Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
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.
Participant[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=zk]
[quote=CA renter]
My response to Brian should make clear my position on this. In the vast majority of cases that we’ve seen and experienced, the segregation is being done to prevent the “feminization” of boys; it’s not done to prevent the girls from becoming too masculine.
[/quote]
Here’s where you’re wrong:
Not wanting boys to be like girls is not the same as hating females. It’s not misogyny. Do you want boys to be like girls? Do you want girls to be like boys?
[/quote]
I pointed out your erroneous assertion that not wanting boys to be like girls is the same as hating girls. (You had earlier said that the segregation of boys and girls was misogynistic). This, again, does not rely on the assumption that you wear misogyny-tinted glasses.
[quote=zk]Parents are much more protective these days than 30 or 40 years ago. Kids back then were left unattended most of their free time. They were allowed to do all kinds of things that most parents today wouldn’t dream of letting their kids do. Our culture has gradually shifted from kids doing mostly what they want with whom they want, to one where kids are ultra-closely monitored, and that has left the sexes relatively segregated. Nothing misogynistic about it. Again, the desire to keep girls away from boys is at least as big a part of it as the other way around.
[/quote]
I pointed out a reasonable alternative to your theory of why children are segregated. Not dependent on your M.T.G.
[quote=zk]
[quote=CA renter]
Look at scaredy’s posts about his sons. That is what we see on a daily basis — the notion that females are “screwed up” and neurotic, and that boys need to be protected from that.
[/quote]
Put down your misogyny-tinted glasses and then read scaredy’s posts again. What scaredy said was that he was neurotic, and that he didn’t want to create another generation of neurotic men. What he said in reference to females was:“Is this intrinsic to men or is the above description the result of the last generation of mothers screwing with their sons heads. “
And when he said “this,” he was referring to your description of what made a man a good friend to other men. And part of his point was that women can’t understand what makes a man a good friend to another man, and that they should stay out of the discussion. And that those moms (and maybe our culture) shouldn’t be trying to feminize men. Not because there’s anything wrong with women. But because there’s nothing wrong with men being men.[/quote]
I mentioned your M.T.G., but my point was not dependent on them. I pointed out that you misread scaredy’s post (and that therefore your point was not valid).
[quote=zk]
[quote=CA renter]
And women absolutely do pass on the misogyny. You have no idea how many times I’ve heard women say:“I have such a GREAT relationship with my son. There is nothing like the relationship between a mother and her son. Boys are just so special.”
[/quote]Thinking boys are special is not misogyny.
[/quote]
I pointed out your erroneous assertion that thinking boys are special equates to misogyny. Nothing to do with your M.T.G. (Except maybe evidence that you’re wearing them).[quote=CA renter]
[quote=CA renter]
This male-worship is not uncommon among women. My MIL is the same way. Every time when I was pregnant, she would tell me how much she hoped for a grandson, and was clearly disappointed when we kept having girls. My own mother did the same thing, too.
[/quote]
Lots of grandmothers hope for granddaughters, too. But your misogyny-tinted glasses filter that out.
[/quote]
I pointed out that lots of grandmothers hope for granddaughters. Again, that’s not dependent on your M.T.G., it’s evidence of them. Do you really think that significantly more than 50% of grandmothers hope for grandsons rather than granddaughters?Ok, that’s just on the first half of the first page of our debate. Need I go on?
[quote=CA renter]I can’t remember a single point that you’ve made that doesn’t rely on this underlying assumption. Your statements that I’ve “made things up,” or that I’m “imagining things” don’t count as logical arguments.
[/quote]
Well, there’s a few for you, just from the first half page.
[quote=CA renter]
To the contrary, you have not witnessed a single situation that I’ve talked about…so YOU are the one “making things up,” based on your faulty assumption that I am incapable of identifying sexism or misogyny because I experienced it at an early age — as do most people
[/quote]
There you go misrepresenting my position again. Do you not realize that everything we’ve written is right there for anyone to read? Do you not realize how desperate you appear when you misrepresent your debate opponent’s position?I never said you are incapable of identifying sexism or misogyny. I said you might sometimes see it where it doesn’t exist.
[quote=CA renter]
, BTW; but you wouldn’t necessarily notice it because you think it’s “normal” behavior. For your information, guiding your daughter to pink toys is sexist; dragging her to malls and nail parlors, without guiding her to “boys” events and activities, with similar frequency and enthusiasm, is sexist; suggesting to your children that there are “boys activities” and “girls activities” is sexist.
[/quote]
While I’ve never done any of the above, I don’t think that guiding a boy to boys’ activities more than girls’ activities if he’s shown a predisposition to like boys’ activities, and your time and resources are limited, is sexist.
[quote=CA renter]I didn’t ignore your question about the parents’ intentions.
[/quote]
You didn’t ignore them? Did you discuss them with somebody else? Because there certainly wasn’t anything on this forum about them.[quote=CA renter]
Just the fact that you insist that there are “girls activities” and “boys activities” is sexist in itself (read the literature, you don’t have to take my word for it).
[/quote]There’s literature all over the map on this subject.
[quote=CA renter]
The fact that you think that the spectrum of gender-based behavior looks more like a barbell with huge curves at each end and very little mixing in the middle shows that you have sexist beliefs. So much of what you see and believe is socialized, it is not innate, as you seem to think it is.
[/quote]
If the curve really does look like that, is it sexist to believe that it looks like that?[quote=CA renter]
As to your inability to see all this sexism and misogyny in your own life, if you believe that it’s “natural” for boys to do “boy things” and girls to do “girl things,” then it’s unlikely that you would question the parents about their behaviors…that’s probably why you “haven’t seen these behaviors” in 15 years of parenting.
[/quote]
How would believing that it’s natural for most boys to want to do boy things and most girls to want to do girl things would prevent me from noticing the following behaviors:An adult rip pink paper from a boy’s hand or otherwise discourage him from liking pink
And women who have both sons and daughters will often go on and on about their sons, while largely skipping over the importance of their daughters, or just mention the girls as a side story or talk about how they like to go shopping together — but rarely talk about their girls’ achievements in the same way they do their sons’ achievements, even when the daughters are more accomplished.
women tell me, point blank, that they don’t really like their daughters, but they love their sons because of this supposed “mother and son” relationship.
If a parent has a new baby, and it’s a boy, all you hear is “my son…my son…my son…my boy…my boy.” When people have a daughter, they tend not to mention the gender as often, usually just referring to gender when it would seem unnatural to do otherwise.
Etcetera. Even if I thought those behaviors were normal (I don’t), I would notice them. When people walk by me at work to get where they’re going it’s normal. But I still notice it.
[quote=CA renter]
Do you frequently associate with families who have sons? Do they bring their boys along to play/hang out with your daughter, or do they drop their sons off at other “boys’ activities” or another boy’s house before they come to visit with your family (I’m not talking about the infrequent guest, I’m talking about patterns of regular, consistent behavior)? If you notice it, do you question it, or do you just chalk it up to “normal” behavior? If you don’t challenge it, you’re unlikely to hear their reasons for doing it.
[/quote]
We do frequently associate with families who have sons. On occasion, they’ll come over. Especially if the whole families are getting together. But, generally, they’ve got other activities lined up. That goes for the brothers and the sisters of my daughter’s friends. Kids are busy nowadays.
[quote=CA renter]Yes, my mother literally shoved me out of the way to get to my husband on multiple occasions — literally push me aside physically as she bee-lined for him with arms outstretched calling out something along the lines of, “Oh, it’s so good to see you, son.” Yes, shove. Again, I’m not making this up, and am not imagining things under any circumstances.
[/quote]
Well, that’s a shame. And it probably does contribute to your perceptions of misogyny. For better or worse.
[quote=CA renter]How do I know that you can’t identify sexism or misogyny? Because you have claimed that overtly sexist behaviors and beliefs aren’t sexist or misogynistic. The segregation of boys and girls is sexist.
[/quote]
I never advocated or supported the segregation of boys and girls.
[quote=CA renter]Exaggerating the differences between genders, and claiming that environmental influences aren’t responsible for most of what you describe, is sexist.
[/quote]Or realistic.
[quote=CA renter]Claiming that there are “boys activities” and “girls activities” and having a very binary view of the differences between genders is sexist.
[/quote]
Claiming that there are “boys activities” and “girls activities is realistic. Claiming that there aren’t is wishful thinking (for those who would wish for such a thing).My view isn’t “very binary” It’s somewhat binary. Again, realistic, not sexist.
Let me ask you this, CA Renter: If I think the sexes are different, how is that sexist? I’m not saying one is better than the other. Just that they’re different.
What if they are different, and you’re hindering their development by believing they’re not?
[quote=CA renter]
Claiming that a woman who describes sexist or misogynistic experiences is “imagining things” is sexist.
[/quote]
Not if they’re imagining things, it’s not.[quote=CA renter]
As for the “expert” comment, when I suggested that you don’t know as much about sexism as I do because you’re not a woman, you came back with a comment about a female with an IQ of 70 not knowing as much as a male “expert” on sexism. I understand that you might not have meant that as a direct comment about the status of you and me, but it certainly comes across in a peculiar way…
[/quote]
You said, “ You are not an expert regarding sexism and misogyny, and you certainly don’t know more than I do about it because of the simple fact that you are not a woman.”
By that logic, any woman knows more about misogyny than every man. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of that claim by pointing to an unintelligent, uneducated, imperceptive, unobservant, lazy woman vs. a man highly educated in the field. Do you think that moronic woman who never gets out knows more about misogyny than the Harvard PhD? The question isn’t who knows what being a victim of misogyny feels like. The question is who knows more about misogyny.If you think that’s peculiar, I think you’re too sensitive. I thought it was pretty obvious what I was saying.
[quote=CA renter]Finally, I sincerely doubt that you would tell a black man that you know more about racism, or tell a gay man that you know more about homophobia.
[/quote]
Sometimes I think you don’t even read my posts. I said I would tell a close friend or a stranger on a web forum if I thought they saw hate where there was none. And then I said, “But just because I think he occasionally sees racism where there isn’t any doesn’t necessarily mean that I think I have superior race-spotting skills in general.”[quote=CA renter]
I sincerely doubt that if they had related some of their experiences with prejudice to you that you would tell them that they “have issues” or that they are “imagining things” or “making things up.” We may never know, because it’s unlikely that we’ll get to experience this in a common setting like Piggington, but I really and truly doubt that you would have talked to them in the same manner that you’ve done with me. Just something to think about…[/quote]
No, unless they were close friends, I wouldn’t talk to them like I’ve done with you. Of course not. That’s not how society works. If they were close friends, of course I would tell them those things. Why wouldn’t I?
Here’s another question for you: You said I probably had no idea what it was like to be catcalled by strangers. I mentioned that that had actually happened to me on a couple occasions, and that I really liked it. I was watching “The Seventies” a couple weeks ago on CNN. Great show. They had footage from the ‘70s of feminists having an “ogle day,” where women would ogle men. There was a feminist trying to “harass” a man on the street, in front of TV cameras. She was saying what nice legs he had and how his pants brought out the best in him. She didn’t seem to notice the look on the guy’s face, which was some surprise, but mostly pleasure. The guy was loving it. She went on to say, into some microphone, how they were trying to show what it felt like to be catcalled by strangers. I remember thinking that those women didn’t understand men at all. I think most men would really like getting catcalled by women they didn’t know. And the main reason these women didn’t understand men is that, like so many feminists in the ’70s, they believed gender identity/behavior was a social construct. They thought that men and women were mostly the same, prior to social conditioning. So they thought that, since women don’t like being catcalled, neither would men.
Do you think that if all children were raised in a gender-neutral fashion, that boys would hate being catcalled by strangers, or that girls would enjoy it? Do you think if a girl, one individual girl, was raised in a gender-neutral fashion, that she would enjoy being catcalled, as most men would?
Participant.
Participant[quote=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.
[/quote]
If you follow my logic, you’ll come to the conclusion that a man cannot understand what misogyny feels like to a woman, and should therefore stay out of the discussion of what misogyny feels like to a woman. Just like a woman should stay out of the discussion of how one man’s behavior feels to another man. And you’d never find me professing to know what misogyny feels like to a woman.Just because one doesn’t understand what it feels like to be a victim of misogyny doesn’t mean that one can’t understand the causes, manifestations, and outward effects of misogyny.
In fact, I would say understanding what misogyny feels like is not even the most important part of understanding and preventing misogyny. The most important part, it seems to me, would be understanding exactly what turns people into misogynists. Knowing what it feels like to be raped is not the most important part of understanding and preventing rape. Knowing what it feels like to be stabbed isn’t the most important part of understanding and preventing knife attacks. Knowing what it feels like to be robbed at gunpoint isn’t the most important part of understanding and preventing armed robbery. Etc.
Misogyny is not in the eye of the beholder. Misogyny is in the heart of the misogynist. So if anyone really understands misogyny, it would be men (or women) who hate women.
[quote=CA renter]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.
[/quote]Not sure why you think I see things in black and white. Quite the opposite, when it comes to people. Nonetheless, when debating, I use evidence, logic, and reason. That’s not the same as seeing/framing things in black and white.
Participant[quote=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 k`ids’ 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.
[/quote]
That says nothing about the motivation for having him sit at the adult table. To me, it says that woman is tired of being judged by you.
[quote=CA renter]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.
[/quote]
Just because the boys have played with the girls and had fun doesn’t mean that the boys wouldn’t prefer to play with the boys. And, unless you’re leaving something out, any guess as to the parents real motives (if it is, indeed, other than as stated by the parent) is pure speculation.[quote=CA renter]
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.
[/quote]
Again, you’re speculating as to the motivation for the segregation.
[quote=CA renter]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.
[/quote]
As well or better in most cases? Either that’s a highly unusual neighborhood, statistically, or your judgment of their abilities is askew.
[quote=CA renter]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.
[/quote]
Yeah, sometimes boys don’t want girls around. Imagine.[quote=CA renter]
And then, there’s the old “you can be cheerleaders, because that’s what girls do” line. Blatant and overt sexism.
[/quote]
“Because that’s what girls do.” Is that an old line? I’ve never heard it.
[quote=CA renter]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.).
[/quote]
Giving the boys what they want?! Sexist bastards!
[quote=CA renter]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?
[/quote]
Some of that is normal and some of it isn’t. But none of it addresses or answers the main question I keep asking you. Your original assertion, the one I’ve been trying to debate with you, is that parents segregate boys and girls for fear of feminizing girls. Nothing in your post about parents behavior/motives addresses that at all. Why do these parents think that exposing boys to girls will feminize them?
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Hypocrite much?[/quote]
That would only fly if I’d said I understood what it felt like to be a victim of misogyny. Which I never said.
Participant[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.Participant[quote=CA renter]
Finally have time to deal with this precious nugget of yours, ZK. The only “point” you’ve made is that my experiences with sexism/misogyny are “imagined” because I’ve experienced sexism/misogyny at an early age.
[/quote]
First of all, that’s not even the point I made. You make it sound like I’m saying that all of your experiences with misogyny (I didn’t even bring up sexism, you did) are imagined. What I said was that your “experience” that parents and teachers are trying to segregate the genders, and that in every single case it’s because they’re afraid that exposing boys to girls will feminize boys is imagined.Second, that’s not nearly the only point I’ve made. As you can see, I consistently address each of your points. You ignore half of mine. You can say I didn’t make a point, but if you have no rebuttal to most of the points I’ve made, then the claim that I haven’t made a point is empty.
[quote=CA renter]
You claim that you know more than I do about whether or not a behavior or action is sexist or misogynistic, even though you (presumably) haven’t spent a single day of your life as a female.
[/quote]
Show me where I said that I know more than you, in general, about whether a behavior or action is sexist or misogynist.
Again, you’ve misrepresented my position and argued against the position that you made up.[quote=CA renter]
And wasn’t it you who shared a personal tidbit which BG grabbed with both hands and started to use against you throughout a thread? I believe she contorted your words and said you had “issues” in a lame attempt to discredit what you were saying, just like you’ve done here. As I recall, you weren’t very happy about it, yet you’re doing precisely the same thing on this thread via your ad hominem attack on me instead of discussing the **very real** issues I bring up (no, nothing has been “made up” or “imagined”).
[/quote]
I was disgusted with BG because she claimed I had said things that I hadn’t said. Just like I’m disgusted with you for consistently misrepresenting my positions.I don’t consider putting forth my theory that the reason you sometimes see misogyny where there isn’t any as being due to your upbringing as an ad hominem attack. It’s a very reasonable attempt to shed some light on why you would see these things where they don’t exist.
If you think that’s an ad hominem attack, I strongly disagree. If you think I’ve made some other ad hominem attack, you’ll have to point it out. And, when you can’t find it, stop accusing me of making ad hominem attacks.
Not that I really care, because it only shows the weakness of your arguments, but you called me “naïve” (based on a position that you’d made up for me, and not anything I said) and “blindfolded” (with no evidence to back it up). For you to accuse me of making ad hominem attacks is ridiculous.
[quote=CA renter]
Based on your logic, if a gay man experienced homophobia during childhood, even from his parents, he is rendered less capable of accurately identifying homophobic beliefs, behaviors, and remarks than someone who is not gay. Does this make any sense to you? Would you really dare to say that to a gay man?
[/quote]
I think it’s entirely possible that a gay man who experienced disgust from his parents about his sexual orientation would occasionally see homophobia where there isn’t any. (Which is what my logic would say, and not that he would be rendered generally less capable of identifying homophobic beliefs, behaviors, and remarks.) And that makes perfect sense to me. And yes, I would absolutely say that to a gay man who I thought was seeing homophobia where there wasn’t any (assuming he was either a close friend or a stranger who brought it up on a web forum).[quote=CA renter]
Let’s take an example of a mixed-race man (black-white) whose white mother told him throughout his childhood that she would have preferred that he were white. Would he be less capable of accurately identifying racist beliefs, behaviors, and remarks than someone who is 100% white? Would you dare to announce your superior “racism-spotting” skills to him?
[/quote]
The question is, would he occasionally see racism where there wasn’t any? And the answer depends on other factors in addition those described in the scenario. But, yes, I think that a fair percentage of people raised in that scenario would see racism where there wasn’t any. But just because I think he occasionally sees racism where there isn’t any doesn’t necessarily mean that I think I have superior race-spotting skills in general.
[quote=CA renter]
Please answer honestly and explain why you think you would know more about racism or homophobia than they would.[/quote]
I never said I would know more than them.
I’m really curious whether you truly misunderstand my positions, or you purposely misrepresent them. Can you shed some light on that?[quote=CA renter]
he has only made ad hominem attacks without addressing the issues I’ve brought up (just says that I must have “imagined” them). If anyone is arguing based on feelings, it is ZK.[/quote]
Wow. Not addressing the issues you’ve brought up? All I’ve done, this whole thread, is, point-by-point, address the issues you’ve brought up and the attempts at points that you’ve made. I’m practically Mr. Spock here. Each of your points is countered with logical counterarguments. Each misrepresentation of my position is corrected. Your use of violent words (shove, rip), your consistent inability to clearly read what I’m writing (or your purposeful misrepresentation of my position), and your contention that I’ve made no “points” despite your not being able to effectively counter any of the points I’ve made, suggest far more emotion on your part than anything I’ve displayed.ParticipantI love you, scaredy.
(I assume it can be any lawyer, and not just “my” lawyer.)
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency of the U.S. government.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
ZK, you can keep trying to convince yourself that you’re a feminist who is an expert on sexism and misogyny, but you’re not. The things you’ve written here show that you don’t even have a basic understanding of it.
[/quote]So now you’ve changed your technique from merely misrepresenting my position to misrepresenting my position (I never said I was an “expert”) and saying “The things you’ve written here show that you don’t even have a basic understanding of it” without any explanation for why what I’ve written shows that. You’ve run out of arguments, all of yours having been soundly defeated by me, point by point, and so now you’re just saying, “you clearly don’t understand” with no supporting evidence. Is it not clear to you that you’re flailing wildly and whiffing completely? Most likely the only reason you think you’ve won every argument against Harvey/pri is that you are unable to see when you lose. I didn’t want to make this about winning and losing. I was trying to help you. But your condescension, your misrepresentation of my positions, and your stubbornness make pointing out your inconsistency, your irrationality, and your lack of reasonable arguments irresistible.
[quote=CA renter]
No, a male “expert” on feminism will not understand sexism and misogyny even as well as an “average” woman would. That’s like claiming that a white “expert” on racism would know more about racism than an average black person, or that a tall person who’s an “expert” on the lives of little people would understand the discrimination and experiences better than (or even the same as) an actual little person. That’s purely delusional thinking.
[/quote]I didn’t say “average.” You did. You consistently misrepresent my position and then argue against that made-up position. Why do you do that? Do you feel your arguments can’t stand up to what I’m actually saying?
You said that I couldn’t understand sexism and misogyny as well as you simply because you’re a woman and I’m a man. Meaning any woman understands misogyny better than every man. I don’t think very many people would agree with you on that.
I’m not even sure that CA renter from October 31 would agree with it:
[quote=CA renter]I see sexism and misogyny when other people don’t because they are blinded by the systemic nature of it. It is so accepted, and so much a part of our culture and society, that they don’t even notice it.
[/quote]
So, if all these people are blinded by the systemic nature of misogyny, then how would the women who are among those blinded by it understand misogyny more than a man who studies it?Participant[quote=CA renter]
ZK, you only notice sexism and misogyny when you determine it exists, as per your definition.
[/quote]
CA renter, does it not even occur to you that the exact same thing must be said of you (and everybody else)? The question is, whose perception is closer to reality? And, given your situation with your mother (and your vastly different perception of what’s happening from most people’s), I’d say your perception is quite skewed.
[quote=CA renter]The objectification of women is one component of sexism, and you don’t even notice how some of your own beliefs and behaviors contribute to the objectification and denigration of women.
[/quote]
You just made that up, and you have no idea what you’re talking about.[quote=CA renter]
The fact that you have a daughter does not mean that you can spot sexism or misogyny in the same way that a woman can because you have never had to live as a woman. You have never been told that your (less experienced, less educated, less valuable) male peers were paid more than you because they were men or because they have families to support.
[/quote]
So no man can ever spot sexism or misogyny the same way that any woman can? That’s patently ridiculous, and that flawed thinking is more evidence of your irrationality on this matter.[quote=CA renter]
You have probably never been catcalled and groped by strangers on the street, even when you were a kid. You have no idea what that feels like.
[/quote]
Well, actually I have been catcalled by strangers a couple times. And, I gotta tell you, it felt great. I only wish I’d been groped. That would’ve been really great.[quote=CA renter]
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.
[/quote]
So no man is an expert on sexism and misogyny, and no man knows more than any woman? Do you honestly think that makes sense? By that reasoning, a woman with an IQ of 70 who never leaves the house, sits around watching television all day, and never gives sexism a second thought knows more about misogyny and sexism than a man who’s studied it his whole life and has a PhD in Women’s Studies from Harvard. Brilliant.
[quote=CA renter]Again, the fact that you can’t grasp how the most insulting terms in our show how sexism and misogyny are alive and well in our society is a very clear indication that you are not nearly as aware of sexism and misogyny as you seem to think you are.
[/quote]
You keep twisting this away from what I originally said.
[quote zk]You really think the fact that female insults are sex-specific while male insults are not is “proof” that misogyny exists “to a large extent?” If that’s all the “proof” you need, then it’s no wonder you overestimate it.[/quote]
It could be considered evidence that misogyny is alive and well to a large extent. Something to be considered in the larger conversation. But proof, all by itself? No.[quote=CA renter]
The fact that you think that being female makes one biologically inclined to like shopping shows how naive you are regarding this topic.
[/quote]
Good god, you’re exasperating. The fact that you have to misquote me shows how weak your arguments are. I never said that I think being female makes one biologically inclined to like shopping. I said (or implied) that, in general, girls like girls’ activities, and boys like boys’ activities. And that that’s largely due to biological differences.[quote=CA renter]
I appreciate the fact that you want to be a feminist
[/quote]
I want to be a feminist?
Your condescension is amazing, disgusting, and pathetic all at the same time.
[quote=CA renter]What we do need to do is get a better understanding of the history and the facts that contribute to our biases and the way we value people, professions, contributions to society, etc.
[/quote]
I concur with that. But starting with the distorted positions and failing logic that you’re starting with won’t make anything better.
[quote=CA renter]Everything I’ve said here is a fact
[/quote]
I dare you to challenge me to list the non-factual things you’ve said.You can tell stories about parents segregating their boys from girls. And you can tell us how often it happens. And you can claim that, in every single instance, it was for fear of feminizing boys. But if you ignore the question I asked about whether they actually told you this, and you can’t find one of the people who have done it to explain to you why they think exposing their boys to girls will feminize them, and if no one else has ever witnessed such a thing for such a reason even once, then nobody will believe you.
[quote=CA renter]— nothing that I’ve written here was imagined or made up — from what girls have to endure on a regular basis, to the way that parents, peers, and others guide very young girls and boys toward behaviors and activities that are gender-based, irrespective of what is natural for those children.
[/quote]
I’m not saying that girls and women don’t have to endure sexism and misogyny. I’m saying that it doesn’t happen to the extent that you see it. You see things as “facts” because you think you’ve seen them with your own eyes. But if your upbringing-addled brain is distorting what you’re seeing, then what you’re “seeing” isn’t really fact.
[quote=CA renter]Yes, there are biological differences that are related to our different reproductive roles, but these differences are not nearly as dramatic as you think they are.
[/quote]
You wanting that to be true does not make it true.Participant[quote=zk]
I notice sexism all the time. I notice misogyny when I see it, too. I have a daughter. And when she was born, I was quite concerned with how society would treat her. I still am. I think the objectification of women is rampant. My first facebook post was about a feminist champion doing great things for the cause of women. (In fact, other than pix of vacations that my wife posted, and a few posts about my favorite baseball team, that’s my only facebook post.) So I’m actually on your side in general. I’m a feminist who is pretty sensitive to how women are treated. [/quote]You followed my posting of the above with your posting of the below:
[quote=CA renter]ZK, we can go around and around on this because it’s unlikely we will ever see eye to eye if you believe that misogyny and sexism are things of the past. They are not.
Of course, it’s like a white person telling a black person that racism doesn’t exist. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.[/quote]
Your reading skills leave quite a bit to be desired.
You ignore the points I make that counter your weak arguments. And then, when it’s obvious that your arguments can’t stand up to mine, you imply that I hold a position that I clearly (to anyone who’s paying attention to what I’m actually saying) don’t, and run away. Weak.
Have you ever known a black person who sees racism in every corner? Even when it’s not there? Constantly crying, “racism!!” even if whatever happened that he’s crying racism about was clearly due to other factors, and not racism? Sure there’s racism out there. Lots of it. Just not everywhere that person sees it. If you try to tell that person that a particular incident wasn’t racism, they get angry and think you’re a fool for not seeing it. It’s pretty obvious to everyone that that person has a very large chip on his shoulder, and that he sees racism everywhere he turns his eyes, rather than only where it actually is. It’s pretty obvious to everyone that he’s angry, bitter, and irrational. Obvious to everyone except that person, of course.
That’s you with misogyny.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
ZK, these parental behaviors ARE explicit, but it doesn’t mean that everyone will notice them, especially if they think that these beliefs and behaviors are “normal” and socially acceptable.
[/quote]
I notice sexism all the time. I notice misogyny when I see it, too. I have a daughter. And when she was born, I was quite concerned with how society would treat her. I still am. I think the objectification of women is rampant. My first facebook post was about a feminist champion doing great things for the cause of women. (In fact, other than pix of vacations that my wife posted, and a few posts about my favorite baseball team, that’s my only facebook post.) So I’m actually on your side in general. I’m a feminist who is pretty sensitive to how women are treated. But I’ve never noticed any of the types of examples you’re talking about. The discussion isn’t whether there’s misogyny out there. Of course there is. But the manifestations you’re talking about just aren’t there, especially to the extent that you see them.[quote=CA renter]
Why is guiding girls to pink things sexist while guiding boys to blue things not necessarily sexist (though I don’t agree with guiding kids to or from anything based on gender)? Because there is no stigma to liking blue. Why? Because it is the color of power and prestige between the sexes. Nobody will chastise a girl for picking up a blue piece of paper or blue paint, but they will most definitely chastise a boy for using pink. That’s because the things that are deemed “feminine/submissive” are considered inferior.
[/quote]Blue is the color of power and prestige between the sexes? You say these things like they’re facts. You’re imagining things.
[quote=CA renter]
And the fact that you think that it’s rare for a parent, teacher, etc. to rip a pink piece of paper out of a boy’s hand shows that you are not paying attention, which explains why you don’t see the very explicit and obvious sexism and misogyny in our society. This type of behavior happens every day, all day long.
[/quote]
Or it shows that you’re imagining it. I say it only seems explicit and obvious to you because of your glasses. Again, I’m not talking about sexism. I’m not talking about misogyny in general. I’m talking about parents and teachers commonly segregating children for fear of feminizing boys. And teachers/parents commonly ripping pink away from boys because blue is powerful and pink is weak. You’re imagining those things.
[quote=CA renter]While males and females have different gender roles because of their biological/reproductive roles, these differences are not nearly as dramatic as you seem to think they are. Sexuality and gender roles, like most things in life, lie on a spectrum. One side has a higher concentration of males, while the other has a higher concentration of females, but there is a lot of overlap in the grey area between the two, with some males going way out on the far end of the “female” side of the spectrum, and some females on the extreme side of the “male” end. Every individual is different.
[/quote]I concur with all of that, except the part about “not nearly as dramatic as you think they are.” 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=CA renter]
And you keep asking about why *I* think that exposing boys to girls will feminize the boys. It should be more than clear, based on all of my posts, that this is not how I feel at all. This is the assumption and belief that I am fighting against; I am on the opposite side of that argument. I’m calling out the people who do this.
[/quote]
Ok. You claim that “the ultimate goal in every case is to keep their sons from becoming ‘feminized.’” How do you know that? Has one of the parents, in every case, told you this? Or did you imagine it? Or did you assume it?Since this happens all the time, let’s get some information. Next time it happens, ask the parent doing it why they think exposing Johnny to Susie will make Johnny more like Susie. Better yet, since you’ve seen so many examples of it, ask one of the parents you’ve seen doing it what they’re thinking. I think parents do all kinds of wacky things for all kinds of wacky reasons. And your upbringing-distorted mind twists many of those things around into sinister, misogynistic schemes.[quote=CA renter]
And the reason why feminists have downplayed the differences between the genders is because they know, without a doubt, how these differences are often forced on people by society, and then these differences are exacerbated and amplified by a society that seeks to maintain one group’s position of power over other groups.
[/quote]
Dealing from a position of non-reality isn’t helping anybody. Reality (differences between the genders) has to be acknowledged by anybody wanting to be taken seriously.Again, you’re trying to have it both ways. You say,
“Do you honestly think that the orientation of our reproductive organs makes us more inclined to want to shop or get our nails done or play/watch football or go fishing or play golf? Really?”
as if the orientation of our reproductive organs is the main difference between the sexes. And you say,
“What you see as “natural” gender-based behavior is due almost entirely to socialization,”
as if there’s minimal difference between the behavior of the genders.
And now you say that feminists have to downplay the differences between the genders. If they’re almost entirely due to socialization, what is there to downplay?
[quote=CA renter]
Even our economic and political systems — designed and reinforced by men — are set up to devalue the contributions of women and other minorities. What we call “low-skill” work is actually the most dangerous and distasteful work that has traditionally been done by people who were owned and/or controlled by men. The very valuable work that has traditionally been done by women has been accorded little to no prestige, and are some of the lowest-paid professions in our society. It’s not because this work is any less valuable than the work that men have traditionally done — after all, the human race would no longer exist without the women who carry out these tasks — but because our political/economic systems have been set up from the beginning to devalue this work and keep women and other minorities oppressed.
[/quote]
This is a tangent. What I’m arguing is that parents don’t segregate their children for fear of feminizing boys. And that teachers and parents don’t rip pink paper from boys’ hands. You’re obfuscating that issue by getting on a soapbox to rail against sexism and misogyny in general. Because you’re angry. Which, again, is getting in the way of you seeing clearly.[quote=CA renter]
As for this quote:
[quote=zk]You missed my point entirely. My point was that the basis of insults for each gender is not proof of misogyny. And that you apparently need very little evidence to declare “proof” of misogyny.
[/quote]
Yes, the fact that the most insulting words/names in our society refer to the feminization/emasculation of men (in the case of men), or consist of disparaging references to a female’s anatomy or sexual behavior (in the case of women…and, sometimes, men) do indeed prove that misogyny is alive and well in our society. The fact that you can’t see this might help explain why you don’t notice sexism/misogyny, even when it’s entirely explicit and in-your-face.[/quote]
Just because you say it’s proof that misogyny is alive and well doesn’t make it so. You claim it’s fact, and then use the “fact” that it’s a fact to make your argument. It doesn’t work that way. In any case, I never said misogyny wasn’t alive and well. I said that the examples you cite as manifestations of misogyny are either nearly non-existent or aren’t due to misogyny.
[quote=CA renter]
“Bonobos are unique in that the migratory sex, females, strongly bond with same-sex strangers later in life. In setting up an artificial sisterhood, bonobos can be said to be secondarily bonded. (Kinship bonds are said to be primary.) Although we now know HOW this happens–through the use of sexual contact and grooming–we do not yet know WHY bonobos and chimpanzees differ in this respect. The answer may lie in the different ecological environments of bonobos and chimpanzees–such as the abundance and quality of food in the forest. But it is uncertain if such explanations will suffice.
Bonobo society is, however, not only female-centered but also appears to be female-dominated. Bonobo specialists, while long suspecting such a reality, have been reluctant to make the controversial claim. But in 1992, at the 14th Congress of the International Primatological Society in Strasbourg, investigators of both captive and wild bonobos presented data that left little doubt about the issue.
Amy R. Parish of the University of California at Davis reported on food competition in identical groups (one adult male and two adult females) of chimpanzees and bonobos at the Stuttgart Zoo. Honey was provided in a “termite hill” from which it could be extracted by dipping sticks into a small hole. As soon as honey was made available, the male chimpanzee would make a charging display through the enclosure and claim everything for himself. Only when his appetite was satisfied would he let the females fish for honey.
In the bonobo group, it was the females that approached the honey first. After having engaged in some GG rubbing, they would feed together, taking turns with virtually no competition between them. The male might make as many charging displays as he wanted; the females were not intimidated and ignored the commotion.”
http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html
——————–
[/quote]
The fact that there are clear gender roles in bonobo society makes my point for me. Nature provides gender roles. It provided them for bonobos, chimpanzees, humans, and most other animals.[quote=CA renter]
Though I would argue that how chimpanzees, or other animals, relate to one another doesn’t necessarily apply to humans. Our ancestral lines diverged millions of years ago, and we have evolved to become very different animals.[/quote]
The point isn’t that the particular behaviors of other animals applies to humans. The point is that nature provided clear gender roles for all those animals, and it doesn’t make sense that humans would be an exception to that rule.
[quote=CA renter]
Back when my husband and I first got together, he thought I was full of it, too. Now, after having three daughters and living with me pointing things out to him, he’s become one of the greatest feminists around. The way girls and women are treated in our society really makes him angry. Once you start to look for it, it’s overwhelming, but these behaviors and beliefs are so much a part of our human existence, most people don’t even notice the depth and breadth of it. It’s more systemic than racism (also note how women obtained the right to vote and own property after black people did), is more global, and has a much longer history, so people excuse it as being “normal” or “natural.”[/quote]
[quote=CA renter][quote=scaredyclassic]
Dare mr. Car disagree?
I can tell you this. Things go a lot smoother when we agree with Mrs scaredy. As they say, you can be right. Or you can be married. But you can’t be both. I think that advice is generally understood to be directed at males attempting to argue with females.[/quote]
Sure, he disagrees with me about things all the time. But where sexism and misogyny are concerned, he’s the one who will often come to me to discuss situations at work or he’ll bring up a situation that has happened with the kids, etc. He notices it on his own these days.
FWIW, I would never want to be married to someone who agrees with me all day long. I just want someone who is able to back his positions with facts and logic, with a little bit of emotional reasoning to smooth out the rough edges.[/quote]
When you’re married, your battles should be chosen carefully. When your spouse is sensitive and angry about something (that doesn’t directly affect your marriage), which, it seems clear to me that you are on this issue, that’s a battle best avoided.
Participanthttp://www.takepart.com/article/2014/05/12/chimpanzees-why-boys-and-girls-different-behavior
Here’s an article that talks about the gender differences in chimpanzees, and then has some common sense advice for humans.
Quotes from the article (I added the bold to the part that applies to CA renter, and italics to the stuff that scaredy was warning against):
I frankly think it’s OK that male and female are built differently to be good at different things,” Lonsdorf said. “I think it should be celebrated.” The danger, she added, is that “people will latch on to it and say, ‘See, women should only have babies’ ” or otherwise use it to excuse traditionalist prejudices or to exclude people from certain careers.
The opposite danger, among more progressive parents, may be to pretend that propensities don’t exist. Worse, parents may want to train or punish them out of existence, banning dolls or weapons (or dolls as weapons) from the house. The new research suggests that a better approach is to understand where boys and girls are coming from and then use those propensities, without disparaging them, as a means of helping children achieve whatever their potential happens to be.
“I think one of the great things about humans is our capacity to recognize those differences but also realize that propensity does not determine ultimate capability,” Lonsdorf said. “Yes, we’re built different, but we can all catch up if we want to. It’s a matter of education and will.”
-
AuthorPosts
