"Last month seventeen year old Dua Khalil was pulled into a crowd of young men, some of them (the instigators) family, who then kicked and stoned her to death. This is an example of the breath-taking oxymoron “honor killing”, in which a family member (almost always female) is murdered for some religious or ethical transgression. Dua Khalil, who was of the Yazidi faith, had been seen in the company of a Sunni Muslim, and possibly suspected of having married him or converted. That she was torturously murdered for this is not, in fact, a particularly uncommon story. But now you can watch the action up close on CNN. Because as the girl was on the ground trying to get up, her face nothing but red, the few in the group of more than twenty men who were not busy kicking her and hurling stones at her were filming the event with their camera-phones.
"There were security officers standing outside the area doing nothing, but the footage of the murder was taken – by more than one phone – from the front row. Which means whoever shot it did so not to record the horror of the event, but to commemorate it. To share it. Because it was cool."
He goes on, at length, with skill and horror and honest confusion as to what, exactly, is so wrong with women that so many people in the world feel justified in treating them as less-than-human. He does not link to the video; he links instead to Equality Now.
I highy suggest everyone check it out.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Certainly one of the better crafted, "rants" I have ever read. As for myself, I think a good place to start is to consider how I treat my wife, my mother, my sisters, and the women that I am in contact with on a regular basis.
I would not read Joss' rant and pick apart the minute details, a rant is not written with the intent of being a tight ship without holes. His reasons for writing are solid IMO, and the problem he speaks of is a tragedy that has gone on for centuries, heck even millenia. Whether it needs fixing is not something I believe needs discussion, but how it will be fixed does.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The only problem I had with the rant was his belief that it boils down to "womb-envy."
Me, I think it’s fear. Too many men are afraid they are not strong so they bolster themselves by punishing the weak, just because they can. Too many men are afraid of how lust takes over their thoughts and makes them lose control so they subjegate what they see as the origin of that lust, either by punishing women for being attractive or by just raping them to get what they want. Too many men are afraid of how their friends and family will regard them if the women under their control try to defy orders and live for themselves. Too many men are afraid of life in general, and they banish the fear by becoming an object of fear themselves. And too many women agree with this and stand by as it happens.
I don’t think womb-envy answers it. I suspect Joss personally envies the womb because he marvels at the woman's strength and life-giving abilities, but lacks even the slightest fear of women that would help him recognize it in others. This is a Good Thing, and should be spread around.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Great link, thanks Chris.
I think it's indicative of Joss Whedon's writing skill that I cracked a smile even through my anger/agreement/frustration. A wry smile (the trees).
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Next month Can't Stop the Serenity events will be held around the world. Partly we go to see "Serenity" on the big screen again and see our friends. But we also go to raise money for Equality Now. Last year the events raised over $65,000. I think we can beat that this year, and that's a hell of a legacy for a bunch of science fiction fans of a cancelled show.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I think Mr. Whedon might be a little bit right about the reason this goes on. And I think that you might be partly correct, as well, Chris.
But I truly believe that what this sort of violence against women comes down to is that way too many cultures still, after all these millennia, teach their men, beginning when they are boys, that women are just lesser...that whatever god they worship doesn't like women as well as he (it's always a male god) likes men. That men are the complete version of the human being and that women are defective in some way and must be taught their place, by any means necessary. And if that includes killing a few that step out of line, well, that's okay too.
And before anyone accuses me of being ethnocentric, I'm talking about our culture...not our idealized culture, but the real world...here in the United States, as well. No, we don't have an ingrained tradition of "honor killings" here, thank goodness. We just have "domestic violence". I have known...personally known...men who have believed there is nothing wrong with slapping "their" women around if they "get out of line" because they "need to know their place", which is in the bedroom and the kitchen and on their knees scrubbing the floors.
And even many of the men in the US who would never, ever consider hitting a woman, much less killing one, still don't have any qualms about insulting women and ridiculing them and calling them ignorant...again, putting them in "their place"...if they dare to express an opinion contrary to their more "logical" male opinion. Or they'll talk down to women, just assuming that they won't understand...anything outside the home, really. This is so ingrained in the culture, still, that I believe that many men don't even realize they are doing it. But these, too, are insults to women, and they are still widely accepted as normal and perfectly acceptable here in the "enlightened" culture of the United States in 2007.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
along littlemissattitude's bent, there's also the gender wage gap between men and women in the united states—for the same job, women will generally earn seventy-six cents for every dollar a man would make in that job.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think there are probably several interlinking causes for the lesser status of women, with different ones having more or less sway in different particular cultures or individuals.
One of the more overarching ones is, I think, the widespread pressure on men to be successful. From a very young age many men are trained to think it is a measure of their worth to have money, power, and prestige. If they don't achieve this, then either it is their own fault, or someone else is to blame. Women then serve as both convenient scapegoats and as receptacles for rage at what has been denied them.
Not all men, of course. Thankfully. But it has not been uncommon in my experience to hear of or read about men who blamed women for making them do things or keeping them from being successful -- this is certainly common in stories of abuse in North American culture. I fear that a growing income disparity and stresses on the middle class will only exacerbate this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And even many of the men in the US who would never, ever consider hitting a woman, much less killing one, still don't have any qualms about insulting women and ridiculing them and calling them ignorant...again, putting them in "their place"...if they dare to express an opinion contrary to their more "logical" male opinion. Or they'll talk down to women, just assuming that they won't understand...anything outside the home, really. This is so ingrained in the culture, still, that I believe that many men don't even realize they are doing it. But these, too, are insults to women, and they are still widely accepted as normal and perfectly acceptable here in the "enlightened" culture of the United States in 2007.
I do not believe the attitude you describe is truly "ingrained in our culture". It's unfortunately present in many of our sub-cultures, but smacking women around or trying to keep them "in their place" aren't acceptable in American culture at large.
All you have to do is turn on the nearest TV for, like, ten minutes to see what I mean.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Rakeesh, there is an argument to be made that there are the visible trappings, the nods to the way things should be, that just decorate an underlying and pervasive structure which is firmly (and almost invisibly) unjust. I'm not in the space to make that argument, but it is there.
Of course, were I you, such vague handwaving would convince me of nothing! And I don't expect it to. I can't do better right now, though.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
All my life I've been taught that women are daughters of God, to be treated with nothing but love and respect.
And I belong one of those innately evil, sexist male God religions.
Go figure.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, there is an argument to be made that there are the visible trappings, the nods to the way things should be, that just decorate an underlying and pervasive structure which is firmly (and almost invisibly) unjust. I'm not in the space to make that argument, but it is there.
Something as subtle and delicate as you're describing, that I agree is present. Both in the numbers, and just in the way some things feel. Vague handwaving is unnecessary for persuasion on my part
But, just to be clear, what was being discussed and what I was disagreeing with was quite different. You're describing a spider web at noon, without even any moisture on it to mark it. I was objecting to a description more like cargo netting.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:And even many of the men in the US who would never, ever consider hitting a woman, much less killing one, still don't have any qualms about insulting women and ridiculing them and calling them ignorant...again, putting them in "their place"...if they dare to express an opinion contrary to their more "logical" male opinion. Or they'll talk down to women, just assuming that they won't understand...anything outside the home, really. This is so ingrained in the culture, still, that I believe that many men don't even realize they are doing it. But these, too, are insults to women, and they are still widely accepted as normal and perfectly acceptable here in the "enlightened" culture of the United States in 2007.
I do not believe the attitude you describe is truly "ingrained in our culture". It's unfortunately present in many of our sub-cultures, but smacking women around or trying to keep them "in their place" aren't acceptable in American culture at large.
All you have to do is turn on the nearest TV for, like, ten minutes to see what I mean.
One of the first things I learned as an anthropology major was that every culture actually has two cultures: the ideal culture that everyone aspires to - or at least gives lip-service to aspiring to - and the real, lived culture.
In the United States, the ideal culture is that everyone - men, women, those of all ethnic backgrounds, those of all socioeconomic levels - are equal, and equally valued. In practice...in the real, lived culture...things are quite different, on all those counts.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I see cargo netting, you see spider web. (We're not going to have a simple walk together.) I call it invisible because it generally has been made invisible to most people. It's easy to live your life without seeing it unless you have to. That doesn't make it any less strong, though, perhaps even moreso.
This is what Whedon references as well. I can't quote him directly, though, because the connection is currently overloaded. (You go, Joss!)
Anyway, I'd hold it is the job of years to discuss this well. It is something I had to go through statistics after statistics and much critical sociological analysis to see, and I am too fragile here and now to debate it, so I'll bow out for now.
I know this is annoying. I wouldn't if I could do otherwise and not have my weekend crumble apart, and I have a lot of work to do. It does make me sad.
(Thanks, Chris.)
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: All my life I've been taught that women are daughters of God, to be treated with nothing but love and respect.
And I belong one of those innately evil, sexist male God religions.
Go figure.
And so did I (I don't anymore). And while many (not all) of the men I knew in that religion believed, truly believed, that they were treating women with love and respect, they often said things to and about women that were fairly obviously designed to put themselves in a superior position and the women in an inferior position.
One example that I will never forget was the man who said that it was his wife's job to make him look good to his children at all times, even if doing so made her look stupid...and he used that word. Another was the way in which women's groups within the church could not do anything without getting a man's permission. Where's the respect there?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In the United States, the ideal culture is that everyone - men, women, those of all ethnic backgrounds, those of all socioeconomic levels - are equal, and equally valued. In practice...in the real, lived culture...things are quite different, on all those counts.
Now that you're being more precise, I have less room to disagree.
I do not accept for a minute, though, that you are capable of accurately judging the "real, lived culture" to the extent you seem to be describing. There are elements of the ideal culture you describe in the lived culture, and elements of the lived culture in the ideal.
quote:I see cargo netting, you see spider web. (We're not going to have a simple walk together.) I call it invisible because it generally has been made invisible to most people. It's easy to live your life without seeing it unless you have to. That doesn't make it any less strong, though, perhaps even moreso.
I was only making the comparison to illustrate the difference, not because I think the discrimination you described was a spider web.
Littlemissattitude was talking about thinks such as smacking women around to keep them in their place, publicly and privately humiliating them explicitly to keep them in their place, as basic elements of our culture. When compared to that, I think a <24% difference in wages that is also unfortunately an element of our culture is, to me, a spider web compared to cargo netting.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I disagree, Rakeesh. If I could fix one immediately at the expense of the other, I'd fix the domestic abuse and disparagement issues, of course. But I think the wage issue is intertwined, because it makes it easier to believe that women and women's work is less valuable. Also, as long as women are making less money, on average, than men it's harder for many of them to feel worthy, or to feel secure leaving bad situations.
So perhaps I'd call it fishing line instead of a spider web. Still practically invisible, seemingly insubstantial, but when you get caught up in it really, really hard to break free.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: All my life I've been taught that women are daughters of God, to be treated with nothing but love and respect.
And I belong one of those innately evil, sexist male God religions.
Go figure.
Well, all the cute girls at the train station are always trying to talk to me about God and this "sexist male God religion"... Go figure.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, I think I should have made myself more clear when talking about spider webs and cargo nettings. I think I should've used a different comparison.
I was just talking about how hard it is to see. If someone holds up a cargo net to you, you're gonna see it. Maybe even in the dark. If there's a spiderweb in front of you, well, you're not necessarily going to notice right away, is all I'm saying.
Domestic violence and constant casual contempt, public and private, is the easy-to-see cargo netting. Less-than-a-quarter wage differences are just as there as the spider web, but aren't always as easy to see.
I'm not trying to say it's easy to get out of the second one, and by the way, if you get caught in a spider's web, it's actually not easy to get it off, even for an adult. That stuff sticks and clings like nobody's business!
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:In the United States, the ideal culture is that everyone - men, women, those of all ethnic backgrounds, those of all socioeconomic levels - are equal, and equally valued. In practice...in the real, lived culture...things are quite different, on all those counts.
I don't think this is true. I don't know too many great American idealists who want to pay heart surgeons as much as ditch-diggers. I certainly don't.
One of the more confusing aspects of our culture is our self-deception, where our professed ideals don't match up to our true ideals, and neither align with our accepted practices.
This willingness to reach for platitudes may come from the democratic urge to be popular, not necessarily respected, but to enjoy the security of being counted on the winning side and fear of being on the unpopular side. And since the nation is so diverse and power is diffused in contradicting sects, we've become adept at articulating competing views, with conviction, depending on the day and whom we are are around. I think it's a downside of democracy, this impetus to be popular in order to survive, which ends up washing away our sense of character, degrades thinking, and further erodes our ability to address political realities. The result is that we'll feel more comfortable mouthing platitudes like, "everyone is equally valued," as opposed to than dealing with the complexities of a world where George W. Bush is worth more than I am. Because he is. Or at least, our values are incommensurable, in which case we would still not be equal.
[ May 20, 2007, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Ah, see, I thought you were saying the wage difference was comparatively inconsequential. Your explanation makes more sense. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hmmm. Well, I would say that when compared with a widespread cultural acceptance of domestic violence and constant casual contempt for women, in public and private, that the wage difference is certainly less important, less urgent, but not inconsequential.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Right, and I'm saying that the wage difference is part of and adds to the casual contempt for women.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Men and women aren't the same, biologically or culturally. Women don't have penises, and men don't have maternity leave. They are different, the hard issues concern when these differences are relevant and beautiful.
[ May 20, 2007, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
This is something I posted over on Whedonesque and really argues about what they said, but I thought I would post it here too.
Tone, intention, motivation, and "why" does matter. I was in a debate a while back that involved Xander and Anya where some posters claimed that Xander was condescending to Anya, and what I found interesting were the gender politics that reared themselves as the debate moved along. When another poster wondered whether this was a gender issue, he was summarily attacked by the other posters as someone who dismissed the views of others because they had a uterus, and the debate lost all momentum and interest because it became about whether certain posters had a penis or vagina, and whether that was the *sole* reason behind the posts that we saw in the thread. When I tried to get people past that into a useful discussion about gender roles (which may have been incredibly conceited or useful--the difference isn't something easily sussed out either--just saying), I was attacked in the same manner, and thats when I realized something. My absolute indifference to the tone and manner in which someone presents their ideas was incorrect, mainly because of where we are as a culture and as human beings. And thats where I disagree with Joss...
Joss once said: "[E]very time somebody opens their mouth they have an opportunity to do one of two things-connect or divide. Some people inherently divide, and some people inherently connect. Connecting is the most important thing, and actually an easy thing to do." There has never been a more true statement, something that has been said many times before, and yet, there is something interesting going on here. But first, a few statistics born from an article about "honor killings" in Pakistan:
"Karo-Kari is a compound word literally meaning "black male" and "black female," metaphoric terms for adulterer and adulteress."
"Of the victims almost 2,774 were women and 1.226 were men which means twice as many women lose their lives to this ugly social custom."
Not only is this not "only" about women (though it is horrible that more than double the number of women are killed by this brutal practice), its a social concern for morality that is part of a few extreme sects of religions across the world (it is not just Muslim sects that practice this social disease, it is part of both Hindu and Buddhist culture as well--and in many ways, we see these things in America too, we see people publicly branded and ostrascized, and though they aren't murdered literally, they are metaphorically--so its not just a Middle East or Islamic problem, its a world problem), and in that sense, I think its more a problem with culture, society, religion, and morality that is not confined to women's rights or the very justified battle for equality amongst the sexes. It is a full spectrum problem born of religious intolerance (and mostly has little to do with gender inequality), insipid motives, lack of knowledge, and the inability of people to recognize that no matter the case, murder in the name of honor achieves only dishonor.
Of course, there is a paradox that arises here, a paradox that makes our world stage much more complex than we believe, and it speaks both to the nature of Joss's intent and the manner in which we can solve the problem. I think there is something subversive (with all due respect) about the thread we create here (and I do mean with all due respect--as I have said, I have learned that that matters) because the while the ends that we speak and fight for are worthy and noble goals, the manner in which we fight that battle matters just as much. It's the same reason that torture does matter even if it helps us to win the war on terror, the ends do not justify the means, even when that goal is something worthy and noble. There is no doubt in my mind that the end game here is something worthy and noble, I have no doubt that the cause of women's rights around the world is something easily worth fighting for, but it does matter how we fight that fight.
You see, I think there is an extremism in this very thread, an elitism born of perceived righteousness and fighting the good fight. However, here is the paradox: for we want people to be moral, to treat women the way they deserve, and yet, that is the exact reason they fight us everyday. Because of threads like this, and whether we like to admit it or not, my liberal brothers and I are in the greatest of catch-22's. We want to spread our "enlightened" notions of peace and equality across the world, we want to see our vision of a world at peace and equal come to pass, and we want to be righteous while we do it. You guys remember when I said that the difference between conceit or arrogance and usefulness is very difficult to understand? Now you know how *they* feel, now you know how they could see us as conceited or arrogant instead of useful, and the insidious part is that this is a form of extremism that divides people. Thats all anyone sees anymore, a division between conceit and usefulness, and thats what I was incredibly wrong about. I thought it didn't matter how we did it, as long as we *did* it, but I was incredibly wrong because the ends never justify the means.
In the end, I guess I am Socrates to your Nietzsche Joss, a Nietzsche who said this:
"Socrates is the prototype of the theoretical optimist who, with his faith that the nature of things can be fathomed, ascribes to knowledge and insight the power of the panacea, while understanding error as the evil par excellence." Nietzsche in "The Birth of Tragedy"
Nietzsche would deride Socrates for failing to recognize the truth of existence, the truth of a life devoid of any meaning beyond what we ourselves ascribe to it, and while Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers, he was incorrect about that. Socrates held a faith in knowledge and humanity, one that drove him to invent the Socratic method, one that drove him to drink Hemloch, and one that caused his inevitable death. As do I. My faith in humanity knows that we can better, that the paradox why they fight us and our end goal can be one in the same, if we only recognize that humanity doesn't need the extreme, it doesn't need to be divided (as I believe this thread would), we need to connect. "Only Connect", as if I were Forster pleading with humanity and my faith to overcome the challenges we face, and in that sense, I applaud the goal. But I question the means...
As I, myself, should have done a long time ago...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's a rising anti-male backlash in this society too. If you look at that "ideal culture," women are idealized and are sacrosanct from abuse, whereas men are ridiculed regularly as dumb, sexist, fat, lazy, stupid, etc. Now I'm not saying that in reality men are physically abused as much as women, that'd be a ridiculous assertion, but men get an incredible amount of abuse in mainstream media that is patently ignored and even worse, is widely accepted.
Women bashing happens, not that I see it very often personally, but I realize that it does happen far more than it should, but it's widely unacceptable and is hammered on whenever it's seen in the public sphere. Male bashing happens, in the public sphere, and it's a matter of comedy and "well, duh" attitudes similar to what men are accused of doing towards women.
I agree with much of what's being said about physical abuse and wage differences, my argument pertains only to public views and verbal abuse and portrayals of men and women.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
That's what I was going to say.
I hear a LOT more man-bashing than woman-bashing. But man-bashing is just accepted and laughed at.
Not that it in any way negates the horrendousness of what Joss Whedon saw, but it grates on my nerves when it's treated as common knowledge that most men are stupid or beasts.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:In the United States, the ideal culture is that everyone - men, women, those of all ethnic backgrounds, those of all socioeconomic levels - are equal, and equally valued. In practice...in the real, lived culture...things are quite different, on all those counts.
I don't think this is true. I don't know too many great American idealists who want to pay heart surgeons as much as ditch-diggers. I certainly don't.
One of the more confusing aspects of our culture is our self-deception, where our professed ideals don't match up to our true ideals, and neither align with our accepted practices.
This willingness to reach for platitudes may come from the democratic urge to be popular, not necessarily respected, but to enjoy the security of being counted on the winning side and fear of being on the unpopular side. And since the nation is so diverse and power is diffused in contradicting sects, we've become adept at articulating competing views, with conviction, depending on the day and whom we are are around. I think it's a downside of democracy, this impetus to be popular in order to survive, which ends up washing away our sense of character, degrades thinking, and further erodes our ability to address political realities. The result is that we'll feel more comfortable mouthing platitudes like, "everyone is equally valued," as opposed to than dealing with the complexities of a world where George W. Bush is worth more than I am. Because he is. Or at least, our values are incommensurable, in which case we would still not be equal.
Really? George W. Bush is entitled to more rights because...what? He's rich? He's the president? I don't think that's true. He might think that is true, and there apparently things he can do that we can't (I doubt anyone would give him a speeding ticket if he managed to get to drive during his term of office), and things that he is certainly entitled to (more security, because there are nutjobs out there who would like to harm him because of the office he holds, for example), but that is due the position he holds...not to him being George W. Bush, but to him being President. I doubt, however, that if he committed a serious crime (murder, rape, something like that...and I'm not saying he would, this is a hypothetical) anyone (aside from maybe Alberto Gonzalez and Carl Rove) would seriously argue that he shouldn't be held accountable for that.
But, if our ideal culture really believes that Bush, or Donald Trump or Bill Gates or someone like them are entitled to more rights than those of us who are not rich have, or that they shouldn't have to answer for their actions in the same way that the rest of us do, then the culture's ideals have changed much more than I had ever realized. Certainly, I am from a generation that was taught that being rich doesn't make you better or worse...it just means you have more zeroes behind the figure on your bank balance.
And, anyway, when I said that our ideal culture "values" everyone equally, you seem to have interpreted that as meaning "paid the same no matter what you do". I think that assumption says something very interesting about our society and what it really values. I didn't mean that, though. I meant that our ideal is that everyone gets the same rights, whether they are rich or poor and no matter what gender or ethnic group or socioeconomic group or religion (or whatever) they find themselves in. Same personal responsibilities, too, come to that.
Guess that makes me a Commie or something, but you know what? When I was growing up, equality wasn't radical, it was middle of the road.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I went to check out Equality Now based on the rant. Unfortunately, I cannot support them, due to their classification of legal abortion as a human right.
Anyone know of another group working to stop such things not advocating the legalization of abortion?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think there are probably many thousands of police officers who would give President Bush a speeding ticket if he was speeding, lma.
-------------
The widely-tolerated ridicule of men is what I was talking about when I spoke of television.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Not that it in any way negates the horrendousness of what Joss Whedon saw, but it grates on my nerves when it's treated as common knowledge that most men are stupid or beasts.
It lowers the bar, and it's bad for the whole world.
____
As to why the President's life is not equal to mine. A little bit because he is rich, but mostly because he is president. If I take a bullet in the head tomorrow, it'll be sad because of lost potential. If Bush gets shot, forget the family and businesses he'll leave behind, there could be a world war.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There are different hardline outcomes for the cultural acceptance of male-bashing as comedy and that gender institutionalism which Whedon demarcates. Doesn't make the former okay, and doesn't mean it is not worth talking about, but I think it is why some people are more focused on the latter.
---
Edited to add: I'm quite looking forward to a thread which doesn't supplant the discussion of one by the discussion of the other.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The trickier issue is that this happened amongst the Kurds, you know, the "good" Iraqies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Focusing on the latter means the former should not be mentioned?
Should, say, French people not bring up their experiences with discrimination in America while Arabic people are talking about theirs?
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: If I take a bullet in the head tomorrow, it'll be sad because of lost potential. If Bush gets shot, forget the family and businesses he'll leave behind, there could be a world war.
I still maintain that this is due to the office that he holds, not the fact that he is George W. Bush, and therefore worth more than anyone else. What you say would hold true for any President of the United States, considering the current state of the world, not just for Bush.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: There are different hardline outcomes for the cultural acceptance of male-bashing as comedy and that gender institutionalism which Whedon demarcates. Doesn't make the former okay, and doesn't mean it is not worth talking about, but I think it is why some people are more focused on the latter.
---
Edited to add: I'm quite looking forward to a thread which doesn't supplant the discussion of one by the discussion of the other.
I don't see it often supplanting the other, and it's not happening here either, I just think it's worth mentioning and keeping in mind when we're having this particular discussion.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Focusing on the latter means the former should not be mentioned?
Should, say, French people not bring up their experiences with discrimination in America while Arabic people are talking about theirs?
Rakeesh, please go back and read my post. Seriously. I specifically said the opposite of this.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Edited to add: I'm quite looking forward to a thread which doesn't supplant the discussion of one by the discussion of the other.
I don't see it often supplanting the other, and it's not happening here either, I just think it's worth mentioning and keeping in mind when we're having this particular discussion.
Lyrhawn, you, too. I did not say that discussion of one was supplanting the other. I said I was glad it wouldn't. [That is, we are in agreement, but you seem to be disagreeing with me, or perhaps I am misreading your words or your tone?]
---
*taps mike
Helllo? Hello? Not working?
---
Edited again to add: It is almost axiomatic in [Net threads on] gender issues that once you speak of one gender's issues, [another's] is raised in response, and the discussion then tends to be about one or the other in opposition. Which one wins as the Topic of the Day varies. I was seriously, honestly, unashamedly glad to see this discussion here, where I expect all have the maturity and available bandwith to continue pursuing whichever part of the conversation is most interesting to that individual.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Men and women aren't the same, biologically or culturally. Women don't have penises, and men don't have maternity leave. They are different, the hard issues concern when these differences are relevant and beautiful.
I disagree about women and men not being the same... Perhaps because I feel like a mutant whenever someone like John Gray >< or those Rules Broads or Dobson or the Pearls state that women are like this and men are like that... Things are not so simple and cut and dried. Yes, there are differences, but I doubt they are as pronounced as people think...
Joss Whedon is cool! He makes good points. But nowadays you get a mixture of women being put down traditionally and now people also look down on men. Both things bother me deeply. We don't need stereotypes, narrow definitions of humanity and useless relationship advice that relies on all of that. But this sort of thing happens on a relative b asis all around the world.
And just what is meant by the concept of Bibical submission anyway? Why do women have to submit to men in the first place? It's an annoying concept.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: along littlemissattitude's bent, there's also the gender wage gap between men and women in the united states—for the same job, women will generally earn seventy-six cents for every dollar a man would make in that job.
I'm pretty sure that this is not exactly true. On average, women make 76.5 percent as much as men. But this is a comparison of full-time workers as a whole, not a comparison on a job-to-job basis. I'm not sure how big the difference is if you compare men and women with the same job, but it is true that women often work in fields that pay less.
Hmm. Well, all I can do is apologize then, CT. I misunderstood what you were saying. I did not read your statement as one being glad it wasn't happening here, but rather critical that it was happening here, since it seemed to me the discussion was perhaps heading in that direction. I was wrong, my mistake.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My bad CT, I thought you meant what you said sarcastically, as if to say "at some future point I look forward to a discussion that doesn't do that." I didn't realize you were referring to THIS thread. (In other words, it seems I made the same mistake that Rakeesh did).
Simple misunderstanding Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I didn't think you were being sarcastic. I thought you were commenting on how the discussion had (at that point) begun to drift firmly towards discussing ANOTHER form of discrimination.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I still maintain that this is due to the office that he holds, not the fact that he is George W. Bush, and therefore worth more than anyone else. What you say would hold true for any President of the United States, considering the current state of the world, not just for Bush.
Whatever the reasons, we aren't equal.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My bad CT, I thought you meant what you said sarcastically, as if to say "at some future point I look forward to a discussion that doesn't do that." I didn't realize you were referring to THIS thread. (In other words, it seems I made the same mistake that Rakeesh did).
Simple misunderstanding
No worries.
I was sitting here ruminating on how I had seen things go before, and then enjoying the peculiar sense of relief that we were discussing this here, instead.
I think it's a hot button topic, and a lot of us probably expect the worst. Shame, that, but natural.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Hmm. Well, all I can do is apologize then, CT. I misunderstood what you were saying. I did not read your statement as one being glad it wasn't happening here, but rather critical that it was happening here, since it seemed to me the discussion was perhaps heading in that direction. I was wrong, my mistake.
I'll quote below what I was referring to as ["specifically said the opposite."]
---
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Doesn't make the former okay, and doesn't mean it is not worth talking about, but I think it is why some people are more focused on the latter. [italics added]
Then
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Focusing on the latter means the former should not be mentioned?
----
I was seeing the conversation not as drifting, but as moving on related issues in tandem. Thus the added comment in my prior post,
quote: Edited to add: I'm quite looking forward to a thread which doesn't supplant the discussion of one by the discussion of the other
[ May 20, 2007, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Men and women aren't the same, biologically or culturally. Women don't have penises, and men don't have maternity leave.
I know of at least one male on this forum that DID have "maternity leave", so to speak.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jon Boy, it is not so much that women work in fields that pay less but that the fields pay less because women work in them.
When women went to medical school, the pay for pediatricians and general practitioners went down. Was the job of being a doctor to children now worth less than it used to be?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Jon Boy, it is not so much that women work in fields that pay less but that the fields pay less because women work in them.
Is there some evidence of that, other than the med school anecdote discussed below?
Also, how does danger factor into that field selection? Men make up the vast majority of workplace fatalities - the last number I saw was over 90%, but it was some time ago.
quote:When women went to medical school, the pay for pediatricians and general practitioners went down. Was the job of being a doctor to children now worth less than it used to be?
That depends on whether the number of medical school graduates increased (that is, did women displace men in med school, or did the med schools expand to accommodate women). An increase in supply of doctors could very likely lead to a decrease in salaries.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
During the 1800s, teaching went from a substantially male profession to one that was mostly female, and both comparative salary and status went down as well. I do not have a citation on hand, but if it would be compelling, I am willing to go digging.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That depends on whether the number of medical school graduates increased (that is, did women displace men in med school, or did the med schools expand to accommodate women). An increase in supply of doctors could very likely lead to a decrease in salaries.
During the period of time katharina cites (early to mid 20th century), the number of physicians trained through the US decreased in toto. During that time the relative US population increased, leading to a shortage. Between 1900 and 1930, the ratio of physicians to US patient population fell from 173/100,000 to 125/100,000 in the first third of the century.
Presidents Kennedy and Johnson responded by promoting legislation that increased the number of medical schools and graduates by the end of the 60s. By that time, significant numbers of women were going into General Practice and Pediatrics, and a pay drop relative to other specialties had been established.
Women were not being added in addition to men in medical school, but as a whole, were displacing them.
(for more historical information on physician labor shortage, see D Blumenthal's editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, 2004 (350:1780))
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Isn't it interesting how, when something horrific happens in another country, instead of focusing on that and condeming it and the culture that breeds it... We focus on the *relatively* minor injustices in our own culture. As if, somehow, the fact I get paid less than I would if I had a penis is equivilant to this poor woman being beaten to death for her choice of a husband.
Maybe it's because, in doing so, we feel like we can change and improve our own culture...
But as for me, I'm just happy to live in a place where an outspoken, bisexual, jew lovin' woman like me can live, unmolested, to earn my 6 bits on the dollar.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think we focus on things at home because that is not only what personally affects but is also our sphere of influence. You know - think globally, act locally?
Pay inequality is both symptomatic of and contributory to degradation of women. It's relevant.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
When I worked there, the Social Security Administration was 85% female, and had the lowest paid workers of any Executive-branch bureaucrasy on the same administrative level. While people made jokes about high-paying government jobs, chunks of SSA employees still qualified for food stamps. Even the GS-11s (which I was at the time) were mostly female, and the low percentage of men that did work there were usually GS-12s or higher.
That said, I don't think I have ever really had to deal with sexism after college. My work environments tended to be so very female that little notice was taken of the men. We even joked about how free the women felt to discuss their hormone replacement therapies and things within earshot of men. If one of the men said something about it, the women would nod and smile and go on about their business.
It kind of reminded me of my poor dad. He'd yell and scream and turn red in the face about something that he didn't like that we did and we'd nod and smile and go about our business. It was like he was trying to be an ogre, but to us he was merely irrelevant.
So, I think that's how I deal with it when it comes up-- I just ignore it. I don't even ignore it consciously-- most of sexism I've encountered has been of the chuckle and shrug it off variety. Like someone making gestures and shouting at you in a language you don't understand.
I feel blessed that it's all been less than a speedbump in my reality, for the most part. Perhaps I merely lack the social skills to correctly interpret such things. Hmm.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I see no reason to stop talking about inequalities at home, even if it is worse elsewhere. I'd still like to maintain a high standard here.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I see no reason to stop talking about inequalities at home, even if it is worse elsewhere. I'd still like to maintain a high standard here.
Just like the kids starving in China doesn't make the TV dinner peas taste any better.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Livvy, I like your vegetables. I tried to recreate them today. It ... wasn't the same. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I doubt I could recreate them, actually. I didn't write down what I added or when or how much. I'd love to try, though. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Jon Boy, it is not so much that women work in fields that pay less but that the fields pay less because women work in them.
I agree. That's what I've seen. Cultural and political support for higher wages and better benefits follows white men. If white men started becoming elementary school teachers and nurses in more substantial proportions, those professions would start earning more. The respective unions would magically start becoming more influential. Pay-scales would increase. I think that's one of the reasons why so much of an uproar was being made when engineering jobs started going to Asia and India.
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I see no reason to stop talking about inequalities at home, even if it is worse elsewhere. I'd still like to maintain a high standard here.
With such a startling disparity in the plight of women in third world nations in comparison to women in developed countries, doesn't choosing to discuss the inequalities at home instead of the more serious global events imply a lack of care for the rest of the world?
Even taking into account factors that would give us a bias toward discussing more local matters, it still seems to point toward a clear lack of empathy for events that lack the power to affect us more directly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Baloney about the clear lack of empathy. I think it points to a clear lack of influence on the rest of the world but hope in influence on this world. Is it better to talk and do nothing or to talk and do something?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mintieman: With such a startling disparity in the plight of women in third world nations in comparison to women in developed countries, doesn't choosing to discuss the inequalities at home instead of the more serious global events imply a lack of care for the rest of the world?
No.
---
This makes no sense to me. Doing the one enables and promotes doing the other, just as eating a well-balanced diet enables me to better address hunger in poverty. Were I starving myself, I wouldn't be able to volunteer long hours at the soup kitchen.
---
Edited to add: Maybe it's the "instead of?" It's a false dichotomy, and that rings false.
I can't make sense of your opposition, other than as rhetoric.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Also, fixing the inequity of power in the US would put more women in positions where they can do something about the situation of women in other countries, through influencing our foreign policy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:With such a startling disparity in the plight of women in third world nations in comparison to women in developed countries, doesn't choosing to discuss the inequalities at home instead of the more serious global events imply a lack of care for the rest of the world?
Not unless you feel people are able to do only one thing at a time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Also, fixing the inequity of power in the US would put more women in positions where they can do something about the situation of women in other countries, through influencing our foreign policy.
How would you suggest fixing it, apart from breaking up the notion that women do not make good leaders and should be voted for more often?
edit: Even breaking up that notion, how would you go about doing that?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I would like to see the problems fixed in both places, obviously...
But likening our problems here to the problems over there is a bit like:
"I'm dying of cancer"
"Oh, and I have a TERRIBLE headache!"
"But... Cancer"
"Oh, you don't know how bad this headache is!"
I think a big reason we focus in on the problem here is, if we focused on there, we'd have to do something. And that tends to get all bomby and explodey.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I disagree with your assessment of the reactions of people to troubles in foreign lands, to your comparisons of the two troubles, and especially to your posited solution to troubles in foreign lands.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Not terribly surprising, Katharina... we don't agree on much.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Not terribly surprising, Katharina... we don't agree on much.
You both agree that men are HAWT, thats something not to be taken lightly Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
bb: actually, I think women are hot. Men are just sort of nebulously attractive.
Except Mario Lopez. HE is hot.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is hardly an expression of politics.
I think you are misreading and misjudging the motivations of people who want to change things at home.
It's like the Greenpeace person from the other day who stopped me on the street to sign up as a member. I'm all for whales, but I spent my pro bono money on something else that month and said sorry. She asked if I didn't care about whales. Putting effort into one area doesn't mean one is casting off lightly other areas.
There is much work to be done and many places to do it. You do a disservice to others and you obfuscate the truth when you disparage their efforts because they aren't working in your pet area.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kath: I'm not disparaging anyone's efforts. I would like to make equal money as much as anyone else. I'm saying it's ridiculous to compare our plight to theirs WHEN THEIRS COMES UP.
Back to my previous example... I complain when I get a headache. And I do something about it. I take an advil and a sudafed and I drink some coffee...
But I wouldn't go into a Cancer thread and complain, and then compare my advil to their chemo. It's just a massive massive difference in scale.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: bb: actually, I think women are hot. Men are just sort of nebulously attractive.
Except Mario Lopez. HE is hot.
How about, "Men can be HAWT?"
Whenever Tiffany watches Saved By The Bell I have to wonder if she really just likes the show or if she has a thing for Mario Lopez.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I need to watch Saved by the Bell...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You disparage it by comparing it to a headache. Income disparity is not as easily solved as a headache that responds to aspirin.
Is there someone who is being oppressed in another country posting here? Or is it a bunch of privileged first-worlders?
This isn't a thread run by people who have cancer - it is a thread discussing the denigration of women. Both subjects belong.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: But I wouldn't go into a Cancer thread and complain, and then compare my advil to their chemo. It's just a massive massive difference in scale.
And this isn't a thread of women discussing their own oppression under a militant regime.
We are talking about certain issues, not directly to people with those issues.. There is plenty of bandwith for both, just as a pain conference may appropriately discuss management of both cancer pain and headaches.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Of note, Pixiest, the OP link was about the situation of women in general, not just those under military regimes. This is a fight to pick with Joss, not with us.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mintieman: With such a startling disparity in the plight of women in third world nations in comparison to women in developed countries, doesn't choosing to discuss the inequalities at home instead of the more serious global events imply a lack of care for the rest of the world?
Yes, if you mean a relative lack of care. As in, I don't care about things that don't affect me. I flatter myself that I have a pretty broad view of what does affect me, but I don't mind admitting I don't care very much what happens in the remote corners of Earth. Right now there is probably a tribe of bush people in Africa starving to death. It's a sad thing to think about, but nothing that happens to them will hurt or help me and mine.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
CT: Ya, I read what Joss said. But just because I'm a huge fangirl of Joss's doesn't mean I think he's always right =)
But I'll step out of the thread and let you guys carry on.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think playing a martyr helps much.
Can you see how this may be a discussion about injustice against women in general?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm not playing the martyr. I'm trying to avoid a fight.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Yes, if you mean a relative lack of care. As in, I don't care about things that don't affect me. I flatter myself that I have a pretty broad view of what does affect me, but I don't mind admitting I don't care very much what happens in the remote corners of Earth. Right now there is probably a tribe of bush people in Africa starving to death. It's a sad thing to think about, but nothing that happens to them will hurt or help me and mine.
More to the point, there's very little we can do for those people without an incredible amount of effort (which is not to say that such effort isn't worth it), whereas an issue like income disparity is something we can feasibly address as Americans. Should we be making the effort necessary to address those graver issues elsewhere? Perhaps. But that doesn't negate the fact that dealing with issues at home like income disparity is still a net benefit for humanity. Pix's argument is analogous to someone claiming that curing a genetic disorder that only affects a few dozen people worldwide isn't worth the effort because cancer kills millions of people each year.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This thread is starting to make me feel lonesome.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'm not playing the martyr. I'm trying to avoid a fight.
I appreciate that. I agree it's probably best to let this part of it drop.
I do register your objection, and I'll continue to mull on it long after this conversation. You have my promise on that -- sometimes I chew on things for a long time, especially if they are important.
And my sincere apologies for being snippy to you -- this was supposed to be a long holiday weekend up here, and I was in every day nonetheless. Plus other family matters pressing down. I feel like a four-yr old who still wants to suck her thumb. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Thanks CT =) I hope you get some time off soon. And family is always so stressful! I get in-laws this upcoming holiday weekend. But at least I won't have to work the whole time.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
and so the other day when i got called sexist for opening the door for a woman at least 40 years older than me, almost half my size and carrying 3 boxes that covered her field of view.
Makes me wonder if theres anything that is "chivalrous" or good mannered that i can still do int he world that isnt "sexist".
--- edit: No, imnot adding tot he discussion...im just remarking how hard it is to treat women good and not get castrated for it nowadays
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Did she call you a sexist or someone else? I hold the door for people all the time, regardless of age or sex or whatever. Perhaps she was just grounchy over carring 3 boxes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ecth, that sucks. I would hold a door for ANYONE carrying a bunch of boxes, and hope they'd do the same for me. And I thank people who do, regardless of gender.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yeah. I hold the door for people a lot, even when it's just because I got there first. Sometimes men stop and take over the door-holding or refuse to go through until I do. This does not usually happen when they are encumbered, but... I'm not sure how I feel about it. I think most decent men struggle with what would be appropriate in that situation, because the norm is changing. Taking either course of action can lead to unpleasantness, and you usually have only seconds to decide.
once when I was trying to get some luggage to baggage check, I had a large suitcase fall over. I needed to use the big one because I had packed my clothes plus my husband's for a trip to Anchorage, so there was a lot of bulky winter gear in it.
Anyway, this suitcase fell over in a croswalk at the airport and while I struggled with it, a man made eye contact with me and sort of chuckled. I thought he was going to help me, but he didn't. He just walked past me horse-laughing.
If the laden woman was the one who called you sexist, I think she's probably as big a jerk as that guy. Sometimes, people suck. Suckage is not a gender-specific trait. Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
You should have kicked the top box out of her hands.
You can't accuse someone that kicks boxes out of an old lady's hands sexist. A huge jerk? Yes. Sexist? No way.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
When I was living in Hong Kong any act of chivalry was usually appreciated because it was unexpected I suppose. If I held the door open for a woman she'd usually stop for second to process what I was doing and then smile and walk through. There is not really a concept of chivalry in China.
Moved to Utah, and girls here expect to have their car door opened for them. If my mom and grandmother get together they often mull about how men nowadays are not as courteous.
"Stand whenever a woman enters the room." "Never sit down until the lady is seated."
I usually intentionally get their dander up by telling them that woman today need empowerment and by not doing these things they become less delicate and more self sufficient.
I can't help pampering MY lady however.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
O_O That's cute.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm having a hard time getting my mind around what effect you standing or not when I enter the room has on my self-sufficiency.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Or how standing up occassionally qualifies as "pampering" Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'd think, but the guy is so uncomfortable having to stand up, what if someone wants to talk to me for a very long time. I would not want to inconvience him. I rather like the idea of mutual politeness and respect. I am torn between liking aspects of chivary, but at the same time being a bit frustrated with them. I would not want a guy of mine to think i am somehow... weaker than him so in need of protection. Respect and compassion would be nice though, i'd do that for a guy. And it would be frustrating if I wanted to fuss over a guy but he'd be mad about that for some reason, but I would not want to be in a relationship where I am stuck being submissive. That is not very appealing. These gender things never fail to confuse me... This could be why I do not have a boyfriend Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The standing up thing is just when you enter a room. They can sit back down again right away, I think. I mean, they don't have to stand the whole time you're in a room.
Or actually, at all.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
dkw: Its more the standing up is part and parcel to the mind set that a woman might need some sort of assistance even for sitting down. The point I believe is that any of the men standing would be willing to get the woman's seat if the man who walked her into the room is unable to do so. Or offering the woman their seat if there is no vacancy.
Olivet: I don't stand when my wife enters the room, but I do give her a good hug when she comes home or if I walk in the door and she is home.
When we bought a really nice TV stand she helped me put it together rather then saying that manual labor = a guys thing, LOTS of points for that. After about a year of marriage we seemed to have settled into moderately set roles. I cook meals and she puts furnishings for our apt together. Anything that needs lifting is my job, things that require hoping into the car and visiting a location go to her.
Obviously those things are subject to change based on being sick, or just being tired that day, but the arrangement works for us quite well.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
BB, = joke!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: BB, = joke!
Oh so now women have the gaul to have a joke at a MAN's expense!? Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Usually.
( )
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Probably not. That's a mighty large region to have.
Maybe the gall, though. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Must...find....some way....to..avoid...the embarassment...of mispelling gall....
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Sometimes, people suck. Suckage is not a gender-specific trait.
Exactly. There is no action so right or so perfect that it is a shield against other people -- unfortunately, no matter what you do, you cannot ensure you will not have to deal with other people, warts and all. This is the way of all things, not just gender issues.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I thought the standing up when a respected person enters the room was so that you could greet the person on their level. I was taught that it is polite to do this with anyone older, of the opposite gender or with the job you want. Pretty much, anyone you would say "usted" to. I also thought that the standing was accompanied by a handshake, high-five or hug for family members, which is awkward to do from a sitting position.
I am a little baffled that it could be to help the other person sit down. But then, I've always been baffled with helping people with their seats. Unless they are infirmed somehow, a person should be able to scoot their chair four inches forward.
I also open the door for everyone. I am always highly amused by the machismos that get uncomfortable as they pass me bowing them in. (I like to bow too. Being overly formal is a constant source of amusement.)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
vonk: maybe they think you're joto, eh?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I'll have to blow 'em a kiss next time. I'd smack an ass or two, but that might get me hurt.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)