|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Drew
I'm a lazy bum and do nothing.
Posts: 1623
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Location: The Formerly Black Swamp, USA
|
 Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jeffles wrote: | | If I'm still being a condescending prick, let me know and point out how. |
The condescending tone. Let us show you.
| Quote: | | I was just trying to point out the case studies and experiments that have influenced my mode of thought and what I thought were obvious deductions from those case studies and experiments. I thought as much because, in my classes, both in the UK and in Canada, those are the ways that everyone has seemed to understand them. |
This implies that anyone who doesn't agree with you is dumb. Thanks, but I'll take practicality over your appeals to the authority of your peers.
| Quote: | | I'm mentioning these things so that you can know that my opinion is not baseless. |
This reinforces the previous suspicion of your self-perceived superiority. | Quote: | | Hopefully you realize that now. If not, I'll just keep plowing on with example after example until you do. |
Now we must bow to your wonderful and superior knowledge, of course.
Before I move on into "30 ways in which I disagree with Jeffles' 'no one has control, ergo responsibility' argument," I have some housekeeping to do.
| Interrolazy wrote: | | Roux, I think you have good intentions, but stop jumping down the kid's throat. |
You are about a page late and a dollar short on this comment. Closer reading reveals that she was out of line for one post--her second in this thread--and has been careful to avoid such hostility since. Maybe if you want to offer useful advice, you could be more time-sensitive about your derailments.
Okay, housekeeping finished.
| Jeffles wrote: | | Drew: I think, based on those studies that I mentioned as well as others, that we might not have control at all over our actions in some cases. |
This is an entirely useless statement. You can be saying anything from "I might not have any control over breathing" to "a reasonable person has no control over killing his mother--given that everyone else is doing it." --according to your studies people mimic what is going around them, no? What are you saying? More importantly: why do we care?
I suppose you might suggest is that Cambodians, because of their environment, were not responsible for raping and killing 20% of their own countrymen under Pol Pot's regime--because people have situations in which they are not in control of their actions. And that an oppressed person should sit around and think "oh, well, gee. I guess I should keep earning 70% of what a man of equal rank earns because they don't MEAN to be sexist." Or maybe they should say "well, I guess if the society overall is killing millions of my gender by nature of my being born, that is okay because THEY AREN'T IN CONTROL." Maybe, you would say, that these feminists shouldn't be pissed off as fuck that several African countries, fearing promiscuous women, cut off their daughters' clitoris and sew the labia shut to ensure they can't ever enjoy sex.
If you're saying that it might be that no one is sexist at all, you've still more explaining to do. How is the control with which someone comes by their environment related to their culpability once they realize how well off they've been?
| Quote: | | Even if the batshit fucking insane person has no idea what they did during that time? Even if it was done by something they had no control over? Because I just don't see how that can be. How can you hold someone responsible for something which they had no control over? |
Easily. Ever heard of a term called "negligence"? Simply put, it is the attribution of blame for harms onto someone who society thinks could have done a better job of controlling themselves. The insane person might have had an insanity that was unrelated to the crime committed. The insane person might have been on pills at the time. The insane person might have had the ability to prevent their impending lack of control. You seem to think that insanity is wholly absolving of responsibility because control is perfectly correlated to responsibility. That is not true. Control and responsibility are CLOSELY related, but not perfectly correlated.
A person who has been educated on the impact of male-oriented societies on the psyches of the individual members of the society should be held more responsible for their views ceteris paribus a person who is uneducated on feminist issues. That is truth. However, if they refuse to listen because they believe that they are just as oppressed as the person they habitually ignore, what can someone do to educate them? Nothing. Does that mean they are blameless for their sexism or racism? Of course not.
We, as a society, MUST place blame for actions that harm people. If we didn't, then we would be in a shitton of trouble as tons of people run around claiming that they have no control over their actions and we have essentially anarchy by psychological mumbo-jumbo. You can try to argue that we should take every situation in a vacuum and in isolation from all other cases, but that is far too time-demanding to ever be practical.
| Quote: | | But I'd see it more of a range from not responsible to entirely responsible |
Wait, you thought I was saying something different? What did YOU think my spectrum was ranging from?
| Quote: | | But even then, they might not have any significant control over their actions. |
You directly correlate control and blame one more time and I'm going to have a fucking aneurysm. Any being with the capability to autonomously harm to society is not entirely blameless, regardless of any amount of real control they have. With children, we assign the blame for their actions onto the parents who were allegedly supposed to control them. Take a look at this lovely spectrum of responsibility, to give your eyes a break from all my WORDS.
http://i44.tinypic.com/jqm3ht.jpg
God is the epitome of the most responsible being, but his existence is rather in debate. On the other end, vegetables are the least culpable living things that I can think of. If you ever see a potato running around killing people, let me know and I'll revise my outlook [but I suspect there will be larger problems than with only my spectrum].*
Obviously children, starving Africans, and bunny rabbits are not as responsible for their actions as multinational corporations or superheros, but the point is the spectrum, not harshly defined "YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE" versus "YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE AT ALL" approach you have been suggesting.
| Quote: | | Every case is incredibly different and in the end, it may be that in no particular case is the person actually sexist because of all the influences that I mentioned before. |
This is a cop out. Sexism (prejudice based on sex) exists. There is nothing you can say or argue that will eliminate the fact that it exists. The people who engage in sexist thoughts are, in some manner, sexist--regardless of the source of the sexist thought. But again: DEGREES. Think of a spectrum. This is where you are fucking up so badly in reading Roux' argument. Some actions are more sexist than other, just as some people are more sexist than others.
Lying once makes someone [in a small way] a liar, but not as much of a liar as someone who lies seven times, not as much as someone who lies seven times a day, or a minute. SPECTRUM.
| Quote: | | What I think it is, based on having read all your posts and not just that one comment, is that everyone is inherently sexist and needs to understand the ways that they are being sexist and that you feel you have a right to point it out to them. |
You have done a poor job reading, if you are responding to her comment on degrees of personal responsibility. She made no such ontological statement about human nature. Ever. People, according to her argument, do not seem to be inherently ANYTHING, except what their environment helps them become.
| Quote: | | Further, you seem to think that everyone is to some degree responsible for being sexist. |
No further. This is it. DEGREE. It is important to Roux to reduce the degree of sexism in society. because everyone is to some degree responsible for their actions, they are also--if sexist--to some degree responsible for that sexism. Seems logical, given the presumption that humans are inherently rational--which is the fundamental basis for any humanist-founded thought. (Just to counteract your "breaking fundamental assumptions that MOST people have" bullshit that you pulled earlier.)
*Ann Coulter and Ayn Rand are not in the spectrum because they are evil entities that deserve to be pigeonholed. Both strongly advocate that the individual person is the being most responsible for their own well being and happiness. Their ideologies differ in many regards, but their view of personal responsibility is largely the same.
EDIT-AARIN: I'm browsing at 800x600 dammit, you're killing my h-scroll = no reading comprehension :P
_________________
Popsicles~ <3 |
|
Thu May 06, 2010 6:55 pm
 |
|
 |
Demetrious
Future Governor of Michigan
Posts: 71
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| Galeta wrote: |
Oh, I absolutely love those scare quotes around "privilege" like you don't think it exists! I'm so glad the white, straight, able-bodied, cisgendered man wants to dismiss concerns about social inequalities which, funnily enough, all favor him. And you wonder why we're bitter! |
And this is why I am wary of the word "privilege" when it's wielded by activists. It's further illustrated by a quote from that page somebody linked:
| Quote: | | When you enter a minority space, you need to realize that this is their soapbox, not yours. |
A perfectly reasonable stance; I think- don't trash somebody else's house- but the "THEIR soapbox, not yours" thing often shows up on neutral ground- like here, for instance. In that context, I've seen it used to stifle debate before it begins, as a gag on any dissenters. "You have Privilege, you don't understand, thus you cannot speak to this topic." I shouldn't have to explain why that's bad.
You just did much the same. Because I had the audacity to be born with a particular skin color to parents living above the poverty level, I am immediately discredited. There's no such thing as a "logical" discussion, an academic level to the conversation, for some activists- credibility is tied to blood and background, not reason. In your case, my statements were instantly discredited as privilege-based blindness because the inequalities "all favor me."
Which is funny, because I thought you said yourself that patriarchal hierarchies hurt men as much as they do anybody else. As a guy who's been a "book nerd" all his life, witnessed how differently the football team is funded compared to the choir or band.
I was always a target for bullies through most of my primary education because I was so reluctant to engage in violence to defend myself; which was interpreted as a weakness. I was the only male flute player in the band, which earned me accusations of weakness and homosexuality from the male-dominated sections, and vicious behind-my-back gossiping and insults from the rest of the flute section. I know all about patriarchy. It didn't "all favor me."
By the way, I'm not "white.' I'm a Mediterranean islander. My family came from an island so small you could just about jump over it. My cultural background, which informed my upbringing and my sense of identity, is rather different then that of an Irish-American, or a German-American, and yet you still call us all "white."
_________________
"We totally annihilated his nightstalking ass!"
--"The Lost Boys" (movie, 1987) |
|
|
Sat May 08, 2010 11:58 pm
|
|
|
Galatea
It Tastes Whiter
Posts: 169
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Location: sometimes west coast. sometimes big mitten.
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Which is funny, because I thought you said yourself that patriarchal hierarchies hurt men as much as they do anybody else. |
That isn't what I said. I said patriarchy hurts men too. Does it hurt them just as much as it hurts women? No.
When you get universally cynical about use of the word "privilege," you're being dismissive of the analysis of unasked-for social inequalities. By and large, those unasked-for social inequalities favor you. They don't always make your actual life easier, true, but the balance is overwhelmingly tilted toward the categories I listed ("book nerd" and "above poverty level" were not among them) which is what I meant by "they all favor you." Hence it's hard to take you seriously when you are dismissive of the entire endeavor of analyzing privilege.
Maybe that wasn't your intention, but given the complete lack of anything particularly supportive in your original post, it wasn't hard to feel like you wished people would just stop whining about all this privilege nonsense, and that hurt. If you already understand that privilege and patriarchy exist, it kind of hurts even more.
On "Greek" and "white" : I had a close friend of Greek extraction in middle school. If she hadn't gone on and on about being Greek all the time, nobody would've noticed--she was just a white girl who happened to have curly brown hair and a few freckles. I already knew that you guys were Greek, and as things stand now in America, that pretty much counts as white. (Unless you happen to be extremely tan.) I'm aware that people now considered "white" were not always seen as such ("The History of White People") but I call us all "white" because that is, for the most part, how it plays out in society today. Being "white" instead of the far more accurate "Dutch" erases my cultural heritage too, but being technically Dutch doesn't make me any less White American to a cop or storekeeper or a potential employer.
tl;dr so let me sum up: It's not that you can't speak on the topic of feminism or racism or whatever. It's just that you really, really don't get to go bitter and dismissive on people by complaining that we "rant" about "quote-on-quote privilege" without me going bitter and dismissive on you right back.
_________________
"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing."
-Elbert Hubbard
Periodical Poetry Practice
Intelligent questions are a better sign of a good mind than intelligent answers. |
|
|
Sun May 09, 2010 1:53 am
|
|
|
Last of Fallen
Hobbyist
Posts: 68
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| Deme wrote: | | A perfectly reasonable stance; I think- don't trash somebody else's house- but the "THEIR soapbox, not yours" thing often shows up on neutral ground- like here, for instance. In that context, I've seen it used to stifle debate before it begins, as a gag on any dissenters. "You have Privilege, you don't understand, thus you cannot speak to this topic." I shouldn't have to explain why that's bad. |
I have not noticed anyone saying that this is a space for a minority group* and that you should not express your opinions. Your opinion is wanted. The dialog that happens when you come to the discussion is valued. What is happening is that people are trying point out that you and I occupy positions of relative privilege in society. Neither of us come from wealthy backgrounds, yeah, and both of us have been hurt by patriarchy, but at the same time we automatically get respect that women do not. A really good example of this in my experience has been brewing.
One of my really good friends got me into brewing after I finished a sabbatical from alcohol. My friend happens to be female. We often go to the brewing/vintner stores in our area together to look at gadgets and the same goes for the occasional brewing festival. Every fucking time we go to one of those festivals they assume she's my girlfriend and just sort of kicking around for the hell of it. Honestly, she's way more into it than I am and is a better brewer than I am. I'm usually pretty pleased when I get 75% efficiency in fermentation and my gravity's within a tenth. She always shoots for 95% and always gets it, her gravity is always within a couple hundredth's of what the recipe calls for. However people still will automatically assume that because we are hanging out together, fiddling with gadgets, nerding out over new equipment that it is my hobby and she's just coming along for the ride.
Another good example of the privilege men occupy was what happened to a girl on my middle school football team. The other team never treated her with the same respect that they treated anybody else on the line with. There were some unpleasant incidents she ended up quitting football over. A really starling example was when one of the refs outright looked away from a linebacker from an opposing team grabbing her face mask and whipping her around with it. The rules for our league were very clear on that behavior, as they should be given how extremely dangerous that is, and that guy should have been expelled. He was not. Our coach didn't even balls up enough to make a big deal out of it like he should have. But if that same situation had happened to me I'm pretty sure coach would have ripped the ref's throat out and the other kid would be expelled from our league.
| Deme wrote: | | Anybody who starts out with the premise that the big, nasty, unfair world has royally fucked them over with all those horrible -ism's is probably going to be a bitter, frustrated person. Which, in fact, describes about three-quarters of the bloggers on the internet I've ever seen that regularly rant about "privilege." |
You wonder why your opinion was dismissed? Because your opinion wasn't constructive or well put together and you know it. That was intellectually lazy and, quite frankly, you can do better. If you had said that the concept of male privilege is flawed because of x, y or z then Gal would not have instantly discredited your opinion. However, since you decided it was okay to drop in with an ad hominem attack on people who rant about privilege you were not taken seriously.
That was really condescending and I thought you had more respect for the people here. Clearly I was mistaken.
| Deme wrote: | | By the way, I'm not "white.' I'm a Mediterranean islander. My family came from an island so small you could just about jump over it. My cultural background, which informed my upbringing and my sense of identity, is rather different then that of an Irish-American, or a German-American, and yet you still call us all "white." |
... So? Who gives two shits? My family background is a mish-mash of Portuguese, Black Irish (my last name actually explicitly denotes me as Black Irish), French Canadian, English, Velga German, Nigerian, Brazilian, Swampy Cree and Lakota Sioux. You know what? I'm white (thought I tan very, very quickly). I have a white name. So do you. Saying that you are not white and that you do not associate with white culture is ridiculous. You like Ann Coulter. If you weren't white you would shy away from Ann Coulter if you had two brain cells to knock around in your head.
* I am flabbergasted that women are a political minority group. There are more of them than us and they live longer to boot. Sometimes I wonder why women who are disaffected with society don't just band together as a whole, get guns and very flatly state that now is the time for equal pay and equal rights. Imagine looking down the barrel of a pistol your mother is waving around, your cousin armed with a shotgun, your ex-girlfriend confidently holding a 30-06. In that situation I would seriously reconsider the wage gap.
EDIT: Way to beat me to the punch, Gal.
_________________
Migrating Marketing Monkey |
|
|
Sun May 09, 2010 2:48 am
|
|
|
Demetrious
Future Governor of Michigan
Posts: 71
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| Galeta wrote: | | "It's just that you really, really don't get to go bitter and dismissive on people by complaining that we "rant" about "quote-on-quote privilege" |
| What Demetrious actually wrote: |
Anybody who starts out with the premise that the big, nasty, unfair world has royally fucked them over with all those horrible -ism's is probably going to be a bitter, frustrated person. Which, in fact, describes about three-quarters of the bloggers on the internet I've ever seen that regularly rant about "privilege." |
This wasn't a half-assed, tossed off opinion. I was referring exactly to whom I said- the bloggers that rant. There's plenty of them who don't; they may rant occasionally, as people are wont to do, but for the most part they academically unpack and analyze privilege.
And some of them, well, they don't. They just rant. Which is why I put "privilege" in quotes; aside from the issue of how the same term is often defined a bit differently between different factions and groups in the overall rights movement, that word also seems to change meaning between the folks with a more levelheaded approach and the ones who are plain, flat-out mad. To these folks, it is very, very, personal, and unless you are agreeing with every word they say, god fucking help you if you talk to them.
LOF pretty much summed it up here:
| Quote: |
So, it's not about who's gotten fucked over by a circumstance they can't control due to x, y or z. It's about recognizing that this has happened and figuring out ways to limit and hopefully eliminate this arbitrary bullshit we all have to deal with. |
The activists and bloggers who are good, they do the latter. Some of them, however, seem mostly hung up on the former.
Naturally this doesn't mean the "ranters" are anybody who dares put emotion into their writing- anybody who's read any of my political columns knows I'd be struck down by lighting the moment I utter that claim in earnest. And ranting does not preclude good arguments- Loffo's rants are a good example. (Those of you who weren't with us in CW might not know of them.) He'd rant like a bad motherfucker, but it's because he cared, and cared hard. It's perfectly good philosophy delivered via artillery shell, to make sure you can't miss it.
So not them, no. My statement pertained directly to the people I said- bitter, frustrated people who rant, and scream, and gnash their teeth at the fact that injustice exists. You really know you've found one when they reach for -isms that are at best tangentially related to their spot in the kyriarchy, and attribute to them the same weight of oppression as more immediate ones, without taking the time to establish the links. We all bitch about the Man (in whatever form) without exception, but we also all know at least one person who thinks the entire fucking universe is out to screw them over.
That's the mindset of that subset of bloggers I speak of, and to be frank, they scare me. Let's be straightforward- they hate. They've got a lot of hate; more then I'd want to be in the same room with if the ever-popular knick-knack shelf was also present. The -isms, the kyriarchy, isn't just a reality to them; one that can be analyzed and deconstructed- it's gargantuan, absolute, all-consuming. It's the man who hates the gubbahmint with every breath, the gubbamint done fucked him this way, done fucked him that way, and he can always, always, link every ill back to the god-damn gubbahmint. It's the same phenomena, just manifesting in a different place.
If you're saying, "Demmy, Demmy, that's the extreme end of the spectrum!" that's because it is. Moving away from it, it gets better. But if you start at the center and move towards it, you'll eventually find the start of a certain range that continues on towards the end; that's a range I have named people I stay the fuck away from.
The lesson is this: the world is a decently ugly place already, so it is very, very, easy for somebody exploring that ugliness to decide it's even uglier- especially if you start their education by telling them it's one big sack of horrible shit. It's a hell of a lot harder to approach it with an appreciation for the complexity of the world, and to keep an open mind.
I've seen this with my own education in one aspect of the kyriarchy, the political side. Pretty much every political philosophy text written after the 1940s (that was on our curriculum) and especially the anthologies of excerpts thereof were structured to tell us that the world was a gigantic and unmitigated shitpile, and that we had so many boots on our necks we were only unaware of them because we'd lost count. I'd read those, and then cross-analyze the writers, and sit, and think, and eventually I'd realize that the American Dream/classic liberal conceptions of liberty/etc weren't nearly as screwed as they said they were, and write a paper to that effect.
But that's because I'm quite conservative, and since we're always being told the sky is falling, I always consult a telescope before running for cover. Not everyone is like that, though, especially in my age group. And that's why anyone seeking to educate others in extant power hierarchies should be careful not to characterize it one way or the other. There's enough bitterness earnestly due without feeding the natural human tendency to accentuate the negative.
... but I didn't want to derail a thread which was discussing theory by delving into meta-discussion of activists/activism itself. Inevitable, I guess.
_________________
"We totally annihilated his nightstalking ass!"
--"The Lost Boys" (movie, 1987) |
|
|
Sun May 09, 2010 5:33 am
|
|
|
Last of Fallen
Hobbyist
Posts: 68
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
Draw a conclusion.
EDIT: Also, insomnia bear strikes again. It says, "Use of gubbahmint is tacky."
_________________
Migrating Marketing Monkey |
|
|
Sun May 09, 2010 5:48 am
|
|
|
Silk
Poker Champ
Posts: 684
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
Those quotes are fun.
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
....?!?!?!
_________________
www.seeking-perdition.com |
|
|
Sun May 09, 2010 2:23 pm
|
|
|
Demetrious
Future Governor of Michigan
Posts: 71
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| Last of Fallen wrote: |
Draw a conclusion.
|
| Quote: |
If you're saying, "Demmy, Demmy, that's the extreme end of the spectrum!" that's because it is. Moving away from it, it gets better. But if you start at the center and move towards it, you'll eventually find the start of a certain range that continues on towards the end; that's a range I have named people I stay the fuck away from. |
I believe I already have. It could be summarized as "let's try not to push people towards the end of that curve." Because they are loud, and very zealous, their influence/voice does not directly correlate to their numbers.
I don't have enough sleep, or patience, to puzzle out the finer points of your implications here. An insult? I don't care. I've spent nearly every weekend for the past five months at either a Tea Party or a gun show, and my above use of gubbahmint is a direct transcript in aggregate of some of the folks I've encountered at such locales.
That is as depressing as it sounds, yes.
|
|
|
Sun May 09, 2010 5:35 pm
|
|
|
Galatea
It Tastes Whiter
Posts: 169
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Location: sometimes west coast. sometimes big mitten.
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | This wasn't a half-assed, tossed off opinion. I was referring exactly to whom I said- the bloggers that rant. There's plenty of them who don't; they may rant occasionally, as people are wont to do, but for the most part they academically unpack and analyze privilege.
And some of them, well, they don't. They just rant. Which is why I put "privilege" in quotes; aside from the issue of how the same term is often defined a bit differently between different factions and groups in the overall rights movement, that word also seems to change meaning between the folks with a more levelheaded approach and the ones who are plain, flat-out mad. To these folks, it is very, very, personal, and unless you are agreeing with every word they say, god fucking help you if you talk to them.
|
Okay, this makes me feel better. But like I said, given the complete lack of anything supportive in your original post, it felt like you were lumping people who "unpack and analyze" privilege into the "rant" category. A lot of people try to do that. If we're not on the crazy end of the spectrum or if you weren't trying to compare us to the crazy end of the spectrum, why did you have to bring it up in that manner?
| Quote: | | .. but I didn't want to derail a thread which was discussing theory by delving into meta-discussion of activists/activism itself. |
If you toss off a very short paragraph that sounds very dismissive to the idea of analyzing privilege and don't clear up what connection you think there is between the people you're talking to and the people you're talking about then yeah, you're probably going to derail the thread anyway.
_________________
"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing."
-Elbert Hubbard
Periodical Poetry Practice
Intelligent questions are a better sign of a good mind than intelligent answers. |
|
|
Sun May 09, 2010 8:12 pm
|
|
|
Aarin
Pew Pew~
Posts: 657
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Location: Ohio
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
This is a fun thread ^.^
I've always been ardently pro-women's-rights. Upon meeting redhead I was introduced to Antioch, a liberal arts college, which is almost the spitting image of PCU. Militant LGBT and 2nd wave feminism was the norm. I learned that while I was expected and allowed to understand and appreciate these movements, I was not 'allowed' to be an activist, as 'obviously,' I was motivated by 'straight white male guilt' and my activism amounted to a form of chauvinism.
I raised an eyebrow at this and went about my life as usual, continuing my support. Not really interested in people's opinions about my motivations. I just do what I want anyway.
-----------------------
As far as writing goes, I've always went with the truth that gender is a construct (just the same as race) and can be ignored when defining personalities, attributes, strengths and weaknesses (how society treats them is a different story). Whether people agree with that or not doesn't matter to me. In my experience you can find exceptions to the 'norm' of either sex, so why get hung up on it. That norm varies wildly anyway based on culture, environment, and upbringing.
A problem I've seem to have run into is that I don't think a lot of people I've shown my writing to have intimate familiarity with my background and environment, which is to put it bluntly, white trash (this includes me). Many young people I interact with daily are gender-neutral, skewed towards the aggressive side.
Rebeka (white girl, mid 20's) the other day, damn near verbatim (and even though I hang on her every word, she's by far not exceptional),
"So his baby momma called me and wanted me to pick up the kids, and I was like, 'bitch, I need either smoke or notice, so at least drop a dime (unintentional pun, I'm sure),' so I'm stuck with her fucking kids all day. I was so pissed. Man. I told darryl, he's lucky if I didn't stab that bitch in the cunt." Then she laughed. I just smiled, nodding.
And that was causal conversation, she didn't even seem upset.
In my restaurant our 3 lesbians go from:
A.Chubby Christian Country Girl. Soft-spoken, nice, sporty. Gender neutral, but she has a strong maternal 'feel,' blushes easy.
B. Her GF, a total video game nerd. Very outgoing, but again, neither 'butch' or 'feminine,' incredibly dirty-minded.
C. Prissy lipstick-lesbian type, who is shy, but friendly, but seems to have her nose in the air.
There is no such thing as gender imo. Sex, yes. Gender along with how a female is defined by actions or how society expects them to think, I just never see it in my reality.
I also know too many transgenders (mostly female to male) to think it's even an applicable label. All that makes them different is their choice to put a spotlight-label on it.
_________________
The HS Experiment |
|
|
Wed May 19, 2010 10:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
MSSimplicity Theme © Matt Sims 2004
