Feminism chat thread II

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Since it looks like the first chat thread is about to fill up, here's the next one all ready and waiting.

Think of it as the gated commune with babysitting on demand and gorgeous poolboys serving the drinks :o

Ever wondered why men are so keen to chop up women into acceptable shapes? Or why they don't seem to find women beautiful unless they're following culturally acceptable norms of beauty, which actually represent passivity as opposed to beauty??? Or why so many heterosexual men are homophobic?
Is it because deep down the majority of them are actually homosexual?

Here's a

A large group of undergraduate heterosexual males were asked to participate in an experiment.

What they did not know was that they had been separated into two categories depending on the answer they'd given to a question about homophobia. The homophobes were put in one category, the non-homophobes were put in another category and their responses to a gay porn video were recorded. It transpired that the homophobes were turned on by the images, but the non-homophobes were not.

So it's highly likely that homophobes and gay-bashers are covert homosexuals.

I love that experiment Sakura and quote it liberally at the school where I work - I think it's good ammunition :)

OK I'll pop over there but think I'll need a massage and some serious hot towel work afterwards. Ukip is the one thing capable of making me grateful we have a Conservative party.

I am amazed that people semi buy into the continuum thingie. I actually hate identifying people as straight or gay. It seems like such an irrelevant way to classify people, like 'long hairs' and 'short hairs' or something.

So what's UKIP's policy on wimmin then?

Shall we all go over and give him hell?

Is everybody glad that the 1000-post-portcullis clanged down on the removing-abusive-men-from-homes discussion on the previous thread, and will I be ruffling feathers if I throw in my 2p, which is: while I totally get what SAF is saying in that realistically those homes usually more problems than 1 x nastyman, what SS say is that removing children from their homes is a last resort. their stated goal is to do what is best for children which is almost always, until this is proven impossible, to support the family to be a good environment in which to raise children. However the fact that abusive adults can't be kicked out - we don't even consider it - means that the removal of the child is not a last resort, is it, the very last inconceivable resort is something else - removing the Englishman from his castle.

test

Aha!

I can' post on that insurance thread and it's driving me up the wall! It keeps going around in circles!

On the sexuality thing. I wonder if people who are not 100% heterosexual or homosexual find teh idea of a continuum likely, while people who are very strongly heterosexual or homosexual find that idea a little strange. And is there such a thing as 100% bisexual? Also, where does that leave asexual people and people who are attracted to things that aren't people at all? Maybe it is all too narrow, sexuality is such a complex and individual thing. Only at the same time it's not complex - as Len points out. She fancies women, and that's that. Not very complex at all!

I guess people will always be fascinated by sexuality though as people are fascinated by sex. Who fancies who / who is shagging who isn't a question that I can ever imagine not being interesting to people.

SGM yes I was a bit at a party who has as a policy that SMEs can opt out of mat provisions is coming to MN for a webchat...

?