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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Sluts/slappers/whores/homewreckers
Comments
-
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: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59098
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: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59098
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
-
-
Bah, the perils of copy and paste....0
-
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.
First of all, you should get into the habit of fully reading a post you choose to reply to. My post began 'Of course there's a gender bias' and I acknowledged that these words are all directed at women. So pointing out what I had already said might have made you feel better but it didn't further your argument.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.
Secondly, I have no 'concrete evidence' that I breathe oxygen and exhale carbon whatever, although I'm sure if I did a few experiments wih the right equipment I could muster up a few results.
The point being that no, I do not have 'actual concrete evidence' for my belief but given a brief look at the history of humankind, I think it's fair to say you could see where I might have formed the impression. There's the biological FACT (no concrete evidence but you'll just have to go with me on it) that men (no, not all of em but the human male species in general) can reproduce until the day they die whereas women lose that ability on reaching the menopause - it may suggest biology would have men go forth and multiply ad infinitum while women are built to care for the lives they give birth to.
That said, I haven't studied human biology for 5 years so I'm open to correction on that one. (I also think that you should be open to the fact that the human body is so incredibly complex, and the history behind it so vast, that after 5 years you might not know everything. )
I have, however beeen a human for 28 years and can safely say that I absolutely reject your idea that men and women are 'pretty much just the same'. You're so wrong there. IMHO of course.
Third,
`'That men 'naturally' want to shag around and women 'naturally' want to be at home with a stable partner?'
I've read my post a few times and can't find where you got that from? I thought I had drawn a distinction between 21st century sensibilities and those that spawned words like slut and whore? Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Because they are not just 'silly words'. They have serious connoctaions that are intended to harm and hurt.
Wasn't it Eleanor Roosevelt who said 'Nobody can make you feel bad without your permission' (paraphrasing)
Or as the 6 year olds I teach say:
'Sticks and stones may break my bones....'0 -
women are branded sluts when they sleep around (sorry, even the phrase 'sleep around' is actually derogatory, should probably use 'have multiple partners in one life time') because of the weird pre-conception that they all want a nice neat little monogamous relationship, for life, period. (no pun intended)
But the flip side, there's this weird pre-conception that men can't keep it in their pants. My girlfriend was so surprised when I said I wasn't ready yet, cos ('scuse me, almost said 'we've been fed' but that's a different debate) for whatever reason, we seem to think women like relationships and men like sex.
But really, as far as I can tell and hopefully, we're all people, most people like sex and relationships, and some, male or female, have a preference for one or the other on its own.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Yep, both sexes get royally screwed (no pun intended) with the ole stereotypes.
One good one that I recently found out about that suits girls is, apparently drivers give female cyclists more space, presumably because they think we don't know how to cycle properly but hey, works for me0 -
Yep, both sexes get royally screwed (no pun intended) with the ole stereotypes.
One good one that I recently found out about that suits girls is, apparently drivers give female cyclists more space, presumably because they think we don't know how to cycle properly but hey, works for me
Doesn't apply for drving cars in my experience!0 -
Advertisement
-
Panda, I noticed you were very quick to jump on my post and yet you haven't deigned to reply?
Fair enough if you're busy but I'm just dying to hear your justification for your statement that 'men and women are pretty much the same'. Given your thread title, I'd have thought you understood the difference.0
Advertisement