gender Neutrality [Support Thread]

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Aramis Night:
[ Promoting gendercide/genocide is way over the line of what most people would stand for. It is a shame feminists don't have those types of standards. They just slap the term "radical" or 2nd wave on them and pretend the "radicals" don't reflect on them since they don't actually disagree with them enough to throw them out.

We don't call men that advocate for gendercide or picking on the weak or abusing their women, "radical men". We call them scum(irony) or a number of other more and less colourful adjectives. None of them positive.

Then you're advocating for Vox Day, Fitzgerald, and Masterson to be drummed out of any MRA functions or representation?

Sweden being awesome! Man I need to move to scandinavia...

Aramis Night:
Actually men do this pretty often. If a man lacks conviction or courage to stand up for what he believes in then we do not acknowledge that individual as a man. We sometimes even joke about having our man card revoked if we are ever caught engaging in certain behaviour that we feel is beneath us. And surprise, there are millions of us.

You speak of this as though it were a good thing. It's not. It's actually an incredibly harmful ideology that generates needless division and strife.

Aramis Night:
If i'm in a group and i hear about other members of that group engaging in terrible behaviour and they are still associated with said group after it comes to light, If it offends me enough, i will remove myself from identifying with that group.

Every single group has at least one extremist. It's simple statistics. If that rationale were valid, none of us would be part of any group whatsoever, and therefore we could never achieve any progress or change that required the strength of an entire group.

Aramis Night:
Promoting gendercide/genocide is way over the line of what most people would stand for. It is a shame feminists don't have those types of standards. They just slap the term "radical" or 2nd wave on them and pretend the "radicals" don't reflect on them since they don't actually disagree with them enough to throw them out.

Feminism is not a hierarchical group. There is no authority. Nobody can "kick" anyone out of feminism, any more than an MRA can kick a "radical" MRA who spews misogynistic hate speech.

Aramis Night:
We don't call men that advocate for gendercide or picking on the weak or abusing their women, "radical men". We call them scum(irony) or a number of other more and less colourful adjectives. None of them positive.

And yet you cannot remove them from the group they belong to (men). I would call that woman a horrible person, and I would repeatedly state that I do not subscribe to her school of feminism, but there's nothing more I can do.

LollieVanDam:

Shock and Awe:

Where do you live that people say that?

The real world.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/1/14/summers-comments-on-women-and-science/

Did you read that article before you posted it?

It just doesn't really seem to support anything you've said, that's all. Feel free to prove me wrong.

captcha - easy as cake. Yes, it should be captcha.

Jayemsal:

Toilet:

Jayemsal:
Race is a myth.
There are no significant biological differences between anyone of any "race."
All variations can be attributed to biological mutation, and offer no significant reason to qualify as a category.

You just contradicted yourself, the significant biological differences between races are the biological mutations that were used to adapt to a particular area and people do categorize other people depending on those traits. It's basic genetics, all races have different genotypes and their phenotypic traits are displayed depending on those genes. You cant look at a man whos genes originate from Africa and a man whos genes original from east Asia, look at the differences like the epicanthal fold, skin colour, height, hair, eye colour, ect ect and say "Race doesn't exist, it's a myth and is a social construct." you just cannot debunk years of science by closing your eyes and pretending it isn't there, reality doesn't work that way.

Then again this entire conversation could be moot because one or maybe both of us is confusing "race" and "ethnicity". It's a grey area, because people think they is a distinction between the two and some people think there isn't. I could be opening a whole new can of worms.

Harrowdown:

This is THE feminist issue. The ultimate goal of feminism is to dismantle patriarchal constructs of gender roles and societal norms. The movement is ultimately dedicated to total equality, not simply women's rights.

It's adorable that you think that, since when has feminism been interested in total equality. The term you are looking for is egalitarian.

You're proving my point, absolutely none of the differences between the "races" are anything but mutation, none of them cause enough variation to justify racial categorization. The key word at hand is SIGNIFICANT. Also, Everyone's genes originate from Africa.

Did you not read what I wrote, you just ignored my main points? I made clear definitions of significant racial differences that are prime definitions of each race/ethnicity. Africa is theorized of being the Cradle Of Civilization but you are missing the point I made when I asked you to compare the phenotypes of people whos recent ancestors originated from those geographical areas. Saying everyone originated from Africa is moot because that is theorized to have happened during the birth of humanity and prehistory and there has been a few genetic and mutagenic changes since then where humans moved to different geographical areas. All humans in the world are categorized as homo sapiens but we use racial terms (Asian, Indian, Native American, Caucasian, African, ect ect) to differentiate between physical characteristics.

You have failed to give any evidence proving your point, all your have claimed is that race isn't real and there isn't significant justification to define people by the physical characteristics that are found within that race despite the points I bought up. All I have heard is that "We shouldn't define people by their race because it's a social construct." What is wrong with social constructs anyway? Are they all inherently negative?

All this postmodernist bullshit on race and gender is infuriating to argue against, people reject evidence because whoop it doesn't count because it's a construct.

Darken12:

Aramis Night:
Well probably because the band you're referring to(which i acknowledge i don't know about)is going out of its way to try to be offensive as bands in that genre all tend to. Most media tends to do that rather casually. If you want to offend people, singing about doing terrible things to men doesn't have the same impact because we are predisposed to caring about the fates of women more. It's why we don't often show on screen graphic deaths of women nearly as much as we do men.

I fail to see how that's a valid defence. It almost sounds like condoning misogyny because it makes for better shock value; so if your goal is to shock, it's a-okay to go for misogyny. But not misandry, because That's Just Wrong.

Aramis Night:
I'm not defending them doing this. I find most of that whole genre to be in terrible taste, but that is what they intend. They are immature and believe in this sort of pointless rebellion for its own sake. That is a large part of the reason why this sort of music was never mainstream. And no, i agree with you that this sort of thing does represent a genre of music. And it is a damn good reason to not want to associate with it since that is a lot of what the genre represents. But this band and people like them make a lot of other tracks about brutalizing people that are not women either. It's the whole sad "look at me, i'm evil and piss off your parents and offend everyone genre".

I fail to see how misogyny (because no matter how much you defend that it's gender-equal misanthropy, there IS a gendered component of extra brutality towards women; see my previous point about torture and rape) is more defensible when the intent is to shock, and when it's surrounded by all-purpose brutality and evil. Should that woman have composed songs about murdering everyone, too? Would that have made the song about killing men better?

Well yes. Obviously people looking to offend others are going to go with what is likely to offend more. Harming women offends women as well as men. So yeah, they are picking the low hanging fruit to offend more people. I know women have a hard time understanding this but men really don't have the same sort of natural empathy for each other women do for each other. The band is likely made up of men who understand this and are taking advantage of that fact. I'm not excusing it. I'm not saying its ok. However i do get why they went that route.

They are in a genre where they have to be more offensive than the other bands in their genre to stand out. Mutilating/killing/eating men and babies has been played out among them and no longer serves to evoke the same emotional response. So they had to find a way to turn up the offensiveness to 11 to stand out among their peers. They chose the low hanging fruit of rapping/torturing women because it is the easiest and most universally despised act one can do.

And no, if emily autumn then turned around and did another song about killing everyone, it would not then be ok. Unlike the band/genre you mentioned, she is not in a genre where offensiveness for its own sake is the point. Her concerts are the sorts of things where people take their teenage daughters.

LollieVanDam:

Aramis Night:
[ Promoting gendercide/genocide is way over the line of what most people would stand for. It is a shame feminists don't have those types of standards. They just slap the term "radical" or 2nd wave on them and pretend the "radicals" don't reflect on them since they don't actually disagree with them enough to throw them out.

We don't call men that advocate for gendercide or picking on the weak or abusing their women, "radical men". We call them scum(irony) or a number of other more and less colourful adjectives. None of them positive.

Then you're advocating for Vox Day, Fitzgerald, and Masterson to be drummed out of any MRA functions or representation?

We'll seeing as how i don't count myself as an MRA, i don't see how its my business. I think they have some good points, but because of the attitudes that some of them have on the male supremacy side, I'm not one of them. If egalitarian feminists had any decency they would take the same stance. But they would rather defend their apathy and whine when others paint them with the same brush as those they have chosen to show solidarity with who advocate for male hatred.

LollieVanDam:

Shock and Awe:

Where do you live that people say that?

The real world.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/1/14/summers-comments-on-women-and-science/

I live in the deep south and you won't hear say shit like that.

Who is "the misogynists" anyway? Is there some secret misogynist society that I don't know about whispering in peoples ears "Women are inferior at manual labor and math."?

Then just google Men Going Their Own Way and The Spearhead.

I'm sorry did you even read that article, or just look at the title and think it supported what you were arguing? The man was exploring reasons he believed that women could be under represented in academia and it seems that one of them could have been how men and women tend to think. This is a real far cry from "men are better at everything because they are". If thats the best you can come up with I think I can rest my case.

And are you really bringing up Spearhead and MGTOW as a representative of Men in general? Is that your argument? Then by your logic all women think that men should be sterilized, subjugated, and a bunch of other scary S words like Femtheist. Except thats wrong, because stereotyping a whole group off the actions of a small group is stupid.

Was it Sweden or Norway that makes gender neutral toys & their TV ads are always girls playing with traditionally masculine toys?

LollieVanDam:
We've seen Stephen Colbert out of character. His schtick is confirmed.

And how much screen time has Masterson gotten that maintaining his composure for the sake of his schtick is some grand achievement? Does he do a 20-30 minute show four times a week as well as make countless public appearances?

Show me any footage or evidence of Dick Masterson breaking character (every public appearence he's towed the line of his book with no faltering) so to speak, I'll believe it.

How about you show some evidence of it not being satire, as everything that's been provided to prove that it is, in fact, satire apparently has no worth to you.

It's in the humor section?
>Amazon messed up.

Satire?
>Prove he's not like that all the time.

Amazon doesn't sell blatantly sexist items?
>I'm not listening.

Everyone else in the world, plenty of whom are more knowledgeable about the subject, say it's satire?
>You don't know the author's opinions.

Darken12:

This thread is intended by me as a positive take on the matter. It is not intended to condemn or derogate these practices, but to show my support. This is a positive thread. Please keep counter opinions or disagreements in polite and measured tones. Thank you.

So agree or GTFO? lol

OT: So Swedish is going to do what English has done for centuries, huh? Get rid of gender specific words. lol.

I never understood the concept between assigning genders to words... Unless it IS relevant. Like saying policewoman. I understand the argument AGAINST it, but it's just a discription to me. If it didn't have some sort of negative connotations do to discrimination against women, I don't think you'd have a problem with it either.

If in the future there was no distinction between genders... I don't really think it would change anything. People discriminate against eachother. If you take away the facet of gender discrimination/differences, it will simply come out of a different facet. Maybe it's your clothes, or hair, or voice, or looks, or any number of things. I literally DO NOT think you can eliminate this from humanity... not unless you were to change our physical DNA or something. It's cultural, yes, but it's also genetic, evolutionary even. That being said, we're not done evolving...

At any rate, am I against gender neutrality? Not really. Do I think it is the salvation of mankinds problems some seem to make it out to be? nope.

Darken12:

Aramis Night:
Actually men do this pretty often. If a man lacks conviction or courage to stand up for what he believes in then we do not acknowledge that individual as a man. We sometimes even joke about having our man card revoked if we are ever caught engaging in certain behaviour that we feel is beneath us. And surprise, there are millions of us.

You speak of this as though it were a good thing. It's not. It's actually an incredibly harmful ideology that generates needless division and strife.

Aramis Night:
If i'm in a group and i hear about other members of that group engaging in terrible behaviour and they are still associated with said group after it comes to light, If it offends me enough, i will remove myself from identifying with that group.

Every single group has at least one extremist. It's simple statistics. If that rationale were valid, none of us would be part of any group whatsoever, and therefore we could never achieve any progress or change that required the strength of an entire group.

Aramis Night:
Promoting gendercide/genocide is way over the line of what most people would stand for. It is a shame feminists don't have those types of standards. They just slap the term "radical" or 2nd wave on them and pretend the "radicals" don't reflect on them since they don't actually disagree with them enough to throw them out.

Feminism is not a hierarchical group. There is no authority. Nobody can "kick" anyone out of feminism, any more than an MRA can kick a "radical" MRA who spews misogynistic hate speech.

Aramis Night:
We don't call men that advocate for gendercide or picking on the weak or abusing their women, "radical men". We call them scum(irony) or a number of other more and less colourful adjectives. None of them positive.

And yet you cannot remove them from the group they belong to (men). I would call that woman a horrible person, and I would repeatedly state that I do not subscribe to her school of feminism, but there's nothing more I can do.

You have freedom of association. I'm not saying anything about kicking people out of anything. I get that it may not be in your power to do so and that is a failing of the people responsible for the hierarchy of that group. But you can always choose to disassociate yourself from any group that does not meet your standards.

And for men judging other men. It should be that way. I judge everything. Everyone should. There is nothing wrong with having standards. There is nothing wrong with judging. The only way it can be bad is if the criteria for judgement is bad. People are already judgemental. I just prefer to not be a hypocritical liar about it. I have standards that i strive to live by. I'd like to believe i'm not alone. I judge no one more harshly than i do myself. I believe that people should have the right to do with their freedom as they want. For example I believe that drugs should be legal for anyone to use. I however do not even smoke or drink and have no desire to. It is an example of standards i have for myself that i do not place on others.

I believe that men and women should have identical legal rights and subject to the same penalties. I also believe it is wrong to keep a little boy from playing with a toy car when doing so harms no one.

Aramis Night:
I'm not saying its ok. However i do get why they went that route.

Then what's the problem with a woman going with a similar route too? Or is horrible offensiveness a male-only affair?

Aramis Night:
They chose the low hanging fruit of rapping/torturing women because it is the easiest and most universally despised act one can do.

By that same rationale, she could be aiming for the "low hanging fruit" among MRAs and men in general. It could be that her target to offend is much more reduced. Instead of "everybody, and especially women" as the gore metal bands, she could have narrowed her target to just "men". And I'm sure there's at least one of these bands that targets exclusively violence against women, if that's your issue.

Aramis Night:
And no, if emily autumn then turned around and did another song about killing everyone, it would not then be ok. Unlike the band/genre you mentioned, she is not in a genre where offensiveness for its own sake is the point. Her concerts are the sorts of things where people take their teenage daughters.

You do realise that the gross offensiveness of those metal bands is popular almost exclusively with teenagers, right? Their parents might not take them to their concerts, but the puerile immaturity of the lyrics and subject matter appeals primarily to teenagers who want to be dark and edgy. The problem cannot be teenage exposure, because that already happens.

Aramis Night:
But you can always choose to disassociate yourself from any group that does not meet your standards.

The group meets my standards because I do not consider the ravings of one member to represent the entirety of the group. I am a feminist and I actively oppose gendercide. She does not represent me, and I will not let her views ruin all the good that the movement as a whole has done for humanity.

Aramis Night:
It is an example of standards i have for myself that i do not place on others.

And I am the same way. Yet I think it quite silly to let someone determine what group I belong to, simply because they have outrageous ideologies. If that were the case, I would have to renounce to my labels of human, man, Argentine, white person, LGBTQ+ person, Latin American, feminist, equalist, LGBTQ+ activist, writer, biochemist, student, worker, reader and so on. There will always be an extremist in every group I belong to, and I refuse to let those people define who I am. Whatever I am, I will be in spite of them and not because of them.

Aramis Night:
I believe that men and women should have identical legal rights and subject to the same penalties. I also believe it is wrong to keep a little boy from playing with a toy car when doing so harms no one.

As I mentioned before, we don't have the whole story. We don't know if, in fact, boys playing with toy cars harmed no one. I have personal experiences where banning a specific toy to avoid excessive strife was seen as a positive idea. I can conceive that a similar situation MIGHT have happened.

Darken12:

Aramis Night:
I believe that men and women should have identical legal rights and subject to the same penalties. I also believe it is wrong to keep a little boy from playing with a toy car when doing so harms no one.

As I mentioned before, we don't have the whole story. We don't know if, in fact, boys playing with toy cars harmed no one. I have personal experiences where banning a specific toy to avoid excessive strife was seen as a positive idea. I can conceive that a similar situation MIGHT have happened.

I can't even begin to fathom what kind of mental mindset you are in to consider that what a boy chooses to play with fucks up a girl's image. If anyone is so dependent on what others do to create their self image I don't feel any pity for them if they are disliked.

Man is only free when they refuse to give a damn what society thinks of them.

Darken12:
We don't know if, in fact, boys playing with toy cars harmed no one.

Um......how would a boy playing with cars hurt anyone?

I agree that a child's gender identity is influenced by their interactions and environment from an early age, but I fail to see how playing with toy cars could influence a child of either sex in any inherently negative way, and I don't see how any sort of research of this would be beneficial or worth while to anyone.

Excessive strife? From playing with toy cars? Unless the child has a specific drive to shove their toys into places they shouldn't, I can't equate excessive strife with toy cars.

Darken12:

Aramis Night:
I'm not saying its ok. However i do get why they went that route.

Then what's the problem with a woman going with a similar route too? Or is horrible offensiveness a male-only affair?

Umm... I just said. It isn't ok. You just quoted me saying that in fact. Why are you ignoring that?

Aramis Night:
They chose the low hanging fruit of rapping/torturing women because it is the easiest and most universally despised act one can do.

By that same rationale, she could be aiming for the "low hanging fruit" among MRAs and men in general. It could be that her target to offend is much more reduced. Instead of "everybody, and especially women" as the gore metal bands, she could have narrowed her target to just "men". And I'm sure there's at least one of these bands that targets exclusively violence against women, if that's your issue.

And as i said before, It's not ok. And emily autumn is not marketed to MRA's. Her market tends to in fact be women mostly. And i find it incredibly disturbing if this is something they support.

Aramis Night:
And no, if emily autumn then turned around and did another song about killing everyone, it would not then be ok. Unlike the band/genre you mentioned, she is not in a genre where offensiveness for its own sake is the point. Her concerts are the sorts of things where people take their teenage daughters.

You do realise that the gross offensiveness of those metal bands is popular almost exclusively with teenagers, right? Their parents might not take them to their concerts, but the puerile immaturity of the lyrics and subject matter appeals primarily to teenagers who want to be dark and edgy. The problem cannot be teenage exposure, because that already happens.

And again, not ok with it and i do not relate to it. I find it offensive, though i understand that is the goal.

Aramis Night:
But you can always choose to disassociate yourself from any group that does not meet your standards.

The group meets my standards because I do not consider the ravings of one member to represent the entirety of the group. I am a feminist and I actively oppose gendercide. She does not represent me, and I will not let her views ruin all the good that the movement as a whole has done for humanity.

Valerie Solanas didn't just rant and rave. She attempted to murder multiple people over imagined slights and encouraged others to do the same on a grand scale. Her victim's were not the same after what she did, ever.

Aramis Night:
It is an example of standards i have for myself that i do not place on others.

And I am the same way. Yet I think it quite silly to let someone determine what group I belong to, simply because they have outrageous ideologies. If that were the case, I would have to renounce to my labels of human, man, Argentine, white person, LGBTQ+ person, Latin American, feminist, equalist, LGBTQ+ activist, writer, biochemist, student, worker, reader and so on. There will always be an extremist in every group I belong to, and I refuse to let those people define who I am. Whatever I am, I will be in spite of them and not because of them.

It is one thing to be a member of a group with people you don't agree with, but when the whole point of the group is one goal and you have members actively working against it. That is definitely the line in the sand moment. The fact that feminists never had that is why they lack credibility with me and many others. You are free to brush it off as meaningless, but some of us actually care enough about equality to not see it as so trite.

Aramis Night:
I believe that men and women should have identical legal rights and subject to the same penalties. I also believe it is wrong to keep a little boy from playing with a toy car when doing so harms no one.

As I mentioned before, we don't have the whole story. We don't know if, in fact, boys playing with toy cars harmed no one. I have personal experiences where banning a specific toy to avoid excessive strife was seen as a positive idea. I can conceive that a similar situation MIGHT have happened.

The article indicated that the toy being banned was for reasons of not wanting to reinforce/introduce gender roles.

Sorry my responses are underneath your quotes. Not used to how this forum does quotes and i'm not html knowledgeable.

Toy Master Typhus:
I can't even begin to fathom what kind of mental mindset you are in to consider that what a boy chooses to play with fucks up a girl's image. If anyone is so dependent on what others do to create their self image I don't feel any pity for them if they are disliked.

Man is only free when they refuse to give a damn what society thinks of them.

What? Where did I ever bring up girl's image? Huh? Are we both reading the same posts?

distortedreality:
Excessive strife? From playing with toy cars? Unless the child has a specific drive to shove their toys into places they shouldn't, I can't equate excessive strife with toy cars.

In my personal experience, trading cards were banned at my primary school because they caused a lot of verbal and physical fighting between children. Very vicious, too. They were such an expensive and overvalued item (third world country here, btw) that they were considered a social status symbol in the playground hierarchy, and because they were so excessively overvalued, we resorted to really extreme measures to get our hands on them, we reacted very violently when we perceived that a trading wasn't fair or when the games that the trading cards were for didn't go our way (or someone was perceived to have cheated), and a host of other problems (stealing, distracting attention from the class, etc). There were a couple of weeks (or maybe more?) where the school slowly spiralled out of control.

While I'm not saying that this is necessarily what happened, I can imagine that toy cars were overvalued (because of kids gender-coding them as male and therefore more "awesome"), and that generated strife among kids (if it helps with the visualisation, imagine the toy cars were considered a luxury item, with all the hierarchical consequences that implies).

Aramis Night:
The article indicated that the toy being banned was for reasons of not wanting to reinforce/introduce gender roles.

Yes, and we don't know what exactly the problem was. Yes, perhaps the problem was that boys tended to favour it (in which case yes, the decision is too hasty and not well thought-out). However, it could be that the gender-coding generated a situation like the ones I describe in this very post (above).

Darken12:

In my personal experience, trading cards were banned at my primary school because they caused a lot of verbal and physical fighting between children. Very vicious, too. They were such an expensive and overvalued item (third world country here, btw) that they were considered a social status symbol in the playground hierarchy, and because they were so excessively overvalued, we resorted to really extreme measures to get our hands on them, we reacted very violently when we perceived that a trading wasn't fair or when the games that the trading cards were for didn't go our way (or someone was perceived to have cheated), and a host of other problems (stealing, distracting attention from the class, etc). There were a couple of weeks (or maybe more?) where the school slowly spiralled out of control.

While I'm not saying that this is necessarily what happened, I can imagine that toy cars were overvalued (because of kids gender-coding them as male and therefore more "awesome"), and that generated strife among kids (if it helps with the visualisation, imagine the toy cars were considered a luxury item, with all the hierarchical consequences that implies).

Two very different things.

I grew up with trading cards (baseball and basketball mainly, but also marvel, football etc). We had the same thing at our public school - trading cards were banned, apart from once or twice per school term where we were allowed to bring in the cards. We were, on the other hand, allowed to bring in toy cars on any day we pleased if we chose to do so. That should tell you how unrealistic your statement was.

I think this is the problem people run into when they try to apply a specific theoretical framework that they subscribe to, to everyday life where the theory doesn't necessarily fit. In your case, you're making assumptions of something that you admittedly have no direct experience of, and applying your theoretical framework around it. Surely you can see why that would be problematic?

distortedreality:
Surely you can see why that would be problematic?

Of course, which is why it's a good thing I never stated that it had most definitely happened like that, and repeatedly stated that it was mere conjecture.

My point was not to say "this most certainly happened" but to say "we don't know exactly what happened; it could have happened like this".

Communism didn't work, and neither will this shit. So barring a premature cause of death I'm reasonably sure that I should still be alive to tell everyone at that future point in time that I told them it was doomed to fail when it all began.

And that's my positive.

I don't see what people are so upset about. In english we already have words like parent instead of mother and father, and sibling in the place of brother or sister. Why is it that we can't have a gender neutral pronoun, most languages should have one. Just take referring to someone on the internet, you don't know there gender and don't know which pronoun to use. Lets just pick one of the people disagreeing at random.

Xan Krieger:
Just seems like another case of political correctness gone mad. So instead of he or she you call them chicken.
That joke aside I'm serious, there are men and women and we are different. Different in ways that have an effect daily. You can't remove that from life entirely like it seems they're trying to do.

I disagree with what she is saying and I don't think what she is saying even has any bearing on the discussion, since gender neutral words do not destroy gender specific ones and start making us genderless. But to my really point, if she is not a girl, which I have no way of know whether she is or not based on her post, she might be offend by referring to her as "her", and even if she wasn't offended, I would still be unwittingly using and improper word. The fact that we don't have gender neutral pronouns to refer to single individuals limits our ability to speak.

So like girls and boys will share bathrooms now? Cuz then there won't be signs that say Women or Men.

Marik2:
So like girls and boys will share bathrooms now? Cuz then there won't be signs that say Women or Men.

I see a definite rise in the use of hidden toilet cams if that's the case.

Darken12:

distortedreality:
Surely you can see why that would be problematic?

Of course, which is why it's a good thing I never stated that it had most definitely happened like that, and repeatedly stated that it was mere conjecture.

My point was not to say "this most certainly happened" but to say "we don't know exactly what happened; it could have happened like this".

But in what world does taking toy cars away from a child help to promote gender equality? In what world does that make any sense at all?

Equality should be about freedom, not restriction.

distortedreality:
But in what world does taking toy cars away from a child help to promote gender equality? In what world does that make any sense at all?

It makes no sense because we don't have all the information.

Maybe it is just as bad as the article makes it out to be, but it's just as likely that it was a more complex issue than that, where the gender aspect had something to do with that, but wasn't the entirety of the problem.

distortedreality:
Equality should be about freedom, not restriction.

I completely agree.

Sounds to me like Sweden has made the mistake of confusing equality with homogeneity.

Culture is not a mathematical concept. We can be equal in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of a culture, without all being identical. Forced gender neutrality, particularly on children, is no different from forced gender assignment.

And let's not kid ourselves, forcing children to play only with approved toys, and only in approved fashions, is damaging. And given the way these attempts usually play out, particularly damaging to males.

distortedreality:

Darken12:
We don't know if, in fact, boys playing with toy cars harmed no one.

Um......how would a boy playing with cars hurt anyone?

I agree that a child's gender identity is influenced by their interactions and environment from an early age, but I fail to see how playing with toy cars could influence a child of either sex in any inherently negative way, and I don't see how any sort of research of this would be beneficial or worth while to anyone.

Excessive strife? From playing with toy cars? Unless the child has a specific drive to shove their toys into places they shouldn't, I can't equate excessive strife with toy cars.

Reading the Swedish blog post through Translate, it seems[1] like part of the idea is that boys and girls will have ample access to toys coded for their genders outside of the school, so the school should give them an opportunity to interact with other toys while there so as to destigmatize them. Basically, the school should be teaching things that are least likely to be taught elsewhere. It's described as "kompensatorisk pedagogik," rendered as "compensatory education" by autotranslate. But it also seems to talk about the prestige placed on toys coded male above other toys being behind the decision, thus attempting to present toys coded female as being just as legitimate. The idea being that the school can allow boys to play with "girl" things and police any hostility from other boys regarding that, thus giving boys who may be more into those things a space in which they can find out they're more into those things and/or a space in which they can play with them with as little opposition as possible.

Anyway... as for strife, there's incredible pressure placed on boys (usually peer pressure from other boys their age, though it's often reinforced by authority figures like parents/teachers and society in general) to conform to masculine gender roles from a very early age. There's pressure placed on girls to conform as well... but not really as much, or in the same way. People tend to be much more accepting of a so-called tomboy than a boy who likes "girly" things. This essentially stems from misogyny: because toys, behaviors, styles of dress, etc that are coded female carry less prestige than those coded male, the girl is seen in a sense as trading up, while the boy is seen as lowering himself. This has the dual effect of making girls who are into "girly" things feel that their interests are not as valuable, while making boys who are into "girly" things hide their affinity for fear of becoming social pariahs.

(Personal anecdote: I almost got held back in kindergarten for "behavioral problems." Specifically, for getting in a fight with a kid who constantly made fun of me for being really into the toy kitchen.)

I'm not saying that removing toy cars is necessarily the best response to this problem. If anything, it prolly caused resentment in the kids who liked them, and they might have seen it as taking away the "good" toys and making them play with "dumb" ones. But it is a problem.

Darken12:
In my personal experience, trading cards were banned at my primary school because they caused a lot of verbal and physical fighting between children. Very vicious, too. They were such an expensive and overvalued item (third world country here, btw) that they were considered a social status symbol in the playground hierarchy, and because they were so excessively overvalued, we resorted to really extreme measures to get our hands on them, we reacted very violently when we perceived that a trading wasn't fair or when the games that the trading cards were for didn't go our way (or someone was perceived to have cheated), and a host of other problems (stealing, distracting attention from the class, etc). There were a couple of weeks (or maybe more?) where the school slowly spiralled out of control.

While I'm not saying that this is necessarily what happened, I can imagine that toy cars were overvalued (because of kids gender-coding them as male and therefore more "awesome"), and that generated strife among kids (if it helps with the visualisation, imagine the toy cars were considered a luxury item, with all the hierarchical consequences that implies).

Oh geez, this reminded me of pogs in like... third or fourth grade? (In case they were a strictly US thing, ~2cm radius cardboard circles with pictures on them. Two players contribute an equal number to make a stack, then they take turns hitting the stack with a metal circle of the same radius. The player keeps any that land face-up after the hit.) Essentially, gambling for kids. There was a certain technique to doing it well, so those of us who were good at it racked up an impressive number of the things, while those who weren't had to convince their parents to buy more if they wanted to participate in what everyone considered to be the Most Important Thing Ever. As you can imagine, this spawned plenty of cons, parent complaints, theft, and fistfights until the school banned them.

(My friend and I had a few nice shark routines we played during recess. We'd find kids who we hadn't played against before or in a while. We'd play against each other, ostensibly for keeps, but it was prearranged who would win or lose and we'd swap our pogs back after. The "loser" would then be able to play someone else for real, get a hefty wager, and usually win a sizable number of pogs. Then ofc there was the more traditional strat of intentionally losing a few small wagers to get a much larger wager to win. Good times.)

[1] Obv it would be much better for someone who can actually read Swedish to sum it up, but Norse languages are prolly the least likely for machine translation to English to fuck up. That said, the blog post is quoting a book or something for its actual information, and much of the blogger's writing seems to be whining about the book, so getting info from the actual primary source would be more useful.

bananafishtoday:
*snip*

Wow, that was way more elaborate than what we did. We just beat the crap out of each other and shouted angrily until our voices got hoarse.

But yeah, it really doesn't matter what toy is overvalued, there's always a fad that sweeps through the playground and causes strife like that.

bananafishtoday:

distortedreality:

Darken12:
We don't know if, in fact, boys playing with toy cars harmed no one.

Um......how would a boy playing with cars hurt anyone?

I agree that a child's gender identity is influenced by their interactions and environment from an early age, but I fail to see how playing with toy cars could influence a child of either sex in any inherently negative way, and I don't see how any sort of research of this would be beneficial or worth while to anyone.

Excessive strife? From playing with toy cars? Unless the child has a specific drive to shove their toys into places they shouldn't, I can't equate excessive strife with toy cars.

Reading the Swedish blog post through Translate, it seems[1] like part of the idea is that boys and girls will have ample access to toys coded for their genders outside of the school, so the school should give them an opportunity to interact with other toys while there so as to destigmatize them. Basically, the school should be teaching things that are least likely to be taught elsewhere. It's described as "kompensatorisk pedagogik," rendered as "compensatory education" by autotranslate. But it also seems to talk about the prestige placed on toys coded male above other toys being behind the decision, thus attempting to present toys coded female as being just as legitimate. The idea being that the school can allow boys to play with "girl" things and police any hostility from other boys regarding that, thus giving boys who may be more into those things a space in which they can find out they're more into those things and/or a space in which they can play with them with as little opposition as possible.

Anyway... as for strife, there's incredible pressure placed on boys (usually peer pressure from other boys their age, though it's often reinforced by authority figures like parents/teachers and society in general) to conform to masculine gender roles from a very early age. There's pressure placed on girls to conform as well... but not really as much, or in the same way. People tend to be much more accepting of a so-called tomboy than a boy who likes "girly" things. This essentially stems from misogyny: because toys, behaviors, styles of dress, etc that are coded female carry less prestige than those coded male, the girl is seen in a sense as trading up, while the boy is seen as lowering himself. This has the dual effect of making girls who are into "girly" things feel that their interests are not as valuable, while making boys who are into "girly" things hide their affinity for fear of becoming social pariahs.

(Personal anecdote: I almost got held back in kindergarten for "behavioral problems." Specifically, for getting in a fight with a kid who constantly made fun of me for being really into the toy kitchen.)

I'm not saying that removing toy cars is necessarily the best response to this problem. If anything, it prolly caused resentment in the kids who liked them, and they might have seen it as taking away the "good" toys and making them play with "dumb" ones. But it is a problem.

Darken12:
In my personal experience, trading cards were banned at my primary school because they caused a lot of verbal and physical fighting between children. Very vicious, too. They were such an expensive and overvalued item (third world country here, btw) that they were considered a social status symbol in the playground hierarchy, and because they were so excessively overvalued, we resorted to really extreme measures to get our hands on them, we reacted very violently when we perceived that a trading wasn't fair or when the games that the trading cards were for didn't go our way (or someone was perceived to have cheated), and a host of other problems (stealing, distracting attention from the class, etc). There were a couple of weeks (or maybe more?) where the school slowly spiralled out of control.

While I'm not saying that this is necessarily what happened, I can imagine that toy cars were overvalued (because of kids gender-coding them as male and therefore more "awesome"), and that generated strife among kids (if it helps with the visualisation, imagine the toy cars were considered a luxury item, with all the hierarchical consequences that implies).

Oh geez, this reminded me of pogs in like... third or fourth grade? (In case they were a strictly US thing, ~2cm radius cardboard circles with pictures on them. Two players contribute an equal number to make a stack, then they take turns hitting the stack with a metal circle of the same radius. The player keeps any that land face-up after the hit.) Essentially, gambling for kids. There was a certain technique to doing it well, so those of us who were good at it racked up an impressive number of the things, while those who weren't had to convince their parents to buy more if they wanted to participate in what everyone considered to be the Most Important Thing Ever. As you can imagine, this spawned plenty of cons, parent complaints, theft, and fistfights until the school banned them.

(My friend and I had a few nice shark routines we played during recess. We'd find kids who we hadn't played against before or in a while. We'd play against each other, ostensibly for keeps, but it was prearranged who would win or lose and we'd swap our pogs back after. The "loser" would then be able to play someone else for real, get a hefty wager, and usually win a sizable number of pogs. Then ofc there was the more traditional strat of intentionally losing a few small wagers to get a much larger wager to win. Good times.)

But where does this leave a boy who wants to play with boy toys and has no interest in girl's/gender neutral toys? From what i've seen this tends to make kids want what they want even more. Kid's tend to be reactionary. However they are not without preferences. If children choose to value boy toys over female/gender neutral toys, then it doesn't seem that there is any reason to not allow the girls to play with them as well if they choose rather than limiting the toys that a boy can choose to play with. This would also negatively affect the ability of girls to also choose to play with whatever toy they wish.

I know my gf would definitely have taken issue with that. She used to prefer boy toys(i can't seem to make that come out right). She is the greatest example of a woman i know. It didn't make her into something else or cause any developmental problems. I despised girl toys and found most gender neutral toys to be bland. They just weren't interesting (except for maybe those ovens). I was all about transformers and other toy robots. Oh and video games. Well still with the video games. Spent most of today in another closed beta for an upcoming game. Yeah... toys.

My parents tried to keep me away from video games. They actually banned me from ever being in anyone's house if they knew that there was a video game system there. And they always would check. They would beat me for being in a place with an arcade. It never stopped me. And this was back in the NES days. I got beaten a lot over this. And not soft beatings like parents are afraid to give their kids now. I'm talking wooden paddles with holes in them. Being beaten in the shower with a wet leather belt. Being whipped with the buckle side of the belt. And not just a couple hits. On average about 10-20 hits at a time. Didn't deter me in the slightest. How far are these social engineers in sweden willing to go? This won't change anything.

[1] Obv it would be much better for someone who can actually read Swedish to sum it up, but Norse languages are prolly the least likely for machine translation to English to fuck up. That said, the blog post is quoting a book or something for its actual information, and much of the blogger's writing seems to be whining about the book, so getting info from the actual primary source would be more useful.

According to my English Teacher, if you refer to someone as "one", then you can't use "their" as a way to show possesion (i.e If one was to eat their pie...), you're supposed to use "his or her" (i.e If one was to eat his or her pie...). This is what leads to the clunkiness of using one all the time, and that it would be self defeating as a gender neutral pronoun. And is Hen supposed to be the Swedish equivalent of "It"? "It" really isn't a gender neutral word, more like an anti-gender word.

IamQ:

Casual Shinji:
Gender neutral words and toys!? Wha-... why?

When did it happen that being called 'he' or 'she' is suddenly not done?

Looks like worldpeace can only be achieved by forcing everyone to be the same. No distinction, no flavor, just a saltless grey society.

Being a Swede, my take on the word is that it's purpose is more to be used when the gender isn't assigned yet. Like if you have a suspect, but no identity, or if you're just talking about people in general.

In that case couldn't we just use the discription we've always been using, like "the suspect", "the doctor", "the teacher"? I'm still not seeing the point to a gender neutral discription, other than people being offended that you didn't refer to them as gender neutral.

Darken12:

One day, I'm going to find a way to address a controversial topic in a way that does not sire a flame war. There must be some way I can phrase it.

I think it's a noble effort, but doomed to failure.

Personal anecdote time, my primary school actually banned trading cards because they were the source of an incredibly amount of fighting, disputing and a whole array of problems. Rather than consuming manpower and resources dealing with all that individually, the school just banned them. It's possible that's what happened here.

Mine did the same. Some kids kept getting their cards stolen etc. Always ended badly. Damn you Pokemon.

The article seems to indicate the motivation for removing the toys was more in line with trying to coerce the play into an ungendered activity, when those kids already had a gender identity (Which may have been informed by gender roles). I'm not so much in favour of attempting more manipulation on top of the social conditioning unless there's a really convincing reason, and I find "Enjoys playing with trucks" a little unsubstantial. I personally think that trying to solve the problem by removing the distinctions in advance is more favourable (Of course, it's not an either or scenario, and it depends on how aware the kids are that the toys are being removed. If the kids are aware of it and the reasoning, it's probably going to annoy them. If they aren't, I don't really care). Taking the trucks away from the boys isn't so good as to mix the trucks, spiderman and prams to remove the demarcation.

ImmortalDrifter:

Loonyyy:

That's not what Fascist means. Authoritarian might be a better word. But again, that's not part of the proposal.

I looked into the term just now and apparently it's still up in the air what fascism really means. I referred to it as that because under my impression fascist meant government imposed and enforced moral values. It may or may not be right. Regardless, I wasn't referring directly to the proposal, but the stigma that appears to surround it. Honestly though, if this was a lapse purely involving the language, you'd think someone would have brought this up sooner.

Authoritarian might be closer to what you meant. Fascist has a specific meaning with respect to a combination of Nationalism and Authoritarianism, and is a system of government. Italy during the second World War was fascist. Nazi Germany was fascist. This, is not. I'd disagree with the characterisation of authoritarian, since they're not actually doing anything apart from trying to introduce a word, but I think we can leave this one here.

I'd like you to prove that. I used gender role to refer to the stereotypes surrounding genders which are a part of society that impact on personal gender identity. So the words appear in close proximity, because the way a person identifies and expresses their gender is related to the roles that society expects of their sex. My point was that to call it sexist is flat out wrong.

The gender-deconstruction position didn't say anything about the sexes needing to be eliminated, or focussing on sex, but rather on the social construct of gender. Hence, you've conflated the two, in an attempt to label the opposition as sexist, which is hardly a classy move. If you can detail how people trying to eliminate the idea of gender are discriminating on the basis of sexual biology, I'll consider it. You play a similar rhetorical game when I address this and attempt to call me out for conflation. Even if you had a point, and I don't think you do, as it stands, you'd still have to address the fallacy in your argument. Tu Quoue.

You ask me to prove my definition of a debateable sociological term?

No. I did not. That's entirely what I did not ask for. I said, and I quote myself now: "If you can detail how people trying to eliminate the idea of gender are discriminating on the basis of sexual biology, I'll consider it."

So: If you want to call them sexist, show how they discriminate based on sex. That's what I want. And sex isn't a debateable sociological term, it's a biological one. Gender is a debateable term, but I'm not calling you on that. I ask, again, how is it sexist? They're against the concept of gender, not against a specific sex.

The aforementioned article the stepped into femanazi territory may have biased my perception too much though. My reasoning comes from the gender deconstruction argument coming from a perceived (but debately present) form of discrimination (against women, but that is again in that specific article).

Fair enough. Although I'd avoid using the term "feminazi". It tends to spark issues, and it's never used in a constructive way.

Calling it sexist was wrong on my part, it involved a lack of understanding of the concept.

Which was pretty much all I meant before, as I mentioned above. I don't really care for whether you're pro-gender deconstruction or anti, I just wouldn't call either side sexist, particularly not for the reasoning that was outlined. Thanks.

My view of the gender deconstruction platform remains the same, though. I don't see this gender constraint that seems to be a problem. It occurs to me that anyone can do anything they want. I honestly don't think gender roles still exist, regardless of the movement. As I said before gender roles as they seem to be described (Women wear dresses, as exampled in this very thread) is lost on me because I grew up with parents who didn't conform to them. I don't see the platform as sexist now, I just see it as vehemently unneccesary.

Fair enough.

Also it's spelled Tu Quoque, but that's unrelated.

Whoops. My spelling is bad enough in English, let alone latin.

If there's already a non-gender specific singular, it's redundant, and someone more familiar with Swedish would be the best to assess that.

And yes, the mire around it is a bit ridiculous. But that's not to do with the word or the policy.

Actually it appears to have a lot to do with the policy. At least if these comments are to be believed. To restate my first point, if this was a problem purely with the language someone would have brought in up long before now right?[/quote]

Not necessarily, things get overlooked. For instance, there's no second person way of addressing a group with a single word. I could say "Hey youse" or "Hey you guys", the first being not a word, the second not being the single word that would complete the syntax.

I think that the problem is that the policy may be fine, but people react to it in extreme ways, which results in the sillyness.

Also, I apologize if any of my arguements are repeats. I'm on zero hours of sleep and I'm now going to bed.

Haha, I did the same thing.

For my last note (today at least) the CoC does not dismiss anyones opinion or exclude people with a certain view point. The intro to this page did not ask them to stay on topic, it asked them to only participate if they held the same viewpoint as the OP. If you tell people they shouldn't do something, and there is not a single consequence for doing said thing then you can bet people are going to do it.

Sure. But my point in that comparison was that saying not to do something is not an invitation to do it. People may choose to take it as one, but they're deliberately making their own interpretation.

Especially when it involves surpressing opinions.

My problem is, they didn't really suppress them though. If people wanted, they could make their own thread for it. They just weren't interested in that discussion in this thread.

If the OP's original request was heeded, this thread would probably be dead by now. But everyone loves to bitch at each other. You and I, we're perfect; Quod erat demonstrandum. You never avoid flame wars by participating hahaha.
Goodnight :D

I dunno, we've kept it fairly civil. I think we've done pretty well.

Darken12:
I would like to thank OhJohnNo for bringing this up to my attention. You deserve all the credit.

I have selected an array of websites that tell the same story from different angles, and focusing on different issues. You may peruse these at your leisure:

From Slate. From Care2. From The Economist.

The highlights reel, for those without the time or inclination to read the full articles:

    * Sweden has incorporated a pronoun ("hen"), which is intended to be gender-neutral (as opposed to "han" and "hon", which are the feminine and masculine pronouns).
    * Sweden does not intend to eliminate masculine and feminine pronouns from use, but to incorporate the gender-neutral pronouns as an alternative when gender is irrelevant (as is in almost every facet of life).
    * Other advances towards gender neutrality include a reformation of pedagogy, the education system, children toys and children books.

So wait... currently Sweden didn't have any words like "they", "them", or "that person"? Odd, but as an English speaker I guess I support them making their language convenient for people to communicate with one another.

Darken12:

This is a cause for celebration for those of us who seek the systematic destruction and deconstruction of gender in society, and these news fill my heart with much-needed hope and joy.

.....what? So the creation of these words wasn't to make modern conversations in Sweden more convenient for people to communicate for one another but for some "social justice" ideal of how things should be instead of how they really are? Smh

Darken12:
It is my sincerest hope that this ushers a new wave of change and progress in the world.

And I hope that languages and culture are not bastardized to conform to some misguided Western left wing ideals because people in the West are "offended" by a non-Occident culture/people exercising their right to have their own beliefs.

Darken12:

Since I know how these types of threads go and I don't want to see it locked because people can't tolerate divergent opinions, I have one thing to politely request of everyone:

If you vehemently disagree with gender deconstructivism and its goals and you cannot phrase your disagreement politely, neutrally or within the board rules, please hit the back button or close the tab. You are completely free to start your own thread on the matter to bemoan these terrible news.

This thread is intended by me as a positive take on the matter. It is not intended to condemn or derogate these practices, but to show my support. This is a positive thread. Please keep counter opinions or disagreements in polite and measured tones. Thank you.

You know what I find amusing about this "request"? That in the begininng you state...

"I don't want to see it locked because people can't tolerate divergent opinions"

...only to conclude by declaring that...

"[t]his thread is intended by me as a positive take on the matter. It is not intended to condemn or derogate these practices, but to show my support"

...which seems quite hypocritical on your part to say that the rest of us can't "tolerate divergent opinions" while at the same time demanding that only certain opinions are permitted to be posted on this thread.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked