Again, every single one of your “points” hinges on your belief that I “wear misogyny-tinted glasses.” If you can show me a point that you’ve made that addresses the issue without relying on this claim, please point it out.
[/quote]
From page 4 (where our debate started):
[quote=zk][quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]You think boys and girls don’t mix in 2015 and you call it “misogynistic”? Wow![/quote]
What if we changed it to say this:
“You think whites and blacks don’t mix in 2015 and you call it “racist”? Wow!
What, exactly, are you surprised by? That it appears as though boys and girls are more segregated today than when we were growing up; or that, if true, it would be considered misogynistic?[/quote]
That doesn’t even make sense. That analogy would only hold water if someone had said that lack of interracial interaction was due to blacks hating whites and someone else said:
“You think whites and blacks don’t mix in 2015 and you say it’s because blacks hate whites? Wow!”
See, because that would be taking issue with laying the blame for the lack of interaction on one side. You blamed misogyny, and Russ took issue with it. The speaker above blamed blacks’ hate for whites. To take issue with that seems like a valid, proper, basically required response.[/quote]
I pointed out the failure of logic in your analogy. The identification of this failure had nothing to do with your misogyny-tinted glasses.
[quote=zk]
[quote=CA renter]
My response to Brian should make clear my position on this. In the vast majority of cases that we’ve seen and experienced, the segregation is being done to prevent the “feminization” of boys; it’s not done to prevent the girls from becoming too masculine.
[/quote]
Here’s where you’re wrong:
Not wanting boys to be like girls is not the same as hating females. It’s not misogyny. Do you want boys to be like girls? Do you want girls to be like boys?
[/quote]
I pointed out your erroneous assertion that not wanting boys to be like girls is the same as hating girls. (You had earlier said that the segregation of boys and girls was misogynistic). This, again, does not rely on the assumption that you wear misogyny-tinted glasses.
[quote=zk]
Parents are much more protective these days than 30 or 40 years ago. Kids back then were left unattended most of their free time. They were allowed to do all kinds of things that most parents today wouldn’t dream of letting their kids do. Our culture has gradually shifted from kids doing mostly what they want with whom they want, to one where kids are ultra-closely monitored, and that has left the sexes relatively segregated. Nothing misogynistic about it. Again, the desire to keep girls away from boys is at least as big a part of it as the other way around.
[/quote]
I pointed out a reasonable alternative to your theory of why children are segregated. Not dependent on your M.T.G.
[quote=zk]
[quote=CA renter]
Look at scaredy’s posts about his sons. That is what we see on a daily basis — the notion that females are “screwed up” and neurotic, and that boys need to be protected from that.
[/quote]
Put down your misogyny-tinted glasses and then read scaredy’s posts again. What scaredy said was that he was neurotic, and that he didn’t want to create another generation of neurotic men. What he said in reference to females was:
“Is this intrinsic to men or is the above description the result of the last generation of mothers screwing with their sons heads. “
And when he said “this,” he was referring to your description of what made a man a good friend to other men. And part of his point was that women can’t understand what makes a man a good friend to another man, and that they should stay out of the discussion. And that those moms (and maybe our culture) shouldn’t be trying to feminize men. Not because there’s anything wrong with women. But because there’s nothing wrong with men being men.[/quote]
I mentioned your M.T.G., but my point was not dependent on them. I pointed out that you misread scaredy’s post (and that therefore your point was not valid).
[quote=zk]
[quote=CA renter]
And women absolutely do pass on the misogyny. You have no idea how many times I’ve heard women say:
“I have such a GREAT relationship with my son. There is nothing like the relationship between a mother and her son. Boys are just so special.”
[/quote]
Thinking boys are special is not misogyny.
[/quote]
I pointed out your erroneous assertion that thinking boys are special equates to misogyny. Nothing to do with your M.T.G. (Except maybe evidence that you’re wearing them).
[quote=CA renter]
[quote=CA renter]
This male-worship is not uncommon among women. My MIL is the same way. Every time when I was pregnant, she would tell me how much she hoped for a grandson, and was clearly disappointed when we kept having girls. My own mother did the same thing, too.
[/quote]
Lots of grandmothers hope for granddaughters, too. But your misogyny-tinted glasses filter that out.
[/quote]
I pointed out that lots of grandmothers hope for granddaughters. Again, that’s not dependent on your M.T.G., it’s evidence of them. Do you really think that significantly more than 50% of grandmothers hope for grandsons rather than granddaughters?
Ok, that’s just on the first half of the first page of our debate. Need I go on?
[quote=CA renter]
I can’t remember a single point that you’ve made that doesn’t rely on this underlying assumption. Your statements that I’ve “made things up,” or that I’m “imagining things” don’t count as logical arguments.
[/quote]
Well, there’s a few for you, just from the first half page.
[quote=CA renter]
To the contrary, you have not witnessed a single situation that I’ve talked about…so YOU are the one “making things up,” based on your faulty assumption that I am incapable of identifying sexism or misogyny because I experienced it at an early age — as do most people
[/quote]
There you go misrepresenting my position again. Do you not realize that everything we’ve written is right there for anyone to read? Do you not realize how desperate you appear when you misrepresent your debate opponent’s position?
I never said you are incapable of identifying sexism or misogyny. I said you might sometimes see it where it doesn’t exist.
[quote=CA renter]
, BTW; but you wouldn’t necessarily notice it because you think it’s “normal” behavior. For your information, guiding your daughter to pink toys is sexist; dragging her to malls and nail parlors, without guiding her to “boys” events and activities, with similar frequency and enthusiasm, is sexist; suggesting to your children that there are “boys activities” and “girls activities” is sexist.
[/quote]
While I’ve never done any of the above, I don’t think that guiding a boy to boys’ activities more than girls’ activities if he’s shown a predisposition to like boys’ activities, and your time and resources are limited, is sexist.
[quote=CA renter]
I didn’t ignore your question about the parents’ intentions.
[/quote]
You didn’t ignore them? Did you discuss them with somebody else? Because there certainly wasn’t anything on this forum about them.
[quote=CA renter]
Just the fact that you insist that there are “girls activities” and “boys activities” is sexist in itself (read the literature, you don’t have to take my word for it).
[/quote]
There’s literature all over the map on this subject.
[quote=CA renter]
The fact that you think that the spectrum of gender-based behavior looks more like a barbell with huge curves at each end and very little mixing in the middle shows that you have sexist beliefs. So much of what you see and believe is socialized, it is not innate, as you seem to think it is.
[/quote]
If the curve really does look like that, is it sexist to believe that it looks like that?
[quote=CA renter]
As to your inability to see all this sexism and misogyny in your own life, if you believe that it’s “natural” for boys to do “boy things” and girls to do “girl things,” then it’s unlikely that you would question the parents about their behaviors…that’s probably why you “haven’t seen these behaviors” in 15 years of parenting.
[/quote]
How would believing that it’s natural for most boys to want to do boy things and most girls to want to do girl things would prevent me from noticing the following behaviors:
An adult rip pink paper from a boy’s hand or otherwise discourage him from liking pink
And women who have both sons and daughters will often go on and on about their sons, while largely skipping over the importance of their daughters, or just mention the girls as a side story or talk about how they like to go shopping together — but rarely talk about their girls’ achievements in the same way they do their sons’ achievements, even when the daughters are more accomplished.
women tell me, point blank, that they don’t really like their daughters, but they love their sons because of this supposed “mother and son” relationship.
If a parent has a new baby, and it’s a boy, all you hear is “my son…my son…my son…my boy…my boy.” When people have a daughter, they tend not to mention the gender as often, usually just referring to gender when it would seem unnatural to do otherwise.
Etcetera. Even if I thought those behaviors were normal (I don’t), I would notice them. When people walk by me at work to get where they’re going it’s normal. But I still notice it.
[quote=CA renter]
Do you frequently associate with families who have sons? Do they bring their boys along to play/hang out with your daughter, or do they drop their sons off at other “boys’ activities” or another boy’s house before they come to visit with your family (I’m not talking about the infrequent guest, I’m talking about patterns of regular, consistent behavior)? If you notice it, do you question it, or do you just chalk it up to “normal” behavior? If you don’t challenge it, you’re unlikely to hear their reasons for doing it.
[/quote]
We do frequently associate with families who have sons. On occasion, they’ll come over. Especially if the whole families are getting together. But, generally, they’ve got other activities lined up. That goes for the brothers and the sisters of my daughter’s friends. Kids are busy nowadays.
[quote=CA renter]
Yes, my mother literally shoved me out of the way to get to my husband on multiple occasions — literally push me aside physically as she bee-lined for him with arms outstretched calling out something along the lines of, “Oh, it’s so good to see you, son.” Yes, shove. Again, I’m not making this up, and am not imagining things under any circumstances.
[/quote]
Well, that’s a shame. And it probably does contribute to your perceptions of misogyny. For better or worse.
[quote=CA renter]
How do I know that you can’t identify sexism or misogyny? Because you have claimed that overtly sexist behaviors and beliefs aren’t sexist or misogynistic. The segregation of boys and girls is sexist.
[/quote]
I never advocated or supported the segregation of boys and girls.
[quote=CA renter]
Exaggerating the differences between genders, and claiming that environmental influences aren’t responsible for most of what you describe, is sexist.
[/quote]
Or realistic.
[quote=CA renter]
Claiming that there are “boys activities” and “girls activities” and having a very binary view of the differences between genders is sexist.
[/quote]
Claiming that there are “boys activities” and “girls activities is realistic. Claiming that there aren’t is wishful thinking (for those who would wish for such a thing).
My view isn’t “very binary” It’s somewhat binary. Again, realistic, not sexist.
Let me ask you this, CA Renter: If I think the sexes are different, how is that sexist? I’m not saying one is better than the other. Just that they’re different.
What if they are different, and you’re hindering their development by believing they’re not?
[quote=CA renter]
Claiming that a woman who describes sexist or misogynistic experiences is “imagining things” is sexist.
[/quote]
Not if they’re imagining things, it’s not.
[quote=CA renter]
As for the “expert” comment, when I suggested that you don’t know as much about sexism as I do because you’re not a woman, you came back with a comment about a female with an IQ of 70 not knowing as much as a male “expert” on sexism. I understand that you might not have meant that as a direct comment about the status of you and me, but it certainly comes across in a peculiar way…
[/quote]
You said, “ You are not an expert regarding sexism and misogyny, and you certainly don’t know more than I do about it because of the simple fact that you are not a woman.”
By that logic, any woman knows more about misogyny than every man. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of that claim by pointing to an unintelligent, uneducated, imperceptive, unobservant, lazy woman vs. a man highly educated in the field. Do you think that moronic woman who never gets out knows more about misogyny than the Harvard PhD? The question isn’t who knows what being a victim of misogyny feels like. The question is who knows more about misogyny.
If you think that’s peculiar, I think you’re too sensitive. I thought it was pretty obvious what I was saying.
[quote=CA renter]
Finally, I sincerely doubt that you would tell a black man that you know more about racism, or tell a gay man that you know more about homophobia.
[/quote]
Sometimes I think you don’t even read my posts. I said I would tell a close friend or a stranger on a web forum if I thought they saw hate where there was none. And then I said, “But just because I think he occasionally sees racism where there isn’t any doesn’t necessarily mean that I think I have superior race-spotting skills in general.”
[quote=CA renter]
I sincerely doubt that if they had related some of their experiences with prejudice to you that you would tell them that they “have issues” or that they are “imagining things” or “making things up.” We may never know, because it’s unlikely that we’ll get to experience this in a common setting like Piggington, but I really and truly doubt that you would have talked to them in the same manner that you’ve done with me. Just something to think about…[/quote]
No, unless they were close friends, I wouldn’t talk to them like I’ve done with you. Of course not. That’s not how society works. If they were close friends, of course I would tell them those things. Why wouldn’t I?
Here’s another question for you: You said I probably had no idea what it was like to be catcalled by strangers. I mentioned that that had actually happened to me on a couple occasions, and that I really liked it. I was watching “The Seventies” a couple weeks ago on CNN. Great show. They had footage from the ‘70s of feminists having an “ogle day,” where women would ogle men. There was a feminist trying to “harass” a man on the street, in front of TV cameras. She was saying what nice legs he had and how his pants brought out the best in him. She didn’t seem to notice the look on the guy’s face, which was some surprise, but mostly pleasure. The guy was loving it. She went on to say, into some microphone, how they were trying to show what it felt like to be catcalled by strangers. I remember thinking that those women didn’t understand men at all. I think most men would really like getting catcalled by women they didn’t know. And the main reason these women didn’t understand men is that, like so many feminists in the ’70s, they believed gender identity/behavior was a social construct. They thought that men and women were mostly the same, prior to social conditioning. So they thought that, since women don’t like being catcalled, neither would men.
Do you think that if all children were raised in a gender-neutral fashion, that boys would hate being catcalled by strangers, or that girls would enjoy it? Do you think if a girl, one individual girl, was raised in a gender-neutral fashion, that she would enjoy being catcalled, as most men would?
