Hillary's still stuntin on y'all

[oyolar]

Yes, he did recognize the gendered differences between the appearance of men and women in the hard sciences field, but he said that it might be due more to innate differences versus discrimination.

And yes, they are closely correlated. There's a large amount of discussion on the "gendered body" and it discusses the difficulty in differentiating gender and sex. But a quick and easy way is to actually analyze and look at studies that focus on how hormones and other biological differences are connected to the body to find where biological and social constructions meet and diverge. Such as physical strength, which has been discovered to be connected to hormonal and biological make-up and intelligence or aggression, which have not been found to be connected to hormones or physical attributes.

Gender as a social construct has been written about by non-postmodern philosophers/theorists. But out of curiosity, why were you taught to be suspicious of people like Butler? I do know that the post-structuralist writings of people like Butler and Foucault can be unnecessarily difficult and dense, but there are other social constructionist theorists that have written about gender as a social construct. One of my professors just published her book on transmen in the work place and her literature review goes extremely into detail about the ways in which sex and gender have been understood throughout numerous periods.

EDIT:  Love you SheepShagger. Don't worry, one day the world will understand that there's nothing wrong with the sacred love between a man and his sheep. You've already convinced Sweden!

[Mundungus]

Yeah really gender is as constructed as an other social grouping in society. To think that blue is a boys colour and pink is a girls colour is somehow related to biology is absurd.
As pointed out early many older societies have more then two genders, such as certain North American tribes where those who found them sef attracted to the same sex of both where defined as a third and highly respected gender. Something that still has more contempary merit is the example of the fa'afafine of Samoa, where men who identify as women are considered a third gender, infact most men with any same sexual orantation there tend to be fa'afafine, there isn't really a structure of gay or straight there the way it exsists in the west, which also presents  the idea that our classifactions of gay/straight etc. are constructed.
Now if you examine the way fa'afafine identify themselves today (clothes, mannerisms, etc.) compared to the past before a heavy western cultural influence, you'll also notice that in present day situations they really have changed to resemble western examples of "drag queens" and this is now becoming more typical in identify as a fa'afafine. What does this point too, that through certain cultral intervention the constructs of the fa'afafine have changed. Gender is constructed.

There's a lot of bigots in this thread, bummer.

Also this

Expand Quote

*edit: In an industry too homophobic for gay dudes to even come out of the closet Hillary's straight killing it. You go girl.

[close]

To whoever asked, this is why these clips are awesome.

Grow some fucking balls skateboarding ha

[SheepShagger]

Expand Quote

Yeah really gender is as constructed as an other social grouping in society. To think that blue is a boys colour and pink is a girls colour is somehow related to biology is absurd.
As pointed out early many older societies have more then two genders, such as certain North American tribes where those who found them sef attracted to the same sex of both where defined as a third and highly respected gender. Something that still has more contempary merit is the example of the fa'afafine of Samoa, where men who identify as women are considered a third gender, infact most men with any same sexual orantation there tend to be fa'afafine, there isn't really a structure of gay or straight there the way it exsists in the west, which also presents  the idea that our classifactions of gay/straight etc. are constructed.
Now if you examine the way fa'afafine identify themselves today (clothes, mannerisms, etc.) compared to the past before a heavy western cultural influence, you'll also notice that in present day situations they really have changed to resemble western examples of "drag queens" and this is now becoming more typical in identify as a fa'afafine. What does this point too, that through certain cultral intervention the constructs of the fa'afafine have changed. Gender is constructed.

There's a lot of bigots in this thread, bummer.

[close]

Also this

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

*edit: In an industry too homophobic for gay dudes to even come out of the closet Hillary's straight killing it. You go girl.

[close]

To whoever asked, this is why these clips are awesome.

[close]

Grow some fucking balls skateboarding ha

You can have as many identities as you like, sometimes I like to pretend I'm a frog.  Please, you can't expect people to think it's normal, and you can't think they're wrong for thinking it's weird.  When you see a guy on Jerry Springer lying in his his underwear a fetal position in a children's pool filled with KY jelly because he wants to pretend he is back in the womb, do you think the audience is crazy for thinking he's weird?

[ice nine]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Yeah really gender is as constructed as an other social grouping in society. To think that blue is a boys colour and pink is a girls colour is somehow related to biology is absurd.
As pointed out early many older societies have more then two genders, such as certain North American tribes where those who found them sef attracted to the same sex of both where defined as a third and highly respected gender. Something that still has more contempary merit is the example of the fa'afafine of Samoa, where men who identify as women are considered a third gender, infact most men with any same sexual orantation there tend to be fa'afafine, there isn't really a structure of gay or straight there the way it exsists in the west, which also presents  the idea that our classifactions of gay/straight etc. are constructed.
Now if you examine the way fa'afafine identify themselves today (clothes, mannerisms, etc.) compared to the past before a heavy western cultural influence, you'll also notice that in present day situations they really have changed to resemble western examples of "drag queens" and this is now becoming more typical in identify as a fa'afafine. What does this point too, that through certain cultral intervention the constructs of the fa'afafine have changed. Gender is constructed.

There's a lot of bigots in this thread, bummer.

[close]

Also this

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

*edit: In an industry too homophobic for gay dudes to even come out of the closet Hillary's straight killing it. You go girl.

[close]

To whoever asked, this is why these clips are awesome.

[close]

Grow some fucking balls skateboarding ha

[close]

You can have as many identities as you like, sometimes I like to pretend I'm a frog.  Please, you can't expect people to think it's normal, and you can't think they're wrong for thinking it's weird.  When you see a guy on Jerry Springer lying in his his underwear a fetal position in a children's pool filled with KY jelly because he wants to pretend he is back in the womb, do you think the audience is crazy for thinking he's weird?

are you kidding? yes. half the people in the audience do shit that is just as weird to someone else.

and to all the homophobes and naysayers, when hillary went by mark thompson everyone was on his dick about how good he was at skating. just like now.

[SheepShagger]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Yeah really gender is as constructed as an other social grouping in society. To think that blue is a boys colour and pink is a girls colour is somehow related to biology is absurd.
As pointed out early many older societies have more then two genders, such as certain North American tribes where those who found them sef attracted to the same sex of both where defined as a third and highly respected gender. Something that still has more contempary merit is the example of the fa'afafine of Samoa, where men who identify as women are considered a third gender, infact most men with any same sexual orantation there tend to be fa'afafine, there isn't really a structure of gay or straight there the way it exsists in the west, which also presents  the idea that our classifactions of gay/straight etc. are constructed.
Now if you examine the way fa'afafine identify themselves today (clothes, mannerisms, etc.) compared to the past before a heavy western cultural influence, you'll also notice that in present day situations they really have changed to resemble western examples of "drag queens" and this is now becoming more typical in identify as a fa'afafine. What does this point too, that through certain cultral intervention the constructs of the fa'afafine have changed. Gender is constructed.

There's a lot of bigots in this thread, bummer.

[close]

Also this

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

*edit: In an industry too homophobic for gay dudes to even come out of the closet Hillary's straight killing it. You go girl.

[close]

To whoever asked, this is why these clips are awesome.

[close]

Grow some fucking balls skateboarding ha

[close]

You can have as many identities as you like, sometimes I like to pretend I'm a frog.  Please, you can't expect people to think it's normal, and you can't think they're wrong for thinking it's weird.  When you see a guy on Jerry Springer lying in his his underwear a fetal position in a children's pool filled with KY jelly because he wants to pretend he is back in the womb, do you think the audience is crazy for thinking he's weird?

[close]

are you kidding? yes. half the people in the audience do shit that is just as weird to someone else.



and to all the homophobes and naysayers, when hillary went by mark thompson everyone was on his dick about how good he was at skating. just like now.

Speak for yourself.

[blake guzman]

Yes, he did recognize the gendered differences between the appearance of men and women in the hard sciences field, but he said that it might be due more to innate differences versus discrimination.

And yes, they are closely correlated. There's a large amount of discussion on the "gendered body" and it discusses the difficulty in differentiating gender and sex. But a quick and easy way is to actually analyze and look at studies that focus on how hormones and other biological differences are connected to the body to find where biological and social constructions meet and diverge. Such as physical strength, which has been discovered to be connected to hormonal and biological make-up and intelligence or aggression, which have not been found to be connected to hormones or physical attributes.

Gender as a social construct has been written about by non-postmodern philosophers/theorists. But out of curiosity, why were you taught to be suspicious of people like Butler? I do know that the post-structuralist writings of people like Butler and Foucault can be unnecessarily difficult and dense, but there are other social constructionist theorists that have written about gender as a social construct. One of my professors just published her book on transmen in the work place and her literature review goes extremely into detail about the ways in which sex and gender have been understood throughout numerous periods.

EDIT:� Love you SheepShagger. Don't worry, one day the world will understand that there's nothing wrong with the sacred love between a man and his sheep. You've already convinced Sweden!

You've given me a lot to think about. This is why I haven't dug into the literature yet - it's so complex, and a lot of the writing is unnessarily dense, as you point out. Your professor's work sounds interesting. What I need is a good primer on gender - a lit review that can translate Butler, Foucault and the others into plain English. I think it's the writing style, more than anything, that made some of my professors (and by extension, me) suspicious of postmodernism. Why obfuscate your argument with insane prose unless it is flimsy to begin with? I once read a good counterargument by Homi Bhabha, but then I went back and read some of his prose and concluded that there is NO REASON on earth to write like that.

The Sokal Hoax demonstrates one extreme of how postmodern prose can obscure an argument, making gibberish sound intelligent.

[SheepShagger]

Expand Quote

Yes, he did recognize the gendered differences between the appearance of men and women in the hard sciences field, but he said that it might be due more to innate differences versus discrimination.

And yes, they are closely correlated. There's a large amount of discussion on the "gendered body" and it discusses the difficulty in differentiating gender and sex. But a quick and easy way is to actually analyze and look at studies that focus on how hormones and other biological differences are connected to the body to find where biological and social constructions meet and diverge. Such as physical strength, which has been discovered to be connected to hormonal and biological make-up and intelligence or aggression, which have not been found to be connected to hormones or physical attributes.

Gender as a social construct has been written about by non-postmodern philosophers/theorists. But out of curiosity, why were you taught to be suspicious of people like Butler? I do know that the post-structuralist writings of people like Butler and Foucault can be unnecessarily difficult and dense, but there are other social constructionist theorists that have written about gender as a social construct. One of my professors just published her book on transmen in the work place and her literature review goes extremely into detail about the ways in which sex and gender have been understood throughout numerous periods.

EDIT:� Love you SheepShagger. Don't worry, one day the world will understand that there's nothing wrong with the sacred love between a man and his sheep. You've already convinced Sweden!

[close]

You've given me a lot to think about. This is why I haven't dug into the literature yet - it's so complex, and a lot of the writing is unnessarily dense, as you point out. Your professor's work sounds interesting. What I need is a good primer on gender - a lit review that can translate Butler, Foucault and the others into plain English. I think it's the writing style, more than anything, that made some of my professors (and by extension, me) suspicious of postmodernism. Why obfuscate your argument with insane prose unless it is flimsy to begin with? I once read a good counterargument by Homi Bhabha, but then I went back and read some of his prose and concluded that there is NO REASON on earth to write like that.

The Sokal Hoax demonstrates one extreme of how postmodern prose can obscure an argument, making gibberish sound intelligent.

Just work on your back tails instead, it's more productive.

[oyolar]

Expand Quote

Yes, he did recognize the gendered differences between the appearance of men and women in the hard sciences field, but he said that it might be due more to innate differences versus discrimination.

And yes, they are closely correlated. There's a large amount of discussion on the "gendered body" and it discusses the difficulty in differentiating gender and sex. But a quick and easy way is to actually analyze and look at studies that focus on how hormones and other biological differences are connected to the body to find where biological and social constructions meet and diverge. Such as physical strength, which has been discovered to be connected to hormonal and biological make-up and intelligence or aggression, which have not been found to be connected to hormones or physical attributes.

Gender as a social construct has been written about by non-postmodern philosophers/theorists. But out of curiosity, why were you taught to be suspicious of people like Butler? I do know that the post-structuralist writings of people like Butler and Foucault can be unnecessarily difficult and dense, but there are other social constructionist theorists that have written about gender as a social construct. One of my professors just published her book on transmen in the work place and her literature review goes extremely into detail about the ways in which sex and gender have been understood throughout numerous periods.

EDIT:� Love you SheepShagger. Don't worry, one day the world will understand that there's nothing wrong with the sacred love between a man and his sheep. You've already convinced Sweden!

[close]

You've given me a lot to think about. This is why I haven't dug into the literature yet - it's so complex, and a lot of the writing is unnessarily dense, as you point out. Your professor's work sounds interesting. What I need is a good primer on gender - a lit review that can translate Butler, Foucault and the others into plain English. I think it's the writing style, more than anything, that made some of my professors (and by extension, me) suspicious of postmodernism. Why obfuscate your argument with insane prose unless it is flimsy to begin with? I once read a good counterargument by Homi Bhabha, but then I went back and read some of his prose and concluded that there is NO REASON on earth to write like that.

The Sokal Hoax demonstrates one extreme of how postmodern prose can obscure an argument, making gibberish sound intelligent.

Yeah, it's definitely horrible to wade through until you get used to it and if you don't really spend a lot of time talking about it. I'll let you know if I can find a list of good articles/theorists to start with and PM them to you.

[Particleboard Penguin]

My whole point is.. To a certain degree yes gender is a social construct.. But it's not completely so. The reason why I'm conflating gender and sex is that they are different, but they're not actually completely separate... This is the argument I'm trying to make, I don't see why anyone would insult me for this. A few definitions from our good reliable friend the internet tell us that the idea of gender being entirely a social construct is not actually the one and only definition for gender:

"Gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female. It can extend from sex to social role or gender identity"

"refers to the different roles and responsibilities attributed to men and women in society. It does not only mean the biological definition of sex as male and female, but also how these biological definitions are constructed in a social context, subject to historical and cultural change"

My argument is that to say gender is COMPLETELY socially constructed is to ignore that gender is actually fundamentally related to ones sex and that also some, probably not most, gender differences are the result of the different physiology of men and women.. Like it or not there is a biological difference to men and women... To acknowledge that men and women have different hormones acting at different levels and then to claim that there could be absolutely NO BIOLOGICAL determinant in the difference between the way men and women act is kinda ridiculous to me. Think about it.. Women act differently when going the menopause... Men don't have that same period. Take a endocrinology class.. Men and women have different hormones acting at different levels which is going to cause AT LEAST SOME difference in behavior...

I agree that the difference is much less than traditionally believed but if you read my argument I don't really understand how you could still justify saying that gender is entirely socially constructed, unless you just say your definition of gender is that it merely the socially constructed gender roles etc in society.. But then again I would say that these gender roles evolved over a very long period of time, at the beginning of which biological sex differences probably more closely determined gender differences.

Just think about it.. Men and women serve different purposes in the grand scheme of things.. Women carry the child.. Men don't.. Women invest a lot more of themselves into a child, having it in them for 9 months etc, whereas men only invest their sperm. The sexes interact with each other in different ways. This basic fundamental difference has to at least in some way affect the gender differences between the sexes does it not?

Hormones can without question be said to affect how people act... Men and women experience different hormones at different levels at different times of their life. Think about menopause, "pms", whatever the word might be for males experiencing dramatic decreases in testosterone in their life... Men and women do have AT LEAST AT SOME MINUTE LEVEL a biological difference in the way they act.. For fucks sake it might barely even be there but I think it's there there..

Like you said, males are better at short bursts of strength, whereas females may be better suited to and extended use of strength.. Differences like these probably created a division in labor in the beginning of society, which over time became more and more socially constructed but I don't think it's crazy or bigoted to believe there is at least some trace root somewhere in biological sex..

That's the end of the rant.. I think that sex and gender are intrinsically related so that to talk about them without conflating them is sort of impossible.

Am I just crazy for this oyolar or is it at least a fairly well reasoned argument? I don't mean disrespect to hillary or anyone else, or to try to justify current gender differences. I'm just saying they must have developed over the progression of society from some kind of biological basis to where they are now.

[Iceman]

she's tight

TMI, bro.

TMI.

[oyolar]

@Particleboard: No, I see what you're saying and as I've said, there are biological differences between the two sexes that do determine specific physiological attributes. And most people do not and should not ignore this. My problem with your argument is that all of the examples you've posted have counter examples that show what most people believe to be "naturally male" or "naturally female" are not tied to biological sex. There are a few studies that question the actual effects that menopause and PMS have on women. Why are women seen as being bitchy when they're on their period or going through menopause whereas men are only deemed exhausted/lethargic if they're going through andropause? They're a similar imbalance in the "essential" hormone (estrogen in women, testosterone in men), but women are much more susceptible to go through emotional extremes while men are physically exhausted? Those don't fall in line with stereotypes at all! And there are societies where females are deemed the hunters while men are deemed the homemakers. The female does not become more attached to the newborn merely because of her biological ability to carry the child.

As for sex vs gender the problem might be that I'm using the convention of sex referring to biological differences while gender is the socially constructed attributes given to individuals because of their sex.

[joebudden]

this thread is NUTS!!!

pure fuckery

if this bitch took you home and yall found out she had a dick but juked you with titties

you would beat the dogshit out this nigga

sablone is better n e way

and i pray that nessa t and 'amy caron and the butches' dpnt turn my baby girl leticia b out yo

stoooooooooooooops on yall niggas

[Particleboard Penguin]

@Particleboard: No, I see what you're saying and as I've said, there are biological differences between the two sexes that do determine specific physiological attributes. And most people do not and should not ignore this. My problem with your argument is that all of the examples you've posted have counter examples that show what most people believe to be "naturally male" or "naturally female" are not tied to biological sex. There are a few studies that question the actual effects that menopause and PMS have on women. Why are women seen as being bitchy when they're on their period or going through menopause whereas men are only deemed exhausted/lethargic if they're going through andropause? They're a similar imbalance in the "essential" hormone (estrogen in women, testosterone in men), but women are much more susceptible to go through emotional extremes while men are physically exhausted? Those don't fall in line with stereotypes at all! And there are societies where females are deemed the hunters while men are deemed the homemakers. The female does not become more attached to the newborn merely because of her biological ability to carry the child.

As for sex vs gender the problem might be that I'm using the convention of sex referring to biological differences while gender is the socially constructed attributes given to individuals because of their sex.

Well, yeah, I wasn't talking about the sterotypes related to pms, menopause, and andropause and saying they're true..  just that there actually is a difference in the way women and men act related to their hormones, that difference not necessarily being the stereotypical change in behavior - just that a change in behavior is present at the bottom line. Get what I'm saying? I'm in no way trying to enforce sterotypes in gender and sex... I think the difficulty in communicating my argument is that I'm just using a fundamentally different definition of gender than you are.. It's kind of like I'm just arguing my own definition of gender - because it's just that my understanding of gender(gender as a whole "maleness" and "femaleness" rather than just current gender sterotypes) is that it's intrinsically related to sex in at least some way... I'm thinking evolutionarily - like as to how gender evolved along with society.

It's my understanding that society has always been divided at least in some way along sex lines - and to me that has to give some value to gender differences at least being somewhat rooted in sex differences from the beginning of society(not as society is now, but like the beginning or formation of society). I'm not sure the extent of what women can do when pregnant, but I'm sure it's less than what she can physically do normally.. This would cause for some sort of difference in the role sexes I would believe. Plus it's just undeniably a bigger investment for women to get have a child than a man... All a man invests is his sperm and doesn't  even really have to experience the child(could leave after sex and never even know about the child) - whereas a woman carries the child in her stomach for 9 months and it lives off of her body - it's not just a biological ability to carry the child - it's a biological obligation - so I would argue that a woman is probably more inherently attached to a child for these reasons. But that's really just an opinionated argument and I don't blame you if you would dismiss it but it makes sense to me...

Anyway thanks for your input without being condescending, as you are obviously far more academically versed in the subject than I am. I know and agree with what you're saying but I just wanted to argue my own view of gender because it's something I've thought about but don't really have friends who would really care to talk about it. It got a little tangential, but anyway, I do want to get across that I'm not trying to justify gender stereotypes because it seems as though you might think that.

But, uh, anyway ...skateboarding?

[asakusa75]

This thread needs to be renamed "The very serious thread". I just read through all those posts and now my head hurts.

[mds]

why do only men want to become women and not the other way around?
or am I missing something?

[Manolo]

Its both ways, some chicks get their boobs cut and take testosterone to grow a goatee.

[asakusa75]

^ This quote with that Desarmo gif under it is just perfect Slap.

[Matze]

why do only men want to become women and not the other way around?
or am I missing something?

this is yvonne buschbaum, a former world class athlete


this is he now. he's got a button in one of his testicles that allows to give him a healthy reaction.

[joebudden]

GNARLY FUCKERY!!!

[hornyrick]

would

[mds]

I just stood in front of the mirror trying to imagine how i`d look like as a woman,
is this the beginning of it all?

[asakusa75]

This is the only one I could get that I didnt have to log in for, but I think you get the picture.

[EARL***THE***PEARL]

She/He had a feature interview and Cover of this Canadain skate mag called KingShit.

[The Human Condom]

Did anyone else originally click on this thread thinking it was about Hillary Clinton for some reason?

[mds]

dis her e still has potential in 2013 YO

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Hillary kills it. I'm glad she isn't like she used to be. I used to see footage of her and think "man, I can't believe that fucking stupid prick is that good," now she doesn't come off that way and I'm hyped on her footage. And before anybody reacts, its not because she has tits, its because she's not the miserable prick she once was.

[ROCKxADIO420]

she probably  still is, just stopped posting.

although maybe the whole identity crisis thing made him a bit more of a bitch.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

she seemed way cooler when she still posted and had transitioned. I hated Mizzark, hizzilary was cool though.

[Mouth]

Didn't she focus when someone posted nudie pics?

I guess sexting and slap don't mix.