[Sonic Youth 37]

JOE PESCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ngZf...eature=related

[terriblecanyons]

Joe Pesci offending people does not offend me, and instead makes me lol.

[amerikangod]

Joe Pesci deals in drugs and bugs, and vice versa.

[Sonic Youth 37]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr8th...eature=related

[terriblecanyons]

Originally Posted by Sonic Youth 37

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr8th...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIoNkrQFTmE

[notyourfiend]

Originally Posted by pbradley

This is why I cannot advocate any kind of feminist arguments. Unfortunately, the argument of "you don't have a vagina so you have no authority" has effectively silenced me on the issue. And unlike men who call themselves "feminists" out of principle (sway being an example), I think engaging on the inner-discourse of feminism is an essential element of being a feminist. This is kind of the same problem I've had with race theory, even though I advocated philosophy that was considered too radical for some members of racial minorities.

There this def a serious problem with the fact that men are often alienated from feminist discourse.

I believe that it is at times important to have women's only spaces at certain times. Platforms where women can share their experiences together in a safe environment where they aren't feeling as censored. I've found that the problem with male feminists on prinicple is that they don't tend to really listen to women. They step in and try to define their experiences for them. It is important that these men figure their shit out before they go in trying to "save" women. Malcom X said something similiar about whites in the civil rights movement - white people need to work on thier own racism because we start to but in and tell african americans how to save themselves. I think that this is what you are saying about inner-discourse: challenging yr own assumptions, working on yrself etc.

But it doesn't end there. Men and women need to work together in the end, share their experiences with one another etc. Masculinity really fucks with men. Patriarchy's worst victims might often be women, but it still destroys men.

Blah blah, I'm pretty intoxicated right now so hopefully I did an okay job articulating all of that.

[notyourfiend]

Originally Posted by Satan

i'm not a feminist, i'm a humanist.

I'm a feminist because I am a humanist.

[Satan]

Originally Posted by notyourfiend

Masculinity really fucks with men. Patriarchy's worst victims might often be women, but it still destroys men.

this is glaringly and unfortunately the truth
like i don't understand why most men are so uncomfortable with emotions and shit. emotions aren't male or female, they're human.
or like how if a little girl is a tomboy or whatever that's considered pretty ok and normal i guess, but god forbid if a little boy played dress up or played with dolls, shit like that. then i guess that automatically makes him a fag. welcome to america, some things will never change. the double standard facet of the whole male/female/gender roles/feminism/whatever thing is the thing that actually pisses me off and i can't understand it even on the most basic level.

[amerikangod]

Masculinity is as bad as femininity is. In that they both have their pros and cons. Masculinity is no more a cause of problems than femininity is. I personally like some aspects of masculinity.

I have no problem with emotions whatsoever. I don't wear them on my sleeve but I'm in touch with them and I can be honest about them with others.

Men are (often) raised/taught that their role in society, relationships, and families is as the protector and breadwinner. That men need to be strong not just for themselves, but for everyone else. There is a strong aspect of biology in it too... the weak member of the pack is left behind or sacrificed, the weak become victims, become dominated. Hence, crying exhibits a lapse in strength, a moment of weakness, an inability to deal with a situation as a 'man,' failing in ones role, and potentially opening oneself up as a target, allowing oneself to be victimized by those who see weakness in others as an opportunity for themselves.

Personally, I don't mind this. I think it's of course healthiest when balanced though. Taking it to the point of emotional retardation is one thing, but embracing the idea that you should be strong (not so much that you shouldn't cry, but moreso that you should be capable of handling anything emotionally) and portray strength isn't a bad thing.

I prefer strong and independent people over weak, needy people.

[Satan]

Originally Posted by amerikangod

Personally, I don't mind this. I think it's of course healthiest when balanced though. Taking it to the point of emotional retardation is one thing, but embracing the idea that you should be strong (not so much that you shouldn't cry, but moreso that you should be capable of handling anything emotionally) and portray strength isn't a bad thing.

I prefer strong and independent people over weak, needy people.

yes.

yes yes yes.

i fucking hate it when people cry like pussies over the stupidest little shit. men or women.

[pbradley]

Strong and independent people can be just as insecure as the weak and needy. They just express it in belligerence and obstinacy.

[Satan]

^ belligerence and obstinacy is a lot less annoying than crying and bitching

[pbradley]

But they often make whatever problem worse.

[Satan]

this is also true.

[amerikangod]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Strong and independent people can be just as insecure as the weak and needy. They just express it in belligerence and obstinacy.

If someone is just as insecure as someone who is weak and needy, then by definition they are not strong. At best they are just pretending to be.

I was speaking of people who actually strive for strength versus stop at maintaining a mask of it.

[pbradley]

Then admitting and accepting when one is in err is strong and not an admission of weakness?

[Satan]

it's not weak to be wrong. everyone is wrong sometimes. some more often than others.

[alteredcourse]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Strong and independent people can be just as insecure as the weak and needy. They just express it in belligerence and obstinacy.

Agreeing with this statement, it kinda just seems like the past couple posts (and any other very general and basic discussion on independence) merely discuss the faces of people, without accounting for the crazy shit you see when peoples lives get on the line, etc. And it also only discusses how people seem on a situational basis, like if they are brave or a pussy the moment you met them, then thats all they would be.

I know what I just said is entirely contradictory. I'm trying to deal with this shit at the moment. I honestly cant judge a person based on the condition they're in when I interact with them, but then how can I define a person? Honestly, I'm asking you.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Satan

it's not weak to be wrong. everyone is wrong sometimes. some more often than others.

In the sense of the survival of the fittest, being wrong at the wrong moment can be your death.

[amerikangod]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Then admitting and accepting when one is in err is strong and not an admission of weakness?

Of course not, it's the only way to grow and move forward. If you don't learn from your mistakes (or choose not to acknowledge them at all) you just flounder, and that is weak.