Bith Set Me Up: The future is looking less like "Idiocracy" and more like "Demolition Man".
Pathman: Gleeman: So in return fairness we're going to open up all women-only colleges to men, just like we had to do with all the male-only ones, right?*pin drops*/asinine is right//makes me ashamed to be an Alumnii went to carolina - they're maybe 1 or 2 clicks away from being a women-only college as it is.
Cerwin3302: Are they dropping the use of woman as well?
mat catastrophe: You mean how it means "first year student"? Yea, that is pretty gender non-specific. Except, of course, that it dates from the mid 16th century....when women did not go to school at all.
mat catastrophe: I don't really have time to explain to you how an entrenched system becomes so pervasive that it remains invisible until steps are taken to remove it.
mat catastrophe: The relative gains of women (or minorities, for that matter) in the last two centuries does not mean that the patriarchy (or racism) is no longer real or that it no longer plays a role in society. People such as yourself like to point to statistical outliers as evidence that "everything is A-OK now" because, say, there's a female governor in South Carolina.
mat catastrophe: But that is not indicative of society at large and how women deal with a system that still overwhelmingly favors males, which is precisely the reason it is incumbent upon public (and private) bodies to work toward the elimination of these inequalities.
mat catastrophe: Again, arguing over a term for a first-year university student is a petty squabble in the larger issue of gender equity in American society but it's probably a decent place to start.
mat catastrophe: Oh, and you should know that I am entirely skipping over the abysmally ignorant tripe in your first paragraph, since it was stupid enough to not really warrant any serious thought or reply.
IrishFarmer: A theory that can be used to prove anything is really just a theory that proves nothing.
ingineervt: I like "Drop-outs" since half of them are going to do it/source:http://www.educationsector.org/sites/default/files/publications/Degre e lessDebt_CYCT_RELEASE.pdf
mat catastrophe: Cerwin3302: Are they dropping the use of woman as well?You're an idiot.Honest Bender: For fark's sake... Go take a freakin' language class, lady. There is nothing gender specific about the word Freshman. Just because it contains the letters M A and N in that order doesn't mean it's referring to men.Maybe next time, before you step up in front of the entire country and make an ass out of yourself, you'll take a few minutes to study up on the etymology of the word.You mean how it means "first year student"? Yea, that is pretty gender non-specific. Except, of course, that it dates from the mid 16th century....when women did not go to school at all.So, yea. The word has a definite masculine context that has no place in the world today. Sorry, dudes, the patriarchy train is real and it needs to be taken out.Admittedly, petty squabbles over meaningless language is not the best fight to fight in this arena. There's pay disparity and unequal expectations of work/life balance that figure into the mix, but since politicians are unwilling to address the issue in any meaningful sense, we can amuse ourselves with this sort of issue.
Honest Bender: mat catastrophe: You mean how it means "first year student"? Yea, that is pretty gender non-specific. Except, of course, that it dates from the mid 16th century....when women did not go to school at all.I was talking about the etymology of the word "man"... As in human or mankind.
IrishFarmer: Oh. I didn't expect a response, cuz I thought you were just trolling. Maybe you still are, it's hard to tell.
Pumpernickel bread: The pay disparity is not as real as NOW would have you believe. If you don't include women who have taken years out of the workforce to raise children, there is no difference in pay. Today's world is hardly a patriarchy. Most college graduates nowadays are women. Someone needs to start standing up for the boys. They've had a target on their back for too long.
mat catastrophe: First, you're confusing class and gender. Poor men fight wars, not rich ones. Women were not allowed to sign up for the draft because, according to the Supreme Court - the purpose of the draft was to enlist men for combat and since women were disallowed from combat, they could legally be discriminated against with regard to the draft, which seems to be a clear impingement of their right to serve their country (albeit a right I don't think anyone should actually clamor for - "Oh, yes, please! I want to sign up to get shot at!") but as most people believe it should be a right, then there we go.
Fano: mat catastrophe: First, you're confusing class and gender. Poor men fight wars, not rich ones. Women were not allowed to sign up for the draft because, according to the Supreme Court - the purpose of the draft was to enlist men for combat and since women were disallowed from combat, they could legally be discriminated against with regard to the draft, which seems to be a clear impingement of their right to serve their country (albeit a right I don't think anyone should actually clamor for - "Oh, yes, please! I want to sign up to get shot at!") but as most people believe it should be a right, then there we go.That was a major force for civil rights for African Americans.
mat catastrophe: Look, if you're going to discount an opinion as trolling because it's different from yours then I really think you probably can't actually defend your opinion and you know it. It's pretty standard here on fark for that sort of thing to happen.
mat catastrophe: Sure. Except you're not actually pointing out anything useful here. I mean, it's possible gravity does not exist, except that we can see its effects even if we cannot see the actual force at work. The same is true for institutional sexism or racism.
mat catastrophe: Here's your problem: You don't know how to construct a proper analogy. In They Live, the protagonist is not delusional - there really is an alien conspiracy running the government, big business, and the media. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your "argument" is flawed. Perhaps you should find a better film to base it on, one that actually hinges on the main character being delusional and seeing something that does not exist.
mat catastrophe: So, wage disparity, attacks on the right to privacy with regard to reproductive rights, and a truly ugly view of rape are all invisible to you? I think they are pretty obvious effects of an invisible system, one so ingrained in the male mindset that it's entirely second nature. These men aren't actively setting out to make women second class citizens, but their policies do exactly that.
mat catastrophe: Which does not really have anything to do with what we're talking about...but OK. First, there is the sociological concept called the Thomas Theorem (which is a theory that attempts to explain a system, see?) that holds that situations are real in their consequences. In other words, if you want to hold to your walking down the street idea, if a woman feels threatened and avoids a street out of that fear, then her subjective reality makes the street unsafe to her, regardless of its actual safety.
mat catastrophe: Now, the goal of gender-neutral language (or pay, or whatever) would be to remove any reasonable reasons that someone might continue to have an irrational belief about a system. There will always be a small percentage of the "paranoid", as you say, but it shouldn't constitute a statistically significant portion of the population.
mat catastrophe: The group in power is always blind to the system of control they enjoy the benefits of. Men are blind to patriarchy just as white supremacy groups are to their own racism - perhaps in different ways.
mat catastrophe: Sure, there are issues that affect men and women - just as they affect across racial or class lines. But inside these subsets are additional subsets that have their own internal tensions. For instance, across the board American children are falling behind in school - male and female - but female students still lag behind their male counterparts. Again, the goal should be a system that brings all people up to a baseline standard.
mat catastrophe: Which is the most blatantly sexist thing you've said in this entire conversation. You would absolutely hear men saying that because if the tables were turned, we have to assume the entire social order is changed and a matriarchy existed throughout thousands of years of human social evolution. So, yes, there would be a general hue and cry to alter the language to gender neutral. Saying that "men wouldn't ask for a change like that" is a remarkably sexist comment precisely because it assumes an inherent strength in men that women do not possess.
mat catastrophe: Were you not paying attention at the points where I said that this was a petty squabble in the great scheme of things but one that still could and should be addressed?
mat catastrophe: Since women can now serve in combat, feel free to file another brief in your nearest Federal Court.
mat catastrophe: At any rate, I think you've fallen victim to the blindness you spoke of earlier, since you seem unable to see how men have historically enjoyed a much greater share of the rights and the wealth.
Honest Bender: IrishFarmer: A theory that can be used to prove anything is really just a theory that proves nothing.[rubinium.org image 381x270]
If you like these links, you'll love
The next best thing to UltraFark
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 21 2017 19:48:49
Runtime: 0.251 sec (250 ms)