Relationships and Age Differences

[Rorschach]

That's funny! Some of the women I sleep with on a regular basis have bigger porn collections than I do!
And the fact that while I was engaged- me and my fiancee would go look at pornographic movies together...

In my book, that makes me believe that you really don't know just what the FUCK you're talking about. I'm also gonna go out on a limb and assume that you're a virgin with a decent intelligence. Enough intelligence to absorb a potentially controversial subject, but without the sexual experience to know the real story.

This nattering of yours proves... what, exactly? That you have a lot of disgusting friends? That you swear like a wounded pirate? That you think you're a big man for bedding the girls?

By the way, I'm just itching with curiosity about this: do you use your name from this website on P2P servers? I'm thinking I may have bumped into you before, although I was using a different name at the time...

[ryuu_hime13]

Lots of interesting points being made here...but does this kind of thing belong on an anime forum? I'm really surprised the mods haven't locked this yet.

::looks around for paizuri::

[madbunny]

Alright then. I had intended to simply stay away from further interaction with you, as you had stated that you were not going to be responding to me. Guess you couldn't hold you bile eh?


For the record, I will retract my calling you a troll.
You are an ass.

Ok, you probably want to skip my whole entire response Rorschacht, since I will be disagreeing with your garbage.
Let me state first and foremost: *I* think that you are an ass. *I* think that you should have simply pissed off and let the topic die. *I* strongly disagree with your purported views that womens liberation, and womens rights are not one and the same.
You have no right to bitch about my responding to your post. If you didn't want a response you should have written back in a PM and not posted off topic in a public forum in the first place, so fuck off with that line.

Did I mention that I think that you are an ass to try and argue that women should accept staying home and having babies as the 'correct' way of living?

Something to keep in mind is that what you consider to be the "modern women's lib movement" is neither women's lib nor feminism, but reactionary sexism. Feminists by definition believe in equality of the sexes, pure and simple. Women who hate men are not feminists, they are misanders.

Glad to see you make some distinctions. Not everyone does, unfortunately.
As usual, the problem lies in the difference between mere names and actual practices. The self-proclaimed "feminist" movement of today is rather different from the feminists of, say, 1900, which is why I used the older name "suffragette" to refer to them.

When I asked this question last, you seemed unable to do so without contradicting yourself in the following sentance. It would appear that you either have no idea of what you are talking about, or cannot state unequivicably your thoughts.

Err, what about that quote was vicious again? Anyway, exactly what freedoms are your so-called female empowerers taking away? The freedom to be discriminated against and regulated to housewifery? I'm confused. The feminist movement gave women the ability to choose between home or work or a balance of the two (though there's still some work to be done in eliminating gender roles). If freedom isn't the right to choose, then how do you define freedom?

Depends which quote you're asking about. The one fellow accused me of being some kind of knuckle-dragging Puritan, and then launched into an attack on my opinion of pornographers that made me sound like I was taking a women's lib line. Uh... am I the only one who doesn't follow the "logic" here? In any case, it was an ad hominem attack.

Then, MadBunny had to jump in and start ranting about how I must be a troll for answering this attack. His particular line was a guilt-by-association ad hominem: "Oh, you're one of those people!" (In this case, the association was with Rush Limbaugh, and the claim was apparently that on the basis of this imagined association, no one should listen to me.) Well, two things about that:

A. I've only heard Rush Limbaugh about two times in my whole life. I don't watch TV or listen to talk radio.

B. Everybody's arguments should be judged on their own merits. Rush Limbaugh may or may not be reasonable. The same goes for me.

As for what freedoms feminism has tried to suppress, you mention one of their obnoxious utopian schemes yourself, as if it were laudible: "eliminating gender roles." Feminists don't want boys to act like boys, or girls to act like girls. Anyone who does is cruelly ostracized and punished wherever feminists have power, such as in the public school system.

Moreover, no, feminism has not "given women a choice" about work! It has done its worst to regulate them into the office, and demonized any who refuse to go. Freedom to choose between these occupations has only come where feminism is beginning to recede.

You are quite right of course. Limbough is reprehensible, and no person should be compared to him unfairly. For this I apologize.

Oh, sorry, you did answer it. Apparently you do not believe that women deserve the same rights as men. It would seem that being given a choice about whether to work or not is a bad thing based on your statements. 'Women should act like women, men should act like men' you say; yes, that really narrows things down quite a bit doesn't it? Fact of the matter is, women still get short shrift in a lot of ways all over the world. Think about how recently it was that women were allowed to vote. Allowed to vote, sort of has a nice ring to it.
By the way, just what are you conceptions of what a womans role? The closest I can tell is that you feel they should stay home, have babies, and be proud of paying the bills with their husbands money. Feel free to find quotes from your own bullshit postings earlier to verify that you've stated obtherwise.

Hmm, I guess I was too 'cause I didn't see anymore coherency than Madbunny did. So could you elaborate a bit more for all us stupid and blind ones?

Nice one, Ninebirds. I guess you're into guilt-by-association tactics, too: "Anything you say against him, you say against all of us!"

Concerning my arguments, well, let me give you a little refresher concerning what I said of modern feminism (a.k.a. women's lib). According to women's lib:

Raising children is not "real" work; if a woman stays home instead of pursuing an office career, she's a parasite; women who don't work in the office should be castigated.

That's only one subject feminist discussion covers, but it is basically the relevant part of the modern feminist philosophy.

Hmm, interesting. Think maybe you could point the direction of some substantiation via websites or books?

Pornography is the depiction of sex. You call pornography mechanics, but not sex? Whaa? Again, explanation needed. Sex is the act of parts of people grinding together. Anything more than that is dependent on the relationship of the participants.

Glad you asked. Put simply, pornography portrays ONLY the physical act. The sex act itself is an act of the heart and mind as well as the body. Note that I say sex is not "just" mechanics; that is sex involves mechanics, but other things too. Since the camera can't capture the activities of the heart and mind, pornography is entirely mechanical.

Sex is mechanics. 100% of the time you can define using basic terminology whether or not two mammals have mated. You cannot state 100% of the time that there was an emotional involvement.
Or to put it a bit more simply: you cannot be partially pregnant. There may be stages involved but they are definable.

Really? It did? Where? Because my friends who've watched pornography, they totally don't see women or men that way at all.

That your friends resisted pornography's lessons does not absolve pornographers for teaching them, or others who do absorb the lessons. You must have a rather select group of friends, given how many guys I've heard bragging about their sexual exploits.

Whatever.

The view of pornography objectifying/subjugating women has evolved. People have recognized that a woman (or a man) can choose to be sexually active in front of a camera without it being exploitation, and that watching pornography does not equate an opinion than women/men are meat. Yes, pornography, like everything else, is only poisonous dependent on the dose. It can be a part of a healthy sex life!

First, I should point out that it was my detractors who were doing most of the talking about pornography's effects on women. What little I said was on how it's degrading to everybody.

Second, as I've just said, that some people resist pornography's lessons does not excuse either the "teachers" or the "students" who do absorb the lessons.

Finally, I'm don't really see how watching someone else doing something can even begin to compare to doing it yourself, so I don't really see any way that pornography helps the sex life at all.

True, you were not the one to start and continue whole sex with little girls thing. I'll admit that much. So how about this, I'll ignore your views on sex. There a nice mechanical answer. how nice.

Right now the argument is over whether pornography degrades the participants. In my opinion, that's really dependent on the type of porn.

Given that just about any kind of pornography tends to portray people as nothing but sex machines, it certainly degrades humanity, whatever one might think of what it does for the individual participants.

Forget it, you are just too self rightous. 'Just about any kind of pornography' is a pretty broad subject. Prurient types could define that as torrid romance novels, or virtually any movie where the hero gets the girl into bed. Certainly these two meager examples are not trying to portray degredation are they?

I suppose you're referring to recent scholarly assertions of Puritan sexual openness? You're misinterpreting. Not being uptight about sex does not equate gender equality. They still maintained a strict patriarchal structure. Women were expected to fully submit to their husbands.

I'll grant this openness was not a full granting of equal rights. Still, it was a step in the right direction, given how women in Victorian society had been secluded and isolated during pregnancy, were not supposed to know much about sex, and were basically shamed for any sexual desire they might have. Liberation from that kind of thinking allowed people to start getting the idea that maybe women didn't need all this smothering protection and could take care of themselves.

Hahhah. heh... nice understatement there. Oh wait.. I don't think you were being sarcastic. Bad me.

I'm totally going to ignore the all-too-common insanity of Japanophiles basing their concepts of ideal women or men (or what Japanese women or men are really like) on characters from manga or anime. But your wacky ideas about the freedom of Japanese women really have to be addressed.

Most people tend not to live up to ideal depictions, but am I to believe that what a culture portrays in its ideal characters has nothing to do with what it advocates as its moral objectives? The portrayal of slaves in Roman plays was hardly true to how those slaves actually lived either, but it did amount to a statement that masters should treat their slaves well, that slaves are humans too, etc. In any case, as I'll explain in a minute, my ideas are not "wacky" and they don't originally come from anime at all.

Oh, yes please detail us with your wide variety of reliable source material.
I personally take a chivalrous view of women and try to treat them with respect unless they go out of the way to be obnoxious. Perhaps this is my own way of creating an idealized view of women. I tend to treat men with respect unless they go out of the way to be obnoxious as well... so maybe it's just a common courtesy. Who knows.

Let's get this straight. Japan is a first-world economy with third-world ideas when it comes to gender equality. At UN prodding they've been attempting to make some headway, but the patriarchy is so deeply ingrained into the heirarchal social structure that it will be a long, long time coming before Japanese women come close to the social equality of their American counterparts.

I'll put it this way: the UN and its minions are hardly trustworthy sources for information, given their radically leftist and "feminist" biases. ("Feminist is in scare-quotes because I am referring to the modern women's libbers) I trust neither their data nor their commentary on that data.

The UN and it's minions.
Hmm, I see. Yes internationally recognized and respectied institutions are way off base. There can't possibly be a chance that organizations like amnesty international, and the human rights commision would be looking out for anyones best interest.

I'll wait and see these sources that you provide, to trump the many informative and usefull links provided by Ninebirds.
I'm sure that your sources will provide counterpoints to the legal documentation and research that was clearly seen.
After all, there cannot possibly be any fact to things like salary discrepancies, and legal age of consent discrepancies. Maybe the fact that women in japan clearly have a legal right to abortion, yet also clearly can be charged with breaking the law for excersising those rights will be addressed.

Your Japanese ideal is created through a patriarchal, domineering society that practices systematic discrimination and repression of those members lowest on its social heirarchy. That's the kind of woman you're looking for?

Again, your picture of Japan comes to you through the crooked glasses of the UN, an organization whose claims I do not trust. No, of course I don't want a caricature of a woman from some UN caricature of Japan! Don't assume that I agree with everything your favorite authorities say on anything. What I want, if I should ever bother to marry at all, is a woman who acts like a woman.

I notice you mention "reproductive rights," which pro-lifers like myself know to be a euphemism for abortion. While what I think of the "freedom" to murder an unborn child should be obvious, I find it a bit unlikely that women in Japan don't have this "freedom," given the number of idols to their murdered children dotting the landscape there.

I believe that the choice can only be given to the person bound to the child itself. Personally, I'd rather that young women not get pregnant in the first place. I see teenage girls all the time that are having children, and effectively ruining any chance that they will be self sufficient. The vast majority of these girls will not receive support from their teenage counterparts. They will fall back onto whatever family support system that they have. Failing that they will be forced into a state welfare system. If even that is beyond their kent, then they might lose their child. The end result is a child that is unwanted, inadequetly provided for and often abused.
There are many many methods of avoiding this scenario. Foremost among them is education. Sadly for some reason sex education seems somewhat controversial among the 'right' wing of the spectrum.
I guess being forced to have children that are unwanted, and accidental is a price that you are willing to accept.

Make whatever noise you want. I work with high school age children and see this happening all the time. When the mother drops out of school to take care of her child, forshortening her education it is very very difficult to get back to school at an age young enough to be sucessfull.

In short, you may save the 'potential' of a life, but by not giving the mother a choice in the matter, you are also taking the risk of ruining one.

On an interesting note: many of the same people that are anti abortion have no problem with bombing the shit out of people in other countries. I sense a contradiction. Don't give me shit about 'they attackted us', if you are going to take a moral high ground stick with it.

You've given me a few interesting links to examine. In return, if you're wondering where I'm getting my ideas about Japan and feminism (which are apparently rather unfamiliar to you), you might look into a book by F. Carolyn Graglia called "Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism," which has influenced my views quite a bit. It details, among other things, the philosophical arguments behind modern feminism, and how modern feminism is different from earlier forms of feminism.

I've also drawn certain conclusions from news stories that drift in from Japan from time to time, such as bits about Japanese men working themselves to death, and a story about how Japan's prostitution business is increasingly providing fantasy scenarios for its customers involving young schoolgirls. I've also read about these "home jobs" (I want one!) which are apparently something like telecommuting here in America. Real freedom for women brings freedom for men, too: it's not like we males all appreciate having to go to the office either, you know.

pass. make sense next time.

(Heh, is your username and your opinions about "screeching feminist harpies" purely coincidental?)

Mostly coincidental. If you wonder about where I got my name, though, you can check out the lengthy self-description I provided in my profile.

[/quote]

[NineBirds]

The self-proclaimed "feminist" movement of today is rather different from the feminists of, say, 1900, which is why I used the older name "suffragette" to refer to them.

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.

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.

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.

Feminists don't want boys to act like boys, or girls to act like girls. Anyone who does is cruelly ostracized and punished wherever feminists have power, such as in the public school system.

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

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.

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.

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.

Moreover, no, feminism has not "given women a choice" about work! It has done its worst to regulate them into the office, and demonized any who refuse to go. Freedom to choose between these occupations has only come where feminism is beginning to recede.

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.

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

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.

Raising children is not "real" work; if a woman stays home instead of pursuing an office career, she's a parasite; women who don't work in the office should be castigated.

That's only one subject feminist discussion covers, but it is basically the relevant part of the modern feminist philosophy.

WHOOPS FAIL AGAIN

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.

First, I should point out that it was my detractors who were doing most of the talking about pornography's effects on women. What little I said was on how it's degrading to everybody.

Second, as I've just said, that some people resist pornography's lessons does not excuse either the "teachers" or the "students" who do absorb the lessons.

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?

Given that just about any kind of pornography tends to portray people as nothing but sex machines, it certainly degrades humanity, whatever one might think of what it does for the individual participants.

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?

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.

I'll grant this openness was not a full granting of equal rights. Still, it was a step in the right direction, given how women in Victorian society had been secluded and isolated during pregnancy, were not supposed to know much about sex, and were basically shamed for any sexual desire they might have. Liberation from that kind of thinking allowed people to start getting the idea that maybe women didn't need all this smothering protection and could take care of themselves.

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.

Most people tend not to live up to ideal depictions, but am I to believe that what a culture portrays in its ideal characters has nothing to do with what it advocates as its moral objectives?

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?

I'll put it this way: the UN and its minions are hardly trustworthy sources for information, given their radically leftist and "feminist" biases. ("Feminist is in scare-quotes because I am referring to the modern women's libbers) I trust neither their data nor their commentary on that data.

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)

Again, your picture of Japan comes to you through the crooked glasses of the UN, an organization whose claims I do not trust. No, of course I don't want a caricature of a woman from some UN caricature of Japan!

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.

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.

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?

I notice you mention "reproductive rights," which pro-lifers like myself know to be a euphemism for abortion. While what I think of the "freedom" to murder an unborn child should be obvious, I find it a bit unlikely that women in Japan don't have this "freedom,"

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

given the number of idols to their murdered children dotting the landscape there.

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

In return, if you're wondering where I'm getting my ideas about Japan and feminism (which are apparently rather unfamiliar to you), you might look into a book by F. Carolyn Graglia called "Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism," which has influenced my views quite a bit.

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!)

I've also drawn certain conclusions from news stories that drift in from Japan from time to time, such as bits about Japanese men working themselves to death, and a story about how Japan's prostitution business is increasingly providing fantasy scenarios for its customers involving young schoolgirls. I've also read about these "home jobs" (I want one!) which are apparently something like telecommuting here in America.

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.

Real freedom for women brings freedom for men, too: it's not like we males all appreciate having to go to the office either, you know.

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?

[NineBirds]

Curse the lack of an edit button!

Mostly coincidental. If you wonder about where I got my name, though, you can check out the lengthy self-description I provided in my profile.

Actually, I suspected where you got your name. I really wish my prediction wasn't right.

[Mroni]

This conversation has gone on too long. A girls god given purpose in life is to produce babys end of story. The legal age of marriage should be 13 because girls are in baby making mode by then. Why wait until they dry up?


Mr Oni

[Rorschach]

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.

[ryuu_hime13]

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.

PRECISELY. But I think it's a bit too late to salvaget this thread.

[Arigatomina]

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.

Take your own advice.

Seeing someone smart wish for the days where women were 'taught their place' with the rod makes me sick. The good old days of subservient overly-feminine homemaking women? Yeah, we all want those days back. Good old chattel, stay right where you put them. Where they belong.

Did you know that female lions do the hunting? Nature doesn't say females should stay home and watch the kids. If you want to go by 'nature' then we could easily mimick the mantis and bite the man's head off after impregnation. Nothing in nature says females can't be independent mothers. Nature's grand that way. It's the human men who think they're the 'breadwinner' taking care of the 'good only for childrearing' females.

[Nestorath69]

I got one more thing to say, and I'm done. (I promise!) I've lived on my own ever suince I moved out of my parent's house at the age of 16. I've fought for every scrap of possesion I call my own. I'm 24 now, and I see how far I've come, how many things in myself I've changed.

I cook, I clean, I do all sorts of 'feminine things' but I also smoke, drink, fuck, study, work and play with equal abandon. For you to gender-class activities is jeuvenile.

I've seen the world. Yeah, i'm a geek. I strut that proudly. Hell, i get paid for it. But I've also been through many different walks of life. Gang fights, office politics, college drama and drive-by shootings. Hitchhiking to Mardi-gras, and then flying there the next year for the Voodoo Tour, so i could see Tool play live. it's all these experiences that I pull from whenever I do anything.

And it's from all these experiences that I pull from that tell me that you haven't seen the world. You wanna know something? Testosterone works in the female body the exact same as it does in ours. They get fuckin horny, too. Yeah, they like porn. They like to fuck. Orgasms are cool. They're assertive, agressive, sweet, soft, sexy, cuddly, they're everything they want to be and you'd relegate them to a tiny box. You're lucky I dunno where you are, I'd seriously take a thought to punking you hard.

Fuck... I'm tired.