Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:I have issues with the concept of privilege, mainly in how it is often misapplied as a reliable way to measure an individual's overall societal advantage or disadvantage. I also think use of the word "privilege" is antagonistic, perhaps purposefully so as originally concieved, and somewhat counterproductive. I'm not sure if simple "advantage" is more neutral or not.

harmless wrote:Even the word "advantage" would eventually be seen as condescending, because it's not a problem with the word but how its usage makes people feel uncomfortable. I think. And it's meant to make us feel uncomfortable, which is fine by me.

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:Even the word "advantage" would eventually be seen as condescending, because it's not a problem with the word but how its usage makes people feel uncomfortable. I think. And it's meant to make us feel uncomfortable, which is fine by me.

Let's use differently abeled!

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:Even the word "advantage" would eventually be seen as condescending, because it's not a problem with the word but how its usage makes people feel uncomfortable. I think. And it's meant to make us feel uncomfortable, which is fine by me.

Let's use differently abeled!

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:Even the word "advantage" would eventually be seen as condescending, because it's not a problem with the word but how its usage makes people feel uncomfortable. I think. And it's meant to make us feel uncomfortable, which is fine by me.

Let's use differently abeled!

differently different!

harmless wrote:"Handicapable" is another brilliantly awful one.

malice wrote:

harmless wrote:"Handicapable" is another brilliantly awful one.

contrived word combinations make me blanch

stip wrote:Soma, if that's true I apologize. Some people believe some crazy shit in this place.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Eat shit, Jorge!

Probably no man has ever troubled to imagine how strange his life would appear to himself if it were unrelentingly assessed in terms of his maleness; if everything he wore, said, or did had to be justified by reference to female approval; if he were compelled to regard himself, day in day out, not as a member of society, but merely (salva reverentia) as a virile member of society. If the centre of his dress-consciousness were his cod-piece, his education directed to making him a spirited lover and meek paterfamilias; his interests held to be natural only in so far as they were sexual. If from school and lecture-room, Press and pulpit, he heard the persistent outpouring of a shrill and scolding voice, bidding him remember his biological function. If he were vexed by continual advice how to add a rough male touch to his typing, how to be learned without losing his masculine appeal, how to combine chemical research with seduction, how to play bridge without incurring the suspicion of impotence. If, instead of allowing with a smile that “women prefer cavemen,” he felt the unrelenting pressure of a while social structure forcing him to order all his goings in conformity with that pronouncement.

He would hear (and would he like hearing?) the female counterpart of Dr. P*** informing him: “I am no supporter of the Horseback Hall doctrine of ‘gun-tail, plough-tail and stud’ as the only spheres for masculine action; but we do need a more definite conception of the nature and scope of man’s life.” In any book on sociology he would find, after the main portion dealing with human needs and rights, a supplementary chapter devoted to “The Position of the Male in the Perfect State.” His newspaper would assist him with a “Men’s Corner,” telling him how, by the expenditure of a good deal of money and a couple of hours a day, he could attract the girls and retain his wife’s affection; and when he had succeeded in capturing a mate, his name would be taken from him, and society would present him with a special title to proclaim his achievement. People would write books called, “History of the Male,” or “Males of the Bible,” or “The Psychology of the Male,” and he would be regaled daily with headlines, such as “Gentleman-Doctor’s Discovery,” “Male-Secretary Wins Calcutta Sweep,” “Men-Artists at the Academy.” If he gave an interview to a reporter, or performed any unusual exploit, he would find it recorded in such terms as these: “Professor Bract, although a distinguished botanist, is not in any way an unmanly man. He has, in fact, a wife and seven children. Tall and burly, the hands with which he handles his delicate specimens are as gnarled and powerful as those of a Canadian lumberjack, and when I swilled beer with him in his laboratory, he bawled his conclusions at me in a strong, gruff voice that implemented the promise of his swaggering moustache.” […]

He would be edified by solemn discussions about “Should Men Serve in Drapery Establishments?” and acrimonious ones about “Tea-Drinking Men”; by cross-shots of public affairs “from the masculine angle,” and by irritable correspondence about men who expose their anatomy on beaches (so masculine of them), conceal it in dressing-gowns (too feminine of them), think about nothing but women, pretend an unnatural indifference to women, exploit their sex to get jobs, lower the tone of the office by their sexless appearance, and generally fail to please a public opinion which demands the incompatible. And at dinner-parties he would hear the wheedling, unctuous, predatory female voice demand: “And why should you trouble your handsome little head about politics?”

If, after a few centuries of this kind of treatment, the male was a little self-conscious, a little on the defensive, and a little bewildered about what was required of him, I should not blame him. If he presented the world with a major social problem, I should scarcely be surprised. It would be more surprising if he retained any rag of sanity and self-respect.

"

Cory Doctorow wrote: oh my god, this is from 1947. doesn’t it show how much things HAVEN’T changed that I read through this whole thing assuming it was from a current article or essay, until I got to the date at the end?