Huffngton post

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
User avatar
Charlie
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:52 pm
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Huffngton post

Post by Charlie »

pelmut wrote:I've worn long, full skirts at ceilidhs for several years, they make a huge difference to the style and the fun of dancing.
Totally agree, they are much more fun to dance in than a kilt, and much much more fun than trousers - as well as keeping you cool.
pelmut wrote:I remember hearing some years ago from a woman whose husband was having problems learning to dance properly. In desperation she made him wear one of her skirts whilst practicing at home - and suddenly he 'got' it.
Which begs the question - did he then go on to dance in a skirt?

BTW - there's a series of contra dances in Bristol (England!) see http://lisaheywood.net/contra/; they're well used to seeing me in a skirt :D
Charlie
If I want to dress like a woman, I'll wear jeans.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1923
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Huffngton post

Post by pelmut »

Charlie wrote:...BTW - there's a series of contra dances in Bristol (England!) see http://lisaheywood.net/contra/; ...
What a coincidence, I was dancing with her in a ceilidh last night.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
skirted
Active Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:58 pm

Re: Huffngton post

Post by skirted »

Sinned wrote:I don't know about the pants but I love the skirt. Purple in colour and ankle length, just full enough at the hem to allow a full stride and to twirl. I would wear that skirt in a heartbeat.
Me too I love that skirt. The color and length are perfect.
User avatar
howardfh
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:43 pm

Re: Huffngton post

Post by howardfh »

I love the reply "skirts? I need the ball room"! Wish I'd though of that - "why are you wearing a skirt?" "Because my penis is too big to fit inside trousers."
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Huffngton post

Post by moonshadow »

crfriend wrote: Yet, with all of the above, I am entirely, completely, and wholly a regular old bloke. I don't need labels to define me because I am not afraid to heed my own inner self. I have every reason to believe I'm a throwback to a time where men were allowed these things and were not reviled for them. It's time to take manhood back and regain our fundamental rights as human beings.

There: I've gone and said it.
Yes... and this needs to be quoted as it's spot on.

I suppose if more men were "feminine" we wouldn't be such pansies about shaking up gender roles and just do what we want! Like... ah-hem... WOMEN DO! :roll:

I'm starting to think masculine = weak, inferior, push over, sheep, fearful, follower
feminine = strong, leader, do what you want, not afraid, superior, firm

I mean really... when you get right down to it... most men are candy asses...! :lol: Men, they won't wear a skirt because THEY'RE SCARED!

Think about it... "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", men are scared to death of women! Why? Because men and women that act like men are idiots!
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
JohnH
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1013
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:46 am
Location: Irving, Texas USA

Re: Huffngton post

Post by JohnH »

moonshadow wrote: I mean really... when you get right down to it... most men are candy asses...! :lol: Men, they won't wear a skirt because THEY'RE SCARED!
Yep, the worst ones need to wear turpentine soaked rags around their ankles so ants don't crawl up their legs and bite them in the behind! :lol:

John
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14431
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Huffngton post

Post by crfriend »

moonshadow wrote:I'm starting to think masculine = weak, inferior, push over, sheep, fearful, follower; feminine = strong, leader, do what you want, not afraid, superior, firm
That's certainly the narrative that the radical feminist movement wants folks to believe, and it''s the doctrine now being taught to girls to the exclusion of boys which does nothing but hurt everybody. It's poisonous, and that seed is beginning to bear fruit -- and it's very bitter fruit for men. The long-espoused notion of equality has been usurped and now the goal is dominion of men by women.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Huffngton post

Post by moonshadow »

crfriend wrote:
moonshadow wrote:I'm starting to think masculine = weak, inferior, push over, sheep, fearful, follower; feminine = strong, leader, do what you want, not afraid, superior, firm
That's certainly the narrative that the radical feminist movement wants folks to believe, and it''s the doctrine now being taught to girls to the exclusion of boys which does nothing but hurt everybody. It's poisonous, and that seed is beginning to bear fruit -- and it's very bitter fruit for men. The long-espoused notion of equality has been usurped and now the goal is dominion of men by women.
Yes, and I hope everyone understands the deep and somewhat esoteric meaning behind my comment quoted. It was a somewhat difficult thought to put into words.

When I think of the modern stereotypical western man, I just don't picture a strong, independent, thoughtful, free thinker. I see a scared bully who has to have power in numbers, does nothing but think about sex, and wants to put a fist to anyone who doesn't agree with him.

While that's certainly not the case with all men, it seems to be with most I've met.

And you're right Carl, this is the result of the femnazis. Ironically, those are the women who behave more like the men I just described. Good people have a good balance of masculine and feminine characteristics. A real man isn't afraid to show emotion, to cry. A real man defends the weak. A real man is kind, just, tolerant, full of love and compassion. A real man seeks facts and acts on them, doesn't get all wigged out about opinions. He has good judgement, if he chooses to wear a skirt he does so with confidence, but not arrogance or pomp. He would do anything for anyone in need without question. He would reach out and put his arm around someone, or even hug them if they were down. He would not be afraid in sharing the household task like dishes, laundry, or yes... even quilt making. He may have his own religious views, but he doesn't berate those who don't share in them. Rather a real man might even have a open discussion where he might actually learn something. He takes pride in his work, and yet he is humble as he knows there is always room for improvement, and always a lesson he can learn from someone else.

Not too many of those around!

I finally found that masculine/feminine chart I've been looking for, it was on my cell phone. I'd like to share it here as I think it's appropriate to my comment:
576336_338671529573697_298620539_n[1].jpg
Too many men and women in our culture seem to fall at the bottom of the chart above in my opinion...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14431
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Huffngton post

Post by crfriend »

moonshadow wrote:Too many men and women in our culture seem to fall at the bottom of the chart above in my opinion...
Take a closer look at that graphic and imagine what would be produced -- even from the "healthy" aspect -- without balance. On the "masculine" side you'll see a psychopath; on the "feminine" a neurotic. At the low end of both, a sociopath emerges.

One of the fundamental reasons for "pairing off" in humans I suspect is that a team will virtually always do better in the long run than a singleton; the pairing provides an inescapable balance that enhances the probability of success of the pair where the singleton has to make it on his (or her) own without sometimes wise guidance from another viewpoint. In a strong and healthy pairing this is visible and quite fascinating to watch in action. It requires love and respect, of course, and the best relationships have an abundance of both -- and also have surprisingly little fear because confidence and flexibility tend to banish fear.

In the modern realm, men have been being shoved -- hard -- towards the "masculine" side of the graphic as the "feminine" encroaches, and the results have been entirely predictable; one either winds up with psychopaths or sociopaths. It's not a pretty picture, and it only gets worse as the balance disappears.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: Huffngton post

Post by Sinned »

Moon, I think that we need to know where the graphic came from. I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve it but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind it. I think I need some context for it.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
User avatar
oldsalt1
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2470
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:25 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Huffngton post

Post by oldsalt1 »

Moon I am sorry but I have no idea what the chart is saying. and And if that is your opinion of the stereotypical western man you are definitely hanging around with the wrong people
User avatar
Caultron
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4122
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:12 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Huffngton post

Post by Caultron »

It seems to me that this chart is both overly complicated and overly simplified.

The over-simplication lies in defining the two sides of the chart as masculine and feminine, and then plopping in all sorts of viewpoints and behaviors as one or the other. This is just stereotyping.

The over-complication lies in thinking so many traits are necessary in order to make a male vs. female determination.

A better chart would be a series of bars with extremes at either side and "sliders" showing a person's position along each scale, and with no male/female designations on either side.

So in short, stop agonizing about whether various minutiae indicate binary male or female and just accept that all the measuring scales are continuous.
Courage, conviction, nerve, verve, dash, panache, guts, nuts, balls, gall, élan, stones, whatever. Get some and get skirted.

caultron
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Huffngton post

Post by moonshadow »

Sinned wrote:Moon, I think that we need to know where the graphic came from. I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve it but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind it. I think I need some context for it.
I honestly don't know where I got the image from. It was probably something that came up on some odd ball google images search many years ago and I just saved it for some reason.
The website in the corner of the image directs you to http://www.soulselfliving.com. I actually just noticed it upon your comment, and having visited the site, I can say that in my quick 10 minute viewing I can get behind some of the concepts, being somewhat of a mystic myself. Of course, I won't go as far as to say I endorse it, that would require more research on my part. All that being said, I'll give it a harder look tonight when I wind down for the day.
oldsalt1 wrote:And if that is your opinion of the stereotypical western man you are definitely hanging around with the wrong people
Can't argue with you there!
Caultron wrote:The over-simplication lies in defining the two sides of the chart as masculine and feminine, and then plopping in all sorts of viewpoints and behaviors as one or the other. This is just stereotyping.
Well of course it is! The very nature of the words "masculine" and "feminine" is that to stereotype someone in some way shape or form. It's an adjective. Some people don't get hung up on the semantics, and some do. But any chart, graph, discussion, etc regarding what is masculine or feminine will be stereotypical in nature, because in order to chart any characteristic, one must first define the scope of what the characteristic to be charted entails.

How can we define what is "masculine" or "feminine" without determining what characteristics fit the words?

Of course, I think we may be getting a little too P.C. here. As I've stated in other post, what defines "masculine" and "feminine" is completely arbitrary anyway. We're not talking about matters of race, sex, native origin, etc. Those matters are firm and not fluid. If you're male, you're male, if you're female, you're female. If you have Scottish heritage, you have Scottish heritage. There is no changing that- these matters are what they are. [0]

But...

I believe matters of "masculine" and "feminine" are rather a lot like gender roles. It is the western human culture that says that "males do this" and "females do that". But none of this really matters, people should just be who they are, provided they're not harming anyone or anything in the process then to hell with stereotypes, charts, and graphs. The soul is too complex to be mapped out in a jpeg that's small enough to be uploaded to skirt cafe.

Agree with it or disagree with it... I personally believe the chart's main purpose is to make people THINK...

Mission accomplished! :D
crfriend wrote:Take a closer look at that graphic and imagine what would be produced -- even from the "healthy" aspect -- without balance. On the "masculine" side you'll see a psychopath; on the "feminine" a neurotic. At the low end of both, a sociopath emerges.
I may be wrong on my interpretation of the chart, but I think the idea is to be within the circle, not on any of the other three extremes.

[0] This is not meant to spark transgender debate. I understand that the matter of what is transgender is very long and complex and I'm still trying to learn, and wrap my mind around it. At the end of the day, my current view is gender and sex are two different things- Males have penises, females have vaginas, past that what defines a "man" and a "woman" are a matter of customary gender roles. <--- This is my current understanding, I may be mislead. It is very confusing after all. At least I'm trying.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Huffngton post

Post by moonshadow »

moonshadow wrote: [0] This is not meant to spark transgender debate. I understand that the matter of what is transgender is very long and complex and I'm still trying to learn, and wrap my mind around it. At the end of the day, my current view is gender and sex are two different things- Males have penises, females have vaginas, past that what defines a "man" and a "woman" are a matter of customary gender roles. <--- This is my current understanding, I may be mislead. It is very confusing after all. At least I'm trying.
Follow up thought on that...

There are 7.4 billion people in the world, I think it's safe to say we can't box every last one of them in two neat little categories.

Caultron, it's not a "sliding scale" you're after... it's an infinite switch! :wink:

"An infinite switch or infinite controller is a type of switch that allows variable power output and is so called because its average output is infinitely variable rather than being limited to a few switched levels." -Wikipedia

With humans... there are infinite possibilities! :)
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14431
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Huffngton post

Post by crfriend »

moonshadow wrote:
crfriend wrote:Take a closer look at that graphic and imagine what would be produced -- even from the "healthy" aspect -- without balance. On the "masculine" side you'll see a psychopath; on the "feminine" a neurotic. At the low end of both, a sociopath emerges.
I may be wrong on my interpretation of the chart, but I think the idea is to be within the circle, not on any of the other three extremes.
Indeed, and that's the way I read it as well once I took the whole thing in. However, I wonder how many don't and slavishly only see the extremes -- and what those extremes represent. (Note also some of my other commentary on the notion of extremism. [0]) My personal suspicion is that most will only see the extremes and only a tiny few will see what those traits in the absence of balance represent.
[0] This is not meant to spark transgender debate.
Of course not, and one of the reasons I tend to think that trans-* is overplayed is that everybody is hyper-focused on the extremes without realising that moderation is required in everything and that while men and women are intrinsically different from one another -- biologically and mentally -- we share vastly more than we necessarily give proper credit for.

Random footnote callout on the zero quoted above! [1] [a]

I don't know whether anybody's bothered to sequence cockroach DNA, but I'm willing to bet that humans and roaches share a fair bit. I'm given to understand that humans and other "primates" (so named by humans) share well over 95% commonality.


[0] None of it is complimentary and most of said commentary revolves around the evils of extremism -- in any endeavour.
[1] Only programmers and Computer Science types count from zero. I am entirely happy to see this notion creeping out into the general public!
[2] Available on request [c]

[a] I have written entire pieces of communication in which the main story is accessible by simply reading the text. The humour and irony was all contained in the (sometimes self-referential) footnotes [2] as is the text [2].
This space intentionally left blank.
[c] If polite.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Post Reply