Gender/ Sex Separation

[mercedesjin]

Originally Posted by bELyVIS

Where did you get this information? There has always been homosexuality. The ancient Greeks found it more pleasurable for a man to be with a man because they were away from home a long time.
The Muslim religion forbids pre-martial sex with the opposite sex, but since homosexuality wasn't mentioned they thought it to be OK.
The scholars had nothing to do with labeling people as mentally ill, it was certain religions that did (and still do today) that like people who are gay have a choice.

It wasn't thought of "homosexuality." It was thought of as one man having sex with another man, fulfilling desire. There was no label that was put on it. It's easy to look up on Google if you'd like. As for the scholars, also type in "1920 inverts" and you'll read more about what I was saying.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

First, please stop saying "NO, JUST NO." Its obnoxious. I think it's completely possible to have a calm discussion, just expressing ideas, without saying shit like "OMG YOU'RE SO WRONG." Relax.

It's always funny how personal stories aren't valued. Personal stories are what spurred the need for movements. I feel like my life is "accredited." If that's not good enough for you, move on.

The need to make women submissive to men is what separated men and women. Whenever one group wants to oppress another, suddenly labels and expected qualities come with these labels. It's the same thing with race and sexuality. In fact, before the Victoria age, there was no "homosexual." There was just sex and desire. Then, in order to make one group of people submissive to another, scholars began declaring that people who had sex with the same gender were mentally ill. There was a new group - homosexuals were separated from heterosexuals. Now that they've been separated, people can easily discriminate against them.

And yes, equal rights did spur the feminist movements. Because women, who were separated from men and felt emotionally attacked that they could not do the same things as men, decided to do something about it.

I'm just making up a quick example, but there are also many fundamental differences between women and pregnant women, right? Yet we still think of them as women. We still have women go into the same bathrooms, still expect them to have the same qualities that come with the labels of "woman." If we suddenly wanted to discriminate against pregnant women, however, we could easily do that. We could call pregnant women by a completely different label that isn't associated with women in general. Maybe we could call them preggers. From there, we could label them and say there are expected qualities for all preggers. They're all supposed to be moody and constantly hungry.

But we don't. We also don't need to do it for men and women. Then, we would just be humans with biological differences, as my brown skin is darker than a white person's skin, and there wouldn't be as much discrimination.

There, is an reason why I asked you if you only got your feelings hurt. Since you cannot provide any evidence to support the claim that separation of the sexes is mentally damaging, you cannot claim it as true.

Ugh, did I not just say linking things without evidence does nothing for your claim? There is an reason I also did the little phrase "no, just NO". I can make claims too, like " because men fill the need to dominate the dog, we domesticated, it so that it could be our slave. that said, I'm going to ask you to support this claim also with evidence. So we just deal with labels, I'm labeled an redhead does that mean I should feel discriminated against because people made fun of that?

So, how does the feminists movement start because they couldn't use the same restroom as an men, because that IS what is being talked about here, both-equal-separation of the sexes.

Ok, quit with the semantics. Pregnant women ARE women. Being able to have an baby is an quality of being an women, yes? So I don't get the example.

Very few people, have an problem with the women/men labeling. Mainly because THERE is no discrimination that you want to write off on men.

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

It's called the veil. It's Du Bois's theory on double consciousness. Because black people are alienated as black - different from white - we see ourselves not only as humans but as black people. From that perspective, because we see our black identity, we can see when someone is attacking it; whereas on the other hand, if you're a white person in a room filled only with white people, you don't need to see your white identity. Then, if someone were to attack you, you would only see it as attacking your human-self rather than your white-self.

So what you are saying, is that if there is an room of black people they wouldn't see themselves get attacked, only see it as attacking there human self? If someone was to walk into that room and call white people "crackers" they would know what they are attacking. It works under the same principle because I know I'm an redhead, someone attacks me, I would know what they are attacking. Point is I don't see how this relates to what we are talking about.

[Sukai]

Originally Posted by Ningyou

She wasn't talking about restrooms >.< she said BESIDES restrooms. I understand why bathrooms need to be separated, that's common sense.

But she said that Versailles concerts sometimes are exclusively male or exclusively female. THAT is pretty wrong in my opinion.

And regardless of if people like her (and a lot of people I know) are in the minority or not, they're still people and their feelings still need to be taken into account.

I think that the reasons that those concerts were seperated by sex was because those concerts can get pretty rough and ppl (usually girls unfortunatly) get hurt. Also its is true that sexual harassment is quite common at concerts/gigs (well ones in the UK anyway i dont know about Japan).

I do understand where you are coming from and empathise with you.

ox

[Tenchu]

WOW! This post blew my head off! DO you smoke this much often?

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

It's called the veil. It's Du Bois's theory on double consciousness. Because black people are alienated as black - different from white - we see ourselves not only as humans but as black people. From that perspective, because we see our black identity, we can see when someone is attacking it; whereas on the other hand, if you're a white person in a room filled only with white people, you don't need to see your white identity. Then, if someone were to attack you, you would only see it as attacking your human-self rather than your white-self.

I think you alienate yourself a lot. You're not literally under attack. There are dickheads out there, but you have the option to completely ignore them nowadays.

I mean, how can black people still say their race brings disadvantage in America when the President is half black? Seriously? There is no walls around you. There is only a few random fags, and you clearly pay way too much attention to them.

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

Men are "naturally more dominant" when you think dominant as stronger, faster, etc. Society places more value on those qualities so that men can be more dominant. Those qualities were helpful - in the stone age. Nowadays, it doesn't matter, yet we still think of those qualities as valuable. Society also ever-so-conveniently places more value on the person who goes out and makes money while the person at home, who takes care of the house and children, holds no value... to the point where if there was to be a divorce, the person who went out and made money is the one who will win everything. It's no coincidence that society put women into the role of the ones expected to stay at home.

They're still pretty relevant. Men are much more resolved and objective. In wealthier business, males often do better simply because they think more straight forward and objectively.

Also, in physical labour jobs (such as buildin), women are often paid slightly less because everyone knows they work slightly slower and less productive.

As for my wife, I wish you were right, frankly. She took out an insurance policy before we got together, and it cost about $100 US per month, and I'm having to pay it off, and will have to do so for the next 2 years. I want her to get a job... what's her answer? "I think it time we try make more baby!"

Yes, I dominate her and she is very submissive, but it's not like my encouragement to be more productive is really relevant to her, anyway. It's okay for me, because I can take care of her and I like havin a kitchen slave, but that is her choice.

If you were to come accross a husband that was not content with your own enthusiasim for work or study, you do have the option to leave him. In the past, that'd occur less, because there was not many jobs a woman could do. But there is little excuse for it nowadays, and cring out you're being oppressed sounds a bit silly when it's your choice to stay there in the first place.

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

And, I know it's a little off-topic, but it's very interesting to see what happens to same-sex couples. When there are two men, and one man stays at home, he's suddenly the submissive one and feels the discrimination women feel. If we took away those values, took away the expected roles and qualities that fit into different labels, and just took away the labels completely, there wouldn't be discrimination.

Any man who feels like that has other more pressing problems that need be urgently addressed long before womens discrimination is even considered...

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

I'm just curious - where are you from? There are different cultural expectations for women in every country, and I assumed you were from America.

I grew up in Australia, but have permanently moved to Thailand. I intend to live here for forever.

So you know about the racism I was saying:

I'm trying to start a career in professional kick boxing (Muay Thai - the Thai style of kick boxing). Yet no one will give me a fair shot because I'm white. You see, most big gyms here are full of tourists, and tourists are viewed as money resources. Gyms will charge you about $200 - $300 USD per month to train there, and an equal amount for a room. Then you've got food to buy... All up, it is not hard to spend $1,000 USD a month here doing Muay Thai. But, you'll be very lucky to make more than $300 a month doing fights! So that doesn't add up, does it?

Well, the way the Thais do it, is they'll train at a gym and live there for free, and in exchange they'll split the fight money 50%-50% with the gym. This way, it is possible to have a sustainable career in Muay Thai, and develop your skills, and if you're good enough you'll make it big time and earn some good money. Otherwise, you'll probably spend your older days as a trainer teaching others.

Anyway, I tried to find a gym where I could train for free so my fights would pay for the living expenses. Almost impossible. Actually, only this morning, I've finnally found a gym that can look past my skin color. I've had to go right out into rural Thailand where there are no foreigners, and the people are not accustomed to making a living by racistly ripping people off, and this morning I finnally met an honest gym. The gym is tiny and old and dirty, but the peoples hearts are good, so I'm happy.

But, I'm sure you can imagine the frustration I've been through. Just not being able to do what the Thais do simply because of my skin color and ethnicity. It had a big impact on me, and left me very sour with a lot of people and places.

[Tenchu]

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

It wasn't thought of "homosexuality." It was thought of as one man having sex with another man, fulfilling desire. There was no label that was put on it. It's easy to look up on Google if you'd like. As for the scholars, also type in "1920 inverts" and you'll read more about what I was saying.

Yes, but most religions have branded it as sinful for a very long time and homosexuals have been outcasts and shunned.

[ozkai]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Yes, but most religions have branded it as sinful for a very long time and homosexuals have been outcasts and shunned.

I believe the Catholic church has a huge problem with homosexual priests.

I suggest you check your facts beforehand.

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by ozkai

I believe the Catholic church has a huge problem with homosexual priests.

I suggest you check your facts beforehand.

He said religions... did not make it specific.

Jewish, Christian, Sikh and Muslim cultures have generally perceived homosexual behaviour as sinful. Many Jewish and Christian leaders, however, have gone to great lengths to make clear that it is the homosexual acts and not the homosexual individuals or their "orientation" that is condemned.

[bELyVIS]

Originally Posted by ozkai

I believe the Catholic church has a huge problem with homosexual priests.

I suggest you check your facts beforehand.

How can you have a homosexual priest if sex is forbidden? I know in truth many are, but the church will never admit it. Celibacy is a stupid tradition and causes most of the problems in the church.

[Tenchu]

Originally Posted by ozkai

I believe the Catholic church has a huge problem with homosexual priests.

I suggest you check your facts beforehand.

WTF are you talking about?

What "fact" was wrong? The Catholics are some of the most anti gay there are...

[YoshimiTheEthereal]

In ancient Japan, the Buddhist monks preached homosexuality between men because they felt it was more pure for a man to be with a man rather than a woman, because they believed women were like dirt.

But what mercedesjin was saying is that homosexuality existed, it just didn't have a label. People didn't have a name for same-sex couples, it was just couples.

I agree with you, mercedesjin, on everything that you have said.

I think I should make speeches, march around with picket signs, and write a letter to President Obama about this issue. Maybe he will agree with me?