Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sluts/slappers/whores/homewreckers
Options
Comments
-
-
From the link seahorse posted up:
LOLsienna miller looks so used and abused, she looks like she’s in her mid 40s. gross. i hope they rot in hell
This is the other side of it - "used" and "abused"? She looks very much in control to me! And I hope my bod looks like that when I'm in my mid 40s!
0 -
-
-
From the link seahorse posted up:
LOL
This is the other side of it - "used" and "abused"? She looks very much in control to me! And I hope my bod looks like that when I'm in my mid 40s!
Yeah Dudess, lol, people say some crazy things on the internet! Did you read this one:
"True, but guys can’t be sluts. Four ****ing kids? That dude’s wife is also a slut!"
Jaysus! LOL!! :eek: 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Because for a very long time sex was the only goal. We are expecting ingrained wiring from hundreds of thousands of years to be overtaken by technological, social and economic advances from the last 100 years or so.
Go back 300 hundred years and where was mankind? Another 200? Getting pretty close to our tree dwelling ancestors i think.
Also, how have we fully evolved? This is an argument i don't hold with. Don't confuse evolution and complication. We haven't evolved, we have complicated and become more intelligent. We have yet to see if this change has been in line with our continued survival. At the moment it is too soon to tell.
Cavemen had a great system, housing was easy, food was sorted and social and political problems easily solved.:)
Individuals and societies are more than genetics. There is a serious amount of socialisation that happens today, and presumably has always happened. You don't see people having to resist the urge to chase down a bird & eat it raw on the spot. We have moved on. Sure, we still have instincts, etc but if I need to go to the bathroom, I have enough restraint to wait til I get home, etc. Social pressures do not receive the awareness they merit for their role in shaping our lives/attitudes/opinions, etc
Now, one could say you're guilty of idealising the era of cavemen
Do you really think that men have never come together in solidarity with one another to keep women out? This happens all the time. I can give you 1001 examples. I agree that the solution is not for women to make up their own clubs and then everyone run at each other! But at the same time, many men do not let go of power, socialisations and institutions that benefit their interests over women, unless they are forced to - mostly by women.Why do women need to do what men have never done in order to succeed? I'm very sorry, but there is no combined force of males. It's dog eat dog and **** his wife.
...
And the reason is simple and something that makes me smile everytime. Hows about a bit of solidarity and getting together between all of us?
Or will i be excluded from this new and amazing society because i am a man? Will the sins of those who have gone before me be enough to brand me a danger?
Because that seems to be the way your post is going. It's not about fixing anything, it's about fixing the problems you SEE because you are female.
A put upon and troubled male will see a very different set of problems and you will fix nothing until you include him.
In short, you are WAY to clever to be reaming out all this conspiracy theory and "girls can fix the world" rubbish. You can't, you really can't.
Even with all our supposed advantages if every bloke in the world decided to be a decent chap in the morning we couldn't fix the world.
Not until we talk to you folk.And many other religions place a strong emphasis and importance on the female role in life, living and creation.
Not everyone in the world goes through the doors of Catholic schools and yet these issues you speak of are world wide.
As you say,you don't have to go to a Catholic school to experience these issues. These ideas are central to the world's main religons: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu...There may be other societies that recognise the role of women but:
a) these places are most definitely in the minority and
b) they manage to pigeon-hole women, normally into being the carer/home maker
I sometimes think well we haven't managed to ruin the world yet but that's just because we haven't had a chance at the helm!The whole idea that women are some how pure and innocent and uncorruptable is annoying to me. Women are people, and people are greedy and selfish and mean.
They can also be loving and caring and selfless.
I have discovered that someones gender has **** all to do with what they are like as a person myself.
Gender should not matter.0 -
Advertisement
-
Individuals and societies are more than genetics. There is a serious amount of socialisation that happens today, and presumably has always happened. You don't see people having to resist the urge to chase down a bird & eat it raw on the spot. We have moved on. Sure, we still have instincts, etc but if I need to go to the bathroom, I have enough restraint to wait til I get home, etc. Social pressures do not receive the awareness they merit for their role in shaping our lives/attitudes/opinions, etc
Now, one could say you're guilty of idealising the era of cavemen
Oh i am, no doubt. It was a much easier time. I wouldn't have to sit here and read about everything being my fault, simply because i am a bloke for a start.
I am not making excuses, i am simply saying that people put too much stock in our "advancements" and forget where we came from. Our drives are the same, to be successful, to be social and sexually dominant. To be as big a fish as is allowed in as big a pond as we can find.Do you really think that men have never come together in solidarity with one another to keep women out?? Seriously. This happens all the time. I can give you 1001 examples. I agree that the solution is not for women to make up their own clubs and then everyone run at each other! But at the same time, many men do not let go of power, socialisations and institutions that benefit their interests over women, unless they are forced to - mostly by women.
I would really like to receive a list of the interests that are being protected for me by these dark and mysterious groups of men that i have never met.
Alternately, spend a week in my female dominated workplace, or better yet spend 5 years being passed over for spots in favour of females who don't have a tenth of my ability.
I'm not buying males dominating the workplace anymore. I think you can sleep easy knowing that the upturn is swinging firmly against me in here.
Personally i am not all about having women at home making babies and dinner. I hate babies and most of the girls i know can't cook.
Once again i am not buying this being branded because i am male bull****.You don't have to go to a Catholic school to experience these issues. These ideas are central to the world's main religons: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu...There may be other societies that recognise the role of women but:
a) these places are most definitely in the minority and
b) they manage to pigeon-hole women, normally into being the carer/home maker
A catholic example was given, hence my response.Gender should not matter.
Everything about your post tells me it does.
For now at least.0 -
Oh i am, no doubt. It was a much easier time. I wouldn't have to sit here and read about everything being my fault, simply because i am a bloke for a start.
I am not making excuses, i am simply saying that people put too much stock in our "advancements" and forget where we came from. Our drives are the same, to be successful, to be social and sexually dominant. To be as big a fish as is allowed in as big a pond as we can find.
I never said that everything was your fault because you are male, nor do I think that's what the other posters are saying.
No one is branding you anything. Taking issue with attitudes and structures in our society that favour one gender over another doesn't equal thinking all men are b@stards.I would really like to receive a list of the interests that are being protected for me by these dark and mysterious groups of men that i have never met.
Alternately, spend a week in my female dominated workplace, or better yet spend 5 years being passed over for spots in favour of females who don't have a tenth of my ability.
I'm not buying males dominating the workplace anymore. I think you can sleep easy knowing that the upturn is swinging firmly against me in here.
Personally i am not all about having women at home making babies and dinner. I hate babies and most of the girls i know can't cook.
Once again i am not buying this being branded because i am male bull****.
You may choose to rely on your own personal anecdotes and extrapolate them out to the rest of society but I prefer to look at the facts. For example:
-Women are given 26 weeks maternal leave, men are given nothing. Not only does this come from the mind-set that women are the home-makers, but it also has a serious impact on the employability of women. Not to mention the exclusion of the man from the whole situation.
-surveys in the UK show that recruitment agencies are being asked not to bother with women of child-bearing age
-Article 42 in the Irish constitution still recognises the role of the woman at home. And at a meeting in Geneva last month in front of the UN, the Irish government still refused to make the article gender-neutral.
-studies are showing that attitudes towards women in the work place are swinging back: more people today feel that a woman working is detrimental to their children, than in the 1990s.
-Insufficient child-care facilities
-Women doing the lions share of chores at home
I don't see why you're claiming that these interests are dark and mysterious. IMO they're just a Google search away.
Look, I'm not saying these are MENS fault, but at the same time, I would argue that we live in a society that has many structures that suit men, over women. Some do favour women over men (eg during custody battles).
These are issues of legislation, public policy - I'm certainly not blaming you! These are issues that we need to address, discuss! I feel equally outraged at the poor guy in PI whose wife was abusing him, but didn't think anyone would believe him, as I do the woman who is refused a job because she happens to be in her early 30s and married.
And I was building on it, not taking issues with it.A catholic example was given, hence my response.
No, what I do is accept that gender IS an issue on our society and that ignoring it isn't going to help anyone. Gender-neutral legislation and policy changes aren't going to come out of thin air.Everything about your post tells me it does.0 -
I gave the example of Genesis as this is the story of creation that Christendom, and hence the whole of the western world, has been based around for thousands of centuries.
Like it or not, religion and bible teachings are deeply rooted in the socio-religious psyche of western civilization and I personally believe the original story of creation is still the primary source in the West for definitions of gender, morality and sexuality.
In both form and symbol, Eve is woman, and because of her, the prevalent belief in the West has been that all women are by nature disobedient, guileless, weak-willed, prone to temptation and evil, disloyal, untrustworthy, deceitful, seductive or indeed homewreckers.
Also both Judaism and islam (I think) have this story of creation,so right from birth the majority of our world is being told that women were created to use her sex to tempt and seduce sinless Adam into disobedience!
As for man baiting, I didnt intend to do this. Men of course should join with women in our struggles to achieve a fairer,better society for working people. I was just trying to question the basis of womens so called 'bitchiness' towards each other, calling each other sluts and whores etc. I dont think its inherent female nature to scorn each other and I think female competitiveness is something society has taught us to do in order to keep us ununified.
Dont worry Dragan you'll be an honoroary male member of the feminist revoloution (boards.ie branch) when it happens 0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59004
As has been noted, we have greater complexity in society now, but our brains are hardwired pretty much the same way for the last 60,000 years at least. You can see it in operation with something like the outpouring of grief when princess diana died. People were crying as if they knew her. As if she was a friend or family member. Indeed even more than if they had known her. Why? Because they knew what she looked like, sounded like, she was on our TV screens and in magazines etc. People did know her, or at least it felt like they did. It felt like that to our 60,000 year old brain. Back then if you had that much info on someone it was someone in your society. Modern media bypasses the logical part and plugs straight into that. Ever see or meet a famous person? It feels weird because at first glance before the thinking kicks in you feel like you know them. Same deal. people being obsessed with virtual society in soap operas is yet another example. I would contend that women tend more towards those kinds of things because they are more hardwired in general for socialisation and the ebb and flow of same.The whole caveman thing just doesnt wash with me.How can humans have evolved so much that we have concordes,internet and cures for previously incurable diseases yet we havent been able to evolve past basic 'animal instincts'. How comes when it comes to everything else in life we have fully evolved past our caveman ancestors but when it comes to sex we are still in 600 bc?
Now because of the checks and balances in our society those hard wired instincts are controlled, but that doesn't mean they're not there. Indeed "caveman" society is also very complex and has quite a lot of rules governing social interaction and the control of "animal instincts". I think the "caveman" stereotype has a lot to answer for. I do think that in one big way society has changed and we're talking on one of those examples now. today for the first time in history really we have much more interaction by remote control. Yes we wrote letters in the past, but to be this connected yet disconnected is unusual. It may even explain various social issues and social phobias as our brains are furiously trying to catch up with the complexity. Sexuality could be put in that category too. We've gone from a situation where we had no relaiable contraception to paternity tests and sexual freedom. Things which really haven't happened before. There's bound to be a shaky time as that takes hold.
Maybe. I would still have issues with that though I appreciate where you're coming from. Much of the problem with that is that anytime it has been tried one, hierarchy gets replaced by another. I would suggest hierarchy is wired into us.There is, but It is something that is discouraged in society because our capitalist society relys on male and institutional dominance.
Society designs itself to a large degree and that changes with time and resources available to that society. What is considered moral one day can be seen as hopelessly immoral and out dated the next. Slavery is a good example. Slavery's time was up when cheaper power units became available. It's no great coincidence that slavery got the heave ho in europe and america when steam power became more widely available. Capitalism created the market and then destroyed it.Society is designed artifically to pit generations of women against each other.
Fine but look at men have achieved and it could well be argued we're not a united force. Most of history consists of one group of men pummeling the crap out of another group of men.Can you imagine what women could achieve if we were a united force?
I agree with those aims and society is getting there in a lot of them.We would get paid and recognised for all the work we do in the home,proper parental leave,reproductive choice, fair compensation, an end to the beauty myth where profiteering companies make billions making us feel bad about how we look, proper child care programs,genuine penalties against sexual violence etc etc.
That bit I don't agree with tbh. Women may prove evne more "capitalist" than men. Or even more divisive. I'd put money on the latter in fact. As noted earlier in thread women in general tend towards divisiveness in groups whereas men settle down into a hierarchical status quo. I do think men and women have fundamental differences. I also think we're more alike than different, but in the case of the OT, reproductive strategies, I think we are the most different. The genders have different approaches. Mainly because the genders have different outcomes and needs.Women achieveing this sort of liberation would turn society on its head so the divisivness of female kind is key to the smooth running of capitalism.
You could argue that there's an element of chicken and egg. Are women more likely to be sexually scheming than men and that has entered culture because of that? Or is it that when we started to settle in one place, the need to establish paternity for males became more important because of inheritance of resources and female sexuality was considered dangerous? I would suspect the latter as the idea is a lot less prevalent in "caveman" culture. Female sexuality is generally more accepted.
But as this thread shows its the tempting women that will get the brunt of the blame. This whole Idea that womens beauty and charm is an irrisistable force that turns even the most powerful men into putty in our hands is ridiculous. However this view of women as the temptress is deeply embedded into our culture and history.
I agree with that, though it's significantly more complex than dog eat dog and **** his wife.Dragan wrote:Why do women need to do what men have never done in order to succeed? I'm very sorry, but there is no combined force of males. It's dog eat dog and **** his wife.
I don't see the relevance tbh. Or is simply it to point out a perception that there exists a disparity between what she may say and what she may do?Now i'm not being smart here Panda, i met you at the beers in D2. You're a smart girl, good looking. You were well dressed, had the make up on, nice shoes on and well spoken from our brief conversation ( please not i only mention the style of dress and make up because you seem to have issue with the idea of people feeling they should wear make up, or the image of the made up woman).
Mmmm I'm not so sure. More I would suggest that individuals and societies follow rules created by a need to balance individual nature and the good of the society at the time. Nature is there though all the time. It drives culture. Sometimes culture drives it, but that would be the minority. There are enough studies that show our individual drives affect us more than we may suspect. One classic one recently was the finding that women on the pill look for subtly different types of men than those not on the pill and if those women subsequently come off the pill, those relationships fail at a much greater rate. That's an example of subconsious nature affecting the dynamics of a relationship and even society.taconnol wrote:Individuals and societies are more than genetics.
That's the thing. It's always happened.There is a serious amount of socialisation that happens today, and presumably has always happened.
True but there are very few cavemen types that would do that either. If the supermarkets ever run out of stock watch how quick we'll revert. I give it a fortnight.You don't see people having to resist the urge to chase down a bird & eat it raw on the spot. We have moved on.
So would a caveman. Wlak into a hunter gatherer village and poo in front of their dwellings and see how they react.Sure, we still have instincts, etc but if I need to go to the bathroom, I have enough restraint to wait til I get home, etc. Now people differ and some hippy couples will happily pee in front of each other, but our society has decided that the consensus is that's not a good thing. But any night in a major city after dark and you'll see enough people bucking that particular example.
And those social pressures have at their root our biology. Why don't we crap on the street? Why does it smell bad? Because we are hard wired to avoid other humans waste as it may carry disease. Why is throwing up on the street bad? Disease again. We even have the feeling we'll throw up if we see that or smell that. Why? biology again. If one of our group hurls chunks it would be a good plan for us to do so too in case we ingested the same food and it was poisonous. In our past the chances would be high we would have eaten the same thing. So society says human waste on the streets is bad and conditions us further to avoid doing it. Pretty much every thing in our society has at it's root some biology. They can't be separated.Social pressures do not receive the awareness they merit for their role in shaping our lives/attitudes/opinions, etc
In the case of human sexuality and in the context of the original topic that goes even moreso IMHO.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59004
Ah shucks.:o The fivers in the post.Good post Wibbs,
Yes and it was largely down to women's position in that society and they're roll in reproduction and inheritance. hence virginity and chasteness was even more valued than today.In the context of the original discussion, I would argue that for many women, their sense of standing in society & feelings of self-worth are linked to their appearance, and to a lessening extent, to the man they manage to bag. You just have to read an Austen novel to see how wrapped up a women's entire existence was in getting a good man just a few 100 years ago.
You could argue that's biology too. Men have more time to reproduce. A woman's chances are finite and based largely around youth. 99% of what is considered attractive in women is a direct result of their physical reproductive fitness. While physical fitness is a valued quality in men too, its not nearly as tied into youth. A scrawny socially powerful man will trump a muscle guy most of the time. Same with age. If a 35 year old man is standing beside a 25 year old man pretty much the same in the physical attractiveness stakes, trying to attract the same woman(say she's 25 too). Most of the time the 25 year old bloke may as well get his coat. Women are looking for subtly different things. So Ms Aniston will be seen as a woman running out of time to start a family(nonsense though it may be), where Mr Cloony has all the time in the world. Add in an element of jealousy and seeing her fail because she's a famous sex symbol may make some feel better about their own lives. That's more a case with other women and their reproductive competitiveness.Clearly we have moved on from then but how much?? Just think of the difference connotations that arise with the words "bachelor" and "spinster". Look at all the horrible press (much of it written by women, I might add) about "poor" Jennifer Aniston & how she's 40 & still single, while at the same time drooling over George Clooney, who is quite a bit older.
Pretty much. Certainy better in many cases than today. they were more "feminist" socities. Ironic enough.As for the cultural norms, there have been historians who say that women used to be on a very equal standing with men, in caveman times (maybe you're right Dragan - they were the best times!) and that women actually brought more calories into the cave than the men did. As a result, they were treated as equals in their society.
I would say they have to a greater or lesser extent since the beginnings of farming and cities. The greeks considered women lesser, as did the romans, as did pretty much every civilisation one can think of.So yes cutural conditioning has always been happening but I would question the assertion that women have always been viewed, at least on a cultural/social level in the same vein as they have over the past 200 years
It is too.On the puking thing: this is a very interesting subject. I read a few weeks ago about how many of our "cultural" norms surround food, in particular, have practical origins. For example, if you think about most of the food taboos in our society, they center around meat. Asians eat dogs, insects, the French eat snails & frog-legs, the British like steak & kidney pie and liver pate! Another interesting point made was that wasabi has anti-bacterial properties and so it is wise to eat it with sushi (raw fish). A more unfounded example of this would be the practice of eating lemon with fish, as the lemon was thought to dissolve any fish bones swallowed. Really interesting stuff.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
So you dont think there is a gender bias in society when It comes to naming people sluts and slappers?
That both men and women equally are branded with these types of derogatory names?
Of course there is a gender bias.
Any word that refers to a woman in the English language usually indicates her status as viewed by men (sexual/ marital) - 'mrs' 'miss' 'lady' 'madam' 'dutchess' 'bitch' 'slut' 'whore'.
The only one I can think of that doesn't is Ms but that came about in defiance of the other terms so you still can't escape the male influence on the words we use to describe ourselves.
At the end of the day, they are only words and they only have power or weight if you allow them.
Of course there are men who are sluts and whores but they are fulfilling their biological function. Simple as. It might not fit in with our 21st century sensibilities but that is the truth of it.
Men are biologically programmed to spread their seed as far and wide and frequently as possible.
Women are biologically programmed to keep a 'mate' and provide care for offspring, hence the difficulty in separating sex from emotion.
So when I see people arguing over the use of words like slut etc, it seems to me to be a simple case of nature versus nurture.
Getty is fulfilling his biological role, but Miller subverts hers, which is why, I think, she rouses such animosity - she's not playing by the rules.
I am generalising here but you get the drift.
Why get wound up about silly words?
It's the behaviour that should be the barometer here.
Neither Miller nor Getty were considerate enough to take the feelings of others into account.
In that respect they are as bad as each other.
EDIT: I see I've come into this thread two pages too late!
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement