So you tell your daughter that she has to make sure she is always pretty for men? Because you know, viewing women as being objects for men's fancy is what every dad wants for their daughter. You mean when she's not being pretty and quiet? Pray tell, what is "nature" in this regard? I suppose if you have a problem with women being allowed to be themselves instead of pretty little play things for men, then of course, what you deem to be "feminists" would be a problem for you. So you advocate violence against women as well. How surprising. Indeed. Much better to bring your daughter up to believe she is only worthwhile if she is pretty and if men find her sexually attractive. Talk about creepy parenting.
Psychomoral Detritus It's the kind of thing you just have to slough off. I mean, at no point have I believed that our man Macky Avelli is anything but a troll. I haven't wasted my time on his parenting because I simply don't believe it. To the other, I haven't a clue what he's actually after, though in truth that might be a result of not wasting any time on the question. I mean, really, the only part of that whole spiel that is believable is the idea that women generally don't like him. In truth, if I had to worry, I would worry more about the guy who's looking for an excuse to beat a woman. I mean, seriously, it's almost enough to feel sorry for these pathetic men who have some sort of psychomoral confusion about holding a door or chair. I've sunk pretty low at various points in my lifetime, but I still cannot imagine what I have to do to myself to start seeing the world that way.
Wow, so I say that I'm all for gender equality and I'm a bad guy for pointing out two annoyances that I won't have to deal with anymore? Awesomesauce.
Lip service, given how you've qualified your position. The first annoyance was not being able to hit women, so you're delusional if you expect something other than hostility when you go around celebrating your newfound freedom. And the second never existed to begin with.
Really? And here I thought that the first annoyance was the stigma attached to anyone who performs the action, often regardless of the circumstances. Damn, I guess you know me far better than I do, guess I'll just go join the pariahs now.
You believe that men should be allowed to hit women and you are annoyed that they cannot and you are trying to pass it off as "gender equality". You'll excuse me if I don't take you seriously. Something you cannot seem to grasp is that feminists are against domestic violence, full stop. But your whine is one that misogynists often spout. And it is a whine because you just cannot fathom the fact that women are deemed equal to you. Are you allowed to hit a woman? No. Is a woman allowed to hit you? No. The irony of your whine is that the main culprit in men not reporting domestic abuse have been men themselves. Because of this whole 'macho real men' bullshit that pervades society, men like you have forced abused men to remain silent for fear of ridicule and further abuse. The official figures underestimate the true number of male victims, Mays said. "Culturally it's difficult for men to bring these incidents to the attention of the authorities. Men are reluctant to say that they've been abused by women, because it's seen as unmanly and weak." Feminists aren't to blame for this. The fault lies solely with men who view men as being weak, etc, if they let themselves be hit, for example, if they allow themselves to somehow be hit by a woman. He's deemed a pussy or a sissy. These aren't terms used by women. They are terms used by men towards their fellow men. Feminists do not call men such names. We don't encourage our son's to 'be a man' and to resort to violence. In fact, feminists have been fighting about the stereotyping regarding domestic abuse for decades. Unsurprisingly, men are far less likely than women to report incidents where they have been injured as it might call into question the status of their manhood. For men who did not hit back, retaliate, or perform an evasive action, there remains an expectation among many of the men themselves that they should have been able to fend off what transpired. Counselors note that boys and men who have been the victims of violence have a hard time accepting the label of victim. Feminized associations with victim language makes it difficult for men and boys who experience violence to seek and accept help. Unfortunately, when men do share their stories of abuse, it’s not uncommon for these accounts to produce anxiety, disbelief, and uncomfortable laughter. Some men recount having called a domestic violence hotline only to have their call treated as a prank. The laughter and disbelief and the questions about the status of victim's manhood stems from men, not women or feminists. You want gender equality? How about you encourage men to not abuse and ridicule men who are abused. But your whine is just yet another whine by which you try to blame women for something. The reason that men don't report domestic abuse is not because feminists stop them. But it is because men stop them.
Rumors of the General and Particular A Brilliant Freudian Slip My apologies; despite my agreement with the statement, I couldn't help myself; that is one awesome Freudian typo. Papa Siggy would be proud. This is the thing that I don't get about the masculinist argument on this point. First of all, physical violence against anyone is, a priori, wrong. Secondly, I am not without sympathy to the confusion. But I found a much easier solution than getting mad at women. I hold doors, move chairs, and show such deference to anyone in my proximity, according to circumstance. Rather than fixating on gender-neutral disrespect, I found it much easier to simply equalize my human respect for other people. But coming back to that first point, the a priori, as the second extends from it, there are times when physical violence has justifiable utility. But what is that utility, and what is that violence? I'll swing at anyone if I believe I absolutely must. By habit, I'll take at least one punch before striking; sometimes two in order to make certain the other seriously intends to pursue such a course. (Then again, it just doesn't come up that often.) But male or female, I do include certain calculations. Take my former partner. She's 4'10". Physical violence between us? Well, there was the time when she knew she was pregnant, got really drunk, and then in the course of things physically assaulted me on the street. I say physically assaulted, because that's what it was in principle and law. But the worst damage to my person was the bruised ego of people wondering about the guy sprawled out backwards over the bike rack. And I used to work with this guy named Myron. Cool guy. Distinctively unusual. 4'8", skinny as hell, gay as can be, and pretty damn cute in white jeans and a red silk shirt. And then there is "Chewie", the name I use for the unidentified, drunk, six-foot-eight shaggy at a concert in Portland. His best friend was probably six feet tall, fit, and one of those wannabe tough guys. Han Solo got pissed off at me for pushing Chewie and demanded, "What's your fuckin' problem, man?" So I told him: "Tell your fuckin' Chewbacca there to stop trampling people!" Now here's the thing: At that moment, if it had come down to blows, I would have thrown with certain force. That force would severely injure my former partner, possibly kill Myron, but only annoy Chewie. So if it comes to physical conflict, we see a degree not accounted for in our neighbor's need to beat a woman. There are two points to such fights. The first is to avoid them, and, failing that, the second is to finish it as quickly as possible; in many states, the law will charge you with assault if you take too long in defending yourself—you're better off in some jurisdictions shooting to death someone who is behaving in an erratic manner you might be able to describe as a perceived threat, than to immobilize and restrain your attacker in order to wait for assistance. But for those of us with a better understanding of reality than such stupid laws, why are we fighting? There is a broader human issue here. A man attacking me does not require a head-strike. It doesn't even require full force. Generally speaking, it requires enough presence of mind to get out of the way of a punch. And, generally speaking, given the environments in which these incidents most frequently occur, one can reasonably rely on the herd to stop the fight. So, generally speaking, the idea of actually striking someone just isn't one I entertain very often. But there are people, as our neighbor reminds, who are just itching for an excuse to do human damage. And that's the thing; while he notes the problem of escalating to physical violence in the first place, if the response is to simply throw down, we aren't really learning anything as a society.
@Bells -- That's not what I said. What I said is that nobody should be "allowed" to strike anyone, excepting defense of themselves and/or others. How is that not gender equality? It applies equally to everyone regardless of gender. So explain to me how I'm being misogynistic here. Thanks for parroting my gender neutral position on violence. Yeah yeah, social stigma, blah blah blah. Last time I checked feminists are a part of the society which is responsible for this asinine stigma, and given that they do nothing to combat it I am certainly well within my rights to dislike them for that. Just like I'm well within my rights to be pissed at democrats who allow social conservatives to run roughshod over the rights of women to control their bodies. Saying that I dislike one doesn't necessarily mean that I embrace the opposite. That's something I haven't seen, I'll look into that. I do. Why would you assume that I don't? Oh that's right, you all heard something you didn't necessarily like and jumped to the conclusion that I'm a misogynistic idiot who blames all the world's ills on women. What a moronic thing to do.
The Obvious Point Sorry, you don't get to excuse yourself like that. I mean, it would be one thing if it was actually true, but since it's not, no, you don't get to say that. To wit, it is actually easier to state yourself with better care at the outset than to spend your time afterward trying to justify yourself by blaming everyone else.
@Tiassa -- Um...but given that that's exactly what happened how could it not be true? I said something which could possibly be interpreted as misogynistic(though that's far from the only interpretation) and people jumped on it accusing me of being both a misogynist and an idiot. Tell me, again, how that wasn't people jumping to absurd conclusions given their utter lack of knowledge about my position. Could I have stated my position more carefully? Sure, but why jump to those conclusions when simple questions could have cleared the matter up in a couple of posts? Jumping to conclusions is just as bad, if not worse, than failing to articulate a point.
The Lessons of History Do you have any idea how old that trope is? The one about how men are oppressed because they're not supposed to hit women? You know, the rule that men invented, because women are weak, and the men don't want their property damaged? We've been hearing this for decades. Now, here's the thing about those attitudes at Sciforums—this farce is common. That is, a poster enters a discussion and ... — ... states a discredited political trope that only has any credibility among fanatics of one side of a debate ... — ... gets irritated when people call him out, because his politics ought to be obvious despite his words ... — ... and then blames everyone else for misinterpreting him, paying special attention to those people's moral corruption. In other words, you're right about on schedule for this particular slapstick. Indeed, it's happened a lot recently. One of our neighbors involved in this thread went through it not too long ago, disdaining the idea that people considered him a political conservative; while the accusation certainly stung, people were originally just razzing him for bringing a discredited right-wing talking point to the table as if it was legitimate. But once that back-and-forth picked up, it took a while to resolve. Or as I told another person recently: So he tried a gimmick and it blew up in his face. Big deal. We can certainly move on, but people aren't going to just sit back and take the blame for his behavior. And so it is with you. There are plenty of inequalities men suffer as a result of our sexist world, but compared to the challenges women face they're not nearly so significant. To the other, though, there are ways to address these problems. For instance, I loathe my state's automatic favoritism toward the mother in custody disputes, but I also understand the history that led us down that path. Yes, we certainly need to revisit the question, but the problem in the public discourse is that the vast majority of masculinist movements are merely male chauvinist clubs, and can't seem to restrain themselves when it comes to saying stupid things about women. I have no sympathy for these groups that start from the premise that women aren't oppressed, harassed, or exploited, and that men are the real victims here. The problem with the argument about hitting women is that the poor, oppressed, powerless men argument that has nothing to do with reality has long been its definition. When you walk in and throw that one down, it's hard to see what else you expect. State your real position, move on. These things take longer to fade from memory the longer someone in your position wants to drag it out. To wit, in recalling the gimmick that didn't work, I actually had to stop for a moment to remember who that was. And I certainly don't think less of the guy; but people simply weren't going to let him get away with that blatant rhetorical train wreck. Life goes on, for the living. Think of a racism analogy, since that's well removed from the controversy here. Imagine that you found yourself explaining that you weren't advocating racism, but, rather, arguing about government intrusion and the people's will. Now, there are plenty of examples to go with, to be certain, but let us imagine that you waltzed in and threw down the post-Civil War repeal of the three-fifths rule as an example of this injustice. There would be no way under the sun you could possibly explain your way out of that one by blaming other people's perceptions. And this oppression of men because they can't beat women? No, really, what did you expect? That people would praise your superior intellect since nobody has ever thought of that point before? I mean, really, what? One can always plead ignorance of history, especially in American issues; after all, ignorance is one of our society's specialties. But the lesson of history is that the idea of men being oppressed for not being allowed to beat women is a non-starter.
That's not what I said though. What I said is that I don't like the arbitrary social standard that men who hit women are automatically trash. I never said that men are oppressed by it, just that I don't like it and that I think such gender based social codes are bullshit. Quit putting words into my mouth.
Unfortunately for you, that is not how you voiced that argument. But your position isn't really that gender neutral, is it? Your hatred of women and feminists in particular reeks through your posts. And it is that very attitude that makes men afraid to come forward to report abuse. And last time I checked, it was men who were telling men to buck up and 'be a man', not women and certainly not feminists. This is a male problem, not a feminism problem. The preconceived ideas about gender roles stems from men, not women. It has been the male voice that has dominated the role of women in society and that of men in society. Men expect men to be the strong one's, the "man", etc. Women were always designated by men as being weak. Feminists did not do this. Men did. The reason that that stigma exists is because of male chauvinism. Not feminism. When feminists say or encourage their son's to cry and show emotion, they are accused of turning their son's into sissies. Wait, are you saying that feminists do nothing to combat domestic abuse? What planet do you live on? You just hate feminists for pointing out that perhaps it is time for men, like feminists have been forced to do in the face of chauvinism, to demand the laws change to provide for support for abused men. That it is time for men to accept that other men are victims of abuse and instead of ridiculing those men as being weak or not real men, etc, that they should instead be like feminists and demand support and changes in funding for domestic abuse victims. Do you have any idea how many decades it took for domestic abuse to even be recognised? In some countries, men can still beat and rape their wives legally. Hell, such laws didn't exist in some states in the US until the 70's and 80's. And that is because of male chauvinism and misogyny. It is because of the belief that a man is king of his castle and "the man". And it is that belief that has led to men, even today, to not come forward to report abuse for fear of other men making fun of them. One of the main gripes of feminists has been set gender roles. And it is something feminists have been fighting for decades. It is those very gender roles that set the man as being the strong manly one and the woman as being the weak one. And it is because of those gender roles that men feel they are like women if they allow a woman to hit them, for example, that they are somehow weak if they are victims of domestic abuse. Feminism is about equality with men. Men just need to not treat their fellow men as being weak 'like women' when they are abused. You blame the lack of support for battered male victims on women and feminists when the fault lies solely with men. It is not the fault of feminists that men have set the gender roles and demand that men be 'strong manly men'. Feminists have been fighting for gender equality for a long time now. Perhaps it's time for men to recognise that and understand that being abused does not diminish a man's virility or his "man" status, just as it is time for men to stop treating women as if they are unequal and weak. But hey, it's much easier to blame feminism for men assigning gender roles, isn't it?
@Bells -- Did you not read my follow up post(number 29) where I specified, and I'll quote myself here, that "Personally I prefer gender neutral codes of conduct. Instead of "never strike a woman" it should be "never strike the first blow"? If you did and you still assumed that I was arguing that people should be "allowed to hit women" then you're either so biased that it blinded you or your reading comprehension is lacking. How do ya figure? So you keep claiming, but when I ask you to point out this misogyny I get zip, just more of you asserting by fiat that I hate women. If I don't let theists get away with asserting, by fiat, that I reject god because I hate him, I'm sure as hell not going to let a pissant like yourself get away with making baseless assertions about things you'd have to be a fucking mind reader to know. So either put up or shut up. Show where I've been misogynistic and I'll admit it, otherwise you can take those accusations and shove them up your ass. Nope, I'm saying that feminists are doing nothing(that I've seen at any rate) to combat negative male stereotypes. I'm not saying they have to, but the rather obvious lack of feminist organizations giving a fuck about them isn't something that I have to like, is it? Is this one of those things where I have to support everything a group does or doesn't do otherwise I hate the whole group? Because I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. Bull. Fucking. Shit. I did no such thing. Really? 100%? So you're saying that women have had absolutely zero role or input in the formation of gender roles? Damn, I'm gunna need to see some evidence for that claim. It would be, but since I'm not actually doing that we've got nothing to worry about.
Survey Says! Naturally, you are perfectly capable of expressing yourself; it's everyone else's problem if they can't read your mind. (Survey says!) "I'm ALL for gender equality, no more 'never hit a woman' or 'women first'(when it comes to evacuating dangerous situations) bullshit for me to put up with. That's all special treatment, not equal treatment." As I said, have you any idea how old that trope is? Really, that was your entry. And when they're all for gender equality, why do they always lead with men's rules about not hitting women? And women and children first? That's another rule men made. You're following the template almost like an automaton. As such, it doesn't really help when you turn around and lie: Bells: But hey, it's much easier to blame feminism for men assigning gender roles, isn't it? Arioch: It would be, but since I'm not actually doing that we've got nothing to worry about. Don't think people don't notice. You're actually undermining your argument that people are wrong to see misogyny in your posts.
@Tiassa -- It's not my fucking problem when I post a clarification and they ignore it. That's their own problem. Should I care? What difference does the age make? I mentioned some things that I will be glad to not have to put up with anymore if the genders are actually to be treated equally. Does this mean I think that people should hit women? Hell no. All it means is that I don't like putting up with nonsensical rules based on a time long past. Again, you and Bells should stop reading into my words things that aren't there. Rather, you could ask a fucking question or two. Further, I want both you and Bells to point out exactly where I blamed those rules on any part of the feminist movement. Put your money where you're so eager to put your mouths. Of course, I know that I never said such a thing.
I agree to that, Women should be gentle and not be a bitch , thay should know how to cook , take care of the home and provide a harmonious home , and let the stupid male to feel like he is a king .
If you do that you spoil them, you have to treat them as they are the queen inside in the house and you are the king outside of the house , so it gives them a sense of power .
