|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jessie-b
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="daemyann"]
| Cognorati wrote: |
But really, though, you've all converted me, and here I was thinking there was sexism in Korea...
|
Do you really feel like it's an "us versus them" situation?
Polarizing is, more often than not, a gross oversimplification[quote="daemyann"]
Polarizing can also be a useful tool in debating to further illustrate a point...which MAY have been Cognorati's intent. Perhaps relentless nitpicking through someone's semantics is not the most effective way to assist someone in clarifying their response (if you are having difficulties understanding it) It certainly reads as condescension.
[quote="daemyann"]How far toward understanding do you think condescension and sarcasm get us...?
| Cognorati wrote: |
using these approaches. Why not?...
[quote="Cognorati"]
I mean, I had this friend, see, a young woman from New Zealand, who was a coworker at my school.
Well one night, she went out clubbing and became intoxicated, and one of those tolerant and submissive Korean women, who are definetly not racist, let a Korean man ride home with my friend who was quite ill --
Well this Korean man's expression of his sexuality, his way of showing her "sexual attention" was to break down my friends door (who, at this point was slipping around in her own vomit), and raped her.
|
Deplorable action, as rape is.
Nevertheless, personal experience does not provide sufficient support upon which to label an entire nation.[quote="daemyann"]
There have been countless stories of sexual assualt without police response or community support, posted on this board. Considering the fact that most crimes against women go unreported, when is it acceptable to label a nation sexist? Can any country prove themselves immune to sexism?
| Cognorati wrote: |
But you know what -- Korean police are really great and understanding ...I mean, this happened to another poster on this forum, but that doesn't mean there's any pattern with the conduct of the Korean police! It could've happened in the west, for Pete's sake!
|
[quote="daemyann"]
Is it possible there is a pattern here. Certainly.
Is it also possible that it's a case of apophenia?
Just as certainly.
[quote="daemyann"]
So you're diagnosing a woman with a neurological disorder akin to schizophrenia? Reminiscent of Victorians labeling women as "hysterical" when they became too much trouble. But hey, I'm probably apophenic too.
[quote="daemyann"]I'm not trivializing the circumstances you've described.
Essentially, I'm pointing out the merits of reserved judgment, especially regarding sweeping statements. [quote="daemyann"]
Really? Is that what you're saying? Because when its your OWN experience, you seem to try a bit harder at not trivializing....
[quote="daemyann"]
In my very limited experience, I personally know two males who have been raped, as well as one who was seriously sexually assaulted. Whether or not this is representative of the norm I have no way of knowing. If my limited experience is any indication, the frequency of male rape should not be made light of.
Correction.
Regardless of whether or not my case is indicative of the norm, the frequency of any rape should not seriously be trivialized.
-[quote="daemyann"] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scarlet13
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Location: Changwon
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rD.NaTas wrote: |
| cunning_stunt wrote: |
| Quote: |
Well I plan to marry one of them in the future so I am pretty sure they are not the same person
|
I wish . |
Bwhahahaahhaa , yah shes pretty dope |
Aww  I love you too!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jessie-b
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scarlet13 wrote: |
[quote="daemyannI do not believe you were being targeted simply because
you presented a case for feminism, but rather because of how you presented it.
"The medium is the message."
| Cognorati wrote: |
It's like <<Scarlett>> said, they're plenty of violent women out there, beating men. And you know what, just like <<Scarlett>> I'm sick of women pretending to be victims! Nevermind that they may be, so what: if you are raped, for Pete's sake, call the friggin police and -- WHOOPS! Women in Korea do that to no avail! Oh well. They should just be silenced and shouted out of any discussion of women's rights.
|
Again, "The medium is the message."
That doesn't mean "sugar coat" and tailor-make your opinions.
It means that it's a good idea to be aware of the different interpretations your opinion may receive based upon how it's delivered.
The more ardently you believe what you are saying, the more aware of this you should be in order to be as clear as possible.
|
Seems a bit condescending to insinuate that Cognarati isn't aware of what she's saying when she's been tirelessly responding for 16 pages now.
"The medium is the message"
Timeliness, language barriers, cultural differences, sexism, racism, have prevented many people from tailoring their speeches for the powers that be. . Nevertheless, they were able to make an impact even if their medium was not finely tuned. Because of millenia of gender oppression, the language to even accurately DESCRIBE sexism isn't fully developed. Just because the listener cannot understand the medium doesn't mean that it is necessarily flawed.
Though I think Cognarati is doing a fine job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rD.NaTas
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Location: changwon
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jessie-b wrote: |
Seems a bit condescending to insinuate that Cognarati isn't aware of what she's saying when she's been tirelessly responding for 16 pages now.
|
she has attacked Scarlets integrity as well as education , then has contradicted herself by saying no she has not ...kinda looks like shes is not aware to me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiduncan
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Because of millenia of gender oppression, the language to even accurately DESCRIBE sexism isn't fully developed. |
Languages are constantly evolving and changing. Your argument is a total cop-out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rD.NaTas
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Location: changwon
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kiwiduncan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Because of millenia of gender oppression, the language to even accurately DESCRIBE sexism isn't fully developed. |
Languages are constantly evolving and changing. Your argument is a total cop-out. |
you thought so too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scarlet13
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Location: Changwon
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rD.NaTas wrote: |
| kiwiduncan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Because of millenia of gender oppression, the language to even accurately DESCRIBE sexism isn't fully developed. |
Languages are constantly evolving and changing. Your argument is a total cop-out. |
you thought so too? |
Agreed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rD.NaTas
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Location: changwon
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scarlet13 wrote: |
| rD.NaTas wrote: |
| kiwiduncan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Because of millenia of gender oppression, the language to even accurately DESCRIBE sexism isn't fully developed. |
Languages are constantly evolving and changing. Your argument is a total cop-out. |
you thought so too? |
Agreed. |
i am also agreed , so were agreed , let the love making ensue |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daemyann
Joined: 09 Nov 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jessie-b wrote: |
Polarizing can also be a useful tool in debating to further illustrate a point...which MAY have been Cognorati's intent.
|
I guess that depends on the goal of the debate...
If the goal is to steam-role opposition, garner false(or at least ignorant) support) and ignore dissent, then yes, polarizing can be an effective tool.
| jessie-b wrote: |
Perhaps relentless nitpicking through someone's semantics is not the most effective way to assist someone in clarifying their response (if you are having difficulties understanding it) It certainly reads as condescension.
|
While I dont agree that my comments were "nitpicking", I'm glad that you saw fit to shoot yourself in the foot by demonstrating your point by using the same tactic you were chastising.
Regardless, I wont ignore your point. It wasn't my intention to condescend, and in fact I made numerous specific efforts to avoid doing so.
Perhaps my rhetorical questions were being interpreted as condescending?..
Which they were not.
| daemyann wrote: |
| How far toward understanding do you think condescension and sarcasm get us...? |
| jessie-b wrote: |
There have been countless stories of sexual assualt without police response or community support, posted on this board. Considering the fact that most crimes against women go unreported, when is it acceptable to label a nation sexist? Can any country prove themselves immune to sexism?
|
Thank you for asking.
The answer, simply, is never.
When you label a nation, you label it's occupants as well.
Akin to my example of calling Canada a pacifist nation based on my experience and education.
Labeling a nation is not only potentially inaccurate, but also far less effective than saying what is meant. (ie. cog's comments about the high number of sexist incidents etc.) The difficulty is not in discussion the premises themselves, indeed doing so is imperative.
The difficulty arises when we move from those premises to blanket statements, which we cannot justifiably do.
| daemyann wrote: |
Is it possible there is a pattern here. Certainly.
Is it also possible that it's a case of apophenia?
Just as certainly.
|
| jessie-b wrote: |
So you're diagnosing a woman with a neurological disorder akin to schizophrenia? Reminiscent of Victorians labeling women as "hysterical" when they became too much trouble. But hey, I'm probably apophenic too.
|
That's ludicrous.
I diagnosed no one. (nor could I)
I said it is possible.
Furthermore, and most importantly, every case of apophenia is not a case of a neurological disorder.
While it can be a symptom of schizophrenia, it may also be a symptom of nothing more complex than a desire to win an argument.
| daemyann wrote: |
I'm not trivializing the circumstances you've described.
Essentially, I'm pointing out the merits of reserved judgment, especially regarding sweeping statements. |
| jessie-b wrote: |
Really? Is that what you're saying? Because when its your OWN experience, you seem to try a bit harder at not trivializing....
|
Really.
I champion reserved judgment across the board. Personal experiences included.
The comment you're alluding to was that the frequency of any rape should not be trivialized.
I'll save you the trouble of double checking.
| daemyann wrote: |
| Regardless of whether or not my case is indicative of the norm, the frequency of any rape should not seriously be trivialized. |
Both you and Cog seem to think that my goal here is to attack her in an effort to refute her world view. Is that correct?
If so, allow me to clarify.
I am not.
I've only commented on how she has been arguing, not the substance of her argument. I agree with many of the (thread topic) points she has made, just not how she has chosen to make them.
If I did not think her points were worth making, I would not care how they were made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scarlet13
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Location: Changwon
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jessie-b wrote: |
| Scarlet13 wrote: |
[quote="daemyannI do not believe you were being targeted simply because
you presented a case for feminism, but rather because of how you presented it.
"The medium is the message."
| Cognorati wrote: |
It's like <<Scarlett>> said, they're plenty of violent women out there, beating men. And you know what, just like <<Scarlett>> I'm sick of women pretending to be victims! Nevermind that they may be, so what: if you are raped, for Pete's sake, call the friggin police and -- WHOOPS! Women in Korea do that to no avail! Oh well. They should just be silenced and shouted out of any discussion of women's rights.
|
Again, "The medium is the message."
That doesn't mean "sugar coat" and tailor-make your opinions.
It means that it's a good idea to be aware of the different interpretations your opinion may receive based upon how it's delivered.
The more ardently you believe what you are saying, the more aware of this you should be in order to be as clear as possible.
|
Seems a bit condescending to insinuate that Cognarati isn't aware of what she's saying when she's been tirelessly responding for 16 pages now.
"The medium is the message"
Timeliness, language barriers, cultural differences, sexism, racism, have prevented many people from tailoring their speeches for the powers that be. . Nevertheless, they were able to make an impact even if their medium was not finely tuned. Because of millenia of gender oppression, the language to even accurately DESCRIBE sexism isn't fully developed. Just because the listener cannot understand the medium doesn't mean that it is necessarily flawed.
Though I think Cognarati is doing a fine job. |
That quote isn't from me.[b][/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
earthbound14
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread has lost the plot. Thanks Cunning Stunt and Cognorati.
The first post was about a lack of women's equality in Korea. A valid topic.
Cunning stunt, if you wanted to bring up the negative side of feminism you should have done so in another thread. You reacted to something that wasn't even mentioned in the initial post. While clever and observant you appear full of yourself without being very well read or experienced.
Cognorati your replies have done nothing but validated his posts. You have painted yourself a very arrogant, judgemental, even angry person who is unable to argue the very topic you brought up.
This thread appears to be nothing more than an argument to support two rather bloated egos.
Equality is a very important. Violence and abuse against women is not a myth. Feminism has also resulted in a general sense of entitlement among women in most feminist countries.
While many women might be foolish to believe that feminism means all men are to blame, many men are equally as foolish to believe that they are all targeted.
This thread has done nothing but demonstrate that feeling among posters here.
Women's rights in Korea is a valid topic to discuss. Korea has different issues than other countries due to it's rapid development and it's place in the world (geographically, historically). No one mentioned confucianism, the Hoju system, Korean prostitution (it's use by Korean men and the American military), the role of women in Korea (modern vs historical) or the role of outside institutions, such as the UN, in instigating feminism in Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anyway
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scarlet13 wrote: |
In areas like Sudan it is done for atheistic reasons, they believe the area to be unattractive so they modify it to resemble an ostrich egg. It is done to prevent spirits from entering the body and damaging a women's internal reproductive organs. It is believed to be more hygienic, this is off course not true but it doesn't stop people from believing that it is. It is also believed to rid the female body of any male characteristics.
There three different forms of female circumcision, they range from mild (superficial stitching), to the complete removal of external genitalia. There are many girls who look forward to their circumcision as it marks their entrance into womenhood, if a girl is not circumcised she will not be able to marry well. As I have said before, marriage is more often than not a female domain, and thus once again the practice is encouraged by women. In some areas where the practice has fallen out of favour (often with elite classes) girls will ask their parents to have the procedure performed so that they can look the same as their friends. In cases like this a superficial procedure will usally be done, it is easily reversible.
The "little" that men do have to do with it is their failure to stop the practice. It is a myth that this is done to increase the pleasure of men. The act of breaking the scar is extremely painful for the man, and the woman. The man is expected to break the scar with his *beep*. If he cannot he is dishonored which is many societies is worse then death.
Janice Boddy is a world authority on the subject, in addition to be an excellent writer she manages to present facts without preaching her own beliefs. If you are really interested in learning more you can find her on JStor or amazon. If you don't have a JStor membership I'd be happy to send you a copy of one of her articles. |
This is from the website of the World Health Organization...
The reasons given by families for having FGM performed include:
* psychosexual reasons: reduction or elimination of the sensitive tissue of the outer genitalia, particularly the clitoris, in order to attenuate sexual desire in the female, maintain chastity and virginity before marriage and fidelity during marriage, and increase male sexual pleasure;
* sociological reasons: identification with the cultural heritage, initiation of girls into womanhood, social integration and the maintenance of social cohesion;
* hygiene and aesthetic reasons: the external female genitalia are considered dirty and unsightly and are to be removed to promote hygiene and provide aesthetic appeal;
* myths: enhancement of fertility and promotion of child survival;
* religious reasons: Some Muslim communities, however, practise FGM in the belief that it is demanded by the Islamic faith. The practice, however, predates Islam.
I find this issue interesting because the practice occurs mainly on males in the Judeo-Christian tradition and mainly on females in the Islamic tradition . I have had one Muslim tell me about that the first reason on the WHO list. He said, 'it reduces the woman's pleasure during sex. If they don't enjoy sex, then they are less likely to do it outside of marriage.'
I really have to wonder if the women themselves thought their own genitalia were not beautiful or if they were told that the sight was not pleasing to the males.
What in the hell does 'marriage is female domain' mean? Women arrange the marriages? So the women will pick the male and he has no choice? Or the elder women will force the younger to do whatever the rich men say so that a woman has the best chance to 'marry well'?
Apparently WHO says that it's not a myth that it's done for the enhancement of males sexual pleasure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scarlet13
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Location: Changwon
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
The WHO is basically a western organization so I'm not surprised that you found that information, I have studied this topic extensively and I have given you an excellent source for first hand accounts by the people who actually perform this procedure.
It is a hotly debated issue and at times the information provided by WHO and Unicef are misleading as they view the situation from a western perspective, which does not provide an accurate and unbiased representation.
I personally do not agree with many of the decisions WHO has made in this matter, but this forum is not the place for a serious discussion on FC. I provided the sources for my claims; I have no doubt as to their accuracy. If you choose to research the topic more fully, Boddy is an excellent place to start.
If you are seriously interested in this topic I could send you some sources, would this be ok? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daemyann
Joined: 09 Nov 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daemyann wrote: |
The more ardently you believe what you are saying, the more aware of this you should be in order to be as clear as possible.
|
| jessie-b wrote: |
Seems a bit condescending to insinuate that Cognarati isn't aware of what she's saying when she's been tirelessly responding for 16 pages now.
|
Really?
Okay.
Based on the same logic, should I not find your comment "condescending" in it's insinuation that I haven't already considered the point you made?...
Furthermore, shouldn't every post that aims to say anything not already covered in the thread be labeled "a bit condescending"?
The answer to both of these is "of course not".
It's possible to attempt to add information to a discussion, and indeed to disagree with points made, without being condescending. I was and am making a concerted effort to do so.
I think it's entirely possible and indeed likely that Cog was completely aware of how she was saying what she is saying.
That in no way illegitimizes my attempt to comment on the matter, nor does it discredit the points I made.
| jessie-b wrote: |
Timeliness, language barriers, cultural differences, sexism, racism, have prevented many people from tailoring their speeches for the powers that be. . Nevertheless, they were able to make an impact even if their medium was not finely tuned. Because of millenia of gender oppression, the language to even accurately DESCRIBE sexism isn't fully developed.
|
1. I specifically said that one needn't tailor-make, nor sugar-coat a statement to get a point across.
2. Never did I say that points could not be "effective" without being made "well". For example, violent actions can be incredibly effective, and in so doing demonstrate various points remarkably. Yet nothing requires that I agree with the way the point was made.
3. Restricting the scope of my point to the discussion; unsupported statements, name calling, loaded and divisive language, blatant intimidation tactics (ie. if you don't agree with me you must be...), and constantly defensive posturing (even in the absence of attacks) all do very little to further even the best of points. (In the interest of balance it should be noted that while there are many instances of the above in Cog's arguments thus far, there are also (thankfully) some good counter-examples as well.)
The only people one stands likely to persuade with the tactics outlined above are people who already agree (without even reading any points) or people who will instantly cave under the pressure of whatever the next intimidating opinion made is. Again, this is not based on the content of the argument, but rather how it's presented.
4. Evidence of any progression is not evidence of optimal progression. Simply because I have passed tests without studying does not mean that not studying is the best method by which to advance.
| jessie-b wrote: |
Just because the listener cannot understand the medium doesn't mean that it is necessarily flawed.
|
True.
Similarly, just because a listener thinks that he/she has understood the medium and message does not mean that they have.
In other words, if you're going to suggest that I must not have understood the medium chosen to be able to disagree with it, then by the same logic I can suggest that you must not have understood the medium chosen, and consequently the message itself, because you chose to agree with it.
Neither of these points, however, achieve anything beyond saying "You're wrong, because I'm right" and "No, you're wrong, because I'm right" while offering nothing in the way of evidence.
| jessie-b wrote: |
Though I think Cognarati is doing a fine job. |
You're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine.
Nevertheless, I'm curious.
Why do you think that?
The only reasons I've seen so far are that you agree with her on many of the issues regarding women's rights(which I do as well), and that you believe she's been swimming upstream "for 16 pages".(Again, so do I)
What's your criteria for "doing a fine job"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anyway
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scarlet13 wrote: |
The WHO is basically a western organization so I'm not surprised that you found that information, I have studied this topic extensively and I have given you an excellent source for first hand accounts by the people who actually perform this procedure.
It is a hotly debated issue and at times the information provided by WHO and Unicef are misleading as they view the situation from a western perspective, which does not provide an accurate and unbiased representation.
I personally do not agree with many of the decisions WHO has made in this matter, but this forum is not the place for a serious discussion on FC. I provided the sources for my claims; I have no doubt as to their accuracy. If you choose to research the topic more fully, Boddy is an excellent place to start.
If you are seriously interested in this topic I could send you some sources, would this be ok? |
Perhaps you missed the line which read 'reasons given by families for having the FGM performed'???
Sorry to point this out, but the source you gave me is also definitely 'western', so maybe you'd like to reconsider that line of reasoning.
I've done some searching on Boddy just now and will continue to do so. Thanks for the lead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
