HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Women are life supp...

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:09 PM

"Women are life support systems for pussy."

Yes. It's a shocking statement. Where did I hear it? From my ex-husband, who passed it on as a "joke" he and "the boys" heard at the local pub. This was about 20 years ago.

Just last week, I had a conversation with my class of 8th graders about how to express disagreement or anger without put-downs. It was partly in response to a major temper-tantrum thrown by a student who didn't like what someone had to say about her choice in boyfriends (too young,) and partly because we were preparing for a classroom debate, and discussing rules of order.

We talked about how, in modern politics, put-downs are the norm. About how adults on both sides of the party lines generally discuss politics by calling names and putting the other side down, rather than by presenting facts and logic about issues. They all agreed that "that's what my dad/mom/etc. does." I told them that one "persuasive" propaganda technique is to push emotional buttons, because when emotion is engaged, logic and reason flee. That, when trying to convince masses of people with differing povs to vote a certain way, it's the norm in politics to paint the "other" as "enemy" using emotional buttons. That they couldn't do this in a classroom debate; that they needed to recognize it when they see it, but that we'd be using facts, logic, and rules of order.

In other words, the adolescents in my classroom would have to be more mature than the average adult debating politics.

What does that have to do with the thread title? This:

Women come with background experience. When we have been treated as sexual objects valued primarily for our sexual attractiveness or services enough times, by enough males, we tend to perceive looks, stares, leers, and comments as predatory. This IS reality.

It might be that background culture and experience play a big part in our perception of male attention. My mother, in her 70s, was raised in a time when a woman's place was to serve men, be subservient, and take care of herself. Her value was in her attractiveness and her service. If a man looked and made comments, she was complimented, because she knew she was doing what a woman was supposed to. She knew her place.

Of course, she also excused physical abuse, which I witnessed and experienced my entire life growing up with her. I was smart. Smarter than many of the boys, who didn't like that. They did like that I was physically precocious. I didn't have boyfriends as a teen, because they didn't want me to open my mouth, except in one circumstance. I was a tomboy. I didn't decorate myself to attract them. I didn't have to. Slender, long legs, narrow waist, trim hips, and over-sized breasts were enough, no matter what I did or didn't wear. This worried my mother, who was constantly trying to dress me up and make me "pretty." To this day, she carefully says nothing about my appearance unless I wear something she likes, or do something with my hair she likes, and then she lights up and gushes about how "pretty" I look. I've been somewhat of a disappointment, having spent most of my adult life successfully grooming myself to be unnoticeable one way or the other. It's a conditioned response to the behaviors some men have been defending here at DU.

I've been married twice. In both instances, my husbands liked my physical appearance, but not my brains. Which is why I gave up trying to be married or in a relationship after the second marriage ended. I couldn't find men who liked me for myself. Unless they were gay. When I wasn't offering "eye candy," I was invisible, which I found preferable.

I watch my female students being groomed by their mothers to be the flower attracting the bees; I watch my girls obsessing over fashion and hair and makeup and I worry about them. I worry whether or not they will find boys that like THEM. I see that they do; while there are still predators, and teenage boys still gawk, I see most of my boys treating my girls like people rather than "life support systems for pussy." I see that we have slowly evolved. I see hope for the future.

I'm a grandmother. I learned the art of camouflage and have used it well, and now I'm past the age men are interested in leering at. It's been a long time since I had to worry about men evaluating me for sexual potential. I haven't forgotten, though, and when I read all of the "debate" about how men think it's okay to stare at and make comments to and about women they've never met, and how about "militant feminists" are the problem, the politically correct surface layer is cracked, exposing the corruption of a group that supposedly supports social justice.

Men, I have no problem with those of you who like to look at women. It's how you go about it that is at issue.

I'm off to run last minute errands; I'll be back in a few hours to see what DUers have to say about my input.

149 replies, 19697 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 149 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Women are life support systems for pussy." (Original post)
LWolf Dec 2013 OP
gaspee Dec 2013 #1
hlthe2b Dec 2013 #6
LWolf Dec 2013 #55
Warpy Dec 2013 #105
Little Star Dec 2013 #2
LumosMaxima Dec 2013 #3
Iggo Dec 2013 #4
boston bean Dec 2013 #5
Iggo Dec 2013 #12
boston bean Dec 2013 #13
Iggo Dec 2013 #47
XemaSab Dec 2013 #7
PeaceNikki Dec 2013 #8
narnian60 Dec 2013 #9
quinnox Dec 2013 #10
rrneck Dec 2013 #15
VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #20
loli phabay Dec 2013 #25
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #26
loli phabay Dec 2013 #29
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #33
loli phabay Dec 2013 #35
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #48
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #51
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #53
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #61
xulamaude Dec 2013 #63
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #67
xulamaude Dec 2013 #68
uppityperson Dec 2013 #70
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #79
bettyellen Dec 2013 #49
loli phabay Dec 2013 #84
bettyellen Dec 2013 #93
loli phabay Dec 2013 #123
bettyellen Dec 2013 #52
Niceguy1 Dec 2013 #95
bettyellen Dec 2013 #100
loli phabay Dec 2013 #125
bettyellen Dec 2013 #127
loli phabay Dec 2013 #129
boston bean Dec 2013 #11
LWolf Dec 2013 #57
rrneck Dec 2013 #14
boston bean Dec 2013 #17
rrneck Dec 2013 #18
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #27
rrneck Dec 2013 #78
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #81
rrneck Dec 2013 #83
loli phabay Dec 2013 #86
rrneck Dec 2013 #87
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #88
rrneck Dec 2013 #89
boston bean Dec 2013 #91
rrneck Dec 2013 #94
boston bean Dec 2013 #97
rrneck Dec 2013 #101
boston bean Dec 2013 #106
rrneck Dec 2013 #112
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #117
rrneck Dec 2013 #118
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #119
rrneck Dec 2013 #122
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #126
rrneck Dec 2013 #128
boston bean Dec 2013 #132
rrneck Dec 2013 #133
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
boston bean Dec 2013 #135
boston bean Dec 2013 #85
rrneck Dec 2013 #90
boston bean Dec 2013 #92
rrneck Dec 2013 #98
boston bean Dec 2013 #108
rrneck Dec 2013 #113
boston bean Dec 2013 #120
rrneck Dec 2013 #124
xulamaude Dec 2013 #130
rrneck Dec 2013 #131
xulamaude Dec 2013 #134
rrneck Dec 2013 #136
xulamaude Dec 2013 #138
rrneck Dec 2013 #139
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #16
Post removed Dec 2013 #21
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #42
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2013 #45
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #46
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2013 #56
xulamaude Dec 2013 #64
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #65
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2013 #71
boston bean Dec 2013 #75
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #80
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #77
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2013 #82
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #96
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2013 #99
boston bean Dec 2013 #102
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #110
boston bean Dec 2013 #137
nomorenomore08 Dec 2013 #140
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #32
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #50
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #54
xulamaude Dec 2013 #37
LWolf Dec 2013 #60
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2013 #69
whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #19
hfojvt Dec 2013 #22
LWolf Dec 2013 #72
hfojvt Dec 2013 #109
LWolf Dec 2013 #142
hfojvt Dec 2013 #146
LWolf Dec 2013 #147
DLevine Dec 2013 #23
G_j Dec 2013 #24
G_j Dec 2013 #28
LWolf Dec 2013 #74
City Lights Dec 2013 #30
grntuscarora Dec 2013 #31
mcar Dec 2013 #34
xulamaude Dec 2013 #36
Jamaal510 Dec 2013 #38
Starry Messenger Dec 2013 #39
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #40
boston bean Dec 2013 #73
Squinch Dec 2013 #41
Smarmie Doofus Dec 2013 #43
davidn3600 Dec 2013 #44
janlyn Dec 2013 #103
mythology Dec 2013 #116
Kurovski Dec 2013 #58
bitchkitty Dec 2013 #59
mike_c Dec 2013 #62
gaspee Dec 2013 #66
Little Star Dec 2013 #104
geek tragedy Dec 2013 #121
Silent3 Dec 2013 #76
quinnox Dec 2013 #107
Zenlitened Dec 2013 #111
Squinch Dec 2013 #141
Beringia Dec 2013 #114
LWolf Dec 2013 #143
Beringia Dec 2013 #144
Blue_In_AK Dec 2013 #115
OffWithTheirHeads Dec 2013 #145
maced666 Dec 2013 #148
jimlup Dec 2013 #149

Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:13 PM

1. I think anyone who reads this

and then professes "not to get it" is being deceitful. Well written and the experience of many women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gaspee (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:19 PM

6. Indeed... i agree completely with gaspee's comment. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gaspee (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:13 PM

55. I was struck,

a few days ago on a related post, with how many women shared common experiences that I spent a lifetime feeling alone with. Gaining weight, and using extra pounds as a shield, for example.

It should be okay for us to speak up about our experiences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gaspee (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:28 PM

105. More like they don't want to get it.

Looking in a mirror can be painful when we don't like what we see there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:14 PM

2. Exactly! k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:14 PM

3. Very well said. Thank you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:17 PM

4. Trashing thread...

...because all that shows up on the list is the thread title and I don't feel like looking at that shit all day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:19 PM

5. too bad, you are missing a good OP. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:32 PM

12. I didn't miss it.

It's a great OP and I'm glad I read it.

But like I said, I ain't looking at that thread title all day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:35 PM

13. I can understand. Thanks for letting me know.

being reminded of the truthfulness of how some men do feel about women and the inevitable responses to it, would be enough for anyone to just say fuck it and not deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:01 PM

47. I suppose I didn't need to announce it, though.

(I was gonna edit out the "trashed" part, but then this sub-thread wouldn't make any sense, and I'd look dumber than I feel right now...lol)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:22 PM

7. SO TRUE

I got in an argument yesterday with a woman who made some really dismissive comments on her podcast in response to my friend's claim that she'd been called a "harlot."

The anti-feminist agenda is alive and well, and it's often in the shape of other women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:22 PM

8. Very well said. Thanks for your perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:27 PM

9. I have stayed out of the discussions on this subject up until now.

+1000 LWolf. I can relate to all that you said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:31 PM

10. Well, that's a new one to me

 

I have never heard another man say anything like that before, and I have been around macho construction guy types many times in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:36 PM

15. I've heard it, and worse than that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:44 PM

20. Me too!

 

Like the time I heard men call a woman his "gash".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:03 PM

25. heard it the other way as well, also guys referred to as the wallet etc

 

people refer to their better halves in many ways also, from the warden, govner to terms that some may find offensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:10 PM

26. MRA bingo--take any discussion about women's experiences and concerns and try

 

to make it about men allegedly being the victims.

Because we just can't have a single discussion ever about women's discussions about the experiences of women without a man needing to make it about men.

Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:13 PM

29. wow, kinda like a godwin there. or do you deny that people refer to each other and themselves

 

in many different ways. you seem to be looking for victimhood rather than discussing the human condition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:22 PM

33. I know that your post was inevitable.

 

You or someone sharing your basic outlook pulls the same stunt on every single discussion of women's experiences outside of protected groups. Instead of listening to what the women are saying and trying to learn, it's "men too! men too! men too!"

this is an observed phenomenon across the internet. I would tell you to ask any feminist, but that would require listening.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:25 PM

35. sorry not even listening to you, no point, was talking to the op

 

i apoligise that you feel that your views matters to me in this context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:01 PM

48. Why are listening and learning only things that men are supposed to do? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:10 PM

51. Certainly, when men begin a discussion of their experiences and the issues

 

they face as men, it would be poor form for a woman to play the "this happens to women all the time too" game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:12 PM

53. They're more likely to campaign to eliminate the forum in which that discussion is taking place. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:27 PM

61. Good thing sexist jackholes never explicitly target the women in HoF for hate and abuse.

 

Oh, wait, they do, and when they do it makes the Greatest page.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024221456

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10024221456&info=1#recs

Note that the same person invaded a discussion of women's experiences (notice the pattern) with harassment, calling them man-haters for the crime of talking about their experiences as women!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024219312#post178

and telling them, hey lighten up, rape can have a happy ending.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4221211

Note that this man couldn't stand to have women expressing themselves by talking about THEIR OWN FUCKING LIFE EXPERIENCES. Nope, he had to silence those women, call them man-haters, and use vile insults against them.

And, the jurors on his alert FELT SORRY FOR HIM. Because clearly the women had provoked it. The man's rage and hate is presumed to be justified.

So, cry me a river about the poor oppressed men of DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:28 PM

63. Democracy. Ain't it grand? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xulamaude (Reply #63)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:31 PM

67. Give my regards to The Lord of the Flies. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #67)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:34 PM

68. That was actually funny, for a change.

 

Now I have this really great mental image of a bunch of boys running around acting like savages.

Hmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:36 PM

70. Rather than discussing their experiences, they want to shut down women discussing theirs?

Did I understand you right? I am looking for clarification, thanks. And merry happy today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:44 PM

79. No, I'm saying that a major topic of discussion in HoF is how to shut down TMG. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:06 PM

49. cool, why don't you do a PSA to fight against it?

 

This is the DU member formerly known as bettyellen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:57 PM

84. no need to, it does not bother me but feel free if you feel you need to be fair.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #84)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:14 PM

93. oh, just pretending it mattered for LOLz, got it!

 

This is the DU member formerly known as bettyellen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #93)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:38 PM

123. no, just stating that people use all sorts of language to describe each other. but no problem

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #25)


Response to loli phabay (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:19 PM

95. both sides do it

and I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Niceguy1 (Reply #95)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:24 PM

100. especially when it doesn't matter to you- cry about it!!! yeah, that's honest.

 

This is the DU member formerly known as bettyellen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Niceguy1 (Reply #95)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:41 PM

125. yup, an example is my wife and i refer to each other in less than respectful terms at times

 

its part of the human experience. people use phrases etc that mean nothing but others can find it offensive. its one mans food is another mans poison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #125)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 08:04 PM

127. but out in society we do distinguish between creep and c*nt, asshole and ni**er, right….

 

and we are discussing public discourse, but thanks for adding comments that are 1) not important to you and 2) off topic.
This is the DU member formerly known as bettyellen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #127)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 08:09 PM

129. no its on topic, as in relation to the op. people of all genders say similar stuff about each other

 

its not just guys saying it about females but females about guys, guys about guys, females about females. to think otherwise shows either a lack of honesty or lack of leaving your basement. not aiming these remarks at you in particular. alsobeach ofbthe words you used are used in different groups without the same negative connotation that it may be received in other groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:32 PM

11. I applaud you for the post.

Yet I warn you about the responses you are likely to receive. I've given personal experience, and yes did receive much support, however overnight it turned into a train wreck with really offensive posting.

Don't let it get to you. You are speaking a truth. Those who refuse to see or refuse to hear, well that's on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:16 PM

57. I've had to grow a thick skin

to post on DU; I won't let it get to me. But thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:35 PM

14. There is a school of thought

that asserts we are all just "life life support systems for DNA"; that human bodies exist for the propagation of our genetic material. Certainly the need to reproduce is important to the survival of the species.

It's easy to say that we have civilization that keeps us from merely rutting like animals but the opposite is true. Every species has a means of maintaining some sort of gender parity to foster cooperation in a hostile environment for the perpetuation of the species. The nature of the cooperation depends on the environment and the genetic design of the species in question.

We seem to be a little different in that we can intentionally alter the nature of our relationships apart from environmental pressure, since a large part of our environment is designed by us as well. But that only goes so far. We will always be influenced by the need to reproduce, and it takes a while to learn the rules in any advanced society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:37 PM

17. this is beyond offensive in the context of the OP.

You write lots of words, but in essence you are telling her that she is life support for pussy and she should accept that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:39 PM

18. Actually, no.

Learn to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:12 PM

27. She can read just fine, as can I, and yes you did agree with the OP's

 

ex-husband, you just wrapped it up in a bunch of pretentious pseudo-science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:43 PM

78. Yep, I made a mistake.

I failed to burble maudlin platitudes better suited to a bumper sticker. Nevertheless, I'll try again and use even more words. Be warned, it might run to half the length of a newspaper editorial so you might want to block out an hour or so to absorb it.

Part I
(You can skip this part if it seems too much for you)

Human beings need to reproduce to perpetuate the species. Reproduction involves the process of mate selection, which is to say the process of choosing the mate best suited to the successful reproduction of offspring most likely to survive to maturity and reproduce themselves, thus insuring the continued propagation of their genetic material. This dynamic holds true for both male and female members of the species.

The process of mate selection takes place in the context various environmental factors including but not limited to resource availability and the availability of suitable mates. Human beings are particularly adept at manipulating their environment to secure resources. That ability depends in no small part on cooperation between members of our species and such cooperation has resulted in the development of sophisticated linguistic and cognitive ability.

Since we live in a sophisticated industrial society that requires levels of cooperation with people with heretofore unprecedented sophistication, learning the rules of the game requires considerable training. It takes upwards of eighteen years to train a human child to flip burgers in this culture. Now, it's no secret that teenagers are horny. They're supposed to be. But those horny teenagers still have to learn how to select mates just as they have done for two million years.

Part II

So, just like LWolf, I agree that training children in proper behavior toward their peers is a good thing. And, in case you hadn't noticed, I also agree with any number of other feminist endorsements of training regarding the selection of mates and the perpetuation of the species.

I find it fascinating that your and BB's reaction to even the most basic reference to science resembles that of a fundamentalist Christian. Why is that? What are you afraid of? Are you so wrapped up in feminist doctrine that the basic facts of human reproduction will conflict with what you believe? Here's the short answer in case you're one of those people who can't handle reading 401 words and skips to the last sentence: People fuck to make more people.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #78)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:51 PM

81. I'm familiar with the pseudoscience known as evo psych.

 

And with the MRA schtick of comparing anyone who doesn't agree with their cherry-picked pseudoscientific nonsense to Jerry Falwell.

P.S. Using long words and longer paragraphs to make a simple point isn't indicative of intelligence, but rather the intent to seem intelligent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #81)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:57 PM

83. So why do you think

mammals have sex?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #83)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:59 PM

86. because humans make them watch porn of course.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #86)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:01 PM

87. LOL! Yep, that must be it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #83)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:01 PM

88. because they would go extinct if they didn't.

 

Evo psych as applied to human society is one grand exercise in confirmation bias and speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #88)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:02 PM

89. Are you able to converse

without using ideological shorthand?

So, how do people decide with whom to have sex to avoid extinction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:06 PM

91. What I would like to know is what does this have to do with

an OP where a someone was told that they were "life support for a pussy". Certainly, biology says no such thing. A woman happens to be more than a vagina and exists for more than her vagina, would you agree? or no?

This is where you leave yourself open for the world to see. Your point was not on target with any posted in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #91)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:17 PM

94. So you don't have an alternate theory.

All righty then. Looks like I'm not the only one exposed to the world.

Somebody said something mean to the OP. Sorry about that. I wasn't there to disagree, and I didn't agree with them here.

So about that alternate theory. Why don't you see if you can come up with something other a pathetic attempt at "exposing" me to the world for ideological heresy. I mean it's not like I didn't endorse teaching children respect and put that need for education in the context hundred and fifty year old science. C'mon, give it a shot. What have you got to lose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #94)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:20 PM

97. My theory is that some people would like to blame their DNA for

being sexist or misogynist, or offensive, or whatever. Thanks for affirming that you do believe the behavior is driven by DNA/genetics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #97)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:24 PM

101. So you still got nothing.

Thanks for affirming you are on yet another hunt for ideological heresy. These little sub threads make for fascinating narratives, don't you think?

You have yet to produce anything of substance here. You have yet to produce anything at all but baseless accusations. But you have done a fine job of showing just how intellectually bankrupt your understanding of feminism is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #101)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:29 PM

106. Please affirm for yourself that you are promoting a theory that DNA is responsible for what this man

said to his wife.

Every single time you ask me to provide another "theory" you are confirming that it is your belief that DNA and survival of the species depends on women being treated like that.

but since you've asked over and over and want an alternate theory... here you go.., her husband was a fucking creep asshole to ever say anything like that to her. And it had nothing to do with his DNA, it had to do with his sick and twisted mind and how he viewed women. Disrespect is learned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #106)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:46 PM

112. So, speaking as a woman

would you have any interest in marrying a creep like that and bearing children with him? Do you think that you in particular and the human race in general should create a more compassionate and intelligent kind of person and select mates that would further that ideal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:25 PM

117. I dunno. How many billion people from all

 

cultures and religions and upbringings and economic backgrounds and education levels have you interviewed on the subject?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #117)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:28 PM

118. Not only do you not know

you're reluctant to posit an explanation. Allrighty then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #118)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:32 PM

119. You got me.

 

I don't pull stuff out of my ass when I lack sufficient evidence and information upon which to provide a cogent explanation. If I don't know, I say "I don't know."

BURN!

I will now slink away, your superior will to speculate having won the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #119)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:36 PM

122. You poor thing.

Couldn't manage a civil discussion. Couldn't manage a rational discussion. Couldn't even manage a decent retort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #122)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:51 PM

126. Yeah, your towering intellect intimidated

 

me is much I took the coward's way out and admitted I don't know stuff I don't know.

Last word is yours. I expect something worthy of Stephen Jay Gould.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #126)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 08:07 PM

128. It sounds like we are members

of some sort of ideological non overlapping magisteria.

Yanno, all you had to do is offer something, anything. This is the first post in this subthread. It wasn't confrontational, insulting, abhorrent or anything of the sort. It was an invitation to discussion. You had a chance to both straighten me out and teach me something. Instead you started a pissing contest you couldn't finish. I did not enjoy this subthread. I didn't learn anything new. You and BB made DU suck today. Congratulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #128)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 08:37 PM

132. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #132)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 08:39 PM

133. Happy holidays to you too BB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #133)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 08:41 PM

135. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #78)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:59 PM

85. Hey if you want to say it's in mens DNA to treat women like shit, well, that is on you.

I reject it... but hey YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #85)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:04 PM

90. Hey, that's not what I'm saying in the least.

Why don't you offer a better explanation. If you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #90)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:08 PM

92. I really can't because I don't believe DNA

is what makes a man tell his wife that she is "life support for pussy".

What exactly was the purpose of your post about biology and how in the world does it relate to anything in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #92)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:21 PM

98. Well, I could repost it

but you wouldn't be able to understand that either.

You got a problem with teaching people to respect one another in today's world? You got a problem with the value of respect in society? You got a problem with the value of respect in the selection of mates?

How about an alternate theory of human reproduction that doesn't require all those things. What have you got?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #98)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:30 PM

108. DNA DNA DNA ok, you believe DNA is responsible for all societal ills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #108)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:49 PM

113. Thank you for telling me what I believe

and getting it wrong again.

What do you believe? And can you prove it? Or would you rather forage in search of another target for your ideological ire?

Produce something of substance, otherwise you are turning this conversation into yet another self serving sanctimonious shitfest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #113)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:32 PM

120. I'm going on what you post. Not sure what else I'm to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #120)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:39 PM

124. Actually, you're ignoring everything I write.

Go back and read it. Others will.

So how about it? Speaking as a woman would you have any interest in marrying a creep like that and bearing children with him? Do you think that you in particular and the human race in general should create a more compassionate and intelligent kind of person and select mates that would further that ideal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #124)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 08:24 PM

130. I'm going to jump in here and ask

 

if it's okay to not "select" a mate and replicate at all?

Additionally, is it okay for a woman to choose not to "mate" at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xulamaude (Reply #130)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 08:33 PM

131. Absolutely.

For several reasons.

When women have control of reproduction cultures are generally more egalitarian and peaceful. Without the need to overpopulate and breed legions of armies composed of aggressive young men, a culture won't have to find someone to kill to keep them busy.

If women are able to choose to devote their time to interests other than child rearing they can contribute more to the marketplace of ideas, something any advanced technological society needs.

Ours is supposed to be an egalitarian society where people can choose to pursue their own destiny as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. It doesn't always work out that way, but we ain't done yet.

And personally speaking, it's really none of my business. I would much rather people do what they want to do, they're much more interesting that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #131)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 08:41 PM

134. Well done. But

 

what's with all the selecting mates stuff then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xulamaude (Reply #134)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 08:52 PM

136. It's what species do.

That's just how it works. People are no different. Both parents contribute DNA to the offspring, and they select mates based on the need for the viability of the species. If we disregard our own participation in the evolutionary process where are we? I'm not willing to concede that people select mates because of some star crossed destiny. But given our intellectual capacity and the way we use it for our own survival, it makes sense that things like romance and love are the result of the same cognitive development that makes faster than sound flight possible. And a scientific explanation doesn't make either accomplishment any less special.

Now I don't know, or care, what some MRA dude said about it. People have been using science to push agendas since there was science - or agendas. Just because some asshole misinterpreted the science doesn't make it wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #136)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 09:20 PM

138. I do know (but don't care much for) what "some MRA dude

 

said about it".

I am fully aware, believe me, that it takes two sets of DNA to create another of our species but what does that have to do with selecting mates especially in this age super-sonic flight?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xulamaude (Reply #138)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 09:40 PM

139. When it comes to critter skills

we aren't much to look at. Our knees work backwards and our upright posture over stresses our backs. But our cranial capacity has insured our survival as a species. We are not only able to cooperate, but we are able to cooperate symbolically. That ability has allowed us to amass knowledge and pass it on from generation to generation. It also allows us to employ a theory of mind. We can anticipate what somebody else may think or do. And we can anticipate, and share in, how they may feel.

A theory of mind facilitates art, music, love, literature, and romance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:36 PM

16. Why is the listener's "background, culture and experience"...

 

... germane to a discussion using facts, logic and rules of order?

In a discussion that follows the rules you proposed in the OP, why should your personal history matter? Are facts and logic no longer relevant when they run afoul of ones personal history?

Discussions are better when they stick as closely as possible to facts, logic and rules. But demands to understand where the listener is coming from are two-sided. The men being berated and browbeaten in 20% of DU's top posts have backgrounds, cultures and experiences too.

Maybe some guys dislike being called creeps. Or even, "if you're not a creep, then you shouldn't take offense". Or even, maybe you're not a creep, but just autistic and weird.

"Creep" is a gendered insult. If you don't want people to use gendered insults on you, perhaps it's best to avoid it yourself.

Which is important; being nice, empathetic and supportive? or logical, orderly and factual? Or is the latter simply a pretense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #16)


Response to Post removed (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:48 PM

42. I'd say more analagous to "harpy" and "shrew". n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:53 PM

45. Because people use those words all the time, right?

They're part of the current vernacular, are they? Um...no. Neither is common in contemporary use outside literature. If a gendered insult is directed at a woman, it's much more likely to be one of the ones I named.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:58 PM

46. They're not used here, that's for certain.

 

Because we have a fairly unambiguous policy about sexist language... which applies about half the time.

Did you have any thoughts about the point of the post which has rendered you incoherent with spluttering outrage? Is it important to watch what you say because readers have history, or is it important to be logical, factual and rule-based?

My takeaway from the OP is that we should all discuss things in a rational manner without saying anything that might be objectionable to any potential reader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:16 PM

56. I'm very far from "incoherent", nor am I "spluttering".

I am in fact quite coherent, thanks. You, however, are condescending and insulting.

And re the rest of your post, quite aside from your really rather staggering conflation of "creep" with gendered insults directed at women: the topic under discussion is one in which the personal history of some people has to be taken into account because it forms the basis of one of the facts under discussion. Here's how the process works: you start with facts and then apply logic to them. And it's a fact that many women feel threatened, oppressed and violated by being on the receiving end of unsought and unwanted sexual attention. They feel demeaned and lessened by being viewed as objects. As "life support systems for pussy". So, this is a fact. Application of logic would lead one to the conclusion that there is something in male perceptions and behaviour which is the result of acculturation to a particular set of social norms. (Having a discussion around facts requires acknowledging their existence rather than dismissing them, though.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:30 PM

64. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:30 PM

65. Am I required to accept the worst possible premise among potential readers?

 

Should I post only in a way that acknowledges my role in that perceived threat, violation and oppression?

Conversation and debate can't work that way. I have my experiential basis and that influences my choice of the relevant facts, the appropriate rules and the logic applied. It is an unreasonable and foolish expectation that I'm supposed to adopt YOUR experiential basis as an argumentative frame. Further, it's presumptuous in the extreme to insist on the use of LWolf's basis in a conversation with someone else.

Your perception and history isn't a basis for any of the facts under discussion, even though they may color your opinions. We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

As an appeal for rationalism and objective fact, the OP fails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:36 PM

71. Except when the discussion is about subjects like this, then the history of the relevant parties...

forms part of the factual basis for argument. I don't know; are you in the habit of leering at strange women and making sexual comments to them and trying to feel them up? No? Then your role in that perceived threat, violation and oppression is nil. If you have a problem with the fact that there are enough creepy men to make women perceive all strange men as a potential threat, your problem is with those creepy men, not with women. Because it's their behaviour that's the problem, not yours.

And you apparently have a total lack of understanding of how the social sciences work, as well; if something forms a significant part of the everyday experience of a population subgroup we can consider it to be an accepted fact. Are you going to argue that racism doesn't exist, next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:39 PM

75. He will tell you that sexisdoesn't exist for woman and of course he doesn't argue that about racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #75)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:46 PM

80. Thank you. I did a good job picking a spokesperson. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:42 PM

77. What you're describing is not a rational discussion, you're describing an anecdotal pissing match.

 

It's a fact that 8 in 10 americans believe in angels. That doesn't make angels factual.

And no, I'm not going to argue that racism doesn't exist. You took a wrong turn at "strawman".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:56 PM

82. No, I'm describing a rational discussion.

Because this isn't just anecdotal, there are data, there are scholarly articles, there are population studies. This is information which is readily available. That you're ignorant of it comes as not much of a surprise, but it is in fact out there, and the situation I've described is as much of a fact as racism.

Relevant to the topic at hand: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11211-008-0073-0#page-1

http://gas.sagepub.com/content/16/3/386.short

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/073993398246359#.UroQkLSzZjs

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-010-9830-2#page-1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:20 PM

96. You misunderstood. Worked pretty hard at it too.

 

The prevalence of given viewpoints isn't the issue. I'm arguing that a personal anecdote competition does not constitute a rational, logical discussion.

Your personal experience does not shape fact, it shapes YOUR opinion, to which no one is logically or even rhetorically bound.

Racism isn't a just a perception, it's quantifiable and demonstrable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #96)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:23 PM

99. Except for you it does seem to be the issue.

Because this is a quantifiable and demonstrable fact. Unless you want to argue that the consistent cross-cultural reports of sexual harrassment and inappropriate touching of women by men are all made up; there's a vast literature on the subject that contradicts that argument. Which removes it from the realm of mere "personal experience".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #96)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:25 PM

102. Unlike women not being able to own property, were property of their husbands

were relegated to the kitchen and bedroom, unable to vote... You can't quantify and no one could possibly demonstrate any of that?

or that womens rights to control their bodies in many many states in this nation are being diminished on a daily basis. Nope, not quantifiable.... Please provide the answers for DU to see. I know them all by heart, but it will be eye opening for some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #102)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:34 PM

110. "Were", "Was"

 

How can laws which were repealed 50-200 years before you were born have such power to affect your contemporary reality?

You're veering off the rails here. LWolf posted an argument for logic, rationality and rules. You respond with an ad-hominem non-sequitur strawman.

I can quantify, demonstrate and show a great many things, but their factual nature runs afoul of your attitudes and perceptions.

It would also threadjack LWolf's OP.

My succinct response to LWolf was this: Logical, factual, rule-based arguments are inherently civil. Incivility comes from insisting on something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #110)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 09:02 PM

137. "Incivility comes from insisting on something else."

True. You should think about that, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #110)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 10:13 PM

140. So "personhood" laws and related misogynist bullshit were "repealed 50-200 years" ago?

Roe v. Wade was only 40 years ago, and is being chipped away at (albeit perhaps indirectly) as we speak.

You can't deny that that has important implications for women's autonomy and legal rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:19 PM

32. Oh Jesus, if you're going to claim the title of The Reasonable Man

 

you should stop engaging in irrational comparisons between "creep" and "pussy/cunt/bitch."

"Creep" does not degrade men as men. It critiques their behavior. They behave in a creepy, unsettling manner. Moreover, women can be labeled creepy just as much as men are. Stare into Michelle Bachman's eyes and tell me I'm wrong.

That is entirely different than insults that insult women as women, or when used against men insult men by comparing them to women. "Pussy" and "cunt" are references to female sexual organs. "Bitch" refers to a female DOG.

At least the whining about men being called "dicks" has some kind of logical consistency, if also lame given the context.

This stuff--the complaints about the word 'creep' is just an emotionalistic distortion of the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:10 PM

50. Maybe. I did a google search for "she is a creep" and found quite a few hits.

 

I was surprised because I've never heard anyone use that phrase. It is quite a lot less common though. It shows up comparably to the ratio by which one is more likely to find the word "man" after the phrase "wrongfully convicted".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:13 PM

54. men get called assholes more often than women too, doesn't make "asshole" a gendered

 

insult.

"wrongfully convicted" applies to men more often because most crimes are committed by men. Virtually 100% of rapes, vast majority of murders and other violent crimes, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:35 PM

37. Another nice example of the conflation

 

of "creep" and "socially awkward" (or as you said: autistic and weird) by one of our uber-reasonable men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:24 PM

60. Because it's part of reality.

Understanding that is how we learn to communicate beyond our own circle.

I don't think I called anyone a "creep," so I don't need to "avoid it myself." I don't think it's necessarily a "gendered insult," as any gender can be a "creep," depending on context. Granted, in this context, it's certainly referring to some men. I was called an "asshole" recently; is that "gendered," too?

As for your questions: Both are important. The first is called civility, and the second goes better with a dose of civility. Do you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:35 PM

69. I apologize for the inappropriate use of "you".

 

"Factual, logical and rule based", are inherently civil. Demands for anything else create incivility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:39 PM

19. The one I heard was

"comes with an attractive carrying case". Either way, lame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:47 PM

22. my mom is approaching 80 (which dad just turned)

"women's place was to serve men"

I am not sure that was ever true. Most of the service was for children, far more than it was for men.

"Her value was in her attractiveness and her service."

And perhaps after the age of 30 it is more about service than anything else. But what is the value of a man in this society?

If the woman supposedly gets her personal self worth and social esteem through service to her family (which often loves and honors her in return) does not the man get his personal self worth and social esteem through service to his employer?

"I was smart. Smarter than many of the boys, who didn't like that."

And as a male geek, couldn't I write the same thing?

And couldn't I also write that most of the girls didn't seem to desire me because of my smart-ness?

"I watch my female students being groomed by their mothers to be the flower attracting the bees; I watch my girls obsessing over fashion and hair and makeup and I worry about them."

I had three sisters and don't remember my mother doing any such grooming. My sisters probably did spend lots of time on fashion, hair and makeup, but they all seem to have done "well" in life, however that is measured. They did better than I did. I worry more about my nephews than I do about my nieces. Although even my niece turned down two free years of college to instead take on $30,000 worth of student loans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:37 PM

72. I disagree with your first part.

Raising the children was a part of that service, but it was all about service. I was, thankfully, not raised by my father. I did, though, spend a few months with him as a teenager. It was an experience that, thankfully, didn't happen in every household, but at one time it was very common. As a man, my father went to work, brought home a paycheck, and did yard work. My stepmother went to work, brought home a paycheck, and did all the housework, cooking, and kid work. As a girl in the household, I was assigned both yard work and housework. However, my stepbrother was never asked to do housework. As a matter of fact, it was expected that he would go watch tv while I did the dishes, and that before I was done cleaning the kitchen after dinner, I would serve him dessert in front of the tv.

If you are getting the idea that I've not forgotten, nor forgiven, that experience, you are correct. The important thing, though, is that it was not an isolated situation. It was common among all the friends I had from 2-parent families.

Gender roles were at one time much more strictly assigned, and to be honest, when I stayed in my father's house, I saw little difference between expected "service" and "servant."

With the rest? I do agree that you could write the same thing about male "geeks" and girls. I often tell my smarter male students not to worry about the girls in middle school, that there will come a time when they will be more appreciated. And I see that changing, as well. Not as much as I'd like, but I do see boys outside the mainstream getting attention from girls...and from other boys.

I would have liked your smartness, if you would have welcomed mine. It would have been refreshing, to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:30 PM

109. In my household it was kinda the opposite

perhaps because my dad had no sisters, and had a mom who graduated from college in 1927. In my household, there was no such thing as "women's work". Sons set the table, cleared the table and did house cleaning. There was, however, no dish washing, since, upper middle class that we were, we had a machine to do that.

Heck, I even did some baking, helping to make kochies in the 5th grade for my birthday treat to take to school.

But there was a certain inequality. My sisters did NOT share equally in the lawn mowing, which was mostly done by me, as brother and dad both had allergies (and now so do I, but I didn't then). I even edged the sidewalk, and we get to tell stories about the time I threw the edger across the yard - I was having so much fun.

My sisters did not, after a certain age, do a share of the snow shovelling either, and in SD in the 1970s we got a fair amount of snow. When we went camping, my younger siblings ran off to swim and play, while I helped dad to set the camper up (truthfully I did not like swimming all that much).

Maybe I was born later, or just lived in a more progressive household, but my experience from 1962 was not of assigned gender roles.

Mom didn't have an outside job after marriage, but two of her sisters, including her oldest sister, did, and mom's life does not seem to me to have been any worse than dad's for not having the "privilege" of working a job.

Generally I have hated my own jobs, and would much rather NOT have to be the "bread winner". Although it is clear looking around this house, that I am a lousy housekeeper. Plus I have not made kochies in a long time. Maybe tomorrow I will get motivated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #109)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 11:37 PM

142. Change happens gradually.

The 60s were a time of big changes, but they accumulate gradually over time. So while some households were moving beyond some gender roles, not all were. Still, in 2013, there are still households which hold to "women's work;" there's just a hell of a lot fewer of them.

I only had sons, and I spent part of the time raising them as a single mom. There were no gender roles. We all did everything, and they pitched in with whatever they could do at whatever age they were at.

Happily, as adult men, they still do. As a matter of fact, they do more cooking than their SOs, and my only grandchild, a boy, does whatever needs to be done. But then, they weren't raised with the idea that there were roles segregated by gender. They automatically have expected their SOs to be self-sufficient, independent, and equal partners, because I brought them up that way.

The only thing they do that I don't is stuff they are more qualified for based on muscle mass. If I can't do it by myself, my son and grandson will show up to help. Things like stacking hay and hanging barn doors, repairing and moving fences, which are more easily accomplished with more than one back and more than one pair of hands. We go together to do heavier jobs for my mom who, in her 70s, needs more physical help than she used to. That's not gender related, though; it's age.

What are kochies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #142)

Wed Dec 25, 2013, 12:56 AM

146. a spelling quirk

my name is koch (yeah, yeah, I know, believe me, I know) and it is pronounced, in my family, as "cook"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #146)

Wed Dec 25, 2013, 10:28 AM

147. Oh, yum.

Kochies it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:48 PM

23. K&R. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:00 PM

24. K&R

well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:12 PM

28. I think we should all recognize

how destructive our culture can be on so many, many levels. I think most women I've known have had some similar experiences. Nobody should have to be fearful. Certain behavior is clearly another form of bullying, plain and simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:37 PM

74. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:17 PM

30. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:18 PM

31. K&R

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:25 PM

34. Nothing more need be said on the topic

IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:31 PM

36. K & R

 

For telling it like it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:38 PM

38. I've also seen that phrase on

UrbanDictionary. When I looked up the word "woman", that is what popped up as one of the definitions. And another was "a useless piece of skin around a vagina". Rough crowd there at UD, I know.
This is the DU member formerly known as Jamaal510.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:40 PM

39. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:43 PM

40. Men and women look at each other with desire. How shocking.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:37 PM

73. Of course they do, but what is being discussed is

men not respecting a woman when she doesn't return the desire.

Catcalling, staring, leering, threatening.

YMMV, of course, but if you are doing any of the above, know that woman don't appreciate it, and you have no right to force it upon anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:44 PM

41. Boom!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:51 PM

43. Outstanding. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:53 PM

44. Lots of people end up in bad relationships

 

That doesnt mean the entire gender is a problem...
As many men out there that only care about looks, there are as many women that only care about money. There are lots of guys who want the hot and sexy girl to show off to his friends. There are lots of women who want the handsome, rich doctor for the same reason. Many people in this world are very selfish and only think and care about themselves. Add that to the fact that we live in a pretty shallow society. But there are good people out there. It's just sometimes one has to look a little harder to find them. Most don't put in that extra time and effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:27 PM

103. +1 well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:15 PM

116. The problem can be, on either side, that you get tired of looking for the good people

 

And we as a species tend to focus on more negative experiences.

“This is a general tendency for everyone,” said Clifford Nass, a professor of communication at Stanford University. “Some people do have a more positive outlook, but almost everyone remembers negative things more strongly and in more detail.”

There are physiological as well as psychological reasons for this.

“The brain handles positive and negative information in different hemispheres,” said Professor Nass, who co-authored “The Man Who Lied to His Laptop: What Machines Teach Us About Human Relationships” (Penguin 2010). Negative emotions generally involve more thinking, and the information is processed more thoroughly than positive ones, he said. Thus, we tend to ruminate more about unpleasant events — and use stronger words to describe them — than happy ones


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/your-money/why-people-remember-negative-events-more-than-positive-ones.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So it can be true that most men aren't skeevy, but that the impact of the ones who are skeevy higher. Likewise, even though most women, gasp even most feminists, don't believe that every guy is skeevy, it can seem to the guys that they are being constantly attacked even if that's not the case.

I know in my life I've had issues because I remember bad acts that have been committed against me more prominently than I remember good ones. I'm trying to be better at it, but I fall short of that goal all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:17 PM

58. the Bible says women come from Adam's rib, that's not as disgusting and ugly...

but somehow just as vile.

I've heard the awful things men say about women, and that women say about men ( I think a lot of gay people do) At least I have/do.

But that takes the cake. A title that's guaranteed to bring in pissed-off folks from the start.

Congrats on the divorce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:17 PM

59. Your words really hit home.

At age 16, I had a growth spurt, all in the legs, and grew breasts. Suddenly I was the recipient of a lot of attention, and I had no experience or help in dealing with it. My mom was clueless, may she rest in peace. This was in the early 70s and the world was just waking up to a different point of view.

Your daughters are lucky to have you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:27 PM

62. I have this to say....

Rec'd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:31 PM

66. I wonder if the people commenting

With their all knowing wisdom that men have problems too (gasp) would ever go into a thread about institutional racism and complain about all the problems that white people have. Fact, women, as a class, have historically been oppressed by society and specifically by men, as a class.

Women aren't allowed to talk about their experiences as women without men coming into a thread and making it all about them.

1000th verse, same as the first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gaspee (Reply #66)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:27 PM

104. Yep. You said that correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gaspee (Reply #66)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:34 PM

121. Oh yeah they do. "There are poor white people

 

ergo there is no such thing as white privilege."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 05:40 PM

76. Of course.

And so are men.



...at least if that's the kind of pussy you're talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:30 PM

107. Ha ha, now that is indisputable!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 06:35 PM

111. Excellent:

Last edited Tue Dec 24, 2013, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Men, I have no problem with those of you who like to look at women. It's how you go about it that's at issue.


Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

That's a rhetorical question, I guess. Fact is, I don't think anyone here has trouble understanding it at all.

On edit: I'd like to retract my previous sentence. After reading some of the other threads from the past few days, I concede it's possible some people out there truly are too dull, unfeeling and utterly self-regarding to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zenlitened (Reply #111)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 10:49 PM

141. Sadly, I have to agree with you that some truly just don't get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:00 PM

114. I appreciate your post

I wonder with your 2 marriages, if they only liked you for your looks, what did you talk about in conversation? I hope I don't offend with my question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beringia (Reply #114)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 11:41 PM

143. Each marriage was different.

In the first marriage, we talked about our kids, and we fought about money and responsibility. In the second marriage, we talked about MY kids, what we'd have liked to do with our futures, and how I was stressing the household by going back to finish my education while holding down a full time job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #143)

Wed Dec 25, 2013, 12:16 AM

144. Thanks for the reply

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Tue Dec 24, 2013, 07:05 PM

115. Oh, yes, I've been dressing down for a long time,

for the reasons you mention. I've just become a jeans and t-shirt kind of woman, and at this point in my life, having been retired for a while, I almost feel weird when I put on a dress. I never really was much for makeup and frilly stuff, but the hits still kept coming anyway. Like you say, I think it's the breasts. The breast-to-waist-to=hip ratio. I did find sex pleasurable (who doesn't?), so I guess that just telegraphed out even though I always dressed modestly and more or less asexually and wasn't really trolling for men. I'm not sure how a woman can control her sex appeal, but a man can certainly control how he deals with it. (And women, too, of course, in the reverse, although for some reason men don't seem to have a problem with women staring lasciviously at them. Men and women are culturally different in that way.)


ed. And I realize I'm generalizing about how men react to women's stares. Some of you may not like it at all.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Wed Dec 25, 2013, 12:28 AM

145. God I miss the old DU where we had actual discussions.

 

Instead of flame wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Wed Dec 25, 2013, 01:32 PM

148. Laughed at it long ago when first heard as a joke.

 

Teenager. Now? eh, snooze - what else you got- like most fart jokes and such I laughed at before adulthood.
If a grown man tells this joke he's in dire need of a sense of humor to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Original post)

Wed Dec 25, 2013, 01:36 PM

149. I've heard the converse statement too...

I'm not saying its as offensive but when either sex is treated as an "object" it is objectionable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread