The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Frenline Delpha]

I recognize that. It's just that it shocks me that people don't even know what suffrage means anymore. I am disappointed.

I suspect that there was a degree of cherry-picking in that video. I find it hard to believe that a majority (let alone the 100% they showed there) of students don't know what suffrage means.

I don't disagree. Maybe I am being a bit pretensious here. I do find it hilarious.

[Des-Bal]

I don't disagree. Maybe I am being a bit pretensious here. I do find it hilarious.

I think it's funny, particularly when they start defending their views, but I have no doubt that there's some piece of common knowledge that I would be stumped on. I think that's true for everyone.

[New Edom]

I have a hard time faulting people for not understanding words or phrases that are not commonly used. I don't think these people are necessarily stupid. I think that this like the dihydrogen monoxide, and Obama is a Keynesian experiments are clear indications that people need be more careful about agreeing to things and trying to logic their way through a situation without first stopping to accept that they are confused. I don't think this necessarily says anything about feminism.

No. Just about the state of modern day college students.

lol. It's funny but I wonder how real this is. I'm tempted to try it on my campus and see how real it is.

I did enjoy hearing the one woman saying "I had no idea how much suffrage there was, and we need to stop it..." But anyway yeah I think this is comedy, we don't know how many more intelligent people there were, or if these were actors.

[Wallenburg]

They probably just don't know what "suffrage" means and logic it's related to "suffering"'.

If you said you were trying to remove women's right to vote, you'd get a very different result.

I recognize that. It's just that it shocks me that people don't even know what suffrage means anymore. I am disappointed.

This sort of issue with general intelligence has always been an issue. Looking at it historically, we live in an age of unprecedented enlightenment.

[Des-Bal]

lol. It's funny but I wonder how real this is. I'm tempted to try it on my campus and see how real it is.

I did enjoy hearing the one woman saying "I had no idea how much suffrage there was, and we need to stop it..." But anyway yeah I think this is comedy, we don't know how many more intelligent people there were, or if these were actors.

I don't think these people are dumb. They aren't familiar with an uncommon word.

[New Edom]

lol. It's funny but I wonder how real this is. I'm tempted to try it on my campus and see how real it is.

I did enjoy hearing the one woman saying "I had no idea how much suffrage there was, and we need to stop it..." But anyway yeah I think this is comedy, we don't know how many more intelligent people there were, or if these were actors.

I don't think these people are dumb. They aren't familiar with an uncommon word.

Yes, that's not why they're dumb if it IS an accurate depiction, which I'm dubious about because as I said I'm pretty sure it's a joke. I think it was done on a comedy show back in the 90s too.

Anyway this is why they would be dumb if the video is true: supposedly they care about feminist issues. Not knowing the word suffriage suggests that they don't know the background of the ideology they claimt to support. Being poorly informed isn't smart. But then this should not be surprising; there are ardent Christians who have barely read the Bible, passionate supporters of science who don't know how to explain the Theory of Evolution. People on average tend to be lazy, stupid and cowardly.

[Des-Bal]

Yes, that's not why they're dumb if it IS an accurate depiction, which I'm dubious about because as I said I'm pretty sure it's a joke. I think it was done on a comedy show back in the 90s too.

Anyway this is why they would be dumb if the video is true: supposedly they care about feminist issues. Not knowing the word suffriage suggests that they don't know the background of the ideology they claimt to support. Being poorly informed isn't smart. But then this should not be surprising; there are ardent Christians who have barely read the Bible, passionate supporters of science who don't know how to explain the Theory of Evolution. People on average tend to be lazy, stupid and cowardly.

I'm sure it is real, much like the dihydrogen monoxide and Barrack Obama is a Keynesian you can very easily confuse people with words they don't commonly use.

Actually people on average tend to be average in their motivation, intelligence, and bravery. Such is the nature of averages. Not knowing the word suffrage suggests the person doesn't know much history but that doesn't equate to being uninformed about issues.

[New Edom]

Yes, that's not why they're dumb if it IS an accurate depiction, which I'm dubious about because as I said I'm pretty sure it's a joke. I think it was done on a comedy show back in the 90s too.

Anyway this is why they would be dumb if the video is true: supposedly they care about feminist issues. Not knowing the word suffriage suggests that they don't know the background of the ideology they claimt to support. Being poorly informed isn't smart. But then this should not be surprising; there are ardent Christians who have barely read the Bible, passionate supporters of science who don't know how to explain the Theory of Evolution. People on average tend to be lazy, stupid and cowardly.

I'm sure it is real, much like the dihydrogen monoxide and Barrack Obama is a Keynesian you can very easily confuse people with words they don't commonly use.

Actually people on average tend to be average in their motivation, intelligence, and bravery. Such is the nature of averages. Not knowing the word suffrage suggests the person doesn't know much history but that doesn't equate to being uninformed about issues.

So why didn't any of them say, "I'll get back to you on this, I want to research this first" before putting their name to a petition?

[Des-Bal]

So why didn't any of them say, "I'll get back to you on this, I want to research this first" before putting their name to a petition?

Because people don't like to admit they're confused, rather than accept they didn't know what a word meant they guessed that suffrage sounded like suffering and if someone was starting a petition against something it was probably bad.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm sure it is real, much like the dihydrogen monoxide and Barrack Obama is a Keynesian you can very easily confuse people with words they don't commonly use.

Actually people on average tend to be average in their motivation, intelligence, and bravery. Such is the nature of averages. Not knowing the word suffrage suggests the person doesn't know much history but that doesn't equate to being uninformed about issues.

So why didn't any of them say, "I'll get back to you on this, I want to research this first" before putting their name to a petition?

Admitting you don't know what the word means is embarrassing. People really don't like feeling embarrassed.

There's a lot of research out on this. Many people would usually rather make up a plausible-sounding answer than admit being ignorant when someone seems to be assuming they should know this. This isn't new.

[Wallenburg]

So why didn't any of them say, "I'll get back to you on this, I want to research this first" before putting their name to a petition?

Because people don't like to admit they're confused, rather than accept they didn't know what a word meant they guessed that suffrage sounded like suffering and if someone was starting a petition against something it was probably bad.

^^This. People are prideful. They don't want to look ignorant, so they will say things as if they know what they are talking about, even when they do not.

[New Edom]

So why didn't any of them say, "I'll get back to you on this, I want to research this first" before putting their name to a petition?

Admitting you don't know what the word means is embarrassing. People really don't like feeling embarrassed.

There's a lot of research out on this. Many people would usually rather make up a plausible-sounding answer than admit being ignorant when someone seems to be assuming they should know this. This isn't new.

You guys may be right here. I'm often the only person in class willing to ask a question. I don't mind if I'm found wrong as long as I get information in return. But you're right, it's a rare thing.

[Philjia]

Obviously banking on the lazy trick of paying lip service to feminism, a gender swapped version of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is in development. If you've seen Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, take a moment to think about the implications this has to the story.

Yes, it is hilariously ironic, isn't it?

[Frenline Delpha]

Obviously banking on the lazy trick of paying lip service to feminism, a gender swapped version of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is in development. If you've seen Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, take a moment to think about the implications this has to the story.

Yes, it is hilariously ironic, isn't it?

I am against gender swapping peices of media as a principle, so I am opposed to this instantly. However, why is it ironic?

[Philjia]

Obviously banking on the lazy trick of paying lip service to feminism, a gender swapped version of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is in development. If you've seen Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, take a moment to think about the implications this has to the story.

Yes, it is hilariously ironic, isn't it?

I am against gender swapping peices of media as a principle, so I am opposed to this instantly. However, why is it ironic?

The original film is about two male con artists competing to extract a certain amount of money from a female mark. The final twist is that they both end up being fleeced by the mark, who is actually a con artist who set out to entrap them. The original Dirty Rotten Scoundrels has the clever woman outwitting the dumb men. The remake will be the opposite.

[Frenline Delpha]

I am against gender swapping peices of media as a principle, so I am opposed to this instantly. However, why is it ironic?

The original film is about two male con artists competing to extract a certain amount of money from a female mark. The final twist is that they both end up being fleeced by the mark, who is actually a con artist who set out to entrap them. The original Dirty Rotten Scoundrels has the clever woman outwitting the dumb men. The remake will be the opposite.

I see that irony.

[Giovenith]

I am against gender swapping peices of media as a principle, so I am opposed to this instantly. However, why is it ironic?

The original film is about two male con artists competing to extract a certain amount of money from a female mark. The final twist is that they both end up being fleeced by the mark, who is actually a con artist who set out to entrap them. The original Dirty Rotten Scoundrels has the clever woman outwitting the dumb men. The remake will be the opposite.

I propose that we gender-swap Disney's "Mulan," where a young man born into a matriarchal amazon culture must disguise himself as a woman to take his elderly mother's place in the army and prove himself as equal in the eyes of the establishment.

... Actually, the sounds kind of interesting, I might actually try to do something like that.

[New Edom]

I am against gender swapping peices of media as a principle, so I am opposed to this instantly. However, why is it ironic?

The original film is about two male con artists competing to extract a certain amount of money from a female mark. The final twist is that they both end up being fleeced by the mark, who is actually a con artist who set out to entrap them. The original Dirty Rotten Scoundrels has the clever woman outwitting the dumb men. The remake will be the opposite.

Hehe. But this is also a good example of how HOllywood is so often more about busines and marketing than about the art, and focuses on gimmicks more often than not. Like "Hey, this movie was succesful, feminism is popular in Hollywood, let's reverse the sexes!" It's no better than thinking adding annoying kids or monkeys makes things funny.

[Aelex]

I propose that we gender-swap Disney's "Mulan," where a young man born into a matriarchal amazon culture must disguise himself as a woman to take his elderly mother's place in the army and prove himself as equal in the eyes of the establishment.

... Actually, the sounds kind of interesting, I might actually try to do something like that.

Don't take it bad but the very premise of the film is built on an impossible idea as, when it comes to War, especially pre-gun powder era wars, men are simply fitter than women because of biological reasons.
I mean, the very Amazons you mentionned got their reputation of warriors from their skill as horse archers that's to say as cavalry whose goal is to skirmish and avoid ever getting caught into actual hand to hand combat. If they had to face on the ground their neighbors' hoplitai phalanx into melee or merely get into a skirmish fight without the advantage of being on horse-back against peltastoi, their hope of victory would have been very thin because the extra muscles and growth the male body get does give us a certain advantage.

That don't mean that men would win each time, but the very fact that no matriarcal society managed to survive when pitted against patriarcal ones should tell you that one does has an inherent martial advantage over the other.

[New Edom]

I propose that we gender-swap Disney's "Mulan," where a young man born into a matriarchal amazon culture must disguise himself as a woman to take his elderly mother's place in the army and prove himself as equal in the eyes of the establishment.

... Actually, the sounds kind of interesting, I might actually try to do something like that.

Don't take it bad but the very premise of the film is built on an impossible idea as, when it comes to War, especially pre-gun powder era wars, men are simply fitter than women because of biological reasons.
I mean, the very Amazons you mentionned got their reputation of warriors from their skill as horse archers that's to say as cavalry whose goal is to skirmish and avoid ever getting caught into actual hand to hand combat. If they had to face on the ground their neighbors' hoplitai phalanx into melee or merely get into a skirmish fight without the advantage of being on horse-back against peltastoi, their hope of victory would have been very thin because the extra muscles and growth the male body get does give us a certain advantage.

That don't mean that men would win each time, but the very fact that no matriarcal society managed to survive when pitted against patriarcal ones should tell you that one does has an inherent martial advantage over the other.

It's a funny idea, but to me the best movies Disney has done about egalitarianism are things like "Finding Nemo" and "Inside Out". You just need to accept that historically things were different, in the modern age things have changed and make your stories work that way. These attempts to feel better about history are annoying and stupid.

[Giovenith]

I propose that we gender-swap Disney's "Mulan," where a young man born into a matriarchal amazon culture must disguise himself as a woman to take his elderly mother's place in the army and prove himself as equal in the eyes of the establishment.

... Actually, the sounds kind of interesting, I might actually try to do something like that.

Don't take it bad but the very premise of the film is built on an impossible idea as, when it comes to War, especially pre-gun powder era wars, men are simply fitter than women because of biological reasons.
I mean, the very Amazons you mentionned got their reputation of warriors from their skill as horse archers that's to say as cavalry whose goal is to skirmish and avoid ever getting caught into actual hand to hand combat. If they had to face on the ground their neighbors' hoplitai phalanx into melee or merely get into a skirmish fight without the advantage of being on horse-back against peltastoi, their hope of victory would have been very thin because the extra muscles and growth the male body get does give us a certain advantage.

That don't mean that men would win each time, but the very fact that no matriarcal society managed to survive when pitted against patriarcal ones should tell you that one does has an inherent martial advantage over the other.

There's talking dragons and ghost people, I don't think anyone's going to be too taken off-guard if there's a fictional universe where women evolved to be the more qualified warrior class.

[Des-Bal]

The original film is about two male con artists competing to extract a certain amount of money from a female mark. The final twist is that they both end up being fleeced by the mark, who is actually a con artist who set out to entrap them. The original Dirty Rotten Scoundrels has the clever woman outwitting the dumb men. The remake will be the opposite.

I got Dirty Rotten Scoundrels mixed up with Horrible Bosses, a comedy that features a man trapped in a job he can't quit with a female boss who constantly sexually harasses him and then thought about how a gender swapped version couldn't be marketed as a comedy.

[Chestaan]

Because people don't like to admit they're confused, rather than accept they didn't know what a word meant they guessed that suffrage sounded like suffering and if someone was starting a petition against something it was probably bad.

^^This. People are prideful. They don't want to look ignorant, so they will say things as if they know what they are talking about, even when they do not.

Reminds me of the time when some guys made up some football players names and told Chelsea fans that they may be transferring to their team soon. The fans made some hilarious comments such as "I've been keeping an eye on the Belgian league and I've been following his progress"

[New Edom]

Don't take it bad but the very premise of the film is built on an impossible idea as, when it comes to War, especially pre-gun powder era wars, men are simply fitter than women because of biological reasons.
I mean, the very Amazons you mentionned got their reputation of warriors from their skill as horse archers that's to say as cavalry whose goal is to skirmish and avoid ever getting caught into actual hand to hand combat. If they had to face on the ground their neighbors' hoplitai phalanx into melee or merely get into a skirmish fight without the advantage of being on horse-back against peltastoi, their hope of victory would have been very thin because the extra muscles and growth the male body get does give us a certain advantage.

That don't mean that men would win each time, but the very fact that no matriarcal society managed to survive when pitted against patriarcal ones should tell you that one does has an inherent martial advantage over the other.

There's talking dragons and ghost people, I don't think anyone's going to be too taken off-guard if there's a fictional universe where women evolved to be the more qualified warrior class.

I can more easily imagine the dragons and ghost people. If you had this Amazon thing I'd want to know why, there'd have to be some kind of reason. I have read a fair amount of speculative fiction including stuff on this issue, and I roleplay in a region where three nations are matriarchal, so I'm willing to be open minded but there has to be a good backstory.

I used to read those books that were set in a matriarchal society--like the Clan of the Cave Bear series and this series about agrarian matriarchal people facing off against pastoral patriarchal people, and I found them to be kind of bullshit though entertaining to read.

[Wallenburg]

There's talking dragons and ghost people, I don't think anyone's going to be too taken off-guard if there's a fictional universe where women evolved to be the more qualified warrior class.

I can more easily imagine the dragons and ghost people. If you had this Amazon thing I'd want to know why, there'd have to be some kind of reason. I have read a fair amount of speculative fiction including stuff on this issue, and I roleplay in a region where three nations are matriarchal, so I'm willing to be open minded but there has to be a good backstory.

I used to read those books that were set in a matriarchal society--like the Clan of the Cave Bear series and this series about agrarian matriarchal people facing off against pastoral patriarchal people, and I found them to be kind of bullshit though entertaining to read.

You find talking dragons and ghosts more believable than a society with many athletic women?