April 21, 2006

• That was fascinating. I just came from a class in Peace and Justice theories, where I seriously annoyed my male professor by arguing against feminism. Hes very into the "women=peace, men=war" argument. Very clear-cut, but doesn't allow much room for individuals. I might just bring in that article on the five different genders at the bottom of the second link. I think theres a lot more to human sexuality that modern society allows us to examine.
• This is not a black and white issue. I have pretty extensive experience (although not being gay myself) with the gay scene in Japan and Singapore. It's a many faceted issue. In Tokyo Shinjuku Ni-chome is a famous "gay" area. It's mentioned everywhere. There are many gay and transgender "talent-o" who are very popular. Yet still on the persoanl level there is a stigma. Definitely warrants further investigation.
• Great articles, tech! Ta very much.
• I've heard the men=war; women=peace argument before, and wondered how any intelligent human being can believe the sexes have completely differing natures.
• Yin Yang?
• Whoever believes women=peace has never lived with my wife.
• Lafe, one of the wittier arguments the class offered was an invitation to visit the all-female freshman dorm on a bad night...when all those menstrual cycles get aligned to each other, its a scary scary place to live.
• I find it hard to believe that anyone who makes the women=peace, men=war argument has ever lived with women. They can be vicious, they have just been trained by female society to be subtle about it. My grandmother had a temper which could start wars, my grandfather was one of the gentlest people I have ever known. (I unfortunately seem to take after her, but I'm trying to be more like him.)
• But back on topic - this was a fascinating article, thank you.
• This was a nice article; I really liked the five-genders one at the bottom, too. If it was a little longer, I'd suggest it for reading in the intro anthropology class I teach - they can NEVER get their minds around the lack of binary genders in other cultures.
• too.
• Did anyone notice that freedom of speech got busted down a notch with the court decision?
• No, not really.
• I noticed that the author tried to start the article out in a scholarly way, discussing things from the third person, then partway through, got all passionate about it and "They" went to "we". I wonder if it was intentional.
• I dreamed of Freud. What does that mean? -- Stanislaw J. Lec
• Yeah, that freedom of speech sure got busted down. Of course, had the t-shirts read "your imaginary jesus is a baby-raper" and been tossed out of the school, you'd have posted the same comment, wouldn't you? The first article was interesting, but more of the same sort of school dress code/religious freedom to be bigots/anti-queer sloganeering by morons debate we've become accustomed to seeing. I'll be happier when prejudiced people have much less interest in their biases and begin that little journey toward decency. The second article I'm still going over, and cultural differences in gender and sexuality struggles always fascinate me.
• wondered how any intelligent human being can believe the sexes have completely differing natures I assume if you could measure and plot their natures on a graph, they would form two bell curves with differing means. Would the means be within a standard deviation of each other? I'm not so sure. That said I still find that men != war, women != peace, and that nature(pandagon.net) is significantly closer to nature(LGF) than it is nature(liberal)
• Yeah, that freedom of speech sure got busted down. Of course, had the t-shirts read "your imaginary jesus is a baby-raper" and been tossed out of the school, you'd have posted the same comment, wouldn't you? Tell you what, as long as you promise not to whine about how this country is/has become a fascist censor state, then I'll ignore your obvious attempt at bear-baiting.
• Jesus is a bear?
• I've always thought of Jesus as more of an otter, really.
• > Jesus is a bear? well, he's depicted as quite hirsute; he hung out with a posse of male friends; john was especially beloved, we're told. so, you're missing the bellies and the leather, but it was over 2k years ago, so maybe trends have changed?
• I'll take that as a 'no', then, f8xmulder. Those poor, downtrodden high school bigots, it's so very sad that no-one allows them to express their hatred and intolerance as loudly as they're used to in their vile little churches.
• it's so very sad that no-one allows them to express their hatred and intolerance as loudly as they're used to in their vile little churches. Instead, I've come up with a shirt that says "I ♥ Homos, Regardless of How I Feel About Their Lifestyle". It's politic AND honest, without a lick of hate.
• f8xmulder, surely you're not advocating a freedom of speech within the halls of publics school equivalent to the public's-at-large freedom of speech?
• Not at all, techsmith. I am simply observing that viewpoint neutrality was pretty much dismissed here. Ideas should have equality in terms of status. In terms of First Amendment rights in the classroom, the restrictions upon those ideas should only be placed when said ideas are sufficient to cause disruption to the educational process. There is no data here to suggest the student's t-shirt would disrupt the educational process (this was noted in the dissent). So in that sense, yes, this was a blow to the First Amendment right to free speech.
• wow, that Sulawesi 5-gender thing is fascinating! interesting post techsmith! /warmongering, violent, aggressive female-gender-identified bio-female
• f8x - I do disagree. If someone wears a tee shirt like that out on the street, in the general population, they aren't necessarily directing it at anyone they know. If they wear it in school, they are directing it at fellow students, otherwise why do it? If someone wears a shirt saying "There is no god but Allah" on the street, people wouldn't take it seriously, even if it made them angry for a moment. If that person wore it to a high school which you had attended, wouldn't you take it personally. Might you not even think that it was directed at you and those who believe as you do? And, the fear that homosexuality engenders in ao many fundamentalist Christians seems to be so much more threatening to those believers than just not believing in the same set of religious principals, do you not think that it was meant as a message to the "sodomists" in a high school? I think we have a basic agreement, here, as to where freedom of speech starts and stops.
• In the normal run of things, if we get hurt by someone else's exercise of free speech, we can turn off the TV, put down the magazine, or go to another street corner. Since the kids are rewuired by law to be in school, I'd be inclined to give the schools some leeway on restricting certain forms of expression. Let the kid write an essay on the topic if it's dear to his heart, or an editorial in the school paper.
• I've always felt that there are some things that, while I may have a constitutionally guaranteed right to do them? That I ought not do them anyway, out of respect for my fellow man and an apparently quaint sense of gentility.
• If they wear it in school, they are directing it at fellow students, otherwise why do it? Scenario 1: I wear a surf shirt that has a picture of a scantily clad and busty female getting ogled by beached males. Is this a case of me directing my gross chauvinism toward specific students (in this case, students of the female gender)? If that person wore it to a high school which you had attended, wouldn't you take it personally. Might you not even think that it was directed at you and those who believe as you do? Point taken. I would hope, then, that delicate fundamentalist Christian students would also be spared pro-gay advertisements on school grounds, whether as part of published literature or on a fellow student's t-shirt. After all, that offends a religious minority!