Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
daesonesb
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:18 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby daesonesb » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:36 pm

Borhas wrote:do Bros like creed?

If so, why are they tolerated?

Religious Bros like creed. These are usually small town Georgia bros. Worst kinda bros.

User avatar
clevinger33
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby clevinger33 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:37 pm

Worse band: Creed or Nickelback?

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby James Bond » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:37 pm

daesonesb wrote:
Borhas wrote:do Bros like creed?

If so, why are they tolerated?

Religious Bros like creed. These are usually small town Georgia bros. Worst kinda bros.


All Georgia bros are terrible. I have a few bro tendencies myself, although I'm hardly "full bro," and even I can't stand UGA kids

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby James Bond » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:38 pm

clevinger33 wrote:Worse band: Creed or Nickelback?


Probably Nickleback, but only because they are still being played.

User avatar
bilbobaggins
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby bilbobaggins » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:38 pm

scionb4 wrote:
ccs224 wrote:
James Bond wrote:I was meaning more what it means to "be a man" or "be a woman" not what they find attractive. Obviously that's dependent on hundreds of factors. Hell, in ages past being fat was a good thing. *shudder*


See, now you're making me get all undergrad. I would say that there are no actual definitions to "being a man" or "being a woman." These are horrible terms that conflate physical characteristics with social roles. If one can tell someone who is supposedly objectively (anatomically) a man or a woman to "be a man/woman" than you are showing the tautological nature of these definitions. Masculinity and femininity have much more to do with one's position in a gendered hierarchy than with any physical characteristics. To be a man by such definitions means to continue a gendered system whereby men dominate, subordinate and exploit women and "feminized men." To be a woman to take up a role which does not challenge such subordination.

Hell, in ages past men having sex with young boys was considered a higher form of love than having sex with women (according to Plato). That doesn't make me shudder, it just reminds me of how socially controlled sexual desire and gender norms are, and how divergent they are across ages (making any definition of what is "natural" ridiculous).

/judith butler


How many of these ideas are your own, and how many are regurgitated from some book in a gender studies class you took?


Of course, the ad hominem avoids the fact that the above poster is correct. Isn't it funny how a thread about "bros" descended so quickly into unabashed sexism?

User avatar
clevinger33
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby clevinger33 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:39 pm

bilbobaggins wrote:
scionb4 wrote:
ccs224 wrote:
James Bond wrote:I was meaning more what it means to "be a man" or "be a woman" not what they find attractive. Obviously that's dependent on hundreds of factors. Hell, in ages past being fat was a good thing. *shudder*


See, now you're making me get all undergrad. I would say that there are no actual definitions to "being a man" or "being a woman." These are horrible terms that conflate physical characteristics with social roles. If one can tell someone who is supposedly objectively (anatomically) a man or a woman to "be a man/woman" than you are showing the tautological nature of these definitions. Masculinity and femininity have much more to do with one's position in a gendered hierarchy than with any physical characteristics. To be a man by such definitions means to continue a gendered system whereby men dominate, subordinate and exploit women and "feminized men." To be a woman to take up a role which does not challenge such subordination.

Hell, in ages past men having sex with young boys was considered a higher form of love than having sex with women (according to Plato). That doesn't make me shudder, it just reminds me of how socially controlled sexual desire and gender norms are, and how divergent they are across ages (making any definition of what is "natural" ridiculous).

/judith butler


How many of these ideas are your own, and how many are regurgitated from some book in a gender studies class you took?


Of course, the ad hominem avoids the fact that the above poster is correct. Isn't it funny how a thread about "bros" descended so quickly into unabashed sexism?



Hey, stop that. You're distracting from the Creed v. Nickelback discussion.



Although I do agree with you.

User avatar
daesonesb
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:18 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby daesonesb » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:40 pm

bilbobaggins wrote:
scionb4 wrote:
ccs224 wrote:
James Bond wrote:I was meaning more what it means to "be a man" or "be a woman" not what they find attractive. Obviously that's dependent on hundreds of factors. Hell, in ages past being fat was a good thing. *shudder*


See, now you're making me get all undergrad. I would say that there are no actual definitions to "being a man" or "being a woman." These are horrible terms that conflate physical characteristics with social roles. If one can tell someone who is supposedly objectively (anatomically) a man or a woman to "be a man/woman" than you are showing the tautological nature of these definitions. Masculinity and femininity have much more to do with one's position in a gendered hierarchy than with any physical characteristics. To be a man by such definitions means to continue a gendered system whereby men dominate, subordinate and exploit women and "feminized men." To be a woman to take up a role which does not challenge such subordination.

Hell, in ages past men having sex with young boys was considered a higher form of love than having sex with women (according to Plato). That doesn't make me shudder, it just reminds me of how socially controlled sexual desire and gender norms are, and how divergent they are across ages (making any definition of what is "natural" ridiculous).

/judith butler



How many of these ideas are your own, and how many are regurgitated from some book in a gender studies class you took?


Of course, the ad hominem avoids the fact that the above poster is correct. Isn't it funny how a thread about "bros" descended so quickly into unabashed sexism?


Threads about bros cannot include discussions of ancient Greece.

Unless you change your name to Bil-bro-baggins.

jms1987
Posts: 226
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby jms1987 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:43 pm

rofl the singer for Creed went to my school for undergraduate until he was kicked out for being a pothead

ughOSU
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ughOSU » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:54 pm

people get kicked out of college for being potheads?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby 09042014 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:23 pm

ughOSU wrote:people get kicked out of college for being potheads?


I thought you get kicked into community college for being a pothead.

User avatar
Steven Perry
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:46 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby Steven Perry » Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:28 pm

Unless you show some science potential. Then they kick you right into the "science labs" in the trailers on the outskirts of town.

scionb4
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby scionb4 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:23 am

bilbobaggins wrote:
scionb4 wrote:
ccs224 wrote:
James Bond wrote:I was meaning more what it means to "be a man" or "be a woman" not what they find attractive. Obviously that's dependent on hundreds of factors. Hell, in ages past being fat was a good thing. *shudder*


See, now you're making me get all undergrad. I would say that there are no actual definitions to "being a man" or "being a woman." These are horrible terms that conflate physical characteristics with social roles. If one can tell someone who is supposedly objectively (anatomically) a man or a woman to "be a man/woman" than you are showing the tautological nature of these definitions. Masculinity and femininity have much more to do with one's position in a gendered hierarchy than with any physical characteristics. To be a man by such definitions means to continue a gendered system whereby men dominate, subordinate and exploit women and "feminized men." To be a woman to take up a role which does not challenge such subordination.

Hell, in ages past men having sex with young boys was considered a higher form of love than having sex with women (according to Plato). That doesn't make me shudder, it just reminds me of how socially controlled sexual desire and gender norms are, and how divergent they are across ages (making any definition of what is "natural" ridiculous).

/judith butler


How many of these ideas are your own, and how many are regurgitated from some book in a gender studies class you took?


Of course, the ad hominem avoids the fact that the above poster is correct. Isn't it funny how a thread about "bros" descended so quickly into unabashed sexism?


It isn't sexism to accept differences between the sexes, even embrace them. The whole "baby X" theory of the 70's was proved to be absolute bullshit. Go to to almost all public places (with of course the exception of those that observe the peramiters of certain countercultures) and observe the appearances and behaviors of both men and women. Shockingly, they will be different. And that is perfectly ok, and completely un-sexist to point out. DIFFERENT DOES NOT MEAN UNEQUAL.

ughOSU
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ughOSU » Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:01 pm

different but equal is inherently unequal!!!!!

User avatar
poprox
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:58 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby poprox » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:09 pm

ughOSU wrote:different but equal is inherently unequal!!!!!


whatever you say, barack bro-bama!

User avatar
ccs224
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ccs224 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:12 pm

scionb4 wrote:It isn't sexism to accept differences between the sexes, even embrace them. The whole "baby X" theory of the 70's was proved to be absolute bullshit. Go to to almost all public places (with of course the exception of those that observe the peramiters of certain countercultures) and observe the appearances and behaviors of both men and women. Shockingly, they will be different. And that is perfectly ok, and completely un-sexist to point out. DIFFERENT DOES NOT MEAN UNEQUAL.


The problem with this argument is that it posits an essentialist difference between genders that cannot account for the myriad ways in which people relate to, resist, redefine, embrace, 'queer,' etc given gender roles. You say that men and women act differently from each other, but all in the same way (men are manly, which is different from how women and womanly). You cannot account for 'girly men' or 'manly women' (or even 'normal' men who like men and 'normal' women who like women) without resorting to saying that they simply aren't real men or women (what would they be then?).

You haven't said as much, but I'm assuming you're basing your argument on the idea that men and women are biologically predisposed to certain social behaviors (which differing between the genders and similar to all who share that gender). The fact that you state that countercultures can influence people to act against what you think are natural gender roles invalidates an essentialist argument, though, as it shows that gendered behavior is a cultural construct - in one place constructed by a counterculture, in others by the dominant culture.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4852
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby Borhas » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:25 pm

a predisposition can be essential and not effect every human in to the exact same degree, think of it like an intrinsic probability and your argument falls apart

User avatar
beef wellington
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:05 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby beef wellington » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:34 pm

Borhas wrote:a predisposition can be essential and not effect every human in to the exact same degree, think of it like an intrinsic probability and your argument falls apart

As I understand the definition, an essential characteristic is a certainty rather than a probability.

User avatar
ccs224
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ccs224 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:35 pm

Borhas wrote:a predisposition can be essential and not effect every human in to the exact same degree, think of it like an intrinsic probability and your argument falls apart


You would still have a tautological argument if you claim that there is an universal predisposition to one cultural norm that simply isn't enacted universally. What would make dominant cultural norms any more likely to be the universal norm than any other current or historical gender norms?

scionb4
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby scionb4 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:42 pm

ccs224 wrote:
scionb4 wrote:It isn't sexism to accept differences between the sexes, even embrace them. The whole "baby X" theory of the 70's was proved to be absolute bullshit. Go to to almost all public places (with of course the exception of those that observe the peramiters of certain countercultures) and observe the appearances and behaviors of both men and women. Shockingly, they will be different. And that is perfectly ok, and completely un-sexist to point out. DIFFERENT DOES NOT MEAN UNEQUAL.


The problem with this argument is that it posits an essentialist difference between genders that cannot account for the myriad ways in which people relate to, resist, redefine, embrace, 'queer,' etc given gender roles. You say that men and women act differently from each other, but all in the same way (men are manly, which is different from how women and womanly). You cannot account for 'girly men' or 'manly women' (or even 'normal' men who like men and 'normal' women who like women) without resorting to saying that they simply aren't real men or women (what would they be then?).

You haven't said as much, but I'm assuming you're basing your argument on the idea that men and women are biologically predisposed to certain social behaviors (which differing between the genders and similar to all who share that gender). The fact that you state that countercultures can influence people to act against what you think are natural gender roles invalidates an essentialist argument, though, as it shows that gendered behavior is a cultural construct - in one place constructed by a counterculture, in others by the dominant culture.


Yes, I am obviously referring to biological predispositions. Certain counter-cultures (namely the "emo" counter-culture) would like to do away with tendencies found in males in females. That is a personal choice, and I say they have every right to do that, I just personally think that is silly.

While you and I certainly seem to disagree on a lot of issues, I would like to say that you have read me wrong based on your calling me "bro." You probably have a view of me as being a business management frat president type that does yager bombs and utters the phrase "dude-bro" on a regular basis. I am, however, nothing like this at all. While I am in a fraternity, I do not like it at all as I don't drink very often and find the pseudo-macho postering to be reflective of their insecurity. I am a theatre major, and have had a lead roles in a number of different plays. Currently I am cast as Malvolio in Twlfth Night. I also am in the Dance Ensemble, I take a yoga class, and I love reading classical literature, primarily drama of course. Why am I telling you this? Because I don't want you to think of me as something that I am not merely because I have somewhat traditional views. I admit that those views can be a bit narrow minded, but I am entitled to my opinions just as you are entitled to yours. You and I obviously choose to lead very different lives. Great for us, whatever floats our respective boats, right? I apoligize for referring to you as an "idiot," earlier in this thread, that was uncalled for. Basically, what I am trying to say is that you and could continue this debate forever, and neither one is going to persuade the other. I certainly see the validity in your arguments - gender is far more ambiguous than mainstream society throughout the centuries has acknowledged. You are right there. Having ackowledged that, I hope you and I can just agree to disagree on the arguments we have made and move on. I have nothing against you personally, and I wholly accept your lifestyle choices even though I would never engage in them myself.

User avatar
TTH
Posts: 10378
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 1:14 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby TTH » Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:45 pm

This nerd fight is very un bro-like, bros. Y'all need to sack up and pound down some Keystones.

ughOSU
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ughOSU » Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:49 pm

scionb4 wrote:yager bombs

dude-bro, it's Jager bombs

User avatar
Cardboardbox
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:00 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby Cardboardbox » Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:54 pm

I have nothing constructive to add to this thread but beef wellington's and ccs224's avatars looked really similar to me at first. This disturbs me because I would never even entertain the idea of eating a cat....now I'm not so sure.

scionb4
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby scionb4 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:59 pm

ughOSU wrote:
scionb4 wrote:yager bombs

dude-bro, it's Jager bombs


Thanks . . . dude . . . bro :?:

User avatar
clevinger33
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby clevinger33 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:03 pm

--ImageRemoved--

scionb4
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby scionb4 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:15 pm

TipTravHoot wrote:This nerd fight is very un bro-like, bros. Y'all need to sack up and pound down some Keystones.


Keystone sucks so much ass. I really hope you are joking. If you are, :lol: , if you aren't, I'll be happy to suggest some real beers.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlos_danger and 4 guests