psinno wrote: » I always thought what it ignored was that women are shamed for being sluts and men are shamed for not.
midlandsmissus wrote: » There was another thread on AH only a few days ago wherea girl sent a male poster a text saying'**** me please`. This was met with responses `real classy bird there' 'real marriage material! ' - all from male posters.
midlandsmissus wrote: » Why will it never happen? Nothing stays the same forever. Why is it the way it is at the minute? Control?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Why will it never happen? Because men and women will always disagree on which gender "has it worse" than the other, and neither gender will ever compromise their advantageous positions. You're right that nothing stays the same forever, and generally the balance will shift either way, and that's why it is the way it is at the minute, because both genders are vying for control over the balance of power between genders.
UCDVet wrote: » I'm not sure this is the result of a sexist culture. Rather, it's the result of biology. When men and women have sex, the likely outcome is offspring. And, as much as I wish it wasn't this way; our biology makes this very unfair event. The man is only giving up some sperm. That's a trivial thing to do. The woman, if she gets pregnant, is many, many, many times more invested. Not only is pregnancy physically dangerous, it takes nine months and it quite unpleasant for most people. And then, she's got a child. Now, our modern society has some things that try to balance this out a bit, but the truth is - it will never be balanced, because our biology is inherently unbalanced. Imagine if you had to collect signatures from people on Grafton street. From the men, you just needed to get a signature. From the women, you needed to get a signature and a bank account number, explaining that there is a 1 in 100 chance you'd bill them 100 euro, each month, for the next 18 years. It wouldn't be very impressive if you got a bunch of men to sign your paper. It *would* be very impressive if you got a bunch of women to sign your paper. You aren't giving them anything, but they are taking on an awful lot of risk. Beyond that, making things even more unfair, is that STDs are not equally transmittable. If I (a man) have sex with a woman who has AIDS the odds of me catching it from her are significantly lower than the odds of that woman catching AIDS from me (if I have AIDS). Clearly, sex is unfairly biased. That's just how we are built. And while modern laws (and science) try to adjust for this - there are *far* more single moms raising a child than single fathers. Even with birth control....many people can't seem to have sex without procreating. Given that our biology is sexist, I'm not entirely sure our culture *shouldn't* be sexist. There are lots of other examples - like sports - where we acknowledge there are biological differences and have entirely different standards. I enjoy lifting weights - but I'm nothing special. But if I were a girl, I'd be an elite level weight lifter. But I'm NOT a girl, so I'm held to different standards. Not because society says so, but because nature did.
Banana Strawberry wrote: » Things do change, women are judged much less now for sleeping around than say 40 years ago.
Banana Strawberry wrote: » Indeed there is shaming of promiscuous women. I fully agree.
One eyed Jack wrote: » They really aren't. The negative judgment of women based on their sexuality or their sexual behaviour is still as prevalent today as it always was.
midlandsmissus wrote: » women are controlled by society as to what they can or cant do sexually, they are controlled. This imbalance hurts both of us.
midlandsmissus wrote: » You have managed to skip over the gaping big hole that women ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO SEXUALLY.I heard so many times as a young girl 'be a good girl' 'being a slut is an awful, bad thing to be' you wont get married if you sleep around''dont give in to men too easily' Girls are controlled by society from a young age about how to act. I think some men tell themselves the above comfortable argument as they cant bear to think of women as having the same high sex drive as them.
BadMoonRising wrote: » I'd agree that there is still judgement of women based on their sexuality but I disagree that its anywhere near what it was in the past. The younger generation have a completely different outlook to this and I say this as an aul one of 22 :P My sister is 16 and theres an awful lot more girls sleeping around in her year than there was when I was the same age a few years ago, including one night stands after 18ths etc. I know it always went on but even when I was younger it was more hush hush wheras she says now it wouldn't be as shameful..she reckons geordie shore etc. has a lot to do with making it seem more casual. Im not really sure how liberating it is for the girls tbh, it feels like swapping one expectation for another.Years ago girls were expected to be pure etc even if they didnt want to be, now theres a lot of girls in her year riding because its the done thing and doing it hoping the lads will go out with them, while the lads use them...again I know none of this is new, and I'm not blaming lads for this at all, but I don't think the freedom of choice not to do these things is passing on to a lot of them, its still societal pressure regardless!
Banana Strawberry wrote: » I think too much emphasis is put in the pressure girls to be having sex at a young age, do a girl's friends actually put pressure on her to have lots of casual sex?
_Kaiser_ wrote: » Ok I admit it.. I haven't read the whole thread so maybe this was asked but I just have a question: Is "misogyny" the Word of the Month on Boards/AH or something? Here's a novel idea - how about some people stop looking for offence everywhere and let grown adults get on with their own lives while others do the same? Bloody PC/nanny state culture is getting ridiculous at this stage.
Venus In Furs wrote: » In reference to this thread, I really don't understand the stuff about walking on eggshells/nanny state/PC/looking for offence?
Venus In Furs wrote: » I did a search for the term "misogyny" on this thread. It's mentioned five times - three times as an objection to how it can be used incorrectly, once in reference to a previous thread about misogyny, once in the opening post as part of a question. In reference to this thread, I really don't understand the stuff about walking on eggshells/nanny state/PC/looking for offence?
efb wrote: » Could we get rid of the word "banter" while we're at it!
Micky Dolenz wrote: » I thought Lad culture was boozing heavily and being loud and obnoxious. I also thought it wasn't gender specific.It is very British media driven term and I wouldn't have heard the reference outside of that. I think I may have heard it being used a few years ago on one of those cop shows, "boozed up Britain" or similar.
