Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Goblin

Don Juan de Doodlebug's page

2,211 posts. Alias of Doodlebug Anklebiter.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

A little late with the whole crossing genders in history/literature, but I've been recently poking through a book about pirates and came across the story of Anne Bonney and Mary Read.

Apparently, they were both female pirates passing as male, and they only discovered each other when one of them made a pass at the other! (I forget which.)

Hawt!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huzzah!

Paizonians fornicating always makes me happy.

[Fistbumps Kirth on the kiddie-hating]

"Anyone who hates children and animals can't be all bad."


'S true. I made up "Granny O'Malley." I liked it better.

But I was caught, alas. Down the memory hole with you, Granny!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Found some badass chicks in a book about pirates, Under the Black Flag, one whom might not be real.

Madame Cheng
Granny O'Malley, the Sea Queen of Connaught
Princess Awilda


Ilja wrote:
Comrade, sometimes I love you.

[Makes kissy face]


His mother-in-law, I think, was a leading suffragette. Which, leaving aside political correctness for a moment and reverting to mother-in-law jokes, must've been a nightmare. I remember there being an awesome Gore Vidal essay about Baum, lemme see if it's on the internet...


thejeff wrote:

That said, as Aranna said, this thread started out as about the objectification of women. Now it's about the poor beaten men.

That is a very common process in discussion about women's issues. They easily shift to being discussions about how men really have it just as bad. Not wanting that to happen isn't the same as "Separate but equal"

Yeah, I have to say, I was happy when this thread got restarted because I thought I'd be able to learn more sexual objectification theory, but I stopped paying attention when the subject quickly moved elsewhere.

Oh well.


I was rewatching it over my comrades' house last night. Not a "higher rate" but "twice the rate" of female orgasm.

Ladies, if you're interested, we're recruiting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Detect Magic wrote:
The Replacements - Androgynous

Gary's Got a Boner


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If any of my old girlfriends from 20 years ago are reading this...gimme a call! I haven't changed a bit! Arrested adolescence and all that...


Samnell wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:


I, alas, wouldn't know, but it's about hawt times in the ol' DDR who, apparently, refused to abide by that totalitarianism and prudery connection that we talked about some time past.

We already have the Stasi; might as well get the jobs, health care and higher rate of female orgasm! For workers revolution!

I remember seeing footage back in the mid-90s where the Stasi recorded people using the toilet. Can't imagine they didn't have some hot sex tapes too. Probably some stereotypically depraved commie sexy times too, like doing it with the lights on between busts of Lenin and Marx, bourgeoisie on top.

Actually, it was more like free birth control pills, public discussions of masturbation, nudism and, when the wall came down, a higher rate of female orgasm. I'm not saying there weren't hot Stasi sex tapes, but then again, like, I said, we've already got them.


Your grumpy old guy image isn't very well-established. I, for one, thought you were a grumpy Danish (?) chick.


I used to think that people with heavy Boston accents sounded not very smart. Lenny Bruce has a bit about being out manuvred (sp?) by a Southern prosecutor because the latter sounded like an idiot. [Shrugs]

It's, like, so subjective?


Samnell wrote:
Long time, no post.

I thought of you while watching a cool video that just happens to be the last post in the Gender Politics Thread down in the OTD. It's a happy little youtube video by the name of "Do Communists Have Better Sex?"

I, alas, wouldn't know, but it's about hawt times in the ol' DDR who, apparently, refused to abide by that totalitarianism and prudery connection that we talked about some time past.

We already have the Stasi; might as well get the jobs, health care and higher rate of female orgasm! For workers revolution!

(Comrade Longears, you'd probably like it, too. Assuming you haven't seen it already.)


Overturning the Myth of Valley Girl Speak


Limeylongears wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Why on earth would we want a country populated almost entirely with criminals, yobos, and nuts?

I mean, we already have one.

That's what we thought, and that's why we deliberately lost the War of Independence and dispensed with the USA. Deliberately, do you hear, just so we didn't embarrass all the other nations of the world.

Why not an elected king? For that matter, why don't we Proddies get ourselves a nice Pope to be going on with? Regarding the first point, we'd be stuck with whoever the US electorate chose for us and anyway [devastating satire] all our government's important decisions are already made for them in Washington or Brussels anyway [/devastating satire] so there'd be no point. What I say is NO GODS NO MASTERS, and if we must, can we please have either:

1) A statue of Stalin carved out of earwax
2) A Lemmy impersonator
3) Half a Rhinoceros
4) Christina Hendricks, wearing nothing but woad and pretending to be Bodeicia, standing in a wheelbarrow with scythes on the side pulled by four dozen ducks. Thanks!

I still like your Queen Victoria II idea from that other thread, Limey.


Do Communists Have Better Sex?

(NSFW; might cause objectification)

We already have the Stasi--might as well get the jobs, health care, and higher rate of female orgasm! For workers revolution!


[Plays pocket pool]


Raise the Minimum Wage, NH Style!

25 well-dressed Democrats and labor bureaucrats, 6 libertarian trolls with signs reading "The Minimum Wage Is Too Damn High!" and "US Out of NH!" (which I kinda liked), one person of color (featured speaker) and other than her (and me) not a low-wage worker in sight. Which I guess isn't surprising seeing as how it was 9:30 on a Tuesday morning.

Ah, New Hampshire.


More objectification


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When I was a young goblin lad, peddling socialist newspapers and attending UMass Boston, I befriended a left Irish nationalist Catholic emigre who also served as a steward in HERE (the Hotel and Restaurant employees--I think they merged with somebody else and are now UNITE!).

We were chatting and he told me about a case where he was representing a trans union sister who wasn't allowed to change in the women's dressing room. This was the mid-90s, so I don't remember how the case ended, I think the company ended up providing her with her own dressing room.

Anyway, I remember being impressed that this pretty devout Catholic was going up against his employer in defense of trans rights and then he ruined it at the end by saying some pretty transphobic shiznit but then reeled it back in by saying "Whatever, she's a union sister and I'll be damned if I let them gobshites push her around."

Union members: Not always the most enlightened folk, but generally on the right side.


So, there we go. Russian peasants and Rush Limbaugh think women aren't people. Everybody else, according to Marie Shear, are feminists.

Glad we got that settled.


Hitdice wrote:
Edit: Ninja'd by a goblin? I can't even look good when I'm admitting I've got it wrong . . .

+4 to Dex, baby, +4 to Dex.


Irontruth wrote:
This is down to the imperfections of the English language and taking it extremely literally. No one's claiming that someone thought women were a different species of animal, or that they weren't human beings. To reduce the phrase to such parsing is to be needlessly semantic. It makes you sound like a lawyer trying to deny a worker his rights due to a technicality :P

So...who in 1986 thought women weren't people?


Marie Shear, 1986

Strike old suffragette, keep flippant.


You know what? I thought Rebecca West said that, now I'm not sure.

But here's another good one from her: "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute."

Classist biznitch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Lots of contemporaries thought that workers didn't need to be treated as people. Does that mean they thought workers weren't people?

Who thought women weren't people?

This is down to the imperfections of the English language and taking it extremely literally.

I think it comes down to the imperfections of trying to reduce a variegated body of thought to a flippant line from an old suffragette that has become immortalized on bumper stickers.


[Picks baton up out of the gutter]

Hitdice wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I'd even go so far as to say I wish there were more radical feminists on these boards. At least their ideas are interesting.

I don't disagree, but then, I take my cue from Samuel R. Delany:

"Man, he can't say that to you!"
"He can say whatever he wants, he's just gotta be ready to listen afterward."

Yeah, well, Delany appears to have spent most of his life in porn theaters, so...

(Link for people who aren't Dicey)

Quote:
I haven't been fallowing this thread at all closely; has the been some unspoken decision that radical feminists are the mean ones who yell?

I get the idea that "radical feminists" are the ones who say anything that the individual poster disagrees with; "basic" feminists are the ones who say things the individual poster agrees with.


And on that note, I'll pass the baton to Comrade Meatrace and go to bed.


I'd even go so far as to say I wish there were more radical feminists on these boards. At least their ideas are interesting.


Young people between the ages of 18 and 21, regardless of gender, didn't have the vote in the United States until when, 1969 or something? (1971, it turns out.) So, before then, the idea that they were people was radical?

Whatever. Here's my point: people on these boards always take pains to distance themselves from the "radical" feminists and insist that "basic" feminism just means a belief in the political, economic and social equality of men and women. And then they turn around and use ideas--sexual objectification, rape culture--derived from the "radical" feminists thereby illustrating that they have no idea what they're talking about when they talk about "radical feminism."

(Edited)


That's the best you've got?


Apparently, it was cooler in Pakistan.


Lots of contemporaries thought that workers didn't need to be treated as people. Does that mean they thought workers weren't people?

Who thought women weren't people?

Btw, I've remembered one. There was a list of anti-woman "jokes" that I saw once in article about women in the countryside in Tsarist Russia:

"I thought I saw two people coming down the road but it turned out to be a man and his wife."

So there, during Rebecca West's lifetime, Russian peasants would've thought women were people was a radical idea.

I mean, it's catchy and all and looks good on a bumper sticker, but it's a pretty stupid slogan.

As for the state of the "movement," here: International Women's Day in Boston

(Edited)


Is it just me or are you dodging the question?

What contemporaries of Rebecca West's thought women weren't people?


No, we're not. People treat people inhumanely all the time regardless of sex.

Who didn't think women were people?


You find me one contemporary of Rebecca West's who thought women weren't people and I'll concede it's a radical idea.


If anyone can find anything better, I'd love to see it:

Feminist Perspectives on Objectification


Hitdice wrote:

I'd check on when The Story of O got popular with the intellectual set, Doodles. (So, like a week after publication in 1954? /Rimshot)

On the one hand, any sort of critical theory is nonsense if you go too far down the rabbit hole. On the other hand, when Wolf says that physical attractiveness in and of itself is a problem, it does strike my as ludicrous,

Only problem I have with this is that, so far (and I just got back from work so I haven't looked any further), it appears that sexual objectification theory STARTED with the tag-team ludicrousness of Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin.

But I guess we can ignore all that and just rely on slogans from bumper stickers.

Quote:
feminism = the radical idea that women are people.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

The barrier that keeps women from flying helicopters (90% of Army helicopter pilots are men) is therefore cultural.

The Night Witches
The singular of data is not "anecdote."

Yeah, I don't what that means. I just like posting links about Nadezhda Popova.


thejeff wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:


Whether that's extreme feminism or basic feminism I'll let the people who've already admitted they've never read a feminist book but know all about it decide.

The problem is that people latch onto stuff like this and use that as argument to dismiss all feminism as just crazy man-hating.

I freely admit I don't know all about it and I don't really care much about the theory. I'll still call myself a feminist.

Quote:
feminism = the radical idea that women are people.

So, I'm trying to figure out who first came up with the idea of sexual objectification. I'm still not sure--none of the articles I'm looking will straight up say "Objectification theory was first brought up by blah blah blah in 19blah blah blah" but they all seem to start with Dworkin and MacKinnon on Kant and pornography.

Dworkin and MacKinnon, of course, are probably the two best examples of extreme feminists who people use to dismiss feminism as crazy man-hating.

So, if it is in fact true--which I'm not saying it is because I don't know--that crazy man-haters Dworkin and MacKinnon came up with this wonderful body of thought, that was later added to by Wolf, then what does that say about objectification theory on the scale of basic feminism ---} extreme man-hating feminism?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, he was Dworkin's husband? Nevermind.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I'm sure I'll have hours of fun looking all these people up:

So, we've already done Wolf and McElroy. I'm not much interersted in Shalit, and I've spent plenty of time talking about Paglia, so I guess that leaves us with one John Stoltenberg...


That's fine. I've been an advocate of women's liberation through socialist revolution since I was 16 and I still won't call myself a feminist.


pres man wrote:
I'm guessing that the whole attracted to beauty is morally wrong crowd is made up of ... how shall I put it ... aesthetically challenged individuals.

Naomi Wolf was/is (depending on how much you like women in their 50s) actually pretty hawt.

Link

In the same book that she put forward the extreme position that beauty is problematic, she also put forward the theory that looking at skinny models in Cosmo or whatever cause anorexia.

Whether that's extreme feminism or basic feminism I'll let the people who've already admitted they've never read a feminist book but know all about it decide.


Irontruth wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
Individualist feminist Wendy McElroy says, given that 'objectification' of women means to make women into sexual objects; it is meaningless because, 'sexual objects', taken literally, means nothing because inanimate objects do not have sexuality.

I found that statement to completely misrepresent the English construction of the phrase. "Utilitarian object" doesn't represent the object's desires or modes of thoughts, it expresses the human interpretation of the objects purpose and usefulness. Saying something is a "sexual object" is not an expression of the object's desires, but rather an imposition by the speaker of their interpretation onto the object (or a description of someone's interpretation more often in this case).

Literally, it would mean an object used for sex. There are inanimate objects used for sex.

As for porn, I'm of the mind that context matters. In a free and equal society, pornography wouldn't be a big deal. I think the industry itself has probably improved quite a bit, particularly with the advent of the internet. It hasn't been exactly a great equalizer, but it has forced some of the larger companies to treat their employees better, if they don't, they can just start a website and make money on their own, though this mostly applies to more established performers.

Slut shaming is still a real thing and female porn stars aren't really taken seriously outside of the porn industry. Though it's harder and harder, many still try to conceal their profession from family. Using fake names and concealing identity as much as possible is the norm.

Of course people choose to go into porn. Young kids with only a high school diploma and no job experience don't exactly have a lot of opportunities to make several thousand dollars a week. You offer enough money, you'll get people to do just about anything, regardless of the consequences to them.

Fify


Was enjoying that video in Gamer Talk of the nude woman writhing in d20s and I realized that I never took a Womans Studies course, so I don't understand "objectification" theory. Like, at all.

So, I looked it up on wikipedia and found that there are quite a few views on it from a variety of feminist perspectives. (I, of course, am not a feminist.)

I'm sure I'll have hours of fun looking all these people up:

"While the concept of sexual objectification is important within feminist theory, ideas vary widely on what constitutes sexual objectification and what are the ethical implications of such objectification. Some feminists such as Naomi Wolf find the concept of physical attractiveness itself to be problematic,[33] with some radical feminists being opposed to any evaluation of another person's sexual attractiveness based on physical characteristics. John Stoltenberg goes so far as to condemn as wrongfully objectifying any sexual fantasy that involves visualization of a woman.[34]

"Radical feminists view objectification as playing a central role in reducing women to what they refer to as the 'sex class'. While some feminists view mass media in societies that they argue are patriarchal to be objectifying, they often focus on pornography as playing an egregious role in habituating men to objectify women.[35] Other feminists, particularly those identified with sex-positive feminism, take a different view of sexual objectification and see it as a problem when it is not counterbalanced by women's sense of their own sexual subjectivity.[citation needed]

"Some social conservatives have taken up aspects of the feminist critique of sexual objectification. In their view however, the increase in the sexual objectification of both sexes in Western culture is one of the negative legacies of the sexual revolution.[36][37][38][39][40] These critics, notably Wendy Shalit, advocate a return to pre-sexual revolution standards of sexual morality, which Shalit refers to as a 'return to modesty', as an antidote to sexual objectification.[37][41]

"Others contest feminist claims about the objectification of women. Camille Paglia holds that 'Turning people into sex objects is one of the specialties of our species.' In her view, objectification is closely tied to (and may even be identical with) the highest human faculties toward conceptualization and aesthetics.[42] Individualist feminist Wendy McElroy says, given that 'objectification' of women means to make women into sexual objects; it is meaningless because, 'sexual objects', taken literally, means nothing because inanimate objects do not have sexuality. She continues that women are their bodies as well as their minds and souls, and so focusing on a single aspect should not be 'degrading'.[43]"

Sexual objectification


More objectificiation


Aranna wrote:
they did pick someone attractive to undress, they probably didn't even look at the dice.

I did.

[Redacted redacted redacted]

1 to 50 of 2,211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.