| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
R0b0t1
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 264
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:39 pm Post subject: [split] Off Topic: Gentoo-Women - Take Three |
 |
|
pjp edit: Split only the most recent posts and related items from Gentoo-Women - Take Three to help focus the discussion. If more need to be split to here, let me know. Otherwise only the newest off topic discussion need be here. Thanks, --pjp.
Your tendency to lump all men besides you (and some elusive other group) together as abusers doesn't really seem to foster an environment of friendly debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Yamakuzure
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2284
Location: Adendorf, Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Try to consider the phrase "5000 years of Patriarchy." By all means go and research what Patriarchy means, and how it operates. |
Another one: | W. Sommerset Maugham wrote: | | If 50 million people say something foolish, it is still foolish. |
I won't quote the "imagine to be the victim" stuff, I was the victim for 15 years. It is a bunch of singular cases, and drawing some sort of "grand picture" is simply idiotic. Every case is different, and opposed by a multitude of non-abuse relationships. | steveL wrote: | | That's what patriarchy means: slavery, pure and simple. |
Well said. Imagine that it all started out to actually protect women, as they were the most valuable resource of every clan. That's why men went hunting, not women. Too dangerous. Women where valuable, men where not.
...and see where the "protection" went, just by leaving men alone to handling things... I bet many argued with words like "improving" and such...
| steveL wrote: | | (...) only you, speaking from your own feelings. |
Exactly. That is all we can do. And only if we accept, that we are not a convention of social scientists, we can step away from our own tiny microcosms, and maybe this thread starts to be a discussion, then.
| steveL wrote: | A similar argument: some men consider providing spaces for women to breast-feed in privacy to be "preferential treatment of women"; after all, only women need it, and they can breast-feed wherever they want in privacy.
Or providing maternity leave; only women get that, right?
(...) |
The child has two parents, normally a father and a mother. Being able to breast-feed when the child needs it, is good for the child and should be in the best interest of both. So actually, this is "preferential treatment of children", which should be a grand motto of any civilization.
All people I have ever witnessed opposing the idea to provide spaces for women to breast-feed in privacy, were childless men... If this says something...
As for the maternity leave, that is country specific. Here in Germany, parents can choose who gets the major leave, the other can, if they want, take a minor leave afterwards.
As for the "IF men gave birth" idea: Then the women would have evolved as hunters and men as gatherers. The situation would be the same, just the other way round.
(I left a lot out here, Steve, but want to repeat myself: Well said! (With some "hear, hear"s thrown in between)
| steveL wrote: | | It also stands to reason that women might prefer not to "out themselves" simply because men are on the whole anti-social assholes, who think behaving like that is "all good fun" and anyone who "doesn't get it" must have a stick up her ass (cue lots of unsubtle description of what they'd prefer to stick up there; indicating they'd prefer someone else to stick it up their own, and are pretending otherwise^W^W lying to themselves.) They seem to think it's "all good fun" to sexually-proposition someone you cannot even see. |
Ahhh! The wonders of the internet, aren't they? The "asshole-macho-man" faction didn't gain numbers by the invention of the internet. They just can spread their bullshit too easily with it...
| steveL wrote: | | (...)the women, who *shock- horror* are not the ones behaving like this. |
Au contraire, there are a lot of women behaving exactly like that. They are just a lot smarter then we men are, and don't do that in public. (Have you ever seen footage of a girls-night in a strip club?  They can really go wild for strippers!  )
But joke aside, that women are (often) more controlling and aggressive towards their partners than men is no joke, just another "reality".
See? Most "classical" stereotypes do not actually work. What a surprise, as they where mostly invented by stupid white men, isn't it?
| steveL wrote: | | Most men are though, or at least start off like that |
I concur. That's the result of educational background plus social environment plus the perceived status quo in society. Where to start to change that? We here try to do so early in kindergarten, but as you said, at least some men eventually learn...
My personal "where-to-start"-favourite is income. We have 2017, and still many women earn less for the same work their male colleagues do. I know of three cases, where said women even have a higher expertise and more experience than their male counterparts, and still earn up to 20% (!!) less.
| 1clue wrote: | | That's what real role models are. Little girls see women doing great things and they want to do that thing. There is no longer a real need for gender roles to be enforced. |
While I whole-heartily agree, there is a tiny flaw in that assumption: The "little girls" won't remember that role models two well, once the next season of their countries "next top model" show starts...
Society and media push so many "ideals" (male and female) upon us, that being our own is harder than it should be.
_________________
Important German:- "Aha" - German reaction to pretend that you are really interested while giving no f*ck.
- "Tja" - German reaction to the apocalypse, nuclear war, an alien invasion or no bread in the house.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
szatox
Advocate
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 3136
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | My personal "where-to-start"-favourite is income. We have 2017, and still many women earn less for the same work their male colleagues do. I know of three cases, where said women even have a higher expertise and more experience than their male counterparts, and still earn up to 20% (!!) less. |
I like this one too. You can make it better though:
Add maternity leaves and sickness leaves to the equation and then calculate the price tag of a single working hour.
Also, women live a few years longer than men, yet they (at least in my country) retire earlier which means they receive pensions much longer (AFAIR it was estimated as 3 times as long as men). If you want to compare the actual income, don't leave the significant details out.
Bonus points for political correctness: it's much harder and more risky to fire a women than a man. And it's much easier for women to get away with false accusations of personal abuse (another point to increased risk).
You know, according to "common knowledge" the women is always the victim, and the man in her position is either lucky or clumsy. How much is the employer's risk worth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | I am not saying all men are like this |
| R0b0t1 wrote: | | Your tendency to lump all men besides you (and some elusive other group) together as abusers doesn't really seem to foster an environment of friendly debate. |
Huh; yeah, right ^^.
Mate, that was a genuine attempt to engage with you.
Clearly it's fallen on stony ground, as you're just coming back with cliches, which are simply a reflection of not thinking, as I was brought up.
I won't be posting too much more, and certainly not to argue this point again; I'd just like all the men who've posted so far to consider to what extent their initial "are you sure?" posts, could be seen as "reflexive yammering and yowling" designed to "suggest alternative interpretations."
From where I'm sitting that's exactly what they were: that's why I kept saying "you're questioning the basis" (which was how I understood it, from the quoted post.)
And it is simply not helpful; in fact it is downright unhelpful. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news; but even sorrier when it keeps on happening and no-one says a word to challenge it.
I can quite understand why someone would not want to put herself forward to deal with all that nonsense; and it is nonsense.
I can quite understand why women would want a space to chat in, where they aren't constantly having to deal with it; it's hard to bridge the gulf, when you're the only one expressing a position, and everyone around is behaving like you're just emotional, hysterical, mad, pick something dismissive (like "having a tantrum", when the shoe is clearly on the other foot.)
"Just doesn't get it," is common, but reads like projection. (Yes, I'm saying men who use that phrase wrt social behaviour, simply do not "get it" themselves.)
Again, if you don't like it, don't blame the women, nor go on at them about it (you really think this is as new to them, as it is to you?); set an example if and when you can (nobody's perfect, so don't think you are, either), but most of all, don't put up with that crap from other men. That's the only way it will change: if men collectively say, "enough, already; let's get into the 21st century, ffs."
It's on us, iow, not on women.
If women want some safe spaces from which to spread their wings: good for them. And good for us, as we'll all get more people, with more useful perspectives on making Gentoo great, while keeping it simple (a necessary prerequisite for the former.)
The elephant in the room, ofc, is OTW. It's the exact opposite of a "safe-space", a bastion of white-male stupidity and poison.
So if you lot want to quibble about making all gentoo spaces safe, start with that, as it's an embarrassment, as well as a brazenly "unsafe" space.
Heh, didn't think so. ;)
Still, it makes a mockery of the CoC; yet we get OTWers in other threads, going on as if the CoC covers all this, ergo there is no problem (silly women, getting overheated and flustered about nothing, again.)
It's called "minimization", and most of the men in this thread have been doing it all the way through, by continually questioning the basis, instead of shutting TF up and listening (which means truly thinking and reflecting about what has been said, rather than just responding with the first lame trope that comes to mind.)
I wish you well on your journey, whoever you may be.
Hopefully you respect other people's journeys as just as important to the whole as your own. If not, you have my sympathy, but not my respect.
Good day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | That's what patriarchy means: slavery, pure and simple. |
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | Well said. Imagine that it all started out to actually protect women, as they were the most valuable resource of every clan. That's why men went hunting, not women. Too dangerous. Women were valuable, men were not. |
heh, imo, it's far more likely we evolved, and achieved "dominance" under matriarchy. So yes, women had a higher status than men (who probably started out as disposable drones, billions of years ago underwater; the evolution that never gets mentioned when discussing the "natural order".)
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | So actually, this is "preferential treatment of children", which should be a grand motto of any civilization. |
Agreed; neither matriarchy or patriarchy can work over the longer-term; an "enfarchy" is the only sane option, and indeed what has happened: mammalian infants develop outside the womb, which needs a safe space wherein to raise them, as well as ongoing childcare in the early years (and beyond.) (The mammalian mother-child bond is incredibly strong.)
"The hallmark of a 'civilisation' is how well the children and the old are treated," or indeed the vulnerable; by which yardstick, we are not civilised at all.
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | As for the "IF men gave birth" idea: Then the women would have evolved as hunters and men as gatherers. The situation would be the same, just the other way round. |
Heh, sure; it was another thought-experiment, and a bit of a joke ("the future of the species, guy" is recognisable to any bloke I've ever met.)
I read recently, in some book (i think) a dialogue wherein a young male was complaining about "female" behaviour (mulling over points, moving around a topic to explore the angles), to which the elder, a scientist, replied: "Yes, yes, that's the different approach of a gatherer vs a hunter", and words to the effect that a gatherer has to explore an area, and come back over old ground to spot something missed, and will take advantage and listen to different perspectives, since many eyes are better than two (and not doing so leads to worse results.) A hunter is focussed on a goal, and must set aside distractions, keep driven towards that quarry, etc.
OFC collaboration is common to both, and it's only through collaboration with each other as social animals, that we've got anywhere. The myth of competition is a lie, based on inter-species competition, and even in that regard, the ecosystem is built on symbiosis. If you ignore "the fundamental interconnectedness of everything", in the quest for a mono-culture, or One True Way, it only leads to inevitable species decline when the ecosystem disagrees.
Friendly rivalry is totally different to the idiot-box "competition" we are sold, under its guise.
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | I left a lot out here, Steve, but want to repeat myself: Well said! (With some "hear, hear"s thrown in between) |
Thanks :-) it means a lot, coming from you.
| Quote: | | Ahhh! The wonders of the internet, aren't they? The "asshole-macho-man" faction didn't gain numbers by the invention of the internet. They just can spread their bullshit too easily with it... |
Yup, along with the nasty porn, that simply follows the old Nazi agenda of conflating sex with violence, to the extent that "sex and violence" has been a stock phrase in our culture since the 1980s, at least.
I cannot tell you how ashamed that makes me of both men, and humanity in general. Good sex is not violent; passionate sometimes, but it is not a relation of violence, nor even power; more of submission to each other, as well as oneself.
If people are fetishised to enjoy suffering, that is a reflection of an insane culture, that revels in imposing suffering, and acting as if the causes are unknowable, or unchangeable, as well as idolising the nastiest sociopaths.
"What does not kill you, only makes you stronger," sounds like something an abuser would say to his victim.
As a homily, it could only ever have applied in a time with no medicine to speak of; certainly, if you break your leg, it does not make you stronger in a fight thereafter: it radically weakens you, in fact. (Yes, I'm aware of the other kind of strength this saying can mean: it's still a sop to pretend you aren't affected by something bad, when you were and it was, or you wouldn't be reaching for that crap. So just deal with whatever it is, already.)
Well, I'd say it's more accurate to say that women can be, and often are, the dominant partner, with a submissive male (a reflection of the millions of years of matriarchy prior to 5000 years of violence and "might is right"); not that women are more controlling and aggressive overall, than men.
"Controlling" is a bad word, here, really, as everyone seeks to impose some sort of control over their external environment. It has connotations of "manipulative", when applied to women, and everyone is manipulative ("look ma, opposable thumbs!" just like every other land-dwelling non-insect.) Only when men do it, it's "savvy", or they're "an operator," and women are "manipulative" ie: it's "scheming" when women do it ("no fair! I lost out to a woman.." and it makes me feel insecure about my masculinity: let's blame all women, like I'd blame "positive discrimination", instead of seeking to do better next time, or even giving acknowledgment; as I might do if I lost out to a fellow white man.)
A man who is "controlling" in a relationship is basically off his head, and wants to control everything, like what she wears, and who she sees (an ever-diminishing circle of "allowed" friends) as a way of deflecting from his own insecurity (which ofc won't work, nor address the real issues, so it's a recipe for disaster.)
Women are labelled "controlling" when they just want the man to look and behave like an adult, and find they have to remind him to wash his face, or take a shower sometime this week.
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | The "little girls" won't remember those role models too well, once the next season of their countries "next top model" show starts... |
Spot on; the relatively few role-models aren't the ones pushed in kids' faces, and getting the anti-social media "hits"; instead it's the vacuous, "paid and loving it, so I must be 'empowered', and not a glorified prostitute^W pornstar" barbie-dolls, who are definitely not famous for their achievements.
This is not what I want my daughter bombarded with; it's a load of crap, that can only damage her sense of self. And for what? Pfft.
There's a whole ourstory of women who've done so much, and got us so far; that it's all been stamped out, along with the oral traditions and the peoples that lived as we are built to live, is only a source of shame, not pride in sociopathic "progress" designed to make more and more of us (the ones left after each "great war" in the "great game") as unhappy as possible.
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | Society and media push so many "ideals" (male and female) upon us, that being our own is harder than it should be. |
I cannot agree more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yamakuzure
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2284
Location: Adendorf, Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll restrain myself to the most important points, as we seem to agree on most points anyway.
| steveL wrote: | | So yes, women had a higher status than men |
A group of 10 men and 10 women can afford to loose 7 men, but not to loose 7 women.
Ironically the "rise of the patriarchy" looks necessary from a certain point of view: To prevent men from becoming (almost) obsolete.
| steveL wrote: | | I read recently, in some book (i think) a dialogue wherein a young male was complaining about "female" behaviour |
That reply from the scientist captures it well, doesn't it?
A title I read some years ago was "Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps" - quite illuminating.
| steveL wrote: | The myth of competition is a lie, based on inter-species competition, and even in that regard, the ecosystem is built on symbiosis. If you ignore "the fundamental interconnectedness of everything", in the quest for a mono-culture, or One True Way, it only leads to inevitable species decline when the ecosystem disagrees.
Friendly rivalry is totally different to the idiot-box "competition" we are sold, under its guise. |
Just wanted to quote that paragraph as a whole, because it is a very important matter.
"competition" in the context of firms battling to bring the better variant of a product to the market, is good. Well, as long as all "competitors" play by the rules and do not bankrupt themselves. Although the latter could be called "natural selection".
"competition" in the context of individuals obsessively working on trumping others at any cost, is just poisonous behaviour.
| steveL wrote: | (About obsessive control)
Only when men do it, it's "savvy", or they're "an operator," and women are "manipulative" ie: it's "scheming" when women do it ("no fair! I lost out to a woman.." and it makes me feel insecure about my masculinity: let's blame all women, like I'd blame "positive discrimination", instead of seeking to do better next time, or even giving acknowledgment; as I might do if I lost out to a fellow white man.) |
That depends of what we are talking about.
Generally speaking, I agree with you, that it matters who did what. The same actions are perceived differently whether they were conducted by a man or a women.
Just take the "experience" example. A men who had many women is a hero, a woman who had many men is a slut. That doesn't make it better or justifies anything. Just shows that we, as a people, still have to learn a lot.
But the article speaks about something different:
"Psychologists at the University of Cumbria questioned 1,104 young men and women using a scale of behaviour which ranged from shouting and insulting to pushing, beating and using weapons.
They discovered that women were ‘significantly’ more likely to be verbally and physically aggressive to men than vice versa."
I think there is no room for interpretation of the doers gender. Only how we (men) achieved to make women reach that state. (Yes, I am convinced this is the result of hundreds of years leaving the world in the hands of some stupid misogynists...)
| SteveL wrote: | | Spot on; the relatively few role-models aren't the ones pushed in kids' faces, and getting the anti-social media "hits"; instead it's the vacuous, "paid and loving it, so I must be 'empowered', and not a glorified prostitute^W pornstar" barbie-dolls, who are definitely not famous for their achievements. |
And our view about beauty is really distorted. The bad side of technology: The Evolution of Beauty (Time-lapse)  (Well, no shocking news here...)
_________________
Important German:- "Aha" - German reaction to pretend that you are really interested while giving no f*ck.
- "Tja" - German reaction to the apocalypse, nuclear war, an alien invasion or no bread in the house.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R0b0t1
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 264
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Mate, that was a genuine attempt to engage with you. |
If it was, why are you putting words in my mouth? I don't think many of the things you accused me of thinking. If I continue the conversation on your terms it might look like I agree that I said things I actually didn't. I've already tried to suggest that you may not have understood what I originally said, but you responded by saying that you actually knew what I am thinking better than myself.
I do feel like I should reply to the following, however:
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | My personal "where-to-start"-favourite is income. We have 2017, and still many women earn less for the same work their male colleagues do. I know of three cases, where said women even have a higher expertise and more experience than their male counterparts, and still earn up to 20% (!!) less. |
This is not true. A good starting place is this article, which gives you good enough references to follow up on the actual research. If those women you know actually make that much less then they are poor negotiators, and I don't think it is fair to blame society.
Essentially if you compare equal hours worked women make something like 98% of what men do, and that number very well may be 100% with the 2% being error. There is some newer research and in my experience lots of anecdotal evidence that shows women might make more on average than men in technical fields (potentially due to "positive discrimination") especially when you take into account the value of nonmonetary compensation. I do think it's valid to consider why women take nonmonetary compensation over monetary compensation, or to acknowledge that many women might have less work experience due to child rearing. But saying all women make less than men, even those that make choices similar to those that men make, is disingenuous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54237
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
R0b0t1,
| R0b0t1 wrote: | | ... and I don't think it is fair to blame society. |
I'll have a gentle nibble at this sweeping generalisation. Which society would that be?
You will get different answers in different societies.
Being old and cynical, I'll suggest that if there is no remuneration (complete package) gaps between men and women in your reference society its because of years of positive discrimination that still continues.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R0b0t1
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 264
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | R0b0t1,
| R0b0t1 wrote: | | ... and I don't think it is fair to blame society. |
I'll have a gentle nibble at this sweeping generalisation. Which society would that be?
You will get different answers in different societies. |
Western society. The research was conducted in the US, but I see no reason it shouldn't apply to Europe and the developed portions of other continents that have Western values. If Yamakuzure lives in a place that does not have Western values or a place that still has a very large pay gap then I suppose I am wrong, but regardless of that his generalization that there is a widespread pay gap is false.
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Being old and cynical, I'll suggest that if there is no remuneration (complete package) gaps between men and women in your reference society its because of years of positive discrimination that still continues. |
What I said doesn't imply that the situation may have been skewed in the first place, because around the time women entered the workforce it most certainly was. However I think it's wrong to see it as positive discrimination - if what you're doing is making the sexes equal you're removing negative discrimination. If managers are giving raises to women simply because they are women then that is unfair and what women were fighting against in the first place, just with the sexes reversed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Mate, that was a genuine attempt to engage with you. |
| R0b0t1 wrote: | | If it was, why are you putting words in my mouth? |
NFC what you're on about now.
Like I said, it was a genuine attempt to engage; and I haven't seen anything like the same from you, only what looks like random drive-by trolling.
I am not going to keep arguing with you.
Have a nice day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | I'll restrain myself to the most important points, as we seem to agree on most points anyway. ;-) |
Yup; here we are in our echo chamber. ;-)
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | Ironically the "rise of the patriarchy" looks necessary from a certain point of view: To prevent men from becoming (almost) obsolete. ;-) |
Heh, I think it's more that violence as a method of settling arguments (and thus: "might is right"), is an inevitable phase in a dominant species. Whilst that is rightly seen as abhorrent between members of the same social grouping, it's easily "justifiable" in terms of inter-species competition for resource, or the "wild" (yaf mangling of "weald".)
The game theory result wrt the prisoners' dilemna, of 3 stages of visible "self-sacrifice" being required before the culture finally changes, is quite heartening in that regard. I look at it, as "people just don't want to live like that."
Apart from damaged sociopaths who are unable to get any real self-insight, and can only act-out; as our society is effectively built to inculcate sociopathy. (The braying crowds who encourage one to behave like a dicq, as in OTW or on twitter, are one symptom.)
Really, though, what it comes down to is this: if you leave anyone behind, then all you are doing is saving up resentment and problems for later. (Most often, you're also an immoral, lying PoS who talks about the "best for everyone" while helping yourself or your self-perceived grouping, most of all, to the extent that that is all you do: the rest just being cover.)
This is always rationalised with some sort of "moral" judgement, some means to make the "other" "sub"-human in some way.
As Granny Weatherwax said, "[Oppression] always begins with seeing other beings as 'less than'."
I mean, it's inevitable that people don't like to be on the shit-end of the stick; so it's no wonder men would rebel against matriarchy, never mind how much better it might have been for all of us, than the shitstorm we live in now.
We never stop to think how much sweeter everything would be if there were no stick, because we're not allowed time to reflect, and think, because we have to run a rat-race just to put food on the table, and even to have a table in the first place.
| Yamakuzure wrote: | | "competition" in the context of firms battling to bring the better variant of a product to the market, is good. Well, as long as all "competitors" play by the rules and do not bankrupt themselves. Although the latter could be called "natural selection". ;-) |
While it's true that you have to work hard, and make smart choices to succeed, I've come to realise that the whole game is rigged; bankruptcy is inevitable, since the underlying "debt" of the fraudulent currencies we are all forced to use, can never be repaid.
So things just get harder and harder, as the real value of money falls and falls, while those connected to the spigot take more and more.
Working hard is not enough. Nor is meekly conforming; they simply don't give a damn about you.
We're the "frogs in the saucepan", slowly getting boiled and not noticing the fire, the pan, nor the cooks: only the heat.
We're lied to constantly, and told we're like "crabs in a bucket" encouraging us to consider our peers as enemies, and not the guy holding the bucket.
Whence the poisonous competition, which is simply "divide and rule" in operation.
| Yamakuzure wrote: | (About obsessive control) | steveL wrote: | | Only when men do it, it's "savvy", or they're "an operator," and women are "manipulative" ie: it's "scheming" when women do it ("no fair! I lost out to a woman.." and it makes me feel insecure about my masculinity: let's blame all women, like I'd blame "positive discrimination", instead of seeking to do better next time, or even giving acknowledgment; as I might do if I lost out to a fellow white man.) |
That depends of what we are talking about. |
Indeed; though I wasn't talking about obsessive control there (that was in the next paragraph); I was talking about the inevitable "manipulation" (of the environment) all of us do in our real lives, just to get anything done.
| Quote: | ..the article speaks about something different:
"Psychologists at the University of Cumbria questioned 1,104 young men and women using a scale of behaviour which ranged from shouting and insulting to pushing, beating and using weapons.
They discovered that women were ‘significantly’ more likely to be verbally and physically aggressive to men than vice versa."
I think there is no room for interpretation of the doers gender. Only how we (men) achieved to make women reach that state. (Yes, I am convinced this is the result of hundreds of years leaving the world in the hands of some stupid misogynists...) |
I agree that a lot of female "aggression" is borne of frustration at the state of their lives, and the sheer bloody-mindedness of the monomaniacs they have to deal with.
As discussed, women are seen as "aggressive" in terms of language and tone, which does not apply to white men (when we must solely consider the words used) though it is ofc used against people of colour, as an excuse for discrimination, even for shooting them in the street.
From what I've seen, women are "encouraged" to conform to a stereotype which leaves them unable to express themselves freely; if they don't, then they will be discriminated against by men, for whatever "reason", and indeed other women (conforming to what Brecht called the "myth of the overseer".)
It's hardly surprising they need to vent, like everyone does on occasion.
But the point, of how men treat women, and vice versa -- where we'd also need to bring in the much wider socio-political context -- does not consider how men treat each other, vs how women deal with each other.
In that light, men are certainly more aggressive overall; they try to dominate each other physically, certainly up til their 30s (or the point we give up on that crap, and settle for being a "bloke" rather than trying to assert the ubermensch status we're sold as kids.)
OFC if you are of the sensibility that prefers to think body language doesn't exist, then you won't see it (chances are, you're avoiding the game. If you're avoiding it, then it's definitely happening.)
Women collaborate; they dominate in terms of who speaks, and who listens; the alpha-female is the one who sets the agenda. She'll have the last word, not the most; and then everyone will move to do what she just said -- because she's been proven right, over and over (and we've finally got a decision, after however long discussing it.)
Men end up in the same place, seeing status in terms of who speaks, and is listened-to, rather than who's the biggest bastard in the room. (He'll be avoided later in life, as he was flattered in his twenties.) They still talk in terms of doing each other down (as a joke^W means to "make you stronger" [1]) rather than in the supportive terms women tend to use with each other (especially when they want to get someone to do something. ;)
OFC, the problem is the status game in and of itself, not the means by which status is established.
The "female" variant is at least about what gets the best result, which is how the elusive kudos is established.
(Note that this is much more like coding, which is all about the results.)
But really, the kids are just sick of the posturing.
At least with the women, it's about having a fun time together, rather than a nasty, humiliating one (where we're constantly having to show we "got it", even though "it" was about as subtle as a slap in the face, usually as derogatory, and frankly: beneath regard. For a child.)
--
[1] Men:
If you have to put someone else down, to build yourself up, there's something wrong with you.
Quite apart from that, it does not make you better; you have not improved, so it's not building yourself up: it's fooling yourself, and behaving like an asshole at the same time (a frequent combination; try to avoid it, when you can. When you can't, at least own your mistake; or you will lose respect.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultory
Bodhisattva
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 9410
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
