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
-
Most of the really bad press I've read related to Sienna's affair was in response to these set of photos, which were taken and published a week or so after the original set:
http://yeeeah.com/2008/07/21/sienna-stabs-balthazars-wife-in-the-heart-metaphorically-speaking/
I think the medias take on it is that you'd expect any woman who'd been photographed fcuking around with another woman’s husband to keep the affair on the down-low after that, but apparently that's not Sienna's style. Rather than keeping the affair out of the limelight the pair of them stripped off and gave the photographers another eye-full, and this was all after it had been widely reported in the media that Mr Getty's wife had fled to Italy with her four children to protect them from the media storm! :eek:
Obviously there are two people in those photos and personally I feel they're each as big a cnut as the other. I think the reason the woman in a situation like this gets the brunt of the abuse is because there is an expectation (however unrealistic) that a woman would have some sense of compassion or sympathy for the hurt she was causing, and I think it's jarring for a lot of people to see photos of a woman who so blatantly couldn’t give a fuk.0 -
From the link seahorse posted up:sienna 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 -
-
point stands though, most of the women here are demonising the woman more so than the man, tis a shame really. women can be SUCH bitches to eachother, i just don't get it
Fear.
For many women the ultimate nightmare is that after they have had their big wedding day, ploughed themselves into setting up home, having kids and tackling the running of the family and all the stresses and strains that goes with that esp when the spouse is a busy high flier is that some younger, carefree, stretch mark free, new, nubile woman will come along and take him away and she will loose the status and security of what she worked hard to make happen and maintain.
That is why so many women turn a blind eye rather then upset the status quo but it is also why they will attack and vilify such women.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
-
ok... 6 pages of insults discussion disagreements, and claims that Sienna Miller is in no way innocent
Wild suggestion here, how the **** do any of us know that Sienna wasn't lied to by this married man, and told he was single?
I'm flabbergasted that its not even crossed anyone's mind that the girl might be innocent. SHE KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING, SHE KNEW WHAT SHE WAS GETTING INTO, SHE'S A HOMEWRECKER..
maybe she DIDN'T know?!
we all know that people are very capable of lying. who HASN'T been lied to by someone they slept with at some stage or another?!?
I think Matthew Rhys who was Sienna's ex and Getty's co star introduced them. I think everyone knows Getty is married and surely when she found out she would have ended it. Both Miller and Getty are wrong and yes she is a homewrecking slut.0 -
Somebody mentioned why men are more likely to get iffy is someone is chatting up their girlfriend, when the common consensus seems to be that men are more likely to play away. First off, I hate dealing in generalities, some folk are very secure, male or female but I guess blokes do tend to get a bit more tetchy when they see their lass chatted up.
For me, it all goes back to hardwiring. People give themselves far too much credit for intelligent thought and modern social dynamics when the simple fact is it's been the blink of eye since we came down from the tree's in the grand scheme of things.
The simple fact is, back when it was cool for me to club you and drag you back to me cave ( and in those days you would most likely have loved it, strong dominant male, provider of food, protection, shelter and young ) I would also have been allowed to lamp the crap out of any other male who tried to interfere.
I have a female you want,
I have the best cave,
I catch the best food,
I am the dominant male………………
Back in the day these were all easily established and it was even easier to keep order. You want something I have? Then fight me for it? Can't win the fight? The get back to the bottom of the ladder you Beta.
These desires and instincts have not left us for all that long. I hate this idea that we are something else now because we walk and talk, wrap ourselves in shiney custom built environments and have figured out the 1 and 0's that we have advanced. We haven't, all the old traits are still there and will be for a very long time.
The soundest blokes I know, the most secure, the guys who REALLY get talked up by their girlfriends…..they have just learned to accept the voice that is there and to ignore it.
Not all people have.
And likewise it is the same for women. The hardwiring to get what you want can often override what is seen as socially acceptable.0 -
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?Deleted User wrote: »I'm sorry Wibbs but female solidarity is a myth. Men tend towards social cohesion and women tend towards social differentiation, it is a simple sociological fact. Labov, studying language shifts in New York, observed this trend and numerous other sociologists and anthropologists have observed similar trends.
There is no such thing as female solidarity.
There is, but It is something that is discouraged in society because our capitalist society relys on male and institutional dominance. Society is designed artifically to pit generations of women against each other. Can you imagine what women could achieve if we were a united force? 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. 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.I agree. This idea that "ah sure he's only a man" is a joke. In fact it irritates the bejesus out of me that people assume I can't control myself when in a relationship.
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.
Take for example the supposed history of creation in Genesis.Many believed,and still do,That God created man and then women(Eve) from Adams rib but then Eve,the wicked temptress, lured Adam,the sin-free man, to eat the apple of sin. While it may seem like a silly old story there is no doubt that the story of creation,something many of us were taught at a young age, has a stong cultural effect.0 -
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?
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.:)There is, but It is something that is discouraged in society because our capitalist society relys on male and institutional dominance. Society is designed artifically to pit generations of women against each other. Can you imagine what women could achieve if we were a united force? 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. 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.
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.
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). I have a lot of time for your posting based off our brief chat and what i have seen you post in the past but the idea of female solidarity solving everything that is wrong with society is a myth, a phantom. Plain and simple.
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.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.
Take for example the supposed history of creation in Genesis.Many believed,and still do,That God created man and then women(Eve) from Adams rib but then Eve,the wicked temptress, lured Adam,the sin-free man, to eat the apple of sin. While it may seem like a silly old story there is no doubt that the story of creation,something many of us were taught at a young age, has a stong cultural effect.
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.
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
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 cavemenWhy 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 makerThe 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 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
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.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.A catholic example was given, hence my response.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 happens0 -
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.
Women's rights groups were the ones who fought for this. If they wish to fight for paternity leave then I'll be glad to lend my voice to the fight.
-surveys in the UK show that recruitment agencies are being asked not to bother with women of child-bearing age
I'd need to see the evidence for this but I could get this result with a push poll.
-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.
The article (and by the way it is Art. 41 not 42) is designed to make sure mothers, not women, are never compelled to work from economic necessity. It is a constitutional guarantee of child allowance more or less. Art. 41.1, to which you refer, cannot be legislated upon and is aspirational. It is redundant and has no effect whatsoever. Trying to change this position is pointless unless the constitutional definition of the family is changed. It does not recognise the role of the woman as the homemaker, it recognises that when she IS in the home she provides an essential service to the State. Women never have a problem with the massive inequality in family law that gives a massive presumption in favour of the mother but when the State equally assumes the mother will take care of the child in it's Constitution then there are cries of sexism.
-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.
Not going to reference the innumerable reports that show having a parent at home is beneficial to the child? The fact that most people consider this to be even more beneficial when the mother stays at home is a product of a number of factors including the State bias in favour of mothers in legal proceedings.
-Insufficient child-care facilities
Cannot argue with this really as it is true.
-Women doing the lions share of chores at home
This is one of those "personal anecdotes" that you admonish in your own post.
There are real grievances in gender relations and work but they will require a more reasoned argument than you have provided I am afraid.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Deleted User wrote: »I'd need to see the evidence for this but I could get this result with a push poll.
"Citing a survey of 122 recruitment agencies, the Equalities Review, found that more than 70% had been asked by clients to avoid hiring pregnant women or those of childbearing age - which, given that that period now potentially stretches from our teenage years to our early sixties, means discriminating against any woman of working age."Deleted User wrote: »The article (and by the way it is Art. 41 not 42) is designed to make sure mothers, not women, are never compelled to work from economic necessity. It is a constitutional guarantee of child allowance more or less. Art. 41.1, to which you refer, cannot be legislated upon and is aspirational. It is redundant and has no effect whatsoever. Trying to change this position is pointless unless the constitutional definition of the family is changed. It does not recognise the role of the woman as the homemaker, it recognises that when she IS in the home she provides an essential service to the State. Women never have a problem with the massive inequality in family law that gives a massive presumption in favour of the mother but when the State equally assumes the mother will take care of the child in it's Constitution then there are cries of sexism.
"1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."
One could also argue that article 41.1.2 is nothing but aspirational as over the last 15 years, the government has failed to keep its promise. Again, I don't see why it cannot be made gender neutral. Why not recognise the role of a parent in the home, why does it have to be the woman?
And thankyou for lumping all women into one group. I do you the respect of treating you as an individual, not representative of all men & appreciate the same. I pointed out previously my unhappiness with the advantage that women enjoy during custody battles. And I am not alone in that.Deleted User wrote: »Not going to reference the innumerable reports that show having a parent at home is beneficial to the child? The fact that most people consider this to be even more beneficial when the mother stays at home is a product of a number of factors including the State bias in favour of mothers in legal proceedings.Deleted User wrote: »This is one of those "personal anecdotes" that you admonish in your own post.
http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?docID=726"There are gender differences in the type of unpaid work done by women and men:
On average women spend just over two and a half hours per day on housework whereas men spend one hour 15 minutes per day on housework.
Women spend more time on core domestic activities like cleaning and cooking while men tend to do house repairs and gardening.
On average women spend two and a half hours per day on caring whereas men spend 39 minutes per day on caring.
Women spend more time on the physical care and supervision of children while men spend a much greater proportion of their time on social childcare such as playing."Deleted User wrote: »There are real grievances in gender relations and work but they will require a more reasoned argument than you have provided I am afraid.
Look this is a boards discussion, not a dissertation. I just put up the first examples that came to mind. This is an informal discussion in an informal arena: I don't think your criticism is quite fair-I'm not doing a Viva.
I would like to hear what you consider the real grievances in gender relations and work. And your more "reasoned" argument.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59028
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.There is, but It is something that is discouraged in society because our capitalist society relys on male and institutional dominance.Society is designed artifically to pit generations of women against each other.Can you imagine what women could achieve if we were a united force?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.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.
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.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.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).taconnol wrote: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
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 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Good post Wibbs,
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59028
Good post Wibbs,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.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.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.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 yearsOn 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 -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/apr/23/worklifebalance.discriminationatwork
"Citing a survey of 122 recruitment agencies, the Equalities Review, found that more than 70% had been asked by clients to avoid hiring pregnant women or those of childbearing age - which, given that that period now potentially stretches from our teenage years to our early sixties, means discriminating against any woman of working age."
I would really need to see the poll but I can concede that while your point has merit the highlighted section above is incredibly illogical and would fall foul of existing equality legislation, as would any employer who excluded women based on the fact that they MAY get pregnant.
I'm actually referring to Art 41.2. Let's just put up part 1 so people can actually read it:
OK, but let's stick up the section you have a problem with eh?
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
1. Duties, according to the Supreme Court, does not actually imply a legal obligation.
2. If the State fails in this legal obligation to fulfill this Constitutional right then the mother can sue the State.
3. Professor Hogan, in his role with the Constitutional Review Committee, has suggested deleting this article. I agree with him. We don't need this article.
Again, I don't see why it cannot be made gender neutral. Why not recognise the role of a parent in the home, why does it have to be the woman?
It is part of a larger legal philosophy based around the Constitutional family. When that is changed, and it should be, then Art 41 should be changed also.
This is a good time to point out that the reason this Article won't be changed is that the Government hate changing the Constitution. Just ask the Constitutional Review Group.
And thankyou for lumping all women into one group. I do you the respect of treating you as an individual, not representative of all men & appreciate the same. I pointed out previously my unhappiness with the advantage that women enjoy during custody battles. And I am not alone in that.
In your original post you said "recruitment agencies" were being asked to not consider women of childbearing age. Then, after I asked, you gave me a figure of 70%. I generalised just as you did because while I cannot speak about all women, I can certainly refer to the majority.
Again, why does it have to be the woman?
It doesn't. You'll notice I said the reports stated a parent at home was a benefit and that it was society who thought the mother was the best parent. I never stated my own thoughts which run along the lines of the report.
Your reference to the favouritism of mothers in certain legal proceedings (I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say there is a general preference in all proceedings) is yet another example where shoddy legislation can end up harming the person it is intended to help AND harm other as well (ie the fathers).
There is a general preference in all family law proceedings for the mother. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
No, I'm afraid you'll have to put away your hypocrisy baton. There are many studies that show this to be the case. I'll reference the most recent:
http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?docID=726
My hypocrisy baton? The report clearly shows a division in labour. Women do more housework, perhaps, but the report also shows that men spend an equal amount of time doing other activities within the home for the benefit of the family. How this is divided amongst the parents is their choice and assigning values to certain activities over others to make a point in an argument takes away from the fundamentally unified way in which we should treat families.
I would like to hear what you consider the real grievances in gender relations and work. And your more "reasoned" argument.
I am not getting into a gender discussion. To do so would require a level of debate far beyond what is possible here. It requires an understanding of the historical, social and philosophical reasons for current gender roles which we see today and this forum is too prone to value arguments to discuss it properly (by that I mean Boards, not the Ladies Lounge).
It would be fun though.0 -
Oh Good Jesus.
She had an affair with a married man, yes he is scum, but she a dodgy actress with a questionable relationship history.
She allegedly had an affair with Jude law when he was married,allegedly had an affair with Sean Combs while his girlfriend was pregnant, and now is having an affair with a married man with a child under one.
What does she expect? Of course she is going to get called names, Of course none of these men a better then pond scum, but there's one common thing in all of these affairs.
I agree, it may not all be true bu shit sticks. She opts for married/ attached men so she shouldn't be surprised when it bites her in the ass.
Getty made a shitty decision to cheat on his wife, that makes him a prick in my eyes.
But do you wanna be the girl who the prick leaves his wife for? I think not.
Karma stings. Miller needs to wake up.
Whatever about them being consenting adults, she could at least have been more discreet.
I hate words like slut, tramp, slapper and would never use them.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 -
And the term homewrecker I think most certainly is associated with women. Why isnt Balthazar Getty the one being brandished a 'homewrceker'?
I think Sienna is being branded the homewrecker because the family are a unit and she is the outside force coming in to destroy that. Obviously this guy is a complete b*stard and is responsible for ruining this unit too, but in fairness the term is fairly relevant to Sienna- you just don't begin a relationship with a married man. There's too many people that can get hurt. There's plenty of single men out there that she can knock around with so the fact that she has on more than one occasion gotten involved with men who are already with wives/girlfreinds makes her scum in my eyes. I actually think slut is quite fitting for her.0 -
A man having an affair with a married woman is much more likely to get a punch in the face than the woman or a woman in the opposite situation.
OMG, discrimination!0 -
RuailleBuaille wrote: »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
Do you have actual concrete evidence for this or is just what you have been told? That men 'naturally' want to shag around and women 'naturally' want to be at home with a stable partner?
I've been studying the human body for the last 5 years and havent come across these distinct 'biological programming' between the genders. In fact Its opened my eyes to the fact that men and women are pretty much the same and its society that has programmed us to believe that we are like two differnet species instead of the same homosapiens.RuailleBuaille wrote: »Why get wound up about silly words?
Because they are not just 'silly words'. They have serious connoctaions that are intended to harm and hurt and Its unfair they are directed at just one gender.0 -
Sienna Millers Future Biography (Repeat)
Nobody
Style Icon
Movie Star
Serial Love Interest
Marriage
Divorce
Hello/VIP
Marriage
Divorce
VIP with new breasts
Sex video
Marriage to Rod Stewart
Divorce
Nobody
She is none of the above terms she is just doing her thing staying in the limelight as all these people do.0 -
RuailleBuaille wrote: »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.0
-
-
That depends on the wall how you are up against it0
-
"Be my rubbermaid baby
An' we can do it all"0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement