Thread: Men and Women Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028899
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
Very generally, and based on western culture, who has it easier today, male or female? I still say male, though less so than in my youth (1970s). Main reason, a man is still seen as more authoritative and more listened to than an equivalent woman. Thoughts, discussion please. Can we lay off gender politics or feminist argument and language.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I suspect that last sentence may be a sticking point.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
If you want to discuss privilege at the level of an entire gender what other language is available other than gender politics?
[ 20. February 2015, 08:21: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I suspect that last sentence may be a sticking point.
Yes that did rather read as: I want to know your opinion. Please don't explain your opinion. Especially not using any words associated with arguing that men have had it better.
Are we just running a poll here? I choose M.
[ 20. February 2015, 08:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
If I had to be a man to "have it easier" I would rather have it harder.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
If I had to be a man to "have it easier" I would rather have it harder.
Men are disgusting creatures. Take it from a man. If you knew half the things we did...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Discuss gender without going into gender politics? Hmm, this is certainly a tough one. Well, men tend to have hairier legs, don't they?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Very generally, and based on western culture, who has it easier today, male or female? I still say male, though less so than in my youth (1970s). Main reason, a man is still seen as more authoritative and more listened to than an equivalent woman. Thoughts, discussion please. Can we lay off gender politics or feminist argument and language.
I'm intrigued by the notion of an "equivalent woman". What would that be?
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
We had a long conversation in the office yesterday about whether men or women fart more.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
So . . . let's discuss gender politics, but omit the gender politics? Ooookaaaayyy:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Very generally, [men being taller and heavier and tending to die younger than women, leaving women to live for longer periods of time on less money with higher expenses] and based on western culture [which differs in its very general treatment of the sexes from all other cultures very generally in degree but not necessarily in kind], who has it easier today [very generally, please define "easier"], male or female? <<snip>>
Thoughts, discussion please. Can we lay off gender politics or feminist argument and language.
Yeah, men have it easier, especially when they can define and limit the discussion of the relative status of the genders to terms more likely to make them look good.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I posted this as first response, and then chickened out - partly because I hadn't quite got the metaphor working properly.
Very generally, and based on southern UK conditions, is the winter weather easier today? I say yes, it's more so than in my youth (1960s). Main reason, there's far fewer winters with deep snow cutting off rural communities. Thoughts, discussion please. Can we lay off climate politics or change supporter argument and language.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
Porridge, I'm actually a woman, and the wrong side of 55 at that, and limited education so pretty invisible.
Apologies. I was trying to establish which gender is believed to have it easier, if either, not whether this is right.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Tulfes--
It was that last sentence that was the problem. Sounded like maybe you were a guy who didn't care what women thought, and so forbade us using feminist terms.
Could you maybe start again? Maybe tell us what you remember of this from the '70s??
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Porridge, I'm actually a woman, and the wrong side of 55 at that, and limited education so pretty invisible.
Apologies. I was trying to establish which gender is believed to have it easier, if either, not whether this is right.
Hang on a minute, you wanted a discussion. If you want a discussion how can it be done without reference to gender politics or gender or, for that matter, politics?
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
Thanks GK.
I grew up (born 1957) believing my brothers to be destined to have a "better" life, in terms of career, social status, general opportunities to explore the world etc than me. These beliefs were deeply ingrained in my psyche.
From the perspective of age 57, I don't believe men have itt "easier"overall. I think gender politics and feminism do not aid the discussion in helping men and women both to reach their potential. They tend to polarise discussion.
Sorry, I don't have the education of most folks on here but would be interested in replies which don't take the pisss.
Re western culture, I wasnt meaning to be western-centic, just that most westerners can't speak for other cultures.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Porridge, I'm actually a woman, and the wrong side of 55 at that, and limited education so pretty invisible.
Apologies. I was trying to establish which gender is believed to have it easier, if either, not whether this is right.
First, there's no shortage of women who wholeheartedly subscribe to and endorse prevailing societal norms, whether or not these happen to be sexist. I'm female, too, but we are all products, to some degree, of our culture(s) as well as of our experience.
Second, I'd venture to suggest that men generally and women generally have broadly different experience, based not simply on acculturation, but also on simple biology. Western women generally experience menses (I've read that women in third-world &/or technologically primitive cultures spend more of their lives pregnant & lactating (and die younger), & hence have little experience with menses); men do not have this experience at all, with all that it entails -- planning for it by securing supplies for it, keeping track of it, dealing with it, etc.
While some proportion of Western women do not experience pregnancy and childbirth, most do; men do not.
I frankly am at a loss as to how to compare such very different life experiences and determine which experience-set is "easier," especially when I don't understand what "easier" means in this context.
Lastly, I personally find it difficult to examine or discuss almost any phenomenon "in general." Perhaps this is a significant failing on my part, but to me, any "devils" that may be lurking in the wings almost always come firmly attached to details.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
Hi Porridge. You're previous post assumed I was male. I wasn't seeking to imply that so called sexist attitudes are only held by one gender.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I frankly am at a loss as to how to compare such very different life experiences and determine which experience-set is "easier," especially when I don't understand what "easier" means in this context.
I think it's hard to dispute the fact that a typical western woman will still have a harder time establishing herself as a leader in many careers than a similar man. It's better than it was, but the bias hasn't gone away.
On the other hand, I think it's harder for a man to take on primary childcare responsibilities than the equivalent woman. We have a couple of male shipmates who have taken on the traditional "stay-at-home mom" role while their wives have worked outside the home. They'd be better placed to comment than me, but I also know a couple of guys in real life who have been at-home dads, and there has been both a societal expectation that there must be something wrong with them for doing the woman's job, and also mother-and-baby groups not wanting some random guy to show up. Again, it's getting better.
Given than there are many traditionally male environments and fewer traditionally female ones, it's on average easier for men.
I agree with Porridge about the difficulties of comparing very different sets of life choices/experiences and asking which is easier. It's rather like the equal pay calculations that try to rank some job mostly done by men as "equivalent" to some different job mostly done by women, only much harder.
Is it "easier" to be a driving instructor or a plumber? That rather depends on the skills that you have - some individuals would find one or the other easier. "Easier" as a whole is hard to define.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
On the issue of "easier".
In ALL western societies (not the case, I believe, in eastern cultures, or most of them) male suicide rates are significantly (at least double) the female rate. Arguably this may reflect higher rates of mental illness, or untreated mental illness, in the male population . But it may also reflect a greater propensity on the part of the western make to check out of life. This does not support the contention that life (in general) is easier for the male than the female in western society.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
This does not support the contention that life (in general) is easier for the male than the female in western society.
Suicides are long tails. Using rare events like suicides to try to infer something about the bulk of the population from which those suicides come is problematic.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
This does not support the contention that life (in general) is easier for the male than the female in western society.
Actually, I would argue that it supports the contention that society tells males they're supposed to have a fantastic life, and that this makes the disappointments of an individual less-than-fantastic life harder to bear.
I'm painting with a very broad brush here (which is really how the thread is set up), but essentially, a man in a bad situation might feel he has failed as a man when a women in a similar situation might feel that this is a woman's lot in life.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
It's still a mans world.
If it were not so then tampons and sanitary towels would not be taxed as a luxury item.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
This does not support the contention that life (in general) is easier for the male than the female in western society.
Actually, I would argue that it supports the contention that society tells males they're supposed to have a fantastic life, and that this makes the disappointments of an individual less-than-fantastic life harder to bear.
I'm painting with a very broad brush here (which is really how the thread is set up), but essentially, a man in a bad situation might feel he has failed as a man when a women in a similar situation might feel that this is a woman's lot in life.
I was thinking about that today. I've worked with a few men who retired, and they basically seemed to drop dead from the shock. Something about now being useless, since they're not working, and work gives you value above all things.
But I would not generalize from this about men and women overall - I don't have the knowledge to do that.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
I wouldn't generalise about these things Q. My father enjoyed 30 years of happy life after leaving the workforce before death got him.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
I wouldn't generalise about these things Q. My father enjoyed 30 years of happy life after leaving the workforce before death got him.
Yes, funny you should say that, did you notice that bit where I said 'I would not generalize about this'? Bit of a coincidence, eh?
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
I wouldn't generalise about these things Q. My father enjoyed 30 years of happy life after leaving the workforce before death got him.
Yes, funny you should say that, did you notice that bit where I said 'I would not generalize about this'? Bit of a coincidence, eh?
No, I'm a stupid women. I wouldn't generalise from my example that all women are stupid, though. I just don't know all women.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I think the question is hard to answer because in many ways it's comparing apples w/ oranges, because the spheres where women are disadvantaged are different from the spheres where men are disadvantaged.
off the top of my head (not taking time to check these out-- just going by what I believe studies will show-- someone with the inclination to do the research may find I'm incorrect)
in terms of workplace, for the most part women are disadvantaged over men in a variety of measurable ways. (eg: I mentioned a study on the "offenderati" thread showing female professors are routinely ranked lower by students even before they say anything-- they have less "positional authority" and have to earn respect, whereas male profs are given default authority/respect that is theirs to lose. I've had similar experiences as a female clergyperson). Women are infamously paid less than men, which may be attributed either to unconscious sexism or to women's (perhaps conditioned by society) tendency to accept what is offered rather than asking for what they want. And yet, occasionally it works the other way-- I've had some workplace advantages when a univ. was making an attempt to increase faculty diversity, leading to more hiring of women.
Similarly, in the homefront, women tend to take on more household/ parenting responsibility than men (although the gap is closing)-- again, for a variety of reasons. But men appear to me to have fewer socially-approved choices in the work/home divide. Both are subject to lots of second guessing/criticism re their choices in how they manage that balance, but it seems like it plays out in different ways.
In the US, joint custody is the norm following a divorce, but women tend to get the majority of time with kids even with that divide. Women usually end up lowering their standard of living following a divorce, men usually find their financial situation improved.
In terms of health, women of course live longer, but are far more likely to live in poverty than men. Men are more likely to be the victims of random violence, women more likely to be the victims of domestic violence.
These are all such disparate sorts of advantages/ disadvantages, it's hard to say which is better or worse. Probably the pain/suffering you personally are experiencing is the worst.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Yeah, I am not at all hesitant to say men have it easier as a group. No, it is not a clean comparison, few things are. But in aggregate, it is still more difficult for women.
BTW, I would add myself to the list of those frustrated by the limitations set in the OP.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Do women always feel some sort of risk from men? My discussions with many lead me to believe that this is a substantial difference between men and women. Whereas I think nothing of walking in the dark many blocks to get somewhere, many women seem to hesitate when I wouldn't. I would like to understand if this perception of risk is actually common, or is filtered through my perception.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do women always feel some sort of risk from men? My discussions with many lead me to believe that this is a substantial difference between men and women. Whereas I think nothing of walking in the dark many blocks to get somewhere, many women seem to hesitate when I wouldn't. I would like to understand if this perception of risk is actually common, or is filtered through my perception.
Speaking for myself: yes. And that certainly impacts quality of life issues.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do women always feel some sort of risk from men? My discussions with many lead me to believe that this is a substantial difference between men and women. Whereas I think nothing of walking in the dark many blocks to get somewhere, many women seem to hesitate when I wouldn't. I would like to understand if this perception of risk is actually common, or is filtered through my perception.
Speaking for myself, no, but it does depend on time, place, and the behaviour of anyone in view. I suppose, however, that I do do a sort of risk probability assessment as I travel around, but it's very minor, and mostly unconscious. It will flag up the odd footsteps, or the taxi parked at 2am in an odd place, or the face that's always the same distance away and always looking at me, but I don't go round looking or listening for those things.
I have a male friend who does the same sort of thing since he got jumped by a mugger on the western borders of Dulwich (for those who don't know, this is a supposedly posh part of South London). He had noticed the guy following him, and thought that it would'nt be good to let the man think he had been listening to the Met chief constable that week about the prevalence of black muggers, so carried on his way until grabbed. The ensuing struggle ended when a nice black woman got out of a taxi and shouted, and the mugger ran off.
So now there isn't much difference between this female and the nearest male she knows about.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
On the safety tangent, I must confess that on a personal level I've never entirely got the "It's alright for you, you're a bloke, you can walk wherever you want whenever you want without fear" thing.
As in, I get it in theory. Further, I have always, and I hope always will, "walked home" (or drive, often, these days) female friends when they would otherwise be going home alone. Partly out of some good old-fashioned [sexism]|[politeness], and partly because I do get that women are not as 'safe' as men, in general, especially at night, and the consequences of attack are potentially very different.
But ... by the same token, I have never, ever walked anywhere by myself, or even in a small group, without being aware of the surroundings, of hiding places, of other people, of noises, of the potential for the unwanted. Tonight I'll be doing Street Pastors in an essentially nice town. But on the way there, and on the way back, I'll be attuned to the various potential threats to myself, and I'm a 6'4" fairly heavyset weirdy beardy bloke. Maybe I'm just nesh.
All of that said: on balance, in the bigger picture, I would say that yes, men do still have it easier than women. Maybe not everywhere, and maybe the playing field is levelling in a number of areas which is what can provoke some of the "not all men" kind of reactions, but for the General Person in the General Case, yeah, it seems a whole bunch easier to be a boy, even if we bitch about it sometimes.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Not nesh at all--there are such things as knives, guns...
In my experience (and I've done a few ibformal polls, mostly in university classrooms), most men (not all) show less watchfulness on average in situations like walking alone after dark, going into an alley, etc. compared to most women. There are individual exceptions to anything, of course. But when we've done the handraising thing in my classrooms, almost all of the women raise their hands when asked "Do you routinely park under a light... carry your keys pointy edge outward through your fingers... pay attention to footsteps behind you... avoid getting on an elevator with a single male stranger?" And most of the men (hey, they're mostly under 30) look at their classmates as if they've suddenly grown two heads. Nice guys, all of them. Just not brought up to be aware of dangers like the women are.
I think for a lot of men it takes an attack to change their usual level of awareness. That, or a new vulnerability, like a disability, old age, or being suddenly landed with a little child to shepherd and protect.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Discuss gender without going into gender politics? Hmm, this is certainly a tough one. Well, men tend to have hairier legs, don't they?
But hardly any of us shave them.
However our chin stubble is really tough.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
To return briefly to the suicide stats: I've read that, beginning with conception, males outnumber females. By old age, though, females outnumber males.
Some 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. But boys succumb more readily to disease in infancy.
Boys still outnumber girls in pubescence. But in adolescence, boys take more risks, are more accident-prone, etc.
An old book, The Hazards of Being Male (I don't recall the author), suggests that being male takes a greater emotional toll on guys than being female takes on gals. Men are more socially restricted in when and how and to what extent they're permitted emotional expression, especially anger, especially toward women. Whether any of this holds actual scientific water (then or now), I have no idea. But I seem to recall a Presidential candidate losing his chance because he was seen to cry.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Main reason, a man is still seen as more authoritative and more listened to than an equivalent woman.
Oh, yeah? Come hang out in my home a while with me and the Mrs.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
We had a long conversation in the office yesterday about whether men or women fart more.
I'd suspect it would be about the same but men consider it a skill.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Main reason, a man is still seen as more authoritative and more listened to than an equivalent woman.
Oh, yeah? Come hang out in my home a while with me and the Mrs.
Cute. But the reality I've experienced in academia and in the pastorate is not nearly so funny.
Just one example: visiting elderly parishioner in hospital. She sighs and tells me how much she appreciates my taking the time to visit her, then complains (to my face) that she has received no pastoral visit.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Additional anecdotal evidence and some quantitative research available upon request.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
Interesting insight, cliffdweller. I'd be interested in hearing more anecdotal evidence from the pastorate or any other occupation.
Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on
:
Unless it's a traditionally male or traditionally female environment reluctant to change, then the minority gender in an environment tends to be noticed more and as a result carries greater influence.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Unless it's a traditionally male or traditionally female environment reluctant to change, then the minority gender in an environment tends to be noticed more and as a result carries greater influence.
I would say the reverse is true. The majority gender* is the one that fits the mental picture of the career professional-- they "look like" a doctor or a nurse or a professor or a pastor. That carries with it a great deal positional authority-- a default assumption that benefits the person the moment they walk into the room before they even open their mouth. For the minority gender who doesn't "look like" the career professional they have to earn that respect through what they say or do. It can be done, but they need to prove they deserve that respect rather than being granted it as a function of their position. All this happening on the subconscious level-- few people would actually say "I trust male doctors/ lawyers/ professors more than female" (although curiously they WILL say that about pastors)-- it's more of a subconscious leaning. Which makes it all the more subtle and subversive.
*the same is probably true to some degree of majority/minority racial/ethnic differences.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Again, see my link above to a study that has found this very effect among college professors. While higher ed could be deemed a "traditionally male" work environment, it's definitely not one that is resistant to change-- most universities in the US are eager to demonstrate diversity in faculty hiring. Yet the factor I described above- the absence of "positional authority" for female faculty-- has been demonstrated to be a significant factor in lower student ratings for female faculty. Again, it's overcome-able, but comprises an additional hurdle for women that men in the same role do not have to worry about.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, it's overcome-able, but comprises an additional hurdle for women that men in the same role do not have to worry about.
Is there any point in me mentioning the many roles in which the same problem exists but with the sexes reversed? Roles such as teaching, nursing/midwifery, childcare, etc?
Both sexes have to face additional hurdles in some areas of their lives, but for some reason that's only seen as a problem when women are the ones facing them. Which is, in itself, an extra hurdle that men have to face...
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Anecdotal stuff, but I remember being the first woman executive in a church environment. Male visitors routinely handed me sheaves of paper as they walked in, with orders to make photocopies. Usually without a please.
I generally said "Yes, sir" in an ironic tone, and disappeared to do it, leaving my colleagues to explain what asses they had just made of themselves. And in so many ways.
[ 20. February 2015, 22:40: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Suicides are long tails. Using rare events like suicides to try to infer something about the bulk of the population from which those suicides come is problematic.
Ahem. Something that is the main cause of death of men between ages of 20 and 49 is not a 'rare event'.
Link
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, it's overcome-able, but comprises an additional hurdle for women that men in the same role do not have to worry about.
Is there any point in me mentioning the many roles in which the same problem exists but with the sexes reversed? Roles such as teaching, nursing/midwifery, childcare, etc?
Both sexes have to face additional hurdles in some areas of their lives, but for some reason that's only seen as a problem when women are the ones facing them. Which is, in itself, an extra hurdle that men have to face...
Absolutely (I noted that in an earlier post). But it plays out very differently between the two role reversals-- which is why I said in some ways comparing the hurdles for men and women is like comparing apples and oranges-- they're just very different.
And sometimes it works the reverse way. When I was a full-time pastor and my husband was a full-time stay at home dad, my congregants (especially older women) would marvel at his ability to do things they took for granted among women: He takes care of THREE kids PLUS he teaches Sunday School AND read the Scripture text last Sunday!!!! As if he were a fish riding a bicycle. They had zero expectations for him as "pastor's husband"-- basically because he was the first "pastor's husband" they'd ever seen-- so anything at all he accomplished was a miraculous treat. Whereas the spouses of my male colleagues found the unwritten job description for "pastor's wife" to be endless and fraught with all sorts of contradictions and narrow tightropes ("be involved in everything but don't meddle or take over"; "come to every function and volunteer for every task but don't neglect your children"...)
[ 20. February 2015, 23:09: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
Really interesting observations, cliffdweller. A lot of problems for female pastors and for wife's of male pastors seem to flow from the expectations and gender stereotyping of female church people.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Really interesting observations, cliffdweller. A lot of problems for female pastors and for wife's of male pastors seem to flow from the expectations and gender stereotyping of female church people.
I think the stereotypes just play out differently. Male parishioners more often would simply look down on hubby because he didn't have a "real" job (wasn't earning a paycheck). Female parishioners were more likely to value the work he did both at home and volunteering at church, but marveled at seeing a man do something they took for granted among men.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, it's overcome-able, but comprises an additional hurdle for women that men in the same role do not have to worry about.
Is there any point in me mentioning the many roles in which the same problem exists but with the sexes reversed?
Perhaps, if you mention a good example. Instead, you mention subordinate jobs and one that men have traditionally not wanted.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Roles such as teaching,
Yeah, for the little ones. Which sex, I wonder, has traditionally dominated the universities?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
nursing/midwifery,
The lower rungs of the medical system. What, think you, the male/female ratio of doctors has been?
It is changing, but still not equal.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
childcare,
The job that men have traditionally avoided and women had no choice in? Yes, men are often shorted in this area, but that is because they have spent so much effort in defining it as a female job.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
etc?
I'd welcome any etcetera you might have that more effectively illustrates your POV.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Both sexes have to face additional hurdles in some areas of their lives, but for some reason that's only seen as a problem when women are the ones facing them.
Because women face more of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which is, in itself, an extra hurdle that men have to face...
Perhaps they can wipe their tears with the extra banknotes they earn for the same jobs.
If you wish to say it is not all puppies and rainbows for men, I will agree with you. But if you wish to say things, on balance, are equitable....not so much.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Very generally, and based on western culture, who has it easier today, male or female? I still say male, though less so than in my youth (1970s). Main reason, a man is still seen as more authoritative and more listened to than an equivalent woman. Thoughts, discussion please. Can we lay off gender politics or feminist argument and language.
I understand why you would want to lay off the feminist argument and language; it so often creates an in-group (people who have gone to college and taken a/multiple women's studies classes) and an out-group (people who haven't). But I don't generally find it helpful to think in terms of 'who has it easier'? I'm more interested in looking at the challenges people face and the barriers to their success and how those barriers can be removed in a way that's fair to everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do women always feel some sort of risk from men? My discussions with many lead me to believe that this is a substantial difference between men and women. Whereas I think nothing of walking in the dark many blocks to get somewhere, many women seem to hesitate when I wouldn't. I would like to understand if this perception of risk is actually common, or is filtered through my perception.
Speaking for myself, no, but it does depend on time, place, and the behaviour of anyone in view. I suppose, however, that I do do a sort of risk probability assessment as I travel around, but it's very minor, and mostly unconscious. It will flag up the odd footsteps, or the taxi parked at 2am in an odd place, or the face that's always the same distance away and always looking at me, but I don't go round looking or listening for those things.
Same here. I think I may feel a bit more threatened than most of the men I know when one of those things happens since I have less ability to physically defend myself should it be necessary. But there's not a significant difference between how my male friends act and how I act. And being in the US even feeling more threatened is probably unjustified as a lot of random crime is going to involve a weapon.
And in general, no, I don't always feel some kind of risk from men. I'm frequently wary of men I don't particularly know until I get a sense of their temper and worldviews, but I don't think that's the same thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In my experience (and I've done a few ibformal polls, mostly in university classrooms), most men (not all) show less watchfulness on average in situations like walking alone after dark, going into an alley, etc. compared to most women. There are individual exceptions to anything, of course. But when we've done the handraising thing in my classrooms, almost all of the women raise their hands when asked "Do you routinely park under a light... carry your keys pointy edge outward through your fingers... pay attention to footsteps behind you... avoid getting on an elevator with a single male stranger?" And most of the men (hey, they're mostly under 30) look at their classmates as if they've suddenly grown two heads. Nice guys, all of them. Just not brought up to be aware of dangers like the women are.
And yet parking under a light, carrying your keys pointy edge outward through your fingers, and avoiding getting on an elevator with a single male stranger aren't signs of watchfulness (which is attempting to spot a threat or danger), they're signs of defensiveness (showing that one is going to fight back and not be easy prey). As such, most of the people I know don't bother with them.
As signs of watchfulness, they're pretty useless, since the majority of sexual assaults (which is generally the danger their paranoid mothers are trying to protect them from) actually come from people the women know. A lot of the others are people breaking in to where you live.
On the street, mostly people point a gun at you in order to get your money. And that happens regardless of gender, if you're in the wrong neighborhood and there's nobody else around.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
childcare,
The job that men have traditionally avoided and women had no choice in? Yes, men are often shorted in this area, but that is because they have spent so much effort in defining it as a female job.
Interestingly, one of my colleagues observed that the fastest way to move a church towards acceptance of women in leadership positions was to begin to include men in the nursery rotation.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But I don't generally find it helpful to think in terms of 'who has it easier'? I'm more interested in looking at the challenges people face and the barriers to their success and how those barriers can be removed in a way that's fair to everyone.
I would see a balanced world for all. But the imbalances must be recognised, talked about, before they can be adjusted.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
childcare,
The job that men have traditionally avoided and women had no choice in? Yes, men are often shorted in this area, but that is because they have spent so much effort in defining it as a female job.
You see, I'm with you pretty much all the way, and then you say something like that.
The men who are 'shorted' in this area are not the ones who define it as a female job. Quite the reverse. And you've probably never felt the quiet antagonism and/or open suspicion from school-gate mothers by being the only bloke who's a full-time carer.
Many men have - talking to my own father - wanted to spend more time with their children but are trapped in long-hour employment and social hostility to men in caring roles. Thankfully, even in the short time since my kids were born, there seems to have been a sea-change in attitudes.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, it's overcome-able, but comprises an additional hurdle for women that men in the same role do not have to worry about.
Is there any point in me mentioning the many roles in which the same problem exists but with the sexes reversed? Roles such as teaching, nursing/midwifery, childcare, etc?
Both sexes have to face additional hurdles in some areas of their lives, but for some reason that's only seen as a problem when women are the ones facing them. Which is, in itself, an extra hurdle that men have to face...
Does anyone else think that the extent to which child-related occupations tend to be "female" creates a lack of role models for boys? Most of the occupations my kids interacted with when they were growing up were done by women; their teachers, librarians, GP, school nurse, dentist, optician, physiotherapist etc were all female. Of course they knew that their father and other male relatives / friends / neighbours had jobs (often very well paid jobs!) but the working world with which they interacted was female.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
childcare,
The job that men have traditionally avoided and women had no choice in? Yes, men are often shorted in this area, but that is because they have spent so much effort in defining it as a female job.
You see, I'm with you pretty much all the way, and then you say something like that.
The men who are 'shorted' in this area are not the ones who define it as a female job. Quite the reverse. And you've probably never felt the quiet antagonism and/or open suspicion from school-gate mothers by being the only bloke who's a full-time carer.
Many men have - talking to my own father - wanted to spend more time with their children but are trapped in long-hour employment and social hostility to men in caring roles. Thankfully, even in the short time since my kids were born, there seems to have been a sea-change in attitudes.
Both perspectives are probably true here.
Since my husband is our kids' prime caretaker and I'm juggling 2 jobs, we have asked the boys' schools to make him their primary contact. We put his email address and cell number as the primary contact. But of course, we have to give mine as well in case of an emergency. So we find that no matter how many times we tell them that, whenever they want to send an email or phone about anything-- from needing volunteers for the next field trip to donating goodies for the bake sale-- it is invariably my email or phone they use. Somehow they can't seem to comprehend even in this day and age that hubby will be the one who to contact.
[ 21. February 2015, 13:44: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Both perspectives are true and Doc Tor's experience in no way contradicts my statement.
Men, as well as women, have fallen victim to the stereotype of women being the better carers.
Women often look suspiciously at males in the carer role.
Neither fact invalidates the initial point. That men, as a group, created the inequity that also happens to cause backlash against individual men. And that it does not create the solid counter example MtM appeared to be aiming for.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
We have to acknowledge, however, that we are living with the legacy of (some) men's past actions and attitudes.
But perhaps I believe I'm less oppressed by a patriarchy defined by their maleness as I do by a patriarchy defined by their class.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ahem. Something that is the main cause of death of men between ages of 20 and 49 is not a 'rare event'.
Yes, it is. Men aged between 20 and 49 dying is a rare event. From your link, there were about 2,000 male deaths from suicide in a year in that age range. There are 22 million men in the UK in that age range. That makes the rate of male suicide one in 10,000.
Drawing conclusions about the bulk of the male population from the behaviour of the 0.01% most suicidal is flawed.
(Suppose that people who commit suicide are the most unhappy, for some definition of happy. The fact that there are more male suicides tells you almost nothing about whether men or women are, on average, happier - it could equally be that men have a greater variation in happiness.)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We have to acknowledge, however, that we are living with the legacy of (some) men's past actions and attitudes.
But perhaps I believe I'm less oppressed by a patriarchy defined by their maleness as I do by a patriarchy defined by their class.
That never all men were tools? Agreed. That it is purely legacy....no.
Privilege is tiered and we more often look up than down.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ahem. Something that is the main cause of death of men between ages of 20 and 49 is not a 'rare event'.
Yes, it is. Men aged between 20 and 49 dying is a rare event. From your link, there were about 2,000 male deaths from suicide in a year in that age range. There are 22 million men in the UK in that age range. That makes the rate of male suicide one in 10,000.
But when you consider that, in the 20-34 age bracket, 26% of the roughly 3500 deaths in one year were due to suicide, it works out at 60 suicides per year per birth-year. Someone entering at age twenty will have 900 deaths in their birth-year cohort alone by the time they reach 34. Moving on to 49 (at almost 90 suicides per year per birth-year), that'll stack up to 2,100 in their birth-year cohort. Dividing 20 million men (aged 15-64) by 50 to give a value of men per birth-year gives (very roughly) 400,000. So, in each birth-year cohort of 400,000, 2100 of men who are 20 will have killed themselves by the time they reach 50. That's 1 in every 190 of them.
To put slightly more briefly, in a room of 200 twenty-year olds, of the seven who are going to die before they're 50, one will have killed themselves.
So yes, I consider that statistically significant.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I think all this can be summed up with-- our society makes it hard for men and women to simply be people, and it uses gambits of power and privelege to do tbat to men, and marginilization to do that to women. But the goal for both is the same-- chronic dissatisfaction that leads to chronic spending. Both sexes are told, in one way or another, that they can never do, be, or have enough.
Therefore, this whole " who has it worse" debate makes me squirm. As the posts above demonstate, even those with " privelege" wind up paying for it somehow. We need to help each other out.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think all this can be summed up with-- our society makes it hard for men and women to simply be people, and it uses gambits of power and privelege to do tbat to men, and marginilization to do that to women. But the goal for both is the same-- chronic dissatisfaction that leads to chronic spending. Both sexes are told, in one way or another, that they can never do, be, or have enough.
Therefore, this whole " who has it worse" debate makes me squirm. As the posts above demonstate, even those with " privelege" wind up paying for it somehow. We need to help each other out.
This.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ahem. Something that is the main cause of death of men between ages of 20 and 49 is not a 'rare event'.
Yes, it is. Men aged between 20 and 49 dying is a rare event. From your link, there were about 2,000 male deaths from suicide in a year in that age range. There are 22 million men in the UK in that age range. That makes the rate of male suicide one in 10,000.
But when you consider that, in the 20-34 age bracket, 26% of the roughly 3500 deaths in one year were due to suicide, it works out at 60 suicides per year per birth-year. Someone entering at age twenty will have 900 deaths in their birth-year cohort alone by the time they reach 34. Moving on to 49 (at almost 90 suicides per year per birth-year), that'll stack up to 2,100 in their birth-year cohort. Dividing 20 million men (aged 15-64) by 50 to give a value of men per birth-year gives (very roughly) 400,000. So, in each birth-year cohort of 400,000, 2100 of men who are 20 will have killed themselves by the time they reach 50. That's 1 in every 190 of them.
To put slightly more briefly, in a room of 200 twenty-year olds, of the seven who are going to die before they're 50, one will have killed themselves.
So yes, I consider that statistically significant.
200 twenty-year olds. At my secondary school in the early 1970s there were about 1,700 boys and girls between 11 and 18. I wonder how many of them committed suicide?
That makes it significant.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And you've probably never felt the quiet antagonism and/or open suspicion from school-gate mothers by being the only bloke who's a full-time carer.
Around here the suspicion sometimes comes in contact with pedophilia hysteria and results in the police being called (this seems especially likely to happen in mixed race families). Apparently we have not come far enough as a society that everyone can imagine that a father might spend an afternoon at the park with his kids without their mother being present.
quote:
Originally posted by lilbuddha:
That men, as a group, created the inequity that also happens to cause backlash against individual men.
What's your evidence that men, as a group, created this situation as opposed to it being the product of the biological realities of a world in which widespread access to reliable birth control is a relatively recent phenomenon?
That society only values that which it rewards with money, and that it monetarily rewards people in direct proportion to how much they are valued is not an idea that everyone accepts.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It seems to me that ordinary men have an ill-defined place in the modern Western world. Yes, powerful men retain their hold on power. But whereas a woman retains her femininity whether she's economically weak or strong, a weak man has fewer and fewer options for holding on to his masculinity.
The indigenous working class in the UK has partly collapsed as an entity because there are so few jobs that less educated men can and want to do that will enable them to support a family. For many women, it makes more sense to rely on the state for funds and support to raise their children than to rely on a man towards the bottom of the pile whose employment options are poor. It's probably easier for the women than men at that level to find jobs. So who needs those men?
But yes, rich, powerful men will almost always be unassailable.
[ 21. February 2015, 16:30: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lilbuddha:
That men, as a group, created the inequity that also happens to cause backlash against individual men.
What's your evidence that men, as a group, created this situation as opposed to it being the product of the biological realities of a world in which widespread access to reliable birth control is a relatively recent phenomenon?
OK. Yes, men being dominate is due to initial conditions. But the birth control thing is partially off-base. Rich women had the option of minimising their participation in the raising of children yet still suffered inequities. And no was always an answer, but it was not considered acceptable. Birth control may have helped the cause, but it didn't start it.
Men had the power early and kept it. Not because they are evil or any more selfish than women, but because of Newton's First Law of Social Dynamics.*
Change is like rolling an irregular rock on flat ground.
-One push isn't enough
-Left alone it will stop.
*unless acted upon by an Outside Influence, Those who have power tend to stay in power and those without power tend to be fucked.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
To put slightly more briefly, in a room of 200 twenty-year olds, of the seven who are going to die before they're 50, one will have killed themselves.
So yes, I consider that statistically significant.
I agree that men are more likely to kill themselves than women. I'm not disputing that in any way.
I am disputing the claim that you can conclude anything much about the happiness of men as a whole based on the behaviour of the 1 in 300 (I got a slightly different number than you, but the difference isn't important) of men who will commit suicide before age 50.
We can safely conclude that the distribution of suicidalness amongst men is different from the distribution of suicidalness amongst women (in particular, there are more men than women in the suicidal tail). We cannot conclude that the average man is less happy than the average woman.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK. Yes, men being dominate is due to initial conditions. But the birth control thing is partially off-base. Rich women had the option of minimising their participation in the raising of children yet still suffered inequities.
Doesn't everyone suffer iniquities (sin, wickedness)?
quote:
And no was always an answer, but it was not considered acceptable. Birth control may have helped the cause, but it didn't start it.
Men had the power early and kept it. Not because they are evil or any more selfish than women, but because of Newton's First Law of Social Dynamics.*
Change is like rolling an irregular rock on flat ground.
-One push isn't enough
-Left alone it will stop.
*unless acted upon by an Outside Influence, Those who have power tend to stay in power and those without power tend to be fucked.
This is so vague and confused that I can't reply. What exactly are you referring to when you refer to "the power"?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
*unless acted upon by an Outside Influence, Those who have power tend to stay in power and those without power tend to be fucked.
So yes. I'd argue that patriarchy was/is a manifestation of class, and that our primary conflict is one of class, not gender.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
*unless acted upon by an Outside Influence, Those who have power tend to stay in power and those without power tend to be fucked.
So yes. I'd argue that patriarchy was/is a manifestation of class, and that our primary conflict is one of class, not gender.
If that were true we wouldn't see inter-class patriarchy, but in fact, we do. Quite a lot, as a matter of fact.
Rather, the prior observation is the one at play here: those with power do not give it up easily. In our society, power has traditionally been held by people who are wealthy, those who are educated, those who are white, those who are beautiful (or tall), and those who are male. So the power dynamic between any two individuals may be a function of more than one of those factors, sometimes inversely. But I would not say that class always trumps gender.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In our society, power has traditionally been held by people who are wealthy,
Class quote:
those who are educated,
Class quote:
those who are white,
UK society was majority white, so that's not an historical indicator. It's more likely to whether you're indigenously British quote:
those who are beautiful (or tall),
Function of diet, and therefore class quote:
and those who are male.
Not class.
quote:
So the power dynamic between any two individuals may be a function of more than one of those factors, sometimes inversely. But I would not say that class always trumps gender.
Not always, I would agree. But I'm struggling to think of a normal situation where a working class man is in a position to tell an upper class women what to do.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
]Not always, I would agree. But I'm struggling to think of a normal situation where a working class man is in a position to tell an upper class women what to do.
I'm struggling to think of a situation where he is not. Pretty much the only situation where an upper class woman would have the upper hand would be when she is able to draw upon some institutional authority-- for example if she is the doctor and the man is her patient, or a female professor with a male student. But that just goes to what I was saying before-- that there is not a single differential (class) but multiple differentials of varying strengths. Positional power is another differential, one that is affected by gender (see my prior link) as well as other factors, but also may trump them.
Although some of our differences in the way we're perceiving this may have to do with cultural differences between US and UK. There are certainly powerful class differentials in the US, but the way they interact with other differentials might be different than in the UK.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
]Not always, I would agree. But I'm struggling to think of a normal situation where a working class man is in a position to tell an upper class women what to do.
I'm struggling to think of a situation where he is not.
Boss - employee
Doctor - patient
Owner - labourer
Teacher - student
Witness - suspect
Rich diner - poor server
I could go on. In almost every social and economic transaction, U has the upper hand over non-U, whether or not U is male or female.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I would not say that class always trumps gender.
Change 'always' to 'usually' and it's a statement I've made frequently.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
]Not always, I would agree. But I'm struggling to think of a normal situation where a working class man is in a position to tell an upper class women what to do.
I'm struggling to think of a situation where he is not.
Boss - employee
Doctor - patient
Owner - labourer
Teacher - student
Witness - suspect
Rich diner - poor server
I could go on. In almost every social and economic transaction, U has the upper hand over non-U, whether or not U is male or female.
But every single one of your examples is an example of positional authority-- the exact differential I went on to describe as trumping gender.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I would not say that class always trumps gender.
Change 'always' to 'usually' and it's a statement I've made frequently.
I'm not sure whether you're saying my statement (the class does NOT trump gender) is the one you state frequently or the reverse (class DOES trump gender). I would agree it was unwise for me to say "always"-- "usually" is more accurate.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not always, I would agree. But I'm struggling to think of a normal situation where a working class man is in a position to tell an upper class women what to do.
I'm struggling to think of a situation where he is not.
An example?
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I would not say that class always trumps gender.
Change 'always' to 'usually' and it's a statement I've made frequently.
I'm not sure whether you're saying my statement (the class does NOT trump gender) is the one you state frequently or the reverse (class DOES trump gender). I would agree it was unwise for me to say "always"-- "usually" is more accurate.
Sorry. I was trying to counter your statement that you would not say something with the fact that I would (and have).
I'm saying that class usually trumps gender.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not always, I would agree. But I'm struggling to think of a normal situation where a working class man is in a position to tell an upper class women what to do.
I'm struggling to think of a situation where he is not.
An example?
See my prior examples re gender disparity in academia and the pastorate, which in my experience have very much transcended class and income distinctions.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But every single one of your examples is an example of positional authority-- the exact differential I went on to describe as trumping gender.
And it's a differential caused by class, not gender.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
So, you are saying women are a different class?
Because women and men, in the same economic class recieve different treatment.
[ 21. February 2015, 20:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But every single one of your examples is an example of positional authority-- the exact differential I went on to describe as trumping gender.
And it's a differential caused by class, not gender.
No, it's not. It's a differential defined by position. It changes depending on the circumstance. A female doctor may have authority over a patient-- but when the examination is over and they're both out on the street, the dynamic shifts. Your server/customer example holds true regardless of the economic class of the customer-- and again, shifts when the roles change.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not always, I would agree. But I'm struggling to think of a normal situation where a working class man is in a position to tell an upper class women what to do.
I'm struggling to think of a situation where he is not.
An example?
See my prior examples re gender disparity in academia and the pastorate, which in my experience have very much transcended class and income distinctions.
But those aren't examples of a working class man being in a position to tell an upper class woman what to do.
It's true that both academia and the pastorate are traditionally male professions, but they are also traditionally upper class professions.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Where a working class male can tell an upper class woman what to do.
Security guard - patron of establishment
However a working class female nurse can tell an upper class man what to do.
Jengie
[ 21. February 2015, 20:30: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But those aren't examples of a working class man being in a position to tell an upper class woman what to do.
It's true that both academia and the pastorate are traditionally male professions, but they are also traditionally upper class professions.
But that's the point-- in my examples gender is working against class, demonstrating that gender is a more influential factor. The female professor or pastor has both positional authority and an elite class, but (as shown in my earlier link) that is trumped by their gender.
[ 21. February 2015, 20:39: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No, it's not. It's a differential defined by position. It changes depending on the circumstance. A female doctor may have authority over a patient-- but when the examination is over and they're both out on the street, the dynamic shifts. Your server/customer example holds true regardless of the economic class of the customer-- and again, shifts when the roles change.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the dynamic ceases to be, since generally speaking the classes have no contact outside these relationships where the upper class have positional authority?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No, it's not. It's a differential defined by position. It changes depending on the circumstance. A female doctor may have authority over a patient-- but when the examination is over and they're both out on the street, the dynamic shifts. Your server/customer example holds true regardless of the economic class of the customer-- and again, shifts when the roles change.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the dynamic ceases to be, since generally speaking the classes have no contact outside these relationships where the upper class have positional authority?
There are situations where they would still have contact-- riding on public transport, say, or standing in line for a movie or restaurant.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But those aren't examples of a working class man being in a position to tell an upper class woman what to do.
It's true that both academia and the pastorate are traditionally male professions, but they are also traditionally upper class professions.
But that's the point-- in my examples gender is working against class, demonstrating that gender is a more influential factor. The female professor or pastor has both positional authority and an elite class, but (as shown in my earlier link) that is trumped by their gender.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
But your examples don't illustrate that point at all.
An academic and a pastor are in the upper class by virtue of their profession. A woman may be treated differently than a man by their students or their congregation (who may or may not share their class but are in a positional lower rank) according to their expectations of how both women and men act and how people in that position of authority act.
But that in now way demonstrates that gender trumps class.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No, it's not. It's a differential defined by position. It changes depending on the circumstance. A female doctor may have authority over a patient-- but when the examination is over and they're both out on the street, the dynamic shifts. Your server/customer example holds true regardless of the economic class of the customer-- and again, shifts when the roles change.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the dynamic ceases to be, since generally speaking the classes have no contact outside these relationships where the upper class have positional authority?
There are situations where they would still have contact-- riding on public transport, say, or standing in line for a movie or restaurant.
And a working class man (one not currently working as a security guard or usher or something) would have the authority to tell an upper class woman what to do in these scenarios?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
]And a working class man (one not currently working as a security guard or usher or something) would have the authority to tell an upper class woman what to do in these scenarios?
Nothing so blatant. In most Western culture, no one w/o positional authority has the authority to tell anyone else what to do. But (again, see study linked early on) a man is given a more default authority in such a situation-- they are listened to, followed, deferred to, more than women.
Again, the strongest evidence against your argument are the two examples I quoted from academia and pastorate where the woman has both positional authority and class hierarchy but is still not afforded default authority because of her gender.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But those aren't examples of a working class man being in a position to tell an upper class woman what to do.
It's true that both academia and the pastorate are traditionally male professions, but they are also traditionally upper class professions.
But that's the point-- in my examples gender is working against class, demonstrating that gender is a more influential factor. The female professor or pastor has both positional authority and an elite class, but (as shown in my earlier link) that is trumped by their gender.
But your examples don't illustrate that point at all.
An academic and a pastor are in the upper class by virtue of their profession. A woman may be treated differently than a man by their students or their congregation (who may or may not share their class but are in a positional lower rank) according to their expectations of how both women and men act and how people in that position of authority act.
But that in now way demonstrates that gender trumps class.
Doesn't it? A female pastor or professor has both positional authority and class hierarchy, but (as per the study cited above) not given the benefit of the default positional authority given to a male in the same profession. How is that not an example of gender trumping both class and positional authority?
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
Could you try linking to the study again? The original link takes me to an Amazon page advertising a book about what the best college students do, not a study I might be able to read.*
Though most studies just summarize findings and don't give you useful info about things like methodology or the actual questions asked.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Doesn't it? A female pastor or professor has both positional authority and class hierarchy, but (as per the study cited above) not given the benefit of the default positional authority given to a male in the same profession. How is that not an example of gender trumping both class and positional authority?
In order for it to be an example of gender trumping both class and positional authority, you would have to demonstrate that the students gave more default authority to a working class man who was a member of the class than to the female professor.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Could you try linking to the study again? The original link takes me to an Amazon page advertising a book about what the best college students do, not a study I might be able to read.*
Though most studies just summarize findings and don't give you useful info about things like methodology or the actual questions asked.
Sorry, that's the best I can do without spending more time then I'm prepared to do. The book is a study of best practices for college professors, based on the authors' research. The methodology is detailed in the book. There might be an abstract somewhere or an academic journal article by the authors detailing the study.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Doesn't it? A female pastor or professor has both positional authority and class hierarchy, but (as per the study cited above) not given the benefit of the default positional authority given to a male in the same profession. How is that not an example of gender trumping both class and positional authority?
In order for it to be an example of gender trumping both class and positional authority, you would have to demonstrate that the students gave more default authority to a working class man who was a member of the class than to the female professor.
That would be another way to demonstrate it. But the fact that a man of equal position and class is given greater default authority does demonstrate that gender overrides position and class distinctions, at least in college classrooms.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
Ah, yes, the old 'educate yourself' but what I'm saying is true because trick.
If you really believe your examples demonstrate what you say they demonstrate, then we're not even speaking the same language and there's no point in us having any further conversation.
That's not a [whatever you're going to accuse me of], it's a statement of fact.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I worked with a straight man who was mildly* homophobic. Towards gay men at any rate. He was a nice person overall, treated women well.
We would trade insults as a form of comradery. I could insult his sexuality, his manliness, virility, just about anything. One day I said to him "Yes, ma'am". The change in his demeanor was fascinating. He was visibly upset. There was no class difference, no difference in authority.
Why, oh why, did he freak?
BTW, I repeated this as an experiment with other men. Same result a shocking number of times.
*Really just mildly. At the level he did not recognise it.
[ 21. February 2015, 22:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Ah, yes, the old 'educate yourself' but what I'm saying is true because trick.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
If you really believe your examples demonstrate what you say they demonstrate, then we're not even speaking the same language and there's no point in us having any further conversation.
Well, obviously I do believe they demonstrate that, otherwise I wouldn't have brought them up. Not as neatly as a more controlled double-blind study such as you're suggesting, but yeah, I think they show the power of gender differentials. I'm going to exercise my option to continue in this discussion if others wish to continue, of course. But feel free to bow out if that's your desire-- obviously your choice.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
That's not a [whatever you're going to accuse me of], it's a statement of fact.
Wasn't really planning to accuse you of much of anything. What is it you're so afraid of???
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I worked with a straight man who was mildly* homophobic. Towards gay men at any rate. He was a nice person overall, treated women well.
We would trade insults as a form of comradery. I could insult his sexuality, his manliness, virility, just about anything. One day I said to him "Yes, ma'am". The change in his demeanor was fascinating. He was visibly upset. There was no class difference, no difference in authority.
Why, oh why, did he freak?
BTW, I repeated this as an experiment with other men. Same result a shocking number of times.
*Really just mildly. At the level he did not recognise it.
And I know a bunch of straight men who used to dress as women. Not because they were trans, but because they felt like they were being treated and expected to act so much like women that they might as well dress like them. They clearly didn't feel that being or acting like a man gave them any advantage in society.
So what? We can trade anecdotes all day.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm going to exercise my option to continue in this discussion if others wish to continue, of course. But feel free to bow out if that's your desire-- obviously your choice.
I didn't say I was going to bow out of the discussion, merely that the two of us continuing to engage is pointless, as we do not speak the same language and you seem to believe your language is superior.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
That's not a [whatever you're going to accuse me of], it's a statement of fact.
Wasn't really planning to accuse you of much of anything. What is it you're so afraid of???
You regularly misrepresent my positions and accuse me of thinking and feeling things that I do not think and feel and of having motivations that I do not have.
And see, right there, you told me I was afraid. I'm not afraid, I'm annoyed that you keep driving me out of discussions because you don't like my opinions.
But this is getting personal and I'm not in the mood for a Hell call.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
you seem to believe your language is superior.
You regularly misrepresent my positions and accuse me of thinking and feeling things that I do not think and feel and of having motivations that I do not have.
And see, right there, you told me I was afraid. I'm not afraid, I'm annoyed that you keep driving me out of discussions because you don't like my opinions.
In complete and genuine honesty, I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to in any of the above. If I misrepresented your positions, I assure you it is entirely unintentional. Possibly I genuinely misunderstood. To my knowledge I have never accused you of thinking or feeling anything in particular as I don't really know you all that well. Nor do I recall "driving you out" of any discussion, ever.
All of which perhaps just proves your conclusion:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I didn't say I was going to bow out of the discussion, merely that the two of us continuing to engage is pointless, as we do not speak the same language.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I worked with a straight man who was mildly* homophobic. Towards gay men at any rate. He was a nice person overall, treated women well.
We would trade insults as a form of comradery. I could insult his sexuality, his manliness, virility, just about anything. One day I said to him "Yes, ma'am". The change in his demeanor was fascinating. He was visibly upset. There was no class difference, no difference in authority.
Why, oh why, did he freak?
BTW, I repeated this as an experiment with other men. Same result a shocking number of times.
*Really just mildly. At the level he did not recognise it.
And I know a bunch of straight men who used to dress as women. Not because they were trans, but because they felt like they were being treated and expected to act so much like women that they might as well dress like them. They clearly didn't feel that being or acting like a man gave them any advantage in society.
You do realise you just made exactly the same point I did?
In both cases being referred to/treated as female was seen as an insult.
This indicates gender inequality.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
No, I made the opposite point. They thought that being a woman was being elevated by society to such an extent that they were going to dress as women. And that being a man - and acting like a man and expecting to be treated as a man - was practically forbidden. I hate being treated and expected to act like a man, but it doesn't mean I think being treated as a man is an insult.
Do you think that there are biological differences between men and women? Do you think there are differences in the way men and women are socialized?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
They thought that being a woman was being elevated by society to such an extent that they were going to dress as women.
I've never seen, heard of or experienced such a place. The opposite to neutral, to a few places in which women had a minor advantage. I've worked in several fields, been exposed to a number more. Outside of a few departments and companies, where being female offers a mild advantage, the vast majority yield more to men.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Do you think that there are biological differences between men and women? Do you think there are differences in the way men and women are socialized?
Yes, and?
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
They thought that being a woman was being elevated by society to such an extent that they were going to dress as women.
I've never seen, heard of or experienced such a place.
Really? You've never been exposed to the idea that women are naturally more peaceful, and therefore men should be much more like them in order to cut down on the amount of violence in society?
quote:
The opposite to neutral, to a few places in which women had a minor advantage. I've worked in several fields, been exposed to a number more. Outside of a few departments and companies, where being female offers a mild advantage, the vast majority yield more to men.
Oh, well if we're talking workplaces in a capitalistic society which rewards ruthlessness rather than obedience or cooperation, then that is likely to be the case. But you never did define what kind of power you were talking about.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Really? You've never been exposed to the idea that women are naturally more peaceful, and therefore men should be much more like them in order to cut down on the amount of violence in society?
Well, to address this tangent, I've heard the concept, never an implementation. It is certainly not a widespread phenomenon.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Oh, well if we're talking workplaces in a capitalistic society which rewards ruthlessness rather than obedience or cooperation, then that is likely to be the case. But you never did define what kind of power you were talking about.
Inequities have existed since before there was capitalism. They exist in communism, in totalitarianism, in monarchies even when the monarch is a woman.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Really? You've never been exposed to the idea that women are naturally more peaceful, and therefore men should be much more like them in order to cut down on the amount of violence in society?
Well, to address this tangent, I've heard the concept, never an implementation. It is certainly not a widespread phenomenon.
Perhaps you should try to have more contact with the working class and prison populations? Because you're just proving what I've been been saying.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Oh, well if we're talking workplaces in a capitalistic society which rewards ruthlessness rather than obedience or cooperation, then that is likely to be the case. But you never did define what kind of power you were talking about.
Inequities have existed since before there was capitalism. They exist in communism, in totalitarianism, in monarchies even when the monarch is a woman.
And I admitted that iniquities (def: sin, wickedness) have existed since humanity has existed.
I still don't understand what point you are trying to make.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Or the words which I have been using.
Inequity.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
Ah, right. An admission that you are using a redefinition of words in a way that suits you to your advantage.
Have fun with that (just don't expect anyone to take you seriously).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I've used inequity to mean lack of fairness or justice the entire time. You know, its definition since its creation in the 16th century. Slightly predating my use of the word on this thread.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
No, I made the opposite point. They thought that being a woman was being elevated by society to such an extent that they were going to dress as women. And that being a man - and acting like a man and expecting to be treated as a man - was practically forbidden. I hate being treated and expected to act like a man, but it doesn't mean I think being treated as a man is an insult.
Really? You were the one who was there, so you would know (and Lord knows I don't want to put words in your mouth-- I'd sure catch hell for that) but your description here:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And I know a bunch of straight men who used to dress as women. Not because they were trans, but because they felt like they were being treated and expected to act so much like women that they might as well dress like them. They clearly didn't feel that being or acting like a man gave them any advantage in society.
Sounded more like mocking or derision to me. Like they were angry for not being "treated like a man" so they were expressing their anger in a rather passive-aggressive way. It was not at all "clear" to most of us that they saw "looking like a woman" as an advantage, or as something desirable-- or if so, only in the narrow context of the workplace. Again, you were the one who was there, so you would know the tenor of the thing. But the fact that it reads quite differently to the rest of us may indicate this is a highly unusual situation if in fact the men were dressing like women in a serious attempt to further themselves in the workplace. Unless of course the workplace was a drag show.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
An academic and a pastor are in the upper class by virtue of their profession.
Not in the Uk they're not.
Upper class refers to royalty and landed gentry.
Academics and clergy are middle class.
[ 22. February 2015, 13:06: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Academics and clergy are middle class.
Anglican vicars tend to be regarded as a little higher up the social scale than Nonconformist ministers, especially in rural areas. I don't know where RC priests fit in.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
An academic and a pastor are in the upper class by virtue of their profession.
Not in the Uk they're not.
Upper class refers to royalty and landed gentry.
Academics and clergy are middle class.
Class is a really squiffy concept in the US, as we've historically put plenty of energy into denying that we have classes as a result of our so-called equality before the law (societies do develop deeply-rooted myths about themselves; this happens to be one of ours).
Because higher education costs a lot of money, people with advanced degrees (required for academics and also for most mainstream US Protestant clergy) tend to be drawn from the economically better-off.
Whether that's "upper" or "middle," I leave for others to argue.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The primary difference between the US and the UK is social capital. Social capital has more influence and is more defined* in the UK. Whilst social capitol exists in the US, it is much less an influence and money/power predominate. IME, anyway.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And I know a bunch of straight men who used to dress as women. Not because they were trans, but because they felt like they were being treated and expected to act so much like women that they might as well dress like them. They clearly didn't feel that being or acting like a man gave them any advantage in society.
Sounded more like mocking or derision to me. Like they were angry for not being "treated like a man" so they were expressing their anger in a rather passive-aggressive way. It was not at all "clear" to most of us that they saw "looking like a woman" as an advantage, or as something desirable-- or if so, only in the narrow context of the workplace.
Who said anything about this happening in the workplace? Most of the people I know wear the required uniform in the workplace (which is generally the same for men and women except at places like casinos where the women are dressed in tight tops and short skirts while the men are in trousers, button-downs, and vests).
This was more than 15 years ago in Pittsburgh. I was at an illegal after-hours gay bar, dressed in men's clothing (the only statement I intended to make with that was that I'm cheap: men's clothing is often cheaper and better made than women's clothing). People kept looking at my hands and my Adam's apple and saying variations of 'wait, you're an actual girl, aren't you? I don't mean to be rude, but what are you doing here?'
Eventually I had to use the bathroom and as I got in line I made some comment about not expecting the line for the women's room to be so long (because of the people I was with, we were in a room with mostly gay men rather than men in drag). I got into a conversation with the black man ahead of me who wanted to know if I was upset or angry at seeing him dressed like that. I said no, because I really don't care what people wear as long as it's decently modest and I don't wind up seeing the private parts of people I'm not intimately involved with. A bunch of us started having a conversation about why all these men in this club were dressing as women. Different people had different reasons, but the fact that they were so frequently being treated as and expected to act as women and they found it difficult to handle was the reason for a bunch of them. They didn't read as angry, just tired of being asked to do something they found impossible.
quote:
Again, you were the one who was there, so you would know the tenor of the thing. But the fact that it reads quite differently to the rest of us may indicate this is a highly unusual situation if in fact the men were dressing like women in a serious attempt to further themselves in the workplace. Unless of course the workplace was a drag show.
Who said they were dressing like women in an attempt to further themselves in the workplace? The only people I've known who have worn skirts or dresses in school or the workplace have done so for practical reasons (in hot weather, a loose skirt or dress is frequently the coolest thing to wear). Again, I don't know many people who have that kind of freedom in their jobs, but I do know some.
This thread is about men and women and who has it easier in general (and I've already said I don't necessarily find talking in those terms - as if there's some gender-based competition for claiming victimhood status - helpful).
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Whether that's "upper" or "middle," I leave for others to argue.
I'm not quoting your whole post (which I agree with). Technically speaking, I'd class them as Upper-Middle. They still have to work for a living (unlike the Upper who doesn't have to unless they want to), but they have a lot more freedom than everyone except the Upper when it comes to how and when and what they do when they work. That's becoming less true in academia as Universities switch to a business model where they admit as many graduate students as they can (since even those who wouldn't have been able to pay for graduate schools in a previous generation and don't have the talent to get funding from the university can get federal education loans) and then exploit the resulting flooded market by hiring primarily adjuncts instead of tenure-track professors.
So who knows what the class structure that we won't admit we have will look like in another generation.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And I know a bunch of straight men who used to dress as women. Not because they were trans, but because they felt like they were being treated and expected to act so much like women that they might as well dress like them. They clearly didn't feel that being or acting like a man gave them any advantage in society.
Sounded more like mocking or derision to me. Like they were angry for not being "treated like a man" so they were expressing their anger in a rather passive-aggressive way. It was not at all "clear" to most of us that they saw "looking like a woman" as an advantage, or as something desirable-- or if so, only in the narrow context of the workplace.
Who said anything about this happening in the workplace? Most of the people I know wear the required uniform in the workplace (which is generally the same for men and women except at places like casinos where the women are dressed in tight tops and short skirts while the men are in trousers, button-downs, and vests).
This was more than 15 years ago in Pittsburgh. I was at an illegal after-hours gay bar, dressed in men's clothing (the only statement I intended to make with that was that I'm cheap: men's clothing is often cheaper and better made than women's clothing). People kept looking at my hands and my Adam's apple and saying variations of 'wait, you're an actual girl, aren't you? I don't mean to be rude, but what are you doing here?'
Eventually I had to use the bathroom and as I got in line I made some comment about not expecting the line for the women's room to be so long (because of the people I was with, we were in a room with mostly gay men rather than men in drag). I got into a conversation with the black man ahead of me who wanted to know if I was upset or angry at seeing him dressed like that. I said no, because I really don't care what people wear as long as it's decently modest and I don't wind up seeing the private parts of people I'm not intimately involved with. A bunch of us started having a conversation about why all these men in this club were dressing as women. Different people had different reasons, but the fact that they were so frequently being treated as and expected to act as women and they found it difficult to handle was the reason for a bunch of them. They didn't read as angry, just tired of being asked to do something they found impossible.
Wow. So you offered up an anecdote about gay men in a gay bar dressing like women (without telling us that was the context) as evidence that men dressing like a woman was advantageous in society as a whole or in other contexts? Did it occur to you at all that gay men might themselves find themselves disadvantaged in society as a whole, so that in an in-group setting those sorts of social expectations might not hold true? What planet do you live on where it even remotely makes sense to extrapolate from that context (note that I offered something similar up in my post as an obvious exception before we had any clue that's what you were talking about) to society as a whole???
Lesson learned: never accept that a Saysay story is anything close to what it is presented to be.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
This thread is about men and women and who has it easier in general (and I've already said I don't necessarily find talking in those terms - as if there's some gender-based competition for claiming victimhood status - helpful).
I said something similar in my first post on this thread, and at least once since. It's comparing apples with oranges. But then I'm not the only one (and neither are you) who has said that.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Wow. So you offered up an anecdote about gay men in a gay bar dressing like women (without telling us that was the context) as evidence that men dressing like a woman was advantageous in society as a whole or in other contexts?
It was an illegal after-hours gay bar. Not all of the people in it were gay. I would have thought that the fact that I (a straight woman) was there would have alerted you to that fact. I also thought that I didn’t have to spell everything out for you because you might have some knowledge of American culture, being an American and all. The context in which I met the men is irrelevant. It doesn't logically follow that since I met them and talked to them in a particular context, that that's the only context in which they dressed in women's clothing.
I used the anecdote as a counter to lilbuddha’s anecdote that when she called a coworker ‘ma’am’ he got very upset, which she apparently thinks is evidence that he thinks women are inferior. I also didn't say that they found dressing as women advantageous in society as a whole, only that they didn't find dressing and acting as men advantageous. I also didn't use objective language, implying that something was in fact the case and that this evidence demonstrated that reality.
quote:
Did it occur to you at all that gay men might themselves find themselves disadvantaged in society as a whole, so that in an in-group setting those sorts of social expectations might not hold true?
Of course I know that gay men might find themselves disadvantaged in society as a whole. I’m not sure how you live in this country without knowing this, but I suppose it’s possible: not everyone at the bar was gay. Lots of non-gay people go to gay bars (sometimes seriously pissing off the gay men who are there looking to meet partners, but that’s another issue). Some of the men dressing as women were straight men who liked to dress as women and wanted an almost-guaranteed safe space to do so. Some were trans women. Some were gay men. Some were asexual men. Some were men who objected to the restrictions put on men’s clothing (when a man dresses up he puts on a suit or a tuxedo; women have many more options). Some only dressed as women at gay bars or other safe places. Some did so all the time and came to the gay bar to meet other like-minded individuals. I would have thought this was covered under ‘different people had different reasons’ along with a basic knowledge of American culture. But many of them complained that they felt like society as a whole (inasmuch as such a thing exists) was telling them ‘women good, men bad.’ And as I originally said, many felt that being and acting and dressing like a man gave them no particular advantage, and was possibly a disadvantage.
quote:
What planet do you live on where it even remotely makes sense to extrapolate from that context (note that I offered something similar up in my post as an obvious exception before we had any clue that's what you were talking about) to society as a whole???
I live on a planet where it’s considered polite to let people speak for themselves. Including men. Without reinterpreting their experience for them according to some theory you hold. I didn't extrapolate some Grand Truth About Life, the Universe, and Everything. I simply told an anecdote to counter lilbuddha's.
quote:
Lesson learned: never accept that a Saysay story is anything close to what it is presented to be.
Note to self: do not engage with lilbuddha or cliffdweller. You know you never learned to speak middle class woman, and you only wind up confused and annoyed.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Honestly, there is so much wrong with that last post and the assumptions being made-- and the extrapolation you're making from that VERY particular context to society as a whole-- I just don't know where to begin.
Let's just say: I don't know what sort of world you live in where that makes sense.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Wow. So you offered up an anecdote about gay men in a gay bar dressing like women (without telling us that was the context) as evidence that men dressing like a woman was advantageous in society as a whole or in other contexts?
It was an illegal after-hours gay bar. Not all of the people in it were gay. I would have thought that the fact that I (a straight woman) was there would have alerted you to that fact. I also thought that I didn’t have to spell everything out for you because you might have some knowledge of American culture, being an American and all. The context in which I met the men is irrelevant.
Really? The context of a gay bar for your anecdote about men finding it advantageous to dress as a woman is entirely irrelevant? Really? C'mon, you know better than that.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I used the anecdote as a counter to lilbuddha’s anecdote that when she called a coworker ‘ma’am’ he got very upset, which she apparently thinks is evidence that he thinks women are inferior.
Your anecdote demonstrated only that some men in a gay bar find it advantageous to dress as women. Quelle surprise. As a counter to lilBuddha's example it's an epic fail.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Some of the men dressing as women were straight men who liked to dress as women and wanted an almost-guaranteed safe space to do so. Some were trans women. Some were gay men. Some were asexual men. Some were men who objected to the restrictions put on men’s clothing (when a man dresses up he puts on a suit or a tuxedo; women have many more options). Some only dressed as women at gay bars or other safe places.
Wait a minute... major contradiction here. You claim the context of a gay bar is "irrelevant", and that this anecdote can be extrapolated to society as a whole to indicate that men dressing as women is advantageous-- then you explicitly state that at least some of the men only dressed as women in this context because it is one that is "safe". That completely contradicts your entire (already rather incredible) argument.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But many of them complained that they felt like society as a whole (inasmuch as such a thing exists) was telling them ‘women good, men bad.’ And as I originally said, many felt that being and acting and dressing like a man gave them no particular advantage, and was possibly a disadvantage.
Give the trajectory of this conversation, I'm HIGHLY suspicious that you left out some relevant context here.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I live on a planet where it’s considered polite to let people speak for themselves. Including men. Without reinterpreting their experience for them according to some theory you hold.
Good for you. I feel the same way. My assumption is that everyone on this thread would hold similar beliefs.
[ 23. February 2015, 00:06: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
We had a long conversation in the office yesterday about whether men or women fart more.
Women might fart more but they're never going to admit it! Well, most women. I fart a lot. Aren't you glad I shared that personal tidbit with you? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
saysay,
Still not certain how your gay bar example counters my anecdote.
Everyone speak for themselves? Yes and no.
The yes in that, of course, we are all individuals and have that right. And should not be assumed to have particular thoughts or motivations.
The no in that group dynamics are a thing. A real, observable, predictable thing.
Back to individuals. I've asked several men why they react poorly to being called ma'am. Of those that could articulate why, most felt it was threat to their authority, their standing. Even though there was no actual threat. Even those who had no observable trace of misogyny.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
FWIW, women who get referred as "sir" are not always best-pleased either. It may be that gender is so fundamental an aspect of our identity that having someone "mistake" us for the other gender is to feel semi-erased.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
FWIW, women who get referred as "sir" are not always best-pleased either. It may be that gender is so fundamental an aspect of our identity that having someone "mistake" us for the other gender is to feel semi-erased.
That could be. But in situations I've seen that used, the woman was acting with authority or command and the "sir" was used to address that authority. In other words, the woman was acting like a man, so then referred to as such.
Not saying this is the reason for all such instances, though.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I think that referring to someone as the opposite (binary) gender is often intended as some degree of insult.
TV sometimes plays with calling women leaders "sir"--at the women's request. E.g., Capt. Katherine Janeway ("Star Trek: Voyager") and Capt. Gates ("Castle").
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think that referring to someone as the opposite (binary) gender is often intended as some degree of insult.
Well, yes. As I mentioned in my example, insults were traded as banter. None of them mattered except for that one. I think that telling.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think that referring to someone as the opposite (binary) gender is often intended as some degree of insult.
TV sometimes plays with calling women leaders "sir"--at the women's request. E.g., Capt. Katherine Janeway ("Star Trek: Voyager") and Capt. Gates ("Castle").
In the first episode of Voyager, Janeway says she doesn't like Starfleet's usage of "sir" for both men and women, and tells her crew to call her "captain" ("ma'am" is OK in a crunch.)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Apologies. I misremembered. But the captain on "Castle" definitely insists on "sir".
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Somewhere, back in the day, the term "Lady Provost" (Provost is the Scottish equivalent of Mayor) was defined as "the wife of the Provost," at least in Aberdeen.
As a result, a female Provost is addressed as "Lord Provost" as "Lady Provost" would be wrong.
In this case, title trumps gender.
Funny story - when Nelson Mandela came to Glasgow, various Provosts were lined up to meet him, in alphabetical order of the towns / cities they represented. Aberdeen was first alphabetically, so Lord Provost Margaret Farquhar was head of the queue. One BBC reporter assumed she was some sort of PA / admin, leading the important male Provosts up to Mandela.
[ 25. February 2015, 06:33: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
I tend to think that men (on average) remaining naturally fertile much later into life than women is one absolute biological advantage over women. Our social structures have enabled that biological advantage to be converted to social and economic advantage.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Just one example: visiting elderly parishioner in hospital. She sighs and tells me how much she appreciates my taking the time to visit her, then complains (to my face) that she has received no pastoral visit.
Read Matthew 23:1-12 to yourself, slowly but aloud. You did the right thing by visiting the lady in the hospital. Don't let it be about you.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Just one example: visiting elderly parishioner in hospital. She sighs and tells me how much she appreciates my taking the time to visit her, then complains (to my face) that she has received no pastoral visit.
Read Matthew 23:1-12 to yourself, slowly but aloud. You did the right thing by visiting the lady in the hospital. Don't let it be about you.
Oh, absolutely. The point here was just to the overall question of this thread of how women are perceived in society and whether or not there is any lingering sexism in the workplace. Doesn't mean we have to give in to it or that it becomes a defining moment that gets in the way of doing what we came here to do.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I tend to think that men (on average) remaining naturally fertile much later into life than women is one absolute biological advantage over women. Our social structures have enabled that biological advantage to be converted to social and economic advantage.
I would see it as a disadvantage. There is nothing like being free from the fertile years - if I had known I would have looked forward to it even more!
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I tend to think that men (on average) remaining naturally fertile much later into life than women is one absolute biological advantage over women. Our social structures have enabled that biological advantage to be converted to social and economic advantage.
I would see it as a disadvantage. There is nothing like being free from the fertile years - if I had known I would have looked forward to it even more!
Given how easy it is for a man to control his fertility, I would have said that at best it's neutral. I can't see it as a disadvantage, as it is so simply dealt with if that's what he chooses. But he has the choice.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But he has the choice.
He can pursue a much younger woman, sure. Good luck with that.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Because there's no history of wealthy older men marrying younger women at all, ever, and especially not in our society.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
IME, the general trend in large age differences is older man and younger woman much more than the reverse. Regardless of money.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
In pre-industrial Scottish* society the age difference between groom and bride was an indication of poverty, as it indicated that it had taken a long time for the man to be able to support a family. He would then marry a much younger woman to provide children who would be his security in old age.
Somebody worked out a formula to create an index of poverty from marital ages, but for the life of me I can't remember what it's called. (Casts mind back to undergraduate degree and sees only tumbleweed).
*Might be pre-industrial societies generally, but I was taught it in the context of the Scottish Highlands.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
In pre-industrial Scottish* society the age difference between groom and bride was an indication of poverty, as it indicated that it had taken a long time for the man to be able to support a family. He would then marry a much younger woman to provide children who would be his security in old age.
Somebody worked out a formula to create an index of poverty from marital ages, but for the life of me I can't remember what it's called. (Casts mind back to undergraduate degree and sees only tumbleweed).
*Might be pre-industrial societies generally, but I was taught it in the context of the Scottish Highlands.
Certainly poorer people in England married later than people think, around the late 20s, because they had to save up or wait to inherit a lease, but I can't remember reading about an age gap. I must look it up.
There's also quite a few cases of the opposite in London, where a guild member died and his widow married the adult apprentice. Many guilds allowed widows to retain their husbands' business rights and this meant an apprentice might inherit the Masters shop and trade.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Now in Scotland, if a Guild member died and left a widow and an underage son, the woman was allowed to continue the business in her own right until the son came of age, when it passed to him. This mitigated against such women remarrying. The best know was Agnes Campbell, widow of Andrew Anderson, who held the Royal Warrant for printing in the late C17th, and then became the church's printer too. Her husband left her with an £8000 debt, but by the time her son came of age the debt was cleared and she was a wealthy woman.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I once saw a television program about a group on the Indian subcontinent where everyone was expected to marry twice.
Shortly after puberty was reached, the individual was married to a much older widow or widower. When the first spouse died, there was a second marriage to someone just past puberty.
This obviously has nothing to do with romantic love, but it would make it likely that one partner in the marriage was level-headed and experienced.
Moo
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
I tend to think that men (on average) remaining naturally fertile much later into life than women is one absolute biological advantage over women. Our social structures have enabled that biological advantage to be converted to social and economic advantage.
I guess my marriage is about as unstable as most people's...but while my-wife-and-I don't want any more children, just the 'I' (minus the wife) definitely looked askance at some future prospect of playing stunt c*ck in some younger woman's maternity fantasy. I got the 'two bricks' treatment, accordingly...
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
In pre-industrial Scottish* society the age difference between groom and bride was an indication of poverty, as it indicated that it had taken a long time for the man to be able to support a family. He would then marry a much younger woman to provide children who would be his security in old age. .
That's the tradition in parts of rural Ireland. A man might marry at 40ish when he inherits his father's farm. And he'll marry a woman of 20ish who's a good age to bear children.
On the original question of who has it tougher, just consider how men and women are biologically programmed. We're all human, and what unites us is more than what divides us; we're thinking beings who have free will. But if we're thinking about the built-in differences...
What are women programmed to want ? Family, relationship, community.
What are men programmed to want ? Glory. Droit de seigneur (loosely translated as to be the lord of the manor with the right to penetrate any of the young unmarried women of the village).
Whose desires are most at odds with the demands of post-industrial society and Christian morality ? Men. Who commits most of the crime ? Young men who don't have a socially-acceptable outlet for their male energy and urge to violence.
No contest.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Russ--
In that case, any ideas on how to make things better for the guys you mentioned--and thus better for everyone else?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What are men programmed to want ? Glory. Droit de seigneur (loosely translated as to be the lord of the manor with the right to penetrate any of the young unmarried women of the village).
Whose desires are most at odds with the demands of post-industrial society and Christian morality ? Men. Who commits most of the crime ? Young men who don't have a socially-acceptable outlet for their male energy and urge to violence.
No contest.
OK, I'm a woman (as saysay) so I'm just going to ask the men: do you feel comfortable with what Russ is saying about you? If we were to make similar statements about, say, a particular race, it would be deeply offensive. Indeed, much of current underlying racism in American society has been attributed to subversive views like this.
I get the notion that there have been epic shifts in society and the workplace that have placed men at a greater disadvantage compared with their prior (privileged) place in both those milieus. But I sure wouldn't want that portrayed as "need to penetrate" or "need an outlet for violence".
Men, what say you?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Can we lay off gender politics or feminist argument and language.
... nope. And why would we?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think all this can be summed up with-- our society makes it hard for men and women to simply be people, and it uses gambits of power and privelege to do tbat to men, and marginilization to do that to women. But the goal for both is the same-- chronic dissatisfaction that leads to chronic spending. Both sexes are told, in one way or another, that they can never do, be, or have enough.
Therefore, this whole " who has it worse" debate makes me squirm. As the posts above demonstate, even those with " privelege" wind up paying for it somehow. We need to help each other out.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
On the original question of who has it tougher, just consider how men and women are biologically programmed. ...
What are women programmed to want ? Family, relationship, community.
What are men programmed to want ? Glory. Droit de seigneur (loosely translated as to be the lord of the manor with the right to penetrate any of the young unmarried women of the village).
Er. Can you prove this? Because I don't think this is universally accepted as fact.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What are men programmed to want ? Glory. Droit de seigneur (loosely translated as to be the lord of the manor with the right to penetrate any of the young unmarried women of the village).
Whose desires are most at odds with the demands of post-industrial society and Christian morality ? Men. Who commits most of the crime ? Young men who don't have a socially-acceptable outlet for their male energy and urge to violence.
No contest.
OK, I'm a woman (as saysay) so I'm just going to ask the men: do you feel comfortable with what Russ is saying about you?
No, seems like a load of bollocks to me.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
OK, I'm a woman (as saysay) so I'm just going to ask the men: do you feel comfortable with what Russ is saying about you?
No. It's not how I brought up, and it sure as hell isn't how I'm bringing Master Tor up. We have different, more egalitarian, expectations of relationships.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm curious as to what 'programmed' means. Genetically?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
It's the old nature vs nurture thing. The differences in the underlying biology do mean we're sexually dimorphic. Nurture can (clearly, I believe) determine our expectations and our roles.
But this is where I bang on about class again. Russ's post is referring to the attitude of rich and powerful men, who can act like that and get away with it. Those poorer and less-powerful men are criminalised for trying to act like that. It's not that there's not a 'socially acceptable' outlet for their maleness - it's that they're too poor to behave that way.
I'd argue that behaving that way is never 'socially acceptable'.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's a strange kind of determinism; but in fact, we're not helpless victims of our genes. For example, women are not compelled to get pregnant, nor men to fight. It sounds like 19th century thinking.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Russ: Young men who don't have a socially-acceptable outlet for their male energy and urge to violence.
Don't we have football for that?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Football is 90 minutes pretending that you're hurt. Rugby is 80 minutes pretending that you're not.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Russ. I don't want glory or droit de seigneur.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Not having a lot of time to waste, I nevertheless recently wasted a substantial chunk of it watching TV.
Without exception, the shows ran as follows:
US SITCOMS
Guys are clueless fools. Husbands think with their gonads, fathers teach kids to avoid responsibility, (male) lovers go for looks alone, and will shag (or try to) anything that takes their fancy regardless of prior commitments.
Sons either resent parents or must counsel them about the "real world;" brothers take almost no interest in siblings (unless it's to abuse them. Other kinds of relationships - friendships, extra-nuclear-family ties -- are almost nonexistent.
And men are virtually never seen working.
US CRIME DRAMA
Well, speaks for itself, right? Both cops and criminals are more-or-less constantly engaged in violence, often fatal, and often involving the kinds of brutality & torture (committed more against women & children than other men, but includes men) we associate with war crime than with ordinary citizen life.
"Work" consists solely of getting away with crime, or with abusing those attempting to.
Frankly, if I were a guy, I'd be out marching in the streets against this broad-brush portrayal of my entire gender as stupid, clueless, and brutal.
On balance, the women in these shows come off rather better, but only in a few limited ways.
[ 07. March 2015, 12:49: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Russ. I don't want glory or droit de seigneur.
If you mean that you've got your act together with your rational conscious mind in charge, and have concluded that your path to personal fulfillment doesn't lie in that direction, then congratulations on being a civilised man.
But if you mean that you've never felt the slightest urge in that direction, then maybe you need to get in touch with your inner barbarian ?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And can you not look back at history and see such urges at work in the behaviour of men (but not women) ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Russ
Can we or are we reading our own culture into history?
I would maintain that the women's desire for violence is largely underestimated and socialised out of girls at an early age.
Jengie
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I would maintain that the women's desire for violence is largely underestimated and socialised out of girls at an early age.
Jengie
Maybe . . . or maybe it gets channeled into other forms. I've known girls & women to be pretty vicious to one another, but the viciousness gets expressed in terms of ostracism, verbal abuse, etc. rather than physical violence, and some researchers believe this form of abuse can be more damaging psychologically than the physical kind (though I personally take no sides in this debate).
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Inner barbarian? What on earth are you talking about?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Not having a lot of time to waste, I nevertheless recently wasted a substantial chunk of it watching TV.
Without exception, the shows ran as follows:
US SITCOMS
Guys are clueless fools. Husbands think with their gonads, fathers teach kids to avoid responsibility, (male) lovers go for looks alone, and will shag (or try to) anything that takes their fancy regardless of prior commitments.
Sons either resent parents or must counsel them about the "real world;" brothers take almost no interest in siblings (unless it's to abuse them. Other kinds of relationships - friendships, extra-nuclear-family ties -- are almost nonexistent.
And men are virtually never seen working.
US CRIME DRAMA
Well, speaks for itself, right? Both cops and criminals are more-or-less constantly engaged in violence, often fatal, and often involving the kinds of brutality & torture (committed more against women & children than other men, but includes men) we associate with war crime than with ordinary citizen life.
"Work" consists solely of getting away with crime, or with abusing those attempting to.
Frankly, if I were a guy, I'd be out marching in the streets against this broad-brush portrayal of my entire gender as stupid, clueless, and brutal.
On balance, the women in these shows come off rather better, but only in a few limited ways.
I totally, totally agree with you. The problem is, the production/ direction community is male- dominated, still, so we have this cyclical problem of entrenched folk who, like Russ, believe the above combination of cluelessness and brutality is what guys want to see about themselves, and everyday male folk who worry that someone will take their " man card" away if they admit that stuff is not their cup of tea.
" Homeland" has a balance of men and women in the production team. Their characters-- male and female-- are nuanced, complex, and fundamentally human. And judging from the ratings demographic, men eat that shit up!
Hollywood, with men, is like that crazy overprotective mother who keeps tying her little boy's shoes till he is ten years old because she is convinced he will never get it right. At some point, accomodation stops being respect and starts being an insult-- and yes, constant reinforcement that men are only Interested in domination, are hopeless at self- care and relationships, and are unable to look at the women around them in any other terms than as potential acquisitions, is insulting.
Eta: and meanwhile, the little boy believes that he can't tie his shoes, that some one else tying them for him is a privelege rather than a problem, and that not tying his shoes is so much a part of his identity that it is better to walk around with shoes untied than to challenge that part of his identity.
The only way to fight the old stories is with new stories, and I agree-- men have an equal stake with women in demanding that we hear new stories.
Better yet, speak up and tell your own. We have had the same half dozen international media outlets tell us what the world is like for decades. Fuck them. They are pretty much wrong about everything and everybody, male, female, and sundry.
[ 07. March 2015, 19:57: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I would maintain that the women's desire for violence is largely underestimated and socialised out of girls at an early age.
Jengie
Maybe . . . or maybe it gets channeled into other forms. I've known girls & women to be pretty vicious to one another, but the viciousness gets expressed in terms of ostracism, verbal abuse, etc. rather than physical violence, and some researchers believe this form of abuse can be more damaging psychologically than the physical kind (though I personally take no sides in this debate).
Exactly. Girls are socialized very early to suppress their physical instincts, and to avoid being loud and agressive. They learn to channel their feelings of anger into social aggression-- isolation, gossip, scapegoating.
Apples and oranges, thought-- i doubt some boy who nearly loses an eye in a fistfight is in the mood to hear about how Jane got slutshamed on Twitter, and probably vice versa.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Apples and oranges, thought-- i doubt some boy who nearly loses an eye in a fistfight is in the mood to hear about how Jane got slutshamed on Twitter, and probably vice versa.
Not that this is wrong, but in some eyes, this could be seen as putting these things in equal balance. And they are not.
Yes, boys/men can be victims of these cultural bias, but not to the same girls/women.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
we have this cyclical problem of entrenched folk who, like Russ, believe the above combination of cluelessness and brutality is what guys want to see about themselves, and everyday male folk who worry that someone will take their " man card" away if they admit that stuff is not their cup of tea.
...constant reinforcement that men are only Interested in domination, are hopeless at self- care and relationships, and are unable to look at the women around them in any other terms than as potential acquisitions...
Don't think I said anything about men's taste in entertainment. Or about the extent to which men do or don't succeed or should be expected to succeed in overcoming their biological inheritance. Or even about the relative importance of nature and culture.
Just saying that we know the different types of thinking that the "nature" part endows men and women with, and that - insofar as this does have an impact - it is the male of the species that finds modern life to require a greater effort to suppress one's natural desires.
Cluelessness and brutality doesn't sound attractive to me. But the point of a caricature is that people recognise some element of truth in it.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
But the point of a caricature is that people recognise some element of truth in it.
The point of a caricature varies. Often the point is ridicule or vilification.
And it is sometimes the perception of an element of truth rather than the presence which is "recognized".
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
it is the male of the species that finds modern life to require a greater effort to suppress one's natural desires.
My natural desires are thoroughly encouraged by modern life, especially because those natural desires involve sitting on my arse watching a screen while drinking something alcoholic. It seems the majority of men in my culture are quite happy doing just that.
The greater effort is to get up, do something, make something, create something, learn something, be something. That's what modern life suppresses because you move from being a passive consumer to an active creator - and it affects women just as much as men.
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
Whether for good or ill, "'Biology' is 'Destiny' …"
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Whether for good or ill, "'Biology' is 'Destiny' …"
Which is of course why my hyoid bone, vestibular ossicles (little hearing bones in ears), a piece of my skull, and my jaw are no longer gill slits, but serve other functions. Unlike male nipples.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
we have this cyclical problem of entrenched folk who, like Russ, believe the above combination of cluelessness and brutality is what guys want to see about themselves, and everyday male folk who worry that someone will take their " man card" away if they admit that stuff is not their cup of tea.
...constant reinforcement that men are only Interested in domination, are hopeless at self- care and relationships, and are unable to look at the women around them in any other terms than as potential acquisitions...
Don't think I said anything about men's taste in entertainment. Or about the extent to which men do or don't succeed or should be expected to succeed in overcoming their biological inheritance. Or even about the relative importance of nature and culture.
Just saying that we know the different types of thinking that the "nature" part endows men and women with, and that - insofar as this does have an impact - it is the male of the species that finds modern life to require a greater effort to suppress one's natural desires.
Cluelessness and brutality doesn't sound attractive to me. But the point of a caricature is that people recognise some element of truth in it.
Best wishes,
Russ
Again, I'm not a man, but from the responses to my question, sounds like a lot of men don't recognize an element of truth in it.
What I think is true is that all of us, male and female, desire power. To some degree that's a natural thing, part of what it means to have "dominion"-- to have influence, to make our mark, to have some control over our destiny. But it's a heady drug, and once tasted, most of us will become addicted to the taste and desire more and more, beyond what is healthy for us and certainly for others. And so we will leverage whatever tools we have at our disposal to gain and exert power.
What is true in Russ stereotype IMHO is that men are in general physically larger and stronger than women in general. Which means that in years past many men were able to leverage their size and strength to exert power through physical domination, whether thru simple intimidation or thru actual violence. Russ' illustration of droit du seigneur illustrates that well-- if the biological urge were simply release (or "penetration" as Russ crudely put it) then once that need is met through regular marital intercourse there'd be no need for anything more. The purpose of droit du seigneur, then, would seem to be not so much sexual release but rather a show of power, of domination. Of the woman, sure, but even more so of whatever man she "belonged" to (father, husband). It was a way of demonstrating power.
Conversely, women in general rarely are able to exert power thru physical intimidation, so historically have had to do so subversively. Sometimes this could be fairly positive, things like emotional IQ, being winsome and wise, diplomacy (see Abigail in the OT). Others not so positive-- giving or withholding sex, character assassination (see Salem witch trials), etc.
Beyond those crude stereotypes there are a host of other ways that individuals, both male and female, gain and exert power, again, both positively and negatively: intellectual power, economic power, social power, etc. Then you have a (sadly few) who have demonstrated a counter-intuitive approach to power thru subversive, creative nonviolence: Ghandi, MLK, and of course, Jesus.
The bottom line is all of us seek power in whatever currency is most available to us. Bill Gates does not appear to be particularly gifted in physical intimidation, and is less than adequate at social currency, but has used his strategic thinking/ game playing to crush his corporate opponents in a way that is every bit reminiscent of a gladiator fighting to the death in the coliseum.
I think it would be fair to say that some of the societal and particularly economic shifts in the last few decades, particularly the shift away from manual labor, has negatively impacted working class men. One is tempted to say that it has been advantageous to working women, but only if qualified to say "relatively" since women were starting at such an economic disadvantage, and still have not caught up, though the gap is narrowing.
But the underlying urge I think is not this male need for violence/ pillaging that Russ suggests, but rather just a very human need for power and control over one's destiny, played out in a 1000 different ways.
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Whether for good or ill, "'Biology' is 'Destiny' …"
Which is of course why my hyoid bone, vestibular ossicles (little hearing bones in ears), a piece of my skull, and my jaw are no longer gill slits, but serve other functions. Unlike male nipples.
Yes … and following the relentless successive steps of embryonic development, growth and puberty, my gonads (and yours) are now anything BUT "indifferent" ...
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not a man, but from the responses to my question, sounds like a lot of men don't recognize an element of truth in it.
I doubt many men would admit to having feeling like that - especially on a Christian website. The "power" stuff sounds pretty icky. However, if you replace power with status/fame, and perhaps ask a different group of men:
"Can you see the appeal of being an attractive Premiership footballer / pop star / Hollywood A-lister / billionaire, and effortlessly being able to sleep with a different woman every time you went out for a drink?"
I suspect you'd see a very different set of replies. Most men I know are old enough to see the downsides of a life like that (and might have moral qualms) but on some level they'd love it. My female friends don't tend to feel the same.
quote:
What is true in Russ stereotype IMHO is that men are in general physically larger and stronger than women in general.
Another difference is that a woman's power makes no difference to the number of children she can have. (Although it'll affect their survival chances.) Historically for men, the number of potential offspring varies from zero to hundreds, and power had a siginificant influence on that.
I'm not intending to back up Russ' main point - that the lack of droit du seigneur etc damages contemporary men. Not sure if that's true or not, but I doubt it. However, I think that there's an interesting connection between male glory / status and sexuality.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Unlike male nipples.
Male nipples serve some pretty awesome functions. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not a man, but from the responses to my question, sounds like a lot of men don't recognize an element of truth in it.
I doubt many men would admit to having feeling like that - especially on a Christian website. The "power" stuff sounds pretty icky. However, if you replace power with status/fame, and perhaps ask a different group of men:
"Can you see the appeal of being an attractive Premiership footballer / pop star / Hollywood A-lister / billionaire, and effortlessly being able to sleep with a different woman every time you went out for a drink?"
I suspect you'd see a very different set of replies. Most men I know are old enough to see the downsides of a life like that (and might have moral qualms) but on some level they'd love it. My female friends don't tend to feel the same.
But that just supports my point-- that the base urge is not violence, but power, and that power is achieved through lots of different means-- sometimes thru physical strength but also thru economics, fame, status, etc.
I think women are the same, the equation just shifts. The "markers" of power for women are different, and often the currency to acquire power is as well. We know instinctively/ thru socialization that too naked a quest for female power is perceived harshly (whereas for a man it just means he's an ambitious "go-getter"). But we like to have control, to exert power just as much as men. We just go about it differently and have different ways to keep score.
[ 08. March 2015, 23:09: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think women are the same, the equation just shifts. The "markers" of power for women are different, and often the currency to acquire power is as well. We know instinctively/ thru socialization that too naked a quest for female power is perceived harshly (whereas for a man it just means he's an ambitious "go-getter"). But we like to have control, to exert power just as much as men. We just go about it differently and have different ways to keep score.
Hi cliffdweller,
I couldn't think how to respond without introducing a major tangent, so I've started a new thread.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Cliffdweller, excellent post, a lot of it I agree with. Possibly also related to the arms race idea in evolution, which can involve battles between male and female. Oops, equine.
Also, some interesting stuff in anthropology on this; e.g. men to the cafe, women to the church, (round the Med).
[ 09. March 2015, 13:24: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
if the biological urge were simply release (or "penetration" as Russ crudely put it) then once that need is met through regular marital intercourse there'd be no need for anything more. The purpose of droit du seigneur, then, would seem to be not so much sexual release but rather a show of power, of domination. Of the woman, sure, but even more so of whatever man she "belonged" to (father, husband). It was a way of demonstrating power.
Hi cliffdweller.
Much of what you say about power is right.
The bit I'd disagree with is the quote above. Can you not see that you're taking what I've said about the anti-social nature of male desires - sex as violence as conquest as glory - and your female brain is interpreting it as being "really" about relationships and communication ?
The man who fantasises in the shower about droit de seigneur is not dreaming about sending a message of his powerfulness to other men. He's dreaming about a situation of being able to satisfy the urge-to-conquer he feels whenever his eye falls on the curves of a young woman's body. Which doesn't miraculously go away just because he cares deeply for his wife.
And as for what Doc Tor is watching on his screen, it's probably a highbrow documentary. Rather than Internet porn or computer games simulating violence or conquest...
Stereotype ? Absolutely.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
if the biological urge were simply release (or "penetration" as Russ crudely put it) then once that need is met through regular marital intercourse there'd be no need for anything more. The purpose of droit du seigneur, then, would seem to be not so much sexual release but rather a show of power, of domination. Of the woman, sure, but even more so of whatever man she "belonged" to (father, husband). It was a way of demonstrating power.
Hi cliffdweller.
Much of what you say about power is right.
The bit I'd disagree with is the quote above. Can you not see that you're taking what I've said about the anti-social nature of male desires - sex as violence as conquest as glory - and your female brain is interpreting it as being "really" about relationships and communication ?
The man who fantasises in the shower about droit de seigneur is not dreaming about sending a message of his powerfulness to other men. He's dreaming about a situation of being able to satisfy the urge-to-conquer he feels whenever his eye falls on the curves of a young woman's body. Which doesn't miraculously go away just because he cares deeply for his wife.
I'm not a man, so I will yield to your greater knowledge of what men think about in the shower. However, much as you point out the "relationship" language in my post, allow me to point out the "power" language in yours-- "urge to conquer" could as easily describe Bill Gates crushing the competition or a snotty socialite undercutting her social rival as much as it describes an act of lust. Sex being just one of many currencies of power.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0