Anyone else wish they were a man?

eviltwin

When I see a woman crying I assume she is upset about something, I don't think she is doing it to get her own way....do people always have to be so cynical?

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

Possibly. Let's be honest; it's not unusual for women to exploit the 'damsel in distress' tactic to elicit help from men to do things such as lifting luggage, getting money for a taxi, and so on, even if it doesn't go as far as tears.

Going as far as tears to getting what you want is more extreme and could nowadays be seen as a sign of emotional problems, but you'd be surprised how many will still resort to this tactic in places like court, even if under normal circumstances they'd share your disdain of the practice.

Sometimes I need a hand with my luggage though. I've got the arms of a child and struggle sometimes. Asking a man to help you lift your suitcase up some stairs is hardly a tactic, it's just asking for help. It's not putting on an act or using the damsel in distress card. Money for a taxi? Ehhh....are you sure they're not junkies? That's hardly common! Let's be honest here!

There's a distinct difference between looking for help because you genuinely need it and manipulating a situation.

Eve_Dublin

eviltwin wrote: »

When I see a woman crying I assume she is upset about something, I don't think she is doing it to get her own way....do people always have to be so cynical?

Exactly. I shouldn't have said anything. This woman admitted to it so that's why I know this is her game. She's exceptional though. How do you know these women are manipulative and not just upset?

cantdecide

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

It's not something I've ever heard of among adult women. I told the story because I thought it was unusual coming from a grown up women. I didn't think, "Not another woman at this!!".

eviltwin wrote: »

When I see a woman crying I assume she is upset about something, I don't think she is doing it to get her own way....do people always have to be so cynical?

I would never make the assumption that someone was manipulating me. However, sometimes your spidey senses kick in and you realise you might be getting played. Sometimes, when you stand back and look at the evidence, it all just adds up to you becoming an all-day sucker.

Eve_Dublin

cantdecide wrote: »

I would never make the assumption that someone was manipulating me. However, sometimes your spidey senses kick in and you realise you might be getting played. Sometimes, when you stand back and look at the evidence, it all just adds up to you becoming an all-day sucker.

Manipulative people can be found in both genders. Some women use their womanly charms, some men might use their "cheeky chappy" personality (you know the type). I think sincerity is easy enough to spot thought most of the time.

The Corinthian

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Sometimes I need a hand with my luggage though. I've got the arms of a child and struggle sometimes. Asking a man to help you lift your suitcase up some stairs is hardly a tactic, it's just asking for help. It's not putting on an act or using the damsel in distress card. Money for a taxi? Ehhh....are you sure they're not junkies? That's hardly common! Let's be honest here!

I never suggested that it's always a case of attempted manipulation - it wouldn't be a very effective strategy if it was as it does play upon the existence of genuine cases.

But it does happen. In offices women will often turn to men to carry deliveries, even though they would be more than capable of doing so themselves. Late at night, outside clubs, you will get girls who'll try seeking money for a taxi home, even though they seemingly had plenty of money to drink all night. And lawyers will readily admit that some women will turn on the waterworks to elicit sympathy in court.

This is not all women, neither is it all cases. Neither are men somehow innocent of our own forms of anti-social behaviour. However, the minority (be it male or female) does end up tarring the majority - it's not fair, but it does happen because these cases do come up, often more often than we case to realize.

Roadtrippin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Some women do many things but I don't see why it should give all of us a bad name? She's probably the second woman I've met who does this.

You're right that it's a small minority of women that do this and I wasn't talking about your particular story either. I believe in general nobody tars all women with the same brush if in rare cases a girl does use crying in a manipulative way.

I do think though that not all women that use crying in one way or another are emotionally unstable. I know one or two girls that use it consciously to get their way with the boys, or to say the least make a man uncomfortable so they get away with more. This is not the majority of course but I have seen it happen.
I wasnt trying to imply a lot of girls do this. I just wanted to say that I don't like it when those few women that we are talking about use crying to manipulate.

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never suggested that it's always a case of attempted manipulation - it wouldn't be a very effective strategy if it was as it does play upon the existence of genuine cases.

But it does happen. In offices women will often turn to men to carry deliveries, even though they would be more than capable of doing so themselves. Late at night, outside clubs, you will get girls who'll try seeking money for a taxi home, even though they seemingly had plenty of money to drink all night. And lawyers will readily admit that some women will turn on the waterworks to elicit sympathy in court.

This is not all women, neither is it all cases. Neither are men somehow innocent of our own forms of anti-social behaviour. However, the minority (be it male or female) does end up tarring the majority - it's not fair, but it does happen because these cases do come up, often more often than we case to realize.

I call them "chancers"(or lazy feckers) but both genders use different tactics and are guilty of it albeit in different circumstances, so I believe it's deeply unfair that one gender get lumped with the stigma over another. My brothers got out of most of the daily cleaning in my house growing up because according to them, they did the manly jobs (cutting the grass, bringing out the bins and not much else). My dad was and is the same. He was excused from so much simply because he was the man (both my parents worked). Instead of standing up for myself and my 3 sisters, they openly used their gender as an excuse.


I won't deny that women don't do it. I've probably been guilty of it before myself, although I'm independent and rarely accept help from anyone to the point of being ridiculously stubborn about it. I was specifically talking about the extreme case of turning on the water works when things aren't going your way though. That's not on.

The Corinthian

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I believe it's deeply unfair that one gender get lumped with the stigma over another.

I completely agree, I was just pointing out that it happens, just as men are nowadays increasingly treated as 'potential paedophiles', because of the actions of a few.

Actually there's one thing that I envy of women; the ability to smile back at a kid in a shop without being worried that the mother will give you a dirty look for doing so.

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

I completely agree, I was just pointing out that it happens, just as men are nowadays increasingly treated as 'potential paedophiles', because of the actions of a few.

Actually there's one thing that I envy of women; the ability to smile back at a kid in a shop without being worried that the mother will give you a dirty look for doing so.

Yes, I saw the discussion over on TGC. It's very sad, no doubt about it. I don't really understand why some men bandy the word "paedo" around so much. Can't they see how damaging it is to their own gender?

The Corinthian

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Yes, I saw the discussion over on TGC. It's very sad, no doubt about it. I don't really understand why some men bandy the word "paedo" around so much. Can't they see how damaging it is to their own gender?

Both men and women are typically responsible for perpetuating gender prejudices against the other or even their own gender, so ultimately we're our own worst enemies.

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

Both men and women are typically responsible for perpetuating gender prejudices against the other or even their own gender, so ultimately we're our own worst enemies.

Agreed.

jaffacakesyum

The Corinthian wrote: »

I completely agree, I was just pointing out that it happens, just as men are nowadays increasingly treated as 'potential paedophiles', because of the actions of a few.

Actually there's one thing that I envy of women; the ability to smile back at a kid in a shop without being worried that the mother will give you a dirty look for doing so.

I find it bizaare that this apparantly happens so often, as shown by discussions on boards.ie by male members. In my social group (and I don't mean just close friends I mean in anyone that I have encountered) men are "allowed" (for want of a better word) to be just as openly friendly and loving of children as females. I know this is off topic but I wonder does geography play a part in it? I'm in Dublin and have never encountered this, maybe it is in more rural communities where men are still viewed as potential paedophiles as you say.

Eve_Dublin

I've noticed those who use that word so liberally are also massive readers of tabloid-style papers. TBH, I'd say most of the blame should be put squarely on that type of trashy journalism. Like you, Jaffacakes, it's not something I've encountered among the people I mix with; the people I know tend to veer away from that kind of hysterical media. Interestingly, the yellow press as we know it doesn't exist here in Spain and there isn't that kind of hysteria. I saw some men in TGC blame feminism....well feminism is alive and well here in Spain, so why the lack of hysteria? The phrase "Paedo" was coined by tabloids. It makes sense.

Ambersky

The Corinthian says
Both men and women are typically responsible for perpetuating gender prejudices against the other or even their own gender, so ultimately we're our own worst enemies.

We may be our own worst enemies and there may be much the individual can do to disengage with the gender stereotypes expected.
But if gender stereotyping is something created by and that exists in society there needs to be sufficient numbers of individuals active in changing a social phenomena in order to bring about change. I think there is a fair amount of energy that still goes into creating those gender role stereotypes. It starts at birth, blue for boys and pink for girls.
I have asked many of my friends at baby showers/parties if they would dress a boy in pink and almost all said no.
Sometimes gender stereotypes can still be culturally expected, as in the thread about whether women make the first move or not in asking a man out.
Some women there say they have been known to make the first move and some say they manipulate the situation into one where the man thinks he was the active deciding partner.
If we got rid of gender stereotypes, I mean really got rid of them. Would heterosexuals be ok with that.

GalwayGuy2

If we got rid of gender stereotypes, I mean really got rid of them. Would heterosexuals be ok with that.

I would. (I'm not going to pretend I speak for all men). But...you do know gay men/women can be just as bad at stereotyping?

Like you, Jaffacakes, it's not something I've encountered among the people I mix with; the people I know tend to veer away from that kind of hysterical media. Interestingly, the yellow press as we know it doesn't exist here in Spain and there isn't that kind of hysteria.

Hmmm, isn't spain a bit more of a touchey feely culture?

Eve_Dublin

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, isn't spain a bit more of a touchey feely culture?

Whaddya mean?

GalwayGuy2

Whaddya mean?

If men are more comfortable at showing intimacy, eg: hugging, kissing when saying hello (french i know), walking arm in arms, etc, then it won't be such a shock and people won't put their own perceptions onto it as much. I wonder would a man hugging a child be seen as "unnatural" (to use an extreme word) if a man was seen as being able to operate in the domestic as a woman?

Eve_Dublin

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

If men are more comfortable at showing intimacy, eg: hugging, kissing when saying hello (french i know), walking arm in arms, etc, then it won't be such a shock and people won't put their own perceptions onto it as much. I wonder would a man hugging a child be seen as "unnatural" (to use an extreme word) if a man was seen as being able to operate in the domestic as a woman?

I've reread this bit a few times but I can't understand it. Can you explain again so I can respond?

Just an FYI: Spain has the 2nd highest rate of the downloading of child pornography in the world. The media hasn't created mass hysteria around it like it might've done in the UK, Ireland and the US. It's kept it in perspective. Yes, there are paedophiles in Spain like any country but every man is not a suspect like they're made out in the Yellow Press in the UK and Ireland. It has nothing to do with how tactile the people are. This Paedophila hysteria in the Anglophone countries is relatively recent but the Spanish has always been more tactile than us.

GalwayGuy2

I've reread this bit a few times but I can't understand it. Can you explain again so I can respond?

If patriarchy didn't cause men to be seen as monetary providers and women as carers, and men were seen as childminders as much as women, would a random man being caring towards a random child be seen as suspect and out of the norm? Of course, this is assuming that it is seen as suspect.
I should work on my grammar or something.

Eve_Dublin

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

If patriarchy didn't cause men to be seen as monetary providers and women as carers, and men were seen as childminders as much as women, would a random man being caring towards a random child be seen as suspect and out of the norm? Of course, this is assuming that it is seen as suspect.
I should work on my grammar or something.

Why? I still don't get your point (and I really want to).

GalwayGuy2

Why? I still don't get your point (and I really want to)

Eh, kind of awkward that I can't formulate this thought. If I can't get it across a third time, then it really isn't that important. I didn't meant that in a snide way, but a thought can't really hold water if you can't formulate it.
Hmmm, women are still seen as the carers in both the business and domestic sphere. This is proven by the fact that there are more female teachers, lack of time off for men after a child's birth (which isn't fair towards the woman as it's a hell of a lot of stress) and I remember a test where identical CVs for a childcare role was given by both a man and a woman and there was a massive difference in the job offers for that role. This puts more of the carer role on the woman and so it may be seen as more natural for a woman to be in the caring (or motherly) role than a man, and we made have a stereotype of this role. When this is coupled with the lack of physical intimacy that some men may have towards people, this stereotype of a physically intimate father figure may be entirely absent.
So, if a woman, as an example, shows affection towards an unknown child it conforms to this stereotype of a mother (or eventual mother) figure. But if a man shows this towards an unknown child it could be seen as not the norm as there isn't a stereotype of an affectionate father figure, but there is a working father figure rather than an emotional, or physical, intimate father figure. Since there is no stereotype to fall one, people will put there own perceptions onto that person. This could just be easily a good father, a liberal man, or, unfortunately, a potential danger to their children. (Both men and women are guilty of this)
Btw I mean physically intimate as hugging or shoulder to cry on sort of role.

Eve_Dublin

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Eh, kind of awkward that I can't formulate this thought. If I can't get it across a third time, then it really isn't that important. I didn't meant that in a snide way, but a thought can't really hold water if you can't formulate it.
Hmmm, women are still seen as the carers in both the business and domestic sphere. This is proven by the fact that there are more female teachers, lack of time off for men after a child's birth (which isn't fair towards the woman as it's a hell of a lot of stress) and I remember a test where identical CVs for a childcare role was given by both a man and a woman and there was a massive difference in the job offers for that role. This puts more of the carer role on the woman and so it may be seen as more natural for a woman to be in the caring (or motherly) role than a man, and we made have a stereotype of this role. When this is coupled with the lack of physical intimacy that some men may have towards people, this stereotype of a physically intimate father figure may be entirely absent.
So, if a woman, as an example, shows affection towards an unknown child it conforms to this stereotype of a mother (or eventual mother) figure. But if a man shows this towards an unknown child it could be seen as not the norm as there isn't a stereotype of an affectionate father figure, but there is a working father figure rather than an emotional, or physical, intimate father figure. Since there is no stereotype to fall one, people will put there own perceptions onto that person. This could just be easily a good father, a liberal man, or, unfortunately, a potential danger to their children. (Both men and women are guilty of this)
Btw I mean physically intimate as hugging or shoulder to cry on sort of role.

Are you talking generally? I thought you were specifically talking about why the hysteria exists in Anglophone countries and not in Spain. Things would be even more backwards here when it comes to childcare (Spain is still very traditional in that sense...the average working day here would be from 9-8pm and children are put into childcare for most of that time or most middle-class homes would have a child minder). Men, generally speaking, would be less "hands on" (literally and figuratively) in the role of childcare than in Ireland. Men, from from what I can see, would have more involvement with their kids over there (Ireland).

It's true though. Men here are more tactile and perhaps because they're so tactile with stranger's kids makes it more normal. I don't know tbh. This has always been the case though, I think. The hysteria in Ireland is only a recent thing and it also coincides with the media hysteria. It can't just be a coincidence.

clairefontaine

Has Spain been hit with the kind of scandals that Ireland, Britain and the US has?

Eve_Dublin

clairefontaine wrote: »

Has Spain been hit with the kind of scandals that Ireland, Britain and the US has?

Yes. Every country in the world has. Paedophilia is not isolated to just Anglophone countries. It's how the media has dealt with it that differs.

GalwayGuy2

Yes. Every country in the world has. Paedophilia is not isolated to just Anglophone countries. It's how the media has dealt with it that differs.

As widespread and by a perceived infallible group? (Priests seem to have got the most attention)

Eve_Dublin

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

As widespread and by a perceived infallible group? (Priests seem to have got the most attention)

What's your point exactly?

It's as widespread here as anywhere. I already stated that Spain has the highest rate of downloading child pornography in Europe, for example. There's cases in the press almost everyday but without the "Paedo!!" shock tactic headlines.


Do you genuinely believe that there's been more cases of p-philia in Ireland, the UK and the States than anywhere else??

GalwayGuy2

Do you genuinely believe that there's been more cases of p-philia in Ireland, the UK and the States than anywhere else??

I never said that, but the widespread did give the impression that I did. The Clergy were trusted and were an almost higher class, in some ways, and were most definitely beyond reproach. Then the large amounts of abuse in the Catholic church came to light. Was there a similar moment in Spain?

Eve_Dublin

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I never said that, but the widespread did give the impression that I did. The Clergy were trusted and were an almost higher class, in some ways, and were most definitely beyond reproach. Then the large amounts of abuse in the Catholic church came to light. Was there a similar moment in Spain?

Why are you asking me this?


Edit: This debate has nothing to do with the thread. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make exactly. I'll answer one more question but will you actually say what you want to say and express yourself little better please?

clairefontaine

Ireland is small country and in small places things get amplified like they are in a greenhouse.

I dont know if you are assuming the same hysteria [if there even is hysteria as you claim] exists in larger nations like the UK and the US. It sounds like you are but it's a bit confusing even what you mean by hysteria.

From what I can see not much has been done. Its' not like they've employed buddy systems in schools, or conducted parenting classes for how to spot behaviour changes, how to look for grooming, or what to do if you child says something to you, there is no actual preventative action in response to this so called hysteria in Ireland, so to me it looks like the opposite of hysteria, lassitude or inertia. To call it hysteria implies that it's all in one's imagination, when it's a real problem.

Its not really within acceptable boundaries to approach or touch kids you don't know so if you get a weird look it doesn't necessarily mean they think you are going to commit sexual assault but that maybe you crossed a boundary and are being a little weird.

This thread has meandered from a harmless dream of wanting to be a man to child sex offenders. So just to add the plus of being female is that chances are you will talk about it to someone much more so than if you are a boy. Let's just hope someone doesn't call you hysterical.