Books and Intelligence

[Ell]

And sweeping generalisations about feminists are useless, because going on the original definition, every sensible person should be one (ie: it is not right to discriminate against women, and we oppose it). Now men (and many women) feel permitted to use "feminist" almost as an insult, as though it's a completely unreasonable philosophy. That's kind of what I meant earlier about being set back about thirty years.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to just sit back and accept injustices against women just because it's politically unfashionable, and just because other injustices happen. (By the way, I suspect that the people calling men who cook "pussywhipped" are the same people who think that women belong in the kitchen and not in the workplace. That is, not generally women.)

Jennifer, bless you! You give me hope that not all young females are Britney/Christina/JLo wannabees.

 

[StillILearn]

Jennifer, bless you! You give me hope that not all young females are Britney/Christina/JLo wannabees.

I'm right in there with you, Ell. You keep right on speaking your mind, Jennifer, you are the voice of reason in this one.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Hey monkeycatcher. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure what you said about NZ being different is true. I know someone who came from NZ a couple of years ago. She is a teacher and came to teach here because of the positive discrimination for men to go into teaching in NZ. She said the government considered there were too few male teachers so they started advertising jobs in male magazines and offering them not to have to repay their student loans, special golden handshakes and bonuses, etc.

I was not aware of this, and I think that this too is wrong. What is happening here is no different to what we've been discussing here and I don't think that people should get special bonuses for being of a certain gender.

Isn't this the basis of all argument and opinion?

Not if the person making the arguement or opnion is not ignorant. Before making an arguement for something an intelligent person should first look at both sides of the story before making an informed judgement on weither they are in the right. What's the point of fighting for something that you don't believe in?

Not to get too far into the debate, I would just comment that although there are instances of men being discriminated against on the basis of gender, the instances for women are far more numerous. Just because it happens to men too doesn't mean it's right for it to happen to women.

I disagree - I think that men are discriminated against just as much as women are. Homosexual men are prey to prejudice almost all the time, and I think that the occurance of discrimination against homosexual men occurs more often than discrimination against women. I think that the issue of prejudice against homosexuals is, in fact, more pressing than that of prejudice against women.

And never did I say that it was o.k for it to happen to women. I'm just showing that women are not the only ones who are discriminated against. It's not like females are alone in this so why should other people have to discriminated against in order to make it "fair"?

And sweeping generalisations about feminists are useless, because going on the original definition, every sensible person should be one (ie: it is not right to discriminate against women, and we oppose it).

As I have already stated, I was not using the word feminist in this term. If you look back you will notice that I stated I was using it in terms of a women who believes herself to be better than men.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to just sit back and accept injustices against women just because it's politically unfashionable, and just because other injustices happen.

And I agree with this also. I in no way condone the discrimination of women, and I'm not trying to say that it is ok in any way. I was trying to highlight the problem that we get when we try to fix discriminations such as these in that other groups are then discriminated against. It obviously needs to end, but not in a way which makes it unfair to other people.

(By the way, I suspect that the people calling men who cook "pussywhipped" are the same people who think that women belong in the kitchen and not in the workplace. That is, not generally women.)

Does it matter where the discrimination comes from? You yourself stated that it is unjust that women are called sluts when they sleep around, and this term usually comes from females, not males. Again, the source of the discrimination is irrelevant.. the content of the discrimination, however, is what we should be focusing on.

Women are discriminated against, and this /does/ need to stop, but not at the expense of others, such as males who are forced from a job they rightly deserve just because another applicant is female. I actually think that the more pressing issue is that of the discrimination of homosexuality and that of people of certain racial groups. Most people are no longer ignorant of the fact that women can contribute just as much as a male can, but there is still wide-spread and worse discrimination of homosexuals and certain ethnic races which is in need of more urgent attention, IMO.

~MonkeyCatcher~

 

[Jennifer]

Not if the person making the arguement or opnion is not ignorant. Before making an arguement for something an intelligent person should first look at both sides of the story before making an informed judgement on weither they are in the right. What's the point of fighting for something that you don't believe in?

That was what I like to call a joke. Evidently I'm terrible at it.

I disagree - I think that men are discriminated against just as much as women are. Homosexual men are prey to prejudice almost all the time, and I think that the occurance of discrimination against homosexual men occurs more often than discrimination against women. I think that the issue of prejudice against homosexuals is, in fact, more pressing than that of prejudice against women.

So is the issue of world poverty. And nuclear war. And religious hatred. But the discussion is about prejudice against women. (Actually it's about books and intelligence, but we'll pretend we haven't derailed the thread for now...) If homosexual men are discriminated against, the same goes for women.

And never did I say that it was o.k for it to happen to women. I'm just showing that women are not the only ones who are discriminated against. It's not like females are alone in this so why should other people have to discriminated against in order to make it "fair"?

I never thought that you did say that. Just as I never said that other people should be discriminated against to make it fair. Let's turn my original statement around: Just because it happens to women, doesn't mean it's right for it to happen to men. Your defence seemed to imply "well, it happens to everyone, deal with it, women!" In no instance is discrimination right. But again, the issue is discrimination against women, and I'm a woman, so I put it that way round.
And I would dispute your statement that it happens just as much to men. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, no newspaper ran stories about his ability to cope, because he was male. Whereas every time Margaret Thatcher did something wrong (frequently, but that's beside the point) her gender became an issue. Obviously there are many instances, and your example of homosexuality is a good one, but for women, it's routine. Being male, you may not understand this, but it is an everyday occurrence for most women that they will be told, or it will be implied, that they are worth less than men.

As I have already stated, I was not using the word feminist in this term. If you look back you will notice that I stated I was using it in terms of a women who believes herself to be better than men.

And if you look back you will notice that I edited my post to acknowledge your definition. But I let my original comment stand because that definition is a minority of women, and I also thought I should point out that "feminists" aren't a bizarre sub-group, but everyone who is not bigoted and prejudiced.

And I agree with this also. I in no way condone the discrimination of women, and I'm not trying to say that it is ok in any way. I was trying to highlight the problem that we get when we try to fix discriminations such as these in that other groups are then discriminated against. It obviously needs to end, but not in a way which makes it unfair to other people.

It will end when people stop saying that it's a problem too difficult to change. The same goes for other discrimination issues. I agree, as I said above, that there are probably more important things (the rabid feminist in me shrieks "no, nothing is more important!!"), but if people keep shifting the focus like this and saying "there are worse issues, deal with it" then nothing will ever get solved. It's simple. Every single person in the world needs to realise that their gender, race, religion and age do not make them better than any other person. I may be young, foolish and idealistic, but that's what I want to see. The more we say it's difficult, the more we'll believe it'll never happen.

Does it matter where the discrimination comes from? You yourself stated that it is unjust that women are called sluts when they sleep around, and this term usually comes from females, not males. Again, the source of the discrimination is irrelevant.. the content of the discrimination, however, is what we should be focusing on.

Women are discriminated against, and this /does/ need to stop, but not at the expense of others, such as males who are forced from a job they rightly deserve just because another applicant is female. I actually think that the more pressing issue is that of the discrimination of homosexuality and that of people of certain racial groups. Most people are no longer ignorant of the fact that women can contribute just as much as a male can, but there is still wide-spread and worse discrimination of homosexuals and certain ethnic races which is in need of more urgent attention, IMO.

I agree. Don't get the impression I'm attacking you personally - it's just a touchy issue for a lot of women. I also think that differences between religions need sorting out before more people die. After all, few women die from discrimination these days (oh wait, except in countries where we can be stoned to death or mutilated because we're inferior...). I hate all this positive discrimination just as much as you, because it implies that women are incapable of getting a job by fair means, and have to be helped along by law.

(oh, and the bit about the source of the discrimination - I was being a bit silly, implying that one set of people are responsible for all the ills of society. Not meant to be taken entirely literally.)

Evidently, if the Book Forum ruled the world, we'd be sorted.

 

[StillILearn]

Evidently, if the Book Forum ruled the world, we'd be sorted.

I don't suppose you'd consider running for president of the United States, Jennifer? When the time comes?

 

[clueless]

I don't suppose you'd consider running for president of the United States, Jennifer? When the time comes?

Unfortunately, I don't think she can, because of nationality issues but, what about British PM?

 

[Stewart]

what about British PM?

I thought that was the President of the United States.

 

[jay]

Evidently, if the Book Forum ruled the world, we'd be sorted.

Or all forced to repeatedly read Hairy Punter and the collected works of Steph the King…

Unfortunately, I don't think she can, because of nationality issues but, what about British PM?

Well, that little law *wont* stop them from letting Arnold into the House of White eventually. Definitely.

I think Jennifer would be more in breech of Intelligence (that words again!) Issues.
Sorry, that, on top of gender just simply wont wash in the ‘red states’.
Lest us not forget the Wimmin thing is religious based, cuz, you know, Eve like apple turnovers.

Turnover indeed.
j

 

[clueless]

I thought that was the President of the United States.

Maybe it would help if there was a PM instead of a PA?

 

[Jennifer]

Sadly female PMs have a terrible past history. If, indeed, we've ever truly had one. Damn you Maggie!
I think I'd like to be US President, because then you get two countries for the price of one. But you'd all have to cope with me abolishing the death penalty, and televangelism on the basis that it's deeply annoying. And keeping Bush as my personal little simian pet.
Stewart (to be faintly on topic) what do you think to Perdido Street Station?

 

[StillILearn]

I thought that was the President of the United States.

(I've been cyber-ordered to lengthen my message to at least 10 characters, and am so doing, although I had already said all I really needed to say by the simple use of the little green icon.)

 

[jay]

slightly back on topic

A bit of an example that the term *Good Editor* may be a thing of the past:

http://www.express.co.uk/

Hell, I’m all for a little playing with language (but probably not in a headline, especially one bound to tick off everyone on the dole [welfare]) - but when we start modifying our verbs based on a cartoon characters…well, I’m frightened.

j

[in case it changes the front page headline states “Bombers Are All Spongeing Asylum Seekers”]

 

[Stewart]

Stewart (to be faintly on topic) what do you think to Perdido Street Station?

Considering it's my first fantasy novel* I'm actually quite enjoying it despite its occasional forays into pseudo-science. The characters are different and it differs from my perception (especially when looking at the covers in shops) that fantasy is going from A to B in search of the Sword/Stone/Book of This/That/Whatever while killing a dragon and staying with elves along the way.

The fact that it's like a normal novel, people go about their normal lives until something happens, and there's no king needing a sword-for-hire is great. Where I've got to at the moment it's getting vaguely political, slanted of course to Mieville's socialist sympathies, with the story widening from a few characters to the level of city governance and the wider politics of the setting, New Crubuzon.

Characters are fine, things appear to be well-thought out, and events are progressing logically thus far (well, as logical as can be in a foreign world) although the authors tendency to use a larger vocabulary in some places, where more common words would take nothing from the narrative, annoys me a little but I can't decide if he's showing off or using them to reinforce we're not in our world.

So, it could do without the science, but for the nigh on 400 pages (not even halfway ) that I've read I can recommend it, especially as a non-fantasy fan, but I don't think I'll be going out of my way to read further books by this author.

* I tried Tolkien but that world of pixie-magic just left me despairing.

 

[Jennifer]

This from the Express? How surprising...
Never one for a sweeping generalisation, the Express has been responsible for some of the most upright and sensible journalism in the last twenty years.
And the spelling is always as impeccable as the sentiment.

 

[clueless]

I don't worry too much about spelling any more, since an ex-hack from The Sun told me proudly that they never had spelling mistakes or misprints, unlike papers like The Guardian.

 

[Jennifer]

Considering it's my first fantasy novel* I'm actually quite enjoying it despite its occasional forays into pseudo-science. The characters are different and it differs from my perception (especially when looking at the covers in shops) that fantasy is going from A to B in search of the Sword/Stone/Book of This/That/Whatever while killing a dragon and staying with elves along the way.

I found that refreshing too. Although the fantasy geek part of me was thinking "There should be dragons about now..."

I liked it, but not as much as I thought I would. Like you said, too much pseudo-science. However, it was entirely different from most books I've ever read, which isn't something you can say very often. I liked the darker tone - you almost feel dirty after some of those descriptions. And I actually thought the political side was interesting. But something just left me dissatisfied. Perhaps it was that it attempted to be too realistic and gritty, so the fantastical bits just seemed ludicrous, where in a normal fantasy book you accept them along with the elves. Still, worth the read, I thought.

 

[Jennifer]

I don't worry too much about spelling any more, since an ex-hack from The Sun told me proudly that they never had spelling mistakes or misprints, unlike papers like The Guardian.

Despite headlines like "It Was The Sun Wot Won It!"...

 

[Stewart]

an ex-hack from The Sun told me proudly that they never had spelling mistakes or misprints, unlike papers like The Guardian.

Well, considering 'tits' isn't that hard to spell and nobody actually knows how to spell 'Phwoarr!' it's not the best claim The Sun can make.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Being male, you may not understand this, but it is an everyday occurrence for most women that they will be told, or it will be implied, that they are worth less than men.

I have to run off quick, but beore I go I would like to clear this up. I am most definately female and so I do understand

I'll post a longer one later,

~MonkeyCatcher~

 

[Jennifer]

Oh pants. Now I feel stupid. Plus, it shows me up as making assumptions about gender based on opinion.
Please feel free to ignore me henceforth