Relationships and Age Differences

[madbunny]

stuff, cop outs, more stuff, more cop outs, complete admission of being too lazy to back up his own stuff, complete admission of being too lazy to look at other peoples well documented stuff, and yet more cop outs.

People like you piss me off. I should have simply admitted this a long time ago and ignored you.

In this, I owe all the other readers an apology: "I'm sorry, bad Bunny. I'll try not to do it again".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My writing may not be as concise and well written as others such as Ninebirds and Arigatomyna have been, but the opinions are just as valid.
This will likely be my last post on the subject at hand. Should the thread be trimmed, and saved I may participate on that level, or not.

Men and women are unique and wonderful in their own ways. We should celebrate these differences without confining ourselves to the prison of expectation. Claiming that a person, gender, or race is ideally suited for only certain things has historically led to some very bad things happening. I'd post examples, but I'm sure you are too lazy to read them. I'd suggest printed source then, but I'm also sure that you would find them not to your liking. Too bad your world seems so closed and self righous.

I'm sure you could find many, many people who agree that your point of view is valid. That women enjoy doing the matriarchal things that only they can do. I'm sure that many women would agree that being a mother is the most wonderful thing, and that nothing, society, laws, or morals should be allowed to intercede with this.
On the other hand, I could also replace the word 'woman' with other words, like negro, or Chinese, and say that they should enjoy being subservient to others. That because of their differences they should accept the place of servitude to others.

Oddly enough, I don't think as many people would agree with that? Why, do you think this is? This is the real reason that I've gotten so very upset with your arguments. You are using arguments that have been used time and again for very bad purposes.

It may be that you yourself would enjoy being beaten and subjugated to inferiority. At the very least you have no problem suggesting that others accept this as a natural way of life. It may also be possible that you would enjoy being given a 'stipend' and forced to manage while not being given any real choices other than sheet color, or what to cook for dinner each and every night. Should you want a job, then too bad for you in this case, after all, others envy you, therefore you should be happy right?

Your statements of christian belief does not give you the right to trample others. Your logic is extremely flawed, and full of holes, and when you try to justify yourself it only comes off as ass-holey. That you would choose to try and defend something as indefensible as a gender bias favoring submission tells many unpleasant things about your character. It would seem that either you are immature (unlikely given that you've shown some obvious intellegence), or ignorant, or most likely simply lack any sense of empathy.

Whether or not you respond is meaningless at this point. You have proven time and again that you cannot state your case without contradiction, or unsubstantiated fact.

[DDramone]

hey! how old is Mroni? im in a baby makin mood!

[Rorschach]

You've all essentially stereotyped me as being in favor of chattel slavery for women for not agreeing with the radical feminist agenda and basically acted like a Jerry Springer crowd. You, MadBunny, are a busybody. I'll mind my own business if you'll mind yours, Arigatomyna. You, Nestorath, have my scorn for your silly notions of maturity.

Apparently, you all think yourselves wonderful and virtuous for answering arguments I didn't make while cursing up a blue streak and smearing my character. Before I go, here's a little refresher for your memories, jerks: you first assumed all your long and detailed crap about me from ONE SOLITARY COMMENT I made. I guess I should have known better than to try to answer you in the same lengths. You can all take your feminist dogma and jam it back into whichever orifice it emerged from. Somehow, I don't think it was your mouths, filthy as they are.

Bye-bye, bolt the door, and bugger you, buttheads.

[NineBirds]

Excellent points Madbunny, Arigatomyna, and Nestorath69.

it is not the actual content of a logical argument that counts, but the language in which it is phrased.

Rorschach, you willfully misinterpretate your opponents' statements (read it over, I called Graglia the Ann Coulter wannabe, not you). You focus on semantics and swear words rather than subject--do you truly believe it is not the actual content of a logical argument that counts, but the language in which it is phrased? You refuse to consider any outside sources which might present a view different from yours valid (much less read through them) while holding your own unreferenced texts as absolute truth. Finally, you repeatedly assert that your lack of real proof of your arguments is not because they do not exist or your tactics are flawed but because you "have a life".

These things sadly prevent this thread from approaching anything close to a logical and meaningful debate. I mistakenly believed you were open to facts and wished to convince others of your beliefs, or at least defend yours in an intelligent manner.

But, as you said:

And do you think I ever thought I was going to persuade you? I was merely answering smears against my character.

The exchange of sustainable arguments is not something you are concerned with. You "have a life", and apparently analytical discussions are not a part of it.

I apologize to others who have become frustrated with the direction this thread has taken--I was unaware that the direction was meaningless to one of the parties involved.

Rorschach, in the future would you place this quote in your signature or profile? It will help others from getting sidetracked by your opinions.

I learned the hard way, a long time ago, that even exhaustive proof of something would never sway a dedicated opponent, and it's time you learned the same.

If you cannot appreciate the irony of your statement you are truly lost. The man who finds proof meaningless is one who has embraced ignorance.

[DDramone]

you know, if you guys were arguing the american human condition in a post civil rights era, or possilbe solutions to globalization, or quantum physics then maybe it'd apropriate to write out 10,000 page essays on how your opponent doesnt respect curtisy rules of a debate or participate in compramise, but dudes, you're arguing about TV SHOWS AND COMIC BOOKS!!! how the hell are you gonna get your character smeared in THAT? and why the fuck would you ram someones face in the ground when they already lost? and worse, say stupid stuff like "your not listening to me!" for shame.

now kiss and make up

[Excalibur00]

I think this is an interesting topic that is not discussed much in our lives. Do we actaully think of age differences right away when we decide who to date or fall in love with?

[Kitstune3]

I should have read the forum before I posted.


Oh Well, Excalibur is right, luv is luv is luv. Luv is blind, deaf and unable to count

[Mroni]

No, that was not my point. My point was that you have no idea what the feminist movement of today thinks or what their philosophy is. You read a book by a Ann Coulter wannabe (all right, perhaps that goes too far) and think you know shit.

Nice language, NineBirds. I guess you're just like MadBunny and Nestorath that way. First I'm compared to Rush Limbaugh, now Ann Coulter. Well, what of it? You sound like Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, Patricia Ireland, and a whole pile of other notorious leftists all rolled into one. Are you speaking for them, or for yourself? See how ridiculous this whole guilt-by-association thing is?

The anti-housewife writings of previous feminists was in reaction to the oppressive '50s household and its perfect homemaker expectations. Healthy motherhood is not a hated thing, nor a balanced household. Modern feminism is simply supporting women to go and do whatever they wish with their lives without fear of sexism or discrimination, whether it be at home or in the board room.

Yes, "reaction" excuses all crimes! Just like "sincerity" excuses Communism, but somehow never excuses Nazism. No excuses, say I! Reaction or not, cursing the housewife was and is still an evil thing. You seem to think sexism is a one-way street.

As for your lauded suffragettes--these were forward-thinking women, to be sure. But how can you possibly hold some of their more, er, "traditional" beliefs to be ideal? These beliefs about home and family were based on ideas such as physical exertion was bad for the uterus and that women would suffer from fits of hysteria if they worked in offices. Not to mention the complete ignorance of the damaging psychological effects of societal repression of one's abilities. It is analogous to the true Puritanical views about sex--yes, they were progressive for the time. But the evolution of thought and better scientific understanding has proven them to be not progressive enough for today.

Yep. Let's expect of the past what we expect of the present. Let's also be certain beyond all doubt that whatever you believe now is Gospel Truth and will never be discarded. No, this time you've REALLY got the final word. And current feminists couldn't possibly be ignorant of anything, could they? And scientific research is never politically motivated? And no one ever achieves anything evil, all achievements have been good, and should be made permanent and further built upon?

"Boys act like boys", "girls act like girls"? You don't see the sexism inherent in this statement?

No, I don't. I don't think the way you do; funny thing about that. I happen to believe that boys, on the whole, have more liking for physical activities while girls, on the whole, have more of a liking for social activities. While "on the whole" leaves plenty of room for exceptions, I don't happen to think exceptions remove the general reality, or that gender is all just a lot of social construction. Ever hear about that boy Dr. Money tried to make into a girl? That experiment's failure is solid proof, I would say, that gender differences extend beyond the physical to the mental and the emotional.

You have already established that there must be a way for boys and girls to act like. Why can't people act like people? If a girl wants to play with trucks and a boy with dolls, good for them, let them do as they like. If the reverse is true, that's just as good. You're spouting traditional conservative arguments about gender roles--claiming quite inaccurately that their elimination means women will grow penises and become men.

Me? I established it? I guess I must have traveled back in time to influence all of those "traditional conservatives" who thought they saw those inherent gender differences too. And I guess you're determined not to see those gender differences even if someone waves them in your face. I certainly don't recall where I said eliminating the gender roles eliminates the physical differences, although given the strong ties between mind and body, that would be a necessary part of any program that tries to eliminate the mental differences.

This is ridiculous. The elimination of gender roles simply means that neither women or men will have expectations of how they should act, of what household roles they should fill, of where they should work or how they should dress. Please explain the problem with this.

I'd say that the problem is that it's entirely detached from any reality whatsoever. Society changes expectations from time to time, but it never eliminates them. You seem to believe that you can eliminate expectations altogether, a laughably idealistic notion.

As for that jab about feminists--once again, conservative dogma and false assumptions. Your statement simply isn't true. Feminists do not demand that women act like men. What public school do you go to where girls were punished for wearing dresses? Where do you live that females are forced into bralessness and men's clothing? It's rather interesting that such a community would exist.

Ever hear of Joan Brisco at West Annapolis, Maryland, who wanted to outlaw the game of "tag" at her school because it's too rough? Ever hear of the fourth grader at Bunnell Elementary School in Flagler County, Florida who got a 10-day suspension for drawing a picture of himself shooting another student? Ever hear of little Jonathan Prevette, who got into all kinds of hot water for "sexual harrassment" for kissing a girl? Kind of hard to force girls to be like guys when there's not much left of being a guy. But I suppose you could always teach them during Bring Your Daughter er... Child, er... Offspring Unit to Work day that a woman needs an office job to be fulfilled and that any boy who does anything traditionally masculine is a sexist pig. It's not just "interesting" that such communities exist, it's downright evil.

See, my public school experience was radically different. A requirement in middle school was for girls to take home economics while boys worked in the machine shop. During gym while the guys were learning to play football and soccer, we were taught the electric slide and the chicken dance.

Oh yes, a stronghold of feminism that was.

And in mine, they combined everybody in gym class and home ec. Predictably, boys stuck together with boys, and girls with girls; boys found home economics boring, and girls didn't want to do anything with boys in the gym if they didn't have to. Guess they didn't realize how horribly oppressed by gender differences they were!

Again, you rant and mislable! Dude, you just don't know shit about modern feminism. I'm sorry, you don't. You need to accept that what you're describing is misandry, not feminism. Get your terms straight.

I say "women's lib" and you say "misander."
"Women's lib!"
"Misander!"
"Women's lib!"
"Misander!"
Let's call the whole thing off.

Modern feminism does support a choice between work and home. That's the whole fucking point of equality and gender role elimination!

Again, nice language! And believe you me, it really helps me hear what you're saying, instead of making me think you're a jerk.

And freedom to choose has only come when "feminism" has receded? Where? What? What are you talking about? Studies? Proof? Links? Maybe your arguments would hold more water if you provided actual proof.

Hear of that Time Magazine article and the tidbit on NPR about women who were beginning to stay home for the kids? A small example of where the kind of "feminism" I'm talking about is receding. They weren't all planning to drop office work altogether, but it's still an improvement. Of course, as I recall, both bits included quotes from feminist scholars or some such saying that these women were "setting back" feminism and everything it had worked so hard to achieve...

Sorry for the snark, but your persistent failure to figure out modern feminism is getting quite annoying. Try reading multiple sources, instead of just one book by a super-conservative author who's berating the feminists of decades past.

Tough break. I guess between having schoolwork to do and an actual life to pursue, I just don't have time to try to pick your brain and get an exact picture of what you think feminism is. You think it's one thing, I think it's another; and you're no mind reader either. As for multiple sources, I read the columnists at Townhall.com, U.S. News and World Report, the columns at Reason.com (now that I don't get the actual magazine anymore), and even the odd bit at Salon.com. If you've got time to waste on references, you can go dig up their arguments for yourself. Graglia tends to focus more on feminism specifically than most of the other people on these sites, but they all had some influence on me.

Tell me, where is your proof that these lessons exist in the first place, much less that they are absorbed? Where is your proof that people who watch pornography are inherently ethically degraded by it? Studies? Links? Pleasepleasepleaseplease?

Before I could even start on such things, we'd have to get into defining what's "ethical" and what isn't, which are obviously definitions on which you and I will never agree. Then, of course, we'd have to have a long discussion of art and literary criticism, psychology, and the effects of arts and literature on the viewers. Then, and only then, can we begin to see whether anyone takes surveys concerning people's philosophical positions on pornography.

And of course, we'll never be sure that those who respond to surveys are telling the truth, or that any of their complex views can really be reduced to the simple claims we're throwing at each other here. (And anyway, as you've mentioned, a lot of people miss the point of what they're viewing, whatever it is.) You're trying to apply the scientific method to aesthetics, NineBirds: that doesn't work. People just don't take too many surveys on philosophical subjects.

OK, now here's the meat of the argument: if the participants are willing, if the viewer is willing, and if all parties recognize the pornography as a release, not a replacement, then where's the degradation? Again, proof that those who watch pornography see humans as nothing but sex machines?

The degradation lies in the bad philosophy, and again, nobody's taking surveys. All of your talk about whether the participants are willing or whether they see pornography is a release or a replacement is irrelevant. Moreover, very few people who watch anything ever absorb all of its lessons at once, or notice when it contradicts other lessons they've absorbed. You're demanding absolute measures of a decidedly relative attitude. The world's not simple and it doesn't work that way.

Y'know, here's a wonderful series of observations on pornography. True Porn Clerk Stories. Don't let the title scare you--these are more sociology essays than anything else. Ali Davis worked as a clerk in a video store with a porn section for about a year. It's a chronicle of her experiences with those who rented porn, her observations on porn itself, and has some lovely insights about the connections between the two.

And I would take more time out of my busy schedule because...?

Try to understand, NineBirds: I HAVE A LIFE. You've already wasted a lot of my time with your ever-longer posts, and I can't be bothered to read everything you throw at me.

Point = missed. The Puritan views about sexual openness had nothing to do with a belief about equal rights but beliefs about human sexuality. Just because they recognized that humans liked and had sex doesn't mean they thought women were not subservient to men.

Yes, I suppose beliefs about equal rights and sexual freedoms have nothing to do with each other. That's why (as we all know) feminists take no interest whatsoever in sexual freedom and don't think it has anything to do with their ideology. I guess freedom and equality have nothing to do with each other, either, now that you mention it...

Point = missed. I was addressing the fallacy of creating one's ideal mate out of a fictional character--reality will never live up to fantasy. Have you also given any thought to the idea that perhaps the "moral objectives" and "ideal characters" of the anime culture are inherently flawed? Tell me, what is so wonderful about subservient, dependent, Stepford Wives-like women who are treated as members of another species?

Funny you should start talking of Stepford Wives, another fictional work with a bit of mind control fantasy in it. Guess that's what you imagine whenever I start talking about my views on women.

I spoke of the particular character from the particular anime I did because Hana Yori Dango is a good bit less fantastic than most other animes; no futuristic machines, super-powers, magic, or general violations of the laws of physics. About the only fantasy element of it is that it's full of more exciting soap opera and more definitive conclusions than the real world, as most stories are.

I don't expect you to know much about Tsukushi Makino, but obviously she's a far cry from the Stepford Wife character you seem to be making this ideal of mine out to be.

I'm hurt. I bothered to go through your posts and search for relevant links and information to give me insight into your points and help support mine, and you not only make unsubstantiated claims about the validity of my sources but don't even bother to visit them. See, if you did, you'd recognize that only three of the eight are actually UN-based. You'd also realize that one of the UN links is a report submitted to CEDAW by Japan itself. (Original link to PDF is dead, so here's an indirect one)

Boo hoo. If you've had a little experience with life, you should know by now that most people just don't have the time to read unsolicited treatises. I never asked you to write me a midterm paper, you know, and I certainly am not going to do any homework at your bidding; I just finished a big paper for one professor, and as soon as I get done typing this, I've got more homework to do.

Above all, I certainly didn't ask you to come barging into this forum swearing at me, and writing long posts. I learned the hard way, a long time ago, that even exhaustive proof of something would never sway a dedicated opponent, and it's time you learned the same.

Of course, some of your links did come from other organizations beside the UN. I maintain, however, that their glasses for viewing the world are just as crooked. CEDAW, an especially evil organization, could probably get plenty of Americans to submit ugly descriptions and data about the USA, too; such would not automatically make the case, since we can count on CEDAW to publish mainly works that agree with its (radical women's lib) agenda.

There's nothing unbiased in this world, NineBirds. Get over it.

First, I find it amazing that you know nothing of the rampant discrimination throughout Japan. It's such common knowledge that I assumed the links I provided might be interpreted as overkill.

Common knowledge to you, and according to your definitions. Your hand-waving and appeals to authority won't sway me.

Second, my sources (not all UN, as I've stated before) were only a few of the hundreds I've found on Google. A simple search through a university library or LexisNexus will result in the same findings, if you think those search methods any more credible.

I don't trust universities much, either, given their tendency to be far-left enclaves. And there are hundreds of screeds for and against just about anything imaginable available on the search engines, which all goes to show... nothing.

Given that I have multi-sourced proof of my claims while you have provided none for yours, nor even for your claims of my sources invalidity, why should anyone take stock in your arguments?

Again, I never asked you to do any homework. And do you think I ever thought I was going to persuade you? I was merely answering smears against my character. Offhand, if you have as much time to waste on your screeds against me as it seems you do, you must not live a very productive life.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe things really are that terrible over in Japan. Maybe the women are really feeling oppressed. Maybe the men are all perverts. But would I believe such things, coming from you? (You've presented your arguments in such a friendly way, remember?) No.

Oh, they have it. But it is not supported--instead the courts pay attention to the opposing law which outlaws abortion.

There is such a law? Must be enforced about as much as the laws about AMVs are here in the USA.

Um, what? I'm going to hope that this was flippant, tasteless sarcasm, not an actual argument.

Just saying, must be a lot of abortions if they have all those statues dedicated to aborted children. Unless they're only pretending they aborted all those children. That's possible, I suppose: I've heard of weirder practices.

I can tell. Have you read anything else? Or on what others think of her views? I admit I haven't read it myself, but here's an interesting review/refutation of some of her points for you to consider. (See? Links! Evidence! I'm not just flapping my mouth, I'm providing documentation! Welcome to the real world of debate!)

Yes, the "real" world of debate... where everyone has time to ransack libraries and the internet, just like you.

As I say: townhall.com, reason.com, and the others mentioned earlier will provide you with more of the columnists and reporting that influences me than you can shake a stick at. (John Leo, for just one example, influenced some of my opinions of CEDAW, as did a pro/con debate in Insight Magazine.) Of course, sources have sources of their own, so you could spend your whole life pursuing verification of the claims these sources make, just as I could spend the rest of my life reading and refuting the sources for your screeds. I trust that neither of us is going to do any such thing, however.

Ahh, news stories that drift in from time to time. Your baseless claims of the existence of these random, disjointed pieces truly have more weight behind them than any viable documentation I could come up with. Especially since none of your unreferenced topics have anything to do with whether or not women suffer from discrimination in Japan.

And I suppose you travel to Japan all the time to see whether the things your sources say are really true? You've spent practically your whole life building indexes of information on this sort of thing, just so you can go snowing anyone who disagrees with you with piles of data and commentary they won't have time to read? Again, some of us--nay, most of us--HAVE A LIFE.

Either? See, thing is, lots of women appreciate going to the office. They like it. That was the point of the fight for equality--so women who wanted to go to the office could go if they wanted to. Since you don't want to go to the office, then why not find yourself a nice, even-headed girl who will work there and let you stay home to take care of the kids?

Worth a try, but they're hunted nearly to extinction. Anyway, women can be productive either in the market or in the home; since I'm a guy, the main place I can be productive is the office, though I suppose I can pitch in a little and try to help raise the children whenever I have any.

I'm sure some women do like the office. A great many don't. Such is the way it always has been; what has changed is society's contracts and agreements with these various groups, and attitudes toward women who choose the one or the other. You think the changes are for the better. I think they're for the worse. End of story.

Please, NineBirds, get a life! This board is supposed to be about anime, remember? And about age differences in anime characters, remember? Don't haul us further from the point. If you've got a legal brief to present, you can put it in your profile.

Rush limbaugh is more fuckable than any feminist out there. And of course compared to feminist he has a massive brain which they lack stupid bitches.


Mr Oni

[madbunny]

Rush Limbaugh is more fuckable than any feminist out there.

you scare me sometimes.

[Cloud Clone]

Isn't this thread supposed to be about age differences in ANIME, or was I just imagining that I was in the 'General Anime' thread? What we're supposed to be talking about here is animated and not real at all. The fact that you all have been taking this issue way too seriously for such an extended period of time just goes to show that.......this thread really blows. Hard.




Have a nice day, everyone!