Feminism general thread
- Volafortis
- Posts: 926
- Joined: 17 Jun 2011, 23:30
- First Video: I am a spam bot.
- Location: The frozen wastes, Minnesota
Re: Feminism general thread
Okay, I'm gonna chime in on the whole zie/hir/etc... debate:
When determining someone's gender, always default to how they're presenting, and if it's unclear to you, ask what pronouns they'd prefer, rathher than doing some wishy-washy assumption that can only potentially offend.
Most people who don't present in a clear binary fashion won't mind being asked what pronouns they'd like you to use; it shows that you would like to speak to them while treating them with validity.
Most of the time, you will receive on of he/she/they. In these cases most people don't flinch (unless they're a transphobic bigot).
Typically the issues I see involve these gender variant pronouns people use, and all I have to say to that is this: Just accomodate it. Refusing to use the pronoun they prefer does or of (or both!) of these two things.
1. (This is the actual major reason) Implies that their chosen gender is invalid, which leads to dehumanizing effect on the individual. I've heard of a lot of people responding to these answers with a "No, but what is it really," type of thing, and that's just unacceptable. Use what they tell you to use, it's not like it's some great burden on your behalf. If they don't feel that they fit within the gender binary, then that's something that they know about themself, not something you should be trying to supersede.
2. Implies that language is a scarce resource that needs to be preserved, and that using a variant pronoun somehows goes against this. I shouldn't have to explain why this is silly, but I've heard the argument before, so I had to post it.
Honestly, if given a pronoun to use, use it, don't try to get around it with "they" or any other ridiculousness like that either.
When determining someone's gender, always default to how they're presenting, and if it's unclear to you, ask what pronouns they'd prefer, rathher than doing some wishy-washy assumption that can only potentially offend.
Most people who don't present in a clear binary fashion won't mind being asked what pronouns they'd like you to use; it shows that you would like to speak to them while treating them with validity.
Most of the time, you will receive on of he/she/they. In these cases most people don't flinch (unless they're a transphobic bigot).
Typically the issues I see involve these gender variant pronouns people use, and all I have to say to that is this: Just accomodate it. Refusing to use the pronoun they prefer does or of (or both!) of these two things.
1. (This is the actual major reason) Implies that their chosen gender is invalid, which leads to dehumanizing effect on the individual. I've heard of a lot of people responding to these answers with a "No, but what is it really," type of thing, and that's just unacceptable. Use what they tell you to use, it's not like it's some great burden on your behalf. If they don't feel that they fit within the gender binary, then that's something that they know about themself, not something you should be trying to supersede.
2. Implies that language is a scarce resource that needs to be preserved, and that using a variant pronoun somehows goes against this. I shouldn't have to explain why this is silly, but I've heard the argument before, so I had to post it.
Honestly, if given a pronoun to use, use it, don't try to get around it with "they" or any other ridiculousness like that either.
- Tycherin
- Posts: 835
- Joined: 30 Mar 2011, 13:27
- First Video: The Lich King's New Wrath
- Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Feminism general thread
For what it's worth, from a linguistic perspective, pronouns are a "closed" class of words, meaning that we really, really don't like making modifications to it. It's a structural part of the language - it isn't easy to add new words willy-nilly like it is for nouns or verbs. It isn't impossible to change - we used to use "thee" and "thou" as singular second person pronouns, but those went the way of the dodo in the past several centuries. But it does take a lot of time for those to be accepted into the general lexicon.
There are some problems with implementing gender neutral pronouns. In the long term, the question is basically this: if you have a functional gender neutral singular pronoun, why wouldn't you use it by default? In that case, the gendered pronouns - he and she - become more intensive. Kind of like how a waiter can feasibly be male or female, but a waitress is exclusively female. Is that a strong enough reason not to try? Probably not, but I can see how things like that would make people hesitant to adopt new terms. (Oh, and for the record: in Latin, a group of all women is referred to with a female plural, but as soon as you add a single man to the group, the pronoun changes to the male plural. So it could be worse, is all I'm saying.)
For my part, I'm more than willing to use whatever pronouns people want to give me, but I'm uncertain how far I'm willing to go out of my way to get that information from people. In the majority of cases, displayed gender (or performed gender, if you like the "gender as performance" school of thought) matches identified gender, and questioning someone's gender could be seen as offensive. You're welcome to argue that it shouldn't be offensive, but that's how things are at the moment. So on the one hand, it seems most efficient to have non-gender-conforming people be responsible for alerting others to their preferred pronouns (or whatever); and on the other hand, that could also (justifiably) be argued to be another form of discrimination. I dunno, I don't have a good solution one way or the other.
There are some problems with implementing gender neutral pronouns. In the long term, the question is basically this: if you have a functional gender neutral singular pronoun, why wouldn't you use it by default? In that case, the gendered pronouns - he and she - become more intensive. Kind of like how a waiter can feasibly be male or female, but a waitress is exclusively female. Is that a strong enough reason not to try? Probably not, but I can see how things like that would make people hesitant to adopt new terms. (Oh, and for the record: in Latin, a group of all women is referred to with a female plural, but as soon as you add a single man to the group, the pronoun changes to the male plural. So it could be worse, is all I'm saying.)
For my part, I'm more than willing to use whatever pronouns people want to give me, but I'm uncertain how far I'm willing to go out of my way to get that information from people. In the majority of cases, displayed gender (or performed gender, if you like the "gender as performance" school of thought) matches identified gender, and questioning someone's gender could be seen as offensive. You're welcome to argue that it shouldn't be offensive, but that's how things are at the moment. So on the one hand, it seems most efficient to have non-gender-conforming people be responsible for alerting others to their preferred pronouns (or whatever); and on the other hand, that could also (justifiably) be argued to be another form of discrimination. I dunno, I don't have a good solution one way or the other.
- Duckay
- Posts: 3706
- Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 00:57
- First Video: Man Cooking
- Location: Central Coast, Australia
Re: Feminism general thread
I feel like the zie/hir thing got way off-track. I completely fail to understand how referring to a hypothetical person who could be any gender as "zie" rather than "he/she" is ignoring the majority, so I have to assume that someone took the fact that it was being used in that context and assumed that meant the writer was arguing it should be used always? I guess the important point here is that context matters. Someone using a gender neutral term in a context does not mean they want to use that gender neutral term in every context.
-
- Posts: 120
- Joined: 08 Jul 2014, 00:37
- First Video: I honestly can't remember.
- Location: New Brunswick, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Feminism general thread
mariomario42 wrote:Matt wrote:Case in point why I don't trust "egalitarians":
-denial of patriarchy
-bogus assertion that feminism fails to understand societal forces driving pay gap
-defence of victim blaming, and invocation of "false claims" in discussion of rape culture.
These do not represent the positions of a progressive movement on gender equality.
Period.
-m
If I based my opinion on feminism on one person, I wouldn't call it a progressive movement. I would call the cops after seeing stuff like "kill all white men".
Hopefully I will explain these topics more in responding to ShukesShukes wrote:The Patriarchy is a short hand way of saying the societal advantages granted to men in a society where men are valued more than women. It's not intended to describe some sort of all powerful group of misogynists ruling the world. It is in a sense manipulating every aspect of our lives because it is everywhere and invisible if you don't suffer the effects. The patriarchy is like sexist radiation.
I don't like the vagueness when someone says "fight the patriarchy". To me, this is like saying "stop people from dying". No plan, no details, but in a general sense you are doing something? Short hand does not do anyone good, if you have a specific way in mind, say that.
A lot of this also seems like a matter of perspective. Some people will say that women in medieval times were valued less since they couldn't go fight and protect the land. On the other side of that coin, others will say women were valued more since the men had to go fight and die to protect the land, which contained the women of the kingdom. Saying the patriarchy caused it doesn't allow proper discussion of the topic.Shukes wrote:To cover what I meant by the equal pay and variances between types of work, when a court is deciding (In England and Wales) if someone has been paid less on grounds of sex the person bringing the claim must provide a co-worker to compare with themselves. (Which is a whole other feminist jurisprudence issue I won't delve into here) To be successful they need to be doing effectively the same job, be rated the same by the company using an internal grading system yet be paid disparate amounts or do work of equal value (An example from one case a male chef who did 3 meals a day for general workers and a female chef who did 1 meal a day for management were held to be of equal value as the female chefs work was required to be of a higher standard). Therefore the differences between the jobs being done is taken into account when discussing the wage gap, women are being paid less than men for doing the same job.
Your example of a “societal factor” is a little confusing but it's irrelevant to the wage gap discussion, the promoted father of your example would be compared to a women who had been promoted to the same level who would most likely be paid less for doing the same job.
This is a topic I feel like others can explain clearer than me. Searching "wage gap myth" on Google provides a plethora of articles and the like to explain this better than regurgitated words I can say about the topic on here. Please take the time to read some of the sources out there.Shukes wrote:First of all false rape claims are rare and a distraction to the important conversation on rape culture. Secondly I can accept that when someone is accused of a crime they are entitled to a robust defence, however I think that general sexual history (which is brought up in rape trials) is irrelevant and what the victim was wearing is irrelevant to consent yet it is also used to illustrate the defence of consent.
I think consent needs to be discussed and explained far more as it is more complex than people discuss. An excellent video on the matter is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5H6QvNmfjY and I highly recommend it's watched.
I think that video is a great starting point! Her examples are fine, but aren't necessarily the golden truth. If a nod of the head is consent, what is the line? Does grinding on someone for 20 minutes count as that? A simple smile when asked? And I think the "if you can drive, you can consent" is a fair rule of thumb, but alcohol reacts with everyone different. It is again a "where is the line?" argument. The knowledge of where that is would be beneficial to all. I have seen some people claim that any alcohol a girl drinks makes them unable to consent, and I don't think that helps anyone.
For the rest of this reply, I'm going to link this article. I started paying more attention when I saw this infograph surface and my instinct told me there were a few things wrong with it. It has a major case of "guilty until proven innocent", but let's look at the actual facts it does contain. The only title of "rapist" can be given to someone who faced trial and found guilty, so it's is 10% of those reported. The article says false claims are between 2 and 8%, so 5% will work, since this is falling under the reported section. The other 85% did not have enough evidence to lead anywhere, and drawing conclusions of guilty or not cannot be done. Still, look at these values. For every 2 rapists, 1 person is falsely accused? I hope that these numbers are wrong, but that absolutely terrifies me. Being falsely accused can ruin a person's reputation, even after being found not guilty. Even a 5:1 ratio is something I don't find acceptable for people to make assumptions about rape, and I do hope it will change, for everything to decrease in occurrence rates.
I'm seeing a lot of problematic positions in your posts and I'd like to take the time to sift through a few. EDIT: I do not believe these opinions are STRICTLY feminist but have a lot in common (see my past posts for my personal moral views)
First of all, patriarchy, not "THE patriarchy". In my opinion it is not a group of men who's sole goal is the dominance over women. Patriarchy is a larger subconscious thing. It taints our thought processes in a lot of ways that do not seem out of place or even wrong. Patriarchy is a societal cancer, and like many cancers if you are not actively looking for it, it can go unnoticed until it's too late and has done a lot of irreversible damage.
For example: Peter MacKay, Canada's Justice Minister, sent out two emails, one of Mother's Day, the other on Father's Day. His mother's day email praised women for "working two jobs" by being justice employees during the day and full time caregivers, changing diapers, cleaning the house, an actual quote from the email "By the time many of you have arrived at the office in the morning, you’ve already changed diapers, packed lunches, run after school buses, dropped kids off at daycare, taken care of an aging loved one and maybe even thought about dinner." But in MacKay's father's day address it bore the tone of father's "shaping the minds and futures of the next generation of leaders." Using rhetoric like "teach", "mould" and "guide". You can read the full article and the emails here http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-mackay-lauds-moms-for-changing-diapers-dads-for-moulding-minds-in-holiday-messages-1.2686099 If there's a part of your brain that reads that and doesn't find anything wrong with the differences between those two differently toned emails, that is the effect of patriarchy because it creates a masculine idea and a feminine idea. There is nothing wrong with a woman who changes diapers, packs lunches, runs after school buses, drops kids off at daycare, takes care of aging loved ones, etc. BUT the issue is that it is suggesting that man can't, or don't do the same things. The same can be said of men, there is nothing wrong with men who teach, mould and guide their children but that doesn't mean women can't as well. Patriarchy is oppressive to men and women, because if you do not match the ideal of a man or the ideal of a woman there must be something wrong with you. The ideas of men being rugged, independent and distant, that men don't raise children but are an example to children and the ideas of women being natural care givers, as well as working two jobs, (in a career and as a mother) is one of the reasons why patriarchal thinking is so dangerous and toxic. It's why men have a harder time proving their worth as a care giver in family court matters, especially over child custody, it's why we have a underlying idea of what is a man's job and what is a woman's job and it's a huge contributor to homophobia. I don't believe Peter MacKay gets together every Wednesday night at a bar for beers with the guys (example of a patriarchal thought used for effect) and plots against women in the justice profession (which still has quite a large "boys club" mentality to it) or against women in general. I believe at the time he thought he was doing a noble thing and did not realize he was perpetuating the negative effects of patriarchy.
As for the wage gap: This is probably the area that has had the most success in the past forty years but it still isn't solved. The problem with the wage gap is that it is not a set amount. You cannot say that "women make 20% less than men for the same job" because studies have found the the percentage changes between professions. The correct method is "on average, women make 20% less than men for the same job". The average part is extremely important, as I saw from previous posts you consider yourself learned in statistics but others may not know that extreme data points at either end can drastically change an average. Here are a couple of summaries of studies done on wage disparity between men and women in Canada http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/equal-pay-for-equal-work-a-look-at-the-wage-gap-between-men-and-women-in-vaI really like this one because it is fairly recent (from 2012) and breaks the national average into its smaller components to look at wage disparity by job. The other site I have is from the pay equity commission of Ontario, Canada. http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/en/about/pubs/genderwage/wagegap.php This is more of a statement than a study but they do provide links to studies conducted by Statistics Canada. The most shocking piece of evidence I found is that as high as 10 to 15% of wage disparity is still due to discrimination. Again this is not "THE patriarchy" making sure women do not make as much as men but the idea that women do not belong in said job or are not as good as a man at said job is the effect of a patriarchal society.
Last of all, victim blaming. It is true that some people convicted of rape have been falsely accused but has their ever been a crime that has had a 100% perfect conviction rate where an innocent person hasn't been convicted of a crime? I know how damaging a false accusation can be, I was falsely accused of sexual harassment and it took years before I was given an apology from my employer and those that accused me there are still times it settles on me in a dark cloud of depression but victim blaming is the worst possible course of action. Here's another statistic for you: of every 100 incidents of sexual assault only 6 are reported http://www.sexassault.ca/statistics.htm. Throughout many cultures there is also a shame culture surrounding sexual assault. Again I believe we can look to the effects of patriarchy for victim blaming because "men are supposed to be chivalrous and defend a woman's honour so obviously you were giving mixed signals". If anything I believe this points to the need of a better justice system, unfortunately I have not studied any criminology so I do not feel I am able to make well researched suggestions but I do feel the one that exists in Canada is not good enough if those statistics are to be believed.
Last edited by J_S_Bach on 13 Jul 2014, 17:38, edited 1 time in total.
- Duckay
- Posts: 3706
- Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 00:57
- First Video: Man Cooking
- Location: Central Coast, Australia
Re: Feminism general thread
mariomario42 wrote:For the rest of this reply, I'm going to link this article. I started paying more attention when I saw this infograph surface and my instinct told me there were a few things wrong with it. It has a major case of "guilty until proven innocent", but let's look at the actual facts it does contain. The only title of "rapist" can be given to someone who faced trial and found guilty, so it's is 10% of those reported. The article says false claims are between 2 and 8%, so 5% will work, since this is falling under the reported section. The other 85% did not have enough evidence to lead anywhere, and drawing conclusions of guilty or not cannot be done. Still, look at these values. For every 2 rapists, 1 person is falsely accused? I hope that these numbers are wrong, but that absolutely terrifies me. Being falsely accused can ruin a person's reputation, even after being found not guilty. Even a 5:1 ratio is something I don't find acceptable for people to make assumptions about rape, and I do hope it will change, for everything to decrease in occurrence rates.
I think it's more terrifying that only 10% of reported rapes go to trial and are convicted. Not to say that I think that anyone accused of rape should be denied a fair trial, as obviously that should not be denied to anyone, but that statistic clearly speaks to something much deeper going on. From personal experience and from readings done on the topic I would speculate that one of the reasons is that, sadly, it's not taken seriously and often the victim's claims are called into question for inappropriate reasons (the classic "what were you wearing?"). And that's not even touching those incidents where the event was not reported (which is, sadly, very high), or when the identity of the assailant was not known. Taking all that into account, it's extraordinarily unlikely that it is actually one false report for every two rapes, or even one for every five.
- Lord Hosk
- Posts: 6587
- Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 08:30
- First Video: Checkpoint: Into the breach
- Location: Half and inch below the knuckle of the ring finger. MI
Re: Feminism general thread
mariomario42 wrote:For the rest of this reply, Still, look at these values. For every 2 rapists, 1 person is falsely accused? I hope that these numbers are wrong, but that absolutely terrifies me. Being falsely accused can ruin a person's reputation, even after being found not guilty. Even a 5:1 ratio is something I don't find acceptable for people to make assumptions about rape,
I have been staying out of commenting here because this thread has gone way beyond my comfort zone for dissenting opinion. but this really really is wrong.
failing to convict is far from a false accusation. The first thing most rape victims do is take a shower, and wash or get rid of the cloths they were wearing which makes it next to impossible to convict without some other physical evidence.
plus all the stuff duckay said
Beware Bering Crystal Bears, Bearing Crystals. (Especially if the crystals they are bearing are, themselves, Bering Crystal Bears.) -Old, Stupid Proverb
[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!
[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!
-
- Posts: 177
- Joined: 03 Jun 2013, 13:35
- First Video: Omnilingual
Re: Feminism general thread
Bleh, I hate how messy quotes can get so I'll just address some things by person since the sections are fairly divided up by topic.
J_S_Bach:
For that email topic, looking at the actual messages, these things are a paragraph long. I will definitely say they are different tones, but they are structured like a personal email. He’s a father, and it seemed like a very personal self-reflecting message because of that. For the mother’s, it looks like he’s thanking how much his wife done for his family, and maybe even what his mother did for him. I cannot say this is anything of the sort you are saying.
I agree that average is important, but just saying men vs. women is not useful. There has be related factors to rule out all the differences. Eg Men take on more dangerous jobs since they pay better, and as a result, the overwhelming majority of work place deaths are males. Keeping the variables constant is the only way to compare averages.
False convictions do happen for other crimes, but it is more due to circumstances or bad police work. Bob didn’t actually kill his wife, but since he didn’t have an alibi at the time, and talked about divorce to a friend, he was the prime suspect and nothing came up against that. With false rape, the person reporting it is in the wrong. Albeit anger or trying to cover up an incident, the motivation between other crimes and rape are vastly different. About the statistic of unreported rapes, the previously linked article says it well
I won’t use the high side of the false claim number as some sort of balancing of the figures, but accepting actual numbers for this is difficult.
Duckay:
Like I was saying, that is a guilty until proven innocent sort of attitude. Our law system runs at the best attempt to only convict the guilty, for being found guilty of something you did not do is a large violation of your freedom. Along with the same thought as above, I would not go with saying the 1:2 is right. Even so, at the 1:5 ratio, that is an unacceptable number in my books. As I said before, the 85% not having the evidence has some sort of mix of guilty and falsely accused, so the ones that are falsely accused and get the label of “inconclusive” might be in a worse spot than those of definite false accusation, and this should be kept in mind as well.
Lord Hosk:
Failure to convict is just as far away from false accusation as it is from guilty. We cannot say what the breakdown is.
J_S_Bach:
For that email topic, looking at the actual messages, these things are a paragraph long. I will definitely say they are different tones, but they are structured like a personal email. He’s a father, and it seemed like a very personal self-reflecting message because of that. For the mother’s, it looks like he’s thanking how much his wife done for his family, and maybe even what his mother did for him. I cannot say this is anything of the sort you are saying.
I agree that average is important, but just saying men vs. women is not useful. There has be related factors to rule out all the differences. Eg Men take on more dangerous jobs since they pay better, and as a result, the overwhelming majority of work place deaths are males. Keeping the variables constant is the only way to compare averages.
False convictions do happen for other crimes, but it is more due to circumstances or bad police work. Bob didn’t actually kill his wife, but since he didn’t have an alibi at the time, and talked about divorce to a friend, he was the prime suspect and nothing came up against that. With false rape, the person reporting it is in the wrong. Albeit anger or trying to cover up an incident, the motivation between other crimes and rape are vastly different. About the statistic of unreported rapes, the previously linked article says it well
It's hard to measure how many rapes go unreported, because, duh, unreported.
I won’t use the high side of the false claim number as some sort of balancing of the figures, but accepting actual numbers for this is difficult.
Duckay:
Like I was saying, that is a guilty until proven innocent sort of attitude. Our law system runs at the best attempt to only convict the guilty, for being found guilty of something you did not do is a large violation of your freedom. Along with the same thought as above, I would not go with saying the 1:2 is right. Even so, at the 1:5 ratio, that is an unacceptable number in my books. As I said before, the 85% not having the evidence has some sort of mix of guilty and falsely accused, so the ones that are falsely accused and get the label of “inconclusive” might be in a worse spot than those of definite false accusation, and this should be kept in mind as well.
Lord Hosk:
Failure to convict is just as far away from false accusation as it is from guilty. We cannot say what the breakdown is.
- Duckay
- Posts: 3706
- Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 00:57
- First Video: Man Cooking
- Location: Central Coast, Australia
Re: Feminism general thread
Yes, I can see exactly how "Not to say that I think that anyone accused of rape should be denied a fair trial, as obviously that should not be denied to anyone" looks like "Guilty until proven innocent"...
My point was that to say that, for one, that is a shockingly low conviction rate and perhaps we should look into that disparity, and two, that it's unreasonable given the context to assume that the ratio of false accusations to convictions is an accurate depiction of false accusations to rapes. After all, many things other than malicious false accusations can result in no conviction. This includes mistaken identity (a rape occurred, but the victim believed it was one person when it was someone else), unknown identity (The rapist was an unknown assailant, who was never found), non-report (The event was never reported to the police), dropped charges (could be for a number of reasons), failure to bring sufficient proof (which could go either way), and many others. Are you happy assuming that ALL of those situations are just as likely to be completely invented as they are of a rape occurring?
Please also note that many studies have been done on unreported rape, so saying we have no way of knowing numbers is simply wrong.
My point was that to say that, for one, that is a shockingly low conviction rate and perhaps we should look into that disparity, and two, that it's unreasonable given the context to assume that the ratio of false accusations to convictions is an accurate depiction of false accusations to rapes. After all, many things other than malicious false accusations can result in no conviction. This includes mistaken identity (a rape occurred, but the victim believed it was one person when it was someone else), unknown identity (The rapist was an unknown assailant, who was never found), non-report (The event was never reported to the police), dropped charges (could be for a number of reasons), failure to bring sufficient proof (which could go either way), and many others. Are you happy assuming that ALL of those situations are just as likely to be completely invented as they are of a rape occurring?
Please also note that many studies have been done on unreported rape, so saying we have no way of knowing numbers is simply wrong.
- betsytheripper
- Posts: 251
- Joined: 12 Nov 2013, 21:49
- First Video: Scientist's Rebuttal to ICP
- Location: Fields and Cows and Fields
Re: Feminism general thread
First, I'd like to agree with the point made that you can and should be intersectional, feminist, anti-racist, pro-LGBTQ, etc.
Secondly, rape culture is, to me, the most prominent expression of the harm of patriarchy we have in media right now, and globally at that. The Ohio high schoolers who drugged and repeatedly raped at 16 year old girl. The many brutal, public, and daylight gang rapes and deaths of women in India. There are many, many examples, and it is a topic that is receiving global attention. This is making it a prominent topic to discuss patriarchy and what it does, and why I think it was inevitable as a topic here.
By fighting rape culture, we are fighting patriarchal society. We are scrutinizing and calling out every incident of anyone, man or woman, propagating the lines of thinking that make rape acceptable. Sex shaming, body shaming, asking them what they were wearing, telling them it's their fault, using it as a term for getting beaten in a video game, or as a joke, NONE of these things are okay.
Regarding this, bandying about and misrepresenting statistical data is not okay. As soon as someone does that, they sound like a rape apologist.
As someone who is personally affected by rape culture daily, I understand that this is a very delicate topic that can get rather heated very quickly. Please, let's be sensitive and rational.
Secondly, rape culture is, to me, the most prominent expression of the harm of patriarchy we have in media right now, and globally at that. The Ohio high schoolers who drugged and repeatedly raped at 16 year old girl. The many brutal, public, and daylight gang rapes and deaths of women in India. There are many, many examples, and it is a topic that is receiving global attention. This is making it a prominent topic to discuss patriarchy and what it does, and why I think it was inevitable as a topic here.
By fighting rape culture, we are fighting patriarchal society. We are scrutinizing and calling out every incident of anyone, man or woman, propagating the lines of thinking that make rape acceptable. Sex shaming, body shaming, asking them what they were wearing, telling them it's their fault, using it as a term for getting beaten in a video game, or as a joke, NONE of these things are okay.
Regarding this, bandying about and misrepresenting statistical data is not okay. As soon as someone does that, they sound like a rape apologist.
As someone who is personally affected by rape culture daily, I understand that this is a very delicate topic that can get rather heated very quickly. Please, let's be sensitive and rational.
-betsy
- Duckay
- Posts: 3706
- Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 00:57
- First Video: Man Cooking
- Location: Central Coast, Australia
Re: Feminism general thread
Listen, the tone I took in my last post was unnecessary and unhelpful. I'm really sincerely sorry about that.
- Danielle Pepin
- Posts: 822
- Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 04:23
Re: Feminism general thread
Alex Steacy wrote:I don't think Feminism and any other social cause are mutually exclusive. Just because you identify as a feminist doesn't mean that you don't care about any other cause happening, focusing solely on women's issues to the exclusion of everything else (unless you're an extremist). What I'm trying to say is that it isn't like a fantasy game where you have to pick one class to the exclusion of all others.
I guess I just feel like feminism addresses a specific facet of social inequality, and I don't quite understand the notion that because you stand for one cause you do not or can not stand for others simultaneously - or perhaps even oppose them.
I agree. I care about dozens of other causes and many of them overlap. (Homelessness, Cancer, Spousal Abuse where men are the victims, Youth at Risk, etc.)
Sexism hurts everyone. Men, women and other gender identities included. Men getting called feminine for being perceived as a weakling for example. Anyone that argues for men's rights as though it's one side against the other is missing the point entirely.
(I had a link for that earlier but can't find it now...could have been from Upworthy.)
- AdmiralMemo
- Posts: 7358
- Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
- First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
- Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
- Contact:
Re: Feminism general thread
First, thank you to the various people who have helped me understand things regarding correct and incorrect ways to complement women.
Onto the other topic that got addressed at length:
While "hir" still looks ridiculous to me, I can see its usage and where it comes from. It's cramming together "his" and "her" into one word (or "him" and "her" if you're using it as a personal pronoun instead of an adjectival pronoun). I still don't know how to pronounce it. The two logical ways to pronounce it come with their own problems.
If it's pronounced just like "her" then you're not even doing anything to help convey your thought, because most people would just assume you're talking about a female and using "her."
However, if the "ir" is pronounced like the first syllable of "irrational," "irresponsible," and "irrespective," then it comes out as "here" which just sounds awkward to say as a pronoun.
It is completely sub-optimal, but then, what part of the English language is optimal, anyway?
However, in all that, I can see why it's used, and could come to accept its usage, even if I don't like it. It looks much better in text than it sounds in spoken language, to me, though.
"Zie," on the other hand, is a whole mess. It shares no commonalities or etymology with either "he" or "she." Where the did this travesty of a word come from? How the are you supposed to pronounce it?
"Zee"? If so, what's with the extra "i" when it could be just "ze" then? If you're inventing words, you can certainly fix them in the early stages, before they get widely-adopted.
"Zaye"? That sounds really awkward to me, worse than "zee."
"Zed-aye-ee?" OK, clearly I'm going for a joke at this point, but you get what I'm saying.
Now, my preferred option doesn't really work when spoken, but in text "s/he" is really useful to me, and works wonders, in my opinion. If the woman had used "s/he" and "hir" I might not have made a comment on it. But using this "zie" word just hit the wrong buttons in my brain.
Onto the other topic that got addressed at length:
If you want the God's-honest truth: I'm more salty about "zie" than I am "hir."Shukes wrote:I would strongly disagree with calling the use of those terms ridiculous. They may be somewhat awkward as they are not yet incorporated into the English language and perhaps they aren't the best words but using slightly awkward English, at least to me, is worth it to make people who don't identify with binary genders feel more comfortable and accepted.AdmiralMemo wrote: And finally, I read that whole article, and get what she's saying. However, it's hard to take her seriously when she's using the ridiculous "zie" and "hir" nonsense.
While "hir" still looks ridiculous to me, I can see its usage and where it comes from. It's cramming together "his" and "her" into one word (or "him" and "her" if you're using it as a personal pronoun instead of an adjectival pronoun). I still don't know how to pronounce it. The two logical ways to pronounce it come with their own problems.
If it's pronounced just like "her" then you're not even doing anything to help convey your thought, because most people would just assume you're talking about a female and using "her."
However, if the "ir" is pronounced like the first syllable of "irrational," "irresponsible," and "irrespective," then it comes out as "here" which just sounds awkward to say as a pronoun.
It is completely sub-optimal, but then, what part of the English language is optimal, anyway?
However, in all that, I can see why it's used, and could come to accept its usage, even if I don't like it. It looks much better in text than it sounds in spoken language, to me, though.
"Zie," on the other hand, is a whole mess. It shares no commonalities or etymology with either "he" or "she." Where the did this travesty of a word come from? How the are you supposed to pronounce it?
"Zee"? If so, what's with the extra "i" when it could be just "ze" then? If you're inventing words, you can certainly fix them in the early stages, before they get widely-adopted.
"Zaye"? That sounds really awkward to me, worse than "zee."
"Zed-aye-ee?" OK, clearly I'm going for a joke at this point, but you get what I'm saying.
Now, my preferred option doesn't really work when spoken, but in text "s/he" is really useful to me, and works wonders, in my opinion. If the woman had used "s/he" and "hir" I might not have made a comment on it. But using this "zie" word just hit the wrong buttons in my brain.
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.
Re: Feminism general thread
While there are a lot of issues with alternate pronouns ("xe" and "xyr" is another pair), the issue that "s/he" brings up is that it equates to "he or she," which exclusive of people who do not identify as exclusively male or female.
- MetricFurlong
- Posts: 197
- Joined: 24 Sep 2011, 10:13
- First Video: Phone Manner
- Location: In front of a screen
Re: Feminism general thread
I would say I largely fall within the feminist umbrella. I generally don't refer to myself as one, simply because I do not consider myself proactive enough to justify the label.
In regards to the pronouns thing, I generally use 'they' for gender neutral purposes, but I don't particularly care if someone else uses 'hir' or 'zie' or what have you, even if I don't like the way those words roll off the tongue. The serve a useful function, even if they might sound a bit clunky.
I'm not entirely sure someone would feel it worth kicking up a fuss about using them, to be honest. Particularly not when we've apparently agreed to let actual lexical abominations like 'welp','grimdark' and 'my feels' get a free pass
I'm not sure that term means quite what you seem to think it does. You appear to be using it in much the same way people (mis)use 'radical feminism' to mean extremism. As with Radical Feminism, Marxist Feminism does have a fairly established definition. Specifically it's a feminist perspective that views sexism as a product and symptom of the class-based inequalities in capitalist society, described in most Marxist/socialistic viewpoints (it should also be noted that Marxist Feminism predates Radical Feminism, which again makes your usage of it to describe a more recent extremist front a bit odd). 'Abolishing men' doesn't really enter into it, nor is it about replacing the idea of a class conflict with gender conflict (that's arguably nearer to Radical Feminism, although again that's not a term that should be shorthanded to 'anti-male extremism').
While there certainly are extremists who do wish for a female-dominated society, and many of them might well fall within the perspective, referring to the anti-male extreme wings as Marxist Feminism is at least as misleading as it would be call them Radical Feminism.
In regards to the pronouns thing, I generally use 'they' for gender neutral purposes, but I don't particularly care if someone else uses 'hir' or 'zie' or what have you, even if I don't like the way those words roll off the tongue. The serve a useful function, even if they might sound a bit clunky.
I'm not entirely sure someone would feel it worth kicking up a fuss about using them, to be honest. Particularly not when we've apparently agreed to let actual lexical abominations like 'welp','grimdark' and 'my feels' get a free pass
Garwulf wrote:Marxist feminism
I'm not sure that term means quite what you seem to think it does. You appear to be using it in much the same way people (mis)use 'radical feminism' to mean extremism. As with Radical Feminism, Marxist Feminism does have a fairly established definition. Specifically it's a feminist perspective that views sexism as a product and symptom of the class-based inequalities in capitalist society, described in most Marxist/socialistic viewpoints (it should also be noted that Marxist Feminism predates Radical Feminism, which again makes your usage of it to describe a more recent extremist front a bit odd). 'Abolishing men' doesn't really enter into it, nor is it about replacing the idea of a class conflict with gender conflict (that's arguably nearer to Radical Feminism, although again that's not a term that should be shorthanded to 'anti-male extremism').
While there certainly are extremists who do wish for a female-dominated society, and many of them might well fall within the perspective, referring to the anti-male extreme wings as Marxist Feminism is at least as misleading as it would be call them Radical Feminism.
- AdmiralMemo
- Posts: 7358
- Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
- First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
- Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
- Contact:
Re: Feminism general thread
So then shouldn't that be a "problem" with "hir" as well, then?Firbozz wrote:While there are a lot of issues with alternate pronouns ("xe" and "xyr" is another pair), the issue that "s/he" brings up is that it equates to "he or she," which exclusive of people who do not identify as exclusively male or female.
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.
- Tycherin
- Posts: 835
- Joined: 30 Mar 2011, 13:27
- First Video: The Lich King's New Wrath
- Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Feminism general thread
AdmiralMemo wrote:So then shouldn't that be a "problem" with "hir" as well, then?Firbozz wrote:While there are a lot of issues with alternate pronouns ("xe" and "xyr" is another pair), the issue that "s/he" brings up is that it equates to "he or she," which exclusive of people who do not identify as exclusively male or female.
It's going to be a problem with any term you pick, at least at first. Our general cultural conception of the world involves a gender binary, and it'll take a lot of time and effort to even begin to change that.
- Metcarfre
- Posts: 13676
- Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
- First Video: Not Applicable
- Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Re: Feminism general thread
AdmiralMemo wrote:So then shouldn't that be a "problem" with "hir" as well, then?Firbozz wrote:While there are a lot of issues with alternate pronouns ("xe" and "xyr" is another pair), the issue that "s/he" brings up is that it equates to "he or she," which exclusive of people who do not identify as exclusively male or female.
Do you understand the concept of something being inclusive or exclusive?
*
- Trisha Lynn
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 04 Dec 2008, 04:30
- First Video: Can't remember
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Contact:
Re: Feminism general thread
To answer the question from the very first post: I am a feminist. I also believe that men should be feminists because their personhood has been just as damaged by the prevailing attitudes of what "men" in society ought to be.
I personally know men who have been:
-emotionally abused by their female spouses
-physically intimidated by their female partners
-sexually assaulted by women
-raped by women
-treated unfairly by the legal system when it comes to their parental rights
Despite these injustices, these male friends of mine are also feminists because they agree that in order for them to receive justice, the system and society has to be changed in order for default stereotypes to change for what "men" and "women" are supposed to have and supposed to be.
On the child custody front: Each person's case and situation should be treated individually. For example, if Dude A wanted sole custody of his child, he should have to prove that he has a stable, full-time job, necessary day care opportunities, the ability to take time off or leave work for family emergencies without fear of losing his job, a strong familial support structure, and also be able to grant and give reasonable visitation opportunities to his former partner (unless the partner has proven to be abusive to the child), and be able to demonstrate that he is providing the child with love and support, emotionally. These are the only considerations that a judge should have to consider.
If Dude B doesn't have all or most of that going for him, then he needs to step up his game so that he is able to provide for his kid like that. And the same should go for Chick A and/or Chick B. No one should be seeking full-custody if they can't provide any of those things.
Trisha Lynn
...this screed has been brought to you by having worked for a matrimonial law attorney in New York City...
I personally know men who have been:
-emotionally abused by their female spouses
-physically intimidated by their female partners
-sexually assaulted by women
-raped by women
-treated unfairly by the legal system when it comes to their parental rights
Despite these injustices, these male friends of mine are also feminists because they agree that in order for them to receive justice, the system and society has to be changed in order for default stereotypes to change for what "men" and "women" are supposed to have and supposed to be.
On the child custody front: Each person's case and situation should be treated individually. For example, if Dude A wanted sole custody of his child, he should have to prove that he has a stable, full-time job, necessary day care opportunities, the ability to take time off or leave work for family emergencies without fear of losing his job, a strong familial support structure, and also be able to grant and give reasonable visitation opportunities to his former partner (unless the partner has proven to be abusive to the child), and be able to demonstrate that he is providing the child with love and support, emotionally. These are the only considerations that a judge should have to consider.
If Dude B doesn't have all or most of that going for him, then he needs to step up his game so that he is able to provide for his kid like that. And the same should go for Chick A and/or Chick B. No one should be seeking full-custody if they can't provide any of those things.
Trisha Lynn
...this screed has been brought to you by having worked for a matrimonial law attorney in New York City...
Publisher/Editor, GeekingOutAbout.com
http://www.geekingoutabout.com
On Twitter: @trishalynn
On Twitch and the LRRCraft server: cattleprodlynn
http://www.geekingoutabout.com
On Twitter: @trishalynn
On Twitch and the LRRCraft server: cattleprodlynn
-
- Posts: 120
- Joined: 08 Jul 2014, 00:37
- First Video: I honestly can't remember.
- Location: New Brunswick, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Feminism general thread
mariomario42 wrote:I agree that average is important, but just saying men vs. women is not useful. There has be related factors to rule out all the differences. Eg Men take on more dangerous jobs since they pay better, and as a result, the overwhelming majority of work place deaths are males. Keeping the variables constant is the only way to compare averages.
Please take a look at the statistics I posted again. The were about the disparity of wages between men and women FOR THE SAME JOB.
Re: Feminism general thread
In UK law the base line is a 50/50 split of time between the parents of a child which is then adjusted for the individual circumstances. The paramount consideration in these cases is called the welfare principle and in it's simplest form it simply means "what is in the best interests of the child?" So as a base line I think UK statute has it right, individual judgments aside.
- AdmiralMemo
- Posts: 7358
- Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
- First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
- Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
- Contact:
Re: Feminism general thread
Generally, but my point would be that "zie" was paired with "hir" in this case...Metcarfre wrote:Do you understand the concept of something being inclusive or exclusive?AdmiralMemo wrote:So then shouldn't that be a "problem" with "hir" as well, then?Firbozz wrote:While there are a lot of issues with alternate pronouns ("xe" and "xyr" is another pair), the issue that "s/he" brings up is that it equates to "he or she," which exclusive of people who do not identify as exclusively male or female.
Wouldn't you pair it with... I don't know the terms, but "zear" or whatever?
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.
Re: Feminism general thread
Trisha Lynn wrote:To answer the question from the very first post: I am a feminist. I also believe that men should be feminists because their personhood has been just as damaged by the prevailing attitudes of what "men" in society ought to be.
I personally know men who have been:
-emotionally abused by their female spouses
-physically intimidated by their female partners
-sexually assaulted by women
-raped by women
-treated unfairly by the legal system when it comes to their parental rights
Despite these injustices, these male friends of mine are also feminists because they agree that in order for them to receive justice, the system and society has to be changed in order for default stereotypes to change for what "men" and "women" are supposed to have and supposed to be.
On the child custody front: Each person's case and situation should be treated individually. For example, if Dude A wanted sole custody of his child, he should have to prove that he has a stable, full-time job, necessary day care opportunities, the ability to take time off or leave work for family emergencies without fear of losing his job, a strong familial support structure, and also be able to grant and give reasonable visitation opportunities to his former partner (unless the partner has proven to be abusive to the child), and be able to demonstrate that he is providing the child with love and support, emotionally. These are the only considerations that a judge should have to consider.
If Dude B doesn't have all or most of that going for him, then he needs to step up his game so that he is able to provide for his kid like that. And the same should go for Chick A and/or Chick B. No one should be seeking full-custody if they can't provide any of those things.
Trisha Lynn
...this screed has been brought to you by having worked for a matrimonial law attorney in New York City...
quick fly-by post.
Generally speaking, (and yes, this is another unsourced claim, because I really just don't have the time or the interest anymore to go track down the corroborating reports) it's on;y when you consider all custody cases that men appear to get the short end of the stick.
When men fight for sloe custody, they tend to be awarded it about 50% of the time (some studies actually show that men are awarded sole custody more often than women).
The relevant point is when they fight for it.
Men fight for sole custody at a rate considerably lower than that of women, and as such, on the whole, women receive custody more frequently.
So, in fact, it may well be a question of sussing out the social reasons why men are less likely to fight for sole custody than one of addressing legal inequality in the system which may not actually exist in the way the "sexist against men' narrative typically asserts that it does.
-m
I am not angry at you.
- AdmiralMemo
- Posts: 7358
- Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
- First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
- Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
- Contact:
Re: Feminism general thread
I... actually don't know how to respond to this... Mainly, I can see both points. I've been mulling over my response.Garwulf wrote:So, it's using the charge of racism to try to silence minorities (or, using the charge of misandry to silence women). The most shameful moment of my writing career came back a few years ago when an editor at the Escapist (who will go nameless) basically used that sort of logic to convince me to let him whitewash the main character of a short story. He asked me why it mattered that Skazz (who happened to be based on a good high school friend of mine named Franklyn Dawson, who also happened to be one of the best - if not the best - student programmer in the entire school, and whose family had recently immigrated from Zimbabwe) was black, and suggested that putting in a reference to him being black was itself racist. To my unending shame, I bought it, and the word "black" was removed from the sentence. It's one of the reasons I won't write for the Escapist anymore. Racism and bigotry CAN be sneaky, and there are times you need to keep your wits about you to hold it at bay.
On the one hand, most people would think a good writer should want to engage their reader, and a very engaging tactic is to leave much of the story-telling up to the imagination of the reader. So, unless a detail is necessary to the story, you may want to leave it out, to let it be up to the reader to interpret it how they want. An example would be the race of Ford Prefect not being mentioned in H2G2. This allowed him to be played by a white guy in the TV series and by a black guy in the movie. His race didn't matter to the story.
However, I certainly disagree with this editor that identifying your character's race was "racist" in any way. That's completely bull. Identifying a character's race is merely a description.
However, on the other hand, you are the author, and if you think it's important to say the race, gender, hairstyle, or whatever of a character, that's up to you. In your case, the race of the character was important, due to your friend. If that detail is important, go ahead and put it in there. If you want your viewers to have a specific image to picture in their head, put in as much detail as you want.
So, it comes down to how vivid of a description you want for a character, and whether it's important to the story. As an author, importance of these things is left to your discretion, because it's your story, so you'll tell it how you want it to be told.
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.
-
- Posts: 120
- Joined: 08 Jul 2014, 00:37
- First Video: I honestly can't remember.
- Location: New Brunswick, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Feminism general thread
mariomario42 wrote:Bleh, I hate how messy quotes can get so I'll just address some things by person since the sections are fairly divided up by topic.
At first I thought you were arguing your point of view from an educated, albeit misguided, place of experience but now that you've been presented with numerous studies and different explanations that clearly contradict everything you have said and refused to learn from them. Are you seriously trolling this thread?
mariomario42 wrote:J_S_Bach:
For that email topic, looking at the actual messages, these things are a paragraph long. I will definitely say they are different tones, but they are structured like a personal email. He’s a father, and it seemed like a very personal self-reflecting message because of that. For the mother’s, it looks like he’s thanking how much his wife done for his family, and maybe even what his mother did for him. I cannot say this is anything of the sort you are saying.
I could see your argument having more credence if Mr. MacKay's emails had been personal but they were not. Both were mass emails sent out to all employees. For the most part the effects of patriarchal thinking are not a conscious or malicious thing. If you read the responses to Mr. MacKay's emails you would see that the issue wasn't with what we said about mother's or father's but the tone that women look after the house and men look after being a role model to their children. What about single father's? do they not do everything a single mother would do? That is the issue here. I'm starting to think you're just refusing to see the evidence of the effects of patriarchy despite who shows it to you.
You call yourself an egalitarian but claim patriarchy is a myth, before you respond to anyone's post please go and do some research on feminist theory and egalitarian philosophy here's a good place to start for egalitarianism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/ feminism and egalitarianism are both against the negative effects caused by a patriarchal society and many use reeducation to fight patriarchal thinking. Have you ever seen the old swiffer commercials that imply women have a romantic relationship with their mops and brooms? That is from patriarchal thinking it's what develops the stereotype of "women clean, men bring home the bacon" compared to a recent Tide commercial featuring a father of three young children? That's a more progressive commercial.
mariomario42 wrote:I agree that average is important, but just saying men vs. women is not useful. There has be related factors to rule out all the differences. Eg Men take on more dangerous jobs since they pay better, and as a result, the overwhelming majority of work place deaths are males. Keeping the variables constant is the only way to compare averages.
These studies are not comparing the wages of different jobs. They are looking at a male insurance sales agent and a female insurance sales agent who have the same amount of education and have been working for the same amount of time and seeing that the female insurance agent makes, on average, 35% less than the male insurance agent. Therefore your example of men taking more dangerous jobs then women does not apply to this situation rendering your argument mute.
mariomario42 wrote:False convictions do happen for other crimes, but it is more due to circumstances or bad police work. Bob didn’t actually kill his wife, but since he didn’t have an alibi at the time, and talked about divorce to a friend, he was the prime suspect and nothing came up against that. With false rape, the person reporting it is in the wrong. Albeit anger or trying to cover up an incident, the motivation between other crimes and rape are vastly different. About the statistic of unreported rapes, the previously linked article says it well
Seriously!? What issue do you have with discussing the possibility that the amount of unreported rape is higher than that which is falsely convicted. It is a well documented fact that in countries where prostitution is illegal that police will not even open a file if they suspect the person is a prostitute. Men who are rape victims often get no help at all. Are you seriously saying that is acceptable? To be honest so many other posters have definitively debunked your views. We've left the realm of opinion and we have presented you with hard evidence that proves you are wrong. Think on that.
Re: Feminism general thread
Matt wrote:quick fly-by post.
Generally speaking, (and yes, this is another unsourced claim, because I really just don't have the time or the interest anymore to go track down the corroborating reports) it's on;y when you consider all custody cases that men appear to get the short end of the stick.
When men fight for sloe custody, they tend to be awarded it about 50% of the time (some studies actually show that men are awarded sole custody more often than women).
The relevant point is when they fight for it.
Men fight for sole custody at a rate considerably lower than that of women, and as such, on the whole, women receive custody more frequently.
So, in fact, it may well be a question of sussing out the social reasons why men are less likely to fight for sole custody than one of addressing legal inequality in the system which may not actually exist in the way the "sexist against men' narrative typically asserts that it does.
-m
Saying that you don't have the time to look up statistics does not give you a pass for making generalized statements. How do you know that your generalizations aren't from negative stereotypes? If you going to voice your opinions please give the rest of us the respect of doing some research to back up your statements.
I've seen you called out on this numerous times. It shouldn't be up to me to do your fact checking for you.
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 24 guests