Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry

My turn in the can 'o worms...

Okay, are we all tired of hearing about the Open Source Boob Project yet? Yes? Thought so.

I love this entry so much.

and smooth the whole thing over with bullets.

I need to find a reason to use this line.

And this was beautifully written. In situations like this, it is sometimes better to be an artist, because that deeper emotion can't really be understood when you're trying desperately to handle it through the biohazard suit.

good lord. I'm quite glad I hadn't heard of that before. O.o

"Architectural words have to be meticulous and load-bearing and convey the meaning with precision and clarity and not fall down when you poke the clauses with a stick."
That was a load bearing boss!!

I definitely know how you feel about the alarm bells. I used to be very uncomfortable in public - people used to stare at me all the time on the bus etc. O.o And my mom wondered why I always carried my staff with me.

I like furry cons because it's funny to see people hit on my husband ;).. really though, they're a good bunch. hehe

and aww on the sunburn.. I got a BAD sunburn before mysterium 2006, and couldn't even move my arms bare without them hurting, so I feel your pain.

Also, you must come to All Fur Fun next year! ^_^ Heck, you can stay at our house if you want, and we can drive you around, so no hotel costs, food cost, gas cost etc. (We have a pickup, which is why I'm not worried about getting your stuff there)

This is all old and whatnot, but I felt it bore mentioning. Their idea was small and never got off the ground, to be sure. However, participants in such a group would, as was mentioned by the original writer
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<ljuser="theferrett">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

This is all old and whatnot, but I felt it bore mentioning. Their idea was small and never got off the ground, to be sure. However, participants in such a group would, as was mentioned by the original writer <ljuser="theferrett"> if it were to get larger there would be some sort of easily-identifiable means of expressing your participation. No meaning no and yes meaning "only when I'm comfortable with the notion."

That said, there isn't anything to stop it from degrading of course, but I like to think in terms of free-market alignment. I imagine that if someone was/got skeevy that they would be shut down either by their peers or the women themselves - which brings me to my next thought:

The idea that "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them." is entirely too outdated to still be in use. This idea is certainly perpetuated by the media and general societal views but <i>this does not make it right.</i> Do I blame the parents? Sure. The media? Of course. However, that still leaves the women who feel it and believe it.

Are women inherently weaker than men? Not at all. There is no clear side to take in a confrontation between a man and a woman. Women are generally more flexible, light, and quick whereas men are generally stiffer, heavier, and stronger. This makes for the classic battle between strength and finesse, but:

It is a travesty to believe that a man could kill a woman.

Any woman could kill any man just as any man could kill any woman. No one gender has the advantage (though men's dangly bits certainly make an easy target) over the other. No one gender is at a permanent disadvantage. The idea that they are is the prime reason behind gender inequity! I don't see reason to treat a woman any differently than a man because they both have the capacity to do the same things.

Treat a woman with kid gloves because she's weak and can't defend herself and you've already sold her short. Treat a man as though he's strong and can do anything and you've sold him short, as well. We're all people with our own strengths and weaknesses. I've lost my train of thought and I'll politely bow out, now. Biohazard suit = nonexistent. Damn.

Um...women _are_ inherently weaker than men. Simple physiology - look at the upper body muscle mass. The classic battle is a "classic" - a myth and a fantasy. In the real world, 80% of men can take 80% of women. When weapons come into it, it's a different story - things even out. But then we have the situation where women have to be willing to kill in order to defend themselves. There is some degree of equality once tasers/stunguns/pepper spray come in, but in an unprepared, unarmed scenario men will almost universally win.

I know that I can physically overpower the average woman (and probably all but around 3% of women) - I'll outweigh her by at least 50%, and will have probably over triple the upper body muscle. Mass, power and reflexes trump flexibility, lightness and fine motor control when it comes to straight-on physical confrontation, particularly in close quarters. This is something that is merely physiology, not ideology. It must be accepted. Of course, this is exacerbated by societal customs/men tending to be more active/women not being taught to defend themselves, but it is still true regardless.

That said, I agree that men and women can do virtually all the same things. There is some degree of distribution, but for normal activities that do not involve brute strength and mass, there is no practical difference. In an industrialized society, anything truly requiring of strength can be done mechanically. Intellectually we're so close it doesn't matter. As we are statistically distributed, we should have the best _people_ working in the jobs they are most inclined toward, and ignore gender.

To state that women are not weaker than men in a purely physical sense is nonsense. If our beliefs in equality are based upon being of equal strength physically, then equality is doomed. However, we should not base our beliefs in equality upon our physical strength - we're a long way past that. I prefer to base equality upon personhood myself.

What I mean is that it's flawed to assume a woman is weaker than a man. Your own statement regarding upper body mass does not take into account the age of both and the background of both. A woman with as much of a desire to build muscle mass may not be able to achieve the same mass in the same amount of time as a man, but would certainly be on a much more level playing field as the same man. Or something.

I've lost interest in the discussion, forgive me if I don't respond further. Ciao!

Well, yes. It's a spectrum.


Y'know.. as a Big Scary Guy, myself, I know any number of women who could kick my ass without breaking a sweat. Upper body strength doesn't mean a whole lot when the human body has four limbs, and a man's weakest spot is far more easily reached by the lowest set.