Does our society encourage abusive behaviours in women?

Page 2 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

jiggeryqua
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 15

19 Jul 2008, 9:11 pm

PS Am I allowed to read what the women type, and then tut, sigh, shake my head and throw my hands up in despair, so long as I don't actually post here? Would you have a problem with my cutting and pasting some of the more deluded bigotry and exposing it on a thread outside the women's forum? I think it's as well to ask, since apparantly first warnings are also last warnings and you sound very butch and fierce and whatnot, so I'll be wary of doing anything at all in case it provokes your masculine anger again...

What am I saying? That's two more posts in the women's forum, so I'm banned anyway...



jiggeryqua
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 15

19 Jul 2008, 9:31 pm

Women's Forum Sticky

I don't know if that will work - it's a link to the sticky at the top of the thread list for the women's forum. It says "By all means males can post in here, but please respect what the thread title asks. If you are a lady and you don't want males butting in, please state in the topic name that it is for females. "

I take it then, MrMark, that your objection to me is solely in the interests of protecting a partisan political position? Definitely poor moderation then...

Where are the 'People of Colour' and 'Jewish' forums, by the way, where peoples who have genuinely been persecuted, enslaved and treated like second-class citizens (if treated like citizens at all) can feel 'safe' to 'be themselves'? The fact that women have a forum is yet another indicator of how untruthful the myth of powerless women really is. Again: moderate the entire forum so that anyone, male or female, is 'safe' to 'be themselves' anywhere.



SIXLUCY
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 575

19 Jul 2008, 9:36 pm

jiggeryqua Get Over it!
I got kicked off the last forum for just calling another member a MadCOW.
s**t Happens



Yupa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2005
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520
Location: Florida

19 Jul 2008, 11:03 pm

jiggeryqua wrote:
Do you offer men a forum where I can post obvious truths that counter the ignorant bigotry that passes as feminism for some posters?

We tried for a time, but due to social pressures that tell men who they should "naturally" act, it turned into a grotesque festival of locker room misogyny and unfunny sophomoric wisecracks that drowned out any and all attempts at intelligent discussion.



SIXLUCY
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 575

19 Jul 2008, 11:07 pm

I have to admitt it is tough for Men in some ways especially in regards to radical feminism.



BakaBomber
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

19 Jul 2008, 11:44 pm

Yupa wrote:
jiggeryqua wrote:
Do you offer men a forum where I can post obvious truths that counter the ignorant bigotry that passes as feminism for some posters?

We tried for a time, but due to social pressures that tell men who they should "naturally" act, it turned into a grotesque festival of locker room misogyny and unfunny sophomoric wisecracks that drowned out any and all attempts at intelligent discussion.

Hi, I'm new to this forum so I don't know how truly bad or unmanageable your "grotesque festival" was, but regardless, I still think it's a mistake to cave in to such pressures. Women have to deal with them too, facing opposition from those who are just as ignorant and don't think they're living up to gender expectations, so you should have pushed back as well and kept encouraging the men on this forum not to sink to that level, else you wish to maintain the status quo.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

20 Jul 2008, 1:18 am

Lurv wrote:
jiggeryqua wrote:
Really?...let's get the worthless people off the sinking boat first,


"Women and children first," isn't it? So maybe they're not seen as worthless, but yeah.


No, no. You've got that backwards. Women & children were loaded onto the lifeboats of sinking ships first because they were (and are) considered less expendable & more valuable than men.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

20 Jul 2008, 1:22 am

And the supreme irony? Chivalry, a code of ethics in which females are honoured, was "killed" by feminists. We just can't seem to get this right. :scratch:



Chibi_Neko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,485
Location: Newfoundland, Canada

20 Jul 2008, 11:25 am

Rainstorm5 wrote:
Two reasons:

1. It's the media -- primarily movies, video games, TV, the internet and music lyrics, most of which is written by young men who like violence as an art form. Some think dominatrix-type females should be good role models for girls. Girls watch the same things and play the same games as boys do these days. So many kids are being brought up by the television instead of family, and violence is all they see. Many are sociopathic by the age of thirteen, if not sooner. It's not just their boyfriends (or even girlfriends) they abuse, it's basically anyone who pisses them off. Just read the news today. There are teenagers out there shooting people for thrills, and beating people down for the smallest slight against their character. Again, girls see this, too. Girls are just as capable of being sociopathic as boys. They know no difference between right and wrong, only what makes them happy and what makes them angry. This is what happens when things like porn and bloody violence in media/movies becomes acceptable.

2. Bad Parents. These girls were never taught that it's not right to hurt other people. Parents either abused the girls themselves or otherwise overlooked and refused to discipline them for bad behavior. Moms and Dads leave their kids in front of the TV all day long while they do their own thing and in turn the kids act out. Parent ignores them, the violent behavior is 'excused' and since there were no real consequences for the child's actions, the hurting of other people to get their way becomes part of the accepted norm. They are violent simply because they were never shown the proper way to behave. Once they're adults, the behavior patterns are set and nothing short of a near-death experience can change them -- and in most cases even that doesn't work.


I would have to disagree with this. If what you said is true, then everyone in all the free world countries would shooting and killing each other at the same rate as it does in the USA. Violence in TV, Movie, and games are avaliable in Japan, Germany, Canada, ect. and the murder rate with guns for example is far less then the USA..... and family issues are worse in some countries, yet the voilence rate is still higher in the USA.


_________________
Humans are intelligent, but that doesn't make them smart.


sojournertruth
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 253

20 Jul 2008, 12:29 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Lurv wrote:
jiggeryqua wrote:
Really?...let's get the worthless people off the sinking boat first,


"Women and children first," isn't it? So maybe they're not seen as worthless, but yeah.


No, no. You've got that backwards. Women & children were loaded onto the lifeboats of sinking ships first because they were (and are) considered less expendable & more valuable than men.


Children were allowed onto lifeboats because it is the nature of humans to want to protect children. Women were allowed onto lifeboats because they might be pregnant. Women were valued not as citizens, but as walking, talking incubators. Who's getting on that lifeboat first, the 6 year old boy, or the little old lady who can't have kids any more? For that matter, the little old lady or the 20 year old lady? Women were, and still are to a large extent, considered expendable once their child-bearing years are over.

Jiggery- for goodness sake, if you think women have it so great, just get a sex change and be over it. It sounds like you'll be much happier.



Anemone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,060
Location: Edmonton

20 Jul 2008, 1:11 pm

Jiggeryqua, if you're still reading this thread (I can see you're not banned yet), I asked MrMark to do something the last time you posted on another thread in this forum (the one where you were warned). I don't know if others have also PM'd him or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. It's his job to moderate, and that's what he's doing.

You may contribute to threads in the women's forum if you're polite about it, but you are not polite about it. Your tone is clearly hostile. Get lost, will you?

***

As far as "women and children first", I believe that was introduced by the Victorians (at least in the West - before that I think it was "me and my family first"). They also introduced the innovation where a married woman was allowed to own property. Previous to this, everything, including the clothes on her back, was owned by her husband or father, unless she was an unmarried heiress or had some sort of complex legal maneuver in place designed to keep her husband's hands off her (most likely inherited) property. Of course, most men didn't have much in the way of rights, either. And there was still legal slavery until about then, too.

And yes, men get sent into the trenches to die in warfare. But it should be noted that prostitution is just as dangerous and just as damaging (though far less necessary), and most people don't seem to have figured that out yet. I'd like to see the day when it's considered inethical to send people into war zones except when they outnumber the violent ones the way police are supposed to do now at home, so danger is minimized. And I'm an abolitionist with respect to buying and selling of people's bodies, not just in the sex trade but also in any job description. Do what you will, but harm none.

***

In my family, women were encouraged to be Victorian "angels in the house". I'm not sure if it did us any good. But if we'd been encouraged to be bullies, as in some families, it wouldn't have been any better. I'm all in favour of less violence all round.



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

20 Jul 2008, 1:56 pm

The phrase lie back and think of England was an expression supposedly used in the United Kingdom during the Victorian Era. Traditionally, it was advice given to a woman - usually from a mother to her daughter about to be married - about having sexual intercourse with her husband.

The origins of the phrase are unclear, but it is generally attributed to Alice, Lady Hillingdon (1857-1940), writing in her journal in 1912:

"I am happy now that George calls on my bedchamber less frequently than of old. As it is, I now endure but two calls a week, and when I hear his steps outside my door I lie down on my bed, close my eyes, open my legs and think of England."

However, the journal's location is unknown and this attribution is therefore unverified, the stuff of urban legend. It is also sometimes attributed to Queen Victoria, either as a description of childbirth or of sex, but no evidence exists for this attribution.


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


BakaBomber
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

20 Jul 2008, 6:41 pm

Quote:
And just forget about most movies or anime with those kind of characters in them. Most people will tend to worship the ground such characters walk on because they're "strong" (HAH.), and besides, hey, she softened up in the end, so it's all good, right? Umm... no. :\ I really don't think that makes up for two hours or an entire season of being slapped around, called an idiot, one upped and otherwise mistreated. Viewers would be appalled if a series or movie ended with a girl getting together with an abusive guy as portrayed in a positive light, so why should the reverse be permitted? Even more disgusting is the fact that people will often prefer the b***h to the guy she abuses, and defend her actions on the basis that the guy's being annoying/wimpy/stupid/whatever they choose to call him made him deserving of being treated as such, or simply assert that it's funny and therefore okay (I'm looking at YOU, Evangelion and Invader Zim fans!). Rather conducive to temporarily losing one's faith in humanity, if you ask me.

Oh man, have you ever watched Love Hina? I couldn't stand that Naru (female lead) would constantly push around and punch Keitaro (male lead), who deserved maybe only 10% of the abuse he ever got from her, and that I was supposed to laugh at a girl punching around a guy. If I were in Keitaro's shoes, I'd have tossed her aside and chose Mutsumi (much nicer, all-around superior secondary character) over her. But one of my friends, the person who recommended that anime to me, actually defended Naru's behavior and said that he liked her, solely because she's hot. :roll: My grandma, three-times divorced, once said out of the blue to my parents, "men like b*****s". Sometimes I wonder...



Anemone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,060
Location: Edmonton

21 Jul 2008, 12:01 pm

BakaBomber wrote:
My grandma, three-times divorced, once said out of the blue to my parents, "men like b*****s". Sometimes I wonder...


I think there's something to that. They say men like a challenge. I expect women do, too. Or it could be a way of avoiding intimacy. :?



Yupa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2005
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520
Location: Florida

21 Jul 2008, 9:10 pm

Anemone wrote:
BakaBomber wrote:
My grandma, three-times divorced, once said out of the blue to my parents, "men like b*****s". Sometimes I wonder...


I think there's something to that. They say men like a challenge. I expect women do, too. Or it could be a way of avoiding intimacy. :?


Who wants to avoid intimacy? (I suppose if someone were to avoid intimacy it would be due to the fear that intimacy would entail being uncomfortably close to someone who is abusive or simply stressful to be around, in which case someone who wants to avoid intimacy would probably look for someone who's the complete opposite of a jerk/b***h imo.... sorry if that didn't make sense)



Anemone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,060
Location: Edmonton

22 Jul 2008, 11:32 am

I don't think it's abuse or stress that people avoid when they're afraid of intimacy. I think it's niceness that's scary. Because then you might start to trust the person, get attached to the person, think that person's going to be around. Then that person could really hurt you badly by leaving.

On the other hand, when someone's abusive or neglectful, you stay on your guard, so they are less likely to hurt you unexpectedly. You expect things to be bad, or at least not very good, so you aren't disappointed. You're not setting yourself up for a fall, because you're staying at the bottom to begin with.

And when you get close to people you don't really like, it doesn't matter so much if they reject you, since you didn't like them much in the first place. But if you tried to get close to someone you actually liked, and that person rejected you . . . major pain.

So it's easy to get into the trap of never trying to get close to anyone who might actually be good for you, so you won't be disappointed if they're not. Don't know if that makes sense. It's counterproductive in the long run, but makes sense in the short term.