The "Family Values" trope.

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Or more supportive underwear.

I honestly can't think of any kind of underwear that would do anything close to that. The only time my testicles were ever crushed was when I paid someone to do it and I haven't had that kind of money in years!

I have it on good authority, and totally not from personal experience, that lady panties will do the trick.

I didn't know sex ed was that bad these days. Maybe some people don't know how testicles really work.

It's pretty bad. I saw (On a show called Bullshit, admittedly) one teacher who had to describe how to put a condom one by using his foot and a rolled up sock, because he wasn't even allowed to say the word 'condom.'

My own 'Health' (Not Sex Ed) class was fairly rudimentary, as well. The only thing we did was look at pictures of STD riddled groins. Fairly effective, though - I spent a whole week studying latex on my own time in a flurry of panic and terror and didn't have sex until I was in the Army.

i'm not one to use the word puritanical sine it is allways abused by people who don't want to talk about problematic sexualization but there simply does not exist a more fitting word for the religious right wing inthe US. i live in one of the last countries in the modern world to abolish the state religion (and it only happened 4 years ago) and i remember having sex ed to the point where it became absolute drudgery. an entire feckin month every year for three years plus an extremely akward visit to a medical centre which specializes in it. i cannot comprehend how anyone could belive HIV, STDs and teenage pregnancies ot be lesser evils than teenage promiscuity, and htat is before you consider hte fact that trying to prevent teenage promiscuity is like trying to prevent the earth from orbiting the sun

 

[Cowabungaa]

Yes, the nuclear family that civilization was literally built upon. Is it perfect? Hell no. Has it objectively proven itself to be better then a society filled with single parents? Yes.

Factually untrue I'm afraid. In that civilization was not built upon the 'nuclear family' at all. The concept by name has only been relevant for a few decades around the mid 20th century and is already losing ground fast, while the concept without its name and in a bit more broad sense perhaps has been relevant for around 100/200 years.

So yeah, sorry.

 

[Zontar]

Yes, the nuclear family that civilization was literally built upon. Is it perfect? Hell no. Has it objectively proven itself to be better then a society filled with single parents? Yes.

Factually untrue I'm afraid. In that civilization was not built upon the 'nuclear family' at all. The concept by name has only been relevant for a few decades around the mid 20th century and is already losing ground fast, while the concept without its name and in a bit more broad sense perhaps has been relevant for around 100/200 years.

So yeah, sorry.

The nuclear family was giving a title to something that has always been there. It's like how the word racism and sexism where created in the 60s, the creation of the word was not the point the concept was created, it's the point it was named.

In terms of the basic family unit (parents, children) every civilization that passed the point of Chiefdoms have, without a single exception, developed with that as the backbone of society. In fact in regards to Europe, the Middle East and China we are quite literally incapable of finding either archaeological evidence or written records where the basic family unit was not the defining characteristic of the structure of society at large for those not of the micro-class of elites. It's to the point where it's an open debate amongst historians if the change to such a family unit is one of the necessities of civilization to develop.

The idea that it has been relevant for 100-200 years is itself a new concept, especially as the United States alone proves that the concept has been around since at least the 1600s as every single colony settlement was built around it all the way back to Plymouth.

The nuclear family was like racism or sexism, not the introduction of a new concept but the codification of one so old and so ubiquitous throughout society it didn't need a name. The fact it arose at the same time that failed Marxist experiments began taking place for collective state parent-ship (such as the USSR's disastrous early experiments in the state taking the place of a child's mother) is likely no coincidence.

 

[Cowabungaa]

snip

Not completely true. I mentioned two definitions for a reason. The more nebulous broad term, that of a pair of adults living with their children as a confined familial economic unit has arguably been in play for the longest time. But even that sociological structure has not been in play everywhere and not for the longest time either. That title, if I recall correctly, goes to the extended family structure, not the nuclear family structure. If only through economic necessity but often culturally as well. Hell, the extended family structure is still dominant in many parts of the world. It only became viable when the industrious revolution and later the industrial revolution really took off, though okay that's more like 300/400 years. And seeing as human civilization is around 6000 years old it's quite silly to say 'the nuclear family that civilization was literally built upon.' That's hyperbole.

Regardless, that's not the definition this topic is about. This topic is about 'family values' as we hear about it today, it's about the modern definition of the term nuclear family used by the groups mentioned by AccursedTheory earlier in the thread; a pair of parents, a housewife mother and a working father, and school-going children living together as a defined economic unit. An ideal born in the late 40's/early 50's, and plastered with plenty of moral justifications and imperatives, that has only stayed sociologically relevant for a few decades. So in short, this:

It's that definition that those aforementioned groups feel the need to defend, that they feel is threatened by things like gay marriage and such. And it's those family values that we're ultimately discussing in this thread.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Not completely true. I mentioned two definitions for a reason. The more nebulous broad term, that of a pair of adults living with their children as a confined familial economic unit has arguably been in play for the longest time. But even that sociological structure has not been in play everywhere and not for the longest time either. That title, if I recall correctly, goes to the extended family structure, not the nuclear family structure. If only through economic necessity. It only became viable when the industrious revolution and later the industrial revolution really took off, though okay that's more like 300/400 years. And seeing as human civilization is around 6000 years old it's quite silly to say 'the nuclear family that civilization was literally built upon.' That's hyperbole.

It's also blatantly wrong. In the Philippines you have three generations living under a single roof purely for economic reasons. It costs too much and it's too wasteful of energy to be alone, and close familial cohesion maximises individual wealth. But calling such a structure as conducive to 'civilization' blatantly ignores that as societies develop, they go from large familial structures into smaller units. If anything, liberty to be alone and live alone is a luxury compared to most developing economies.

Exile from the family unit, refusal to labour for the family unit, all of which can lead to poverty in the Philippines. It does nothing to uplift a population, it does everything to contain the expressions of individuals and exert power upon them to conform. Needs must is not a civilizing trait. Artistic and scientific growth of an economy is directly linked to being free of as many conditions that serve to bind one financially to another on a personal scale. The ability for a single parent to be without a spouse is singularly a liberty enjoyed by societies that can entertain such a developed economic state. Whereby one can be free from having to meet the needs of those that would abuse them, rather than having to live in pain because it is all one can afford to do.

 

[Dollabillyall]

Third, what you have to understand about christians is that in their culture (and yes, their culture should be respected in the same way you respect the culture and religion of muslims, hindus, jews and world views of that sort) view marriage as a bond ordained by God directly and thus it is inconceivable that there be something recognized as "marriage" that happens outside of that frame.

It should be respected up until it starts shoving itself on to those who don't accept it. It often seems to get treated differently because, at least in the US, it has more power and tries to do things that others do not, at least not here. I've yet to hear about the Muslim senators or 'family values' organizations in the US decrying gay marriage, so of course it is the culture or certain Christmas that gets (well deserved) disrespect.

Naturally, the concept of marriage is not exclusively christian one from a scientific perspective but then again christians view the world through a different lens than seculars. That means that the concept of marriage actually has a different meaning to you than it does to them. Where you might view it as a promise to attempt a life together by two (or more) sexual and emotional partners a christian would define it as that holy bond between two people as ordained by God. Then the concept of gay marriage (as opposed to other forms of (semi-)contractual partnership).

Well they need to learn that they don't get to force everyone else to accept their religiously based definition. The problem is exclusively theirs, and they need to quit with the stubborn ignorance.

Should we all think about ways to reconcile the christian conception of marriage with the secular one in order to leave the current state of things where christians feel attacked in their religion and gay people feel suppressed in their freedom? I sure think so, and family values is potentially a big part of that discussion.

Why? What needs reconciliation? The problem is the Christians in question are throwing a fit over the government not using their religiously defined definition. It's not hard to comprehend the concept that people reject their religion and shouldn't be expected to follow their definitions and that a secular definition should be used.

What I notice when I say things like that we should foster mutual respect and understanding is that both sides of the argument are quick to jump in and shout "NO FUCK THOSE GUYS". That attitude is not going to actually get us as a species anywhere. Instead of trying to shove your non-christian view down their throats (and regardless of your perception not being that you are doing that, theirs is and that is what you're going to have to deal with one way or another) try to view the issue through their perspective. The problem is not exclusively the fault of "insert opposing side here" in any case. Refusal to understand a problem from different perspectives is pretty much equal to refusing an enormous chance to find a solution that will actually move the whole thing forward without polarising society any more than it already is.
Also, "they need to stop their stubborn ignorance" is something that christians may say about your rejection of the faith. It's a matter of perspective.

Third, what you have to understand about christians is that in their culture (and yes, their culture should be respected in the same way you respect the culture and religion of muslims, hindus, jews and world views of that sort) view marriage as a bond ordained by God directly and thus it is inconceivable that there be something recognized as "marriage" that happens outside of that frame.

Naturally, the concept of marriage is not exclusively christian one from a scientific perspective but then again christians view the world through a different lens than seculars. That means that the concept of marriage actually has a different meaning to you than it does to them. Where you might view it as a promise to attempt a life together by two (or more) sexual and emotional partners a christian would define it as that holy bond between two people as ordained by God. Then the concept of gay marriage (as opposed to other forms of (semi-)contractual partnership).

No.

Marriage isn't a 'scientific' concept. What it is, is a word. A word we all share. Language, be it spoken or written, is the most important and powerful invention of man. To hell with fire - Prometheus should have left the flames at home and brought a book. And despite what Christians may think, 'The Word' is not theirs. It is the legacy of all mankind.

So guess what - Christians don't get to define words, or choose how people use them. Marriage is the combination of two things, as recognized by a higher power. If your higher power is God, fine, but the moment you try to claim the word for God alone, you can go shove off. Especially when that word is often used to describe the perfect melding of two ingredients in a recipe. Where's the Christian outrage against the culinary world?

TL;DR - Language belongs to everyone. Hell, Christians don't even own the word christ.

I have no interest in responding to anything else you said. I'm sure someone else here will tear that nonsense apart without my assistance.

Do you care nothing for honest debate? I did not say marriage is a scientific concept. If you read more closely you will see that I spoke of a scientific PERSPECTIVE of marriage (historical, anthropological etc.). Neither did I say that christians get to define words unilateraly. What you need to understand is that, as you said, language belongs to everyone. Therefore it is natural for different people to give different meanings to the same concept as well as different interpretations of it's genesis. If then a problem arises around that concept and you wish to solve it you need to UNDERSTAND eachother on a deeper level than "DEY DA ENEMY". If you understand the way christians experience the concept of marriage better then you start to understand the underlying causes and mechanisms that cause them to clash with your interpretation... having more knowledge of those mechanisms and causes makes you more able to formulate solutions that will incur less resistance or even support.
No solutions have ever come from unwillingness to understand, bar those that stem from violence.

So am I pro-family values? I sure am. Do I have the same view on what they are or should be as Fox news? Fuck no. Should we all think about ways to reconcile the christian conception of marriage with the secular one in order to leave the current state of things where christians feel attacked in their religion and gay people feel suppressed in their freedom? I sure think so, and family values is potentially a big part of that discussion.

I'm sorry, but I have to say a big no to this. Marriage has been around a lot longer that Christianity, and it will probably be around long after as well. And Christians are feeling their religion is being attacked BECAUSE they are not allowed to suppress the freedoms of gay people, so I don't think that's a fair comparison to make. As for a "traditional" family being one man, one woman, and their children through most of history, well that's just downright incorrect. That is a fairly recent trend, and one that isn't even present in your bible. It is way more common throughout history for "marriage" to be one person married to many (usually one man and multiple women, but the opposite is also true in rare cases) or many to many in more of a communal family. And that's just talking about the "official" marriages, not the very common and often accepted affairs and such (many same-sex) which occur up to and including today.

Historically, homosexuality has been (partially due to prevalent social values rejecting it) a very unstable type of relationship as well. This may be part of the reason why many people still view homosexual couples as inherently unstable.

So openly gay relationships have shown to be very unstable because of the oppression and discrimination they have received, which can cause understandable strains, and thus this is why those discriminatory people think they are inherently unstable? Even better reason to ignore them when they try to pass laws infringing on the rights of LGBT peoples.

First off, it's not *my* bible. I'm not religious and never was.
Second, you state that marriage is not exclusively christian a concept and I agree... but that is not the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to make the point that if you wish to find solutions that fit everyone you need to understand and respect that other people have other perspectives of things, regardless of what you yourself hold to be a fact. They might believe just as strongly in their own interpretation as you do yours. Instead of making it a clash of deep philosophies (trying to win a debate that is in it's core impossible to settle without using very contested assumptions about the nature of knowledge), use that insight into their perspective to foster understanding between "your" side and "theirs". Perhaps from that understanding you can find actual solutions that don't, as you so well put it, completely ignore huge swathes of the American people thereby undermining the legitimacy of government to the point where within modern political theory starting a civil war is justifiable.
One should wonder wether using certain strategies to win a battle are not going to cost you the war in the long run. If you want progressivism to succeed long-term and nationwide you have to get as many people on board as possible... and you don't get people on board by spitting in their faces.
Then your claim that a human family unit not consisting of parents and their children is the norm for humans... I very much contest that on the basis of many different ancient cultures and religions state very strict rules under wich a person (usually a man) is allowed to take more than one wife with commonly the only excuse being that the first wife will not or cannot bear offspring. Geneticists usually claim monogamous relationships to have developed no later than 10k-20k years ago while paleo-anthropologists often state that monogamous relationships may have been present in australopithecus (a pre-human homonid extant around 2-4 million years ago). Besides monogamy, even in ancient societies where polygamous relationships had been the norm the family is recognized as the basic unit of society and relationships between spouses and their children had immense cultural significance. Even in modern-day chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas pairings of males and females primarily caring for their own children is the norm. Pair-bonding in humans and other primates is an extremely strong social formation seen across species, cultures and within the chemistry of our brains. I'd say that all makes a pretty strong case for the idea that humans are likely to have lived in most cases in primary social units consisting of parents and offspring, with larger societal units consisting of an amalgamation of those family units and invididuals primarily being focussed on those family units.
Lastly, homosexual couples being percieved as unstable is a fact... and ingoring that perception and the people that hold that perception is completely counterproductive to the gay rights agenda. What we all need to do is adress the issue in ways that supports understanding, recognizes shared ownership of the problem and creates solutions that find legitimacy among ALL walks of life rather than just one narrowly defined ideology.

 

[mduncan50]

Lastly, homosexual couples being percieved as unstable is a fact... and ingoring that perception and the people that hold that perception is completely counterproductive to the gay rights agenda. What we all need to do is adress the issue in ways that supports understanding, recognizes shared ownership of the problem and creates solutions that find legitimacy among ALL walks of life rather than just one narrowly defined ideology.

It's not about ignoring the perception, it is about realizing that that perception is not based at all in fact, and thus cannot be argued against in a factual manner, or else the person holding that perception would not have it in the first place. You can show a racist the proof from hundreds of studies that the color of one's skin has absolutely nothing to do with the mental capacity, ethical standing, or reliability of an individual, or a sexist that the same is not affected by whether one's genitals are innies or outties, but they are going to ignore that, because they have already built up these ideas whether through family upbringing, religion, or plain ignorance, without any proof at all to back up their ideologies.

I'm curious then what your solutions would be to "placate" those that wish to take away the rights of others for being different from themselves? Not call it marriage? Call it a "civil union"? An extra bathroom just for transgendered people? You seem to like trying to use history as a way of backing up your point, so tell me? How has "separate but equal" fared in the past?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Third, what you have to understand about christians is that in their culture (and yes, their culture should be respected in the same way you respect the culture and religion of muslims, hindus, jews and world views of that sort) view marriage as a bond ordained by God directly and thus it is inconceivable that there be something recognized as "marriage" that happens outside of that frame.

It should be respected up until it starts shoving itself on to those who don't accept it. It often seems to get treated differently because, at least in the US, it has more power and tries to do things that others do not, at least not here. I've yet to hear about the Muslim senators or 'family values' organizations in the US decrying gay marriage, so of course it is the culture or certain Christmas that gets (well deserved) disrespect.

Naturally, the concept of marriage is not exclusively christian one from a scientific perspective but then again christians view the world through a different lens than seculars. That means that the concept of marriage actually has a different meaning to you than it does to them. Where you might view it as a promise to attempt a life together by two (or more) sexual and emotional partners a christian would define it as that holy bond between two people as ordained by God. Then the concept of gay marriage (as opposed to other forms of (semi-)contractual partnership).

Well they need to learn that they don't get to force everyone else to accept their religiously based definition. The problem is exclusively theirs, and they need to quit with the stubborn ignorance.

Should we all think about ways to reconcile the christian conception of marriage with the secular one in order to leave the current state of things where christians feel attacked in their religion and gay people feel suppressed in their freedom? I sure think so, and family values is potentially a big part of that discussion.

Why? What needs reconciliation? The problem is the Christians in question are throwing a fit over the government not using their religiously defined definition. It's not hard to comprehend the concept that people reject their religion and shouldn't be expected to follow their definitions and that a secular definition should be used.

What I notice when I say things like that we should foster mutual respect and understanding is that both sides of the argument are quick to jump in and shout "NO FUCK THOSE GUYS".

Thanks for 'understanding' my point so well.

I didn't say 'fuck those guys'. I understand perfectly well what their position is. I am explaining to you that when one side has utterly unreasonable demands then there should not be compromise.

Mutual respect doesn't exist when one side wishes to deny the rights of the other side. At best you are asking for people to pander to the aggressors.

That attitude is not going to actually get us as a species anywhere.

Your attitude ignores justice in favor of making the aggressors feel like they did nothing wrong and expecting people who just want fair treatment to act like this is somehow an unfair demand.

Instead of trying to shove your non-christian view down their throats (and regardless of your perception not being that you are doing that, theirs is and that is what you're going to have to deal with one way or another) try to view the issue through their perspective.

After understanding motives that gives little else. It doesn't mean I'm not going to still say the other is being ridiculous. I can understand a child wanting sweets and can try to explain to expand their understanding, but at the end of the day that doesn't mean they should be given any concessions. It does not mean their position deserves respect.

The problem is not exclusively the fault of "insert opposing side here" in any case.

You demonstrated this... how again?

One side wants fair treatment. The other side wants to protect their religious definition and impose it on the entire nation. So... what has the other side done that is a problem? Rejected religious tyranny?

Refusal to understand a problem from different perspectives is pretty much equal to refusing an enormous chance to find a solution that will actually move the whole thing forward without polarising society any more than it already is.

Equating not agreeing with you to not understanding is utterly dishonest.

Also, "they need to stop their stubborn ignorance" is something that christians may say about your rejection of the faith. It's a matter of perspective.

And Hitler can claim the Jews were oppressing the Germans. So what? People can reply with utterly false shit all they want

They can attempt to be petty tyrants, that's not the same as me rejecting their tyranny. And that's what it is. You daring to actually compare me saying people shouldn't have to follow their stupid rules to them insisting everyone must.

 

[mduncan50]

Hell, men simply sitting without crushing their testicles between their thighs is seen as a problem to these people. Forcing people to crush their own genitals because their clothed crotch offends you, that's tyranny, that's oppression, that's what certain progressive people want.

I have literally never heard of this happening anywhere ever. Perhaps it has somewhere in some random place, but it is nowhere near as common as institutionalized sexism, sexual harassment, and rape, so if the consequences of getting rid of those things is that some guy in Buttfuck, Nowhere has slightly tender testes, then I'm okay with that trade.

On what are you basing that assessment? New york isn't "buttfuck, nowhere".

[image src="http://i.imgur.com/WqZeNd8.jpg"]

And how do anti-manspread campaigns prevent sexual harassment and rape?

It seems far more similar to the uncomfortableness of wearing corsets.

So you post a picture from San Francisco (the New York of the west coast?) asking men to make enough room so that they're not taking up more than one seat, and specifically saying "It's a space issue" and you personally equate that to sexual harassment and rape, and then ask why everyone else thinks it prevents sexual harassment and rape? I have literally never heard anyone say that it has anything to do with sexual harassment and rape, except for those poor oppressed men that are arguing that everyone else says that.

 

[Namehere]

Hell, men simply sitting without crushing their testicles between their thighs is seen as a problem to these people. Forcing people to crush their own genitals because their clothed crotch offends you, that's tyranny, that's oppression, that's what certain progressive people want.

I have literally never heard of this happening anywhere ever. Perhaps it has somewhere in some random place, but it is nowhere near as common as institutionalized sexism, sexual harassment, and rape, so if the consequences of getting rid of those things is that some guy in Buttfuck, Nowhere has slightly tender testes, then I'm okay with that trade.

On what are you basing that assessment? New york isn't "buttfuck, nowhere".

[image src="http://i.imgur.com/WqZeNd8.jpg"]

And how do anti-manspread campaigns prevent sexual harassment and rape?

It seems far more similar to the uncomfortableness of wearing corsets.

So you post a picture from San Francisco (the New York of the west coast?) asking men to make enough room so that they're not taking up more than one seat, and specifically saying "It's a space issue" and you personally equate that to sexual harassment and rape, and then ask why everyone else thinks it prevents sexual harassment and rape? I have literally never heard anyone say that it has anything to do with sexual harassment and rape, except for those poor oppressed men that are arguing that everyone else says that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading

Here's an article on it from the NYT back in 2014: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/nyregion/MTA-targets-manspreading-on-new-york-city-subways.html?_r=0

It's fascinating that you should bring up the issue as one of subway etiquette. Many people did, which lead to questions like: "Why just manspreading and not women stacking seats with hand bags and other carry on luggage?" It was perceived as being treated as a gender issue rather then that some people simply lack etiquette. This perception was not helped by people claiming that men who sit with their legs apart, even when there is space, are merely attempting to oppress the women on the same car who can see it, as if sitting that way was somehow a painfully obvious stance of power.

Strangely enough if you look at the NYT article on manspreading I posted for you... they claim the image Dunam posted was made for the MTA, New York's public transit authority, isn't it? So I don't know where your getting the idea that it's from San Francisco. Maybe San Francisco adopted the same poster?

 

[mduncan50]

I'll start by apologizing, you are right, the sign did originate in New York and get picked up on the west coast, so that was my bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading

Here's an article on it from the NYT back in 2014: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/nyregion/MTA-targets-manspreading-on-new-york-city-subways.html?_r=0

It's fascinating that you should bring up the issue as one of subway etiquette. Many people did, which lead to questions like: "Why just manspreading and not women stacking seats with hand bags and other carry on luggage?" It was perceived as being treated as a gender issue rather then that some people simply lack etiquette. This perception was not helped by people claiming that men who sit with their legs apart, even when there is space, are merely attempting to oppress the women on the same car who can see it, as if sitting that way was somehow a painfully obvious stance of power.

You want to know why they're only targeting people (not just men) spreading their legs instead of also including people with purses and packages? They're not.

"As part of our strategic-plan goals, we are looking to do additional outreach regarding Muni etiquette," SFMTA spokesman Paul Rose said.

"Based on the survey results, outreach could include things like: not leaning on doors, asking passengers to move all the way and not stopping at the doorway, manspreading, not leaving large bags in aisles and on seats," and more, he said.

So they are looking at trying affect many different thoughtless activities that affect other riders, but since people need a reason to feel oppressed they will pick out the one thing that may describe themselves and claim discrimination.

Even the article you linked is misleading, as it is also just cherry picking one thing (using only one seat) and trying to turn it into something it is not to try to get more hits. The article itself admits that New York Transit has been running such "courtesy" ads for at least 70 years, like this one from the 50s (you can tell it's from the 50s because they're all white):

And you can't even say they're focusing on it more now, because the picture you showed is just one of at least 15 or so that I have been able to find with just a cursory search. Here's a few (now both red AND green people are represented):

 

[mduncan50]

Why would you say "I have literally never heard anyone say that is has anything to do with sexual harassment and rape"?

1. The person who I replied to in this thread equated it as such. You could have seen it in this thread. Ie: you.
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11643966/Manspreading-New-York-arrest-I-was-groped-by-a-mans-legs-on-the-train.html
3. Why do you think that using disparaging terms about men is a good way to showcase that you're for gender equality?

1. If you would actually read the entire sentence rather than stopping halfway through, you would see that it ends with "...except for those poor oppressed men that are arguing that everyone else says that." So I did, in fact acknowledge that it was said in this thread.
2. If you actually read the article (is it just a reading issue?) you would see that she was talking about a specific instance where a man was making it obvious that he was trying to initiate physical contact for his own enjoyment, and that she was not saying that any man spreading his legs is "groping" her.
3. It's not a term that I have been using. It is honestly not a term I had heard about up until this thread started, and it is, quite frankly, very silly. It is also a term that seems (in the limited research I have done since) to be used mostly by men talking about being asked not to spread their legs, as opposed to being used by the people asking them not to spread their legs.

 

[mduncan50]

1. You're calling yourself a "poor oppressed man"? You brought it up as a manspreading being acceptable because it somehow fights sexual harassment and rape. How?
2. No need for condescension. Here it's brought up in relation to sexual harassment by a woman. You had never heard this before, as you said.
3. I assume you're for gender equality. Why would you use disparaging gendered terms like "poor oppressed men"? Doesn't seem very equality minded to me.

1. I never called myself anything, and I certainly never said a manspreading being acceptable because it somehow fights sexual harassment and rape. First off, that sentence makes no sense. Secondly I never said one caused the other or had anything to do with the other. The person I was responding to was the one that had compared the two as being equal forms of oppression.
2. If you can read that article and say that what that man was doing is acceptable and that you do it all the time, then maybe the hypothetical me that you invented is right, and there is a connection with sexual harassment, because that was very clearly what it was, not just some guy trying to sit comfortably.
3. I am not disparaging a gender, I am disparaging a small subset of that gender that is making up an oppression to make themselves feel like victims, when they have no idea what true oppression is. I would gladly make the same kind of disparaging remark about any such group regardless of race, creed, religion, or testicle having.

All that being said, I'm not going to keep responding to these. You've obviously made up your mind, so what's the point, and the poor guy didn't deserve having his post hijacked. Hugs to you all.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Hell, men simply sitting without crushing their testicles between their thighs is seen as a problem to these people. Forcing people to crush their own genitals because their clothed crotch offends you, that's tyranny, that's oppression, that's what certain progressive people want.

I have literally never heard of this happening anywhere ever. Perhaps it has somewhere in some random place, but it is nowhere near as common as institutionalized sexism, sexual harassment, and rape, so if the consequences of getting rid of those things is that some guy in Buttfuck, Nowhere has slightly tender testes, then I'm okay with that trade.

But why not do neither of these things? Why is it a trade? That's what i don't get. Forcing people to crush their testicles doesn't really help anybody, it doesn't do anything whatsoever to stop institutionalized sexism, sexual harassment and rape, so why do you act like it's a trade? Because it's not at all, and i have no clue at all how you came to that conclusion.

manspreading is bad because it is rude to the entire bus/metro you currently occupy at any time you do it. there is little enough space in those things during the rush hours without someone taking up two for the sake of their bollocks. i never do it because it is a dick move and speaking from experience "crushed testicles" do not occur as a result of it. it is one of the softest parts of the body located between some of its strongest and most frequently moving muscles. if it could take that little humanity would have died out from mass male infertility millenia ago

 

[Something Amyss]

To be fair, there were more diversity in Rita's forces. If anything, Power Rangers is a tale of the many varied peoples loyal to a justly angry person trying to claim a place of the paradise that is Earth, and humanity is greedily keeping it to themselves. Treated like literal garbage, locked away for 10,000 years in inhumane conditions, Rita is merely fighting a revolution against those responsible for such pain and hardship.

Huh. You know, I'd never thought of that in that way. It makes a lot of sense, though. What if she was put away for her differences? That's super sinister.

And the entire ensemble does hold a lot of appeal. I can't help but think the world would be more fun if people dressed like that normally. Of course by dint of that, you'd need something even funner to make an over-the-top villainous even ... funnerer?

Badass Repulsa-style magical wand is basically the answer to bringing back fashionable canes, I think.

I have the urge to say "now, watch my wardrobe grow!"

Yeah, but it still hurts to see such attitudes. Destroying civilization, indeed. Plenty of homeless kids ... in shelters, orphanages. All of them could use a good home. And given that so many of them are made homeless for being gay or trans, they could really use parents that understand that and be supportive.

No, agreed. In fairness, I tend to verbally downplay things a lot. Specifically because of my own experiences. My instinct is generally to downplay, dismiss or joke about some pretty horrible things. So the whole "gee, what a surprise" thing usually htis two or three of those marks.

Sorry state of affairs. Though I do maintain a sensible degree of hope. Frankly, I think a lot of it comes from heightened visibility. You get the growing visibility, it enters the common psyche, and the public vitriol grows, but so does the recognition of that hatred. It's no longer behind closed doors. The ugliness is there in full view. Even the average person are confronted with the knowledge that the garbage arguments of the past, like; "The break up of family values..." and recognise what they are for what they are.

Bigoted nonsense to protect a mythical quality that never existed.

Things are always improving. It just never seems like it's enough, so it's easy to be pessimistic.