Phasmal said:
I wonder how much of it is down to how we train men to see relationships with women in their life.
It's an interesting question. One that would be sort of hard to study. But it'd probably be worth it. One of the dangerous tipping points in generalisations is when we go from "X does Y" to "X does why because it's in their nature." Hell, being trans, I grew up adopting male behaviour solely for fear for my safety if I did not. Which leads me to some awkward questions about my own identity. Would I still like what I like if I was allowed to develop freely, without direct fear (and soemtimes acts) of violence? Would I still be....Well, me?
Is it nature? Nurture? Something in between? I'm inclined to believe it's largely nurture, though I wouldn't preclude some help from nature. But I'm not an expert in the field, and my studies would probably violate ethical grounds if I was.
...I'm not a mad scientist.
We do enforce it at the very least. Every time there's a notable rape in the news (One that gets national attention, that is), people start floating around those images that say something to the effect of "dressing like (a certain way) and expecting men not to rape you is like expecting (insert potentially dangerous animal here) not to (insert something violent and possibly lethal here) you." And the idea seems to be fairly common, that wanting sex (whether the other person is willing or not) is a base, animalistic portion of the male condition. That's ignoring the fact that it oversimplifies rape as well. I mean, it's not like only "hot" women in "slutty" clothes get raped. Or there's any pattern we've found. Or like rape is just about being horny. But the animal comparison....And especially the notion that a tight dress is akin to, say, chumming the waters around sharks....
I also think a lot of people exaggerate it.
Possible. I wonder, though, given how candid people are to me. I don't know what it is about me that makes people think I'm okay to be frank with, but they're really lucky I'm not into blackmail.
This is something I've noticed too. Seems like there's always a low level of `dem ebil feminists` etc.. but when it intensifies, things get... weird.
But I am an evil feminist myself, so I could just be biased.
Well, I can't help, also being one of them evil feminists. Since we're both part of the feminist collective, our hivemind uplink has likely skewed our perception in the same fashion. Which reminds me, I'm late for my latest datastream.....
Danny Ocean said:
I'm not sure what tone you're reading my words in, but I was just trying to be nice and have a conversation with you. There's no need for this hostility. Do you talk to people like this face-to-face?
Dude, you just pulled a "sure, whatever," I don't know what grounds on which you're trying to pull the "no need for hostility" card. Do YOU talk to people like that face-to-face?
Further, I find it difficult to have a "nice" conversation with people who approach me in bad faith or lie to me. And yes, I am like that face-to-face. But then, I'm not sure how addressing the inaccuracy of your statements is "hostility." That's not being "nice."
So don't lie to me and then complain that I'm being hostile. Especially if you're going to make (and then edit) hostile replies. That's hypocritical.
Cloned31 said:
What you're suggesting is that men aren't allowed to say that their problems are part of the social construct because they made the damn thing in the first place?
Go back and re-read it. I said quite the opposite, in fact.
Look, I understand that men can change that because they are in power but it doesn't change the ineffable truth that we teach men and boys to be hyper masculine
Pardon me for cutting you off, but you don't seem to be punctuating so I have to guess the end of your thoughts. That looked like four sentences.
Anyway, yes. Men teach boys to be "hyper-masculine." It's "ineffable" that men are ultimately responsible for that, then.
So you're agreeing with me? Because despite arguing against the point you claim I'm making, you seem to be in accordance that the men are the ones doing this to men.
"We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity becomes this small hard cage, and we put boys inside the cage. We teach boys to be afraid of fear. We teach boys to be afraid of weakness, of vulnerability...We do a much greater disservice to girls, because we raise them to cater to the fragile egos of men. We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to girls: ?You can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful, otherwise you will threaten the man. If you are the breadwinner in your relationship with a man, you have to pretend that you?re not, especially in public otherwise you will ?emasculate? him." ~ Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
And again, allow me to restate:
If only men were in a position to do something about this.
Now, before we get into more silliness where you claim the opposite of my position, I've already said in this thread that the fact that men are doing it to men does not make it right. It does, however, make men ultimately responsible.
It feels like there is too many people that feel they need to devalue Men struggle or Women's struggles.
That's nice, but hardly relevant to addressing me. You could be talking about the issue of starving children in Africa for all the weight this has.
However, if we are going to get anywhere we need to stop assuming there are different teams; Men and Women.
I agree with your platitude. However, since you're going to bang this battle drum, allow me to point out that both men and women are largely wronged by the same group: men. That's not playing teams, that's addressing the perpetrator. If you get beat up on the playground, nobody starts telling you you shouldn't pick sides between bully and victim.
Maybe if we can both help each other out and stop pointing fingers at men or women.
I wasn't aware that saying men have the ultimate power to do something here was pointing fingers at men or women. At worst, at absolute worst, it's a statement that maybe men should take some damn responsibility. You're the one playing the victim card here, bro.
And I already know what you are going to say, "You are pointing fingers at Maher. Theres a little bit of hypocrisy there."
I can see my participation is not necessary in this argument. Was the fact that I wasn't going to say any such thing relevant, or should I show myself out?
Also I'd like to add that this is the exact reason why I think it's bullshit that we attack (Oh god) Anita because we really should be attacking the video game companies.
But video game companies aren't the ones pointing out things we don't want to hear about. That, not sexism, is what gains Anita her ire. Anita represents the evil feminists who are going to take all our games away and force us to play politically correct games where strong women in pantsuits emasculate women for fun before we enter re-education camps where men will become women and thank the matriarchy for the privilege
While hyperbolic, that is the issue. People attacking her are largely bothered by addressing the elephant in the room, not addressing the elephant in the room. And for people fine with that precarious pachyderm, they have absolutely no reason to go after video game companies.
In short: the people who attack Anita aren't attacking her because they want women in video games or women in the community to be treated better. In fact, they rarely go after her for things she actually says.
...Which should sort of make you pause at this point.
