| Author |
Message |
    
Linda
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 12:25 pm: | 
|
Hello Everyone
Sorry I haven't posted much lately. But, I have been keeping up with reading the boards. Good to see things are still flowing as usual. Just dropped in for a minute to inform those of you in Columbus, Ohio and surrounding areas that I will be visiting your fair city on July 26th-27th to participate in a panel discussion on race and the conditions of mindset and promote my novella Althea. I will also be interviewed on 107.5 by Kahari of Straight Talk with Kahari at 8am-10am. As soon as I have a phone number I will post it for those of you interested in calling in. Kola....this would be right up your alley...we can have an open forum discussion on how we both feel (smile) But seriously, I would love to have your imput to help spice up the conversation on race matters and give your points of view. To read an excerpt of my novella, please feel free to check it out at www.Lindawatkins.org or at AALBC's authors page/reviews.
Hope to hear from some of you. Keep on keeping on!
Peace Out! |
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 02:41 pm: |
|
Hi Linda,
Thanks a bunch for the invite. Unfortunately, I cannot afford to bring bodyguards, my kids, etc.to Ohio right now. I'm also pregnant to boot.
Love to you my sister. Sincerely Kola
|
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 03:09 pm: |
|
BTW Linda..."Kola's" viewpoint on racial categorization is actually the Africoid viewpoint on race...for the continent. Mines is respectful of African people and is the view that they hold of themselves.
The view on race in America (that "anybody" can be black--but you have to be pure white to be white) is a Slave Plantation view...born out of racism and disrespect for black people.
Clearly...in Africa (in my own family) we have members of all different complexions and colors...but being blood related DOES NOT make everybody black. My own family in N. Africa is comprised of Whites (Arabs), Berbers, Half-Caste (Mixed Race) and BLACKS (Africans).
Unfortunately, many black Americans--out of emotion--fight for their "slave master's" designations...because they think they're not included otherwise, which is false.
While Mariah Carey and Sally Hemmings look 98% White and can claim black blood...this DOES NOT make them black people (as your U.S. racism would dictate). They are still "family" to Africans...they're just not "black". And it's evil the way their true identity is given denied by the racist American lie.
|
Linda
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 09:52 pm: |
|
Thanks for the info Kola. I'll be sure to include it in my debate on Sunday. If I can get a phone number to call in for you to be a part I'll let you know. But I am curious about one thing and perhaps you or someone here would like to comment as to your Africoid view (smile) If those who look white or are light are just considered family and not Black am I right in assuming you label them as white and why so? Doesn't the fact that they are half/1/3/1/4 black count for anything? |
Tee C. Royal
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 07:56 am: |
|
Linda, have a wonderful time and signing!! I'll forward this message to members of my group who are in the area.
-Tee |
Linda
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Thanks Tee. I hope some of them can come out or call in. |
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 01:22 pm: |
|
Clearly...in Africa (in my own family) we have members of all different complexions and colors...but being blood related DOES NOT make everybody black. My own family in N. Africa is comprised of Whites (Arabs), Berbers, Half-Caste (Mixed Race) and BLACKS (Africans).
Linda said:
If those who look white or are light are just considered family and not Black am I right in assuming you label them as white and why so? Doesn't the fact that they are half/1/3/1/4 black count for anything?
KOLA:
"Mixed Race" is not WHITE unless the person LOOKS white.
For instance...in Germany, France, Denmark...they used to insist that Lena Horne was a "white woman". The 1930's leader of the NAACP Walter White was shocked to discover that the Austrians and French considered him "White"--it became embarrassing when he went there to champion "Negro Rights" and the French and Austrians complained..."but he's not black!!".
In say...Argentina or Venezuela...these people would be "white".
The actual color more than anything else is the barometer...where-as in America, the Purity of White Supremacy must be protected...even against someone like Mariah Carey, who is quite obviously more white than anything else--and really should be allowed to identify herself as "White".
IMAGINE if Cicely Tyson could be considered "white" just because she has 3 or 4 drops of White blood? (which she does)
Linda...while we are ready to see it the other way around...we have not INSISTED that Cicely is "white" based on the few drops of white blood. Even the blacks here will accept the "taint" the other way around...but not acknowledge that it should at least go both ways.
Do you see how insidious this American system is? It's purely racist.
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 02:38 pm: |
|
Kola,
I agree that Blacks have upheld US Whites views of what constitute being Black and White. You should, however, consider that many of us AA's maintain these racial proscriptions not so much out of some all-abiding embrace of slavery dictates but rather we feel to recognized lighter-skinned people of partial African ancestry as anything other than Black would reduce the overall population of US Blacks, thus, possibly diminishing our political weight.
I do think, though, as the numbers & proportions of biracial people increase, we will begin to formulate more distinction between & among color & ethnicity. |
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 05:43 pm: |
|
ABM, let me expand on my point by using an example from an African woman's point of view.
About 5 years ago...a large body of about 525 women students at the University of Accra had paid to see a lecture featuring "Black American Women Scholars".
Well...as we all know...in America, the vast majority of black women (esp. at Black Colleges) who are college presidents, deans, etc...are overwhelming very high, high yellowskinned women...many of them so light, that from a distance they look "white". These are women who benefitted from America's "color caste" negro community. They have no experience with being told they're "too dark" to answers phones in the front office, "too brown" to dance at the Cotton Club or that their hair is "too nappy" for marriage.
The Ghana women accidentally insulted these "Scholars" by complaining that not a single one was "black".
And they were right. These women had "gray eyes", "green eyes"...white OR nearly white skin. But with African kente cloths hanging over their shoulders!
Imagine if a dozen Lena Hornes were lined up in front of a room full of white women...and presented as ("White Scholars") here to speak about "being the white woman".
SO...the Ghanian women in the audience felt greatly offended by the notion that BLACK women are not smart enough to speak for themselves...and for their own issues.
**Compounding the problem was that many of these ultra-light University Scholars...really are out of touch with the issues and problems that are MOST IMPORTANT to black women who LOOK BLACK...
Obviously by the fact that all 8 or 10 American scholars were so lightskinned...this highlighted the fact that color prejudice must be a major event in U.S.--because the black male scholars came in a range of colors, MOSTLY darkskinned. Only "the women" were so exceedingly pale.
So the Ghanian women were quite right in their complaint that lightskinned women were being used to make black women (and their concerns) INVISIBLE.
Light women will swear this isn't true...but then they often get up and speak for "black men's experiences" (which is their main connection to blackness--through him)...and fail to do to justice to the experiences of Black women. The vast majority of us are nut brown, dark brown, chocolate and coal. How can these gray-eyed straight haired white looking women really know what it's like to be a nappyheaded darkskin woman....WE ARE BOTH TREATED DIFFERENTY...not the same.
You have heard the positions of mixed race women like Cynique and Yukio...and then you have heard mines. We are not the same.
...and it's obvious that in their hands, my race would perish as part of some "fluid natural course"--one which doesn't seem to affect White race or position--but obliterates "my babies". So I agree with the Ghanian women that I don't want to be represented by women who only "call" themselves black when it's convenient...but then do have no authentic black identity and FAIL TO PRODUCE one in the so called black children they birth.
Although Cynique, being the patrician-featured INDIAN woman that she holds so high (while calling herself "black")...has called Africa and my people "backwards" (she doesn't want to go backwards)...I see her race mixture as a further "niggerization" of a lost people...and I maintain that my sons are THE FUTURE...and that just as Whites and Arabs are good enough to "make generations"...then so shall we.
If we claim to love the black man so much...then why do we not cherish his birth? And why do the Black Americans transmit their self-hatred and their hatred of BLACKS worldwide in everything they do?
Why do they uphold White Babies with "good hair" as an antidote against African people?
Why have they disgraced us? And advanced their slave master's position?
ABM...whatever you answer. I will not be back to comment. That's all I had to say.
|
Linda
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 05:59 pm: |
|
Kola....thanks for the interpretations of Africoid views (I like that word)This should help really make my debate off the hook (smile)while in Columbus. There are many issues involved that I hope the audience will be willing to discuss because as much as we disagree at times I see what you are saying and I understand the struggle of being light in this world and understand that it is hard to be any shade of black...but it is just as hard to prove ones blackness when it is inside a lighter skin. Truly sumpin' to think about!
|
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 12:03 am: |
|
You need to stop talking what you don't know, Kola. You just couldn't let it rest, could you? For your information, both of my parents are of the same race. Any white blood I have, dates way back. The same goes for any Indian blood I may have. I am "mixed" in the sense that millions of other "African Americans" are mixed, a situation that stems from the days of slavery. I do not check the "other" box, and anyone who sees me in person would never mistake me for anything other than a light-complexioned negroid woman who does not have patrician features or straight hair. You are creating your own mythology here, and your obsession with this issue is becoming obvious. I beginning to think you secretly want to be light-skinned, yourself. LOL. And, in keeping with my "don't give a damn attitude", I don't care whether you or anybody else claims me as black. At this stage of my life, it doesn't affect me in any way. You really need to stop trying to categorize people because you don't have that authority. BTW, I never called Africans backwards per se. They may, or may not be. But it ain't my problem. It's yours. And you can have it.
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 12:08 am: |
|
Kola,
Thanks for your very provocative essay. Although I do have some comments, I will reserve them for when/where you might be inclined to further respond. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 02:18 am: |
|
Damn here we go again! At least your rhetoric was espoused as a perspective and not THE only or correct perspective. This I can appreciate. Kola, you have many times stated that you are also mixed race(and you actually know when, who, what, etc...i don't and most "light-skinned" African Americans don't...also i can be light skinned in Harlem and brown skinned in georgia...so complicate your analysis because it is TOO simplistic, ie slave master perspective, etc...you are as bad as african americans that complain about africans smelling or those that admire their "indian blood" and not their african...both of you are narrow-minded), so perhaps it would be more precise that you state your(as well as Cynique's and mine) perspective rather than return to the question of blood, especially since your points, if i understand them correctly, pertain to color not blood! Also, you shouldn't lump in people's perspective together, because you misrepresent them, as you have done in my case as well as it seems with Cynique. You love mentioning other people's names in posts...you must like this engagement, but this route we have gone before, so i'll leave it alone, because if you didn't getit the first time then you never will since you probably don't want to understand(not necessarily agree)....you should read what people write instead of making things up....
Also, I can appreciate your points, but your analysis does not work for African Americans since our history and color dynamics are different, leading us to have different(not necessarily better) perspectives as it pertains to color than those in Africa. This is not to say that there is no color divisions among African Americans and Caribbeans. It certainly is, but your black, white, mixed-race/ trilogy formula is not applicable to the US & Caribbean situation. You analysis assumes that skin color denotes a person's ideology. In addition, few of us look white nor like mariah carey....i'm caramel, kinky hair, broad nose, full lips....NO ONE would ever consider me "mixed-race!" Also, we have dark skinned people that love white folks more than there own, many of these folk are the African elite, who would never date a black man or women, especially not an American. It has been the African American sisters, of all shades, to complain with these African men and women. All of us have anecdotes espousing opposing views! So what! My point is that all of our shit stinks....so smell yours! |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 10:56 am: |
|
Honestly, I don't know whether to be disappointed with all the heat that is continually smoldering among you 3 ladies...or be turned on by it. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 11:01 am: |
|
Yukio, would you deem my prior statement to be "sexist"?
Or, Cynique, is this another case of my "ego showing"? |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 04:08 pm: |
|
Nope, this is not a matter of your ego showing, ABM; more like a case of your horniness manifesting itself in a BIG way. heh-heh |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 11:53 pm: |
|
ABM: If it has anything to do with assumed different treatment because of sex and gender, then i would have to say, YES! Chivalry is quite sexist(bias based on sex), but it doesn't necessarily denote ethics and moral(good, evil, justice, indignation, etc....). So, that chivalry is actually "favorable" discrimination based on assumed sexual and gender differences. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 11:56 pm: |
|
ABM: Favorable to some women not all...not essentially favorable but situationally and individualistically(sorry if i'm making words up!) "favorable." |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 10:44 am: |
|
Cynique,
Uh oh! You caught me with my pants down (around my ankles. HAHA!). Nuthin' quite like a gurl fite 2 get mah juices flowin'. But ah bettah stop. Don't wanna be cumin' off as..."sexist". (Leastwise, not while da honies can see me.)
Yukio,
Ehhh???
Actually, I was try'nah be funny, not chivalrous. But I guess, with you, my humor dun missed dah mark.
(Note-to-self: To avoid gettin' mah tail kicked, NEVER hold a door open for Yukio.) |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 12:49 am: |
|
I know u weren't trying to be chivalrous. I was giving you an example, which was suppose to suggest that to be sexist is not always a bad thing...since often times, woman benefit from the biased treatment because of supposed sex differences..... |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 10:48 am: |
|
Yukio and ABM:
I have to admit, chivalry is just something to keep women down. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 11:29 am: |
|
Chris Hayden:
I'm not sure what chivalry's intent is/was, but it does suggest sexist treatment, as in differential treatment because of sexual difference. Consider, that i'm talking LESS about chivalry and MORE about it's implications as it regards gender relations.
Still the value judgement(ie, good or bad) that "keep women down" suggests is another story. The context is that it affirms allegedly positve "female" and "male" roles(the women receiving the comfort, attension, and protection of the man), while the subtext is that it emphatically affirms differential treatment because of sexual difference(assuming that to be a man you have to protect, be attentive, an comfort women and part of being a woman means, explicitly, that a woman needs protect, attension, and comfort from a man). Similarly, these "differences" are suppose to be natural. Here is a typical example, the rumor is (lol!) that men were not meant to be monogamous, so in our culture and male culture in general, men are congratulated(by men and women) for having many women while women are sluts, dirty, etc....again, this is not about players and sluts, but the subtext which is that allegedly it is natural for men to be promiscuous but not women.
The interesting thing is that women DO want to be affirmed through affection, they want to be protected, etc...but does the adverse make a female not a woman? I don't think so, just nurtured differently!
MEn also want protection, affection, etc..(most of this is affirming a male's manhood which is often related to his pride)....so these things aren't biological, but nurtured!?
In Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzche states:
"The same emotions are in man and woman, but in different tempo; on that account man and woman never cease to misunderstand each other." |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 11:47 am: |
|
Yukio:
Nietzche, eh?
He and Cornel West are the only philosophers I have read deeply of.
Though he writes well it is all bombastic and thunderous nonsense--he never practiced what he preached--indeed, who could?
He was a near sighted near reclusive little bookworm and I suspect he wrote most of his stuff with his brain on fire from the syphillis that would kill him.
He also said, "Thou goest to visit woman? Take thy whip!" which prompted George Bernard Shaw to quip "Nine out of ten women would have got the whip away from him." |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 01:41 pm: |
|
CH:
I assume the "he" refers to Nietzche? CW was the last subject/noun...and u ended a sentence with a preposition....jus playing!
Well, as mentioned(suggested) in another thread, i think the one concerning Miles, in this particular case i'm less interested in the man and more in his philosophy that i find useful!
Also, the "take thy whip," implies that women are not passive, but agressive, possibly dangerous....the ability to interpret is a beautiful thing! |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 01:50 pm: |
|
CH:
Here's another(and probably the last from me) from your friend, Nietzche:
"The sexes deceive themselves about each other; the reason is that in reality they honour and love only themselves(or their own ideal, to express it more agreeably). Thus man wishes woman to be peaceable: but in fact woman is ESSENTIALLY unpeaceable, like the cat, however well she may have assumed the peaceable demeanor."
|
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 04:01 pm: |
|
Is it significant that Nietzche spoke in terms of a superman but never a superwoman? Yukio, that marvelous quote seems to put Nietzche in synch with Freud who always seemed to be vexed by women. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 05:42 pm: |
|
Cynique:
I'm sure it is significant, but i don't know the significance!
I don't know much about Nietzche but woman are unpeaceable as men. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:01 am: |
|
Chris,
Your quip about syphilis possibly being the fiery inspiration for Nietzsche's philosophical musings is interesting. From what I understand, his most studied and influential writings were penned while he allegedly suffered from Syphilis. Though, I am sure you know that malady can actually be a great impetus for genius. Author Stephen Crane, who was sickly his entire life, was believed to be suffering from Tuberculosis while penning the epic Civil War novel Red Badge of Courage (and he died of TB before reaching the age of 30). Composer Beethoven was completely deaf when he amazingly crafted his Ninth (& many cite as the greatest classical) symphony. And you may have noticed that Michael Jordan had some of his best games while he was flu-ridden. Often, sickness can force talented people to focus their talents. Perhaps, the twin specters of imminent incapacity and death cause one to cast aside less important matters and focus on the most precious tasks at hand.
Nietzsche's writings are instructive not because he or anyone could achieve their dictates. They are valued because in their "bombastic and thunderous" bluster they highlite certain fantasies (perhaps mostly white) men have about who/what they had been, what they are and where they were they maybe headed. I mean, when you in the 1800's say that "GOD is dead.", then can proceed with very eloquently backing up you claims, that's going to resonate with folks, even those who do not concur with you.
In a way, Nietzsche was Darwin's talented, but demented younger brother.
And surely Nietzche was likely as "sexist" as his contemporaries. So it's probable he consciously or unconsciously slighted, misjudged females.
But you know Yukio & Chris, I am beginning to think that you are right about the notions of chivalry. I do not agree that treating males different from females is wholly and inherently "sexist". But still, assuming that there are many women whose views match those of Yukio, perhaps to avoid offending someone, I'd be better served by discarding ANY/ALL gender-related preferences, deferences & niceties and let everyone go for herself and himself without any regard for whatever sex-related differences that there may be. And now that I think about, I would probably save himself A LOT of uncompensated time, effort, energy & money if I treated women EXACTLY as I treat men. Maybe I'll retain my "sexist" courtesies just for my closest female family/friends who are amendable to my gestures. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Shouldn't a distinction be made between chivalry and courteous civility. What woman would be offended by good manners? |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Cynique,
I guess that's a question for Yukio. Because based on my interpretations of her (& I guess Chris') commentary, there is hardly any distinction between the "chivalry and courteous civility". So, even a reasonable, well-meaning man might say "What-the-f' is the use to bother with any of it!
And guys might say:
"If she likes me, let HER ask me out...
...and let her open her own dang door...
...and let her pay for the date...
...and let her take out the trash...
...and let her root out the sewer...
...and let her pick up the guy for the prom...
...and let her propose marriage...
...and let her change the tire...
...fight off a masher, rapist, mugger...
...etc et all."
HEY! Now that I think about it, that's a HELL of a lot of pressure removed from men. So, I declare full equality for EVERYBODY!
Right? |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 01:04 pm: |
|
Cynique, ABM, and Chris:
Hmmmmm.....courteous civility means what? And what are good manners? For some people, being chivalrous is practicing courteous civility.
1.In this thread, i've been making a distinction between being sexist(ie treating people differently based on their sex) and whether or not this sexist treatment is good, bad, etc....
2.In other words, sexism is not inherently "bad" or "good," but it is DIFFERENT TREATMENT based on sex, which is devoid of a value judgement and happens to be the definition of being sexist.
3.Contemporary society, particularly feminists, women, and liberals, have labeled sexism as "bad," as in past society others labeled some sexism as acceptable and even "good manners," but the particularities of whether or not chivalry is sexist or not has never been my point!
4. MY point had/has been that if we THINK about our behavior(chivalry was only an example, not the subject of discussion) rather than just accept what has been learned and passed down from parents, society, et al... then we can determine if this behavior is or is not acceptable for us and what we believe and what we intend to do about!
5.Recall, that in another thread we were talking about hip hop and it's misogynism. Well, many of the ideas about manhood and womanhood these rappers have and are now publicizing in these videos were LEARNED; they were not things ingrained in their genes.
6. Hence, if our gender behavior is learned and not necessarily part of our biology, we can redefine gender roles.....
7.So ABM, I've not advocating you stop being "chivalrous," because (1) thats your business;(2)i've not made a value judgement about it. I've only only called it sexist;(3) i'm more interested in US thinking about these things and determing what is best for the community rather than be so extreme to discard ANY/ALL sex-related preferencs(not gender...thats something that is for us to define and redefine...gender is pertains to our behavior and sex is genetic and biological).
8. Personally, i think it is nice to open the door for a woman, especially one that has bags in her hands! Is this sexist? Yes, if it is sex based. Is it good manners? I would say yes, again! Hence you can be both sexist and mannerly at the same time!
9. Assuming that i'm understood, how would we go about redefining "positive" gender roles? What should we keep and refine and what should we discard about manliness and womanhood?
Perhaps this should be in another thread.... |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 01:15 pm: |
|
ABM:
Naw...ya interpretations have been wrong!
The ingredients to part of Cynique's question were stated last week:
Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 11:53 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABM: If it has anything to do with assumed different treatment because of sex and gender, then i would have to say, YES! Chivalry is quite sexist(bias based on sex), but it doesn't necessarily denote ethics and moral(good, evil, justice, indignation, etc....). So, that chivalry is actually "favorable" discrimination based on assumed sexual and gender differences.
-------------------------------------------------
So, last week, i made a difference between (1) sex based bias and (2) morals and ethics. Is it possible that you possibly misinterpreted my posts becuz you believe that being bias is inherently "bad" or immoral? I know that i'm opening up a can of worms....so lets keep it to this particular discussion....lol! |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 01:30 pm: |
|
Yukio said: So, last week, i made a difference between (1) sex based bias and (2) morals and ethics. Is it possible that you possibly misinterpreted my posts becuz you believe that being bias is inherently "bad" or immoral? I know that i'm opening up a can of worms....so lets keep it to this particular discussion....lol
ABM said: Okay, Yukio. It's fine that that is what you state. But I have not "misinterpreted" anything. Quite the contrary. I follow and AGREE with you.
I, therefore, assert that based on ALL of what you have said on the subject, that, because there can be SO MANY differring views on what is proper/improper treatment of women, it is entirely possible that a well-meaning man's actions can be interpreted as wholly "sexist" and "chavunistic".
Isn't that that what YOU have repeatedly argued?
Therefore, agreeing with you, I think that it is likely in the best interest of men/women to discard ALL gender and/or sex related courtesies.
Look, really, why should a brothah bother to hold a door open for a woman (especially one that he does not know) if it is entirely possible that she will deem him a "sexist SOB" for his efforts? |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 01:32 pm: |
|
Yukio,
You can't "Have your cake and eat it too." |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 01:40 pm: |
|
I'm sure we all know that chivalry dates back to the day of Knights and their Ladies, back when the socializing they engaged in consisted of an elaborate and exaggerated ritual implicit with the idea of the male being a knight in shining armor and the female being a damsel very receptive to the idea of him carrying her off on his white horse. So, taking this into consideration, the phrase "chivalry is dead" is true. I still maintain that a sexist male is one who underestimates a woman's mental ability, because there is no question that he can best her physically. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 01:46 pm: |
|
Yukio,
You make some credible and discernable distinctions between DIFFERENT and/or BETTER gender treatment. But the problem with those distinctions is they are ALL (by your own commentary) subject to the understanding/biases of the women who receives the treatment.
For instance - and this is ALL based on what I have interpreted of your prior statements - some women might see a man helping them with their grocery as a nice gesture while other women might view that as a slight, indirect way of signifying men as being physically stronger and thus BETTER than females.
So rather than going thru assorted mental gyrations about whether or not to offer a hand in that scenario is "sexist" and "chauvinistic", shouldn't most guys scenario safely conclude that it's better to let her handled her thang, even if she's struggling with it? |
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 03:58 pm: |
|
**I in no way want to take a side on the debate about "sexism vs. manners"....but I would like to make some observations that I think are really interesting.
I am 6 foot 3. I've been about six feet tall since I was 17.
In the supermarket...other women are always grateful when I reach up and get things down for them that they cannot reach on their own. I imagine that a tall man would usually do the same--not really out of sexism, but just being helpful.
Going into a building, I often find myself letting the women with me (who are shorter) go inside first...I even open the door sometimes out of reflex, because it's like being with children--the larger person feels protective of the smaller ones.
On the other hand...when people have questioned my "sexualized persona"....it never occured to them that at 6 foot 3...I often had to REMIND MEN that I was still a "a female". This is why it hurt my feelings so much that time when ABM called me "Amazonian".
Meaning...because I was tall and "stacked"...men felt that I was strong and could take care of myself without their help. I think that due to "insecurity" imbalances based on race in America...I found that black men regarded my height as a "negative thing"...while white men were complementary and turned on by it. Many black males might have sex with very tall women--but require that their actual "girlfriend" be shorter than they are. White men, however, were less insecure and not as "verbally insulting"--as a teen, black boys--no matter how thin and feminine I was--would call me "a boy"--which was their way of PENALIZING me for something I couldn't control--my height.
And so I found myself "sexualizing" myself--deliberately highlighting my femininity (as basketball player Lisa Leslie has spoken about the same problem)...to get men to "treat me like a woman."
Just as Leslie has pointed out--men "assumed" (especially black men) that my height meant that I was a lesbian or a "castrator" of men.
Likewise...after I got pregnant the first time (at 17)...my breasts blew up really huge...and then men "assumed" something new--that I was a slut (as so many large breasted women can attest--men do tend to think that bigchested girls WANT IT). There are studies that prove this.
So, I feel that the way a woman looks...affects sexism both ways. Women like myself tend to appreciate men opening doors a great deal more...than say a tiny, petite woman who feels less powerful and resents the BIG BOYS always patronizing her and reminding her that they are the bigger.
Please realize...it's no fun being a tall straight girl and having men be intimidated by your height or having them penalize you ("..yeah, she's pretty and she's got a good bod--but you need a ladder to talk to her") or treat you like "one of the guys". I always hated that.
THERE IS MORE TO THIS, TOO:
I don't play basketball or any sport...but tennis. I have always been a terribly feminine type of girl...as African cultures tend to over-femininize females just as latin cultures do.
But in the U.S. Some things that are NOT considered "masculine" in Africa...such as great height, short hair (which is the feminine standard in pre-colonial Africa--long hair being a MALE right), very dark skin....are considered almost [exclusively masculine] in the United States.
A woman like Grace Jones (as her son recently pointed out) really had no other choice than to present herself in the U.S. as a "butch masco character", because America would not accept a tall, darkskinned authentic NUBIAN looking woman any other way....in fact, when Jones made films, Hollywood insisted that her image be "masculinized" because they didn't know what else to do with her.....however, in France, she was a successful (and very feminine) fashion model--portrayed as a sensual female image... and in Africa, she was seen as a desirable sex goddess. MARKETING was based on racial perceptions of what is "feminine" who should be treated as such.
But these things persist.
Men react different to different women. A blond white girl (studies show) is far more likely to get help on the side of a road with a broken tire....than say, the average black mom with 3 kids in the car, but also broke down on the same road. MEN will stop in droves for the blond lighter image...because they see it as more "feminine" and more representative of "goodness" (which is according to the Hudson Powers Report).
Perhaps sexism more adversely affects those women who fit into the most feminine image molds???
Another point--whenever I have traveled to "Latin" cultures...they regarded my height VERY negatively...the men stopping me on the street to look up at me and say--"You're too tall!" As though I had committed a crime.
But then again, when my car broke down in Acapulco, a swarm of short handsome Mexican guys descended out of nowhere to HELP me. They loved my face and cleavage...until I stood up out of the car.
In North Africa or Isreal, however...the Arab and Jewish men EXPECT African women to be "goddizza"--to be very tall and shapely with high cheekbones and teardrop shaped booty and tits. The average height of a Black Sudani woman is 6'4 (the men's average height is 7'3). Sudan's Dinka,Nuer and Nubian tribes are on record as the world's tallest human beings. Nilotics in general, are extremely tall. So the Arab men (who are also very tall) prefer this in women. Jewish men find it very desirable.
Arab men and Jewish men immediately open the door for me...expect me to walk "behind" them...if I enter the room--all the men immediately stand up...in Sudan, I am expected to sit on the floor while my husband sits in a chair...little boys in Arab countries will carry my bags without my permission or without knowing me...they will get in front of me and ESCORT me to my home. The height means nothing to them.
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 08:35 pm: |
|
Kola,
As always, your more international perspective is insightful and appreciated. Your comments "Women like myself tend to appreciate men opening doors a great deal more...than say a tiny, petite woman who feels less powerful..." is especially relevant.
You comments about how height affect male/female couplings are interesting. As I think back on my high school & college experiences there were several times where I was asked by females - some that I hardly knew - to be their escorts for assorted formals (e.g., proms, balls) because I was taller than most of the other guys. I didn't really think much about it then, but now I recall several times where taller females who were in seemingly committed relationships asked me to escort them because their lovers were short (at least that what I THINK that is what that was about). I guess some women are as slavishly observant of certain arbitrary height restrictions as are males.
I did not make the Amazon comments to hurt you in anyway. Actually, I thought that I was being complimentary. When I used that term, I am thinking about a tall, shapely, buxom, bright, powerful and beautiful Wonder Woman sort of female, which, to me is MUCHO sexy. But, knowing how you feel about that, I will avoid again referring to you as such.
Honestly, Kola, when I read your frequent & detailed disparaging comments about Black men, I wonder how you can REALLY have much use for any of us at all. |
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 09:24 pm: |
|
I absolutely love and adore the Black men who live in "IN MY MIND", ABM. I love you, especially. I keep telling you, because you are more of a real man than most I encounter.
But this doesn't change the fact that Black Men have betrayed us. And they have been completely unfair, abusive and unsupportive of black women--globally.
Today...they reserve for us the SAME racist treatment that White men handed to our whole race just 20 years ago. I would no sooner trust a "brotha" nowadays than I would a white man. They are virtually the same rotten goblin.
And then too:
You must understand that my history with Black men is Far longer in my mind than a black American woman's memory....
...THEY sold my children in Africa, you understand--rounded up my babies and SOLD them! (But of course, the history of AFRICAN women is never discussed in America). They sold my children to the Arabs for 1,000 years and to the Caucasoids for 500 years.
Black men sold Black women...held them down and exposed their genitals to Arab and White men...and SOLD them like chickens as "slave concubines". FOR CENTURIES.
They cut our vaginas and mutilated our bodies ONLY for their own pleasure. In the Nuer women of Sudan, they put plates in the women's mouth (as Cushitic slaves wore plates in their mouths)...so that the males could have the largest portion of food and have "speech". African women were also de-tongued sometimes for marriage.
Great great atrocious cruelties have ALWAYS been carried out against black women by black men.
In America...this whole "colorism" thing is a new cruelty--a way by which black youth PROVE their Americanness--and let us not forget that colorism's MAIN victim is the "darkskinned black female". She is the only invisible black person...and the most unprotected, unloved person in our midst.
But I am giving birth to a new black man. I have realized that being male-identified (as most Black women are)...is the reason that we produce such dis-loyal, abusive sons. I have realized that our self hatred as black women...allows the self hatred in black males to manifest and go unchecked..until it's too late.
As a womanist, my sons live with a woman-identified mother/homemaker in a house that is RULED by a strong Black man who loves and adores their mother and teaches them to "idolize" black women as the womb source material of their own images.
My sons are taught that a woman bleeds every month and lives through it...This makes her a spiritual warrior. SHE GIVES BIRTH...this makes her a part of God. "Women"--my sons are taught--are to be respected, protected and LISTENED to. A black woman is to be "cherished".
On the flip side....They see that I treat their BLACK father like a king. He is cooked for, FED, feet massaged, back rubbed, given plenty of sex and his opinion and his word is sought at every single decision in this house. We eat meals Sudanese style--sitting on the floor with the proper bowl presentation, the boys recite the blessing. Each evening, they overhear their parents having deep discussions about the evening news. On weekends, when they stay up late, they see their father carry their mother up to the bed chamber (as Africans do)--we don't walk. Their Father is quite obviously the leader--although they are closer to me, their mother.
When I go "topless" to the beach to pray (as God requires)...my sons are with me. They see that my breasts are religious ornaments and part of the life-sustaining force of God. This makes them revere WOMEN.
ABM...I make disparaging comments about black men--because they (more than any other) are a great, great disappointment--especially in America. Everything here is blamed on the Black AMerican woman.
But anyone with two eyes can see that it's really THE MEN who are selfish, dishonest, dis-loyal and arrogantly destroying the black communities here. They seek the respect of the White Society...and not the respect of their Black Mother (who they hate anyway--because she makes them black). Black men in America have GREATLY and COMPLETELY betrayed Africa...they import their self-hatred to our youth daily. Black men in America talk all this black pride...but the way that they disgrace, humiliate and abandon black American women--there aren't words for me to express my utter SHOCK. It cuts my soul.
Naturally, my comments are very disturbing to you. I understand.
BUT YOU ABM...You I love. I keep telling you. Now if I could just give birth to some more ABM's!!
That's the thing.
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:40 pm: |
|
Kola,
Hey, I think I am a decent enuff guy and all. But, although I greatly appreciate your kinds words, I am honest enuff about myself to say I am HARDLY worthy of such warm regard from you. The real ABM is likely VERY differ from him who "live in [your] mind".
And although I am an individual who makes my own decisions/choices for myself and my family, I also view myself as a part of that collective of Black men that includes Malcolm X, Kobe Bryant, MLK, Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali and Michael Jackson, Medgar Evers and Tiger Woods and all other men of African descent in the US and around the world. And I embrace all of these men as they all make up who/what I am as am I a part of them. I know that no matter whatever good deeds I have achieved, had events played out for me only slightly different only a moment or 2 from the way they did, my life would have been completely different. So, when you cast aspersions against Black men as a whole, I take it personal because your stinging words are meant as much for me as they are all of the failing Black men who have ever lived.
I won't quibble on the issue of fault/blame for what has been perpetrate by/against Black people. You know that I agree with much of and appreciate all what you say. But I wonder if Black men are so flawed, so demented, malevolent, how can you be assured that ANY of us were ever worth a damn to begin with?
Simply: With all of the wrong that we Black men seem to have repeated/innately done, how can you be sure that, even in spite of all your most ardent and sincere instruction, your very own beloved sons won't perpetuate the havoc that their sires have for untold centuries? |
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 12:51 am: |
|
ABM...some black men I adore (Derrick Bell/Quincy Jones/Denzel/Troy Johnson/Malcolm X)...some I feel sorry for (Micheal Jackson/R. Kelly)...and some I completely loathe with every fiber of my being (O.J./Ward Connerly). Some I don't even consider "black" (Tiger Woods/Harry Belafonte).
I always encourage black women to turn their backs on the ones who have turned their backs on us. We have that right, you know.
Your vibe with my attitude is basically that it's the same automonous one that you're used to in males...but not in females.
ABM, I'm always shocked at how black men STILL feel "entitled" to black women's total and complete loyalty. They really do expect that. They have the nerve to give speeches like, "You're either for us or against us."
But I can't lie to you...I no longer support black men just because they're BLACK...I have no more illusions about "brothas" protecting me or caring what happens to me. I have de-programmed myself.
I honor the ones that honor me. Period. I support the ones that support me.
I love the ones...that love black babies and show it with their contributions.
Your privates, my love, are not "fixed for purity"--so you may not understand my resentment against African male culture. Which goes far deeper and has more historical dimensions than just the circumcision.
But guess what!? I keep giving birth to MORE black men. And I have friends like you...and a wonderful black husband. So that means there's hope for the future.
And my chief concern is the survival of "Black Women"....because if we don't heal them and nurture them and protect them...then ALL OF US are going to perish.
|
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 02:34 am: |
|
ABM:
"But the problem with those distinctions is they are ALL (by your own commentary) subject to the understanding/biases of the women who receives the treatment. "
The distinctions pertained to denotive difference between being sexist and being mannerly, but this was only an explanation for purposes of clarity, NOT my point!
I don't think you understand what my points were, though you have made your own conclusions based upon what i have written.
This has never been about how to treat women. It has been about redefining gender roles,which pertain to men and women. I think you are quite selective concerning what YOU want to address, ie chivalry, rather than what my points have been:
"4. MY point had/has been that if we THINK about our behavior(chivalry was only an example, not the subject of discussion) rather than just accept what has been learned and passed down from parents, society, et al... then we can determine if this behavior is or is not acceptable for us and what we believe and what we intend to do about!
5.Recall, that in another thread we were talking about hip hop and it's misogynism. Well, many of the ideas about manhood and womanhood these rappers have and are now publicizing in these videos were LEARNED; they were not things ingrained in their genes."
I stated many times that chivalry was NOT the subject/topic of my points (only yours) and that it was an example, which i used because YOU used it, assuming that since you brought it up it could be used to illustrate my points on gender roles....I think i did tell my points and provide examples, but i see that you need/prefer anecodotal examples. Anyways, since you have returned to this chivalry/sexism AGAIN, I will reply to your questions!
"Look, really, why should a brothah bother to hold a door open for a woman (especially one that he does not know) if it is entirely possible that she will deem him a "sexist SOB" for his efforts?
So rather than going thru assorted mental gyrations about whether or not to offer a hand in that scenario is "sexist" and "chauvinistic", shouldn't most guys scenario safely conclude that it's better to let her handled her thang, even if she's struggling with it?"
I answered this question already....
8. Personally, i think it is nice to open the door for a woman, especially one that has bags in her hands! Is this sexist? Yes, if it is sex based. Is it good manners? I would say yes, again! Hence you can be both sexist and mannerly at the same time!
I think if you are sincere, then anyone would appreciate you helping them with their bags...it is just good manners, not about being chauvinistic or sexist....It is about being helpful...to a man with bags or a woman....
Are MEN so superficial that they primarily open doors to get a positive response/reaction from women? Perhaps an affirmation of their manliness?
Here is an example of a sincere, considerate person to follow....ironically Kola, the one who has never seen me but has called me mixed race....
Nevertheless, consider Kola's point:"In the supermarket...other women are always grateful when I reach up and get things down for them that they cannot reach on their own."
I'm assuming that Kola did this because they needed her help not because she wanted them to think that she was a good person....
ABM said: Okay, Yukio. It's fine that that is what you state. But I have not "misinterpreted" anything. Quite the contrary. I follow and AGREE with you.
I, therefore, assert that based on ALL of what you have said on the subject, that, because there can be SO MANY differring views on what is proper/improper treatment of women, it is entirely possible that a well-meaning man's actions can be interpreted as wholly "sexist" and "chavunistic".
Isn't that that what YOU have repeatedly argued?
NO, I stated it, but it wasn't something I ARGUED nor was it the topic of my discussions.
The reason why i made the statement was to suggest that we understand that there are differing ways to interpret behavior, and that if a situation doesn't turn out as we like, we don't get made and call someone something based upon our particular(often rigid) understanding gender.
Again consider Kola's comments:
And so I found myself "sexualizing" myself--deliberately highlighting my femininity (as basketball player Lisa Leslie has spoken about the same problem)...to get men to "treat me like a woman."
Limited and rigid notions of gender led black american men to characterize Kola as "masculine".....my point has been that if we experience this, or that see a man doing this to a young girl, or a man doing something similarly to a man, or a woman doing something similarly to a man, or a woman doing something to a woman(for example, i was on the bus, and some sisters were looking at Ebony Magazine, the issue with the Williams sisters, and the women said, "oh they look like me! They're so muscular! They're probably on steroids!") then we teach them as well as ourselves more responsible gender roles...we redefine these roles so that a woman that is 6 foot 3 can still be feminine or that the Williams sisters can be considered beautiful, rather than these lithe white blond headed russians....redefine........opening the door if a woman has bags or not? thats your business nor is is very serious, but allowing yourself, friends, family, etc...to promote rigid gender roles is the issue...
|
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Yukio:
Some men would no doubt hold a door open for a woman in order to get a charge or affirmation of his masculinity, some of them would do it to be nice, others would do it to be helpful, others would do it to try to get her phone number.
Ah, so now we must examine the hearts and motivations of those holding the doors open. I suppose it will lead to conversations:
"Excuse me, but why are you holding this door open for me?"
"Why do you ask?"
"Because if you are doing it for sexist reasons, then I would rather you not open it. So, why are you doing it?"
"To tell the truth, I just did it. I really had not given it much thought."
"Well, until I can isolate your motivations and reasons, I am afraid I cannot walk through the door."
"Well, allright."
It is very difficult to isolate the reasons for conduct, the springs of human conduct are subtle and varied, someone once said. Maybe some men characterize women as masculine because they want to be nasty--I don't think you can automatically assume everyone is automatically responding to some rigid notion of gender. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 01:08 pm: |
|
Hasn't society always been about role playing, about the sexes acting out the roles their culture has assigned to them? And, unlike Chris, I think that eventually this assigned behavior does becomes a reflex reaction, and "aberrations" are labled tomboys and sissies. In adulthood, when women rebel against these gender expectations in order to gain empowerment, men who thwart these femininists are considered sexists. As for acting polite and civil, this is also an example of role playing, but such behavior is neuder in gender. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 02:56 pm: |
|
Chris H and ALL:
Interesting comments, but the question of WHY some men open doors was meant to suggest that if a man opens a door for a women to get a positive response then he is being selfish/superficial or he could be seekng to prove his own manliness to himself(unfortunate/not the way to go).....
Well, i find it interesting that the men have spent much time on chivalry(not the topic) and Cynique's and Kola's posts and commentary lend themselves more to gender roles(THE TOPIC) and how they can be rigid, limiting, and problematic.....this is what i've been talking about...our need to redefine gender roles
I wonder why this has occurred....any thoughts?
"Maybe some men characterize women as masculine because they want to be nasty--I don't think you can automatically assume everyone is automatically responding to some rigid notion of gender."
Of course, you can not automatically assume that everyone is responding to a rigid notion of gender, but the fact is that many are responding to rigid notions of gender....Unless you are purely naive or in a profound denial, this fact should be accepted! Kola has already provided her own personal examples...there are many examples in history, as well....so lets not act like feminists, men and women, btw, are tripin because some little boy called a girl a tomboy....
The point is that there are two sexes(actually 3), but sex should not limit a person from being as complete a human being as they desire! And limiting men and women to rigid roles definitely does!
Watch the movie LOve and Basketball and consider the variety of gender roles/notions illustrated in the movie. FOcus on the relationships between mother and daugher and father and son....it is very interesting movie, very interesting.....if u have time check it! |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 04:24 pm: |
|
Thanks Chris.
Your skit succinctly and humorously made the point that I have been (apparently futilely) trying to make to Yukio. |
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 05:29 pm: |
|
I should mention Randall Robinson as one of the greatest "men" living. I love him dearly.
And Hi Chris Hayden--now THAT's my brother.
|
Koola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 05:45 pm: |
|
O.K.
This is SOooooo embarrassing, what I'm about to share. But it really goes with the topic.
When I was a teen....(and I used to feel such GUILT about this)...but if
...if a strange boy that I didn't know copped a feel on my booty...say on a crowded bus or walking down a crowded aisle in a movie theature....it really DID NOT bother me.
Don't get me wrong. I knew the social mores, so I would go: "Stop it boy!" As was customary.
But after that, it was over me. I might even talk to the boy. And I used to think that made me "a freak" of nature...because other girls would be so upset...I mean EMOTIONALLY over wrought for the rest of the day. They would be running around telling everybody. They would talk about men being "dogs"--some of them would even come to tears!!
So I felt like a freak.
In retrospect, however, I am starting to think that SOME people (male and female) who have been molested as children (as I was)....grow up to be very insensitive about sexuality...and even...as I became, although I'm not proud of it....Promiscuous (as I was as a young woman).
I didn't believe in love when I was young and I really liked boys...and once I learned how important sex was to males...I used it, happily, to manipulate and possess them, because I loved sex and I honestly used to think....THIS IS SO EASY!!...men are a piece of cake!
Of course, once I matured and realized that I was a non-feeling slut (non-feeling emotionally with regard to love...I was basically very masculine in my sexual conquests of men...I saw men as Wallets dangling from MEAT STICKS)...then I changed.
ABM...it was a "black man" (Thomas), in fact, whose love and tenderness CHANGED me. He taught me that I wasn't happy as a "world girl" and that I really did want "acceptance"....that was not based on sex, but on human NEED. He also insisted that I was "worthy" of love.
This is how love can transform us. And I would like to give credit...to the sensitive caring men out there who DO care about women as fellow humans.
But it is fun being objectified by men, too, sometimes--as long as it doesn't become dangerous. I LIKED it. Wearing bikinis and being whistled at and even being "chased" a little bit. I thought it was a lot of fun.
But I know few women agree with me...and even fewer who can understand my saying such things and then calling myself a "feminist/womanist".
I think the molestation and the "height complex"....in MY case...had something to do with it.
|
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 12:44 am: |
|
ABM:
"Thanks Chris.
Your skit succinctly and humorously made the point that I have been (apparently futilely) trying to make to Yukio."
I got ya point along time ago, which is WHY I told you that your point had nothing to do with mine, and I sought(apparently futilely) to ask you to address MY points, but you consistently and irresistably focused on the chivalry issue.
First of all you posts and points only pertain to chivalry, and how men should behavior. Mine has been about gender roles, involving men and women. Your posts have been about motivation(chris' skit)and/or how best to react to differing female response; Mine have been about self-reflection.
ABM, it seems that you are quite selective of what you want to address. I have, on the contrary, indulged your chivalry issue though i have repeatedly told you that chivalry was not the topic. I have even delineated my points....
Chris' dialogue was cute but off the mark. I'm not talking about a woman telling a man how to behave. I'm talking about self-reflection. In Chris' skit, if i had written it, the woman would have said "no thank you," and the man would have walked off and wondered what had just happened and what it had to do with his behavior! Similar case would be if a woman tells her boy friend, while they are at the movies, to be a real man by being more decisive. Again, i would prefer the woman to ask herself if manhood really had anything to do with being decisive...to ask her self that if she was decisive was she taking testosterone. (Kola has exposed her self-reflection in her posts...thinking about her experiences, how they effected/affected her, and how she has/has not changed/what she has learned!)
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 10:37 am: |
|
Yukio,
First of all, I don't want to needlessly argue with you, especially when we appear to be disagreeing about 2 different things. Therefore, I apologize for apparently not directly addressing the gist of what you have stated. Truly, whatever error I may have committed in that regard was entirely unintended (Boy! I do almost as much apologizing to females up in here as I do with my wife/kids).
Now, to put a finer point to things: You can't cleanly segregate chivalry from a discussion about gender/sex roles/restrictions when chivalry is a manifestation of those very roles/restrictions. For example, since men are (mostly "were") presumed or suppose to be stronger, less emotional and more decisive, men a better suited as gallant knights, escorts and protectors of the virtue of women.
I was also emphasizing chivalry because it helps (me at least) to crystallize where you stand. Because it's easy for me to agree with you that women should not be demeaned, belittle, abused, ignored and the assorted other misogynistic behavior that men (& many women) are often accused of. And of course men are not necessarily more "decisive" than females. Only the most backward men (& women) would continually assert otherwise.
But you also seemed to be saying that the purposes/interpretations of men/women in even the most benign, even benevolent gestures men might make toward women actually help reinforce negative/harmful feelings/bias. Accepting the possibility of that, I tentatively proposed that perhaps there should be no variance at all of the social/more/psychological construct/criteria of men and women, which is what you have at times appeared to be postulating.
Yukio, we can't have it both ways.
Either we are going to treat each other in some ways and for some reasons differently, which might include some most mutually amendable notions of gender-based etiquette (including but certainly not limited to some tenets of "chivalry"). Or we treat each other EXACTLY the same, without account or care for variance in genitalia.
That is why I offered - in support of your previous arguments - to be safe/fair to abandon ALL past/current gender/sex biases, differences, preference & niceties - good/bad - and then see what we have. That way, no one can be exposed to and/or accused of fostering directly or indirectly, overtly or surreptitiously unfair/biased/harmful gender/sex roles.
Right?
I would think that you would find this proposal to be consistent with what you likewise advocate. Please explain how (as surely you will) I am awry from what you hope to encourage and achieve.
BTW: I will (again) soon check out "Love & Basketball" as you recommend. For, although I am not sure that I will find it to be especially instructive on the matters of gender/sex, any chance I can get to ogle L&B's female star Sanaa Lathan, I'M GONNA TAKE IT. 'Cause lemme tell yah: I'ze be luvin' me sum Sanaa sumthin' kinda awful! |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Kola,
It's likely that there are MANY women have experiences/feelings similar to your own regarding wooing men, though they likely loathe admitting to them. Perhaps because many of them (rightly) fear that other women will condemn and men will abuse them for how their unchecked feelings and desires. Sure women want to be regarded for more than just their cupsize. But yawl don't necessarily mind wearing a lowcut blouse that let's the fellas know what kinda rack you're packin' either.
You generously point out the inherent complexities of male/female interaction:
GIRLS & BOYS
Boys like chasing girls;
Girls likes being chased and sometimes caught by boys;
So girls do things to make the boys chase them;
But boys are sometimes mean or stupid about chasing girls;
And girls don't like it when boys are mean and stupid;
Girls want boys to be nice;
REALLY nice;
But not TOO nice;
Girls don't like it when boys are TOO nice
...because then they are too much like girls;
And girls don't want boys to be TOO much like girls;
(That's what girls have other girl friends for);
So most girls like boys who actually act like boys;
Some girls even like it when boys are VERY boyish;
So boys act boyish;
Some VERY boyish;
But then being VERY boyish can go too far;
And the girls get upset and angry with overly boyish boys;
But still girls like keeping the boys around;
Even with their goofy boyish selves;
For although girls know boys are silly and can't help themselves;
After all, they are only boys...
...who like the girls...
...and the girls want to be liked...
...by the boys. |
sisgal
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 02:05 pm: |
|
So men continue to be boys. The cycle never ends???
men chase woman
women like to be chased
women like men to be nice
really nice
but not too nice
women don't like it when men are too nice
because they are too much like women
so most women want a manly man
some women even like it when men are tough, have an edge (ie...a little thug)
some men carry this boy thing too far
some men are still very boyish and keep chasing skirts...even while they are married, engaged..
and women get upset and angry
but still women still want a man, a manly man
for although women know boys sometimes think with the wrong/little/big/other head and chase other women
after all they are only boys
...who like women
...and the women want to be liked
...by men |
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 02:34 pm: |
|
ABM...Sisgal makes some VERY strong points. See this is where the womanist politico comes out in me...'cause she's so right.
That's the dangerous line I was thinking about. And I worried that I contributed to it.
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 02:51 pm: |
|
sisgal,
Thanks for your clever assist.  I am tempted to expand on our little dialog. But I'll likely turn something that was originally intended to be cute into something sordid.
Kola,
I don't follow what you mean by "...where the womanist politico comes out...". I was just chattin' about..."Girls & Boys". |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 02:57 pm: |
|
BTW: sisgal, sometimes, the "wrong" "head" is actually the 'RIGHT' one. And sometimes that "head" ain't all that "little".
HEHEHE!!! |
sisgal
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 03:09 pm: |
|
ABM,
Sometimes ABM, that ain't all true...hehehe! And I did put little/big/wrong/other...Yeah, I know, it's right, but not all the time (we can ask Kobe about that). I really like how you summed that all up above, but as I said...then is it true that men stay boys and chase and chase and chase, even if only in their minds... Expand please, I'm not just a big girl, I'm a woman.
Yeah Kola---I'm trespassing on dangerous ground now, but I'm a feeling kind of funky..so i'm going there. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 03:40 pm: |
|
sisgal: "...is it true that men stay boys and chase and chase and chase..."
ABM: When a wolf can no longer prey, it starves and dies. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 03:43 pm: |
|
Gee, where is this conversation "headed"? But don't stop, I'm a cyber voyeur. And while we're on the subject. A woman is never truly liberated until she is sexually liberated, empowered enough to regard men as sex toys to be used for her pleasure. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 04:02 pm: |
|
I agree, Cynique.
And say...say, Baby. What kinda empowerment you got'in mind? |
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 04:35 pm: |
|
Thanks, Cynique for the thing about women being "sexually liberated" and being allowed to ALSO see men as sex toys...as they so often marginalize us the same way.
ABM...what I meant by womanist politico in regards to your thing about "boys and girls"...can better be addressed by you going back and reading what I wrote about the way I raise my sons (after what I've been through). BOYS AND GIRLS...is a tenuous nature at best; one that can be altered and re-set. I don't preach to my kids...I give them a world inwhich they are surrounded at all times by my VISION. So that it becomes...THEIR...vision.
This is how ALL OF US were raised whether we realize it or not.
So I can assure you that you my sons will have a different view of women, especially black women, than the average joe blows walking around here today.
What you should do is not only re-read what I wrote about raising my sons...but LET IT SINK IT, analyze...how their world must look.
First thing you have to do...is imagine how a "woman--identified" mother might explain O.J. Simpson and Kobe Bryant to her children. And the significance of having a strong husband to Back her up.
I think you missed what I wrote...and I think that we often forget that no matter what the outside environment does to encode our children with the tenets of the general society...it is what level of connection we have with our own children and what WE implant in their consciousness from the day of birth...that will always be a seed growing in their souls.
You would never, for instance, see me at the supermarket yelling at one of the boys and saying--"Bring YO BLACK, nappyheaded self here!"
You would NEVER hear me say to my son---"You're going to be a heartbreaker when you grow up. You're going to break all the girl's hearts."
Thomas would NEVER say to our boys--"Black women ain't worth a quarter." Nor I say anything bad about black men.
We don't allow our kids to watch television...We TAPE programs (usually from Discovery Channel or PBS) for them watch. We rent films like "Sounder", "Prince of Egypt" and "The Wizard of Oz" expressly for them to view.
We would never show our children "The Lion King" or "Tarzan" or 95% of the films made by black Hollywood.
Where we live now...there are almost NO black people (other than typical California bi-racial and mixed race couples--all of whom, I noticed a long time ago, practice a cult of white-is-good, black-is-LESS pathology...all the while claiming to be the "best" of both worlds). I don't allow my children to be around those people.
By next year, we're planning to be moved out of California. And more than likely will live "just outside" the United States but have our careers here.
By age 10...they'll have enough "foundation" for me to let them go into the regular world. But what I planted in them...will always make them deeply suspicious of what others present to them.
Still, I have to give them their own choices, otherwise, they won't listen to me. And, of course, I will always be here when they have questions.
I never TELL them anything. I let them ask questions. And we encouraged them to ask lots of questions since birth...so by accident, they tell us EVERYTHING by the questions they ask.
That's what I meant ABM...by "Boys and Girls".
BOYS WILL BE THE BOYS...that their parents raised.
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 04:57 pm: |
|
HIS & HER RING
She: Oh! Oh! Oh, my GOD. This is a beautiful ring, Honey. ((Though 4 carats are better than 3.))
He: It's just a token of my love for you, Baby. ((But if you act up, I swear I'll take it back.))
She: Whatever made you think of buying such a wonder thing. ((Gee, it only took him 10 YEARS to figure out what I want.))
He: Well, I thought it was something that you would like. ((And you beg for it everytime they show it on that @#$& diamond commercial.))
She: It must have really cost a lot of money. ((I'll have my jeweler to appraise it first thing tomorrow.))
He: When you feel about someone as I do for you, you don't even worry about much it cost. ((Dang! I will be paying for that thing with my Social Security check.))
She: Whatever can I do earn this gesture. ((Other than continue to scrub your skidmarked drawls.))
He: Awwwl, Baby. Your love has been worth far more than anything I can buy you. ((Oh don't worry, girl. Youze most definitely are going to be puttin’ in sum work to earn dat der bling-bling.))
She: Thank you, Honey. I will always cherish this wonder gift and keep it close to my heart. ((I hope that fool is smart enuff to buy me the matching diamond earrings too.))
He: And I will always love only you, Baby Boo. ((I wonder if now's a good time to bring up doing a 3-way with her double-jointed friend Wanda?))
|
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 05:14 pm: |
|
ABM says:
I agree, Cynique.
And say...say, Baby. What kinda empowerment you got'in mind?
Cynique answers:
Empowerment would have to be self-proclaimed, the nirvana that would result from rising above the wrath society reserves for "nymphs." Actually, "boy-toy" is the operative word here; a hunky fountain of youth comes to mind - or should I say, comes to "mine".
Yeah, Kola, in your wild and abandoned youth, you lived the secret fantasy of every
"good girl" too afraid to risk being stigmatized. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 06:54 pm: |
|
ABM:
1.What are the 2 things we are disagreeing on?
2. Again, you have returned to the chivalry, which i will address, AGAIN. Since, i will do so, i ask you to address my points also, as identified in JUly 21(1:04pm), especially numbers 4&5. The points are meant to be interpreted as a unit. Part of the problem of this discourse has been that it has been one-sided. You responded to my replies about chivalry, but you rarely responded to the points, of which chivalry was only meant to be an illustration of. COnsequently and possibly, since i consistently replied to your chivalry discussion, you assumed that it was the SUBJECT of my points, though i repeatedly stated that i wasn't. Who knows?! Unless, you just been selective....again who knows?! Or perhaps you only interested in what you're interesting in discussing...who knows?!
Here goes my reply to the chivalry issue.
I agree. Chivalry can not be segregated! I didn't segregate chivalry; I actually used it to illustrate the necessity of points 4-6(july 21).
You stated:
"I was also emphasizing chivalry because it helps (me at least) to crystallize where you stand."
I reply:
I have yet to tell you where i stand. I did say, however, that if a woman/man has bags in her hands, then it would be nice if a person, man or woman, opened the door, which is why i used Kola's example.
"But you also seemed to be saying that the purposes/interpretations of men/women in even the most benign, even benevolent gestures men might make toward women actually help reinforce negative/harmful feelings/bias."
3. I did not initially address purpose/intent( i don't understand how interpretation makes sense in you statement, please clarify is necessary)! You did, first, and so i address YOU!
The purpose and intent is secondary, perhaps tertiary, to my points. The issue is my behavior responsible to treating people like humans? Are there other ways of treating people, and if so what are they? Does my treatment of people made responsible people? These questions are all very genderal, because my points were never about how men/women treat women, but how people participate in reproducing/affirming rigid/limited/negative GENDER ROLES. You did, first, and so i address YOU!
These are the two statements that you initiated, which led me to address you discussion on men's intent:
(1)"But you know Yukio & Chris, I am beginning to think that you are right about the notions of chivalry. I do not agree that treating males different from females is wholly and inherently "sexist". But still, assuming that there are many women whose views match those of Yukio, perhaps to avoid offending someone, I'd be better served by discarding ANY/ALL gender-related preferences, deferences & niceties and let everyone go for herself and himself without any regard for whatever sex-related differences that there may be. "
(2)You also stated: "Because based on my interpretations of her (& I guess Chris') commentary, there is hardly any distinction between the "chivalry and courteous civility". So, even a reasonable, well-meaning man might say "What-the-f' is the use to bother with any of it!"
So i replied:
"ABM: If it has anything to do with assumed different treatment because of sex and gender, then i would have to say, YES! Chivalry is quite sexist(bias based on sex), but it doesn't necessarily denote ethics and moral(good, evil, justice, indignation, etc....). So, that chivalry is actually "favorable" discrimination based on assumed sexual and gender differences." This quote addresses your first sentence in the first quote. I'm stating that it is sexist(different treatment based on sex), but the behavior is not INHERENTLY GOOD/BAD. On the contrary, society attaches a value(good/bad) to the behavior. In other words, we, society, give the act/behavior meaning.
In reply to the second quotation i replied and asked:
I state:
"Personally, i think it is nice to open the door for a woman, especially one that has bags in her hands! Is this sexist? Yes, if it is sex based. Is it good manners? I would say yes, again! Hence you can be both sexist and mannerly at the same time!" This makes two points: 1. you can be sexist and mannerly. 2. sexism(sex based treatment) is not inherently bad or good, since i'm valoring(saying that it is "nice") the behavior and another person could validly state the behavior as bad.
I ask:
"Is it possible that you possibly misinterpreted my posts becuz you believe that being bias is inherently "bad" or immoral? "
I asked the question because your logic/interpretation seemed to suggest that I believed: (1) different treatment /sexism is bad/unfair and (2) non-sexist/same treatment is good/fair.
Here were the basics of my points:
(1)Sexism/difference is not inherently good/bad;(2)good/bad is determined by people (society/religion/culture);and (3) I (people) will determine what sexism/difference is good/bad through self-reflection.
In other words, since they are differences between the sexes(hence different treatment via biological reasons), on the one hand, and socially created gender roles(one's that are determined by society and often change with society), on the other hand, i stated that through your personal experiences, reading, exchanges with friends, family, etc..., you would reconsider(self-reflection) gender roles in the light of this knowledge you have, and then you do what you think would make you a better person, which could mean not doing anything.....
4. Returning to the question of intent/purposes!
If we can agree that some of the hip hop artists'/rappers' behavior, NOT ALL, negatively effect(this is a value judgement) the community though the intent/purpose/motivations are not malign, AND that MANY IN THE COMMUNITY AFFIRM THIS BEHAVIOR, DOES their intent/motivations/purpose change the negative effect that some of their music and behavior perpetuate?
I say their intent does not change the effect! It is secondary if i judge them as dangerous!
Similarly, if i teach my children rigid gender roles, though my intent is benevolent, they will probably impose rigid gender roles on themselves, friends, family, and the general public.
In conclusion, it is not about being sexist or treating people differently, it is about determing what values you want to affirm and reject, since you determine what value you give to a behavior.
P.S.
Disregard the my request to address my points in Point #2 of this post! |
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 07:25 pm: |
|
Yukio, as always, makes a lot of very DEEP concise points that are undeniable. It feels so good to be on the same vibe with Cynique, Yukio and Sisgal.
What I've always hated, however (and I mean HATED)...is having to deal with those FEMALES who uphold and carry out men's misogyny.
In the Black Community...we are over-run with these pathetic women who really do remind me of the black eyed prostitute coming to the defense of her pimp. Making excuses, dismissing other women's complaints without the same exploration we would extend to a man. It's sickening.
And they're everywhere. All colors, both teenaged and from the old school.
WOMEN...are so Male-identified that immediately rush to make value judgements about other women (such as in a rape case/ a divorce) etc. Many of them...by accident...raise their sons to loathe women, use them and desert them. Especially black women.
You have no idea how much mail I got "blaming me" for the time Thomas walked out (after the shooting).
Black women were writing:
KOLA...if you would just stop being so pushy, so overbearing,
you talk too much (women shouldn't put their business in the street)...you're such a bitch, Kola! Try a little tenderness.
You're going to get your whole family killed!!!
AND THE WORST THEY WROTE:
"If you get killed, Kola, it's your own damned fault!"
They did not care that 8 million BLACK Sudanese children are depending on me...to say SOMETHING...to say ANYTHING. And as a mother...how could NOT do something?
AND nobody ever complained to Malcolm X that he was going to get his whole family killed. Men who take a stand..."are brave heroes."
Black men used to write:
"stop acting like these Black American women!..."
[And make no mistake--Black American women are the people that I respect the most and care the most about in America].
But the thing is.... Aquaman (my nickname for daddy) has always lived in a virtual Male pleasure paradise. He's spoiled rotten! I cook and clean, give birth to sons, provide him with endless sex and still....I was called..."a castrating, domineering black bitch."
OTHER WOMEN..make so many SEXIST assumptions about another woman once she presents herself as a fully developed, fully thinking person. This is what I mean by black women discouraging other black women to fully develop themselves.
Women are the worst misogynists I've ever dealt with. Truly.
I'm sure Yukio, Sisgal and Cynique have run into these kinds of women.
And "good" women....are often like "good" black men.
Their silence equals consent.
|
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:01 am: |
|
"BTW: I will (again) soon check out "Love & Basketball" as you recommend. For, although I am not sure that I will find it to be especially instructive on the matters of gender/sex, any chance I can get to ogle L&B's female star Sanaa Lathan, I'M GONNA TAKE IT. 'Cause lemme tell yah: I'ze be luvin' me sum Sanaa sumthin' kinda awful!"
I didn't suggest the movies so that you would find it "instructive on matters of gender/sex." The word instruction is not in my post. INSTEAD, i'm suggesting that you look at the movie to see gender dynamics played out between mother and daughter and father and son.
Also, here is the statement, which may have suggested that i was talking about intent:
"Are MEN so superficial that they primarily open doors to get a positive response/reaction from women? Perhaps an affirmation of their manliness?"
Firstly, this question was a response to the superficiality of intent in the context of my points. AGAIN, if we have the power to valorize behavior, it is secondary if a man/woman receives negative/positive reinforcement of their behavior. THE ISSUE and question is, Does this behavior negatively or positively effecting the community? (BTW, i don't think chivalry, for example, does negatively hurt the community, but it is sexist(sex based treatment, which in my opinion has no value til you/society attaches a value to it).
Secondly, the question was a response to the irony that you and Chris seemed to limit the discussion to intent/motivations/purpose and that ya'll made it seem like it was about how men's treated women(male bashing), as well as the possibility that these types of discussions frustrates men because they often make themselves, and assume to be, the subject of criticism, where as in this case men are not the subject at all....
Third, it was a response to the selfishness of the intent for behaving primarily for positive reinforcement for your behavior. Of course, this is not only what you and Chris meant, but it becomes that if you are to treat everyone the same, disregarding those who like chivalry, and disregarding that chivalry may be a good thing to YOU.....
I hope i've cleared this up a bit! Also, i never saw this as an argument, but a discussion. Perhaps, you could try not to consider these exchanges bouts(as in fights/contests) and there is a greater possibility that we could understand eachother better. I think you figure that i'm trying to convince, and I am not. I'm engaging you and laying my ideas and trying to learn from you, not argue..... |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 10:59 am: |
|
Yukio,
I have enjoyed much of this discussion. I think that parts of it have been enlightening. And I would have very much liked to reach some consensus, if not agreement.
But now, I fear that this ship has "run-a-ground".
I believe that we are now caught in a quagmire of continual misinterpretation, spurious inferences, selective omissions, erroneous assumptions, etc. Now, it seems more important that one "best" the other in a highbrow game of clever oneupsMANship (sexist?) rather than actually try to clearly and fairly understand and engage what the other is asserting. Now (which would be true to form), I expect you to either disagree with me and/or blame me entirely for how we have gotten to this point. I fully accept it is possible (probable?) that I am mostly (maybe solely) at fault here.
Please don't misunderstand me (He asks in vain.)
I don't mind disagreeing, debating or even arguing. Vigorous point/counterpoint is vital to learning. And I thought that I had even conceded to much of what you asserted. But what has been troubling is, after all of this discussion, we still appear to have not even been talking about the same thing much less reaching mutual understanding. Even when I thought I understood and agreed with you, somehow (& maybe it’s jus’ me) I think I am further from vibing with you than we were when we began. Again, I will accept that I probably am most in error in that regard and (again) I apologize for that.
So, to put this baby to bed, I will just let stand what I have posted thus far on this subject, I will appreciate, respect and try to understand the whats & whys of all of your commentary, and I'll hope that some good come of our discussion for us and for whoever else might happen upon it.
Thank you, Yukio. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 11:08 am: |
|
Kola,
What I have to say to and about many of the things that you incite within me are probably better left with just me, my private journal...and my psychiatrist. |
sisgal
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 11:15 am: |
|
Cynique you said: A woman is never truly liberated until she is sexually liberated, empowered enough to regard men as sex toys to be used for her pleasure.
Ahhh, the days before marriage...yes I remember it well.
ABM: When a wolf can no longer prey, it starves and dies. Thanks for the honesty...something I always knew to be true.
Kola: I'm with u on the points above. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 12:26 pm: |
|
ABM:
1.I have not tried to best you(in the prior post i already stated that i wasn't trying to fight u but engage. Is that not in my post, or do u feel u know my intensions better than i do?) Also, if it is so problematic that we are allegedly talking about different things, Why don't you finally address what i've been talking about, as i have consistently addressed chivalry, intensions/motivations, purposes, and changing from different to same treatment. You have said that i blamed you, but YOU can not say that i did not address you points, BUT i can say that you haven't addressed MINE.
2.I'm not blaming you about anything. I do think WE have differing interpretations of how information is understood. Here's mine(though i don't think we can really "fully/completely" understand eachother):
Person(sender) tells another person(receiver) something. The receiver interprets the information. Many options, but i'll address 2. (1)The receiver can interpret the information as the sender intends, but they don't have to agree or disagree. In fact, they come to the same conclusion and disagree with the premises and conclusions, arguing that the relationships among the points/variables are unsatisfactory.(2) The receiver can interpret the information and not understand as the sender intends, though the receiver mostly understands the language, word usage, etc...The receiver's conclusion is different, since the receiver's understanding is not what the sender intends or the receiver adds information, conclusions and/or points that the sender does not intend, rendering a misunderstanding of the sender's particular posiion, not necessarily the subject matter(this is what u did, in my opinion ABM).
These are the basics(and perhaps i've simplified it too much) of the process of communication assuming that we have a common understanding of language and word usage(which i think we also differ on)....
With that said, i don't think you though u understood my points and conclusions. How does one understand someone if they don't ask? And when you did ask, you had already made a conclusion based upon you assumed interpretation of my position. ....You consistently asked, "RIght?" and followed through will a conclusion based upon what YOU thought i argued. If would have been fairer and preferable, to wait for a response and to address my points as a unit not soley does that specficially pertained to chivalry, which were inextricable from MY points. In other words, what i said about chivalry was placed in an entire context and analysis that your response did not address or take into consideration.
Well, I think we talked about the same thing, gender roles. You focused specifically on chivalry, using it to come to a conclusion, via my posts, that same treatment rather than sex based treatment would be "fair."
Similarly, I focused on gender broadly(not specfic to chivalry), using chivalry as well as other examples to suggest that since there are differing and better ways to understand gender roles that we determine which understandings of gender are useful and positive and those that are useless/negative, and that we do this through self-reflection. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Ladies,
Your revealing musings about the desires and strictures of female sexuality have inspired me to want to explore that subject more "deeply". ((wink))
If you care to as well, please refer to the "Burn Those Chastity Belts!" link within the "Culture, Race & Economy" subsection of this site.
This may be...fun. |
A_womon
Regular Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 43
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 10:05 am: |
|
yukio,
I am confused. On a different board you admit that you are a man. why did you allow people to think otherwise here? They are clearly lumping you and cynique together here. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 311
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 03:17 pm: |
|
A_womon: Because my sex had little to do with my beliefs. Much of my point, here, has been that gender roles and therefore ideas about gender are historically made overtime, so that they eventually become custom and normalized. If this is a discussion board, and it is, then folk should be addressing my ideas not my sex. |
A_womon
Veteran Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 69
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 07:31 pm: |
|
oh of course |
|
Email This Page