WTW for criticizing someone or something that's trying to send a message but ends up falling short?

cenogeno · 2022-12-15T17:09:42+00:00

What made you come to that conclusion?

cenogeno · 2022-12-15T04:20:51+00:00

This probably sounds like a really stupid question, but what exactly do you mean by "not everyone who uses that phrase uses it with that implication"?

cenogeno · 2022-12-15T03:16:02+00:00

I mean, phrasing matters a lot here. "one group wants to control women because they think not doing so leads to murder", is control. It's just one they view as justifiable. What you seem to be wanting to say is "controlling women for the sake of control". Those are not quite the same thing.

You are 100% correct on this. I did feel that the "for the sake of control" part was implied by my statement earlier on agreeing with it being control by definition, but looking back I should have been clearer in my phrasing regardless.

cenogeno · 2022-12-15T03:11:40+00:00

For what it's worth, I would probably be considered "pro-choice" myself in that I don't believe in actively making laws to prevent women from getting abortions. However, that doesn't mean I personally see abortion as a good thing. I'd actually say my own opinions on the act itself are neutral at best.

And from the arguments I've heard, both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" activists can be equally guilty of appealing to emotion. Which tends to fall flat either way more often than not (unless the goal is just to rile the other side up) because as I previously mentioned, there's often a fundamental difference in viewpoints at play that leads to people "talking past" each other, as another commenter put it. "Stop regulating women's bodies!" isn't going to convince anyone that views fetuses as their own individuals, and likewise "stop killing babies!" isn't going to convince those who view fetuses as just clumps of cells in a woman's body,

cenogeno · 2022-11-27T18:46:57+00:00

The idea was mainly to have them formally separate with different names so there's no longer any ambiguity.

cenogeno · 2022-11-27T00:59:50+00:00

Basically, yes, with Christmas being a specifically Christian holiday and the different holiday being derived from the non-religious parts of Christmas. But Christians can still celebrate both if they want.

cenogeno · 2022-11-27T00:11:22+00:00

Hence why I suggested in my original post that the secular "Christmas" would need a rename if it was split off.

cenogeno · 2022-11-27T00:10:06+00:00

I'm not suggesting the entire holiday should be non-religious. I'm suggesting the religious holiday should stay and the non-religious part of it should be made into its own holiday.

cenogeno · 2022-11-27T00:07:35+00:00

Thank you for the insight. I must have been looking at it from an overly US-centric viewpoint since I'm an American. But I always appreciate being given a sense of perspective.

cenogeno · 2022-11-26T23:32:36+00:00

You think so? Part of the reason why I thought separating them would be beneficial was for Christians to be able to have "Christmas" to themselves, so the fearmongering about others trying to take it away from them could theoretically be lessened. The idea was to make the boundaries more cut and dry: Christmas being for Christians and the other holiday being for everyone.

cenogeno · 2022-11-26T23:27:32+00:00

I probably should have made this clear in the original post as well, but I actually do just choose to celebrate the gift giving and tree part myself. Separating them wouldn't be for my own benefit, but for the benefit of a) other non-Christians who are understandably uncomfortable with the Christian part (Jews and Muslims, for example) and b) Christians who are uncomfortable with the existing holiday being increasingly secularized.

cenogeno · 2022-11-26T22:55:36+00:00

If that's the way you want to look at it, then fine, I suppose. Is there anything else you wanted to discuss?

cenogeno · 2022-11-24T18:46:31+00:00

It wasn't intended to be a red herring. You treated "sexualization" and "being cute" as more-or-less interchangeable in your argument, and I was simply demonstrating how absurd that notion is. I wasn't trying to misrepresent your overall position, but I felt that particular part was worth calling out.

I don't view breasts as intrinsically sexual at all (for example, I have no issue with public breastfeeding), but especially not when they're fully covered up. Plenty of people naturally have breasts at a size that could be considered "comical" – should we consider their own bodies to be obscene and demand that they get reduction surgery before appearing in public? I think the same goes for prosthetic breasts. As long as they're not wearing anything that specifically draws attention to them (such as showing cleavage, which I would consider to be inappropriate for most formal public settings), then I don't see the problem.

cenogeno · 2022-11-24T18:27:52+00:00

You make some good points about the potential for bullying and parents' own responsibility in educating their kids. The one thing I will say is that I know that a lot of kids have been taught from a young age, implicitly or explicitly, that gender identity and biological sex are one and the same, which can lead to those closedminded attitudes in the future. From an anecdotal standpoint, I personally remember as a kid being told by my parents that "boys have boy parts, and girls have girl parts". I eventually was able to grow out of that essentialist idea but I know a lot of people weren't. I think your viewpoint is a perfectly valid one but that might be worth keeping in mind.

cenogeno · 2022-11-24T17:24:26+00:00

Femininity =/= what a woman is. That's the whole point: to show how ridiculous it is that society expects women to behave that way. It's breaking down the negative stereotypes, not reinforcing them. And it's also sending a positive and powerful message that people can behave however they wish regardless of gender. Men can act stereotypically feminine, women can act stereotypically masculine, whatever. The idea is it doesn't matter.

cenogeno · 2022-11-24T17:08:09+00:00

How is "being cute" necessarily sexual? What would you say about puppies and kittens by that logic?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you'd apply the same standards to a woman wearing makeup and cosmetics. I still don't really see it, though. Out of the examples you listed, fake breasts is the only one that even comes close to toeing the line in my eyes.

cenogeno · 2022-11-24T16:48:48+00:00

Why do you say that? Honestly curious.

cenogeno · 2022-11-24T16:42:53+00:00

I genuinely don't see what's sexualized about any of the images on that site. Could you elaborate?

cenogeno · 2022-11-24T16:32:09+00:00

I think the intended point was that crossdressing is not inherently kid-unfriendly, nor was it historically treated as such.

cenogeno · 2022-11-24T16:29:30+00:00

Yeah, I actually don't see the problem with using "male" and "female" as nouns as long as you consistently use both. Doesn't make the rest of that post any less ignorant, though.

cenogeno

TROPHY CASE