[CA renter]

[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:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/the-new-congress-is-80-percent-white-80-percent-male-and-92-percent-christian/

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:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/institutional-sexism-is-closer-to-home-than-you-think-8130535.html

—————————-

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.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][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]
[quote=zk]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?[/quote]

Yes, more parents hope for boys than girls (don’t know about grandchildren). In some countries and cultures, this desire for a son is even greater than in the U.S. And I’m sure you know that many girls are often killed in utero or shortly after birth. Other girls are sold into slavery or abandoned.
……….

“The preference for boys, the authors find, seems to be largely driven by fathers. At least since 1941, men have told pollsters by more than a two-to-one margin that they would rather have a boy. Women have only a slight preference for daughters. Taking all of this evidence together, the authors conclude that parents in the United States do have a preference for boys over girls.”

http://www.nber.org/digest/oct04/w10281.html
………….

“PRINCETON, NJ — If Americans could have only one child, they would prefer that it be a boy rather than a girl, by a 40% to 28% margin, with the rest having no preference or no opinion on the matter. These attitudes are remarkably similar to what Gallup measured in 1941, when Americans preferred a boy to a girl by a 38% to 24% margin.”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148187/Americans-Prefer-Boys-Girls-1941.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=USA

……………….

[quote=zk]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]

No, you stated that I was “making things up” or “imagining” things that didn’t exist. You weren’t suggesting, or even referring to it being simply your opinion. You were stating it as a fact.

Needless to say, that implies that you think you know more about what I see and experience than I do. It implies that you know more about sexism and misogyny if you feel that you are qualified to determine when I should or should not see it. This is what I called delusional thinking in my earlier post…because it is.

[quote=zk][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]

Well, you might not like to hear this, but that is sexism. You are stereotyping based on gender. And when you suggest that it’s okay to encourage or allow boys to exclude girls because “that’s what they want,” then you are being sexist.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]

I didn’t ignore your question about the parents’ intentions.
[/quote]
[quote=zk]You didn’t ignore them? Did you discuss them with somebody else? Because there certainly wasn’t anything on this forum about them.[/quote]

I addressed this issue multiple times. The parents are well-known to me, these issues have been discussed at length. They want their “boys to be boys,” and don’t want girls around because they apparently believe that including girls would somehow prevent boys from “being boys,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.

[quote=zk][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.

No, there’s not. This is sexism, plain and simple.

[quote=zk][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]

Except that it doesn’t look like that. Why are you pretending to know about something about which you’re so clearly uninformed?

[quote=zk][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]

Clearly, you wouldn’t necessarily notice them. You didn’t even notice the blatant sexism right here on this thread.

[quote=zk][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]

You’re excusing it away. I’m sure that if these people’s sons were girls instead, they would manage to make it to your get-togethers. We’ve seen this more times than we can count, but we don’t excuse it; we ask them why their sons are not able to make it, listen to the lame excuse about how he had to go to a male friend’s house, and watch them squirm.

[quote=zk][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]

When you encourage, accept, or try to justify the fact that people will want to segregate their children based on sex, then you are advocating and supporting the segregation of boys and girls.

[quote=zk][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]

You can call it by any term you’d like, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is sexist.

[quote=zk][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).[/quote]

It is sexist.

[quote=zk]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]

There ARE differences, but they are not nearly as great as you seem to think they are. Again, there is more grey than black and white in this world.

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]

Claiming that a woman who describes sexist or misogynistic experiences is “imagining things” is sexist.
[/quote]
[quote=zk]Not if they’re imagining things, it’s not.[/quote]

The fact that you believe yourself to be the arbiter of what is “real” or “imagined” in someone else’s life when you have absolutely no knowledge or experience regarding these things shows that you are delusional. As I’ve said, nothing that I’ve written has been made up or imagined. Your suggestion that I don’t know what I’m talking about just because it doesn’t comport with your extremely narrow view of how the world works speaks volumes about you.

[quote=zk][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]

It was clear that I was speaking about you and me. Only a woman would know more about sexism and misogyny than I do. I’m not a woman with an IQ of 70, and you’re not an expert.

[quote=zk][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]

Actually, yes, your statement would certainly indicate that you think you are better qualified to spot “real” or “imagined” racism than a black man, in just the same way that your insistence that I’m “imagining things” implies that you are better able to distinguish between “real” and “imagined” sexism/misogyny than I am. That is beyond laughable.

[quote=zk][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?[/quote]

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?

[CA renter]

I didn’t say that you knew nothing about HFT. I said that it was damaging to our economy. You disagreed, rather vehemently, as usual. We went back and forth regarding the benefits and problems with HFT.

Not sure if this is the thread, but it was the only one that I could find with a quick search. If you can find another thread, feel free to link it.

http://piggington.com/here_we_go_again_low_low_down_payment?page=5

I stand by my assertion that we do not need HFT, and that it presents us with more potential problems than solutions.

As to this quote of yours:

“Because experts are occasionally wrong, you are always right!”

I never said anything like that. But your idolization of “experts” or people with Ivy League degrees in not a trait shared by me. I question everything that somebody tells me until they can produce a compelling argument that is based on facts, evidence, and logic. Claiming that they are “experts” will get them nowhere.

[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.

[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. 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? Does it exist on the same level as not wanting a girl to be “masculinized”? Why, or why not?

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. 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.

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.

[CA renter]

Here’s yet another sexist quote that flew right over your head (one of many).

[quote=scaredyclassic]

Inocuous according to a reasonable middle school male hoping to be accepted by normal male peers so he can have normal relationships with other grown men

Not Inocuous to a little bitch.

More likely than not, son was trying extend friendship in a,peer group. Now the kid is likely to not get such an invitation from those kids at least.[/quote]

You do realize that “bitch” is a sexist word when applied to a human, right? And when someone calls a male a “bitch,” it’s considered one of the more serious insults; it’s more likely to start a physical fight than calling a male a “dick.” Ask yourself why that is.

Here are some other juicy ones that are likely to start a fist fight:

c*cksucker, f*ggot, motherf*cker, c*nt, (if you think that’s insulting to a woman, try calling a man one), p*ssy, vag*na, etc. All of these have to do with the feminization or emasculinization of males. They are some of the most insulting terms…why is that?

And the most common, and most insulting words for a female? B*tch, c*nt, whore, slut, C*m dumpster, etc.

When I tried to get this across to you, you seemed unaware, as I’m sure most people are. That doesn’t mean that sexism and misogyny don’t exist. You’re just unaware of the majority of situations where it exists.

[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.

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]

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

Yes, it happens all day long, every day. We women hear it, see it, and feel it…even if some women are not consciously aware of it at all times. Men do, too. It informs our perspectives on gender and the relation of power between the genders. It is systemic, which is why you don’t notice it. You excuse it as “normal” or “natural” behavior, as I’ve been saying all along. You also didn’t even notice that the most insulting language directed at males and females is almost entirely misogynistic. The worst insults for males refer to the feminization or emasculinization of boys/men. The worst insults for females refer, in vulgar terms, to her anatomy, or to her sexual behavior (that doesn’t have the same negative connotations for men). You do not notice these things because you are not aware of them or alert to them in a way that women are (and many women are also largely unaware because of the systemic nature of sexism in our society…they think it’s “normal,” too). Again, I am not imagining things. You are the one who doesn’t see things even when they are hitting you in the face. You are completely blind to it.

[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]
[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]

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?

If boys are special, what are girls?

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.

[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. 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]And my knowledge wasn’t based on a Rolling Stone article. I was using that as a quick and easy reference to what’s been going on with HFT because you displayed no knowledge, just more of your ad hominem attacks. I’ve been studying economics, finance, and social studies for decades.
[/quote]

Oh dear …. well, then, tomorrow I’ll have to give my old boss a call…

I’ll tell the Wharton educated Goldman Sachs exec … the one who gave me all those bonuses (the money that let me retire in my early thirties) that I was fooling him all those years because – according to someone who’s “been studying economics, finance, and social studies for decades” – I actually have no knowledge of HFT.

(Ok…I’m only semi retired, since I’m in NYC right now doing some consulting work in the field of – you guessed it – HFT!)

[quote]Look in the mirror.[/quote]

How ’bout I look out the window?

From the corner room of the Marriott in the financial district, West St. Nice view of the Hudson to the west and the tower on the WTC also.

For reference, the building with the dome is Three Financial Center:

http://www.google.com/maps/place/AT%26T/@40.7121568,-74.0176104,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c25a1b5dfbb87d:0x90c196a233233ba6%5B/quote%5D

Nice view. I had a similar view earlier this year.

You were defending HFT, and I was explaining why it can be damaging to our economy. There are plenty of “experts” who agree with me on this, BTW, and many of them come from Ivy League schools, too.

You are biased in favor of Wall Street, which is understandable. That doesn’t mean that what you want is what’s good for our economy.

I’ve also known someone who was the director of the board of one of the major exchanges. We used to discuss finance and economics a lot. It struck me, though, that his frame of reference was extremely narrow, and that he really didn’t grasp the larger picture or understand some of the consequences of certain actions on the larger world.

Again, the “experts,” most of whom have advanced degrees from ivy-league schools, claimed that their wasn’t a stock market/internet bubble, or a housing/credit bubble. Many of them claim that the Federal Reserve’s responses to the financial crisis have been a positive thing (we have yet to see how that plays out in the long run). They were wrong, and many “amateur economists” have been right. This happens far more often than most people would like to admit, in many different fields.

[CA renter]

Now for a couple more details about these parents’ behaviors…

1. The woman who didn’t want to dress her infant son in the pastel “boy” colors felt that way because she didn’t think pastel was appropriate for boys. She thought that pastels were “too girly,” even if they were blue, green, etc.

Coincidentally, this same family recently moved into a new house. The son’s room had a lavender/violent accent wall. The first thing she wanted to do when they moved in was to paint that wall because “purple is for girls.” The boy wanted the lavender and did not want to change the colors, but the mother absolutely insisted and chastised him for wanting to keep a “girly” color in his room. They are going to paint it a dark blue, maybe blue and gold for the Chargers colors. The boy had no say about it.

2. The boy whose father wanted him to sit with the adults instead of at the kids’ table wanted to sit with the other kids, but his father insisted that he come over and sit with the adults. The mother, who knows my views about these things, looked at me and immediately got my reaction, and then insisted (repeatedly) that the boy sit with the other kids. They all had a good time together, BTW.

3. In our neighborhood, there are multiple families with sons and no daughters. There are other families with sons and daughters, and there are a couple of families with only daughters. The families with both genders hang out with both of the single-gender families, but the girls-only and boys-only families tend to hang out separately. When they occasionally mix, there is an emphasis on boys hanging out with boys, and girls hanging out with girls. This is reinforced by the parents who often guide the kids to different activities or spaces in the house/yard. When asked, their reason for doing this is because “the boys want to play with the other boys.” They don’t. Many of these boys have played with the girls at different times, and they all have fun, but the parents of the boys have gotten together and scheduled their sons’ activities in such a way that they never have an opportunity to play with the girls.

An anecdote: One time, when we were leaving the house of an all-boy family, the boy from one of the mixed-gender family wanted to come with us for a sleepover at our house (including his sister). The male host of the first party said: “You don’t want to go to the girls’ house. Why don’t you stay here with the boys. You can hang out and have a sleepover with the boys, instead.” Mind you, this boy is one of our kids’ closest friends, and is closer to our kids than the other kids.

That’s just one example. Things like that happen very regularly. The girls are often excluded from the neighborhood football or baseball games, even though they play as well as the boys, if not better, in most cases. Sometimes, when they are all playing together, the boys will want to go into one of the “all-boys” houses, and they won’t allow the girls to join them. Again, this type of thing happens often to girls who want to play with boys, especially if there is a critical mass of boys who can dominate the activities.

And then, there’s the old “you can be cheerleaders, because that’s what girls do” line. Blatant and overt sexism.

For the record, the boys’ parents are often present, and they hear and see this behavior. All too often, they just ignore it, or even encourage it by reasserting the premise on which it is based (“it’s for the boys,” etc.).

Now, you might not think this is sexist because you will pass it off as “natural” or “normal,” but think for a moment if the girls were switched out with black kids, or gay kids. Would that be okay with you, too?

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]ZK, the ONLY “point” you’ve made are that I am imagining things. Every single one of your posts regurgitates this theory of yours (and you attempt to state it as fact). Your “point” is that I have made everything up, and I’m imagining things.
[/quote]
Actually, I’ve made dozens of points, most of them related to the weakness of your arguments. I really don’t have to list them, because anybody reading this can start on page 4 of this thread and see point after point after point in each of my posts. It’s apparently easy for you to just ignore my points. If you had some sort of arguments against my points, that would carry more weight than just saying I don’t have any.

[quote=CA renter]

Apparently, you think you know more about the people I’ve known, and the incidents I’ve experienced, than I do. Were you there? Did you talk to these people about these particular issues? No, you weren’t; and no, you didn’t…but I was there, and I did talk with them about these issues.
[/quote]

I wasn’t there. That’s why I asked you questions. Questions you ignored. You said that, in every single instance, girls were the ones being excluded, and that in every single instance the reason was that parents were afraid that boys would be feminized by exposure to girls. When I asked you if you asked every single parent about this, or how you knew this, you ignored the question. When I asked you to ask one of those parents why they thought exposing boys to girls would feminize girls, you ignored that.

[quote=CA renter]

You have absolutely no idea about the things I’ve seen and experienced. How in the world can you claim to know more about my life than I, or any other person, would?
[/quote]
I do have some idea, because you’ve told me about them. I never claimed to know more about your life than you. You ask that question as though I’ve claimed that. You do that consistently. Another sign of the weakness of your arguments.

[quote=CA renter]

Trust me, I am not afraid to express an opinion or ask someone about their reason for doing things. If I perceive something that might be sexist or misogynistic, I will ask people explain what they are doing and why.
[/quote]
Ok. So what do they say when you ask them why exposing boys to girls will feminize them?

[quote=CA renter]

Everything I’ve said is true. Nothing has been made up or imagined. It is true that I see sexism and misogyny where you don’t because you are not aware and alert to it in the same way that someone who has experienced it personally would be. Just because you haven’t seen or experienced something, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

[/quote]

For you to claim that segregating boys and girls for fear of feminizing boys is prevalent, overt, and explicit, and then claim that I wouldn’t notice it even if somebody actually told me they were doing it (and that I wouldn’t notice a single instance of it despite 15 years of hanging around parents) is ridiculous. When I asked if anybody else on this forum had ever seen such a thing, there were no responses. If you’re the only one who’s seeing something, perhaps it’s time to reevaluate your perspective.

[quote=CA renter]

As to why you supposedly haven’t seen or heard anything like this, it’s entirely possible that you aren’t very sociable, or that you don’t get into deep conversations with others about these things. Perhaps you’re afraid to challenge people when you perceive that something is off. Perhaps you just think it’s “normal” or “acceptable” behavior, and blow it off (this is my guess, based on your posts).
[/quote]

4 guesses, all of them way off base. Again, I’m not the only one not seeing it. In fact, it appears you’re the only one seeing it.
Not that I need this to make my point, but if this is as prevalent a social phenomenon as you think it is, somebody somewhere is going to write something somewhere about it on the internet. Besides you. Can you find anything anywhere that talks about parents being afraid of boys’ exposure to girls feminizing them?

[quote=CA renter]

The fact that you think something should be acceptable to another person or group of people has absolutely no standing in the real world. Your opinion of how someone should perceive a certain behavior doesn’t matter, and this is especially true if you’ve never been on the receiving end of a particular action or behavior..
[/quote]
What did I say that you’re referring to, here? Or did you make up a position for me again?
[quote=CA renter]
Yes, “rip,” the paper was literally ripped out of the boy’s hands. Yes, I’ve seen it in many other situations as well… a doll or Barbie being ripped (yes, ripped) out of the hands of a boy as he was told to go play with games that were made for boys. I’ve seen boys who wanted to take dance classes or acting class being told that they couldn’t do that because those things were for girls, but they could take soccer, or football, or baseball, instead.
[/quote]
Did your mother literally shove you out of the way to get to your husband?
Is your consistent inability to clearly read what I’m saying (or your consistent and purposeful misrepresentation of my positions) based on your emotion, or is it something else?
[quote=CA renter]

No, ZK, you are not an expert on sexism and misogyny, but it would do you a world of good to read about it.
[/quote]
For the I-don’t-know-how-many’th-time, I never said I was an expert on misogyny. And I never even brought up sexism.

[quote=CA renter]
It’s very clear from your posts that you still don’t understand what it is, or how to identify it, or why it should matter.
[/quote]
You keep saying that, and you keep having no evidence for it.[/quote]

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. 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. 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, 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.

I didn’t ignore your question about the parents’ intentions. And I will go into further detail about it in a separate post, since you aren’t even aware that these situations exist.

[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]

You might not notice the segregation if you’re guilty of segregating based on gender, yourself. If you’ve been pushing your daughter into “girls activities” and not encouraging her, with equal enthusiasm and energy, to get involved with boys (and girls!) in “boys activities,” then you are guilty of these behaviors, yourself. 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). 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.

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. 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.

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.

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. Exaggerating the differences between genders, and claiming that environmental influences aren’t responsible for most of what you describe, is sexist. Claiming that there are “boys activities” and “girls activities” and having a very binary view of the differences between genders is sexist. Claiming that a woman who describes sexist or misogynistic experiences is “imagining things” is sexist. Not realizing that the most popular insults that are directed against both boys and girls denigrate feminine traits or behaviors, or the female anatomy, shows an ignorance about the sexist and misogynistic beliefs that are systemic in our society.

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…

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. 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…

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]Do the historians really know more, or do they just think that they know more?

I’ve studied certain subjects, and have a particular perspective based on that research, but when I talk to people who have direct experience with the subject, I always learn more from them…far more, and my perspective is almost always changed. I would *never in a million years* tell a Jew who lived through WWII in Europe, that I knew more than they did about the Holocaust. It doesn’t matter how many books I read, there is NO WAY that I would know more about it than they did.

[…][/quote]

The irony in that first sentence…

This reminds me of the time that you were explaining how you knew more about high-frequency trading than I did because it was only my profession for many years, but you were able to cite an article from Rolling Stone.[/quote]

As I’ve stated before, you have to quote my entire post, or don’t quote me at all. You have a history of trying to misstate and twist what others are saying.

And my knowledge wasn’t based on a Rolling Stone article. I was using that as a quick and easy reference to what’s been going on with HFT because you displayed no knowledge, just more of your ad hominem attacks. I’ve been studying economics, finance, and social studies for decades.

[quote=harvey]
You’ll never comprehend this, by definition, but I’ll say it again anyway:

Your posts here are a perfect case study of Dunning–Kruger.[/quote]

Look in the mirror.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk]
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]

Right here, you’re repeating the statement (via your explanation of scaredy’s post) that “women can’t understand what makes a man a good friend tto another man, and that they should stay out of the discussion.”

Based on this post, and the other one I just quoted above, it seems as though you are agreeing with this sentiment.

If you follow your logic, then men can’t understand what women think or feel (about feminism or misogyny), either; therefore, they should stay out of the discussion.

Would you agree with that? Or do you believe that men have the ability to understand everything, whereas women only understand “girl things” and should refrain from any discussions about men and their feelings or perceptions of things?

And I would argue that some men do indeed understand sexism and misogyny, but there is a range of understanding, among both men and women, regarding these ideas. See, the world is not black and white, no matter how desperately you try to frame things that way.

BTW, the terms “sexism” and “misogyny” are often used interchangeably these days because the definition of the term “hate” has been broadened to include exaggerating differences between two groups or attempts to segregate people based on these differences (i.e.: speaking out against illegal immigration, even if for economic reasons, is called “hate speech,” speaking about the differences between black people and white people is also considered “hate speech,” etc.)

But I do dislike they way that these stronger terms have been broadened, so I acquiesced to your suggestion that some of these examples that I cited might not be misogynistic, but sexist instead. That’s why I started to include both terms. Both sexism and misogyny are unacceptable to me.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

True story here… One of my friend was like Steve Jobs who hack into phone systems as a teen. The FBI raided his house and confiscated his computer. Ever since he sees a vast surveillance conspiracy. It’s paranoid. Sure there is vast data sweeps. But there aren’t enough surveillance agents to read your facebook posts and read your mails, and to monitor your boring life.[/quote]

They have computers for that. Yes, your emails, posts, phone calls, etc. are being screened…by computers. Anything that is flagged is then reviewed by humans. If they notice a trend of suspicious communications, then you might end up on their radar, and your communications will be monitored by humans. He’s a conspiracy theorist, and he’s right. Just because you’re less informed about it, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

Along those same lines, just because you don’t see something as racist, sexist, or homophobic, etc., that doesn’t mean that it’s not.

This is just one data center/program (their largest, I believe). There are others.

https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/

[CA renter]

And who said this (bold is mine)?

[quote=zk][quote=scaredyclassic]Is this intrinsic to men or is the above description the result of the last generation of mothers screwing with their sons heads.

I say the latter.

History is replete with great friendships of men. The above post sounds like men can’t be friends because they aren’t “nice”.[/quote]

Having the same confidence-with-guy-friends issue as scaredy and having had a mother who looked down upon any kind of manliness, I’m going to agree with scaredy here.

“Nice” (I use the word “nice” but what I really mean is closer to “good friend”) among men might look different from “nice” among women. What might look to a woman like a man being nice to another man might look to the recipient man not like nice at all. And what might look to a woman like a man being “not nice” to another man might feel like gold to that other man. A woman is not in a position to judge that. She never has been and never will be.[/quote]

Hypocrite much?

[Author]

Posts