(no subject)
Oct. 19th, 2004 10:30 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
bacskocky.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
multiplicity_archives It's people liek this that cause the world of multiples to never be seen for what it truly is
(btw, for those of you who don't know me (pretty much everyone) I'm a non-multiple whose SO is a member of a multiple system)
EDIT:
The purpose of me posting this was not to bash one specific person for their belief on how they should treat my SO. This is jsut the first example I've gotten that is in WRITING of the way so many people think that a few pamphlets, a couple documentaries, and maybe a book or two and they're geniuses on the topic. They're the ones who don't see that whether someone is faking the "disorder" or not, it is often a defense mechanism, not something for purely attention. Even if it IS for attention, maybe teh person believes that surrounding themselves with a large number of peopel on the outside will protect them.
(btw, for those of you who don't know me (pretty much everyone) I'm a non-multiple whose SO is a member of a multiple system)
EDIT:
The purpose of me posting this was not to bash one specific person for their belief on how they should treat my SO. This is jsut the first example I've gotten that is in WRITING of the way so many people think that a few pamphlets, a couple documentaries, and maybe a book or two and they're geniuses on the topic. They're the ones who don't see that whether someone is faking the "disorder" or not, it is often a defense mechanism, not something for purely attention. Even if it IS for attention, maybe teh person believes that surrounding themselves with a large number of peopel on the outside will protect them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-25 12:16 pm (UTC)We have not attacked, insulted, or done anything towards you or Uziel beyond calmly correcting misinformation and putting forth our opinion. The only one who could claim insult would be Sakura but frankly by that point she more than deserved it.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-25 12:42 pm (UTC)- Gremlyn
For that matter, you can ignore the stuff above it, too.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-25 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-26 06:44 am (UTC)Righteo. Surprisingly, most girls can actually (shock horror) stand up for themselves.
Is it okay for girls to abuse boys?
I'm sure this isn't what you meant, but I had to ask.
As much as I would like to believe that this whole argument is because you don't think Chris can look after herself...
--Drizz
no subject
Date: 2004-10-26 09:12 am (UTC)It is not okay for girls to abuse boys, especially since honor forbids the boys from retaliating in kind - at least, in places where honor still means something.
I know, you are very young, and doubtless my standards seem archaic to you at this point in your life. It may be that they will not always seem so.
I have no opinion about whether Chris can look after herself. I have no opinion about whether she is really multiple, either, or about whether she has been behaving in an excessively irritating way. I am not in a position to know these things.
What I do know is that
Off Topic
Date: 2004-10-26 09:47 am (UTC)Err ... *cough* excuse me?
Boys shouldn't have to defend girls just because girls have different genitalia.
As much as I'm a big fan of having men open doors for me, it is not men's duty to look after me solely because I'm a girl. I know plenty of boys who need standing up for far more than most girls.
I also know plenty of girls who would come out on top (so to speak) in a physical fight.
My brother and his girlfriend are perfect examples of this.
My brother is skinny and effeminate and his girlfriend held the NZ record for weightlifting in her weight/age category.
I know that you probably don't give a damn about my brother and his girlfriend or about my opinion on this matter. I also realise that this is completely off topic. However, it is as important to me as multiplicity is to you.
I really have no opinion on the validity of MPD, DID or multiplicity, as I don't enough about any of it. I'm reading these comments because I know both Dan and Chris.
Another point: I acknowledge that I am a young and (relatively) inexperienced girl. However, I am not defined by age or gender.
Forgive me if this post is somewhat rambling (and for any spelling / grammatical errors) but its 5.45am and my brain has ceased for the night.
--Drizz
no subject
Date: 2004-10-26 07:44 pm (UTC)The ability of women to fight is unquestioned. It has always been known that women are fiercer in battle than are men. They are, however, less expendable. You may consider that the male urge to defend women is a survival trait - not only because dead women cannot bear or raise children, but also because when women fight, they do not tend to take prisoners.
You do not define yourself by age or gender, but in the eyes of the world at large, you are to a considerable extent defined by them, as well as by other things you did not choose and cannot easily change. This may not be pleasant or fair, but it is how things are. I am not happy about it either.
I do not see that this question is off-topic. You are asserting your right to define yourself as you choose, in spite of the world's perception of your physical being. So too am I. You are not weak and helpless merely because your body is female, even though these qualities have frequently been ascribed to women. My Kin and I are not crazy merely because we share a body, even though that quality has frequently been ascribed to multiples.
I do not believe it is right for any person to attack another without cause. I also believe it is right for any person to defend himself or herself against attack, and to come to the aid of others who are attacked without cause. I believe it is the right of all people to define themselves as they choose, and to defend themselves against the unwelcome imposition of others' definitions upon them.
Note, by observing that you are young and female, I have imposed no definition upon you, for you acknowledge that both these observations are correct. I have also not imposed upon you any definition of what is proper to you as a female; rather I have only stated what I feel is proper for males: to protect and be tolerant of women and children.
This is not because women and children are weak, but because they are the strength and life of the human race.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 01:12 am (UTC)- Gremlyn
A deckchair, popcorn and binoculars.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 02:52 am (UTC):P
-Drizz
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 03:21 am (UTC)I acknowledge that women are vital to the continuation of the species whereas we only really need a few healthy (hopefully oiled and naked) men.
However, I was only using the example of my brother and his girlfriend because (in this way) they are completely different to the normal mode of gender relations. (She also likes to wear pretty skirts ... mind you, so does he.)
The main point I was attempting to make is that you are making a lot of generalisations.
"I am sorry, but it is not for women to say what is the duty of men, any more than it is for men to say what is the duty of women."
And its not for you to say what is the duty of men, anymore than it is not for me to say what is the duty of women.
"Boys do not have to defend girls because of physical differences, but because it is the opinion of men that this is what is right for them to do."
You are assuming that all men hold the same opinion.
"You may consider that the male urge to defend women is a survival trait - not only because dead women cannot bear or raise children, but also because when women fight, they do not tend to take prisoners."
Is there a "male urge" to defend women?
I'm sorry, but all of this still relies on the distinction based on physical differences.
Just because a man has bits dangling between his legs and women don't does not mean that all of the people with dangly bits will think and act in the same way. Nor does it mean that all the people without those bits flopping around will think and act in the same way.
(Forgive my use of "dangling" and "flopping" - it is not meant to be derogatory but is merely an attempt at humour.)
Basically, what I'm pointing out is that everything you are saying seems to be based on the belief that gender is split into neat and pretty dualistic categories.
I disagree, just as (I'm guessing) you would disagree that all multiples fit into neat categories.
You are right. It is unfair. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop fighting it.
:)
--Drizz
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 12:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 01:31 pm (UTC)It is common for people in this culture - both male and female - to fixate on penises, since they have no way to tell men from women save by looking between the legs. This is not true in all cultures. Yes, I would prefer to have a male body, but if I did, I would still choose to be celibate, so my possession or lack of a penis is moot.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 01:16 pm (UTC)No? Has no person then the right to say what the duty of another is? If this is so, then the concept of "duty" is meaningless. In truth, I have noted that most people in this culture seem to find little meaning in it.
"You are assuming that all men hold the same opinion."
No. I am stating my own opinion. If other men disagree with me, they are free to disagree. If all men, or a majority of men, disagreed with me, then women would no longer be defended by them. Since that is clearly not the case, it is plain that the majority of men do not in fact disagree.
"Is there a "male urge" to defend women?"
Yes. Read history.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-26 07:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 03:22 am (UTC)I may even be able to use in my essay ...
--Drizz
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 01:33 pm (UTC)