Forums: Community: The Ladies' Room: Re: [cracklover] Are There Gender Differences in Risk Tolerance?: Edit Log


Jun 1, 2012, 4:00 PM

Views: 11513

Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459

Re: [cracklover] Are There Gender Differences in Risk Tolerance?
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

cracklover wrote:
wonderwoman wrote:
cracklover wrote:
wonderwoman wrote:
cracklover wrote:
The claim was made that society tells girls that they are merely a sex object first and foremost, and can have absolutely no social standing or value to society unless they are willing to strut their stuff, and can demonstrate that men find them worth pursuing for sex. Only after passing that test can a woman have any additional value in society.

I think I gave some pretty clear examples within my personal experience. My worth was dependent on my looks and finding a husband. Solely.

Yes, you gave the most powerful argument in favor of Drivel's point. The one thing I'd like to clarify, though, is Drivel's phrase "women are socialized to believe". Do you feel like all of society was sending you the same message? Because you and I both grew up in the 70s, and I know that the culture I found myself in at the time was a very wild and diverse mix of Sixties empowerment\counter-culturalism, 50s leave-it-to-Beaver, 70s fun, and the nascent "it's-all-about-me" 80s stuff. If the only thing you heard all around you was the 50s stuff from your parents' generation, then how did you figure out that there was something more to your life?

Maybe, partially, you had that different and more liberating experience because you are a male. It's worth thinking about.

Yes, it is worth thinking about.

I'd suggest it's also worth thinking about the messages all you strong empowered women got somewhere along the way telling you that it was possible to think differently than the views you're expressing here in this thread. How about giving a little credit where credit is due? I'm betting you didn't all happen upon your sense of self by inventing it all by yourself. There are those who came before you and created a culture that says that women have meaning as individuals, and their contributions to society matter. And whether you are willing to acknowledge those people and the way they shaped society or not, the fact of their existence is real, and the world we all grew up in was changed in part by them.

Let me ask you - how many of you know who Rosa Parks is? OK, how many of you know what she looks like? Pretty or plain? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that last question, and it makes no difference to me.

In reply to:
I can't tell you exactly why things turned out the way that they did...

Well, it's up to you, but maybe that's worth some thought, too.

Rosa Parks was deliberately picked as a test case and figurehead of the movement because she was "well-behaved," and stably married. There was an earlier unwed pregnant 15 year old girl named Claudette Colvin who the NAACP would not get behind because of the whole unwed pregnant thing. Her value as a civil rights fighter was, in fact, deemed secondary to her not being properly chaste. Chastity being the idea that a woman's virginity is the property of her father and then her husband, of course.

Strong women are held up as role models because they are NOT THE NORM and they pay a social cost. And they're seen to pay it.

In other news, I give up. For realsies, G, if you sincerely care about this, go read some feminist blogs or something. Life is not equal. Sexism is not over in this country.

(This post was edited by drivel on Jun 1, 2012, 4:04 PM)

Edit Log:
Post edited by drivel () on Jun 1, 2012, 4:04 PM

Search for (options)

Log In:

Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?