Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pnx]

Just to focus on one aspect of double standards that baffles me slightly more than other double standards: a girl not being allowed to ask a guy out. I've had to coach girls through it because they flat out refused to do anything but wait for fear of being looked down upon.

That just... not only is it blatant bullshit, I don't get how it happened. Why is this even a thing?

Consider me also interested in that answer.  Finding out why is not an easy task.  The only thing I can relate to that is the obsolete act of asking her father.

Ditto on that.

I tend to be the kind of person that is content with the single life. I like relationships, but generally don't find them worth the trouble(i.e. Playing the game, being the stereotypical "hunter", etc.) of seeking them out. As such, I don't get into many, and the few I do end up in start out pretty awkwardly. I can't say I regret any of my decisions though. I've generally been happy with what experiences I've had and what my situation is at the moment, at least in that department. But... I can think of at least two situations, looking back on them where the other side of... if not a friendship, then at least an acquaintanceship seemed interested and if they had made an advance, I probably would have been interested in moving further, but because I either wasn't in the mood or didn't catch the signal at the time and do it myself, the chance was missed.

In high school I didn't even realize this was a thing until the very last year of high school. Maybe this comes from growing up in Europe, or perhaps it's just because I'm dense. But I kind of assumed the social norm was that girls could ask guys out as much as guys could girls, I just thought you just saw more guys asking girls out because they're more aggressive. Then one day, maybe six months before I graduated, a girl was saying how she was waiting for this one boy who she had heard through a friend he had a crush on her to ask her out. I asked her why she didn't ask him out then, she said that girls can't ask guys out.
Suddenly the girls that were flirtatious but never made any moves made sense to me. I'd just thought they weren't that interested, I mean if they were, they would have done something about it right?

The thing that really shocked me was that this came out amongst a group of my friends who were progressive and intelligent people, yet this was the norm for them and they seemed to feel this was the way it should be.
That fact really screwed over a couple of relationships that might have been able to go somewhere... Mind you, even knowing that, my general awkwardness would probably have just gotten in the way.

Oh, and as for the girl, I told her that maybe he wanted her to make the first move. She asked me why, I said, "Because asking someone out can be really fucking scary. If you want something to happen, make it happen, otherwise nothing may happen at all."
... Well actually that's what I should have said. What I really did was fly off the handle, I think I used the words "kind of pathetic" a lot. I don't think I made a very good point.
But I think the fear thing is what keeps this going, when you get more adjusted to the idea, it gets a lot easier, but before then the idea of asking someone you're interested in out is scary as hell. So it's much easier to stay in the safe zone and let the guy make all the moves.

As for the girl, I never really found out what happened with that. She was just a friend of a friend... Heck, I don't think I even found out her name.

[GlyphGryph]

I've honestly never gotten it either! I find it frustrating, actually. None of the women I regularly associate with have any trouble in that department, though - my fiance included, thankfully.

The problem with that, as much as I really, truly, honestly appreciate your politeness, is that the general assumption is that for women to be accepted, they need to act more like men.  That sticks the conditioned female behavior where it always has been-- negatively perceived.

I think I rambled a bit there, so I'm going to spoil it. Summary: I do think women should act more like men in many ways, but I'm under no illusion that they'll be accepted because of it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I just want to say... I've always disliked this charge, that pointing out ways in which women could/should act more like "traditional" men as being somehow demeaning of women (rather than a simple result of men, being the more powerful force, encouraging certain power-continuing traits among men and discouraging traits in women that are counterproductive towards that). I mean, can we agree that some conditioned, traditionally "female" behaviours can be seen as negatives? Just as there are conditioned "male" behaviours that can be seen as negatives?
I'll be straightforward here - I believe there are plenty of ways "women" should act more like "men", if those words even have any real meaning. I believe this is because men have traditionally used their power to reinforce their power over women, and have spent a lot of time instilling traits I see as "bad" (not in any specific person, necessarily, but in their predominance in a particular group, namely women) simply because doing so furthers their own power and position of dominance. Passivity, excessive vanity, susceptibility to criticism. I believe many traditionally "male" behaviours have inherent value, but not because they are "male" - rather, that men have tried to adopt a monopoly on those behaviours, making them "male" BECAUSE they have inherent value, and that many female behaviours have been forced on women because those behaviours make them submissive, making negative behaviours "female" because it suits their cause.

Obviously this doesn't apply across the board - there are lots of male and female associated behaviours with lots of causes, and plenty of situations where a "feminine" behaviour will be much better than the "masculine" one.

But I honestly think even talking about "male" and "female" behaviour is pretty insulting in and of itself, destructive even to the cause, when the focus should be on behaviours that are good/productive/successful versus behaviours that are bad/destructive/ineffectual - because there's plenty of both in traditionally masculine and feminine groups of behaviour, and the difference between them is based solely on behaviours cultivated to keep the power balance the way it is, positive and negative, for both groups. And I'm really not okay with that.

Bluh, I think I'm rambling here, this was never even a direct response to your quote, it's just... bluh. I need to sleep. I probably sound like a stupid asshole right now, or maybe just stupid. -_-zZzzZzZzzZz

[ChairmanPoo]

I'm afraid of moths.

[Phmcw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks
An interesting video. People don't react, or react favourably, when a women is assaulting a man in public.
The hilarious thing is that part of that reaction is "feminism", and part of it is sexism.
"A woman fight back, great!" and "It's a woman anyway, she is harmless" are apparently the reasons behind their lack of reaction.
The reason the bystanders give, anyway, because I saw no one seems to tell the obvious one : "I didn't know what the hell I should do".

[fqllve]

You know, it might just be me but I wouldn't consider assault feminism.

[GlyphGryph]

Feminism is about not treating women differently than men just because they are women. I think the video is relevant to that.

Although I don't really see an issue with those that say they didn't intervene because they didn't think it was a valid physical threat - with the guy, many of them waited until the point where he was choking her or something and it was clear it was becoming truly dangerous, while most of the woman's behaviours didn't seem to stray nearly as far into "danger" territory.

The number of people who assumed "he had it coming" and "he probably deserved it", though? Bleh. I've met plenty of women who think guys deserve any violence a girl can dish out short of maiming, though, so I wouldn't say I'm terribly surprised.

The rhetoric is actually quite similar to the rape apologists on the other end of the spectrum.

[fqllve]

I think the way it's most relevant to feminism is showing that supporting women doesn't mean attacking men. When the woman walks by in the video and is excited to see the woman hitting the guy, that's not feminism, that's contrary to the goals of feminism. When people react like that they're equating feminism with misandry, which is already a prevalent enough idea.

I wonder what would have happened had they used a more muscular woman and a thinner guy, rather than two people with relatively similar builds. I'm guessing someone would have taken the threat of violence more seriously.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think I'd have avoided intervening directly in either case, and called the police from afar.

[Phmcw]

I think the way it's most relevant to feminism is showing that supporting women doesn't mean attacking men. When the woman walks by in the video and is excited to see the woman hitting the guy, that's not feminism, that's contrary to the goals of feminism. When people react like that they're equating feminism with misandry, which is already a prevalent enough idea.

I wonder what would have happened had they used a more muscular woman and a thinner guy, rather than two people with relatively similar builds. I'm guessing someone would have taken the threat of violence more seriously.

You're pulling a "true Scotsman" there. Misandry is part of the feminism.
It's ok though : every political, philosophical or ideological movement ever have it's dumb cousin he try to hide in a closet.

[fqllve]

The goal of feminism is equality for women. There are feminists who are misandrists but misandry is not feminism. Misandry discredits the movement and establishes and unequal relationship between the sexes.

[Siquo]

Damn, what a story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/sep/07/michael-moore-hated-man-america

[Jackrabbit]

I think the way it's most relevant to feminism is showing that supporting women doesn't mean attacking men. When the woman walks by in the video and is excited to see the woman hitting the guy, that's not feminism, that's contrary to the goals of feminism. When people react like that they're equating feminism with misandry, which is already a prevalent enough idea.

I wonder what would have happened had they used a more muscular woman and a thinner guy, rather than two people with relatively similar builds. I'm guessing someone would have taken the threat of violence more seriously.

You're pulling a "true Scotsman" there. Misandry is part of the feminism.
It's ok though : every political, philosophical or ideological movement ever have it's dumb cousin he try to hide in a closet.

I don't really think so. As fqllve said, feminism is for equality, not inequality in favour of women. Saying a misandrist(?) isn't a true feminist is, I think, accurate.

[Phmcw]

I think the way it's most relevant to feminism is showing that supporting women doesn't mean attacking men. When the woman walks by in the video and is excited to see the woman hitting the guy, that's not feminism, that's contrary to the goals of feminism. When people react like that they're equating feminism with misandry, which is already a prevalent enough idea.

I wonder what would have happened had they used a more muscular woman and a thinner guy, rather than two people with relatively similar builds. I'm guessing someone would have taken the threat of violence more seriously.

You're pulling a "true Scotsman" there. Misandry is part of the feminism.
It's ok though : every political, philosophical or ideological movement ever have it's dumb cousin he try to hide in a closet.

I don't really think so. As fqllve said, feminism is for equality, not inequality in favour of women. Saying a misandrist(?) isn't a true feminist is, I think, accurate.

Feminism is a wide movement that doesn't stop at your particular brand of feminism.
I am always annoyed by these discussion, where one try to argue that X or Y doesn't represent the true valors of it's movement and therefore shouldn't be called Z.
I understand that you think feminism should be against discrimination and aim toward equalities, but there are feminists that don't stop there.

That's what I call the retarded cousin : part of an honorable movement that are idiotic, usually through extremism and from which the mainstream community usually try to break all bonds : misandrist feminist, Chinese communist for European communists, anti-rich socialists for democrat socialists, neo liberals for European liberals, religious extremist for moderate religious ...
But I think it's a bad habit : they are linked with the broader movement, and the broader movement is in the best position to rectify them and their wrong. Beside they are often tempting for member of the mainstream movement, and therefore a risk that should be warned against.

[Bauglir]

Predicting Atheism Redux in 5... 4...

In terms of actually contributing, I think that since misandry doesn't imply feminism (there are ways to get there that don't require being a feminist), and feminism doesn't imply misandry (you can seek equality without hating men), it's not really right to conflate them. You might say that some forms of misandry are extreme forms of feminism, but I don't really think there's much point when you're to that point.

[Andir]

Predicting Atheism Redux in 5... 4...

Venn Diagrams and all?