|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 24, 2011 12:39:25 GMT -5
Yeah, fashion changes. What was considered acceptable to wear a hundred years ago would look silly today. If a woman went around in a balloon skirt à la Scarlett O'Hara she would be seen as weird, even though it's not cross-dressing.
The thing with women and pants is that it was a symbol for a greater cause. Women were being treated unfairly due to their sex, a quality one is born with, not a behavior one chooses to engage in. This injustice was about greater economic and social disparity, not because they couldn't wear pants. There have always been different fashion standards for men and women and this probably always will be. Exactly what are you advocating for? That stores no longer have separate men's and women's departments? That all clothing be considered unisex?
Through the victory of achieving equality (which I recognize is never fully done), women have changed fashion to now make it acceptable for women to wear pants. Society does not at all find it silly for women to be out in public wearing pants.
However, I don't see what the greater discrimination behind men not being able to wear dresses is. If you are able to get dresses for men to come into style, and I see dresses being sold in men's clothing, then I will instantly drop my criticism about men wearing dresses because it will have become acceptable fashion. Until that happens though, people see men wearing dresses as ridiculous, and I don't want me or my children to look ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by ohjohnno on Dec 24, 2011 13:07:27 GMT -5
(16-year-old male here, for future reference)
You know, guys, you're kind of being dickheads to cestle. Last I checked, don't parents have a right to decide how their children dress?
I've been prevented from getting video games I want to get by my parents before - most notably, Bioshock, as dad disagrees with the horror genre. It's their prerogative to do this, just as it's their prerogative to make me eat my greens and, indeed, buy me the clothes they consider appropriate for me. I might complain (I don't care what anyone says, peas are disgusting), but as long as I'm legally under their care, they have a right to do this. They also have a right to let me make my own decisions, if they want to (my bank account money is my own, to spend as I see fit - under the condition that I never go into debt, of course).
Cestle just wants his hypothetical future kids to wear clothes he deems appropriate. If his (again, hypothetical) little boy wants to wear a dress to school, then he's just going to have to put up with not being able to, in the same way that I have to grumble and put up with not getting Bioshock. It's not as if cestle is brutally stamping out his feelings (he already said he'd let him wear a dress in private) and forcing him to conform utterly to the average, typical male stereotype in every facet of his life. You guys are demonising him like crazy - seriously? Comparing him to Fred Phelps? Why not just go and fucking compare him to Hitler as well?
And finally: Not everyone needs to change the world. He's not a monster because he doesn't want to "rock the boat" and challenge societal values at every level all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 24, 2011 13:08:26 GMT -5
Who ordered the tone troll?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 24, 2011 13:23:26 GMT -5
YOu did with a side of "Y U Mad Bro".
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Dec 24, 2011 14:13:56 GMT -5
Being transgender is not a choice; cross-dressing is. And I'm sure you're all aware on here by now how I feel about chosen behaviors. They can be judged and they are not off-limits. People are judged on their actions. Fuck this shit. The whole "You can judge someone for something as long as it's a choice" meme tires me. It's the same argument as "We don't judge people for being gay, we judge them for engaging in homosexual activities". A relatively simple concept: Someone choosing to engage in an activity is not enough to justify disapproval. They also have to be doing something bad. I respect that you wouldn't let your son wear a dress at school. I disagree with that choice and think it's mistaken, but I understand defying societal standards is not a consequence-free action, and not everyone draws the line at the same place. I do not, however, respect this "I can judge crossdressers because they aren't following societal standards" attitude. Those societal standards are bullshit. Some guys are really more comfortable in typically-female clothing. I don't identify as female, I'm (mostly) comfortable in a male gender role, but I'd like the freedom to wear a skirt every once in a while, in public, without fear of repercussions. I don't have that freedom, despite the fact that the shape of the piece of cloth I put my legs in doesn't hurt anybody. And your "silent judgement" attitude helps perpetuate that, by normalising the general idea that it's OK to look down on someone for subverting that meaningless rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 24, 2011 14:18:42 GMT -5
YOu did with a side of "Y U Mad Bro". Tell the chef I am most displeased. |
|
|
|
Post by ohjohnno on Dec 24, 2011 14:29:38 GMT -5
I'll have you know I was prepared by the finest experts in the art of irritating politeness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 24, 2011 14:50:16 GMT -5
I'll have you know I was prepared by the finest experts in the art of irritating politeness. As annoyed as I am with you right now, you just won points for this comment. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 24, 2011 16:47:58 GMT -5
It's so cute that Lexi can somehow automatically know if someone is cross-dressing or is trans.
|
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Dec 24, 2011 22:15:54 GMT -5
The thing with women and pants is that it was a symbol for a greater cause. Women were being treated unfairly due to their sex, a quality one is born with, not a behavior one chooses to engage in. This injustice was about greater economic and social disparity, not because they couldn't wear pants. There have always been different fashion standards for men and women and this probably always will be. Exactly what are you advocating for? That stores no longer have separate men's and women's departments? That all clothing be considered unisex? Through the victory of achieving equality (which I recognize is never fully done), women have changed fashion to now make it acceptable for women to wear pants. Society does not at all find it silly for women to be out in public wearing pants. However, I don't see what the greater discrimination behind men not being able to wear dresses is. If you are able to get dresses for men to come into style, and I see dresses being sold in men's clothing, then I will instantly drop my criticism about men wearing dresses because it will have become acceptable fashion. Until that happens though, people see men wearing dresses as ridiculous, and I don't want me or my children to look ridiculous. But there is discrimination against men. Men are discouraged from showing any sign of emotion, even though bottling it up can eventually lead to psychological issues. Men are discouraged from being "touchy-feely," especially with other men, because this is considered "gay" behavior, and being gay, in turn, is considered a sign of weakness. Male victims of physical and emotional abuse are generally mocked for not being able to take abuse from "weak" women. Even if the woman is physically stronger than her victim. Male victims of rape by women are not considered victims by the law, or by other people who often congratulate them on "getting laid." After all, men always want sex, right? Can't rape the willing! Please tell me more about how there is no discrimination against men, and how stereotypically feminine behavior is in no way judged negatively when men engage in it. |
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 24, 2011 22:22:52 GMT -5
It's so cute that Lexi can somehow automatically know if someone is cross-dressing or is trans. ...Thank you? Where did I do that? Being transgender is not a choice; cross-dressing is. And I'm sure you're all aware on here by now how I feel about chosen behaviors. They can be judged and they are not off-limits. People are judged on their actions. Fuck this shit. The whole "You can judge someone for something as long as it's a choice" meme tires me. It's the same argument as "We don't judge people for being gay, we judge them for engaging in homosexual activities". A relatively simple concept: Someone choosing to engage in an activity is not enough to justify disapproval. They also have to be doing something bad. Not to meantion it's not like cross dressers choose what kind of clothes they like. |
|
Kali
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by Kali on Dec 24, 2011 22:54:11 GMT -5
Also, that it's not okay for a man to wear a dress or act a bit feminine is sexist against women as well. It's not okay for a guy to act like a girl, so why? Because there's something wrong about acting like girls. Because women are weak, are lesser. How is that not sexist? You say women wore pants as a statement of equality, but we're not equal as long as men aren't allowed to wear women's clothing as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 24, 2011 23:08:47 GMT -5
It's so cute that Lexi can somehow automatically know if someone is cross-dressing or is trans. ...Thank you? Where did I do that? Sorry, my bad. got things mixed up. Cestle did. It happens. Names get mixed up. |
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Dec 25, 2011 6:33:28 GMT -5
Also, that it's not okay for a man to wear a dress or act a bit feminine is sexist against women as well. It's not okay for a guy to act like a girl, so why? Because there's something wrong about acting like girls. Because women are weak, are lesser. How is that not sexist? You say women wore pants as a statement of equality, but we're not equal as long as men aren't allowed to wear women's clothing as well. All misogyny is misandry, and all misandry is misogyny. Prejudice in one direction automatically contains equal and opposite prejudice in the other direction. |
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Dec 25, 2011 8:01:21 GMT -5
I'll have you know I was prepared by the finest experts in the art of irritating politeness. And I subscribe to the South Park Richard Dawkins philosophy - it's not always enough to be right, sometimes you have to be a dick about it. That's why I get into masochistic debates with fundys at school - its not gonna change their mind, but I'm in their faces reminding them they're wrong whether they listen to me or not. By the way since you're coming to cesty's defense with some nonsequitir like being able to buy Bioshock or eating peas - which are essentially preferences (incidentally, instead of peas, eat your goddamn Edamame, its yummy) I'm going to deconstruct your reply in two ways. 1) You invoked Godwins law in an inappropriate context - you lose. In the event you can counter 1, this just happened:  |
|
