Oo, I came up with another one. People getting all whiny about what other people think. It drives me insane.
societal conventions you hate
- Thread starter Oly J
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why don't you try a little moxie?intheweeds said:
"Excuse me! Ah, blah-blah-bleh, yeah, I know, whatever. Where are your parents? Oh, you're 'Mommy?' Mommy, would you mind controlling your child? I just nearly took his head off with my shopping cart, and I'd like to finish my shopping experience free of bloodbaths. 'Kay?"
I will not write a huge rant on this (I COULD, but it would go on a bit.)
Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ph3JiEsJM4&NR=1
And then consider the damage ANY FORM of organised religion has done to the world. We needed it to survive the dark ages yes, but now? It is just creating wars and holding back scientific advances. To paraphrase on the top comments on the above video -
"Given that we lived on an ultimately doomed planet, the fact that we try and remain blissfully ignorant by hiding in pretence of a benevolent God, is a one way ticket to a horrible fiery death and the extinction of possibly the only sentient life form in the universe."
Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ph3JiEsJM4&NR=1
And then consider the damage ANY FORM of organised religion has done to the world. We needed it to survive the dark ages yes, but now? It is just creating wars and holding back scientific advances. To paraphrase on the top comments on the above video -
"Given that we lived on an ultimately doomed planet, the fact that we try and remain blissfully ignorant by hiding in pretence of a benevolent God, is a one way ticket to a horrible fiery death and the extinction of possibly the only sentient life form in the universe."
A lot of people here don't seem to know the definition of feminism. Open any dictionary in existence and you won't find "The idea that women are superior to men" under the entry "feminism". All people who believe in superiority of any gender towards another are not feminists or whatever; they're douchebags. So when you talk about people that act like shit and expect something from you based on your gender, don't call them feminists because they're not.
In the past, women were regarded as less than humans; they were property of men and they had no access to education, they could not choose what they wanted to be or what they wanted to do with their lives. They were birth machines and a pretty scenery. People believed that a woman cannot think and have a logical reasoning, that she cannot be strong, smart or capable of anything more than bearing children and serving men. This continued for thousands of years, until a few decades ago we finally managed to fix things up a little. However, in many parts of the world, women are still being treated like they were treated in the past. A little bit of sexism sneaks in even in the western civilization, but generally, things improved drastically. Thanks to whom or what? Thanks to feminists (both female and male) and feminism. Thanks to that movement, I can go to college, I am not married and with five kids in my lap, I am now writing this and I have the right to be whoever I fucking want. And I am in full support of men who also want to be treated individually, not as a part of stereotyped group called "men", and I want the societal conventions that hover over men's heads to be gone just as I want those that are imposed on women to be gone too. Anyone who expects something from you based on your gender is either not worth your time or in dire need of education.
I expect anyone to hold the door open if I'm right behind them, not because I'm a woman and I can't open a door myself, but because it's considered outright rude to slam the door into my face when I'm right behind you. And just as I expect it from others, I do it for others, regardless of their gender. If someone drops something, I will get down to pick it up, because it's polite. If someone requires help, I will help, because it's polite. If I opened a door and someone is right behind me, I will hold the door open, because it's polite. If someone gets offended by politeness, they're rude douchebags. But if someone decides not to be polite in order not to conform to some imagined stereotyped "feminists", they're douchebags too.
OT: I hate societal conventions regarding gender (surprise, surprise!). ALL of them.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
In the past, women were regarded as less than humans; they were property of men and they had no access to education, they could not choose what they wanted to be or what they wanted to do with their lives. They were birth machines and a pretty scenery. People believed that a woman cannot think and have a logical reasoning, that she cannot be strong, smart or capable of anything more than bearing children and serving men. This continued for thousands of years, until a few decades ago we finally managed to fix things up a little. However, in many parts of the world, women are still being treated like they were treated in the past. A little bit of sexism sneaks in even in the western civilization, but generally, things improved drastically. Thanks to whom or what? Thanks to feminists (both female and male) and feminism. Thanks to that movement, I can go to college, I am not married and with five kids in my lap, I am now writing this and I have the right to be whoever I fucking want. And I am in full support of men who also want to be treated individually, not as a part of stereotyped group called "men", and I want the societal conventions that hover over men's heads to be gone just as I want those that are imposed on women to be gone too. Anyone who expects something from you based on your gender is either not worth your time or in dire need of education.
I expect anyone to hold the door open if I'm right behind them, not because I'm a woman and I can't open a door myself, but because it's considered outright rude to slam the door into my face when I'm right behind you. And just as I expect it from others, I do it for others, regardless of their gender. If someone drops something, I will get down to pick it up, because it's polite. If someone requires help, I will help, because it's polite. If I opened a door and someone is right behind me, I will hold the door open, because it's polite. If someone gets offended by politeness, they're rude douchebags. But if someone decides not to be polite in order not to conform to some imagined stereotyped "feminists", they're douchebags too.
OT: I hate societal conventions regarding gender (surprise, surprise!). ALL of them.
And this. So much this.The Rockerfly said:
Okay, get this. In finnish we have this one word, "neekeri". In english, I suppose it could be translated into ******. The translation is alright by me, it's pretty clear and logical. However, what the translation doesn't convey is meaning. The word "neekeri" is not racist, it's just a word used to describe blacks. I absolutely hate that people seem to get offended by it simply 'cos the english word is used as an insult. People seem to have lost all sense of cultural difference. If it's a bad word somewhere, it must be a bad word here.
Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone. I knew a black guy in school who got pissed at people for calling him "dark skinned" instead of "******". It takes longer to pronounce and just doesn't roll off the tongue. But still, celebrities and politicians all over Finland try to make the word come off as racist, and it's starting to rub off on people.
Also, I dislike that people think hawaiian t-shirts should only be worn during the summer. Also, why can't they be worn with skull-shirts? That's a kick-ass combo right there, let me tell you that.
Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone. I knew a black guy in school who got pissed at people for calling him "dark skinned" instead of "******". It takes longer to pronounce and just doesn't roll off the tongue. But still, celebrities and politicians all over Finland try to make the word come off as racist, and it's starting to rub off on people.
Also, I dislike that people think hawaiian t-shirts should only be worn during the summer. Also, why can't they be worn with skull-shirts? That's a kick-ass combo right there, let me tell you that.
Oh good, I'm not the only one that gets weirded out by that. And what's wrong with just a handshake? I don't know you, so why all the space invading?badgersprite said:
OT: Small talk, not a fan of it, especially if I have to talk to someone that's a pretentious jerk. Since I have a social anxiety this is painful to me, what do you mean I can't just sit my table and be happy doing that? Why did you invite me in the first place then?
Viva La Revolution!smithy_2045 said:
Also not a fan of being thwacked with other peoples religion. I mean if you are religious fine and I support and respect your right to be so. But it seems to be whenever I open my mouth on the subject that I am an atheist the lecturers and fired up mobs come out of the woodworks.
The bipolar sexist/racist attitudes of some people. equal implies literally that, equal. not above or below.
Still though..the pants thing is my major peeve...
It's not a good reason though.The whole idea of baptism is that you intend to raise your child in the christian faith(Hell a vow to do exactly that is part of the baptism ritual).Why make that vow if you have no intention of keeping it?For example my friend's daughter is having her first communion this weekend(which is the second ceremony thingy you mentioned).The girl is 8 years old and I genuinely don't think she has ever been to mass in her life.The only reason they're getting it done is because everyone else is and that's never a good reason to do somethingbliebblob said:
I know plenty of people who have had their children baptised and when I've asked why the 3 reasons usually given are
1.It's tradition
2.Family members(usually parents or grandparents)would be upset if they didn't
3.They don't want their child to feel left out in school when the rest are getting communion and confirmation
None of those are valid reasons.The only valid reason is to raise your child in the faith and that is the one reason usually not given.If parents really want to give their kids a choice then they should wait till the kid is in their teens and old enough to make the decision for themselves
Read, my post, you never hear anything good about it because good and neutral are the norm.ToxicOranges said:
note that nowhere did I claim that any side of any argument is perfect, just that one shouldn't judge a book by its cover, especially in today's world where the cover is never made by the same guy as the booktheheroofaction said:
Please, don't believe anything you hear, Believing slander is farther from enlightenment than knowing nothing.
For me, well... it's probably a lot of things, like for instance ignorant and/or close-minded people. And possibly guilty people never being punished for their crimes. Also, the notion that one person is better than another because of race/gender/religion/ect.
Seriously. Stuff like that is why I don't care for people in general...
Seriously. Stuff like that is why I don't care for people in general...
It's cute when people don't understand any of the things they talk about and then accuse others of being morons.MyFooThurTS said:
You assume 'acting like men' is intrinsic. It's not, and you need to learn what the word gender means. Unless you're the worst gay man in the world I assume you've managed to have a functional sexual relationship with another man without having some kind of screaming identity crisis about violating your own masculinity. The term 'acting like a man' is completely meaningless, because there are very few behaviours, none of which can be acceptably done in public, which inherently signify a male position without any kind of social interpretation.
Misandry does not mean what you think. It is not based on a hatred of 'male behaviours', but an essential position that all men perform male behaviours to the detriment of women. Misandrists don't generally go into a raging fit whenever they see a woman in a trouser suit or drinking beer. It is also not the same thing as misogyny because the genders are differentially positioned. This is fucking basic stuff.
The stereotypical misogynist doesn't exist. You're utterly assuming the existence of such a thing despite the complete absence of such in any kind of visual and material culture. Misogyny is not a school of thought, a belief or a conviction. It is almost never used in those terms except in a few extreme and unambiguous cases. Misogyny is a subtext which runs across a wide range of social formations and organizations. Also, if there was such a stereotype you've got it utterly wrong. Misogynists love 'female' behaviours in the traditional sense, because those behaviours generally keep women well confined and controlled within the domestic sphere.
You sit there and whine about how men aren't allowed to be men. What the fuck are you even talking about. If you expect there not to be social consequences for behaving in a certain way because that's 'what men do' then you can fuck right off. If a woman decides that getting married is her duty and she should sit at home squirting out babies because that's what being a woman means, sure, maybe she can, but do you think that doesn't position her or colour the way in which people react to her.
Point one. Drinking beer is not intrinsic to masculinity. Liking cars is not intrinsic to masculinity. Fighting is not intrinsic to masculinity. The world is full of men who don't do these things. You talk about wanting to do what you want, but what you actually want is for everyone to share your conception of what you are and to grant you exemptions from social critique based on that. No, of course they fucking won't. It's the 21st century and you have to take some responsibility for yourself, not sitting there whining about what a man is meant to do and insulting your entire sex in the process. You're allowed to be more complicated than that, and you're deliberately choosing not to be and expecting everyone else to do the same or else they might be 'feminine', forgive me if I'm not impressed.
Point two. 'Being a man' is not something you do on your own. If it was, the fact that women didn't like you 'being a man' wouldn't matter. Being a man only matters if there are women around who share that conception and value it. You're not just asking for the right to 'be a man' in the terms you describe, you're saying that women have an obligation to accept and value that. There is an unspoken assumption of superiority inherent in the state of being a man. When men go to war, it is partly on the assumption of protecting women. When men fight, it is often explicitly or implicitly seen as a competition over who is most fit to possess women. Note the word 'possess' in that sentence. By positioning women in relation to the traits you describe, you also position a degree of power and ownership over them.
Or to be blunt, by essentializing traits you also essentialize the relationships between traits, which are fundamentally very unfair.
Acceptance of people as human beings vs. strategic essentialism of groups based on unequal positions. It's a simple fucking concept.
Hyperbole, not sarcasm. Look them up.someonehairy-ish said:
Also, even if it was, sarcasm isn't meaningless.
Yeah that's another peeve of mine. If you're going to defend a group of people with one hand you can't stereotype and belittle them with the other. There's this rumor going round at my school right now about what two guy's (one of them openly gay, the other one less so) may have done with each other in the toilets, and I have literally heard people defend the openly gay guy from insults, and then when they hear about the rumor say "OMG two guys doing that to each other is fucking disgusting"... WTF much. There's also I guy I know you says "I have no problem with having gay friends, but if my little sister turns out gay I'm kicking her out of the house"Ranchcroutons said:
Formal attire. Look, I live in Texas. It gets really fucking hot down here, even in the winter. The thought of wearing dress pants, dress shirt and a jacket (tie optional) is frankly unbearable! I have no idea why suits are expected in "formal" settings, but then again I have yet to meet anybody associated with the business school who isn't a) retarded, b) a cancer on society, or c) a retarded cancer on society. Suits are expensive and uncomfortable. They can only be worn in air conditioned buildings without dying of dehydration from profuse sweating. I'm not saying that shorts and shirt are appropriate everywhere, but why not jeans+short-sleeve dress shirt? Light, comfortable and I still look better than 99% of suit wearers. 'course, there's the notion that I lack any credibility unless I'm wearing approximately a Mercedes worth of clothing, which is precisely why I have yet to observe any professor give a seminar/lecture in anything more formal than very business casual.
On that note, why the hell is tucking in your shirt seen as polite? It doesn't look good, just plain ridiculous. That's especially true for skinny people (like me), and overweight people.
On that note, why the hell is tucking in your shirt seen as polite? It doesn't look good, just plain ridiculous. That's especially true for skinny people (like me), and overweight people.
I agree with the tucking in of shirts, my shirt will never stay in my trouser waist, instead just ballooning around it. It looks very odd.TwistedEllipses said:
Although I do disagree with ties, I think that they're lovely.
I also dislike applause during comedy shows. I mean, shut up audience, I can appreciate laughter but applause just gets in the way and normally comes just after something really pandering and dull. Take, for example, Ian Hislop on Have I Got News For You, very funny, but every five minutes says one thing political and the audience explodes.
Beliyal said:
OT: The automatic assumption that the way things are is the way things should be, and anything that might change it is therefore wrong.evilthecat said:
You just have a persecution complex, it has nothing to do with this site. A men doesn't have a secondary sex organ in his chest, or do you think we walk around without pants? Also the assumption that men don't care about their looks or physical fitness (or aren't persecuted for it) is ridiculous.JanatUrlich said:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2010-09-01-single-women_N.htm
Here is the latest census data from 2010, it shows that women in their 20 to early 30's, as well as lesbians and single women, earn on average more than men. The "pay gap" that feminist sites like to highlight is either from old data or a result of pregnancy. Many women who have children choose to stay off the workforce for a few years, which places them behind full time working men as well as childless women in terms of pay in later years.
Don't hold such a bleak outlook on how things are, they are getting better.
When people blame the entire opposite sex as a whole because they got rejected a few times. Like,when men say "women are evil/confusing/stuck-up/etc" when really they mean "that one chick who wouldn't go out with me is evil/confusing/stuck-up/etc". I also hate it when women do the same thing. Neither sex is innocent of this. I've heard women say "Men are stupid/thoughtless/jackasses/etc" just because one guy was a jerk. I guess generalizations in general bug me. =P
I'm a bit shocked at all the people who mentioned the whole women are independent but expect chivalry thing. I don't think it's as common as people make it out to be. Where I'm from (Waterloo, ON, Canada) EVERYONE holds the door for everyone. It's like... a weird local custom of politeness. And I don't expect chivalry from random men. I like that some of my guy friends have offered to walk me home at night, but that's more of a safety thing than a chivalry thing. Honestly, I'm just used to everyone being considerate to eachother regardless of gender.
I expect a little more if I'm dating someone, but I try to treat them similarly. That's a relationship thing more than a chivalry thing.
I hate that "feminism" has become a dirty word in society. The "radical feminists" who are so often criticized and used as staw men (er... straw women?) are a small minority. Feminism is about equality and overcoming double-standards... not creating new ones.
I'm a bit shocked at all the people who mentioned the whole women are independent but expect chivalry thing. I don't think it's as common as people make it out to be. Where I'm from (Waterloo, ON, Canada) EVERYONE holds the door for everyone. It's like... a weird local custom of politeness. And I don't expect chivalry from random men. I like that some of my guy friends have offered to walk me home at night, but that's more of a safety thing than a chivalry thing. Honestly, I'm just used to everyone being considerate to eachother regardless of gender.
I expect a little more if I'm dating someone, but I try to treat them similarly. That's a relationship thing more than a chivalry thing.
I hate that "feminism" has become a dirty word in society. The "radical feminists" who are so often criticized and used as staw men (er... straw women?) are a small minority. Feminism is about equality and overcoming double-standards... not creating new ones.
Yes, it's been fairly comprehensively villified by it's ideological opponents, to the extent that people supporting it's aims won't want to be associated with it's name.Erin Turnbull said:
Additionally, I don't see why radfems should be villified more than anyone else. All radical feminism is is the belief that social institutions should be replaced, rather than repaired, in order to achieve equality. It's merely a different approach to the goal.
Having said that, historically, the "replace" and the "repair" factions tend to fight each other almost as much as their nominal opponents in any number of ideologies, it's nothing new there.