My experience with game

Status
Not open for further replies.
I play with dolls! I babysit my neighbor's seven year old daughter after she comes home from school until her mother comes home, and I play dolls with her. I have three Barbies: Agent Dana Scully, Doctor Who, and Mary Poppins. I'm thirty six years old and I hope I don't seem creepy lol.

I don't think that's creepy at all. I also don't really think of it as 'playing with dolls.' You are playing with the child you are babysitting, and that's totally appropriate. I even think it isn't inappropriate to practice your doll play skills by yourself to be better able to play with her. But maybe in a public venue that would get you a few second looks.
 
You do know most cases of women killing men is defense against domestic violence, right?
It doesn't matter, since I'm not claiming the opposite.
I'm correcting your statement that men are responsible for 99% of homicide cases.

And I didn't say conscription's a privilege, I said military service has historically been an honor women aren't allowed to participate in.
You said conscription is a sexism against women. Forced military draft, where men sometimes being sent to fight and die is a discrimination of women, according to you.

You're grasping at straws, and you're looking really bad continuing to try and say there's any comparison between what men and women live through.
I'm not saying anything of the sort. All I'm saying is that men can also be mistreated and discriminated against, that misandry is a real thing. That discussing these things is valid and not misogynistic. You seem to take offense every time someone saying that woman can be wrong at something.
 
If I'd be trolling, I'd be asking if this is not enforcing negative gender-stereotypes on the child, but that'd be a honestly rather stupid opinion IMHO.

Also to get again at the misandry point: This is not trying to make a statistical point, or a justification for anything.
The mere presence of something doesn't mean that it needs to be predominant, or important, or anything else. It just needs to exist.

(and the point that conscription is discrimination against women...well... it probably is. As much as against men. Being denied something is clearly discrimination. Being forced to do something against your will and maybe die due to that too)
 
But I feel you shouldn't have said that then, I feel like you're sort of saying it anyway in a roundabout way, like if someone said "I'm not sexist, but if I was I'd say ... (whatever)" and trying to pass it off an opinion as not really yours, if I'm making sense? I feel like you're trying to make it clear to me how you feel and trying to hurt me, but also trying to deny you did that. And I play dolls with her because she has her own, she keeps them in her backpack while she's at school, because she's excited to play with me and both she and I enjoy our time together.

But you see sexism is a system which discriminates against women, and misogyny is enforcement of that system, and there's no male equivalent. When you use a word like "misandry" in a context like it's been used, what you're doing is trying to recenter a conversation back on a focus away from women and toward men, and you're indirectly dismissing women's oppression. There's no male equivalent in reality, so you need separate words to describe each, and I've even said I agree many women passionately hate men (and of course in that Misandry article it says it's natural at some times for all women to hate men because of what men do to women) I don't justify hate, but a woman hating men isn't anything the same as cultural hatred of women, but men use "misandry" to try to say it is, and that's why as a concept it's not a real thing, if I'm making sense?

And my point about conscription is that it's a side effect of women being historically excluded from military service, which is considered honorable and glorious. You can't be forced into something you're not allowed to do, right? I also hate conscription, I feel it's appalling men have been forced to fight, I despise war in general. But I feel it's very ridiculous to say how some men have been forced by other men to do something men have always considered a high honor and exclude women from is somehow comparable to sexual discrimination women face constantly, you know what I mean?
 
You're right, but I feel your last points are exactly what I'm trying to say, how there's no equivalent against men. I completely agree bigotry and hate exist, but sexism's about a system used to hold us back, and there's no such system holding men back from advancing and succeeding. Too many men will use comparisons to try and say men have it as bad (or worse!) than women, and that's why we need special words for unique struggles we face as women for which there's no male equivalent, and that's what sexism talks about (for which misogyny is enforcement)

Yes, I agree theres no real equivalent for men. And a lot of men display an attitude of if some men suffer discrimination or domestic violence from women then it isn't really a woman's issue even though discrimination or domestic violence against women is far more common than against men.
 
But you see sexism is a system which discriminates against women, and misogyny is enforcement of that system, and there's no male equivalent.
Well, it's not. See definition of sexism above.

There's no male equivalent in reality, so you need separate words to describe each, and I've even said I agree many women passionately hate men (and of course in that Misandry article it says it's natural at some times for all women to hate men because of what men do to women) I don't justify hate, but a woman hating men isn't anything the same as cultural hatred of women, but men use "misandry" to try to say it is, and that's why as a concept it's not a real thing, if I'm making sense?
Regardless of terminology, do you feel that woman-to-man hatred is somehow more justified and "natural" than the opposite? Because this reads like you consider your entire gender as morally superior and that "men" owe you compensation for "historical mistreatment". And frankly I don't see what historical mistreatment has to do with all of this - by your logic, I should hate the Germans, because they killed 30 millions of my compatriots 70 years ago. Or Mongols, because they mistreated my people for 250 years. It's history. And even if I was beaten up by group of Germans, I wouldn't hate entire nation because of that.

But I feel it's very ridiculous to say how some men have been forced by other men to do something men have always considered a high honor and exclude women from is somehow comparable to sexual discrimination women face constantly, you know what I mean?
Women are not denied military job, so it's not a discrimination. And conscription is not a honor, it's compulsory service. Anyone who consider military service as a honor has the option to volunteer for it.
 
And I'm sorry for quoting inthesomeday's message about snowflake, if it's offended anyone.
I should have just report it for trolling instead.
 
I would be willing to bet a fair amount that neither you nor Valka could throw a standard dictionary twenty paces, on target or otherwise. The only hits would be verbal jabs.
Why would I throw a standard dictionary anywhere? (btw, standard dictionaries also come in paperback editions, which are probably much easier to throw)

Swiss women gained the right to vote in federal elections in 1971,[66] and Appenzell Innerrhoden became the last canton to grant women the right to vote on local issues (in 1991, when it was forced to do so by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland).[67]
This was mind-croggling when I first found out about it. I'd always had the perception that Switzerland was an advanced country, but this was genuinely shocking.

Conscription is an example of sexism .. against women. Because women weren't just not conscripted, women weren't even allowed to serve in the military at all, because women are inferior and can't possibly lead soldiers in battle, and that's a glory and honor reserved only for men. Many women have pretended to be men to serve, and when found out are executed. Are you familiar with Mulan? Or have you ever seen GI Jane? How many American presidents were war heroes? Women aren't being conscripted now because nobody's being conscripted by countries like the United States, England, Canada, and so on.
Joan of Arc is another interesting example. She led men in battle, and when she was captured, the men were highly upset that she continued to wear "men's clothes" - something she did to protect herself while in custody, since she wanted to avoid being raped (or at least to make it more difficult for her guards to rape her if they felt like doing so).

Personally, I think that beyond the age where sexual awareness sets in playing with dolls is kinda creepy, no matter who is doing the playing, and 'it's feminine' has nothing really to do with that.
You'd need to define what "playing with dolls" actually entails. My grandmother owned more Barbies than I did, and she liked to collect them and make clothes for them. I would experiment with various hairstyles for them once she decided what costumes they would wear. One of the things I was asked to do when going shopping at the mall was to pick up some fabric from the clearance bin at Walmart, if she felt like trying out a new pattern. I have one of those dolls standing on my organ, not 3 feet away as I type (Malibu Supersize Barbie - 18" tall rather than the standard 11.5"). My grandmother made the dress and I decided on the hairstyle.

The only time I'd consider my grandmother's doll hobby to be "creepy" was when she got into apple dolls. That involved peeling apples, carving faces on them, and then tying them on strings in the kitchen to let them go brown. Eventually they looked like shrunken heads, which creeped out my typing clients when they saw all these little brown shrunken heads hanging from the shelves. When one person commented on them, I just looked up from reading her rough draft of her term paper, said, "Oh, I forgot to mention - my grandmother is a headhunter," and kept on reading. But one of the dolls she produced looked uncannily like my grandfather, both in skin tone and expression (his skin was dark-complexioned, compared to most Swedish men we knew).

As for guys and Barbies, there is someone on CFC (not an OT poster) who makes fantasy costumes for dolls, including chainmail. Some of the ones he's made for Barbie/Ken dolls are really cool (of course the full effect requires hiding the dumb expression and plastic hair on the Ken doll). His sister also makes fantasy costumes for dolls. It can be quite a lucrative hobby once a person gets good at it.

And frankly I don't see what historical mistreatment has to do with all of this - by your logic, I should hate the Germans, because they killed 30 millions of my compatriots 70 years ago. Or Mongols, because they mistreated my people for 250 years. It's history. And even if I was beaten up by group of Germans, I wouldn't hate entire nation because of that.
Being German is not some physical trait you're born with. It's just an accident of where you were born. Women can't help being born female, and men can't help being born male. Some may choose to alter that later if they have the sense of their bodies not matching what they perceive is correct, but initially, how you're born is how you're born.

Women are not denied military job, so it's not a discrimination.
It is if they want to serve in combat roles and are denied simply for being female.

It's not that women have never had military jobs. Many have. It's a fact denied by the misogynist Canadian men who ranted and wailed about Canada's national anthem being changed to reflect women's patriotism as well as men's ("true patriot love in all thy sons command" was changed to "true patriot love in all of us command"). They insisted that women didn't deserve to be acknowledged in the anthem because "they didn't die for their country." Well, whose fault was that? There were women who were willing to serve in combat roles but weren't allowed, and many who did risk their lives in other ways by serving overseas as nurses, in clerical roles, or as Queen Elizabeth did during WWII - she served as a mechanic and ambulance driver.
 
Why would I throw a standard dictionary anywhere? (btw, standard dictionaries also come in paperback editions, which are probably much easier to throw)

Well, you probably wouldn't. However, in the context of a 'dictionary duel' when the prospective opponent wanted critical hits for corners it seemed he was talking about throwing them. Since I had already suggested the duel be 'dictionaries at twenty paces' I felt compelled to point out to him that no one was gonna get any hits by throwing the dictionaries. Even in softcover I'd be surprised if anyone could throw one twenty paces. Books flutter too much and catch too much air resistance.

You do remember that when I suggested this duel I offered to be your second, yes?
 
But he seems to admit that misandry exists, which was the main discussion point for the last few pages.

In that post, Manfred took one sentence out and ignored the rest, where I explained what I mean by misandry. You can go back and look and see that on the substantive question, as opposed to the semantic one, I agree with Mary and not y'all. Most of the people in this thread who are arguing with Mary are retreating into a semantic quibble about the words "sexism" and "misandry" rather than making substantive claims about social reality.
 
When you use a word like "misandry" in a context like it's been used, what you're doing is trying to recenter a conversation back on a focus away from women and toward men, and you're indirectly dismissing women's oppression.
There is no disagreement about women's oppression, nobody in this thread claimed it doesn't exist. There's nothing to discuss since we are on the same page here.
But we have an ongoing argument about sexism against men and it seems we have difficulty with coming to agreement that it can even be mentioned.

Being German is not some physical trait you're born with.
Ok... Don't see your point here.
Nationalities are still exist and it's still wrong for Germans and Russians to hate each other because of WW2 or other "historical reasons".
I feel it's generally wrong to hate group of people sharing something similar, whether it's a physical trait or just a place of birth.
Or even think that your group has moral highground over other. It's a potential source of conflicts.

It's a fact denied by the misogynist Canadian men who ranted and wailed about Canada's national anthem being changed to reflect women's patriotism as well as men's ("true patriot love in all thy sons command" was changed to "true patriot love in all of us command"). They insisted that women didn't deserve to be acknowledged in the anthem because "they didn't die for their country." Well, whose fault was that? There were women who were willing to serve in combat roles but weren't allowed, and many who did risk their lives in other ways by serving overseas as nurses, in clerical roles, or as Queen Elizabeth did during WWII - she served as a mechanic and ambulance driver.
Of course it's fair to mention women's patriotism in the anthem.
Luckily, we didn't have that problem, our anthem doesn't mention war or genders. Only "people". Even using the word "God" was considered controversial, AFAIR.
 
Most of the people in this thread who are arguing with Mary are retreating into a semantic quibble about the words "sexism" and "misandry" rather than making substantive claims about social reality.
Yes. Because current argument is mostly about semantics. Disagreement is about definition of "sexism" and whether "misandry" is a thing.
Mary, as far as I understood her position, claims that misandry doesn't exist, there's only (sometimes and somewhat natural) hatred of women towards men.

Edit: As for substantive claims about social reality, I think discussing conscription and retirement age gap was substantive enough.
 
Last edited:
Well, you probably wouldn't. However, in the context of a 'dictionary duel' when the prospective opponent wanted critical hits for corners it seemed he was talking about throwing them. Since I had already suggested the duel be 'dictionaries at twenty paces' I felt compelled to point out to him that no one was gonna get any hits by throwing the dictionaries. Even in softcover I'd be surprised if anyone could throw one twenty paces. Books flutter too much and catch too much air resistance.

You do remember that when I suggested this duel I offered to be your second, yes?
I remember. :) I take it you'd be my coach and physics instructor on this? (I'm hopeless at throwing stuff)

Ok... Don't see your point here.
Nationalities are still exist and it's still wrong for Germans and Russians to hate each other because of WW2 or other "historical reasons".
I feel it's generally wrong to hate group of people sharing something similar, whether it's a physical trait or just a place of birth.
Or even think that your group has moral highground over other. It's a potential source of conflicts.
I thought I explained my point adequately. Hating a group of people for some physical trait (biological trait they're born with) is very different from hating a group of people because of where they live. Women who hate men or men who hate women are going to persist in this hatred no matter what country they're in. Nationality doesn't matter. It's based on biology, not country of origin/residence.

Of course it's fair to mention women's patriotism in the anthem.
Luckily, we didn't have that problem, our anthem doesn't mention war or genders. Only "people". Even using the word "God" was considered controversial, AFAIR.
It's incredibly frustrating how some people here think the anthem hasn't changed since World War I and acknowledging women was somehow erasing everything Canadian men accomplished.
 
I remember. :) I take it you'd be my coach and physics instructor on this? (I'm hopeless at throwing stuff)

I was thinking that dictionaries at twenty paces would be a contest of verbal jabs more than thrown books, but as I suspect most people believe I'm game for pretty much any sort of conflict. But I doubt I could throw a dictionary twenty paces myself. That's a long way for a fluttering book...

Wait.

Duct tape.

Duct tape solves everything.
 
I was thinking that dictionaries at twenty paces would be a contest of verbal jabs more than thrown books, but as I suspect most people believe I'm game for pretty much any sort of conflict. But I doubt I could throw a dictionary twenty paces myself. That's a long way for a fluttering book...

Wait.

Duct tape.

Duct tape solves everything.
:lol:

Here's a Red Green type of project: Make a catapult/trebuchet out of duct tape. The dictionaries will be the ammunition. If we do it right, it should go somewhere (not sure where, but somewhere).
 
:lol:

Here's a Red Green type of project: Make a catapult/trebuchet out of duct tape. The dictionaries will be the ammunition. If we do it right, it should go somewhere (not sure where, but somewhere).

Well, that's thinking big. Here I was just thinking of taping the book shut and chucking it. ;)
 
I thought I explained my point adequately. Hating a group of people for some physical trait (biological trait they're born with) is very different from hating a group of people because of where they live. Women who hate men or men who hate women are going to persist in this hatred no matter what country they're in. Nationality doesn't matter. It's based on biology, not country of origin/residence.
I understand the difference you are talking about, I just don't think it's that crucial. If someone hates people of specific nationality, it's usually not because of place they live in, but because of their ethnic and cultural background. Which is very difficult to change, just as gender. Like if someone hates the Jews, he doesn't make difference between Jews living in Canada, America or Israel. In this sense, antisemitism is similar to misogyny/misandry.

It's incredibly frustrating how some people here think the anthem hasn't changed since World War I and acknowledging women was somehow erasing everything Canadian men accomplished.
Well, if they think so, they are wrong and their position is sexist.
 
If someone hates people of specific nationality, it's usually not because of place they live in, but because of their ethnic and cultural background.

Ethnic and cultural background are two entirely different things. If it is based on ethnic background there is some sort of visible difference identifiers in play. That would be common to antisemitism and misogyny/misandry. But cultural background, like "everyone hates the rude Americans" (meaning USians) doesn't have those visible difference identifiers. Hatred based on cultural background has at least some trace of predictability to it, I think. At least it is nominally based on what a group of people does rather than some arbitrary concept of who they are.

Like I'm not antisemitic, but I have a pretty obvious dim view of Israel that shows up in my reaction to Israelis. Similarly, most of my contemporaries in the US military came away with strong negative views on Russians as a nationality that have nothing to do with ethnicity. In fact most of them wouldn't have been able to discuss whether there even was any ethnicity involved in being Russian. We were just stuck with the carryover of that cold war thing. Another example, as far as I know there is no ethnic difference between Germans, French, or British, but different histories in regards to wars affect how the different nationalities are viewed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom