I dare to write about: Men and Women Today

[BellaKos]

I recognize that I am embarking on a foolish enterprise, but I am qualified to make observations about this chosen subject. I am female, but my my oldest, childhood friend is male. I have close friendships with my brother and male, first cousin. I have been married 36 years this March. I recall my 1968 subscription to "Glamor" magazine which published articles about how to defer to the "male ego" as well as my 1974 subscription to "Ms Magazine" which said not to. I believe in gender equality and was a participant in the "sexual revolution" of the 60s and 70s, so my experience with men before marriage was vast -- if I do say so myself.

I begin with men. Behind every male facade -- from macho to musical -- lurks a truly sensitive soul. Men are far more romantic, sentimental, and imaginative about relationships with women than women realize. The "male ego" written about in the 1960s was nothing more than another vehicle to perpetuate male hierarchy, but it did allude to a truth. And the truth is that men are extremely sensitive and easily hurt. In addition, an American man lives in a society that demands that he perform according to materialistic standards. From childhood, he is trained to achieve grades, awards, the cool car, the degree, money, and other tangible signposts in order to garner society's approval. First mommy. Then teacher. Then employer. Then mate. But as the years go by, when he has realized that he never will reach the pinnacle of his dreams as an astronaut or cowboy or rock star or CEO or PHD, he feels a sense of failure on a personal level. That sense of loss may be hidden even from himself, but it is there because tangible, worldly achievement is what he was trained and nurtured to acquire.

Women, on the other hand, are far more realistic and down-to-earth. For instance, when a man presents a box of chocolates to his lover for Valentine's Day, he is an actor performing in a romantic scene, first conjured in his imagination. In contrast, a woman is quickly calculating the calories in each piece of candy. Women are more aware of life's consequences. She is, innately, as strong and ferocious as a lioness when defending newborn cubs. Men don't realize this, of course, because women keep that feature of themselves hidden. It's just not practical to be ferocious in routine, mundane situations every day. (Besides, it's not that difficult to express ferocity at a moment's notice -- if the situation should require it, of course.)

Despite the valiant efforts of the women's movement that flourished in the 1970s, however, nothing much has changed in American society. At least in terms of values, that is. There are still commercials about lipstick and laundry detergent geared to perpetuate the same ol' value system. The message is to be beautiful and dutiful -- just like June Cleaver who vacuumed the floor while perfectly dressed in high heels and pearls. There is still the young beauty flirting with the late night talk show host -- who is male and who continues to spout the same ol' sexual innuendos about her legs, breasts, and clothes. And she continues to act as if she's delighted by his attention and approval. On "Morning Joe," it is apparent that Mika works at her looks -- while no male on the show does. She decries unequal pay between professional women and men, yet she continues to "play the part" of the familiar bimbo sitting next to the male host. And speaking of pay equity, forty years ago, a woman made 60 cents to a man's dollar. Now, it's 75 cents to the dollar. Whoo Hoo. We've "come a long way, baby."

At the same time, women have achieved worldly success. Women have become astronauts, rock stars, PHDs, hospital and academic administrators, government officials and politicians. There are a few CEOs and even one or two Presidential prospects. On the other hand, women seem in competition with each other. And still, the question of "who is the fairest in the land" prevails. Women celebrities in their sixties and seventies strive mightily to achieve the luster of beauty and sexual attractiveness of youth. Signs of age peek relentlessly underneath carefully fashioned locks of carefully dyed hair. Wrinkles have been stretched to make mouths and cheeks and chins unrecognizable. Bodies have been sculpted with painful surgery and relentless exercise. Is there no such thing as aging gracefully anymore?

And women "on the ground," so to speak, have more mundane issues as fodder for their competitions. A stay-at-home mom is considered less than a woman who achieves success in a career. Is the rearing of a future generation less of a contribution to society than a paycheck? Are all the required, domestic chores not worth anything? How much does it cost to hire babysitters, house cleaners, dog sitters, bookkeepers, drivers, counselors, and tutors on the open market? Just askin'?
But the choice to pursue a career while assuming the duties of motherhood is scrutinized and even questioned in some circles. That's also outrageous. Are the critics psychic? Are they capable of peering behind the closed doors of a household to make a judgment about how somebody *else* manages her time? Just askin'.

Are we so blind that we cannot see that diminishing others is the same as diminishing ourselves? An individual's choice is her right. No question about that.

But the youth ... the young, young women of the texting, tweeting, twerking world -- seem to be terribly confused. They have conflated self-expression with self-exploitation. They demean themselves as they eagerly attempt to outdo each other in how "sexy" they can dress or how willing they are to accommodate ... If Myley Cyrus is nude in a music video, then they seem to sense that society -- or their "electronic society" -- requires them to express even more nudity. Gender equality is the prevalent rhetoric, but the actions of many contradict that ideal. How can there be gender equality if one gender has no self-respect?

And what of men? Sensitive, sentimental men. Baby-boomer men were supposed to command spaceships to the moon, but instead lost their jobs in their fifties. Younger generations expect their wives or girlfriends to contribute a paycheck, but still rarely help out with the dishes or the laundry or the childcare or the housework. Not really, anyway. And when women complain, they don't understand. They really don't. They are sentimental fools who will do anything for you if you flatter them and appreciate them and listen to them and defer to their "male egos." It's manipulative. I personally refuse. And in conversations with the men in my life -- my husband, brother, cousin, and childhood friend -- I even have gone to the extent of explaining exactly how it is that women can manipulate them. I explain that it is their weakness -- their Achilles's heel -- and the sooner they become aware of it, the better.

There are women here who have cited examples of how they have been mistreated by men. Injustice in the workplace. Physical, emotional abuse at home. Crimes of rape or being molested. Thanks to the work of feminists in the past, there are laws against all of that now. It is, at least, illegal, although still not rare. Pain -- trauma -- suffering at the hands of an oppressor cannot be overcome easily. There is a knot of anger that sits at the bottom of the soul seemingly forever. And that festering and raw emotion is vented inappropriately, sometimes. That's understandable when pain has not healed completely, but think twice when the urge to lash out overcomes you. Not all oppressors are men. And not all men are oppressors.

Gender equality is possible if men see women as people. And women see men as people.

Needless to say, all people deserve respect.

[Bonobo]

1. Wonderful post.

So much truth and insight. Thank you for sharing your wisdom.

[BellaKos]

55. Thanx so much, Bonobo. n/t

[hfojvt]

157. I've gotta throw a challenge flag close to the start

"From childhood, he is trained to achieve grades, awards, the cool car, the degree, money, and other tangible signposts in order to garner society's approval."

Grades? Really?

Grades might win you some approval from some adults - parents, teachers, principals. But they are far less likely to get your name in the paper than are athletic accomplishments. And they will NOT win you approval from the society of your peers that you actually live in.

Nor, really will "the degree". A degree is a MEANS to get the good paying job. Without that job, the degree is worth about as much as a piece of toilet paper.

[bettyellen]

174. yep, another stereotype in a veritable long list of them. one of my parents encouraged me, the other

dissuaded me from getting my hopes up, and encouraged me to look for secretarial work instead of a career I cared about. I knew lots of kids - as many boy as girls- who were very competitive about academics, just as there were always some who were only (or mostly) concerned with being popular. And there were kids who rejected both those notions of "success", just like they do as adults.

[llmart]

2. Lots to ponder here....

but for now, let me just say I wholeheartedly disagree with your last statement.

Not everyone deserves respect. A person (man or woman) EARNS my respect. I have met way too many people in my life whom I could never respect because of knowing things they've done.

[BellaKos]

63. I used to think that way, too. Ilmart.

But I now at least wonder if I can challenge myself to looking at each person with respect -- until, of course, their actions void that possibility. I, at least, wanna' start out with the respectful approach.

[Eleanors38]

115. Yes, according respect is essential to tolerance and peace.

[llmart]

196. So if you were introduced to George Zimmerman today.....

would you start your relationship with a respectful approach?

He's the first person that came to mind, but I can think of lots of others too. Me? I wouldn't give him the time of day. In fact, I wouldn't even greet him. I'd probably turn around and walk away and I'm sure that's disrespectful, but so be it.

[Orangepeel]

214. People can earn my DISrespect.

I believe everyone is entitled to the presumption of respect.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. Excellent post.

[BellaKos]

65. Thank you, Arkansas Granny n/t

[safeinOhio]

4. Thanks for the post.

All I can say about the issues is, it's all gray area.

[BellaKos]

79. safeinOhio -- Thanx. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Both.

Your post gets both a K and an R from me.

Great stuff.

[BellaKos]

66. Thanx, MannyGoldstein. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Slight correction

And speaking of pay equity, forty years ago, a woman made 60 cents to a man's dollar. Now, it's 75 cents to the dollar. Whoo Hoo. We've "come a long way, baby."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/wage-gap-african-american-women-infographic_n_2568838.html

It's from Huffpo - but it's the first and fastest to come up . . .

According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, women in the United States are paid just 77 cents for every dollar paid to men on average. But a closer look reveals that for African-American women, this disparity is much worse, with women of color earning just 70 cents for every dollar paid to men and just 64 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men

I've received affirmation here from other people who want a Paycheck Fairness Act that we should really lower it to the 'lowest paid' to make the push all inclusive.

I'd lower the pay increase to $0.64 as opposed to $0.75 (actually $0.77 for caucasian women per the latest census b. data).

Helps to make your later points (about how things haven't really changed that much) really hit home.

[bemildred]

7. We are all in this together, so we might as well get with the program.

Adversarial competition just makes life suck.

[BellaKos]

48. Agreed.

That was one of the points hammered home during the height of the women's movement of the seventies. When women compete with and "dis" each other, the momentum to change things for the better is lost.

Yes, we are all in this together. And that includes men.

[bemildred]

60. Yes, I remember.

I think Simone DeBeauvoir got it right in "The Second Sex" all the way back in the fifties. I was always annoyed with her because she hung with Sartre and I'm a Camus fan. But then I read "The Second Sex" and I forgave her all. that.

We are all in this together, and that includes everybody, you have to take care of everybody, no exceptions.

And it's a real pleasure to meet you, Bella.

[BellaKos]

69. And you, too. Bemildred.

[libodem]

87. That is a most excellent book

So is 'When God Was A Woman'. Tons of footnotes documenting all the sources.

[bemildred]

95. Yes. There were a lot of good books. Time to rediscover them.

Nothing is really new.


The Descent of Woman: The Classic Study of Evolution

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419vhLgtuLL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/The-Descent-Woman-Classic-Evolution/dp/0285627007

I read that soon after Ardrey and "African Genesis" and it was such a hoot ...

[libodem]

117. That looks very interesting

Now, I have to bookmark to remember where to find this. Thanks again.

[BellaKos]

156. The Descent of Women! I may still have my withered and worn paperback. nt

[bemildred]

160. I parted with mine a few years back. Gave it to the library book sale.

Last edited Mon Feb 10, 2014, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Clearing the decks for the journey into old age, getting rid of stuff. I inherited a bunch of stuff a few years back, and my wife is a pack rat, so it's constant warfare over stuff.

It sank like a stone back then, the book, so I thought I'd put it back in circulation.

The seventies was the first time I started seeing good strong female protagonists, so I was looking for female authors writing about female protagonists at the time. Lot's of SciFi, because that is a place where you can imagine things anew.

Vonda McIntyre, C. J. Cherryh, Elizabeth A. Lynn.

Iain M. Banks worked at it in his culture series, but he's a guy, and his characters still think like guys.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

8. I'm not quite sure how to respond to this.

I don't fit. Let me start by saying that I am a 63 year old "boomer". By most defininitions, I'm a mans man. I spent my life in the building trades as a Sheet Metal Worker. I am a certified Scuba diver, owned and piloted a 32 foot sloop in San Francisco bay, raced Porsches and Ferraris and can, and have built houses from drawing the plans to digging the foundations to nailing the shingles on the roof. I build re creations of early American long guns as a hobby. I'm also the guy whose name is on the subscription to Phoenix Home and Garden. Most of the home decor is instigated by me. I'm not a control freak, every purchase is first approved by my wife but I'm the guy who bought the Chippendale dining set, the Chinese apothacary, the Victorian bar and most of the artwork in our house. I also do most of the cooking. The reason we have a set of French copper, a set of All Clad as well as much cast iron is because of me. I can do a Christmas Goose, a Thanks giving Turkey or a New Years standing rib roast that stops conversation because everyone is too busy saying mmm, mmm. I read cook books for pleasure. I also do almost all of the house cleaning. About the only thing I'm not allowed to do is the laundry. Something about not putting red stuff with white stuff. Go figure.

Do I have a fragile male ego? Yes. The nice thing about being 63 is that I don't much give a fuck what most people think about me at this point but my wife can cut me to ribbons with a comment. Most everybody else I can put on ignore.

We have been married for 26 years now so I guess it works for us. Am I weird? Oh hell yes but, and I can only speak about this from a male perspective, the male children and grand children in our family seem much like me.

I think for the most part, you are probably correct in your overall observations but the world is changing and some of us don't quite fit the broad brush.

[marble falls]

22. You're a lot more "normal" than you think!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. You Rock. You are so Awesome right now. Your light is shining so bright

I may need to find my sunglasses.

[BellaKos]

28. OffWithTheirHeads

I don't get that you don't fit. You have accomplished so much in your life that you don't care if you weren't an astronaut anymore. lol Unfortunately, many babyboomer men have not because of the nature of our system. (Remember? It's the system, man.) Economics have driven many a dream away.

And this:
"Do I have a fragile male ego? Yes. The nice thing about being 63 is that I don't much give a fuck what most people think about me at this point but my wife can cut me to ribbons with a comment. Most everybody else I can put on ignore."
Yes, you are sensitive and sentimental. It's just a very exclusive club in your case. As it should be.

[seabeyond]

9. i do not see women on du, lashing out, because they are "emotionally damaged". that is insulting.

[Bonobo]

10. Why is that insulting?

I'm fairly certain you have said yourself that some men lash out because they hate women. Isn't that really the same thing?

[seabeyond]

11. no. you have not heard me ever say that. men on du... why insulting? she doesnt know me.

she does not know my experience and men in my life. a lifetime of men and boys in my life that i love and loves me. how insulting to state, my voice is a product of those that are in my life, those i cherish.... have hurt me.

and to challenge, to speak out, to express is dismissed with lashing out cause i am emotionally damaged.

why is that insulting? because... it is a damn insult.

[Bonobo]

13. We have all suffered some form of emotional damage.

I think so anyway.

Why deny it?

I know I have and I am pretty sure so has everyone.

[seabeyond]

16. do not tell me what i have expereinced. and i will not tell you your suffering or "damage".

i do not know your experience. nor another single soul on du.

i have been massively lucky in life. or i do not experience events the same as others, .... but honestly, this damage business has not been a part of my life. and i resent the hell out of someone who knows nothing about me to come along and tell me my voice is a product of emotional damage.

it is crap. i do not have to own it.

[sabrina 1]

198. The only people who have the power to insult me are those I have respect for. Everyone else, I could

not care less about what they think.

Why do you care what anyone thinks of you, especially anonymous people on the internet?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. this line is also insulting:

exactly how it is that women can manipulate them.

[seabeyond]

17. that would go along with the Op in hof. women, the liars, manipulators, seductresses, ect....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. Considering that the World's Biggest Liars and Manipulators have Historically been Men

and, still are, to this very day.

[seabeyond]

21. but then... it would be a history of men, that in plays, songs, shows and culture, that say women

are natural liars and manipulators.....

so

ya

lol

better watch out, sounding emotionally damaged their lashing out in this manner.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. The NeverEnding Cycle That Feeds Itself.

I may have to go throw up now.

[seabeyond]

25. yA.... lol.

ooooohhhhhhmmmmmmmmm



this is day one... tuesday.

nice hot cleansing shower.

and i am on a roll

music, dance, .... breathe

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. If you ever visit Iceland -

A visit to The Blue Lagoon is almost mandatory. It’s the best way to relax after a holiday filled with activities. Soak in the milky blue waters, order a drink from the bar or even treat yourself to a massage! The Blue Lagoon is a short way from the airport, so if you have an afternoon or evening flight it’s the ideal last stop.

[seabeyond]

40. having been a swimmer for decade and half, and in cold pools at 6 in the morning, in freezing

temperatures, lol. ONLY if it is a steamed laked. i refuse, i know longer go into cold water, ever.....

it is beautiful

[Tuesday Afternoon]

42. not cold ... check it out

The warm waters are rich in minerals like silica and sulphur and bathing in the Blue Lagoon is reputed to help some people suffering from skin diseases such as psoriasis.[1] The water temperature in the bathing and swimming area of the lagoon averages 37–39 °C (98–102 °F). The Blue Lagoon also operates a research and development facility to help find cures for other skin ailments using the mineral-rich water.

more at link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Lagoon_%28geothermal_spa%29

[seabeyond]

46. ah, see... there is life. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

52. Life Is Good -

Come the weekend
And we'll long gone baby
Just like the old days
Letting the world flow through me

Just a parasite in a line
I'm smoking, killing the time
How long's a piece of twine
What use is sympathy
From here you can almost see the sea

If you would hold still
Could make a clean incision
Then we could sit back
And watch the demolition

Little puppy dog in a box
Somebody's picking the locks
Must want the darn from the socks
Here comes the cavalry
From here you can almost see the sea

Just another fool in the line

I dream of high clouds
Flushed with the light of daybreak
I'm gonna dive in
To water so cold it makes your bones ache

Fingers, knees and knuckles scraped
All of the rubbish heaped
A piece of cardboard taped
Up where the bedroom window pane used to be
From here you can almost
From here you can almost see the sea

Just another fool in the line
Just another fool in the line

I saw a film once
Where all the airholes froze up
A killer whale swam
Under the blue ice
Until her heart stopped

[AgingAmerican]

312. My personal experience has been polar opposite

Isn't life wonderful?!!?

[bemildred]

80. I want to support seabeyond a bit here, I don't like that usage either.

"Emotionally damaged" or just "damaged" are used pejoratively. I don't think that was Bella's intent by any means, but on my better days I would have looked for something less likely to provoke a reaction.

[seabeyond]

83. this is a carry on from another thread where she specifically said some of us women that are vocal

are because of hurt and pain from men, lashing out... ect, emotionally damaged.

that is why tuesday and i clearly understood what this Op was about. there was purpose.

and thank you for seeing emotionally damaged is used as a pejorative.

[bemildred]

90. Well, I think you have a point.

On the other hand it is hard to talk about it without using such terms, since we all receive a certain amount of "damage" as part of our childhood indoctrination.

I would say we all get knocked around in life, some more than others, and the world is not fair, in fact the world does not give a fuck, so if we want somebody to give a fuck about us, we are going to have to do it ourselves, and the fact is that is not going to work well unless we include everybody.

So while I well understand why some women get annoyed, I mean I get annoyed too, and I am more than willing to let them vent as they please about it, in the end you have to dispose of that anger too, it has no place in the world you want to build, unless it is a world without men. And we can be useful.

[seabeyond]

100. that is the problem taking it to personal. even kinda assuming where a person is coming from.

the utter failure in t. what drves me wild.

if you or anyone thinks that may be an issue... ask. do not tell me that i am damaged, or that i hate men, or that i do not see men as people. that is merely offensive.

i have a loud voice for womens issues. i also have a father that was totally respectful to me all my life, and to this day, making it clear my worth in respect.

i have a husband that is respectful and a good man

i have two boys that are the cats meow.

i take care of two nephews cause their mother does not

i have had an unfairly good life

and i am the first to stand up for the authenticity of any man and boy at all cost. even if that is standing up to a group of men on du.

but... if one wonders? ask. do not tell me who i am and the damage am.

[bemildred]

107. This is the Internet, the land of bullshit.

How much time do you want to spend making corrections?

[seabeyond]

111. .

always something to be learned.

[BellaKos]

126. I will say this to you, seabeyond.

I don't believe that I ever addressed you personally about whether or not you are damaged by past experiences. I certainly didn't mean that. I am frankly surprised that you would assume that.
And speaking of the "loud voice of women," yours included, I hope that more women speak out about these issues, but I still maintain my position that women don't have to convey hostility towards men tp make their points -- even in the confines of internet chat. I believe that the problem today is that women are *too* accepting of gender oppression in many forms. Things have gone *backwards* as far as I'm concerned. Ya-ya rhetoric about the gains women have made contradicts the facts on the ground. And as long as women attack *each other* about their individual choices and opinions, nothing will change.

You said:
"i also have a father that was totally respectful to me all my life, and to this day, making it clear my worth in respect."
Well, my father was an alcoholic who died of liver failure and malnutrition. I have scars even now where he hit me in the head with a metal heel of a shoe for talking back to him. I have a "Christmas memory" of waking up where blood literally dripped down from the top of the wall the night he rammed a piece of broken glass into my mother's leg. Those are just some of the highlights. I was emotionally and physically abused. I have all the symptoms of having been sexually abused, but those memories are apparently blocked.

"i have a husband that is respectful and a good man."
My husband is a good man, too. The respect, however, had to be demanded from me.

I'm uncomfortable bringing up any of these details -- especially about my childhood. Those wounds have not healed completely. And by admitting that I have been damaged by all that, I can recognize areas where I can work on that healing.

So given what you know now, can you now see that any comment about women who have suffered abuse could not have possibly been derogatory and especially about you, personally? I am one of those women!

I can speak to the pain. The suffering. The anger that sits at the bottom of the soul. The festering, raw emotion that jumps out inappropriately. I can speak to that. Personally. I know all about. it. I can feel it even now. Plus, the sadness. The sadness that comes upon me in waves -- for no apparent reason. Week after week. Year after year. Year after year. Year after year. So doesn't it strike you that I would certainly have tremendous sympathy and compassion for anyone who has been abused or molested? I would never put such a person down. The pain of my own past is all too real. Even now.

And all of that is beside the effing point. It doesn't matter what my experience is or has been.

But I can still stand against people being personally attacked and maliciously accused. Can't I? I mean, can't I?

I can still point out that men are people, too.

I can still point out that women need a *new* voice. A voice that is not tinged with emotionalism and hostility, but instead one that asserts the necessary independence to design her own path -- without apology. You know, like men do.

Can't I feel free enough in casual, internet conversation to say what I think without the prospect of being willfully misunderstood? Or with the assumption that I'm being contentious? Without my opinions being dismissed out-of-hand?

Can't I? I mean, with your permission, can't I?

I really would prefer not speaking to you again -- other than to accept the apology that you owe me.

[cyberswede]

134. But you didn't speak of your own experience in the OP...

you generalized about "women" and implied this applies to women (presumably on DU) who speak out.

There is a knot of anger that sits at the bottom of the soul seemingly forever. And that festering and raw emotion is vented inappropriately, sometimes. That's understandable when pain has not healed completely, but think twice when the urge to lash out overcomes you.

And of course, you can say whatever you want on DU. Nobody is saying you can't. But if you do, you shouldn't be surprised when some disagree with you - and they have as much right to say what they want as you do. (Also, it's sort of ironic that you're advising others to "think twice" before expressing themselves in whatever way they choose).

IMO, seabeyond doesn't owe you a thing.

[BellaKos]

155. cyberswede

You said:
"... applies to women (presumably on DU) who speak out." Well, the truth is I wasn't actually thinking of women here at DU specifically. I was actually thinking of abuse victims in general and others who have suffered injustice and oppression. I was talking about the kind of emotion that these people deal with.

But women here have written about specific instances when they have been molested, raped, and abused. Is it a stretch to presume that they, too, have suffered these kinds of emotions? And, if so, I simply urged restraint in the course of discussion and in addressing men in general. Mainly, because it's just not fair to attack people as a group, or personally, or to accuse them falsely. Just not fair.

About the freedom to express myself and disagreement concerning my point of view -- I believe I have addressed each and every comment that addressed the specifics of my observations.

I did not address those who have accused me of insulting them, because I believe that is not justifiable. I'm inclined to think that they are *willfully* misunderstanding what I wrote in order to bait me into a never-ending contest. And for no reason, either. Just for the sake of the fun of battle, I guess. And in all fairness, I wish that you, who seem reasonable, would notice how many times I've been accused of "insulting" women based on some sort of assumption on their part. It has been relentless. And it has disrupted this thread.

I wrote the post in good humor. Just sayin', in other words. I expected people to respond -- to agree or to disagree. I did not expect an onslaught of attacks based on assumptions about what I had meant, since I had tried very hard to be clear in what I wrote. And the evidence of my responses in general shows that I am more than happy to address people who disagree, sincerely and without malice, in a polite, forthright, and direct manner.

[Sissyk]

138. I am so very sorry, BellaKos,

for what you have went through. That's all that needs to be said.

Can't I feel free enough in casual, internet conversation to say what I think without the prospect of being willfully misunderstood? Or with the assumption that I'm being contentious? Without my opinions being dismissed out-of-hand?

Yes. Yes, you can!

[BellaKos]

145. Thank you, Sissyk nt

[seabeyond]

151. you do not get to re write.

you defended someone that said something offensive. the victim is the abuser. and ... whether allen molested or not, for dylan to speak up all these years later, she is AS bad.

people called waiting for every man out on that. and only that. t was about nothing else. it was not personally insulting or anything else. simply, calling out that statement. i was not the only one.

Well, I, for one, am gonna' stick up for you, WFE......

It seems that there are a few women here who are venting their pain concerning past injuries perpetrated by men -- whether it be injustice, emotional and physical abuse, and/or egregious crimes of rape and child molestation. They vent their pain -- their emotions -- in the guise of rational argument. This is a perfectly normal thing that people do all the time. (By the way, this is the same kind of thing that the Teabaggers are doing -- except their pain is because of economic reasons, mainly.)

This is fine. As long as the emotions are not vented as personal attacks. Or as long as emotions don't become so overwhelming that they affect the individual's well-being.

I realize that I may have pricked a nerve

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post137

yes. that was talking about the women in that thread. and yes.... i put myself right out there in a number of posts... waiting for you to say, no, not you. a number of posts. i think it was clear you were talking about us women, in that thread, and ya... include me, exclude me.... whatever. but ya. like you get to say it, i get to call it out. not attack you personally. call out that comment. and that is just what i have done, and will continue to do.

the first part of your post i am replying to, could have been the bridge to connecting and uniting. i hear what you are sayng. and that is one of the reasons i am so adamant about not accepting the label of emotionally hurt. (i really do not and am offended by damage, like damage goods, and none of us are that, ever. another reason i am really offended by the word). it has not been in my world. so many have suffered much much more than i can even imagine. and still, i honor their voice, however it is sung whether lashing out or in a whisper, with tears, anger or a smile of pure joy for the freedom of voice.

and i do honor yours.... the first half of the post.

not so much the second half, which regressed back to what i was calling out.

now, things to do.

[BellaKos]

167. Seabeyond

Well, I knew this was all about that *other* thread. Actually, I'm pretty strict with language. Unfortunately, when people read what I write quickly, they don't pick up on the nuance of my writing. Not your fault. It's my thing. My husband complains about that, too. But if I had meant specifically the women on that thread, I would have written, "some women here, including the women on this thread."

I said later on that *other* thread, that I felt that I could make a connection between the emotional responses of women who lash out at men as a group or leap to conclusions about some random individual because women here have written about their prior abuse. People who vent anger for no apparent reason are usually suffering some sort of emotional discomfort. It's called: transference displacement. It's very common and certainly understandable -- especially among those who have suffered trauma.

The word, "damage," which seemed to make your blood boil, was a term I picked up from my step-father who has a masters degree in counseling. My fault. I had *assumed* that it was a technical term or at least was shorthand for a whole host of the psychological ills that victims experience. It worked for me. And as I have written. I am damaged. And I'm not ashamed of that.

You wrote:
" i honor their voice, however it is sung whether lashing out or in a whisper, with tears, anger or a smile of pure joy for the freedom of voice."

Well, la-de-effin' da! Now, you take the high road? Presenting yourself as one who is so sensitive to women's voices -- especially those who have suffered -- that you acknowledge and appreciate all that they say? A whisper? With tears?
Anger? Joy? Really?

Then you may be interested to know that your persistent badgering made me resort finally to mentioning my own past as evidence that I do know what the hell I'm talking about. And in writing about that -- the blood -- the injury -- remembering the rest of it -- I began to cry. And by the way, that's also very common among abuse victims, so restraint is always the best policy when dealing with strangers on the internet. Men and women. One never knows when a snarky, belligerent comment -- or when misunderstanding -- will trigger emotions among those of us who did not have a father who treated his daughter with respect.

Well, there you have it. You have tears from a woman whose voice you "honor."

So. You win. I am bad, wrong, stupid, condescending, inaccurate, and insulting -- especially to Miss Seabeyond who got her lil' feelings hurt when she misread what I had wrote.

[Waiting For Everyman]

228. Stop misstating my post in other threads when I'm not even addressing you.

You can just get over it, ms. seabeyond, my opinion disagrees with yours and I am not going to STFU for you or anybody else.

Here's my words in my words, not her malicious parody of it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post79

I'd alert on you for this, talking about me by name and lying about what I said when I'm not even in the conversation as you just did certainly deserves it, if I really believed it would be hidden. And you have the nerve to tell people how to act. Unbelievable.



ETA: In case that link didn't clear up the difference between your misstatement and what I actually said, maybe this one will:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post172

Or this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post98

Next time you try to do this in another thread, I will be alerting. Count on it.

[JTFrog]

232. There were no lies from seabeyond.

You posted it. You should own it.

Oh and I'm sure she's really scared of your threats.

[Capt. Obvious]

281. So...

What were the jury results?

[JTFrog]

284. That you are rather Obvious?

Not sure what you're getting at there Capt.

[Capt. Obvious]

286. It was pretty straight forward

What were the jury results of your failed alert?

[JTFrog]

287. And I already told you.

The results are in: Capt. Obvious is very Obvious.

[pintobean]

288. He's obviously an excellent observer.

[JTFrog]

289. I doubt he has much of a view from there. n/t

[seabeyond]

233. "Dylan is the abuser now""what he did or didn't do...Dylan,...any better

"regardless of what he did or didn't do, I don't think Dylan, Mia, and Ronan are any better. "

these are your words:

dylan the abuser now, for speaking out.

regardless what he did or did not do.... we are talking molestation
whether he molested her or not..... dylan is no better

your words

a number of people said exactly what i said

alert away

[Waiting For Everyman]

236. You don't need to misstate what I say again, my own links are what I said.

The ONLY reason to restate over me is to muddle it up. Most people can see through what you're trying to do.

If you had the better argument, you wouldn't have to resort to deceptions like that.

[seabeyond]

237. bottomline is if the reader the last two years has been about battling hof.

not issues, but our group

we agree in a lot of things, dine being one.

but, i am sure.... after making that statement, you will find a way to argue her view.

i address the issue. that simple. yes, many can see.

[polly7]

275. The 'group'' that mercilessly attacked and bullied another member for weeks

and then you stole her personal health info from a safe group to pass around in pm's to indicate she was incapable?

The group that's bullied and lied about other women, called us rape-enablers, dogs, etc. etc., hypocrites for objecting to your using sexist language towards us?

And on, and on and fucking on.

Awwwwies. Someone fights back. Bullies never expect that though and they're ALWAYS outraged when it happens.

[polly7]

276. Hey, if you can't twist things into something you can create outrage for ..

what's the point?

[Waiting For Everyman]

313. You know, polly7, a thought just occurred to me.

We haven't really had one of these ugly multi-thread mashups in a while now, in a couple of weeks or so at least... around about the time of the change in ATA rules. Something changed a couple of weeks ago, and now has changed back. Isn't that an interesting coincidence?

Things that make you go, "hmmmm".

[pintobean]

315. It's kinda like

a coming home party.

[R B Garr]

254. Seabeyond doesn't owe you an apology. Here's why she's honest and your OP is not:

Why didn't you just make this OP about Seabeyond and spare us all the bullshit. This thread is doing nothing but T'ing up insults for your friends to lob, all in the name of passive-aggressive "casual, internet conversation." Here's how your OP is dishonest: At least the recent threads about men/women and victims in the last few days have at least been in response to a legitimate news story about Woody Allen and Dylan that have been currently in the news. Your thread just happens to conincide with Seabeyond's return, is nothing but flamebait, and has nothing to do with any current legitimate news story.

I honestly started out reading this thread with an open mind, but your continued contributions have made it obvious it's nothing but flypaper. Will you be goading your friends over and over and over by name to apologize for the insults and childish postings they made in the very recent Woody Allen threads. One of them posted a picture of a toilet in response to a poster. Really.

To be honest, your thread reads a lot like a Fox Nooooz right wing tactic. You must know what I mean: Fox sets up an alternate universe which is, of course, supposedly ideal, and if the viewers don't buy into it, then they're not patriotic. Same with you. If someone disagrees with you, they owe you an apology or you will continue manipulating their words and responses in such a way that only you (and your like-minded friends) are correct or appropriate. Barfy, and very transparent way for you to put a gender war thread that belongs somewhere else in GD to even the score with the exposure from a legimate Woody Allen/Oscars/recent Dylan Farrow newsletter in the NY Times.

[JTFrog]

278. Thank you for calling that shit out.

Well done.

[R B Garr]

294. Yes, it was getting too obvious what all this was really about

I know lots of other posters noticed it right away, but the apology request and all the teeing up for the next poster's potshots made me see this tripe for what it really is, just pure flamebait, and not even in relation to any actual news stories. Just trying to get a post hidden for their fun and games.

[pintobean]

283. A toilet? Oh my!

Did you alert? I would think that would fall under shock content.

[R B Garr]

291. Whooosh. Right over your head

The point was that no one asked you to apologize. If you want to spend your time googling toilet pictures and posting them, well....

[pintobean]

295. I googled 'suggestion box'

and chose the most appropriate image.

[R B Garr]

298. Thanks for being "frank"

[pintobean]

301. You stoop to that

after all that lecturing about people's behavior? That actually makes a toilet look dignified.

Btw - that dude has some kind of weird shoe fetish.

[R B Garr]

314. The OP is lecturing about people's behavior

Everyone else responding just happened to notice (that's it's flamebait).

Dude?

[BellaKos]

114. bemildred

Well, I have been misunderstood many a time on threads at large. And I always consider it my own fault.

But the persistent misunderstanding between me and Seabeyond and now Tuesday Afternoon is a relic of another thread. And in that case, I do not consider it my fault. I tried and tried and tried to be polite and talk about language usage and all sorts of things to explain what I had been talking about, but to no avail. And now, they seem intent on creating mayhem on this new thread.

What they don't know is that I'm a veteran of a forum war that went on for weeks about ten years ago. I never backed down although I was vilified mercilessly. This is child's play in comparison. Perhaps literally. lol

[seabeyond]

119. so who were you? and if you think that it is only two of us that picked up on that, in this OP,

you are incorrect. why is it, when you have a number of people saying the same thing to you, you and the other you defended, only see two people.

why is your focus on tuesday and i. tuesday and i are not the only ones saying that is insulting.

and what does a war have to do with anything. you are all about respect. this can easily be resolved with respect. and has nothing to do with a challenge to go all at it.
i do not get this. at all.

i do not know you. i do not get your intent. i do not know why it is ok for you to insult people. i do not know why you get to call some out.

now you are callng us a child. childs play, literally.... really?

[oldhippie]

149. Some people see a personal insult ....

.... in anything they don't like.

now you are callng us a child. childs play, literally.... really?

I think that's a bit of a stretch. But that's me.

[bemildred]

120. Not to worry, I got that.

Edit: been there, done that is the proper cliche.

Just trying to subvert the argument a little.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. is that in this "wall of text" somewhere?

because, really, The Last Line Said It All.

short, succinct, sweet and to the point.

Pontification, at this point on DU3 about The Benevolent Patriarchal Society, I can pretty much do with out.

[seabeyond]

14. all of this to tell us women that have been hurt and damaged by men... do not lash out....

tsk tsk

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. What I really do not appreciate is the fact that this relative newcomer

*Dares* To Write About Men and Women on DU3

and then proceeds to tell us the state of things.

I don't know them like that and They Damn Sure Don't Know Me Like That.

[seabeyond]

20. and will not, refuses to take ownership of the insult and address it.

am i lashing out?

this garbage of accusing women on du of hating men, and being emotionally damaged just really pisses me off and they so cavalierly do it.... as their right.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. and does it under the guise of a Feminine type UserName.

Kos Bella has just got it going on like that ...

[Z_I_Peevey]

112. I tried, I really tried

to wade through. But life's too short.

I will retire to a corner somewhere and contemplate my emotional damage.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

116. Bless you, my child ... lol ... let me help --

[thesquanderer]

108. I don't like "newcomer" as a put down

I don't know why people who have been here longer sometimes think they have earned some extra right. I have seen great posts from newcomers, and ridiculous ones from old-timers, and see no reason for such a bias. And a couple of hundred posts over a couple of years is plenty for someone to have formed opinions about DU itself. (Then again, maybe you think I'm a relative newcomer, too, at ten years but a relatively modest number of posts.)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

113. I understand what you are saying and I respect it. However, I find the subject matter and

the approach used by this (and, once again, I qualify) -REALTIVE- newcomer to be *suspect*

Especially, given preceding posts in previous threads on this subject.

YMMV.

[RC]

27. Stuffing the problem never works.

There are women here who have cited examples of how they have been mistreated by men. Injustice in the workplace. Physical, emotional abuse at home. Crimes of rape or being molested. Thanks to the work of feminists in the past, there are laws against all of that now. It is, at least, illegal, although still not rare. Pain -- trauma -- suffering at the hands of an oppressor cannot be overcome easily. There is a knot of anger that sits at the bottom of the soul seemingly forever. And that festering and raw emotion is vented inappropriately, sometimes. That's understandable when pain has not healed completely, but think twice when the urge to lash out overcomes you. Not all oppressors are men. And not all men are oppressors.

Stuffing it never works. The pain, the trauma will always come out somehow. Stuffing it warps a persons view of the world. Whether it comes out as sabotaging your relationships, painting all people of the opposite gender with a broad brush, general anger and frustration at those around them. In denial, always blaming others, when it is obvious it is their own action that caused the fail. It will always come out, usually in unhealthy ways.
Those that stuff it can never really happy. The more the pain, the more the trauma, the worse the festering, the more depressed they are, or will become.
And speaking of the obvious, most people can tell in fairly short order when they are dealing with others that have stuffed something hurtful and not dealt with it. It always come out. Always. The pain will not be denied. DU has its share of hurting people that have stuffed it and have never really tried to deal with the pain.
There is help out there. There are healthy ways to deal with the hurt, to heal the raw festering wounds. All one has to do is look or even ask.

[BellaKos]

30. RC -- Yes, exactly. I've certainly learned that from experience. n/t

[redqueen]

123. Is this supposed to be irony? Perhaps it's simply projection?

Just recalling a rant about ex girlfriend in HoF.

[RC]

179. No projection. it is called experience and education.

The woman in question was an example of what can happen to a person who has been in a long time physical and mentally abusive marriage/relationship and refuses to get help. I used this person as an example of what happens to a person stuffing the hurt and trauma, instead of dealing with it. That is all.
For you to taunt me about this, means I apparently touched a nerve here.
Enabling emotionally traumatized people instead of encouraging them to get help is cruel and even more damaging in the long run to all concerned. And is often done by people in need of help themselves. They do it because they themselves are in denial that they may need help too. Misery loves company, birds of a feather and all that.
Depending on where one lives, there is free and nominal cost help out there.

I stand by that post, BTW. You are free to post it here, in its entirety, if you want.

[bemildred]

215. "There is a knot of anger that sits at the bottom of the soul seemingly forever."

THAT. If you don't deal with that, it will deal with you. It will eat you up.

And it is far from easy. But it is worth it.

[seabeyond]

217. is it not arrogantly condescending for men to psychoanalyze the women on du that speak out

on womens issues? damaged souls, lashing out, knot of anger, needing psychological help.

simply because we do not allow insults or sexism to be said without calling out, or because we speak out about women issue?

are you not in your own way, you and rc in this cutsey little subthread, painting an H on womens forehead? (that would be for hysteria). it feels as if we have stepped back 4 decades ago, when women spoke out and men would wave the hand dismissively toward the "little woman" being oh so emotional.

do you not find this irritatingly condescending and arrogant?

[bemildred]

218. I'm talking about myself. nt

[seabeyond]

220. i guess that is a way to passively aggressively thumbs up what rc is doing. cause you understand,

i am sure, like really really sure, you get what rc is doing, and has doen about every single one of his posts for a couple years now, when talking about gender issues. look at us, tell us we are emotionally damaged and need psychological help.

you do understand how totally insulting that is, right?

and how t comes off as arrogantly condescending from men, like women experience so often, dismssing our voice cause we are all that emotionally and hysterical.

right?

[bemildred]

221. I don't care about your petty arguments. nt

[seabeyond]

224. my petty argument? i get you do not care. my petty argument is rc telling us we are damaged and

need help.

but, thank you so much for making it clear, that you really do not give a shit when duers point to other duers and say they are damaged, need help, their voice, dismissed.

gotcha.

basically, i kinda came to the conclusion, you did not care that certain duers were insulting a group of women, though it took me a couple posts to figure out.

basically what i am doing, s making it clear for those that may not be aware of what is going on here, and spelling it out for them, so they are clear, that there are duers here that like to call women damaged goods, for speaking out, to dismiss our voice.

so, my responses are really not about you. but, more, about my right to speak out.

[bemildred]

225. Talk all you want. nt

[redqueen]

250. Thanks for bothering.

But I think those who still haven't picked up on these patterns by now simply do not give a shit.

[pintobean]

229. It's like there's no psychoanalysis of DU men

ever happening in your group. That "H" could stand for several things.

[AgingAmerican]

311. No shit

That was my first thought when I read it too

[Bonobo]

325. "It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.""

That's the name of a thread in HOF. I shit you not.

You could cut the irony with a butter knife.

[pintobean]

327. It compares some DU men to slave owners.

They even include some DU women. One said of the thread "tis fun".

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't usually read that member's posts because I don't usually read that member's posts because.

[Bonobo]

329. Kinda puts the OUTRAGE at it being suggested that there is damage out there in perspective, eh.

I mean, how DARE anyone suggest that people might actually have suffered emotional damage along the way in life. That is so fucking sexist!

[pintobean]

330. And it just keeps getting weirder. /nt

[RC]

222. Thank you. That is what I am trying to say.

[bemildred]

223. No problem. nt

[sabrina 1]

239. I wouldn't worry about it RC, most people got what you were saying.

[RC]

241. It is the frustration caused by those that don't get it.

The anger, the outright bullying directed at those of us that do get it. How do you get through to someone that thinks everyone else is the problem? That they themselves are somehow just fine. Or worse yet, their enablers who should and often do know better, but think they are just having fun. You can see it all in this thread alone. There is enough here for a 2+ hour evening course on relationships.

[sabrina 1]

242. You can't get through to them. Which is why most people here don't even try.

DU is not the place to discuss women's issues many have found, or men's for that matter. So most people avoid the subject here and find other venues if they want to have reasonable discussions of this topic.

That is a sad reality because this forum SHOULD be a place where these issues can be discussed however the reality is, it is not.

[RC]

245. Yeah, I know, but the solutions are so obvious and the rewards are so great.

That is what is so frustrating about it. It's not rocket surgery, it is common sense.
You've heard the saying about the physician who treats himself, has fool for a patient? That applies to emotional hurts too.

I have a computer problem that doesn't make sense. That'll be easier to fix.

[polly7]

274. You can guarantee the 'educators' of all things

gender related will not allow a thread like this be discussed without turning it into a garbage thread.

It's not only sad for the original poster and this site, it's pathetic.

[sabrina 1]

280. So true polly. This thread could have been a really good place to talk about the issues raised by

OP, but instead has turned into the usual mess, only proving the point I already made, it is not possible to discuss these issues here.

Pathetic is too kind a word ....

[JTFrog]

282. It turned into exactly what the OP wanted it to turn into.

And you are right, pathetic is far too kind a word.

[Scout]

290. my, my, who is being nasty and hostile now? whiners gonna whine! n/t

[polly7]

292. Nailed it.

I get nasty and hostile when I'm lied about, and when good, well-intentioned people who have just as much right to post here as your bully gang does, have threads deliberately trashed for no other reason than, well ........ to bully.

[Scout]

297. oh so it's ok for YOU to get "nasty and hostile"

when you feel you've been mistreated. got it.

but not for anyone else. if they think they've been lied about or mistreated, well they just need to shut up about it. shove it down deep like a good woman, then let it out inappropriately later

you still haven't proved where i lied, have you.

you've been shown by me, by Sheldon, by Ohio Joe where you have lied and misrepresented...

i direct you again to posts #54 where bella insults sea, in a post to you; and to post #62 by sea where she refers to this post by Bella that insults/calls out/attacks her; to post #81 in particular the comments of Juror 6, who is the one who has "nailed it"; and to post #183 by Sheldon.

but you keep playing the victim, misrepresenting, whining and complaining about how you are oh so mistreated on this board. you are very good at it, and should take pride.

buzz buzz buzz busy bees.

[closeupready]

293. +1. It's weird because I like everyone disagreeing with each other here, lol.

But there are some topics you just figure out eventually, you need to defer to others to flesh out whatever they feel then need to. Even if you think they are wrong - just let them say what they feel they need to say, and move on to other things. As Sabrina says, in a way it's too bad, but DU is not the place to discuss certain topics - it COULD be, and should be, but isn't, and maybe won't ever be.

It's still a good place to talk with intelligent liberals and progressives and Democrats.

[seabeyond]

296. this thread is a continuation from another. it is not the topic that is the issue.

it is telling us women that we are emotionally damaged and need psychiatric help. if the OP had left off the continuing argument in the last paragraphs of the OP, from another thread, i would not have called it out. a discussion would be had. and the thread would not be the mess it is.

i wont apologize for telling du members they are not allowed to get away with deciding i am emotionally damaged, nor other members of our group. that if we women speak out, we are just lashing out and do not see men as human beings. basically dismissing anything we have to say.

you are giving a thumbs up as two duers are diagnosing the mental health of a group of your fellow duers.

you are ok with that?

and i do mean this in all respect. but, i am puzzled by your conclusion.

oh, and if we do not admit to being emotionally damaged, and we do not seek medical help.... then our bad, we are merely in denial, cause anonymous people have spoken.

[closeupready]

299. I think SOME women here MAY profit from counseling, but MEN here -

SOME - may ALSO profit from counseling. I would not deign to even think about who, naming names, etc. I am not a mental health professional, nor would I know even where to begin figuring something like that out. (I mean, except for clear cries of distress, like (as we've seen in the past) 'if this doesn't stop, I'm going to kill myself', etc.)

Is your objection due, in part, to the fact that the message came from a man in an admittedly highly patriarchal, misogynistic culture? On that score, I would completely understand.

[seabeyond]

300. frstly, i think it is highly offensive for me to presume that i could have any role at all in

the diagnosing of another human being, lacking any kind of real information about the person. i am floored that anyone would feel they and others have that right. i mean it sincerely. who would i be to give somebody that garbage, totally unknown by me.

so maybe my position i hold, feeling a strong responsibility in the area of not deciding who another is, is a huge part of the offense.

another problem i have, be it man or woman, to use that as a means to dismiss what another says, instead of addressing the actual issue, is cowardly, in my book.

i also see it as a form of humiliating and shaming to silence.

it is also something society has conditioned both genders that this is who women are. so it is an easy, go to, to silence another. used as a weapon to keep women down.

also, people that have been hurt should not be dismissed because they are emotional. period. be it a rant or whatever, .... i want to hear. agree or not. but, never silence that voice.

also, i do not believe in the term damaged, per se. we use that often with women, damaged goods.

lastly, and my personal reason i refuse to allow? i have had a lifetime, the majority of men and boys around me. each and every one good people. people i love. people who love me. and to have these strangers on a board tell me the reason i speak out is because these people in my life has hurt me is so infuriatingly insulting to those i love. my people may not know they are being insulted. i do. and i refuse to allow some strangers to continually tell me, the only reason i use my voice on du for gender issues is because i am damaged, by the men i love, and need psychiatric help.

and no one on du should be ok with a group of women being treated like this.

finally, talk about the issue. i will reply to what you put in your post. appreciate the same. but talk the issue. it is not so hard. right now, the issue having fellow du members feeling free to discuss my and other dues mental health.

[closeupready]

303. I hear you, and I don't disagree at all.

I know how you feel.

I get angry when people like, for example, Laura Shlesinger or Pat Buchanan lecture gay people about how they haven't 'met the right girl yet' or some other nonsense.

So while I'm male, I do understand how it's really easy for people who are, by default, society's kingpins to dismiss those who stubbornly refuse to conform. Speak out! Never stop, if it will kill your soul. Peace.

[seabeyond]

304. thank you.

and i think that is about all any one is asking for. to be heard.

peace to you, too.

i appreciate you listening.

and your example is right on.

[pintobean]

316. "lacking any kind of real information about the person"

I guess "real information" could be collected on DU, and PMed to others in an attempted character assassination. No real DUer would do anything that despicable, though.

[H2O Man]

317. Note: I just served

on DU jury duty per a complaint about this post. The results were 100% for "leave it."

[pintobean]

318. Thanks. Another juror sent me the results.

I wonder if the alerter learned anything.

[RC]

305. It is the damage they spread in the real world too.

It is not just here.

[closeupready]

306. When you say 'real world,' are you referring to our first-hand experiences?

I mean, flesh-and-blood encounters with the opposite gender? And feminists, of either?

[RC]

307. No. I mean real world we all are living in.

And not just my first hand experiences, but anyone who has to deal with emotionally wounded people anywhere. Everyone, men, women and children, under the right circumstances, can end up stuffing experiences that are better brought out into the light of day and dealt with.
It doesn't matter whether it is a soldier back from the middle east with PDST or a person of either gender getting out of a bad relationship. It is different degrees of the same thing and both can cause the same damage, if not properly dealt with.
This isn't about me, but about making the world a better, safer, emotionally healthier world.

[seaglass]

29. I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time reading all of this. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

35. Just so It is Not a Total Loss ...

NASA’s troubled US$8-billion Hubble successor is back on track
After setbacks, delays and cost overruns that almost led to its cancellation, the telescope should be able to meet its 2018 launch date.
The Hubble Space Telescope is still operating, but its successor is already waiting in the wings. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will be the largest observatory ever sent to space, and one of the most complex instruments ever built. After running seriously over budget and behind schedule until 2011, the project is now on track and heading into an eventful year of assembly and tests in preparation for its 2018 launch.

more at link:
http://www.nature.com/news/nasa-s-troubled-us-8-billion-hubble-successor-is-back-on-track-1.14686

[seaglass]

36. Thanks Tuesday :-) n/t

[Chorophyll]

32. All men are this. All women are that. And what's up with that crazy youth, anyway?

I think gender equality is about not making sweeping generalizations.

[BellaKos]

53. Chorophyll

Well, you are partially right. Sweeping generalizations are never correct when speaking of individuals or even a group. I hope you could see that I was merely stating my own observations based on experience over the years.

But gender equality will be achieved when:
Women have pay equity.
Women politicians are not referred to as women politicians, but simply politicians.
Hilary's hair or her behavior when Bill cheated on her is not part of a discussion about her political viability.
Women don't feel the pressure to conform to standards of "beauty" that are unrealistic.

But gender equality will be achieved, most importantly, when women reject limitations they have put on themselves and when they live their lives with no apologies concerning their choices. A path of independence -- married or not -- of their own design. You know, like men do.

[Chorophyll]

122. Then maybe your essay should have been cut down to what you just wrote here.

Because generalizations like the following undermine your point.

"Behind every male facade -- from macho to musical -- lurks a truly sensitive soul."

"Women, on the other hand, are far more realistic and down-to-earth."

"But the youth ... the young, young women of the texting, tweeting, twerking world -- seem to be terribly confused."

Personality traits like sensitivity, sensibility, and confusion occur irrespective of gender or generation. I am not a particularly "down-to-earth" woman. I have known some truly insensitive men. As for the "texting, tweeting, and twerking" young women, well, perhaps you could spare a paragraph for the young men who are doing pretty much the same things? Or do they get a pass?

[BellaKos]

142. Chorophyll

In the first paragraph, I said that my remarks were merely observations, but observations based on vast experience.

And it's a good thing that you recognize that people share many common traits, irrespective of gender. Unfortunately, it's not a universal attitude.

And as far as very young women are concerned ... While both genders are electronically tuned in, when women offer their bodies as sex objects as seems to be the case, gender equality suffers.

Keep in mind ... I come from a generation that considered the "Miss America Pageant" as exploitation of women.

[Chorophyll]

163. BellaKos,

I'm 48 years old. I remember the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and the oughties. There is no need for you to patronize me.

"And it's a good thing that you recognize that people share many common traits, irrespective of gender. Unfortunately, it's not a universal attitude." Um, yes. It's apparently not YOUR attitude, either, or you wouldn't have written this OP.

Leaving aside the sweeping generalizations (and the binary hetero-normativity) of your OP, what you're doing here is putting the responsibility for gender equality squarely on women. You're upset that younger women "offer their bodies as sex objects," but you don't bother to look at the context in which this happens. Where, I wonder, would a young woman get the idea that the way she looks naked is more important than anything she thinks or achieves? Are young women just born that way now, or do they receive messages from the society around them?

And again, do young men get a free pass for their sexual transgressions? Or are they just so "sensitive" on the inside that their behavior doesn't matter?

[BellaKos]

173. Chorophyll

I was giving you a compliment, believe it or not. It's a real struggle to see people without prejudice given the context of our society.

You wrote:
"Where, I wonder, would a young woman get the idea that the way she looks naked is more important than anything she thinks or achieves? Are young women just born that way now, or do they receive messages from the society around them?"

Well, obviously, they get it from society. But why would they resort to that behavior? Do they feel they *have to* to get attention? So something is lacking in their environment.
Look at it this way. Can you imagine Michelle Obama in high school giving a boy a bj just because he asked? Do you think that her parents would let her out of the house dressed in an overtly "sexy" fashion? And even if they did, do you believe, given her history, that she would have felt comfortable going along with a crowd that behaved and dressed as so many do today? Even if it were what everybody else did?
It's about self-respect.

And no, I don't believe teenage boys or even young twenty-year-olds are "sensitive" enough to refuse to take advantage of the situation.

[Chorophyll]

177. Compliment aside (thanks), you keep moving the goalposts.

"It's about self-respect" is not an argument in favor of gender equality. True gender equality requires that we stop making moral judgments on the behavior of other women. You do realize you're making the same tired old good girl/bad girl argument that has been keeping women down since the beginning of recorded history, don't you?

And for the record, if Michelle Obama gave a bj to some guy in high school "just because he asked," it would not change my opinion of her. I didn't much mind Bill Clinton being on the receiving end of a bj, either. I don't think a person's sexual history has much impact on their leadership abilities, unless they're hypocritical about it. Your mileage may vary.

[anneboleyn]

166. If you realize that generalizations are "never correct," then why resort to them? As an academic

such a move baffles me as it means that from the outset your assumptions are irredeemably flawed (based in long-debunked notions of gender essentialism -- "all men present as x but are in fact y" and so on) and this strategy will alienate readers, who will be noting, correctly, "well I am a man who does x" or "I am a woman who does y."

[cyberswede]

176. You're absolutely right!

For someone who claims to be strict with language, the generalizations must have been intentional, right? (And it's all the reader's fault rather than the writer being misunderstood*).

*http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024473513#post114
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024473513#post126

[BellaKos]

200. anneboleyn

Well, as an academic, I'm sure that you can understand that when I said in the first paragraph that these were my observations, I was prefacing the entire post with a qualifier.

And about the long-debunked notions of "gender essentialism" ... I'll say this. Granted the younger generations are moving away from rigid gender roles in certain aspects of their relationships. But otherwise, nuthin' much has changed.
Just an observation.

[treestar]

58. Exactly, the articles insists at bottom the same old thing

Men are this way, women are that way, nothing will change that.

the progress is earnings should not be dismissed like the article does.

[Chorophyll]

135. And it puts the onus on women to do all the adapting.

Young women have "no self-respect." Older women shouldn't "lash out." Nothing new here.

[bettyellen]

171. perfect summary of why this OP is regressive bullshit- thank you!

[PotatoChip]

172. I agree. (nt)

[llmart]

197. So do I.

n/t

[anneboleyn]

161. Exactly! Gender essentialism (women are counting the calories!) is just bullshit. I happily eat the

chocolates whereas my husband watches everything he eats. I don't even want to bother with the rest of it honestly. There is a lot of old, recycled stereotypical garbage in this rant (?). I have no idea what prompted this screed but sweeping generalizations about genders or generations are rarely insightful and rarely helpful.

[BellaKos]

204. anneboleyn

You wrote:
"Exactly! Gender essentialism (women are counting the calories!) is just bullshit. I happily eat
chocolates whereas my husband watches everything he eats."

Soooo ... you can extrapolate your singular experience as evidence that my observations are not valid.
Hmmmmm .... Would that be in line with the rigid "academic standards" that you've applied to my po' lil' post?
Nitpick much?

[Sheldon Cooper]

33. It's too bad you chose to end a somewhat accurate (if a little bland) essay

with the admonition to "damaged" women to once again keep the peace and tamp down all feelings of hurt, anger, etc. so that the men won't become upset. You could have very easily admonished the men to not be dicks about things, but no, as always it's up to women to make everything nice. At least you were kind enough to acknowledge that our feelings might actually be justified. Thank heaven for small favors.

The oppressed has to maintain the status quo, lest the oppressors become traumatized. Same shit different day.

[BellaKos]

39. Sheldon Cooper

Well, yeah, I figured somebody would accuse me of trying to "keep the peace."

Women will be oppressed to the extent that they allow that in their lives. I've seen men oppressed. I've seen blacks oppressed. I've seen children oppressed. And I, myself, have dealt with all kinds of adversity, but, you know what, I fought back in my small way and at some risk to me personally -- physically, emotionally, and economically.

But that's beside the point. I have no reason to call men "dicks" or even oppressors. That's sorta, you know, 1970. The new "militant feminism" should be promoted by women who see men as people and then go about making their own choices without apologies or even justification to anyone except those whom they love. What a thought, eh? But that doesn't mean that they have to be hostile or hateful to random individuals along the way.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

56. honestly ...

But that doesn't mean that they have to be hostile or hateful to random individuals along the way.

Then, Please Stop Doing It.

You have no idea how condescending you are coming across.

Truly, the last two lines of your essay were quite good.

[BellaKos]

34. Well, I see that Seabeyond and Tuesday Afternoon are having loads o' fun.

Unless you were born in 1950 as I was, you haven't the faintest idea of what the malevolence of "Patriarchal Hierarchy" even looks like much less feels like. And even with my vast experience, I still see men as people.

But y'all go ahead creating your particular brand of mayhem. Or as someone famously said, "Proceed."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

37. So, now you are throwing Ageism into the mix. Wonderful.

I think, in DU3 parlance, that is what is known as Doubling Down.

Please, by all means ... proceed ...

[seabeyond]

47. first we get in trouble for being damaged goods, then for having fun. sheesh. all out pals in here

giving bella a huge thumbs up for calling us out and insulting us, lol

you bad.....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

61. Kind of used to Call Outs at this point on DU *yawn*

[seabeyond]

68. lecture on respect, not lashing out, yet another down below....

calling out by name in a post to.... polly. my fav

[redqueen]

127. "calling out by name in a post to.... polly"

LOL... no shit? I have them on ignore so I missed that little tell.

If that doesn't make it clear I don't know what will.

[polly7]

130. I posted to you!?

Don't fucking lie. I replied to you.

So much drama ....... always. You just can't let one single thread go without being the center of some pathetic pity-party, even if you have to make up the crap you do.

Can't stand liars.

[Scout]

144. learn to read.

no one lied about you.

and you sure know all about drama your own self.

[polly7]

146. I read absolutely, perfectly, 100% just fine, you should try it yourself. nt.

[Scout]

147. "calling out by name in a post to.... polly"

really? you read absolutely perfectly?

'cuz that quote right up there is what sea said ... about Bella. called out by name in a post TO polly, not by polly.

drama much? now show me where i have misread? can you?

[Sheldon Cooper]

182. Of course she can't.

She had a total comprehension fail and then resorted immediately to attack mode. SOP.

[Scout]

189. you are correct ....

SOP

busy little bee, buzzing buzzing LOL

bet she won't be back to apologize either

[polly7]

258. Apologize for what, and to who???? nt.

[polly7]

256. Nah ........ just responding to the typical lying bullshit posts.

If you can find where I 'attacked' seabeyond or anyone else beyond replying to the lies .............. show it.

[Scout]

263. you've been shown at least twice what your lie is.

willful ignorance is your problem, not mine.

[polly7]

266. And you've shown repeatedly that you'll spin and twist anything.

Read the thread in order, or don't. I don't really give a flying fuck.

[Scout]

269. i did read the thread in order.

apparently you DO give a flying fuck, as your repeated posts show.



spin spin SQUAWK!

[polly7]

272. Just replying to your nasty, typical garbage.

[Scout]

273. really?

where have i been nasty?

prove it.

but you won't post the lie i supposedly told either ... par for the course.

[bettyellen]

188. oh jeeze, reread for comprehension before you call others liars. someone posted calling out Duers to

you, expecting you'd join in the fun and besmirch them. I wonder where they'd get a crazy idea like that?

[Scout]

191. she reads just fine

:snort:

" I read absolutely, perfectly, 100% just fine, you should try it yourself."

post 146

[JTFrog]

206. So wrong.

And so nasty about it.

Par for the course.

[Scout]

248. notice she's gone quiet... LOL

proved wrong, disappears.
Par for the course also.

[polly7]

255. What's this, Scout?

I 'disappear' when I want to, for reasons that are my own. Now ...... what's your problem?

[Scout]

261. no problem sweetie, just making an observation

that you had disappeared.

with which you have agreed.

why should there be a problem? you have one? i don't have one.

[polly7]

264. You obviously have a lying and smearing problem.

'sweetie'. Don't use sexist language towards me, it's hypocritical.

[Scout]

267. what lie have i told?

prove it.
what smear have i posted?
prove it.

[polly7]

270. I did.

[Scout]

271. did what?

[bemildred]

38. +1. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

129. cute tactic. tagging on like that. I do it sometimes, too.

[bemildred]

131. I was there. I agree with this:

Unless you were born in 1950 as I was, you haven't the faintest idea of what the malevolence of "Patriarchal Hierarchy" even looks like much less feels like.

And I put "+1" there because that's what I do when I agree with something.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

132. Yes, I understand but, please do not matronize your younger sisters in this.

please do not matronize your younger sisters in this effort.

See further below my thoughts about the future and how I want it to go ...

Thank you for replying

[bemildred]

140. You don't get snotty with me, I won't get snotty with you.

At least not intentionally.

I'm not getting into personalities, forget that. It's entertaining, but it goes nowhere.

I really think we are all largely on the same page and arguing about nomenclature. Nomenclature, what to call things, is important, but you don't want it taking over. In the end, it's all talk.

I am not going to not say what I think is true: that things have been much improved on the women's rights front since I was a kid, or since I was a young husband if you prefer, because you don't want to deal with it. I was inculcated with all that shit. I've spent a fair part of my life getting rid of it. Still am.

I have always considered, since I came of age to think about it at all, that women's rights and men's rights are just two sides of the same coin. Men cannot be free in a world where women are enslaved. And history bears that out. And it works the other way too. Servitude is gender neutral, equal oportunity.

That doesn't mean we are done, it means we give ourselves a well-deserved pat on the back for progress made, all of us, and get back to work.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

141. well, by all means. blow your nose and get back to work

after reading some of the shit posted by our dearly loved Bella.

I am done.

No enlightenment, nor edification did I come away with in this thread. None.

Hopefully, others have benefited.

Because there have been some worthy things said in this thread, for sure.

[bemildred]

143. See, snotty. First thing.

Have a nice day.

[pintobean]

148. She didn't use to be that way.

I can't help but wonder what happened. I miss the old TA.
Anyway, she is done with this thread. She had a post hidden up-thread.

[bemildred]

150. It's OK. Sometimes I have to leave before I get kicked out too.

Once you let yourself get into a pissing contest, you are just fucked.

[pintobean]

152. Lol. Yup. /nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

216. +1

[seabeyond]

43. so, you assume we do not know what "Patriarchal Hierarchy" even looks like, and you

throw out that we do not see men as people

arent you making so many damn asusmptions about us as you purposely call two out by name in this thread, not talk directly to us about the issue in the thread.....

with no knowledge, tell us what we do not know, and then tell us how we see men?

and you think this is being smart?

i am not getting this.

i am well aware of patriarchal hierarchy. wanna discuss, i am all there.

i am the BIGGEST defender of men being human beings, always and forever. a lifetime around almost exclusively males in my life, both men and boys.

you want to get in the discussion of that? i am all there

i am going to say, you talk about women lashing out.

i have seen a consistency of passive aggressive.

give me blunt talk any day of the week, so others do not have to work so hard, figuring out what is being said. or calling out hidden insults.

[RC]

44. +5

I have been around long enough to be accused of ageism also. Another name for it is wisdom, from a life of learning what works and does not work.

[Union Scribe]

158. There are some posters who

try their best to guarantee that no meaningful discussion of men and women, much less between men and women, can happen here. DU deserves better.

Your OP was well thought out and expressed, and I found your thoughts on men insightful. The idea of being "trained to achieve" particularly resonated with me.

[BellaKos]

199. Union Scribe

Agreed.
You wrote:
"There are some posters who
try their best to guarantee that no meaningful discussion of men and women, much less between men and women, can happen here. DU deserves better."
That's sorta why I wrote the post. I had noticed that myself. Whatever the topic, if it had to do with gender roles, I saw a lot of hostility. Although I dpn't have a lot of posts to my credit, I have been lurking here for a few years. And I have noticed a change in tone lately. I'm seeing a lot of nitpicking and snarky negative comments that I didn't see before. And that kind of thing seems juvenile and not very intelligent, so, yes, DU deserves better.

And thanx for your compliment.

[JTFrog]

208. Folks can certainly see who's having "fun" around here.

And it sure as hell isn't seabeyond or Tuesday Afternoon.

Bless your heart.

[dawg]

41. Here's the thing about men and women ...

Everyone is different. Some women have fragile "female" egos that need lots of reassurance. Some men know how to use their sex appeal to "manipulate" the women in their lives. There is so much overlap in personality-types between the sexes, that most of the sex-based stereotypes are less than meaningless.

That's why I gave up on figuring out what women want. I just need to figure out what Amy* wants.



* - Amy is the fictitious name I give to the potential love interest in my life.

[seabeyond]

45. right on brother.....

i love you.

in all my emotionally damaged mess.... but ha haha.

ya ya ya . i get obsessively snarky when someone tells me i am emotionally damaged.

i need more zen. still breathing heavy after the second call out. which is all this OP was initially. i am seeing more and more.

[seaglass]

49. Of course that is true and why the thinking in the OP is so 70s. It manages to be both

insulting and trite.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

50. Thank you, dawg, for recognizing that we are individuals. All of us. Each and every one.

We Are Human. We are diverse. We have our own personal history. We have our own timeline on how we process information.

We are all dealing with "issues"

Let me take this opportunity to speak about Recovering.

It is an ongoing process.

Some days are better than others.

Sometimes the present jumps up to remind one of the past and, for that moment in time, we have to relive and then reprocess the steps back to recovery. This takes time, longer depending on the individual and the "trigger" presented.

It is why "Trigger Warnings" are included in Subject Lines by the astute and discerning and empathetic Poster.

[BellaKos]

76. Dawg, you're right.

And that's the ideal perspective that can be achieved with true gender equality.

Good luck in finding "Amy."

[MadrasT]

184. Yes, exactly this. Thank you.

[Squinch]

187. Wow! That means you will actually be treating the lucky Amy as an individual person!

As opposed to what this OP suggests.

You are right on all counts.

Here's wishing your Amy crosses your path soon!

[Amaril]

249. Amy* is a lucky girl!

[polly7]

51. Recc'd for a thoughtful, well-meaning OP.

I agree with most of it, disagree on a few things ........ but top marks for your conclusion and bottom line.

[BellaKos]

54. Thanx Polly

Especially since you risk posting in a sea(beyond) of mayhem on this thread. lol

[TBF]

59. Nice. Insult another woman

after the wall of stereotyping text.

[seabeyond]

62. another call out behind my back, with polly that LOVES to insult me?

adn this is your example of not lashing out?

this is a friggin hoot in so many ways. you are funny

ya ya ya

go for it polly. you have the floor to take me out, courtesy of bella. so fuckin' funny.

[polly7]

70. Good gawd ..... not again. I haven't even posted to you, yet here you are

claiming your usual crap. Always the victim.

Is there ever even just one thread - even if you disagree with the OP, that you can let others discuss peacefully, or is that too much to ask?

[seabeyond]

73. takin a bow.... yup.

[polly7]

74. Deep. nt.

[Sheldon Cooper]

183. I think it's interesting that "Bella" keeps setting up seabeyond in posts to you.

I've seen it done explicitly twice now, and I'm not even through reading the thread. Why is that? What do you make of it, polly?

[Capt. Obvious]

81. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon Feb 10, 2014, 07:37 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

another call out behind my back, with polly that LOVES to insult me?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4474403

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Callout of a DUer who was not even involved in the thread to this point.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 10, 2014, 07:47 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It was a call-out...
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: If this post gets hidden, Sea goes on another break and the patriarchy wins again.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: OTT
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm sure the alerter noticed the callout of seabeyond in post number 54 by BellaKos and alerted it as well? No, actually, I'm not. Bella dragged seabeyond into a debate in reply to polly7 and polly7 wrongfully targets seabeyond as the offender. Perhaps we can just hide all 3 posters' post in this thread; just like kindergarten when the teacher holds the entire class accountable for the actions of a few? Hide 'em all or hide none. For this instance, leave it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[seabeyond]

84. !

[seabeyond]

91. so, you "," was a little pre, to alerting onmy post?

[Capt. Obvious]

94. What part of "Results of your Jury Service"

is confusing to you?

[seabeyond]

101. ok. so you were on the jury and had to do a pre game ",". whatever. were you the yea... lets use

jury to get her kicked off the board?

[Capt. Obvious]

103. My brain hurts

[pintobean]

106. You can't argue with logic like that.

[polly7]

96. I fucking targeted someone as an offender?

LMAO!

People need to learn to read posts in the order they were written. Sad that a decent thread has been turned into yet another pity-party, but still, that juror is hilarious!

[seabeyond]

104. skinner should see juror 4. how is new rule is abused by some, to get people they do not like

kicked off the board.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

133. agreed but, in the end ... the system worked...

I can hear his voice in my head now saying that ... lol ...

but, yeah --- what is it with #4


always. #4.

eerie.

[ScreamingMeemie]

137. Juror number 4 deserves his/her ass MIRTed, and I hope the alerter alerts on these results.

[polly7]

64. LOL!

No worries there.

[pintobean]

67. This will be alerted on

you may want to edit before a jury votes on it.

[seabeyond]

71. not by me. why? cause she called me out. tell her to go around and edit a number of posts...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

72. At least you recognize

that the damn thing -is- offensive enough to deserve alerting and at least you are kind enough to ask the person to edit.

[pintobean]

78. I wouldn't alert or vote to hide.

I just know recent history.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

82. recent history of what? people's Alert Records? Really? Do tell where that info can be found

I damn sure will not alert and honestly I would not vote to hide that pitty pat piece of crap post anyway.

Kos Bella is so damn awesome.

[pintobean]

88. My dog tells me these things.

She has a good life.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

93. be sure and give her a pat on the head for me.

[seabeyond]

178. take note pinto. two alerts in this cutsey subthread of insult. scout and i. go figure... huh.

[Scout]

180. we're just paranoid sea, lashing out inappropriately because of our repressed damaged psyches n/t

[seabeyond]

181. So fuckin' lmao, scout. Always thrilled to hear your voice. Nt

[Scout]

136. that's a fucked up post.

it deserved hiding.

insult sea for no reason, and kiss polly's ass

[Ohio Joe]

159. Transparency

On Mon Feb 10, 2014, 05:25 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

that's a fucked up post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4475096

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"and kiss polly's ass"
disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 10, 2014, 05:29 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with the post, I think Scout is correct. Leave. Ohio Joe
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm so sick of this juvenile, petty, useless bickering. So sick of it I find GD almost unreadable. I think if a few people got kicked off the site, it might put a dent in this shit.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Scout]

165. thanks Ohio Joe

i figured the busy bees were still around and i'd probably get alerted on.

too bad juror #3, maybe you should leave?

buzz buzz buzz busy bees!

[bettyellen]

192. Now it's clear what the point of this thread was, LOL.

[Sheldon Cooper]

194. Uh huh.

LOL!

[polly7]

260. Uh huh, what? nt.

[polly7]

259. What's clear?

I've never posted to the writer of this OP, heard of her before or exchanged a single word.

So, what exactly is clear?

I told her I thought her post was good and well-intentioned. Some can't handle that people have opinions they don't agree with. BFD.

Again ......... what's clear about it, regarding me?

[bettyellen]

308. The OP is setting up DUers, lol. There was no point in this

Utterly useless recitation of old stereotypes seems like pointless blathering until you realize it's just a swipe at feminists here.

They're the only people who notice what regressive woman blaming crap this OP was.

[TBF]

57. I can agree with the last line -

maybe go with that in future "essays" rather than the stereotypes.

[cyberswede]

75. Lots of generalizations in there...

most of which I disagree with.

Behind every male facade ...lurks a truly sensitive soul.

Not true at all. There's not a truly sensitive soul behind every female facade, either.

Women, on the other hand, are far more realistic and down-to-earth. For instance, when a man presents a box of chocolates to his lover for Valentine's Day, he is an actor performing in a romantic scene, first conjured in his imagination. In contrast, a woman is quickly calculating the calories in each piece of candy. Women are more aware of life's consequences. She is, innately, as strong and ferocious as a lioness when defending newborn cubs. Men don't realize this, of course, because women keep that feature of themselves hidden. It's just not practical to be ferocious in routine, mundane situations every day. (Besides, it's not that difficult to express ferocity at a moment's notice -- if the situation should require it, of course.)

I don't even know where to begin with this one...
- men are less down-to-earth and realistic because giving gifts to women is part of a romantic fantasy? Really?
- women are more aware of life's consequences? How the heck do you figure that? And the idea that they count calories of candy they receive is ridiculous on its face, let alone serving as an example of being "more aware" of life's consequences.
- you're selling men short if you think they don't realize that women can be "ferocious" at any time for any reason, mundane or otherwise.

And what of men? ...Younger generations expect their wives or girlfriends to contribute a paycheck, but still rarely help out with the dishes or the laundry or the childcare or the housework. Not really, anyway. And when women complain, they don't understand. They really don't. They are sentimental fools who will do anything for you if you flatter them and appreciate them and listen to them and defer to their "male egos." It's manipulative. I personally refuse. And in conversations with the men in my life -- my husband, brother, cousin, and childhood friend -- I even have gone to the extent of explaining exactly how it is that women can manipulate them. I explain that it is their weakness -- their Achilles's heel -- and the sooner they become aware of it, the better.

Oy veh...
- plenty of men (younger AND older generations) really do help out with dishes, laundry, and child care. Why would you say otherwise?
- the rest of that paragraph confuses me. Are you saying women really don't understand, because men are sentimental fools? Or that women THINK men are sentimental fools who can be manipulated?

And finally, women speaking their mind is not a result of unhealed pain erupting inappropriately as raw emotion.

[seabeyond]

77. women speaking their mind is not a result of unhealed pain erupting inappropriately as raw emotion.

thank you

[seaglass]

85. But we are just soooo emotional and hysterical, dear me, we can't possibly see

injustice for injustice - and can't possible get angry when we see it, unless we are damaged.

Funny how being passionate about any other injustice is viewed as a good thing.

[seabeyond]

86. telling me the men in my life have hurt me is probably a zillion times more offensive. simply

because i speak out for a cause i think is vitally important. for our girls and women, but equally for our boys and men.

[JustAnotherGen]

92. I picked up on that too

Uh - I grew up with a very pro woman father who grew up with 6 sisters, a mother ahead of her time, and very pro women and pro black women to boot father. And so on and so forth.

The men in my life are stellar men. That's why I have such high expectations of men.

And I still have a small problem with a fact put in the op. I will never let those misprints go. All I could think was the OP has never had a man making more than her. She probably has 15/20 years on me - bu tis not as far ahead in her career - and doesn't understand why it's mission critical as woman move towards being the breadwinners in their lives - that we nail those numbers to the wall so we can make it right.

[seaglass]

97. It is an offensive thing to say, the OP is shit-stirring - bored on a Monday morning I guess.

In addition to it being offensive though, it is untrue. The intention was to hurt and possibly to get some of the other shallow-thinkers to applaud her insults. Seems to be working as planned.

[seabeyond]

110. yup. it is probably the women that have the solid, respectful me in life, that have the loudest

voice. we know our worth in their eyes and it is awesome in empowerment.

[redqueen]

125. Precisely. nt

[cinnabonbon]

211. I think you're right. nt

[JTFrog]

212. Spot on. n/t

[anneboleyn]

162. All of my fellow academics must have "unhealed pain erupting"

[seabeyond]

164. thank you. you know. who wants to know, be labeled or have this garbage weighing us down....

as we speak out.

why the hell would we say, sure, give it to us.

so when we do speak out someone can get us that fainting couch cause we are in such hysterics.....

[BellaKos]

99. cyberwede

I appreciate your addressing specifics in my post.

First ... I think most everyone has a level of sensitivity behind their public persona. The ones who are the most anal, hateful, defensive, hostile, and combative are usually the ones who are the most sensitive. But that's entirely an subjective opinion. Nothing to argue about.

Second, I did not say that there's a cause and effect relationship between a woman's nature and a Valentine's gift.
And as I said, my opinions are based on my observations. Feel free to disagree, but I urge you to observe women carefully. And I've known plenty of men who were surprised when a woman unleashed her innate ferocity.

Third, you're right. I have noticed that the younger a man is, the less confined he is by gender roles. But twenty-somethings are in the minority.
Again, there is no argument. This whole thing is merely about my observations.
Also -- Men whom I've known rarely realize when they've been manipulated. But most people are inclined to respond positively if they are appreciated and listened to. Once again, if women could see men as people and vice versa, by appreciating one another for his/her individuality, then there would be true equality and a true absence of gender roles.

Finally, I have never said that women speaking their minds is the *same as* people venting their emotions inappropriately -- usually because of psychological wounds that have not healed. It's not the same thing. I don't condemn either, by the way. I do bristle when others who disagree are attacked personally, however. I believe you've misunderstood me.

[RC]

230. That is it in a nutshell.

Once again, if women could see men as people and vice versa, by appreciating one another for his/her individuality, then there would be true equality and a true absence of gender roles.

Reading down through this thread, it is easy to see who sees people as individuals, regardless of gender, and equality, and who takes exception and does not.
Whether they can truly see themselves as others see them, or are just being bullies having their fun, I don't know. But either way, the results are the counterproductive same. More turmoil that keeps all of us from reasonable solutions.

[BellaKos]

328. RC - I agree. n/t

[Chorophyll]

124. +100

My thoughts exactly.

[bettyellen]

175. thank you, it is bizarre how a laundry list of sterotypes is lauded here as wisdom.

Hope my little eruption is properly seen as appropriate, LOL. Whut?

[Bennyboy]

89. Two Words: Sir Paul McCartney....

Women celebrities in their sixties and seventies strive mightily to achieve the luster of beauty and sexual attractiveness of youth. Signs of age peek relentlessly underneath carefully fashioned locks of carefully dyed hair. Wrinkles have been stretched to make mouths and cheeks and chins unrecognizable. Bodies have been sculpted with painful surgery and relentless exercise. Is there no such thing as aging gracefully anymore?

That one is not limited to women.

[bemildred]

98. Old women rock.

[BellaKos]

105. And why not? lol n/t

[bemildred]

109. It needed to be said. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

128. Thank you ever so much for matronizing your younger sisters. -

Matronized = Patronized by Older Women.


I seek not a Matriarchal Society but, a fully formed Fraternity seeking HUMAN interaction of ALL genders, races, ages and creeds.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

118. on the front porch, in a chair. yeah. rock on.

[BellaKos]

102. Well, and Kenny Rogers.

But the practice is far more prevalent among women because they *feel* more acute pressure to maintain their looks.
However, trends show that men will soon feel that, too. Hope not.

[Eleanors38]

121. That line from "Never on Sunday"...

"When I married you, you looked like a Greek god. Now, you look like a goddam Greek!"

[Comrade Grumpy]

153. I'm sorry. Nothing can be said on this topic without a shit storm ensuing.

Led by the usual suspects.

[BellaKos]

201. It's not reflective of what DU *should be*. n't

[JTFrog]

209. Well what's to be expected when one lobs a shit grenade?

Cheered on by the usual suspects.

[seabeyond]

219. i wasnt aware from the start of all this. but seeing every person on this thread cheering active

aggressors toward hof, there does seem to be a consistency.

or the fact that a couple of us merely came on the thread challenging what was stated, not wanting to own, our voice is merely about being emotionally damaged, lashing out and not seeing men as human beings (nothing like dismissing all we discuss with hysterical), and the fact we were here speaking out, brought those that do not like us.

or.... it could be that last'ish paragraph that made it clear she was insulting us, that brought the cheer from the same people that actively insult us regularly.

but, it is clear.... that on the side of cheering this OP is the same ole. and not so much on those that challenge.

though, honestly, i find it humorous. if i had posted this, you can bet they would be all over my ass decrying foul

[RC]

234. Maybe it is the unwarranted hostility the rest of us are reacting to.

There does seem to be a history there.

[seabeyond]

235. nah....

[Scout]

244. who determines what is "unwarranted"...

you?

[RC]

246. You are saying the hostility is warranted?

Even when jumping into a thread to belittle the OP or another poster, or even with the intent to derail the thread?
Now why would that be?

[Scout]

247. no, i asked a question.

who determines if hostility is unwarranted?

[RC]

251. Why would hostility ever be warranted here in the first place?

We are all easy going, laid back Liberals around here, correct?

What was hostile about the OP, to warrant any hostility? He stated it was his opinion. It wasn't flame bait. There was nothing extreme or even controversial about it. And yet it attracted the usual suspects anyway. Now why would that be?

[Scout]

252. can't answer the question i see.

answer the question.

and let's add another one:

1) who determines what is unwarranted?

2) who determines what is hostile?

[RC]

253. Can't answer my questions, even when I ask for clarification of yours.

Doesn't recognize the answer when given. Didn't answer my question either.
I ask if you thought you were saying the hostility is warranted? You haven't answered that yet.
And I did answer your question, it was with a reasonable question: "Why would hostility ever be warranted here in the first place?"
Another question: Who is being hostile here? Who is being confronted in this sub-thread and who is responding to that confrontation?
Ok, that is two questions.

[Scout]

257. i direct you to my post #247

where i answer your question:
"no, i asked a question."

see that "no" there? that answered your "question"
"You are saying the hostility is warranted?"

see how that works? you ask, i answered. now answer mine.

to your question, who's being hostile here? you want me to call out some DUers? how about that poster who has blatantly LIED in this thread, been called out on it by more than one poster, and has now disappeared? let's start with that one, and go on from there, shall we?

how naive one must be to think that opinions are never controversial, and are never posted as flamebait

[polly7]

262. Look for the poster who 'lied' a little closer to home.

But hey, anyone who has no qualms about stealing private medical info to spread around certainly wouldn't mind stretching the truth to play victim .......... yet again, right?

[Scout]

265. what lie would that be, besides yours?

[polly7]

268. The lie that I 'attacked' and insulted her.

When I hadn't even posted to her.

Typical, self-pitying, bullshit garbage.

[Scout]

243. yuppers...

shit grenade thrown, then

buzz buzz buzz busy bees ...

and don't forget

SQUAWK!

transparent

[LittleBlue]

154. Interesting perspective. I agree with much of it

Post more.

[BellaKos]

202. Little Blue, thanx. n/t

[MicaelS]

168. Excellent post, thank you.

I can tell you really understand men. Of course the Usual Suspects are in here flinging shit.

[BellaKos]

203. MicaelS

Thanx. Part of the reason I understand men is that the people I mentioned in the first paragraph -- my oldest friend, brother, and cousin -- have *confided* in me for decades. Since the early 1970s, I've heard the male perspective from them on first dates to wives to divorces to college to work to health scares to money troubles. They tell me everything as if I'm just one of the guys.
It's the shit-flingers, I don't understand. lol

[BainsBane]

231. Yet no lectures about tone

"Usual suspects flinging shit" generates thanks. Calling an abuse survivor an "abuser" gets your heartfelt support, while you lecture those who object to sexism, racism, and victim blaming. That you think feminists believe "all their oppressors are men" shows you have no concept of what any of us care about, which is hardly surprising. Men are not my enemies. Ignorance, indifference, callousness, and those who align themselves with wealth and power over justice are my enemies. I know men who stand up for injustice whenever they see it and women who despise other women as much or more than the worst male misogynist. What matters is not their sex but their soul and commitment to social justice for all. Forms of injustice like patriarchy and racism are in part systemic, but they depend on the complicity of individuals.

By the way, there have been laws against rape since the dawn of the Republic and under Colonial law. That is nothing new. Nor is there anything new about the fact the very few rapists are actually prosecuted or that victims are shamed. That is why only 3% of rapes result in jail time. But you go on lecturing women about tone because really that is what matters, not sexual assault, not pedophilia, not domestic violence, and not misogyny, while tone seems not to matter in the least when it's leveled against feminists or abuse survivors. Apparently the ends justify the means in those cases.

Your support for that cruel attack on survivors of child abuse as "abusers" makes you the LAST person to have any standing to lecture people on what appropriate behavior is. When you think that worthy of applause and someone's restrained anger at being attacked in that way worse than such a callous display of cruelty tells me you are in no position to lecture others. Attacking the most vulnerable in support of the rich, powerful and entitled is not unusual, but the unusual cruelty of that particular statement you found so admirable was indeed a new low.

[Waiting For Everyman]

240. So either you didn't read the answer you clamored to get

in the other thread, or you're just ignoring the information in it now to go ahead and restate the same misrepresentations again, just like seabeyond is doing upthread. (What a coincidence!) Whether you didn't read it or you're ignoring it, the effect is just the same -- it's a waste of time responding to you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post172

You, measuring others behavior as I see you doing here? That is hilarious.

[BellaKos]

321. Bainsbane

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2014, 08:23 AM - Edit history (1)

It seems I have been grossly misunderstood.
I really don't know how to respond to you because I don't see the connection between what I have written and your accusations.
Your rant was well thought out however, just misdirected.

FYI
Raping and beating one's wife was legal in the state of Georgia well into the 1970s.
And I am an abuse survivor.

[bettyellen]

169. have never seen so many sterotypes in one post- and the youth, all about saying young women have no

self respect. It doesn't fit one young woman I know personally. Music videos are not real life, BTW.

And not a single word about young men? WTF? I guess you think they have self respect, LOL.

Garbage. Stereotypes we all hoped had been thrown out 30 years ago.

[JTFrog]

210. Yep, massively fucked up.

And all the personal attacks thrown out there throughout the thread sure shed an interesting light on the OP.

Just sayin.....

[chrisa]

170. Sorry, but this line is pretty wrong:

"Younger generations expect their wives or girlfriends to contribute a paycheck, but still rarely help out with the dishes or the laundry or the childcare or the housework."

It goes along with the "incompetent, bumbling husband" and "husbands won't do housework" tropes. Despite husbands being portrayed as just that on TV, it isn't a reality. Every married man my age that I know does all of those things.

Also, their wives work because they want to. Their husbands don't "expect a paycheck" out of them. Most just like to have their own money.

Your point of view in this matter seems pretty archaic.

[BellaKos]

205. No, chrisa

Women in the lower economic strata are not in the position of choosing whether or not they "want to work."

[chrisa]

226. That's out of scope of the original argument.

You're undermining your own point of choice in the original post. Also, nowhere was class mentioned in the argument, as the argument seemed to be a generalization of all young men.

[BellaKos]

324. No, chrisa

I was responding to what you wrote:
"Also, their wives work because they want to."
That's simply not true and it is a class issue. But all I said, originally, was that younger men expect their wives to work. This is an indicator of a more progressive attitude within the evolution of attaining the ideal of gender equality.That was certainly not the case when I was young. And it's still not the case among Christian Evangelicals. But the root causes of this progressive attitude is not limited to enlightenment, education, or even a liberal bent, it also has to do with economics -- primarily the tax structure. (Before you pick on that, please note that I said "not limited to.&quot

But this is getting to be exhausting. I suppose that within any set of comments -- any time or any where -- there could be an example or an impression or an observation cited to refute them. I give up.

[MadrasT]

185. The broadbrush binary gender stereotyping doesn't work for me.

There is no monolithic entity that is "women", nor is that one that is "men".

People are unique individuals, and gender has little to do with any of it.

Anything anyone could write following "Women are..." or "Men are..." is pretty much worthless navel gazing drivel from my perspective.

Pretty prose though.

[Squinch]

186. I always love a wall of text that is patronizing and chock full of sweeping generalizations!

And as those things go, that one was epic!



... what utter nonsense.

[BellaKos]

207. Squinch ...

And I always love a sweeping generalization of criticism that doesn't cite one specific remark or tiny bit of evidence as a basis. I have to wonder if the "fun" around here is more about skimming through a post and criticizing it off-hand, than it is give the topic some thought. Jes' wonnnerin ....
Besides, these are my observations, not meant as criteria for a textbook on the matter. But I do stand by my experience with men. Not many can match it. Can you?

[Chorophyll]

227. I believe several people have already given you specific examples

of sweeping generalizations in your post.

But yay for your unmatched experience with men, I guess.

[Squinch]

302. Jes wonnerin: so you post your evidence-free observations, but you require evidence when others

respond to your evidence-free observations.

And congratulations on the fact that you know some men. That's about what your vast "experience" boils down to. Don't look now, but so do the rest of us.

Again, I say, utter nonsense.

[JTFrog]

309. "Not many can match it. Can you?"

Omfg.







The thread that just keeps on giving.....

[Squinch]

310. .

[redqueen]

319. WTF is that even supposed to mean?

It's supposed to prove something, I guess?

[JTFrog]

320. Lemme get my old crone

glasses out and look again. I'm pretty sure I didn't actually see the word hag in that post, but yea, I think we can all recognize that old familiar sentiment that has been thrown at feminists from day one.

Amirite?

[lumberjack_jeff]

190. As you have discovered, contempt and abuse isn't directed only at men

But perhaps most viciously to those women who might consider them no better or worse than women.

[bettyellen]

195. it's now considered abusive to note someone lacks courage? i really don't think so.

[BellaKos]

326. lumberjack_jeff

Well, I happen to like men.
Please indulge me for a minute.
Years ago, I had a year long friendship with a guy on a Rotary Scholarship from Denmark. We were great buddies and the friendship lasted for years even after he went back home. He -- for some reason or other (I suspect that it was because of the sociological construct in Denmark) -- behaved as if he had never even heard of the concept of gender roles or gender limitations. It was his natural, honest, unadulterated, unabashed, and true self. No lip-service; just plain actions. And from my perspective, it was a luxury, but I was spoiled from then on. Since I had *experienced* what true liberation felt like, I had very high standards that I demanded from relationships with men going forward. To this day, I have never felt the degree of freedom that I experienced with a person who genuinely had no concept of gender roles.

My brother, on the other hand, is an academic who would be the first to add his voice to feminism. He believes in it and will argue the point in great detail, citing all sorts of reasons, facts, studies, articles, and so on. But ... he assumes that because one is female, she needs protection from modern ills. Oh, it's quite subtle, but it aggravates me when he assumes that about me or his daughter. And his actions certainly contradict his rhetoric. I recall one Christmas Eve when his wife spent the day catching up on laundry, while he languished in front of the TV. At the time, both were professors in the same department in the same university so housework should have been shared to be fair. Neither of them saw the irony in the situation.

On the other hand, my oldest friend, who has been a fixture in my family since he was in the first grade, would not support the feminist position. He's very much a traditionalist. Well, in "theory." He treats me as an equal (knowing damn well that I don't need protection), supported his wife's career aspirations, and was actively involved with the household and childcare chores when they were married. His wife, who has now divorced three men, got everything he owned as well as child support. She also has gotten a house, child support, and cash from the two other men as well. It seems as if "marrying well" was her career rather than music as she has claimed. My friend was devastated by his bitter divorce not only financially, but also psychologically. It took him years to recover.

So, yes, I like men and understand that the entire issue of gender equality is complicated and ever-evolving.
Thanx.

[lumberjack_jeff]

331. "he assumes that because one is female, she needs protection from modern ills."

That's exactly it. Much of what I see described as modern feminism is actually rebranded/co-opted chivalry. Scholarships for women and oil rigs for men because "equality"!

Personally, I married my childhood sweetheart 30 years ago and we've gotten along remarkably well. Our relative strengths sometimes conform to gender stereotypes; we didn't settle on this paradigm because of social expectations but because we're a team. I don't mind scrubbing toilets but I hate folding laundry.

When life changes forced us to reverse roles (I spent many years as a stay at home dad with the youngest after she spent many years home with his older brothers) we rolled with it, and it was good for both of us.

[freshwest]

193. Rec'd since I can enjoy 'stream of consciousness' writing. I see it as that, no more or less.

Not likely to divert any of the other streams of consciousness occuring here at DU. I don't agree with several things, but see some of it as useful.

[Waiting For Everyman]

213. Excellent post, BellaKos!

Very readable and insightful.

As one of the class of '68, who read Glamour in the mid 60s too, I'm wondering if you might remember a column Gloria Steinem wrote each month called "Teddy Bear Tricks"? It was what it sounds like -- tips for women on how to get their way with men. I'm sure she never wants that brought up ever again, but some of us are still around who know how she really got started in writing, and what her views once were. From what I can tell, her philosophy shifted to coincide with which side the bread was buttered on. Ultimately then, the change isn't really a change, it's just another trick.

On twerking, I agree with you, and this very interesting woman, Gail Dines, who you may already know (I didn't) but some here may not...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017168960

[BellaKos]

322. WaitingforEveryman

Well, thank you. Now that you mention it, I do recall "Teddy Bear Tricks." And I recall the very first issue of Ms Magazine that I ever saw. I happened to pick it up at a newsstand in 1975 and much to my shock I saw a small article about a woman I knew.
And thanks so very much for the link to Gail Dines. I haven't listened to the whole thing yet, but from the description I can see immediately that I would probably agree with her.

[Harmony Blue]

238. I can give some insight

into what young men and women think.

What I see with young men and women in their 20's is that they are confused about what they believe in as adults given the conflicting messages through the media that they receive. As most of you know you don't stop fully developing your brain well into your 20's and your experiences continue to shape you till your mid 20's.

Women in their 20's tend to reach their zenith in sexual appeal and youthful looks but some fail to realize they must cultivate much more. Youthful looks start to fade at 30 and on wards and personality starts to matter more for lasting relationships I have personally found. Young men don't understand this when I try to explain this concept to them but they are after all living the moment of their 20's so who am I to say they can't live their own lives as they see fit? Still, there are women that do focus on college, careers, and cultivating themselves however they lose sight of the simple things in life and relationships. These career women are torn between their careers and families often during their child bearing years.

Heterosexual Men in their 20's tend to put too much emphasis on trying to appeal to these young women and putting them on a pedestal. What they fail to realize that most women tend to be attracted to these so called "Alpha" men is because these adult men treat these women as equals. They don't grovel or beg for sex or make sexual overtones or ogle at them. It is implicitly understood that a sexual relationship with another human being is part of being an adult. But these young men have yet to fully mature and realize that is a small part of becoming an adult. Because there is so much more to life than sex, but when I tell them this they have a hard time understanding this. At that stage of their lives their hormones are sky high and they don't have experience to understand what they are feeling.

Additional insight about young men I can give is that they don't understand what their role should be when dating. My best response is to be yourself and treat that person as an equal. True, it is easier said then done when you are nervous and have butterflies. However, they quickly subside if you don't follow a script and be yourself. Young adults tend to focus too much on peer approval about a person they are dating but I often tell them that to become a full fledged adult you have to start making more and more choices on your own.

Just some minor observations of mine that I have seen

[BellaKos]

323. Harmony Blue

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2014, 08:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Thanks so much for your remarks. I think that observations relating to one's experience are valuable in a discussion about gender roles because the entire issue concerning the sexes and sexism is complicated, nuanced, and ever-evolving.

I've noticed many of the same things as you have, by the way. Younger men are not as confined by gender roles as men used to be. And intelligent, educated men do seek to form relationships between equals. And most men have *those butterflies* you mentioned at the onset of a first date -- to the same extent as most women do, too.

Maybe this relates to what you're talking about?
My mother was a great beauty in her youth. The little boys I knew when I was a child would gather around me to talk about how beautiful she was each time she showed up at my elementary school. Every shop -- gas station -- etc. where we were together, men would notice -- which I noticed even as a child. She would spend an hour getting dressed and putting on make-up each day before work. And she would brag about men telling her that they would give everything they owned for an hour of her time. (Of course, as a child, I didn't know what she was talking about. lol) But she did have a career, albeit within the confines of a "man's world." Some time in the 1970s, I remember that one time when she was asked to give a speech on the Equal Rights Amendment, she called to ask me what in the world that was.

I watched as she grew older clinging to the beauty that couldn't possibly be replicated as she approached sixty. Every make-up product and beauty remedy was tried. But the sad thing was that she still had the myopic view of the world that she had had when she asked me what the ERA was. She still thought that batting her eyes and swinging her hips was the best method to getting attention -- as it had served her so well in decades past. All along, I had hoped that one day she would cultivate wider interests and focus on broadening her intellectual horizons -- just as you suggested. Because, beauty does fade. And women are far, far more than the beauty that's on the outside. And so are men.

[BlueStreak]

277. According to Family Guy

[seabeyond]

279. wow. lets just keep feeding the same ole lame stereotype, conditioning this is who we are.

i hear this is suppose to be how women are. the only time i have seen it is media promoting this.

now all we need is a "cat" fight to finish the lame off.

never met a woman that behaved that way. ever.