| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that it's a near certainty that when someone talks about same sex couples they focus on gay males? It's a common theme in political and homophobic discussions about the LGBT community. I hesitate to use religion as one of the discussions because it's usually politically motivated (they want to get reelected, are working closely with politicians on laws regarding the behavior, etc.). Lesbians are an after thought, bisexuals are just confused gay men (bisexual women are only experimenting or aren't even an after thought), and transgender folks are just gay men in skirts (even the trans men are just gay men who used to wear skirts).
This is just an observation. It's something I've noticed even in the LGBT community a bit. Not to the same extent but still high enough to be noticed.
On them just being the focus of discussion: welcome to male privilege. Male is default. When you talk about a group (like the LGBT community), you're talking about the men. Women are an exception, a deviation from the norm. I mean, the last sentence of your first paragraph pretty much sums it up: trans women (people who a lot of people perceive as having gone from being male to being female, and thus are, in a lot of people's minds, still "actually" men) are the focus, while trans men are an afterthought, an exception.
I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but in political discourse, the very term "homosexual" gets used almost exclusively to refer to men. Lesbians mostly seem to get called lesbians, when they're part of the discourse at all, even though on its face, the term applies just as much to them.
When it comes to anti-gay people, they tend to be people invested in hegemonic masculinity. For someone invested in upholding that view of masculinity, gay men and feminine men and trans women are traitors, while lesbians and tomboys and trans men may be "defecting" from their gender, but their defection isn't meaningful, so it can largely be ignored.
It's for the same reason, I think, that mothers who let their sons wear pink or nail polish or carry around "girl" toys get a ton of random people yelling at them about being bad parents, while mothers who let their daughters be tomboyish mostly get left alone.
Women aren't important, culturally, except as objects to be possessed. A woman taking on a male role (aspiring to male power, in essence) may eventually need to be smacked down, but she is still reaffirming that masculine = better. As long as she sticks to only exerting power over women and doesn't try to exert any over men, she's safe. She can climb out of the feminine power register and into the masculine one as long as she stays at the bottom of the latter.
A man who takes on a feminine role, on the other hand, is way more dangerous, because his abdication of male power suggests that that power isn't inherent: it can be taken away.
Hence the focus on gay men, the obsession with gay sex (those power dynamics play out most viscerally in the bedroom), and so on. They suggest that masculinity isn't invulnerable.
Without such a desire, how many catholic churches would exist today?
Strategies are planned and devised, then set in motion. The church knows what they gain from. Among other things, the church's influence wanes when people are safe and happy, especially if there are no poor around. See, the poor can be counted on to provide more free labour and propaganda for the church. People will donate money to the poor houses the church sets up, and so on and so forth. Poverty is EXTREMELY lucrative for the church.
How do you get people poor? A whole society? Well, you make sure they can't control well how many children they get. Wait fifteen years. Bingo. You will have children begging for scraps in the streets. All the church needs to do is pressure the politicians to instate a ban on contraceptives, sex ed and abortions.
The idea that this is too cynical... well, it's not even an argument. Check the first thing the RCC does once it starts getting more power in a country. Among other things, check how many countries somewhat recently changed their constitutions to protect fetuses from the moment of conception.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, saying religion seeks to control sexual activity simply because religion wants to control people and religion is Rohypnol for the masses implies a certain level of forethought and/or malice that I'm not convinced really widely exists now or ever existed. Yes 'Religion' doesn't do anything, people do, and many people suck but it sounded like a blanket anti-religion statement, as if there was nothing to religion but a cynical desire for control.No. I don't even think Malachi was saying that.
I guess I'm just saying I don't really care.
The effects are the important part. Talking about what religion "seeks" is metaphor anyway, since religion isn't a person, but you can observe the behavior and see what that behavior brings about.Ok, but are you saying the effects of religion are all or even mostly bad?
Sure there is a lot of crappy stuff in many religions but there is a lot of good stuff too.
I don't think most religions start out with a cynical desire for control (although certainly for cults built around a charismatic leader, like Charles Mason or David Koresh, I think that leader's need to control people is a major part of it). But I do think that once they get power, maintaining power becomes the primary focus for the leadership.
Most of the religion's adherents might be motivated by sincere faith. And it's not a simple binary for the leaders, where either you're a cynical manipulator who views the religion only as a tool for controlling others, or you're a pure-hearted genuine devotee. You can genuinely believe in your religion, and still be concerned with maintaining power.
Without such a desire, how many catholic churches would exist today?
Strategies are planned and devised, then set in motion. The church knows what they gain from. Among other things, the church's influence wanes when people are safe and happy, especially if there are no poor around. See, the poor can be counted on to provide more free labour and propaganda for the church.
How do you get people poor? A whole society? Well, you make sure they can't control well how many children they get. Wait fifteen years. Bingo. You will have children begging for scraps in the streets. All the church needs to do is pressure the politicians to instate a ban on contraceptives, sex ed and abortions.
The idea that this is too cynical... well, it's not even an argument. Check the first thing the RCC does once it starts getting more power in a country. Among other things, check how many countries somewhat recently changed their constitutions to protect fetuses from the moment of conception.
Um, are you seriously claiming the Catholic Church's pro-life stance is a deliberate attempt to create more poor people?
My guess is that when Gen Y got old enough to *name themselves* they gravitated towards this existing but ill-defined label 'Millenial' and appropriated it for themselves.
Maybe. But some of my friends will still describe themselves as Gen Y.
It was inevitable that Gen Y would change to some other term. No one likes to be labeled solely in response to their parent's generation. (See "Baby Bust" => Generation X)
True.
It’s silly stuff, and certainly not the sort of thing I could imagine pitching to a publisher.
Maybe a web comic, then?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to anti-gay people, they tend to be people invested in hegemonic masculinity. For someone invested in upholding that view of masculinity, gay men and feminine men and trans women are traitors, while lesbians and tomboys and trans men may be "defecting" from their gender, but their defection isn't meaningful, so it can largely be ignored.
The sad thing is that those sorts of views sometimes gets reiterated within the LGBTQ community, with some gay men viewing trans women as gay men who can't handle being gay, and who therefore become women in order to conform with society. Very ugly stuff. And so far off from why we transition and what it means to be trans.
Women aren't important, culturally, except as objects to be possessed. A woman taking on a male role (aspiring to male power, in essence) may eventually need to be smacked down, but she is still reaffirming that masculine = better. As long as she sticks to only exerting power over women and doesn't try to exert any over men, she's safe. She can climb out of the feminine power register and into the masculine one as long as she stays at the bottom of the latter.
A man who takes on a feminine role, on the other hand, is way more dangerous, because his abdication of male power suggests that that power isn't inherent: it can be taken away.
Have you ever read Julia Serano's Whipping Girl? That's one of the central ideas. (The subtitle is: "A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity.") Worth a read if you haven't yet.
Or more simply, those religions that are effective at growing and maintaining centralized control, do so. Others either vanish or splinter.I don't think most religions start out with a cynical desire for control (although certainly for cults built around a charismatic leader, like Charles Mason or David Koresh, I think that leader's need to control people is a major part of it). But I do think that once they get power, maintaining power becomes the primary focus for the leadership.
Most of the religion's adherents might be motivated by sincere faith. And it's not a simple binary for the leaders, where either you're a cynical manipulator who views the religion only as a tool for controlling others, or you're a pure-hearted genuine devotee. You can genuinely believe in your religion, and still be concerned with maintaining power.
I agree human nature is what it is... Eh, But I don't want to derail this thread further.
Um, are you seriously claiming the Catholic Church's pro-life stance is a deliberate attempt to create more poor people?
Uhmmm... yes? I thought that was obvious. The RCC is one of the best sages about human nature around. They know full well that only some will be able to control their procreation without contraceptives. Many children will be born, and a significant number of them will be without support.
It was what happened in Jakarta, among so many other places.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, saying religion seeks to control sexual activity simply because religion wants to control people and religion is Rohypnol for the masses implies a certain level of forethought and/or malice that I'm not convinced really widely exists now or ever existed.
For most of human history abstinence or shotgun (crossbow?) weddings were really the only form of pregnancy and disease prevention or treatment we had. It made sense for a society to take it that seriously because it came with serious consequences. Its not malicious its quite the opposite: they were trying to keep people from coming down with lifelong debilitating illnesses.
Unfortunately once an idea"good thinking in your own time" gets raised to the level of a religious precept its hard to get rid of it once times change.
Yeah. You have to learn how to thatch a roof before you leave home! Otherwise, who will do it for you, eh kiddo?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to anti-gay people, they tend to be people invested in hegemonic masculinity. For someone invested in upholding that view of masculinity, gay men and feminine men and trans women are traitors, while lesbians and tomboys and trans men may be "defecting" from their gender, but their defection isn't meaningful, so it can largely be ignored.The sad thing is that those sorts of views sometimes gets reiterated within the LGBTQ community, with some gay men viewing trans women as gay men who can't handle being gay, and who therefore become women in order to conform with society. Very ugly stuff. And so far off from why we transition and what it means to be trans.
Have you ever read Julia Serano's Whipping Girl? That's one of the central ideas. (The subtitle is: "A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity.") Worth a read if you haven't yet.Women aren't important, culturally, except as objects to be possessed. A woman taking on a male role (aspiring to male power, in essence) may eventually need to be smacked down, but she is still reaffirming that masculine = better. As long as she sticks to only exerting power over women and doesn't try to exert any over men, she's safe. She can climb out of the feminine power register and into the masculine one as long as she stays at the bottom of the latter.
A man who takes on a feminine role, on the other hand, is way more dangerous, because his abdication of male power suggests that that power isn't inherent: it can be taken away.
Yeah...more and more I am finding out that to be a Transwomen is to be on almost everyone's s*$% list...
Oh well, I never did fit in that well anyway!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, are you seriously claiming the Catholic Church's pro-life stance is a deliberate attempt to create more poor people?Without such a desire, how many catholic churches would exist today?
Strategies are planned and devised, then set in motion. The church knows what they gain from. Among other things, the church's influence wanes when people are safe and happy, especially if there are no poor around. See, the poor can be counted on to provide more free labour and propaganda for the church.
How do you get people poor? A whole society? Well, you make sure they can't control well how many children they get. Wait fifteen years. Bingo. You will have children begging for scraps in the streets. All the church needs to do is pressure the politicians to instate a ban on contraceptives, sex ed and abortions.
The idea that this is too cynical... well, it's not even an argument. Check the first thing the RCC does once it starts getting more power in a country. Among other things, check how many countries somewhat recently changed their constitutions to protect fetuses from the moment of conception.
I have heard this before, presented as a holdover from when the Catholic Church was more of a military institiuon than a religious one.
Well, saying religion seeks to control sexual activity simply because religion wants to control people and religion is Rohypnol for the masses implies a certain level of forethought and/or malice that I'm not convinced really widely exists now or ever existed.
For most of human history abstinence or shotgun (crossbow?) weddings were really the only form of pregnancy and disease prevention or treatment we had. It made sense for a society to take it that seriously because it came with serious consequences. Its not malicious its quite the opposite: they were trying to keep people from coming down with lifelong debilitating illnesses.
Unfortunately once an idea"good thinking in your own time" gets raised to the level of a religious precept its hard to get rid of it once times change.
That is more in line with my thinking, religion(or some of the rules within) being a product of circumstances.
Actually, my long-time working theory is that the Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) sex-negative attitudes derives from early conflicts between the Israelites and the local fertility cults.That is more in line with my thinking, religion(or some of the rules within) being a product of circumstances.
Well, saying religion seeks to control sexual activity simply because religion wants to control people and religion is Rohypnol for the masses implies a certain level of forethought and/or malice that I'm not convinced really widely exists now or ever existed.
For most of human history abstinence or shotgun (crossbow?) weddings were really the only form of pregnancy and disease prevention or treatment we had. It made sense for a society to take it that seriously because it came with serious consequences. Its not malicious its quite the opposite: they were trying to keep people from coming down with lifelong debilitating illnesses.
Unfortunately once an idea"good thinking in your own time" gets raised to the level of a religious precept its hard to get rid of it once times change.
That would makes sense, didn't they fight Baal worshipers or something? (History isn't my forte, lol)
Um, are you seriously claiming the Catholic Church's pro-life stance is a deliberate attempt to create more poor people?Uhmmm... yes? I thought that was obvious. The RCC is one of the best sages about human nature around. They know full well that only some will be able to control their procreation without contraceptives. Many children will be born, and a significant number of them will be without support.
It was what happened in Jakarta, among so many other places.
Well, it is not obvious to me. It seems more like a case of favoring a moral code over the real world effects it might have then some kind of social engineering agenda to create poor people.
However, as a pro-choice atheist, I have no personal investment in defending the Church or Christianity in general, I'm doing it just out of a sense of fairness. Maybe an actual Catholic will pop in and speak their opinion, otherwise let's just let you have a final word then move on from this derailing topic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That theory doesn't seem to account for all the poor people everywhere else, in both time and place. India-overland-to-China for instance. Not a significant Judeo-Christian influence through that entire area yet a plethora of poor they have and always have had.Um, are you seriously claiming the Catholic Church's pro-life stance is a deliberate attempt to create more poor people?Uhmmm... yes? I thought that was obvious. The RCC is one of the best sages about human nature around. They know full well that only some will be able to control their procreation without contraceptives. Many children will be born, and a significant number of them will be without support.
It was what happened in Jakarta, among so many other places.
Well, it is not obvious to me. It seems more like a case of favoring a moral code over the real world effects it might have then some kind of social engineering agenda to create poor people.
However, as a pro-choice atheist, I have no personal investment in defending the Church or Christianity in general, I'm doing it just out of a sense of fairness. Maybe an actual Catholic will pop in and speak their opinion, otherwise let's just let you have a final word then move on from this derailing topic.
Um, I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone was claiming that Catholicism was the sole cause of poverty anywhere.
People were saying that the Catholic Church doesn't do much to alleviate poverty because it benefits them in keeping control for people to be poor.
I could say something like "the American tax system is designed to keep the poor poor," and "there are poor people in Africa!" would be just as irrelevant as what you're saying.
This theory also ignores the disconnect between what the Vatican says and what the people do. One of the Grognards here is an ex-sailor and he says; "Been south of San Diego many, many times and never had a problem finding condoms".
So?
The fact that an attempt at control isn't universally effective doesn't mean that it's not being attempted.
On them just being the focus of discussion: welcome to male privilege. ...more...
This reminds me of the "porn rock" episode in the 1980's. I think the media loves to be able to shock/titillate people by talking about anal-sex and showing guys in bondage gear and stuff. Great stuff for sweeps week!
When it comes to media representation, I suspect that in addition to the reasons you mentioned, men are also shown because obviously gay (i.e. looking like the Village People) are a little easier to find, and reporters these days are SUPER LAZY. The theme of the reports is also generally "check out these crazy deviants!" and I suspect that showing women (or men who don't fit the flaming gay stereotype) might cause too much viewer thinking when you are trying to paint everyone with the same brush in a 30 second report.
@ Fergie - You watch the news? o_O
Why? ;)
You must not avert your eyes! That is what is coming at us.
EDIT: Also, "Be fruitful and multiply".
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone is taking a vote, maybe we could take the Catholic/religion discussion to another thread? I don't want to squelch the current discussion, but I'd rather read about LGBT Gamer Community stuff here.
That's just my non-Moderator 2¢ though.
Music I find inspirational for dealing with being transgender in our society.
Because I too have thick skin and an elastic heart.
And because, if nothing else, I always try.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah, I am doing well these days.
Between finally fully understanding myself and accepting said self and learning that due to health issues my doctors don't think I will live more than another decade I have definitely gotten motivated.
Prolly won't live to see 40? Fine then! Time to be who I really am and do what I really want to do and f@!$ anything and anyone that gets in my way.
I was born into kinda unfortunate circumstances and have had my share of bad luck but you know what? You can either get bitter or get motivated.
I'm not afraid anymore and I am having the time of my life!
Religion seeks to control sexual activity simply because religion wants to control people, and people really, really want sex.
So you can't have sex outside marriage, can only get married in church, can only get married if the church approves, can't do anything which gives you sexual release apart from within church mandated marriage.
So, my body is urging me to have sex, I can only have sex if the church approves (by way of marriage), therefore I have to obey the church.
Less opiate for the masses, more Rohypnol for the masses.
It's not only religion. Anyone that wants control over people usually includes control over their sexual life. Fascist, the-so-called-communists-regimes, and other totalitarian groups wanted to control their subjects' sexuality as well.
So yeah, I am doing well these days.
Between finally fully understanding myself and accepting said self and learning that due to health issues my doctors don't think I will live more than another decade I have definitely gotten motivated.
Very sorry to hear that, Yuugasa. Saying "That sucks" doesn't begin to cover it. :(
I'm not afraid anymore and I am having the time of my life!
Good.
So yeah, I am doing well these days.
Between finally fully understanding myself and accepting said self and learning that due to health issues my doctors don't think I will live more than another decade I have definitely gotten motivated.
Very sorry to hear that, Yuugasa. Saying "That sucks" doesn't begin to cover it. :(
I'm not afraid anymore and I am having the time of my life!Good.
It's a pretty scary concept but I try to look at the bright side, at least I will never get old and I'll die still pretty! =p
Seriously though, realizing my entire remaining existence is prolly just a few years long is as freeing as it seems gloomy. There is no time left to do anything other than what I want to be doing anymore.
Life is basically just a long series of moments strung together anyway, might as well make each moment as amusing and worthwhile as possible. =)
It's a pretty scary concept but I try to look at the bright side, at least I will never get old and I'll die still pretty! =p
Seriously though, realizing my entire remaining existence is prolly just a few years long is as freeing as it seems gloomy. There is no time left to do anything other than what I want to be doing anymore.
Life is basically just a long series of moments strung together anyway, might as well make each moment as amusing and worthwhile as possible. =)
Well, if there's anything I can help you with on the transgender side of things, give me a holler.
Music I find inspirational for dealing with being transgender in our society.
Because I too have thick skin and an elastic heart.
And because, if nothing else, I always try.
Cool dance vids.
Never realized how... stocky P!nk is.
The relationship looks more than a little abusive though. They broke some perfectly good chairs. :( But maybe that's the point?.... Art. o_Elastic Heart is one I had not somehow already seen either. Awesome!! Dude caught in a cage of (drug?) addiction and can't get out even though his daughter does everything she can to reach him. Too sad :(
Big fan of wild dancing, also I have a crush on P!nk, so that video is double pleasing.
Sia has another good video with that same young dancer.
Well, if there's anything I can help you with on the transgender side of things, give me a holler.It's a pretty scary concept but I try to look at the bright side, at least I will never get old and I'll die still pretty! =p
Seriously though, realizing my entire remaining existence is prolly just a few years long is as freeing as it seems gloomy. There is no time left to do anything other than what I want to be doing anymore.
Life is basically just a long series of moments strung together anyway, might as well make each moment as amusing and worthwhile as possible. =)
Will do. Honestly though just you talking about your experiences here is quite helpful. =)
Yuugasa, my sincere condoleances AND congratulations. You are in a situation not many ever find themselves in, and you have understood it. So, live! Be grand. Tear the world a new one!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm loving being able to get married if I want to(i.e. If I ever meet someone). It's great not feeling like a second-class citizen anymore.
Add to that legal gay marriage sweeping the U.S. and the legalization of pot in a few states I'm having to blink a few times as I look around, when did the world outside my door start getting fun?!
It's so much pressure! Everyone wants to know when I'm going to "put a ring on it." This stuff is intimidating!
In seriousness, though, I am with you here. With my ex, legal marriage in my state was never an option. It is interesting that when I started seeing my current boyfriend (2012), same sex marriage was already legal here in NY. It means we can get married if and when the time is right, without consideration to what becomes legal and when. It feels very... Normal.
Yuugasa, my sincere condoleances AND congratulations. You are in a situation not many ever find themselves in, and you have understood it. So, live! Be grand. Tear the world a new one!
Thanks Sissyl, no condolences necessary, I'd rather spend 10 years happy and feeling free than 50 feeling sad and overwhelmed like I often was before.
And really my situation isn't that much worse than anyone elses for the most part, all of us assume we will live a decently long and happy life when really we are just one explosively backed up toilet away from death.
Knowing my shelf life definitely isn't that long before my expiration date gives me the focus and courage to actually do what I want, it is kinda a backwards blessing in some ways.
Yuugasa, my sincere condoleances AND congratulations. You are in a situation not many ever find themselves in, and you have understood it. So, live! Be grand. Tear the world a new one!Thanks Sissyl, no condolences necessary, I'd rather spend 10 years happy and feeling free than 50 feeling sad and overwhelmed like I often was before.
And really my situation isn't that much worse than anyone elses for the most part, all of us assume we will live a decently long and happy life when really we are just one explosively backed up toilet away from death.
Knowing my shelf life definitely isn't that long before my expiration date gives me the focus and courage to actually do what I want, it is kinda a backwards blessing in some ways.
Kudos for finding the silver lining! I'll spare you my long-winded worldviews on the after life, reincarnation, souls, and the universe, usually proffered as a way of making death seem not so bad ("you'll be back, and in while you wait, you'll get to hang out with people!"). All I'll say is I wish you the ability to live the coming years well!
On the topic, can I just say that I never really understood the fear of death beyond "I haven't done everything I wanted to yet!" and "Are my loved ones going to be alright without me?", ? I mean, it's a fact of life, and whether you go somewhere, reincarnate into a really annoying grasshopper, or go poof and rot in the ground, it's gonna happen, so why fear it? You weren't concerned about it before you existed, and you certainly aren't going to be concerned about it after! Meh, just random musings, don't mind me. I tend to regurgitate some of my more interesting (I think so anyway) thoughts in random places... Watch were you step :p
Kudos for finding the silver lining! I'll spare you my long-winded worldviews on the after life, reincarnation, souls, and the universe, usually proffered as a way of making death seem not so bad ("you'll be back, and in while you wait, you'll get to hang out with people!"). All I'll say is I wish you the ability to live the coming years well!
On the topic, can I just say that I never really understood the fear of death beyond "I haven't done everything I wanted to yet!" and "Are my loved ones going to be alright without me?", ? I mean, it's a fact of life, and whether you go somewhere, reincarnate into a really annoying grasshopper, or go poof and rot in the ground, it's gonna happen, so why fear it? You weren't concerned about it before you existed, and you certainly aren't going to be concerned about it after! Meh, just random musings, don't mind me. I tend to regurgitate some of my more interesting (I think so anyway) thoughts in random places... Watch were you step :p
Thanks for the well wishes.
As far as the fear of death goes, it's prolly mostly just the fear of the unknown combined with the primal fear of your own extinction.
Also death is prolly a lot less scary when you are thinking of it in the abstract while chilling out in a comfortable place then when it is Charging straight at you. =D
Seen that video. And, yeah, I could see P!nk being crush material.
I'm saving my celebrity crush for CT and therefore cannot wait to see her as Imperator Furiosa.
Isn't it surreal how music, or art in general, has the capacity to bypasses all the other stupid weirdness (hate, bigotry, etc) of human cultures?I'm glad it does but.... it makes no sense that it should.
Charlize Theron is awesome, she was the one thing that redeemed Prometheus for me, even though most people hated her character.
Beautiful art is beautiful, and can penetrate many social barriers.
As one of my friends put it: "I hate all my fellow human beings, but many of their creations bring me endless joy."
Always liked P!nk, I find many of her songs personally empowering.
From dealing with self esteem issues. NSFW
To dealing with unwanted sexual attention.
To battling evil clowns (ok, I've never had that problem, but I hate evil clowns!)
@-Quark Blast
Perfect is hard to watch, but it is real(or rather the representation of real feelings)
Yes, that is a good thing.
Clowns are terrifying...
If Clown makes a joke in a forest, and no one's around to hear it...
Does the clown cry?
If a clown makes a joke in a forest and no one's around to fear it...
Do the trees s$@~ themselves in terror and die?
