Boy Suspended For Wearing A Dress and High Heels To School


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 181 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/8530-Pink-Is-No t-The-Problem

Seems to apply to an extent here


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:

Nice to see Trisifal is still following my comments..LOL.

Who?

EDIT: Ah, Tirisfal.

He and I had a little PM thing going.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:


I guess we are still a long way when men don't need to resort to transgenderism in order to wear a dress.

Oh? Go ahead, put one on. See who'll stop you. If you want to wear a dress, wear one. There are dresses I would love to wear, I just can't afford them. (Sorry, my tastes are a little too refined, that's my problem. Also, my wife can't stop staring at me longingly when I'm in slacks, no reason to change what I'm already rocking.) And no, I'm a bog-standard cisgendered heterosexual man. I just know that I could wear it. Would I get stares? Would I make people uncomfortable? Yes, unfortunately.

But you know what? I grew up with alopecia. Half my hair fallen out in random patterns. I'm used to getting stares and making people uncomfortable just by existing. It wouldn't stop me.

I suppose it would be harder for most people. Most others can just be themselves and blend in and never get extra notice unless they seek it. Growing up able to hide your differences from strangers on the street has its value. But really, what does it take? Not much. Just put on the dress. That's all. Really, that's all.

So wear the dress, Abyssal Lord. Smash the stereotype. It's right there. It's in your power. Nothing stopping you.

I have no desire to wear a dress, but will defend a man's right to do so if he wants to and without the ridciule.

The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Abyssal Lord wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:


I guess we are still a long way when men don't need to resort to transgenderism in order to wear a dress.

Oh? Go ahead, put one on. See who'll stop you. If you want to wear a dress, wear one. There are dresses I would love to wear, I just can't afford them.

So wear the dress, Abyssal Lord. Smash the stereotype. It's right there. It's in your power. Nothing stopping you.

The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.

As do the complaints about how men are oppressed.

Or for that matter about how whites have it so hard. Or how Christians are persecuted. (Both of those in the US at least. There are certainly parts of the world where Christians are persecuted. The US is not one of them.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abyssal Lord wrote:
The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.

It does, doesn't it?

The Exchange

Abyssal Lord wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:


I guess we are still a long way when men don't need to resort to transgenderism in order to wear a dress.

Oh? Go ahead, put one on. See who'll stop you. If you want to wear a dress, wear one. There are dresses I would love to wear, I just can't afford them. (Sorry, my tastes are a little too refined, that's my problem. Also, my wife can't stop staring at me longingly when I'm in slacks, no reason to change what I'm already rocking.) And no, I'm a bog-standard cisgendered heterosexual man. I just know that I could wear it. Would I get stares? Would I make people uncomfortable? Yes, unfortunately.

But you know what? I grew up with alopecia. Half my hair fallen out in random patterns. I'm used to getting stares and making people uncomfortable just by existing. It wouldn't stop me.

I suppose it would be harder for most people. Most others can just be themselves and blend in and never get extra notice unless they seek it. Growing up able to hide your differences from strangers on the street has its value. But really, what does it take? Not much. Just put on the dress. That's all. Really, that's all.

So wear the dress, Abyssal Lord. Smash the stereotype. It's right there. It's in your power. Nothing stopping you.

I have no desire to wear a dress, but will defend a man's right to do so if he wants to and without the ridciule.

The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.

I think it would be very comfortable and not lead to things getting crushed on a pant seam when moving and bending a lot.


Abyssal Lord wrote:


I have no desire to wear a dress, but will defend a man's right to do so if he wants to and without the ridciule.

So do I. People who are read as men by some - regardless of gender - should be able to wear any clothing they like. This ties in with the persecution of trans women and non-binary AMAB, which is a horrible, horrible thing.

Quote:


The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.

I think stating various things without any explanation or argument to back it up says a lot about that person's personal beliefs and power interests. When the person also ignores the explanations given, that gives an even clearer picture.

Because let's be clear: If women where systematically oppressed, this exact outcome would occur. Thus, the persecution of trans women and of men who break the gender roles are further evidence of of the patriarchy.


Andrew R wrote:
I think it would be very comfortable and not lead to things getting crushed on a pant seam when moving and bending a lot.

And also risks getting you killed.


Or, well, I should probably be morespecific with my statement: In a patriarchal society that is also individualist and encourages personal chases for power and that hails a theoretical freedom of expression as healthy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
I might point out that women don't typically wear men's clothing. They wear a women's version of the clothing. Women's slacks, women's jeans, etc. They are not rocking the men's outfits. So if men wanted to wear dresses, they wouldn't put on women's dresses, they would need men's dresses designed for men.

True, but when women started wearing men's clothing it was actual men's clothing, because no one was making women's pants, since women didn't wear pants.

If men have to wear men's dresses made for men, it's a Catch-22. You can't start by wearing them since no one makes them, because there's no market.

There are several manufacturers who produce dresses sized and shaped for a male body. Crossdressers and people on the Trans spectrum buy them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Daily Show - The Broads Must Be Crazy


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:
The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.
It does, doesn't it?

Tirisfal knows very well, LOL.


thejeff wrote:

Or for that matter about how whites have it so hard. Or how Christians are persecuted. (Both of those in the US at least. There are certainly parts of the world where Christians are persecuted. The US is not one of them.)

Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.

I see you and Slaad and Tirisfal made a lot of assumptions about me because I brought up certain questions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Abyssal Lord wrote:

The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.

...

I see you and Slaad and Tirisfal made a lot of assumptions about me because I brought up certain questions.

But isn't that the point you were just making? That you can make assumptions about a person based on their responses?

And isn't asking a question also, itself, a response? At least, a reply to a thread certainly is.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:

The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.

...

I see you and Slaad and Tirisfal made a lot of assumptions about me because I brought up certain questions.

But isn't that the point you were just making? That you can make assumptions about a person based on their responses?

And isn't asking a question also, itself, a response? At least, a reply to a thread certainly is.

Let's say that Slaad said she didn't like my stance on LGBT issues and never had I said a single thing against gay or transgender people. I can only come to the conclusion she would think that because I brought up certain questions and believe what is good for one side is good for the other.

Isn't that's what the LGBT "community" is trying to do?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Abyssal Lord wrote:

Let's say that Slaad said she didn't like my stance on LGBT issues and never had I said a single thing against gay or transgender people. I can only come to the conclusion she would think that because I brought up certain questions and believe what is good for one side is good for the other.

Isn't that's what the LGBT "community" is trying to do?

First, I'm confused. What has Slaad said? I don't see it in this thread. It looks like you're putting words in her mouth.

Second, you just said "community" in ironic quotes. A lot of people consider that an insult. So, it can be said that you just have spoken against gay or transgender people. Assumptions are easy to make then.

So you're not helping your case at all. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, only that it's disparaging while pretending not to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abyssal Lord wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:

The response and reactions of people who respond to the idea of the question of what is the more "opressed gender" tells a lot about that person's personal beliefs, myths, and prejudices.

...

I see you and Slaad and Tirisfal made a lot of assumptions about me because I brought up certain questions.

But isn't that the point you were just making? That you can make assumptions about a person based on their responses?

And isn't asking a question also, itself, a response? At least, a reply to a thread certainly is.

Let's say that Slaad said she didn't like my stance on LGBT issues and never had I said a single thing against gay or transgender people. I can only come to the conclusion she would think that because I brought up certain questions and believe what is good for one side is good for the other.

Isn't that's what the LGBT "community" is trying to do?

I bolded part there.

Lets say I describe a problem to you. You respond by telling me that that description of the problem reveals a lot about my "beliefs, myths and prejudices".

Do you think that makes you sound like an honest listener? Or someone who has an agenda to discredit my story?

If it isn't your intention to try and discredit, but rather make an honest critique, I'd recommend using less hostile language. Just a suggestion though. I'm not saying you are hostile either, I'm just pointing out that the language you are using presents you as such.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Abyssal Lord wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Or for that matter about how whites have it so hard. Or how Christians are persecuted. (Both of those in the US at least. There are certainly parts of the world where Christians are persecuted. The US is not one of them.)

Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.

I see you and Slaad and Tirisfal made a lot of assumptions about me because I brought up certain questions.

I don't assume a thing about you. Though you may assume I do :)

I find questions about whether man are really the more oppressed gender to be on the same rhetorical level as questions about whether whites are really the most oppressed race or straight people are really being oppressed or Christians are persecuted in the US.
They all reveal something about the questioner and it's not pretty. It's also pretty much the same thing.

And no it's not "Out of sight, out of mind". If you want to claim that Christians are being persecuted in Africa or the Middle East or many other places, that's a valid topic. In many cases I'll agree with you. If you're talking about the secular "War on Christmas" in the US, then that says far more about you than any about any actual persecution.

Similarly, it's valid to talk about men having social or even legal trouble wearing dresses. It's a problem and it should be changed. To jump from "Men should be able to wear dresses" to "Which is the more "oppressed" gender, ultimately?" also says more about you than about actual oppression. Because it ignores everything else that's tilted the other way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's few more annoying posts than those that make highly insinuant statements or questions, and then when people make assumptions to try to descipher the post based on those statements - rather than correct the assumptions when they are wrong - goes the whole "i didnt say that!!!!" thingy.

Itssimilar to the "have you stopped hitting your partner?" expression, only the logical answer "thats a loaded question and ive never hit my partner" is met with "OH I DIDNT SAY YOU HAD!!!! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!! JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!".

Its dishonest, provocative disruptive behaviour that works great to destroy any semblance of meaningful discussion.

If you make an insinuant post or rhethorical question and people misinterpret it, drop the insinuation and make your statements in plain english. Dont do that passiveaggressive s*&!.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Devil's Advocate" does not serve a useful rhetorical function in a conversation about abuse.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep. Dragging what I'm assuming to be private conversations or grudges into the public isn't helping the tone of the thread either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" does not serve a useful rhetorical function in a conversation about abuse.

not only does it not serve well, it immediately show what an a!!&%$+ you are (not you irontruth, those that do it). "My enjoyment of debate is far more important than ending systemical oppression, to the point where I'll actively derail and disrupt opressed people's struggle!!"

Yeah, well, here, have a brick to the face.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
Yeah, well, here, have a brick to the face.

Vive le Galt!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Ilja wrote:
Yeah, well, here, have a brick to the face.
Vive le Galt!

Vive le Galt!


. . . Taldor will rise again? *crickets*


School sucks!

(I don't think any of them are actually wearing a dress, alas.)


Wrong John Silver wrote:


First, I'm confused. What has Slaad said? I don't see it in this thread. It looks like you're putting words in her mouth.

Second, you just said "community" in ironic quotes. A lot of people consider that an insult. So, it can be said that you just have spoken against gay or transgender people. Assumptions are easy to make then.

So you're not helping your case at all. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, only that it's disparaging while pretending not to be.

What Slaad said to me was via private message and I place the word community in quotes because I am speaking for myself.

Perhaps I misused the use of the quotation marks but then again, English is my second language.


Mikaze wrote:
Yep. Dragging what I'm assuming to be private conversations or grudges into the public isn't helping the tone of the thread either.

Speaking of tone, it is interesting that just by bringing up what is the "more oppressed gender" but I would get snarky and snide replies.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Abyssal Lord wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:


First, I'm confused. What has Slaad said? I don't see it in this thread. It looks like you're putting words in her mouth.
What Slaad said to me was via private message and I place the word community in quotes because I am speaking for myself.

Because AL's posts in LGBT-related threads kept getting deleted, I sent him PMs pointing at the general Sex/Politics discussion thread. I was deliberately overly polite and non-confrontational in those PMs, which I sent out of courtesy for a fellow Paizo poster. But no good deed goes unpunished, eh?

I assure you that I need no help from you, Abyssal Lord, putting words in my mouth; I am quite capable of whipping up my own Fillet of Sole to nosh on. But since you've felt it necessary to creatively reinterpret my words to help grind your axe, I'd be more than happy to repost the entirety of our PM conversations here and let everyone draw their own conclusion. Would that be OK with you?

Digital Products Assistant

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, I think we're done here. There are other threads to discuss this topic.

151 to 181 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Boy Suspended For Wearing A Dress and High Heels To School All Messageboards
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions