Being perceptive enough to recognise that there is sexism in our society doesn't make *me* sexist. I even called it a "myth", for God's sake! :P
These aren't my beliefs, my preferences or my unevidenced assumptions about other people. How do you expect other people to have a discussion with you, when you don't even have the reading comprehension skills to tell when I'm narrating myths in our society and when I'm providing my own personal beliefs?
It was your assumption that men primarily go for those types of women that seemed sexist, as if they only go for people they can be more dominant towards. I find it weird that you say that "there is" in this part and then finish by saying that you stated it is a myth.
You're mixing two parts of my comment together. My point on the sexist part was not on the "drooling male" point, it was the part on how you assume men go after the submissive and meek women that I found sexist, which I stated.
You stated that the "drooling, sex-crazed neanderthals" was a myth, not the part I was saying I found sexist. So coming at me asking how do I expect others to have a discussion with me is ironic because it is you that has not comprehended what was said, it was you that lacked the reading comprehension skills to understand what was said.
You stated, and I quote:
"Heteronormative flirting gives women the task of balancing displays of the kind of feminine appeal that is traditionally attractive (i.e. submissive, meek sexuality) with showing enough proactivity to draw male attention."
That is what I said you were being sexist about. Assuming that women have to be this way to be attractive to males as if this is the only way to attract men, which is not true and is sexist to assume men are simply attractive to the "sumbissive and meek" women, hence why I said "you" might find that attractive.
I'm being forward and accepting of a discussion with you, Dom, but if you keep pulling the BS I don't see why I should bother. You stated that "one" part about being a myth, but if you are going to turn around and say "Oh, none of these are my beliefs, just myths" whenever I respond and explain why I don't see your points as correct, then what are you even doing here? Why am I arguing with myths that you yourself imply do not believe? It's just speaking for the sake of speaking and has no purpose in the discussion.
So, I'm not interested in myths that maybe we both agree on, I'm interested in legitimate points, people to explain how I am wrong if they believe so, but if you're going to use this myth thing as a safety net for each time I respond, then I see no point in you responding because it would be like me claiming one part of my post was a joke and then claiming that the parts you respond to and I don't have an answer to were just "jokes" and how you have bad reading comprehension for not seeing that I was joking when I only sated one part was a "joke". It's pointless and a time waster.
I never "assumed" women and men *must* to flirt in the way that they do in our heteronormative society, or that this is the only possible successful route. I'm simply narrating the flirting norms of the society we live in and attempting to explain how this reflects feminist theory. You are too desperate to accuse me of making a blanket statement to see that.
I deliberately use sophisticated language to avoid making that sort of blanket statement. *Anything* I say could be made sexist if you decide to pretend I said "this is the only way" when I didn't. Anything I say could be made sexist if you decide to pretend I wasn't talking about heteronormativity when I clearly said I was. This isn't backing down from anything I previous said; if you actually read what I said, you'd know that I never was making any blanket statements.
I get that you're eager to dismiss me as a stereotypical man-hating, sexist feminist. But you can't, because I'm not. If you quit putting all your energy into your pointless quest of catching me out and actually listen to what I say, you might find that I'm actually not so bad.
So you are assuming it is the "norm" for women to act submissive and meek to gain male attraction? That it is the norm that men are attracted to such women, women that they can dominate over? So, what you are saying is that women think this is the primary way to attract men given it is the "norm" of how they attract men? I disagree.
You stated: "Heteronormative flirting gives women the task of balancing displays of the kind of feminine appeal that is traditionally attractive (i.e. submissive, meek sexuality) with showing enough proactivity to draw male attention."
You say we live in a heteronormative society and in the quote claim this is how we flirt with one another as a norm, i.e. women being submissive and meek to flirt because it is traditionally feminine, and why would anybody gravitate towards a certain method of attracting? Because it works best with the thing you are trying to attract, in this case men, so it is implying it is the norm for men to primarily be attracted to submissive and meek women because that is how women flirt in the "norm" to attract men, by giving them what they desire.
I agree I jumped the gun in saying that you think "all" women act this way, I should of stated that you think most women act this way.
Ah, here we go. The victim routine. Let me start off by saying you don't get to assume my beliefs. Get that in your head first.
Do I think you are a man hater? No.
Do I think you are a sexist? In some senses, but not in general.
Do I think you are a feminist? Yes, I am sure you stated you were before.
"But you can't, because I'm not". Hence why I didn't say you were and you are assuming I think so. This whole part is you trying to change the subject and make it about you so's to dismiss what I say as just another attack on you, which if you keep on doing then I see no point in talking to you. I do not like you, Dom. I am sure you dislike me, too but how we view eachother is irrelevant. I have not attacked your character here other than this last paragraph and I use the term attacked loosely. I am focusing on what is said rather than who you are. Give the same respect.
Is it normal that I think guys and girls should be treated equal?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Being perceptive enough to recognise that there is sexism in our society doesn't make *me* sexist. I even called it a "myth", for God's sake! :P
These aren't my beliefs, my preferences or my unevidenced assumptions about other people. How do you expect other people to have a discussion with you, when you don't even have the reading comprehension skills to tell when I'm narrating myths in our society and when I'm providing my own personal beliefs?
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It was your assumption that men primarily go for those types of women that seemed sexist, as if they only go for people they can be more dominant towards. I find it weird that you say that "there is" in this part and then finish by saying that you stated it is a myth.
You're mixing two parts of my comment together. My point on the sexist part was not on the "drooling male" point, it was the part on how you assume men go after the submissive and meek women that I found sexist, which I stated.
You stated that the "drooling, sex-crazed neanderthals" was a myth, not the part I was saying I found sexist. So coming at me asking how do I expect others to have a discussion with me is ironic because it is you that has not comprehended what was said, it was you that lacked the reading comprehension skills to understand what was said.
You stated, and I quote:
"Heteronormative flirting gives women the task of balancing displays of the kind of feminine appeal that is traditionally attractive (i.e. submissive, meek sexuality) with showing enough proactivity to draw male attention."
That is what I said you were being sexist about. Assuming that women have to be this way to be attractive to males as if this is the only way to attract men, which is not true and is sexist to assume men are simply attractive to the "sumbissive and meek" women, hence why I said "you" might find that attractive.
I'm being forward and accepting of a discussion with you, Dom, but if you keep pulling the BS I don't see why I should bother. You stated that "one" part about being a myth, but if you are going to turn around and say "Oh, none of these are my beliefs, just myths" whenever I respond and explain why I don't see your points as correct, then what are you even doing here? Why am I arguing with myths that you yourself imply do not believe? It's just speaking for the sake of speaking and has no purpose in the discussion.
So, I'm not interested in myths that maybe we both agree on, I'm interested in legitimate points, people to explain how I am wrong if they believe so, but if you're going to use this myth thing as a safety net for each time I respond, then I see no point in you responding because it would be like me claiming one part of my post was a joke and then claiming that the parts you respond to and I don't have an answer to were just "jokes" and how you have bad reading comprehension for not seeing that I was joking when I only sated one part was a "joke". It's pointless and a time waster.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I never "assumed" women and men *must* to flirt in the way that they do in our heteronormative society, or that this is the only possible successful route. I'm simply narrating the flirting norms of the society we live in and attempting to explain how this reflects feminist theory. You are too desperate to accuse me of making a blanket statement to see that.
I deliberately use sophisticated language to avoid making that sort of blanket statement. *Anything* I say could be made sexist if you decide to pretend I said "this is the only way" when I didn't. Anything I say could be made sexist if you decide to pretend I wasn't talking about heteronormativity when I clearly said I was. This isn't backing down from anything I previous said; if you actually read what I said, you'd know that I never was making any blanket statements.
I get that you're eager to dismiss me as a stereotypical man-hating, sexist feminist. But you can't, because I'm not. If you quit putting all your energy into your pointless quest of catching me out and actually listen to what I say, you might find that I'm actually not so bad.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So you are assuming it is the "norm" for women to act submissive and meek to gain male attraction? That it is the norm that men are attracted to such women, women that they can dominate over? So, what you are saying is that women think this is the primary way to attract men given it is the "norm" of how they attract men? I disagree.
You stated: "Heteronormative flirting gives women the task of balancing displays of the kind of feminine appeal that is traditionally attractive (i.e. submissive, meek sexuality) with showing enough proactivity to draw male attention."
You say we live in a heteronormative society and in the quote claim this is how we flirt with one another as a norm, i.e. women being submissive and meek to flirt because it is traditionally feminine, and why would anybody gravitate towards a certain method of attracting? Because it works best with the thing you are trying to attract, in this case men, so it is implying it is the norm for men to primarily be attracted to submissive and meek women because that is how women flirt in the "norm" to attract men, by giving them what they desire.
I agree I jumped the gun in saying that you think "all" women act this way, I should of stated that you think most women act this way.
Ah, here we go. The victim routine. Let me start off by saying you don't get to assume my beliefs. Get that in your head first.
Do I think you are a man hater? No.
Do I think you are a sexist? In some senses, but not in general.
Do I think you are a feminist? Yes, I am sure you stated you were before.
"But you can't, because I'm not". Hence why I didn't say you were and you are assuming I think so. This whole part is you trying to change the subject and make it about you so's to dismiss what I say as just another attack on you, which if you keep on doing then I see no point in talking to you. I do not like you, Dom. I am sure you dislike me, too but how we view eachother is irrelevant. I have not attacked your character here other than this last paragraph and I use the term attacked loosely. I am focusing on what is said rather than who you are. Give the same respect.