History of Feminism
Related: About this forumall women are whores
Every woman is thought to have a price. Some women cost $100. Others cost dinner, a movie and a few hours of conversation that the man has to suffer through. Others cost a McMansion in the suburbs and a monthly clothing allowance. The point is not the price. The point is that every woman is presumed to have one. We are supposed to ignore how men have monopolized economic and societal power, treated us like chattel and forced us into the whore role in a million and one ways over the last few thousand years.
Men believe that women are whores not through circumstance, but because whoredom is somehow intrinsic to our nature. We are natural whores, supposedly. Though given men’s inclination to force women into the whore role, it seems like it would be more accurate to claim that men are natural johns/pimps actually. Anyway, the belief that all women are whores is so important to men that they have come up with a scientific discipline to prove it (because I’ve never seen an evo-psych study which didnt imply that all women are whores. Do they even exist? They should just rename “evo-psych” to “whore studies” and be done with it.)
*
It explains why rape is only considered rape it if involves a strange man jumping out of the bushes and wrestling a woman to the ground. Other types of rape arent really rape because so long as the woman is compensated – with dinner, a roof over her head, compliments, affection – then it is considered a fair transaction. Women are all whores, afterall. And a whore cant really be raped. Even in the case of the man in the bushes, the rape isnt really rape. It’s something else … theft of services, perhaps? The man in the bushes sparks outrage not because of what he does to the woman, but because he steals the service which rightfully belongs to the woman’s pimp/john/husband/boyfriend. Or male kin, who safeguard the service until it is claimed by a husband.
The belief that all women are whores also explains, at least partially, why the fuckability mandate has not eased off one bit, despite all the advances that women have made. Being fuckable, or attempting to be fuckable is imperative. Even the most naturally unfuckable woman must be seen to be actively working on making herself as fuckable as possible. When it comes down to it, the point is not our fuckability, but that we are making the effort. It shows that we are trying hard to display the product – ourselves – in the best light in order to entice buyers. Men see this as a tacit acknowledgment on our part that we are in fact a product for sale in the first place. A woman who isnt making a visible effort to be fuckable is an affront to men. Men not only want to buy women. They also want women to want to be bought by them, and to show it. It proves we are whores and that we wish to be treated like whores. The belief that all women are whores may even partially explain why men find lesbianism so threatening. Being confronted by a lesbian forces a man to entertain an uneasy suspicion that standing before him is an unbuyable woman. His currency, all of it, may be utterly meaningless to her. And as soon as he admits that some women are unbuyable, suddenly his belief that all women are whores starts falling apart.
http://fabmatters.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/all-women-are-whores/
__________________________________
i was looking at, if men can possibly understand why women are bothered about themselves always being observed on a fuckability scale. this thread had me thinking.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=611581
___________________________________
For something intangible, a glance can be a powerful thing. It can carry the weight of culture and history, it can cause psychological harm, and it can act as a muzzle. Consider the relatively simple act of a man staring at a woman's body. This is such a common part of modern society that most of us rarely stop to think of its consequences, much less investigate it with a scientific lens. Tamar Saguy is different. Leading a team of Israeli and US psychologists, she has shown that women become more silent if they think that men are focusing on their bodies. They showed that women who were asked to introduce themselves to an anonymous male partner spent far less time talking about themselves if they believed that their bodies were being checked out. Men had no such problem. Nor, for that matter, did women if they thought they were being inspected by another woman.
*
Saguy found that women talked about themselves for less time than men, but only if they thought they were being visually inspected by a man, and particularly if they thought their bodies were being checked out. They used the full two minutes if they were describing themselves to another woman (no matter where the camera was pointing) or if they were speaking to a man who could hear but not see them. But if their partner was a man watching their bodies, they spoke for just under one-and-a-half minutes. You can see these differences in the graph below (although note that the y-axis starts at 60, a practice I don't particularly like).
*
When the students answered a questionnaire after the experiment, both men and women "felt more like a body than as a real person" if the camera focused on them from the neck down. But only the women were really put off by it. Around 61% of them disliked the body-pointed camera, compared to just 32% who disliked the face-pointing one or 7% who disliked the audio. For the men, 36% disliked the body camera, 42% disliked the face one and 22% disliked the audio.
*
Even so, these behaviours don't go unnoticed. They could be major problems if the same detrimental silencing effect in Saguy's study applies in real-world situations where being vocal is important for success - job interviews, work meetings, networking sessions, classrooms and more. There will always be hardened lechers among us but often, objectification happens without us thinking about it or becoming aware of it. It's time, perhaps, that more of us did.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/how_sexual_objectification_silences_women_-_the_male_glance.php
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
xocet
(3,871 posts)http://fabmatters.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/all-women-are-whores/
That statement reflects flawed reasoning. It would be similar to saying that it is known that a lot of people subconsciously believe that the earth is flat.
What are your subconscious beliefs? (Is the earth flat by chance? Are squirrels actually mauve in coloration?)
Beyond that, is it possible to have a subconscious belief? What exactly is a belief for that matter? Does one need to be conscious of some mental process for it to qualify as a belief?
The position that the author of the first piece is presenting is weakened by using such a flawed argument which levels an accusation at every man. (People are not aware of subconscious mental patterns by definition. Who is to know if he "subconsciously" has the "beliefs" presented by the author of that argument?)
At any rate, the argument against men who would prefer to subjugate women should continue - just not using this sort of argumentation. The need for equality between men and women is not that hard of a concept, and it need not be presented in this manner to get it across.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i do see the flaw in your argument. are you seeing people type the earth is flat all over the internet?
xocet
(3,871 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to dismiss what was being said. and i thik that in defending a privilege, to be able to say, i dont do that, to not have to really own what is happening in a group and how it effects the people the behavior is being directed at, there is an intent to find something, anything, to dismiss what is being said. so, a person does not have to own it. or think twice in doing it.
i think it is an excuse.
as a woman and literally decades of males doing this to me, i know a little more about it than you. and i know the effect it has on a woman more than you. there is not only this article, but a thread giving an example of the behavior and another link to results of this behavior, for women.
if there is ONE little thing in the whole of the OP you dont agree with, yet understand the rest of the OP, why would it warrant an attempt to dismiss it all.
i never do that with anything. i will take what i can gain from it, learn, grow and move on.
xocet
(3,871 posts)There is no perfect form of argument, but arguments are there to convince people who don't know why they should change or what they should believe.
From the outside perspective, how is one to examine one's own beliefs if they are beyond the realm of conscious examination? I don't know.
I don't want to start anything, and I don't want to dismiss anyone's perspective (yours included) or the goal of equality. Thank you for elaborating in your reply.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that their worth is in their looks, then it is unconscious at that point. it effects them. it effects those around and in relationship. it is not their authentic self. but it is certainly manifested in unconscious form, thru a society that has conditioned girls from day one.
self reflection.
if instead of finding fault, and reading the articles and thinking about them and self reflecting, then there is the possiblility for you to understand. if that is your goal. or not. we all do it many times over thru a lifetime. this is no different. awareness is about all it takes.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Is it possible to have a subconscious belief?
Seriously?
Can we just not do the derail by distractions thing?
xocet
(3,871 posts)Actually, what it says is, with emphasis to assist (even though you copied it so you must have read it):
In the History of Feminism group, we really don't need anybody coming along with the same tired old misrepresentation of statements about what a lot of men really and truly do as being condemnations of all men.
People's subconscious beliefs can be elicited in various ways, and you can be very sure that much work has been done to study the subconscious beliefs of men about women.
And now you could try googling "subconscious beliefs" to help you with the rest. In this instance, we are talking about things like how a person may well adhere to values that include the equal worth of every variety of human being, and yet have had ideas about certain categories of people instilled into them so early and so insidiously that they are not consciously aware of them and yet may still be influenced by them.
In fact, ferreting out those ideas on their own part and addressing them is an important task for everyone who does claim to value all human beings equally. And often, it takes having someone else lay out the problem for this to happen. How often have we heard someone say "omg, I didn't realize I was doing that, and now I see what you are saying"?
Well, not often enough, but you see what I'm saying.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)“And it takes almost no criticism at all in order for men to feel "bashed," like it's "open season on men." In fact, just saying "male privilege" or "patriarchy" can start eyes rolling and evoke that exasperated sense of "Here we go again.” (Allan Johnson, “Privilege, power and difference,” p. 197) "Accusations of male bashing and man hating work to discredit feminism because people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people."
xocet
(3,871 posts)belief? Are there actually studies that are scientifically valid that do address this?
If I am wrong and way off base on this, please let me know. Keep in mind that I am an outsider to this group and do represent the passive consumer of the OP's argument as it popped up in Latest Threads (I think). Unless the position is elaborated with some references, who (outside of the people who don't need to be convinced) is to know what to make of any given argument?
Ostensibly, the OP is there to convince people of some position, so please don't mistake my (possibly incorrect) criticism of the presentation of the argument for a devaluation of the pursuit of equality.
Now, given that, I would like to thank you for the more detailed reply that you did write. I agree that people need to examine their own behaviors and that as you state it take other to show them what they are unconsciously doing.
Read from the outside, doing something unconsciously means something quite different than acting based on the subconscious. Maybe there is no difference - I don't know. Please keep in mind that I do admit my ignorance of the topic when I ask you to please point me to a study. I know that people often refer to google as means to find anything, but it does not necessary point one to the best study. I am aware of Lakoff and his study of frames, etc., but is he the one who actually is doing the important work to which you are referring?
I understand if you don't want to have this discussion, but please keep in mind that I did not intentionally go to the History of Feminism Group to start anything, and I will leave quietly if that is what is desired. (PM me and tell me what you think is the best course of action.) I was just reading Latest Threads and wondered who would post a thread entitled "all women are whores."
I do see what you are saying, though. Thanks again for the reply.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)The Male Privilege Checklist
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).
3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).
8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).
12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.
14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. (More).
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often. (More).
19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.
20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.
21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” (More).
25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability. (More).
26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).
27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. (More).
28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).
29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)
32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.
37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. (More).
39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.
40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. (More). If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do. (More).
43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More).
44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.” (More: 1 2).
45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment. (More.)
45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.
xocet
(3,871 posts)Beyond that, have you ever considered the sheer number of sexually-based slurs which have become so prevalent as to have been condensed into a single word versus the number of similar terms that have been so condensed that address the sexuality of men?
Without an exhaustive study of either lexicon, for women there are at least about 171 such terms, whereas for men there seem to be only at least about 90.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2012, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)
talking like... tang. jon stewart threw that one out last night and i had to look it up. definition different from urban definition and urban definition got a fuck that shit.
yes, i am so so tired of it.
That this is so deeply encoded in the lexicon is indicative of its prevalence. The count of terms that I am aware of was not principally made from The Urban Dictionary - the count was from Dictionary.com, American Heritage, Merriam-Webster and other more established resources that are available online, which shows how widely and historically accepted those descriptions are.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that alone, trollop, tramp, dame, .... i can go on and on and literally on. says something. and the lack of awareness, acknowledgment the effectiveness of this language always a constant directed to women. i think this very simple realization should be an eye opener for men, yet i dont see that.
your post to iverglas was interesting and i need to spend some time reading the articles you provided. i am out the door. but....
thank you. thank you for stopping and listening for a moment, so we could do the same. i appreciate and value that.
xocet
(3,871 posts)The links that I put up were just one of the links that I was given to look at and the article's original link in case anyone wanted that.
Here is some stuff that I am aware of. It regards political discourse. It may be true - it may not be: I don't know how much validity it has. However, some of it seems to show a deeper linkage (linguistically and culturally manifested) between ideas. This sort of analysis is what lead F. Luntz to redesign Republican talking points to get maximum appeal to their base. G. Lakoff has been trying to get Progressives and Democrats to think along the same lines in the theory of frames, but it is not clear that it has been implemented:
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Lakoff.html
http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/elephant
The whole theory of framing is approximately that of unconscious connections between the symbols (word) that humans use for ideas. Mental symbols are grouped and invoking one automatically invokes the set of those that are linked to that initial symbol (word).
People have differently grouped sets of symbols depending on experience, but there seem to be large sets that are culturally linked.
http://georgelakoff.com/writings/rockridge/
At any rate, I hope that these are interesting articles if you have not already seen them.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)That's why I'm thinking you would do well to read the Statement of Purpose for the group (click on "about this group" and the pinned post at the top of the board discussing the proposal for expanding it.
No, it isn't. It's to invite discussion of the issues it raises among people who adhere to the SoP here. That's what all posts in this group are for.
For the rest, maybe you would present some research on the issue you raise if you consider it to be important in the context of this thread.
In this group, confrontational demands for proof are not the best approach. And maybe a little less nitpicking of the possibly offhand use of language in a blog post might help.
I think this little passage illustrates what was meant:
http://3rdyearwiki0809.pbworks.com/f/ANG+intermediate+report.doc
It's just a little amateur thing too. But really, does anyone not actually know what is being talked about?
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/464538819
- panel discussion on poverty, inequality and race (not the world's best transcription but the video is there)
WHEN PEOPLE ACT DELIBERATELY, WHEN THEY'RE ATTENDING TO WHAT THEY ARE DOING, THEY'RE CONSCIOUS BELIEFS TEND TO GUIDE THEIR BEHAVEIER, BUT WHEN THEY'RE WORKING IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THEY DON'T EITHER HAVE THE INCLINATION OR THE RESOURCES OR THE OPPORTUNITY TO MONITOR THEIR BEHAVIOR, AND TO BEHAVEANE MORE CONSCIOUS AND DELIBERATE WAY, THEN THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THESE SUBCONSCIOUS STEREOTYPES, SUBCONSCIOUS BELIEFS CAN INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR
I don't think I had any trouble understanding that from the text in the OP.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)that the term used should have been "unconscious beliefs". If I google that term with, say, "stereotype", I get quite a lot of stuff.
http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/ef/home/rp2/Where%20Bias%20Begins.doc
by Annie Murphy Paul
from: Psychology Today, May/June 1998
Psychologists once believed that only bigoted people used stereotypes. Now the study of unconscious bias is revealing the unsettling truth. We all use stereotypes, all the time, without knowing it. We have met the enemy of equality, and the enemy is us.
http://www.tolerance.org/hiddenbias
Psychologists at Harvard, the University of Virginia and the University of Washington created "Project Implicit" to develop Hidden Bias Tests — called Implicit Association Tests, or IATs, in the academic world — to measure unconscious bias.
About Stereotypes and Prejudices
Hidden Bias Tests measure unconscious, or automatic, biases. Your willingness to examine your own possible biases is an important step in understanding the roots of stereotypes and prejudice in our society.
The ability to distinguish friend from foe helped early humans survive, and the ability to quickly and automatically categorize people is a fundamental quality of the human mind. Categories give order to life, and every day, we group other people into categories based on social and other characteristics.
This is the foundation of stereotypes, prejudice and, ultimately, discrimination.
... Biases and behavior
A growing number of studies show a link between hidden biases and actual behavior. In other words, hidden biases can reveal themselves in action, especially when a person's efforts to control behavior consciously flags under stress, distraction, relaxation or competition.
Unconscious beliefs and attitudes have been found to be associated with language and certain behaviors such as eye contact, blinking rates and smiles.
xocet
(3,871 posts)
...
WHY CAN WE ALL GET ALONG?
19. The idea of unconscious bias does clear up some nettlesome contradictions. “It accounts for a lot of people’s ambivalence toward others who are different, a lot of their inconsistencies in behavior,” says Dovidio. “It helps explain how good people can do bad things." But it also prompts some uncomfortable realizations. Because our conscious and unconscious beliefs may be very different—and because behavior often follows the lead of the latter—“good intentions aren’t enough,” as John Bargh puts it. In fact, he believes that they count for very little.
...
http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/ef/home/rp2/Where%20Bias%20Begins.doc
and
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199805/where-bias-begins-the-truth-about-stereotypes
I can see where my original statement is ill-informed. The second article is also very interesting to consider.
You are also correct about the pinned group statement. I'll admit it if I am wrong. So, I am sorry for challenging what on the basis of the articles which you presented is the usual manner of discussion of the topic of inculcated biases in a space devoted to casual conversation.
Thanks for the new reading material. I appreciate the discussion.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)I was fairly familiar with the concept, call it "unconscious bias", having been aware of it having had to address it in myself constantly all my life. 
But I got to read some stuff while checking into it, which to my mind is the most useful thing about discussions in places like this. I go off and learn things ...
BlueIris
(29,135 posts)You have no audience here.
xocet
(3,871 posts)n/t
iverglas
(38,549 posts)(It's just that men come out ahead more often than not.)
I've mentioned the eharmony discussion boards before as a place where you can see this writ large.
Should the man pay for the first date? For everything? Hold the door, pull out the chair?
Well, the women think he should (in a majority). Otherwise, he's showing that he doesn't consider her worth the price of dinner. Seriously.
And the men think they should (in a majority). If the woman wants to pay her own way, she's a feminazi trying to emasculate him.
But ... then comes the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the men about women wanting to be equal but treating them like meal tickets. And we can assume that the women do want to have those equal rights in the workplace things, but yes, they still expect to be treated like a superior species that should be given its due of wining and dining when it comes to their personal lives.
Who goes first? Do men say Fuck this noise, pay for your own dinners and houses? Do women who want equal rights need to say Piss off, I am not for sale and I will feed and house myself?
Nobody wants to go first, because they will inevitably be met with women calling them rude and selfish, and men calling them feminazis.
(Of course, what I can't figure out is why either would care, since who wants to hitch themselves to someone who regards them as a meal ticket or someone who insists on controlling them?)
Men can't really start, because unless they all do it at once, some of them will lose out in the competition for desirable women, who will presumably go with the men who court them with dinners and houses.
Women could start. We have more to lose from the present arrangement, and more to gain by rejecting it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that couldnt handle it would not be a man that i would go out with anyway
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Women have started rejecting the crap about appearance and behavior, and they are at a disadvantage to those who are more patriarchy-compliant. It doesn't make sense to say men are somehow less able to do this.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)It just seems like men have more to lose if they go first, because they have more to gain from the present arrangement, if you see what I mean.
Of course, they could refuse to be the meal ticket and still stick to the stereotype and keep their privilege in other ways -- and when you read things like the eharmony boards, it's pretty clear that that's just what a lot of them would like to do.
The superficial elements of women's liberation have always appealed to a lot of men -- free sex, i.e. both "free of charge" since they don't have to pay for dinner, and "free from social constraints", since women will no longer hold out until the respectable point in time or impose expectations on the sex.
On the appearance element of it, that's the other ongoing battle at places like eharmony: why won't men date fat chicks? why won't women date short dudes?
And on it goes. How about a fat chick who pays her own way, a short dude who opens doors ... It doesn't matter, if you're a fat chick or a short dude, the other sex doesn't want you, apparently. I always try to keep my forays into the real world short.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)true that. and it is true. a woman can feel it when they do it. can feel that the man feels that he is losing his winning hand, having a level playing field. you are absolutely correct on that.
interesting.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Men are more than happy to have me be financially independent and be able to manage my household and my life by myself. They are more than willing to be on the receiving end of my financial support. Men that I attract like intelligent, assertive, independent women. (Or I wouldn't attract them to begin with, right?)
And then they get pissed off and start flinging around accusations that I emasculate them when I don't do "female" right. (In other words, when I don't let them be strong and in charge, or when I don't cater to their egos, or when I don't listen to their unsolicited "advice".)
I am about ready to fucking give up.
They want a nontraditional, financially well established, independent, intelligent woman... then they get pissed off about ways that I'm nontraditional.
Jesus Christ it's exhausting.
Edit to add: then throw in all the ways that I just don't understand the "rules" of gender to begin with and it almost seems hopeless. I don't even "know" that I am "supposed to" be in some way deferential and subservient to men, or even "different" in any meaningful way. It does. Not. Compute.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)The present co-vivant seems to have grown up just about as oblivious to it all as I did.
Interestingly, though, I am the sole financial supporter of the household, and I still haven't figured out how and why that happened. It does mean he doesn't get anything to say about my decisions, but that's hardly how I'd have chosen to arrange things.
He certainly doesn't seem to feel emasculated by it. But maybe he just trades that off for hot meals.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am different. confident. independent. how much they love that
and next breathe
work so damn hard to have the control.
was a funny for me. but, i hear ya.
my hubby does not want to control me. he doesnt want to be controlled. and i dont want to control
sigh....
that works
iverglas
(38,549 posts)MadrasT:
And for reasons which aren't immediately obvious.
When I was little, I was often called a tomboy and it was meant as a compliment.
The problem with that is, for "tomboy" to be a compliment, that means that being a "girly girl" is a bad thing.
I later realized that the compliment to me was a slur against "girly girls". (I was raised by parents who taught me that acting like a girl was a bad thing.)
Like many other words and phrases, it depends on context and intent.
Who said it, and what did they mean by it?
me:
Masculine is good, feminine is bad. That's why, and slightly different from what Warren Stupidity was saying but maybe to clarify it, girls being masculine is not as bad as boys being feminine.
But it leaves girls in the conflict that if they want social approval, they do have to adhere to the feminine stereotype. Tomboys are cute for a while, but they have to grow out of it.
And also exactly:
Just as I did back around 1970 and I intuitively didn't like being told I was "not like other chicks": basically, I didn't play gender-role games, I guess, and I spoke my mind. I decided I was une femme comme les autres -- an ordinary woman. The problem was the stereotype, and the pressure on women to conform to it. I was different in that I didn't, but the problem was still there for all women. And still is.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i saw a little subthread of that Op yesterday and was thinking again, this morning while i was taking a shower. lioness brought up being butch, and the insult and of course that is true. another brought up how being like a boy is a compliment.
everyone was right on that and it all depends and how it is meant, but certain insulting to someone somewhere.
i like what you two said.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)You know, for the half of us that want to be classified as whores all the time!
<--------- is this necessary?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)" for the half of us that want to be classified as whores all the time! "
and i was in the process of raising my HOT coffee. really really hot. you know, hot.
you are funny.
almost didnt get the cup back to the table without sloshing. watch ellen. she is funny, too.
Scout
(8,624 posts)BlueIris
(29,135 posts)is her sex appeal! Important life skill, after all. What could possibly be wrong with debasing women who don't agree? Sex positive feminism all the way!!!
redqueen
(115,103 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but i am sure the gal was all that in empowerment (speaking of her role in this).
Response to seabeyond (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Response to seabeyond (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
marble falls
(57,063 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to be kicked off du for the umpteenth time?
and thanks.
here lately? more disgusted witht he hypocrisy than brave, lol
thanks marble
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Joke's on him. 
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)now others have an opportunity to read. and say yep.
hope you are having a good holiday season.
i love this time of year.
ismnotwasm
(41,973 posts)I didn't know you loved this thread-- I've been posting to down thread it a bit, now it looks as though I'll kick it. This was during the time I took a DU break because Iverglas was gone when I came back
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am not doing a lot of interacting now... hope you are having a good holiday, too. lol
mercuryblues
(14,526 posts)I didn't even notice the dates and thought it was current. Only when I saw RQ posts (and no one welcomed her back) did I check the dates. I also commented on the other thread.
Yeah this thread was a great read.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts) ismnotwasm
(41,973 posts)It is a great read. I guess when the troll comes back to kick it again we'll throw him a feminist party
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)My son works at a Southern WI retail outlet with 90% women.
While I had always thought this topic was largely a male issue, he has reported being touched inappropriately, stared at for long periods, etc. by more than a few of his colleagues, supervisors.
He even had to ask to not work with one particular woman who was relentless in her unwanted attentions.
The bottom line for me is objectification of ANYONE is wrong. As parents we should raise our kids to understand this.
ismnotwasm
(41,973 posts)That doesn't make what happened to your son less wrong. And you are absolutely right, education is the key.
Response to seabeyond (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)You resurrect a stupid OP by a stupid DUer? Piss off troll
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)It was dumb shit 7 yrs ago...
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Response to Post removed (Reply #54)
Name removed Message auto-removed
