posted
Ok, I'm REALLY hoping Jeniwren's observations in Godric's thread are not the predominant attitude of women. If an intelligent person can honestly believe that men don't think about anything but their lunch, that men don't get scars from putting themselves forward, that we are so emotionally less sensitive then women that we should protect teenage girls and let guys take all the risks, and that men don't worry about what our dates of thinking of us... then feminism has failed. The genders are NOT equal.
I'm wondering how many women on hatrack agree with jeniwren's attitudes about teenage boys.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not me. But it would be awfully hard for someone raise in that type of environment to give up the ideas.
I believe that teaching daughters to submit to fathers and husbands, and to play "ladylike" by not making their wants known and manipulating men emotionally only sets them up for abuse.
Posts: 1379 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It varies, but I don't believe in this whole men are dogs or men are from Mars women are from Venus nonsense.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it should be made clear that no one (I hope) thinks the less of Jeniwren for her ideas. I think it's perfectly reasonable for men and women to follow 'traditional' gender roles. If it works for them that want to do it, so be it. Those people who believe that are no better than those who don't.
What I think is abhorrent is when a magazine or any other media, like the one we were discussing, steps into the role of parent and tries to tell children how to live without their parents knowing what that magazine is proposing.
Once again we see the wisdom of parents being engaged in their children's lives. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Why should I respect her when its obvious she has no respect for men, and in particular teenage boys?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am seventeen. I know a number of very determined and opinionated young women, and this is the majority of my aquaintance.
However, I do also know people who will not stand up to a boyfriend/male person, or are too desperate to have a boyfriend in order to think straight and will literally go beyond themselves in their attempts to attract the opposite sex, or will go the other way and be terribly deferential and submissive. There are very few submissive people that I know.
I would like to say that many of the boys that attract these unfortunate young women do not exactly go out of their way to appear intelligent and interesting (and as a result may appear occaisionally to be thinking about nothing but 'lunch'). I find that I can get an inordinate amount of sense out of the same people who apparantly have nothing to say at all, simply by expecting people to be intelligent.
I know that out of most people I can get a decent, level-headed, intelligent and speculative response, and there are a balanced number of people in both sexes.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got to go out for a few hours, but to be very honest, I find this thread in extremely poor taste. You may misrepresent my position if you like, Paul, but to do so in a thread specifically for that purpose is something I would say is out of your character.
I'm sorry I touched a nerve.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you get back Jeniwren, can you clarify your position?
It takes a lot more than what you said to offend me, but it seemed like a very backward and ignorant way to think.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, Respect comes from who you are, not who someone else is. Respect is allowing others their opinions. You may disagree with Jeniwren, but it is unwise to label yourself a misogynist because of it. Unless you are, and that is what's really bothering you, which I doubt. Rain
Posts: 1379 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Paul, I have to agree with jeniwren here. You've gotten it all blown out of proportion, and I'm sorry you feel that way. I even went back and re-read the thread twice, and don't really find any fault with her position.
Generally, whether it's right or not, in this society men take the chances. Yeah, it's easier that way for the women. Tough. But to spin that out to the level you have done here, I don't agree with you. I think you have lost the whole point.
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, I'm pretty sure that to her she is not disrespecting anyone. For men to lead and women to follow is just a part of her culture. It's the way she is happy. Can't you respect that as long as she doesn't try to force her opinions on others or advocate turning her opinions into state law of some sort?
If it's not clear from my post, I share your distaste of submissive, follow the leader women. However, I recognize that their personality is not directed at me, and I try to motor on.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see it as misrepresenting your position, Jeni.
Lets see...
"Actually, I think it's better if girls wait for the guy to say something."
Now, why did you say this?
"Women tend to think stuff to death, where a guy may only be thinking what he wants for lunch."
And then slightly later in your post
"I remember as a teen thinking a guy liked me, put myself forward, and it turned out it simply hadn't occurred to him yet."
and
"While it might be seem like a great idea on the outset, tell him how you feel, so forth, it is a lot safer for the heart if you wait, give it time, give HIM time. Wouldn't you prefer your daughter go into her marriage without a gazillion scars on her heart from putting herself forward too quickly?"
Ok. So, what you've said here is that women think things to death, and men don't. Because the contrast is men thinking about lunch. Well, in my experience, its equally likely men are worrying stuff to death, and the woman is thinking about what dress she's going to buy.
You've also said that you had an experience where a guy hadn't thought about it yet. Well, surprise surprise, this has happened to me. Last time I checked, I'm male... and I put myself out on the line in order to find out that the girl I was asking on a date hadn't thought about me in that way. It HAPPENS. Both to men and women.
And then the final blow is the distinction of DAUGHTER! As if men can't get scars. What about sons? Do we want THEM going into marriages with scars? Is this somehow preferable?
When you put your post together, Jeni, it sounds an awful lot like you're concerned about your daughter's emotional well being... which is GOOD! More parents need to be aware of their children's emotional state. The problem is CHILDREN. You seem to think that a guy putting himself on the line isn't going to be emotionally scared (at least not to the same degree) as a girl. Why do you think this? I mean, are we somehow less immune to crushes? Are we less devastated when women we think we love don't even notice us? Do we not sweat to make relationships WORK after we've put our hearts on the line?
My lord, Jeni. look at what you've written! I KNOW you're an intelligent, compassionate woman! But all the sudden, I've found this side of you that thinks men aren't susceptible to emotional damage the way women are. Thats the stereotype that plays out on sitcomes! Its not what I expect to hear from the enlightened people who post on hatrack, the people who should realize that men have feelings, get hurt, and don't necessarily rebound quickly. Sure, we're EXPECTED to. We're expected to have no emotional sensitivity... I mean, you're displaying that attitude! And THEN, to make it WORSE, we're bombarded by a media environment where women are always complaining about how their boyfriends aren't emotionally sensitive... but at the same time, if we DO display emotional sensitivity, those same women won't DATE us.
Grumble.
I'm not trying to compare you to Hitler, Jeni. I'm trying to explain what sort of remark gets me into this state of high dudgeon. The fact that an intelligent woman thinks so little of male emotional sensitivity when compared to female emotional states seriously compromises my belief that men and women can love each other as equals. How do I know that a woman I fall in love with won't hold my emotional states in as low regard as you hold male emotional reactions, even if its well hidden?
I don't expect men and women to be identical. What I do expect is to have women treat male emotions with respect, recognize that we are equally capable of being emotionally damaged as women are, and recognize that, while we may not worry about the exact same things women do, we do worry. A lot. And often about women. OUr intellectual state is not limited to "Whats for lunch" or "How can I make my client happy?" A lot of worrying is "Why was she snippy with me just now?" "How can I make her happier?" "Why didn't she laugh at that joke?" "Am I good enough for her?" Or along the lines of "I'm moving in two days. Is everything packed?" "What if something goes wrong?" "How's my mother doing? Am I wrong about our relationship?" "Maybe school is still something I can't handle. I hope I don't run into the same problems I did 4 years ago." "Am I healthy?"
I'm sorry I'm reacting this way... but, I've never had such a blow to my idea that men and women can respect each other as equals. Not equals as in men are the same as womenwomen, but as in having the same intrinsic worth.
Please, jeni, please... take a long hard look at what you wrote, and what it means... and try to figure out if thats really what you believe.
This is the longest post I've written in hatrack in maybe two years. I hope that indicates how important this is...
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not trying to pick sides or anything here, I just wanted to say that while Paul may be incorrect about what jeniwren's opinions are, it is a mistake that would have been very easily made from her post in Godric's thread. I thought exactly the same thing when I read her post. This may or may not be what she actually thinks, but if it's not, then it is certainly misleading.
Paul, in answer to your first post, I don't think that this is the predominant attitude of women. I certainly hope not. Posts: 1111 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, would you consider it disrespectful if I were to say I find it charming that the communist is the big romantic of the board?
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What was the purpose of saying that, Deirdre? That you find it odd that a communist can be a romantic? How is Paul being a romantic, anyway? Please elaborate.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmm, though it isn't accurate in *every* situation, in my own life i have found that even when both parties are interested it is often the girl that is more quick of heart. in other words, she realizes how much she likes the guy, and why. she doesn't care more deeply than the guy, she just realizes how much slightly sooner.
in other words, i take both your sides! haahaha, i think what jeni is really trying to say is to teach patience. but i also agree with you, paul, that boys and men are just as susceptible to emotional scarring. sometimes it just manifests itself in different ways.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't find it odd or surprising at all. Quite the reverse.
I find it charming because it's so contrary to the stereotype and so typical of the reality...in my experience, anyway.
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pod, I didn't mean to imply he was the only communist on the board. That's just how he was introduced to me.
To all the other communists on the board, I offer my humble appologies. I'll try to pay more attention to you in the future.
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
You've never heard communists referred to as romantics?
Perhaps you're under a misconception then. Marxist communism is one of the most idealistic and romantic socio-political ideas of the 19th & 20th centuries.
Stalinist and Maoist communism are the cut-throat psychopathic reality in which millions died. Marx however, has never been attached to reality.
Hence, why they're idealists and romantics.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While Paul's reaction might have been a little jolting, I find that I completely agree with his sentiments.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul - it's also a bit naive to think that these roles are stereotypes without reason.
I do think it's sexist and demeaning to suggest that all men are mindless drones led about by their genitals. But you know what? A lot of them are. Not all of them, not even most of them, but easily more than enough to become a stereotype. There were certainly plenty of these guys around when I was growing up. I know, because they got all the girls I wanted, the same girls who would be my best friend and talk to me and despair over how the guys would never talk to them, while completely oblivious to the fact that the guy who would talk to them (me) wasn't of any interest to them whatsoever.
I've read the column floating around the Internet about the difference between men and women in how they think about relationships (it's by Dave Barry, by the way, katherina, but it's become so wide-spread it's assumed to be anonymous) and I laughed at it because I knew this guy. He was my friend in school, he was the guy dating my female friends, he was the guy I worked with. He's out there, and there's a lot of him.
I don't agree that women should be followers, but I accept that some will be. I don't like the fact that some guys are thick-headed, egocentric, and driven by their next sexual conquest, but many are and my annoyance won't change it. What I can do is to challenge it wherever I see it. Saying "guys aren't like that" isn't enough, because many of them are and nearly every women knows it. Better to say "not all guys are like that" and prove it to be true.
Related story: a long time ago I was talking to my best friend's girlfriend. She was a bit flighty and we'd never really gotten along, but she was studying child psychology and we got into a conversation on it. Turned out she was fascinated by Maslow's self-actualization theories and how they could be applied towards child therapy, and we got more and more into it until I could actually see her realize, abruptly, that she was talking about something intellectual. Something behind her eyes faded, and she slumped a bit and said "But I wouldn't know anything about that." A second before we had been heatedly debating, and loving it, and now she was a bubblehead again. I told my friend about it, and he said she got it from her mom, who turned her brain on and off depending on who was around. Now that's depressing.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris- Perhaps you're right. In fact, I know a lot of guys who are all about the next conquest, so I know you are right. But acting on the assumption that all men are like that, and on the assumption all women can't handle asking a guy out and being rejected is exactly the reason that more men don't acknowledge their emotional side, and more women don't have the self-confidence to be assertive.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright chris, then what's the polite way to say "if you think that all men are simple-minded unobservant twits, then i'm sorry for the fact that your world is so small that you see no counter examples to stereo-typing all males as such."
because that basically sums up my feelings on the subject. Since neither gender seems to lack idiots, it in fact seems blindingly obvious that the arbitrarily selected qualities reinforced by sexual stereo-typing really has absolutely nothing to do with human sexual dimorphism, as guys don't have a monopoly on stupid nor are they the sole keepers of running one's life around sex, and with such blatant counter-examples in life, in socio-biology, psychology, and even the media, it just irks me that people retreat to such caricatures of humanity.
These things have little to nothing to do with a person's sex. And if people have a problem with the gender roles seen in society, retreating to stilted stereotypes is in essence simply feeding the cycle of gender discrimination.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
While it's been claimed that guys are unobservant or whatever, nobody's yet explicitly claimed that girls aren't those things. However, the lack of such a mention thus summons for me at least the implication that females aren't. And since i think the problems that people always bring up when talking about how guys are like this, or girls are like that, aren't really problems derived from the sex or gender of a person, referencing that a person's actions are due to the fact that their male or female seems at best, misguided, and at worst, stereotyping.
Really, in the end, this is my problem with such discussions. It does a diservice to everyone when such claims are leveled.
[ August 30, 2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Pod ]
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pod - I don't think the stereotypes are arbitrarily selected.
Humans, minus contrary social conditioning, will tend to follow the same patterns. Men will try to mate with as many attractive women as possible. Women will seek the strongest males and strive to make themselves attractive to them, hoping for security and a healthy family.
This is not the way we'd like it to work, and I'm glad to say that for many - most? - people it isn't. I'm not suggesting these are laudable or good, or there aren't plenty of people who don't exhibit these characteristics. But these drives are powerful ones, and understanding them can help us understand our relationships.
Why can't people think clearly and be sexually aroused at the same time? Why are women attracted to jerks? Why do so many men want sex without commitment? Why do so many people completely freak out when they contemplate a man acting feminine, but lesbians are okay? Why do so many men feel threatened if their wives/girlfriends make more money than they do? Why is male impotence, an extremely common occurance with many different reasons, seen as such a calamity? Why were women kept subservient, even property, for so long?
Over the years I've had a lot of female friends talk to me about how to interpret what their boyfriends are thinking and saying and what it means about their relationship. I have never, never, had a male friend ask me the opposite question. Entirely possible it's a statistical fluke, but it's been my experience.
Go up to a hundred guys and ask them to tell you about their last date. I'll bet that they'll give you specific physical descriptions - where they went, what they saw, what it cost, if they got lucky. Ask 100 women about their last date, and you'll very likely hear a lot about where they went, and what was said, and how they felt about the guy afterwards. There will be plenty of variation of course, but the majority will fall along stereotypical lines, like it or not.
People are ruled by their animal side more often that they'd admit, and more often than I'd like to see (I include myself in that statement). Refusing to acknowledge it doesn't do much to change the situation.
You've never met guys who literally couldn't understand why forgetting a planned date with their wife was such a bad thing, or why bringing flowers after their wives asked for them isn't the same as bringing them as a surprise? You've never met a woman who went on one date and was already thinking of what to name their future children? You've never seen a guy threatened by his wife making more money, despite the stupidity of that opinion? You've never had female friends who spend hours overanalyzing every second of a date with each other, or guys who brag about their sex life?
I'm trying to get away from "people are never like this, stop reinforcing the stereotypes," to "yeah, a lot of people are like this, how can we change that?"
The polite thing is not to say that all men are simple-minded unobservant idiots (or even that women are overly-observant neurotics) but to teach your children not to date the ones that are. With luck and dedication, we can breed them out of existence
Another of the many, many reasons I come back here so often is because there are very few stereotypical people in Hatrack.
[ August 30, 2003, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In looking at one point of what Jeniwren said in Godric's post:
quote: I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with the God made guys to be leaders thing, but I think it's important to let guys *think* that God made them to be leaders. It makes them feel better when it turns out they're not as smart as we are.
I have to think that Jeniwren sees men as having all the power and that women, in order to come out as equals or winners, has to do it by ruse. How unfortunate that this is percieved to be the case. I know that men have more power than women, in general, but I also know that in order to be truly equal, we (women) must be willing to stick our respective necks out and take the lead and not make it look like it is really the man, or men who have this plan, or idea.
Paul, I find it unfortunate also, that you have taken umbrage to the statements rather than try to understand the perspective of what Jeniwren is saying. For her, it appears to be the rules as she understands it for her and her daughters to be successful and to achieve whatever her goals are for herself and for her daughters.
Back in the dark ages, I studied engineering in college (even got my degree ) and had the devil of a time finding a job because of my sex. It was pretty much male dominated. I eventually succeeded and have been, not counting the occassional lay off, gainfully employed ever since. In the past, in order to stay employed, I've had to subordinate my ideas to my boss's ideas, and to his boss's and so on up the corporate ladder. Now it happens, that until recently, my bosses have been male, but that is changing, to the extent that you are seeing more female CEO's. It is my opinion and hope that moving forward, it will be less and less necessary for women to subordinate their intelligence to the men, and the men will be freer to behave normally and not feel threatened by women.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm trying to get away from "people are never like this, stop reinforcing the stereotypes," to "yeah, a lot of people are like this, how can we change that?"
My point was partially the latter, and partially the former. It's not that people are never like that (thats not true), and people definitely reinforce stereotypes, my point was, that instead of reinforcing stereotypes as a reaction to people behaving in ways that are crappy, we should be saying "how can we change that?"
So, i in large part, agree with you.
(as for socital things, i do think they're arbitrary after a fashion. I think several qualities about socitally enforced roles were selected upon for utitility, however there are definitely social things in the world which are metaphorically speaking, strictly vestigal or otherwise useless noise in the mechanism of human socio-biology/economics.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, I'd like to oblige you, but I'm in danger of breaking my first rule of being on online: taking it much too personally. This thread has come about as close to hurting my feelings as I'm willing let happen. Until I can be a little more detached, I'm going to have to step away. I will print out what you've written and read it a couple more times, and then reply at some later time.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pod: fair enough. I suspect we agree, we're probably coming at this from different directions (and with different personal pet peeves ).
Paul: If I'm reading you correctly, you're upset that jeniwren is teaching her daughters how to deal with ignorant guys in such a way as to suggest that all guys are like that, which you see as reinforcing a negative and nonrepresentative stereotype. Personally, as long as Jeniwren's daughters also understand that not all guys are like that and to look for guys that aren't, I think it's probably a wise move. Enough guys are like that for women to need to know how to handle them, both in the dating scene and in the workforce. There are, in fact, many guys who cannot accept or appreciate a woman smarter than themselves, and they always seem to be in positions of management. Come to think of it, there are a lot of guys who cannot accept or appreciate anyone smarter than themselves. I've had to let quite a few bosses think they were smarter than me in the past in order to get my needs met.
If that was the sum total of her advice on guys, which I highly doubt, then I'd join you in strongly disagreeing with her. I might not make a whole separate topic for it it, though...
My apologies if I've misrepresented either of you.
[ August 31, 2003, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with the God made guys to be leaders thing, but I think it's important to let guys *think* that God made them to be leaders. It makes them feel better when it turns out they're not as smart as we are.
jeni, did you really mean that? Were you just being sarcastic? I'm only reading the quote so I can't really read the context from which the quote was taken. Which makes me have to ask, is that really how you feel about men?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, she's already said she didn't (and there was one of these: after it). So I don't know about the first part, but the second was a joke.
[EDIT: Actually it was one of these: , but same thing. ]
Personally I agree with Paul and Pod (and Chris) on this, but not on the scale of the reaction. Or rather I agree with the scale of the reaction based on what some people thought Jeniwren said, but not towards what Jeniwren actually said. I'm sick of people assuming that all I want is sex and that I don't think anything through or care about anyone else. And I'm way too much of a coward to ask anyone out...well not anyone but it takes me forever to do it (and I've only done it once).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) and had the devil of a time finding a job because of my sex. It was pretty much male dominated. I eventually succeeded and have been, not counting the occassional lay off, gainfully employed ever since. In the past, in order to stay employed, I've had to subordinate my ideas to my boss's ideas, and to his boss's and so on up the corporate ladder. Now it happens, that until recently, my bosses have been male, but that is changing, to the extent that you are seeing more female CEO's. It is my opinion and hope that moving forward, it will be less and less necessary for women to subordinate their intelligence to the men, and the men will be freer to behave normally and not feel threatened by women.
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
after it). So I don't know about the first part, but the second was a joke.![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
, but same thing. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
