- This topic has 304 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
njtosd.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 13, 2015 at 8:04 AM #791284November 13, 2015 at 8:50 AM #791285
zk
Participant[quote=CA renter]
[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
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]
And this is where your logic breaks down.
If white kids and black kids were segregated because white parents thought that white kids should hang out with other white kids because “that’s who they want to hang out with” or because they perceive that they have more in common with one another, most people would consider that to be racist. It might be “normal” or “natural” behavior, but most people would admit that excluding one group of people because of the way they were born is wrong, especially if the ones doing the majority of the excluding are the people who have historically held power over the other group.[/quote]
Actually, this is where your logic breaks down.
You use “what most people would consider” as a substitute for “what’s reasonable and fair and right.” What “most people would consider,” when it comes to race relations in this country, is not necessarily reasonable or fair or right.By your reasoning, it’s especially racist if the white kids exclude the black kids, but not racist if the black kids exclude the white kids. Does that make sense to you?
If a person wants to segregate black people and white people because they think that white people and black people have different brains and different interests and different temperaments, then that may or may not be racist. (They would be incorrect, but not necessarily racist). If a person wants to segregate whites and blacks because they think that either blacks are better than whites or whites are better than blacks, then that would definitely be racist.
November 13, 2015 at 8:50 AM #791286Participant[quote=CA renter][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][quote=zk]I pointed out a reasonable alternative to your theory of why children are segregated. Not dependent on your M.T.G.
[/quote]And I pointed out that I was referring to the segregation that happens at a very young age, even infancy. This segregation isn’t due to parents worrying about their kids having sex.
[quote=CA renter]ZK, the examples I’ve mentioned were absolutely based on the fact that these parents didn’t want their boys to be “contaminated” by anything remotely feminine. They made it very clear why they didn’t want their sons to sit with girls or, in the case of the infant boy, to wear pastel clothing. They didn’t beat around the bush at all. I just can’t type out the conversations and social history in a post here, for brevity’s sake.
And the segregation I’m talking about happens at a very early age — infancy, in some cases. I’m not talking about teenagers who are segregated by their parents because the parents are worried about rape, etc. At that stage, the kids are already reintegrating themselves because they are going through puberty and want to have sex with one another. The problem is that this is happening after years of brainwashing and segregation that highlight and exacerbate the differences between the genders and result in people objectifying each other because they don’t know how to relate in a healthy and holistic way. Kids should never be segregated in the first place, IMO; not by gender, race, age, religion, etc., because this amplifies the worst in each group, whereas integration balances things out because people can learn from one another and relate with one another in a more natural way.
[/quote]
And this statement of yours needs some clarification:
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.
Are you admitting that kids, when left to their own devices, would be less segregated than they are today because today’s parents are encouraging this segregation? Perhaps this “boys want to play with boys and girls want to play with girls” nonsense is made up or encouraged socialized behavior as a result of the parents’ prejudices?
Because we might actually be in agreement on that one. ;)[/quote]
I do think that they would be much less segregated than they are today if left to their own devices. Just like they were 40 years ago. I think boys (especially before they hit puberty) would still prefer the company of boys to that of girls, and girls would enjoy the company of girls. They would still enjoy the opposite gender, and spend time with them. Way more than they do now.Where we disagree is that I think misogyny has nothing to do with the segregation of the sexes, except in rare, isolated cases.
November 13, 2015 at 8:50 AM #791287Participant[quote=CA renter]
[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]
[quote=zk]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]This isn’t about “hating girls,” this is about hating the feminization of boys.
[/quote]
You said the segregation of the genders was due to misogyny. Misogyny=”hating girls.”[quote=CA renter]
I’ve bolded my quote so you can read it again. There is a reason for wanting to keep a boy from being “feminized.” What might that be?
[/quote]
The reason for not wanting a boy to be feminized is because it goes against his nature and takes away part of who he is.[quote=CA renter]
Does it exist on the same level as not wanting a girl to be “masculinized”? Why, or why not?
[/quote]
I don’t know what “on the same level” means. But I wouldn’t want girls to be masculinized any more than I’d want boys to be feminized[quote=CA renter]
Yes, not wanting boys to be “like girls” can indeed be sexist, and possibly misogynistic. If you are opposed to the “feminization” of boys, then you obviously have very little understanding of the fact that genders are not nearly as binary as you seem to think they are.
[/quote]Or, if you’re for the gender neutralization of boys, then you obviously have very little understanding of the fact that genders are not nearly as similar as you seem to think they are.
You never answered my question about catcalls. Why is that?
[quote=CA renter]
There are feminine boys who are way over on the “feminine” side of the spectrum, and there are masculine girls who are far on the “masculine” side of the spectrum. It is not binary, no matter how desperately you try to wish it into existence. Trying to force your erroneous beliefs about gender types on children is extremely unhealthy for the child. They need to determine for themselves how they want to be, without the external influences that seek to push them into a “socially acceptable” box.
[/quote]
[quote=zk]
I think there’s a spectrum, and that both genders are sprinkled throughout the spectrum. But I think it’s a very wide spectrum, with all but the part near the middle populated mostly by one gender or the other.
[/quote]
As you can see, I don’t think it’s completely binary.I agree that trying to force erroneous beliefs about gender types is extremely unhealthy for a child. And I agree that they need to determine for themselves how they want to be, without the external influences that seek to push them into a “socially acceptable” box. Trying to force them all into the middle would be as damaging as trying to force them to fit elsewhere.
[quote=zk]
And I said that the segregation was being done to prevent the “feminization” of boys. Based on your response, it would appear that you don’t like the “feminization” of boys (or the “masculinization” of girls, too?) and use this as a justification for gender segregation. So, it would appear as though you’re admitting that I was right.[/quote]
I don’t like feminization of boys or masculinization of girls. I think they need to determine for themselves how they want to be, without the external influences that seek to push them into a “socially acceptable” box.Here’s where your logic fails: You posit that “zk doesn’t like feminization of boys, therefore zk uses that as justification for gender segregation.”
I don’t use this as justification for gender segregation. As I’ve stated before, I don’t encourage gender segregation by parents/teachers. If children want to segregate themselves, which they sometimes do, then they should be allowed to do that on the occasions that they want to.
November 13, 2015 at 8:50 AM #791288Participant[quote=CA renter][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]
[quote=zk]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]
I wasn’t only referring to that one post; I was referring to the string of posts that expressed a desire to “defeminize” boys.
[/quote]
That doesn’t change the fact that you misread what he was saying. Take all of his posts about not wanting boys to be feminized, and they don’t add up to “females are ‘screwed up’ and neurotic, and that boys need to be protected from that.”Here is just one of many:
[quote=scaredyclassic]Look, as a former, and some might say present, little male bitch, I am qualified to speak on this. Women are disqualified. Women weighing in here is like having the HR dept. actually legislate,reality in a workplace which they do not and cannot.
Mens’ play fighting and challenging is how we measure one another and how friendships form.
Feminizing language and male behavior is what we and my parents tried to do but it does not go well. Boys,will be boys,and that is what makes men.
I’m not saying there aren’t other ways to be men or manly just that this chatter is,well within mormal.
More than anything, fathers should want to raise sons,perceived as normal males by other male peers.
Women have no say in this matter, Just as men shouldn’t be allowed to dictate to to women how they work out their relative status and pecking order.[/quote]
Where in there does it say that “females are ‘screwed up’ and neurotic, and that boys need to be protected from that.” ?
[quote=CA renter]
Again, if women cannot speak about male behavior or how they perceive themselves in society, then men cannot speak about female behavior, or dictate to them what what they should perceive as sexist or misogynistic behavior.
[/quote]You say, “men cannot speak about female behavior, or dictate to them what what they should perceive as sexist or misogynistic behavior,” as if they’re the same thing. Women shouldn’t try to tell men how men’s friendships work. Men shouldn’t try to tell women how women’s friendships work. And men shouldn’t try to tell women how it feels to be a victim of misogyny. Now, as to what constitutes sexist or misogynistic behavior, that’s a completely different matter.
If a man has a healthy attitude towards women, and he says something that is not misogynistic or sexist in any way, and a woman perceives it as misogynistic, does that mean it’s misogynistic? For your logic to even have a chance at working (and even then it really wouldn’t), the answer to that would have to be yes. But the answer is no.
[quote=CA renter]
If one group of people is treated differently from another group, especially if they have historically been oppressed by the other group, then it is up to them to determine what is or isn’t unjust treatment.
[/quote]
Incorrect. It’s up to society as a whole to determine that.[quote=CA renter]
Of course the group in power will want to dictate things to them, as they’ve always done. Of course, they would like to exaggerate the differences between the groups in an attempt to justify the imbalance of power between the groups. It doesn’t mean that they are right, and they certainly are in no position to tell the oppressed group that they are incapable of discerning prejudicial behavior just because they’ve been subjected to it.
[/quote]
I see. So you think that, when people say that genders are different, the reason they’re saying that is “they would like to exaggerate the differences between the groups in an attempt to justify the imbalance of power between the groups.”So really, this isn’t about gender differences, it’s about power. You’re a woman, and you’re tired of being on the losing side. (I don’t agree with Brian and scaredy that women have a lot of power and always have. As I’ve said, I think women have been screwed for thousands of years). And you want power for your kind. That’s all good. I agree with all that.
But I think you’re going about it the wrong way. You’re afraid (I’m presuming, and I could easily be wrong – correct me if I am) that if you say, “women deserve equal power,” men will say, “you’re not men. You don’t deserve power. Women are soft and gentle and weak by nature and could not handle power. Therefore we won’t give it to them.” (Not out loud, of course). And that if you allow that there are natural gender differences, then men will use them as justification for continuing to hold power.
There are (at least) two things wrong with that. Number one, it’s too obvious to anyone looking at it with clear eyes that males and females are naturally different. Just like in most of the other animals. The anger of losing for thousands of years is enough to cloud anybody’s vision, and that’s why, in my opinion, you, and most 1970s-style feminists, can’t see the natural differences in the genders. If you start from a false position, you’ll get no respect and you’ll have no logical, realistic position on which to build.
Number two, it ignores the strengths that women naturally have and the weaknesses that men naturally have. If women ran the world (not necessarily women like Thatcher, Merkel, and Clinton, who are all fairly…who all have a lot of what are normally male traits), I believe there would be a lot less war. Just to name the main advantage women should have in this fight for power. Women who are fighting for more power/equality for women need to start from a realistic position, and then they need to use that position to their advantage.
[quote=CA renter]
And you’ve said that you’ve never heard or seen a parent talk about not wanting their boys to be “feminized” and you clearly missed this perfect example right here. Scaredy’s posts are think with it, all throughout this thread, but you’ve missed it completely.
[/quote]What I said was that I never heard parents say that exposing boys to girls will feminize them, or that they wanted to segregate boys and girls for fear of feminizing boys. I didn’t miss anything. You misrepresented what I said (again) and showed me how what you said I said wasn’t correct. Do you see the problem there? `
[quote=CA renter]
Even your assertion that “we don’t want boys to be like girls” is a perfect example of it! And you use this as a justification to guide boys into segregated activities. This is exactly what I’m talking about.
[/quote]
This is exactly what I’m talking about. In fact, my whole argument can be summed up in your three sentences above and my response below. If you ignore most of my post (like you usually do), please read the next paragraph and pay attention.You think that I used “we don’t want boys to be like girls” as a justification to guide boys into segregated activities. My whole argument has been that you’re imagining it when you say that people use fear of feminization as justification for segregation of genders. And you’ve done exactly that right here. You just said that I use fear of feminization of boys as justification for segregation of genders, when I did no such thing. I defy you to show me where I did that. If you can somehow imagine that I’ve used fear of feminization of boys as justification for segregation of genders right here where everything I’ve said is written down in black and white, where there’s not a lot of ambiguity, it’s not real hard to figure that you’ve been imagining it in the much-more-ambiguous real world.
[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]
[quote=zk]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][quote=CA renter]
And you were wrong. Let’s turn this around. Let’s say a mother has a black child and a white child, would you say: “Thinking white children are special is not racist.” Really?
[/quote]
I think it would be misinformed to think that white children are different from black children. But it would only be racist if you thought that white children were better than black children.[quote=CA renter]
If boys are special, what are girls?
[/quote]
Special.[quote=CA renter]
Yes, that is a perfect example of sexism, and it shows how some parents treat different-gendered children in a way that would affect these children and their perceptions of themselves, and their gender, for life.[/quote]
I never disagreed that how parents treat different-gendered children would affect these children and their perceptions of themselves and their gender. What I disagree with is your assertion that there’s very little difference to begin with.November 13, 2015 at 8:52 AM #791289Participant.
November 13, 2015 at 9:17 AM #791290ParticipantWell, my rib is feeling better, so no more sitting around the computer. I’m going to exercise and play some golf.
My argument was that you imagined that people segregated the sexes due to fear of feminization, and I showed you doing just that. If you want to continue to debate that point, I’m in. But I’m not interested in participating in your rants about sexism and misogyny any longer. It takes too long to keep pointing out your misrepresentations of my positions and all your logic, reason, and factual errors.
My arguments to this point speak for themselves, as do yours. I obviously think mine are superior, and I obviously think your emotions have prevented you from thinking clearly, as evidenced by your frequent misrepresentations of my positions and your frequent logic failures.
I give you points for stamina, CA renter. And it’s good that there are people out there fighting against sexism and misogyny. But, as long as you’re wearing that “genders are essentially the same” blindfold, and as long as you keep letting your highly-charged emotions get in the way of your reasoning, you’ll get nowhere.
November 14, 2015 at 6:27 AM #791321CA renter
Participant[quote=zk]Well, my rib is feeling better, so no more sitting around the computer. I’m going to exercise and play some golf.
My argument was that you imagined that people segregated the sexes due to fear of feminization, and I showed you doing just that. If you want to continue to debate that point, I’m in. But I’m not interested in participating in your rants about sexism and misogyny any longer. It takes too long to keep pointing out your misrepresentations of my positions and all your logic, reason, and factual errors.
My arguments to this point speak for themselves, as do yours. I obviously think mine are superior, and I obviously think your emotions have prevented you from thinking clearly, as evidenced by your frequent misrepresentations of my positions and your frequent logic failures.
I give you points for stamina, CA renter. And it’s good that there are people out there fighting against sexism and misogyny. But, as long as you’re wearing that “genders are essentially the same” blindfold, and as long as you keep letting your highly-charged emotions get in the way of your reasoning, you’ll get nowhere.[/quote]
Glad to hear your rib is feeling better, and I appreciate the less antagonistic tone in your most recent posts. As I’ve said before, we’ll have to agree to disagree. You think your logic and beliefs are superior, and I think mine are superior. But one thing is obvious: you haven’t studied issues of gender or racial discrimination. How do I know this? Some key points:
1. Sexism and racism involve not just hating a group or thinking that one is superior to another. Racism and sexism (and most “isms”) include stereotyping — which you’ve done with your “boys’ activities/attributes/traits/behaviors vs. girls’ activities/attributes/traits/behaviors, and the insistence of a rather binary perspective on gender differences, etc. They also include exaggerations of these stereotypes which you’ve done here, as well.
For instance, there is nothing about being female that makes a woman want to shop. The stereotype exists because women have traditionally been the ones to shop while the husband worked at other things. And for many women who are stuck in the home with small children all day, the opportunity to get out in the “real world” and maybe interact with some adults is a huge treat.
2. By suggesting that these differences justify segregation of the sexes (boys guided to “boys” activities/friends, and girls to “girls” activities/friends, etc., which leads to de facto segregation), you’re promoting and encouraging the existence of male power over women.
You’re probably thinking: “How the hell did she make that leap? Must be imagining again!”
But I’m not.
As I’ve pointed out to Brian earlier in this thread, female wealth and power are still all too often the result of a woman’s relationship with a male (husband or father). And females make up only 4.4% of the CEO positions in S&P 500 companies (I believe it was higher in the past, IIRC, so we might be going backward).
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-sp-500
There are more women in Congress, but it’s been a long, hard road getting there. Approximately 20% of our representatives and senators are female, which is a record, IIRC.
https://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C*PLS%3D%22%40%20%20
Here’s a great chart which really shows how recently the number of women in Congress has risen:
As you might already know, networking is an essential part of working one’s way up the ladder of success…in all aspects of life. If we segregate boys from girls, then girls are left no choice but to network with those who can least help them, and who are struggling themselves. Segregation effectively shuts women out from the very networks that are needed for them to get ahead in life. This creates a hierarchy which places men in positions over women, and helps to perpetuate the myths that men are “more capable” or “more intelligent”, etc., which then justifies more sexism and misogyny. Over time, this can lead to rather dramatic gaps in opportunity for women vs. men, which leads to the institutionalization of sexism (and racism, etc.).
This type of thinking also justifies guiding women to “female” jobs and men to “male” jobs. If females are taught from birth that there are “female” activities which are most appropriate for them, that is often where they’ll end up — also remember that networking thing. As noted earlier in this thread, jobs that have been traditionally done by women are almost always lower-paid and have far less prestige than “male oriented” jobs. This is not because these jobs are easier or less important, it’s because the people who have traditionally done these jobs have been under the control (including the status of being owned) of the people who determine the pay and status of jobs, in general (men, usually white men). This lower pay and prestige makes women more dependent on men, again, putting men in a position of power over women. When you justify different treatment, then you justify different outcomes.
3. You seem unfamiliar with the concepts of endemic, systemic, and institutionalized sexism (and racism, etc. but I will just refer to sexism throughout the rest of my post for brevity’s sake). It is literally everywhere for a woman…and no, we are not “imagining it.” Read a bit about the ways in which women receive these messages from a very early age:
—————————-
Here’s a definition of sexism (bold is mine):
….
“What is sexism?
Sexism originally referred to the belief in the existence of a hierarchy where men are advantaged and women are
disadvantaged. Today’s understanding of sexism has evolved to include:
·
The belief that one sex is superior to the other
·
The belief that everyone belongs to the male sex or the female sex
·
Using the identities of man or woman to define ability
·
Attitudes of hatred of women or men because of their gender
·
Attitudes that demand or force masculinity on men and femininity on women
Sexism derives its basis during a time in which there existed a binary of sex and power, divided into the catego-
ries of men and women, respectively. Sex is an important aspect to sexism since it is in the term and makes
up the base definition of sexism, which is relating to the categories of male and female (
for more information
refer to the GenEq Info Sheet: Sex/Gender
). Today it has grown to include anyone who falls outside the
boxes of gender and sexuality.”https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~geneq/docs/infoSheets/SexismInfosheet.pdf
…….
I’ve bolded those parts because you’ve been guilty of holding these beliefs and making these types of comments throughout this thread. See, we women aren’t “imagining” sexism and misogyny, you just don’t seem to understand what those terms encompass. When you understand what sexism is (and how misogyny is justified by sexist beliefs), then you can see how sexist comments have been made throughout this thread. Nobody here is “imagining it”; but some are indeed blind to it.
But I want to conclude on a friendly note. I appreciate the conversation and debate. It would be even better if you were to refrain from trying to invalidate someone else’s opinions and beliefs by using personal attacks instead of just sticking to the topic. If you re-read this thread, I think you’ll understand what I’m talking about.
Hope your rib continues to heal well. Best regards to you and your family, ZK.
November 14, 2015 at 6:39 AM #791322ParticipantAnd I did answer your question regarding catcalling. Your post also shows a lack of understanding about how power (political, economic, physical, social, etc.) affects relationships between groups. If you’re the person in power, you’re going to perceive something like a catcall differently than someone who is in the less-powerful position.
[quote=zk]
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?[/quote]
[quote=CA renter]Um, yeah… This really shows how little you know about sexism and misogyny. Re-read my post to scaredy* about why women want men to protect them — the one about how many females are sexually assaulted before the age of 18 (which is an understated statistic). See, many/most women perceive sexually aggressive men to be threatening, so they don’t take catcalling as a compliment, they consider it a threat.
After all, female groupies and male stalkers are similar in almost every way, other than their sex. So why are stalkers considered threatening, while groupies are considered to be fun, or maybe a nuisance?[/quote]
*Referring to this post:
[quote=CA renter]
Why do women want men to protect them? Because men are generally more capable of providing protection due to their generally larger size, greater strength, and more aggressive personality. This is especially true if women are not allowed to arm themselves.
I cannot express enough how differently people behave around a woman who is escorted by a man (especially a larger man) vs. a woman who is alone. I’m sure that most women will attest to having been catcalled by large groups of men (at a minimum), groped, aggressively cornered, molested, raped, etc. at some point in their lives, often by men who are decades older than the victims. Some females have been exposed to many violent/sexually violent situations by the time she is twenty years old. These offenses very rarely occur when women are being escorted by men (this assumes that the escort is a trustworthy male since it’s not terribly uncommon for the escort to become the perpetrator).
All too often, these offenses occur at a very young age (<18 years old), and these exposures to sexually violent men tend to cluster in a girl's youth, when they are ~13-20 years old -- and the younger ones are most definitely understated in official statistics, for obvious reasons. These exposures to violent/sexually violent men at an early age make females feel physically vulnerable where violent men are concerned, and certainly cause women to seek out men who are capable of protecting them from these threats. The age/size differential for young girls who are victimized by older/larger males adds to the perception that men are more powerful, both as a potential threat and as a potential protector.
This is why men who are tall, muscular, and selectively aggressive are sought out by many women. It’s also why so many women end up in abusive situations, because they have a difficult time discerning between those who can protect them from danger and those who are a danger…because these different types of males often share the same traits.
This is why cops and criminals often share the same traits, too. Those who are in charge of selecting law enforcement recruits sometimes have a difficult time discerning between the strong, unafraid, aggressive “good guy” and the strong, unafraid, aggressive “bad guy.” Cops and criminals often share the very same traits, by default.
————————-
“Children
15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12.3
29% are age 12-17.
44% are under age 18.3
80% are under age 30.3
12-34 are the highest risk years.
Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.”https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims%5B/quote%5D
November 14, 2015 at 6:48 AM #791323Participantdup
November 14, 2015 at 10:35 AM #791325ParticipantWell, those last couple posts are just more of your usual. Misrepresenting my positions, failing logic, and accusing me of things I haven’t done. I’m through pointing them out one-by-one. It’s a lot of time, and the facts, logic, and reason I put forth seem to go largely ignored.
You keep accusing me of ad hominem attacks. I asked you to either show me where I did that or stop accusing me of it. You couldn’t point one out, and yet here you are accusing me of it again.
To say that I use personal attacks instead of logic to invalidate your arguments is laughable to anybody who’s read this thread.
Also, my point this whole time was that you imagined it when you said that people segregate the sexes for fear of feminizing boys. And you did exactly that right here on this thread.
November 14, 2015 at 1:09 PM #791342NotCranky
Participant3rd grade girl in my son’s class is telling him he is a girl because he talks a lot.
Misandry is everywhere. I hope I bump into her mom at Costco soon so we can set this situation straight. The funny thing is , up until recently , and maybe still , she has always wanted to marry my son. Grooming him to be a real man , I guess.November 14, 2015 at 1:12 PM #791343ParticipantWrong thread.
November 24, 2015 at 4:50 AM #791541scaredyclassic
ParticipantWas reading some Internet article complaining about catcalling and sexism gone unnoticed and microaggressions. I thought this,response was pretty powerful. Maybe that means I’m another sexist pig…
“I look at the example of my mother: In the early 1970s when she was 30 years old, and a divorced woman with a young child, she couldn’t get a credit card because she wasn’t married. As such, once when our car broke down stranded us, she went to rent a car and couldn’t, because she didn’t have a credit card to use and they wouldn’t take a cash payment. We walked home for miles that evening, and she had to take the bus to work from then on until she could borrow a car. She wanted to buy a house when prices were cheap ($30,000 for a house) and she had a decent job, but nobody would give a single mother a loan. She worked, at times 5 jobs to make it so that she didn’t have to take any alimony – she was too proud, but accepted child support to pay for doctor’s visits, since she didn’t have any insurance paid by her employer.
She went back to school, became an archaeologist, and for 30 years worked in hot deserts and ran archaeological digs as one of the few women in a field completely dominated by men and could out-survey (for 20-30 miles at at time), out-dig, and out screen the lot of them.
If a construction worker cat called her, she waved and said “thank you!” She never turned down a compliment, and yet didn’t take a single ounce of c–p from anyone who every treated her poorly because she was a woman. She never once let anyone take her dignity from her, and they tried constantly.
I watched all of this first hand on a daily basis as a young boy growing up. So, when I read some whiny screed like this, I just cringe. To hear such complaining over what amounts to just generic humanity idiocy, and so mild in comparison to the history of human evil as to barely even be perceptible is just ridiculous to me.
In my opinion, my mother, who is still alive, but in very poor health, puts to pitiful shame every single young self-identifying feminist female who whines about some guy making an off-color comment, microaggression, or condescending statement or action. Young women in the West have it so good, not only in this world, but even as women. Astronomically better than most human beings, male or female, in the entire history of humanity, and yet you freely give up all your dignity to simpletons who are too callous or stupid to be worthy of it. Nobody can take your dignity away by a dumb comment – only you can give it away. And you allow it. You give your dignity away like you’re giving out candy at Halloween, and then you cry about it afterwards and say someone hurt your feelings.
Such precious flowers you all are. Feminists talk incessantly about the harnessing “power of being a woman”, and yet, the power they exhibit is so ridiculously evanescent, that the slightest bit of antagonism causes it to disappear like a wisp of smoke. That isn’t power, its the most pathetic kind of impotence there is. You all are more like medieval “damsels in distress” than any generation of women before you, because you literally cannot tolerate the slightest bruise without falling apart.
I’m not in any way advocating or justifying the bad behavior of one human being to another, but the thing is, you can’t control other people. You can only control yourself. Why on earth a person would thus decide that their dignity and power could be so easily interrupted, stunted, and destroyed by the mediocre and passing words of another is totally beyond me. I just don’t understand this mentality. And, I have precisely zero examples of that growing up. All I grew up around were physically and mentally strong women, and to me, their example is immutable.”
November 24, 2015 at 7:20 AM #791544ParticipantScaredy, when one of your clients is about to head off to prison, do you advise him to smile and nod when the other inmates catcall and whistle at him? Do you tell him that it’s “just a compliment,” and he should be happy about it?
Because that’s what it feels like to be a woman walking by yourself and having a group of sexually aggressive men catcall, grope, and make vulgar gestures at you.
Trust me, it’s not taken as a compliment; it’s a threat.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.