On Dec 30, 2018, magicalaurie wrote:
In my opinion, you've bypassed the very real issue here, Aus. I don't like "isms", generally, because I feel they tend to be divisive rather than inclusive. But having acknowledged the true definition of the term "feminism", where do you suppose it sprang from? For you to decide all women are disingenuous is to treat sincere women as unfairly as sincere men have been treated by those leaping to fear and hate instead of understanding and compassion.

But having acknowledged the true definition of the term "feminism", where do you suppose it sprang from?

On Dec 30, 2018, magicalaurie wrote:
...As if it was completely normal for grown men to be discussing that magicalaurie was some guy hiding behind a picture of Laurie Telgen at the Magic Café. As if it was impossible magicalaurie could just be magicalaurie.

I'm real. I've been treated as though I don't exist by more than one man on this forum and in ways that I've allowed to hurt me immensely.

On Dec 31, 2018, Dougini wrote:
Some "guy" posing as a woman on a forum? It happens.
Doug

On Dec 31, 2018, Senor Fabuloso wrote:

Quote:

On Dec 31, 2018, Dougini wrote:
Some "guy" posing as a woman on a forum? It happens.
Doug

More often than you think, Doug.

On Dec 29, 2018, Melies wrote:
I think the problem with any online forum of this kind is that it prevents the kind of human-to-human exchange that can lead to genuine understanding, and to the "Aha!" moment when people on different sides of an issue can find common ground. But this conversation is particularly maddening, because one side in the debate continually appeals not to reason or fact, but to common, ugly prejudice, while meanwhile closing itself to any counter-factual historical or sociological piece of evidence that doesn't jibe with its proponents' preexisting biases.

the fact that some women allow themselves to be made into pin-ups or models or porn stars, etc., to please straight men, is evidence that women as a class consent to such behaviour--and furthermore are not (as a class) disadvantaged by it.

It is quite striking to me how quickly this thread has devolved into blaming *women* for the fact that they are treated as subordinates in society--including in the magic community. Yeah, and it was the fault of Africans to allow themselves to be sold into slavery, and it was the fault of gays that they had their heads smashed in by cops and were driven to suicide in the pre-Stonewall period, and it was the fault of the Jews that the Nazis rounded them up and sent them to points East, etc. etc. The reason I started this thread was merely to say that we in this community, both men and women, yes, but particularly men, have a responsibility to change our sexist culture and to make it more inclusive and more in line with basic principles of equity and justice. And look what a firestorm that modest proposal ignited!

There seem to me two main problems with this "debate." The first is that the men participating in it fundamentally don't seem to respect women, and therefore cannot tolerate anyone who shines a light on regressive attitudes they simply take for granted, finding it just too threatening to examine their own beliefs or to question the status quo of society at large. The second, which is an outcrop of the first, is that the people engaging in this discussion have either never been exposed to feminist thought or have simply never bothered to read any of it. Yet Simone de Beauvoir wrote "The Second Sex" way back in 1949, and since then there have been literally thousands of other books on the subject, not one of which, I am sure, has been read by most of the people who have weighed in on this subject. How odd is that? Imagine someone who had never studied engineering or math, say, and who didn't know the difference between Newton and Olivia Newton-John, who nevertheless went online and began pontificating about the best way to build bridges or spaceships. How could anyone who actually was an engineer, and knew something about the subject, have a conversation with them about anything engineering-related? Meanwhile, our Know-Nothing continues to pontificate as a Know It All. Of *course* one can build a jet engine out of brittle materials ("sexual objectification is in the eye of the beholder"), of *course* bridges can be built without thought being given to structural frequency ("women have only themselves to blame if someone is insulting them or discriminating against them"), of *course* computers can run on orange juice ("women are as much to blame as men for sexism"), etc. But the self-made "expert" knows better than the one who really knows. And the man doesn't need to listen to, or learn from, the woman's experiences or perspective, because he knows in advance of every possible fact that he is right.

But continuing to argue publicly with persons who are not operating in good faith, and who clearly don't give a *** about matters of justice, does seem tragically pointless.

On Jul 21, 2019, TomB wrote:
Females typically are more nurturing and want to be nurses, rather than solving math problems.

There are not that many female engineers either. Its not because they are objectified.

I do not see disrespectful magicians chasing away women.

On Dec 19, 2018, Melies wrote:
Ray, if it's such a good deal to "revel" in being objectified, maybe you should try walking around and performing in a G-string during your act. Just sayin'.

It isn't liberating or "transgressing" (Jonathan's word) to reinforce the same old, same old thing that one sees in every media venue, porn, fashion spread, etc., etc., day in and day out, throughout our culture. True liberation and transgression would look like something else entirely: namely, equality between the sexes. I know it's hard to imagine that. But we perform miracles every day of the week, don't we? Or is treating women as actual human beings more impossible than turning a bowl of rice into a bowl of flowers?

Then you are not paying attention

On Dec 22, 2019, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

On Dec 21, 2019, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.