|
|
|
|
SylviaSmile
Jun 4, 2012, 8:22 PM
Post #101 of 173
(15455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 983
|
drivel wrote: SylviaSmile wrote: drivel wrote: drivel wrote: sorry, gonna elaborate on this one. every girl who's ever wondered if it was really "rape rape" despite the fact that she never said he could put his dick in her, that maybe it was her own fault for being at that party/flirting with him/taking her shirt off, that maybe he could not be expected to stop? that is the result of teaching girls and women that they are the sex objects of men. consent is ASSUMED. their bodies are assumed to be available. that's is what is implied in "no means no." because it's yes until she screams no amirite? [it should be "yes means yes," and we *should* have a culture of requiring affirmative consent, but we don't.] you gonna respond to this one, GO? also, I see what you're trying to get at with saying there are alternative messages. But the fact remains that every girl DOES get the negative messages, even among the ones that also manage to get some positive ones as "alternatives," the positioning of which is itself problematic, as 'biner pointed out. I'm going to be controversial here and say that the issue with rape/not reporting rape goes a bit deeper than just women being trained to think of themselves as sex objects, though of course that is extremely pertinent. I think another part of it also has to do with the fact that women have a peculiar ability to internalize intuitively others' needs and desires and give them preference to their own needs and desires, often more so than men. Obviously that's a very general statement, but it's probably linked to a maternal instinct so that mothers can sense what their children need without having to be told. When this tendency is wrapped up with the complicating factors of sexual desire and a man's unique ability NOT to internalize another's feelings (or easily to ignore them), it can get very dangerous. I agree that "we should have a culture of requiring affirmative consent," yet I can also see how this is still a work in progress when I don't see that guys even from a young age have a tendency to ask permission for things...nature vs. nurture, I don't know, but it does sort of connect back to the risk tolerance issue in just seeing different approaches to doing something that might be considered unacceptable, scary, daring, etc. I'm still aghast whenever I think of the statistics that show that rape, the most awful of violent crimes, is most often perpetrated by someone who actually KNOWS the victim. In fact, this also happened to one of my friends (a "date rape" scenario, which I think is an awful, stupid, and oxymoronic phrase), but she did end up reporting it. I recall her saying that the police in our southern town told her that probably they wouldn't do much to prosecute the guy.  Why aren't MEN more up in arms about rape, anyway?? When you think about it, the problem of rape is at the core a MEN'S issue, not a woman's issue--no matter how self-confident a woman is or sure of herself or NOT seeing herself as a sex object, it can still happen to her, simply by the fact of a man being violent and evil. (And yes, I know that women do commit rape, but those scenarios are by far more rare.) and this is where we wildly disagree on "nature vs nuture" The fact that women tend to put others desires above their own men do not is part of male privilege. Men are taught that they have the right to have desires, and women are taught that they have the right to be grateful if they are desired.
That's just as general as my statements, and also I don't think it holds true. At least, I don't think it explains all the phenomena. Little boys are given the same rules as little girls for "playing nice" yet even at the youngest ages they get in different sorts of fights. My brother was raised in an environment with four sisters and given no preferential/different treatment because he was a boy, yet he is still a mysterious alien to me. I guess a lot of it could be in schools, but I just think there is a lot that socialization alone does not explain. Maybe the larger issue is that I don't necessarily see that it would be beneficial completely to eradicate ALL gender-based behavioral differences, even if it were possible to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jun 4, 2012, 8:24 PM
Post #102 of 173
(15453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: Actually, I used those words to describe you because you once used them to describe yourself one day.  Don't remember when it was. Might have been at the gym.
I am a bull in a China shop about a lot of things. I just never thought of civil rights as being one of those things.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Jun 4, 2012, 8:29 PM
Post #103 of 173
(15445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
SylviaSmile wrote: drivel wrote: SylviaSmile wrote: drivel wrote: drivel wrote: sorry, gonna elaborate on this one. every girl who's ever wondered if it was really "rape rape" despite the fact that she never said he could put his dick in her, that maybe it was her own fault for being at that party/flirting with him/taking her shirt off, that maybe he could not be expected to stop? that is the result of teaching girls and women that they are the sex objects of men. consent is ASSUMED. their bodies are assumed to be available. that's is what is implied in "no means no." because it's yes until she screams no amirite? [it should be "yes means yes," and we *should* have a culture of requiring affirmative consent, but we don't.] you gonna respond to this one, GO? also, I see what you're trying to get at with saying there are alternative messages. But the fact remains that every girl DOES get the negative messages, even among the ones that also manage to get some positive ones as "alternatives," the positioning of which is itself problematic, as 'biner pointed out. I'm going to be controversial here and say that the issue with rape/not reporting rape goes a bit deeper than just women being trained to think of themselves as sex objects, though of course that is extremely pertinent. I think another part of it also has to do with the fact that women have a peculiar ability to internalize intuitively others' needs and desires and give them preference to their own needs and desires, often more so than men. Obviously that's a very general statement, but it's probably linked to a maternal instinct so that mothers can sense what their children need without having to be told. When this tendency is wrapped up with the complicating factors of sexual desire and a man's unique ability NOT to internalize another's feelings (or easily to ignore them), it can get very dangerous. I agree that "we should have a culture of requiring affirmative consent," yet I can also see how this is still a work in progress when I don't see that guys even from a young age have a tendency to ask permission for things...nature vs. nurture, I don't know, but it does sort of connect back to the risk tolerance issue in just seeing different approaches to doing something that might be considered unacceptable, scary, daring, etc. I'm still aghast whenever I think of the statistics that show that rape, the most awful of violent crimes, is most often perpetrated by someone who actually KNOWS the victim. In fact, this also happened to one of my friends (a "date rape" scenario, which I think is an awful, stupid, and oxymoronic phrase), but she did end up reporting it. I recall her saying that the police in our southern town told her that probably they wouldn't do much to prosecute the guy. Why aren't MEN more up in arms about rape, anyway?? When you think about it, the problem of rape is at the core a MEN'S issue, not a woman's issue--no matter how self-confident a woman is or sure of herself or NOT seeing herself as a sex object, it can still happen to her, simply by the fact of a man being violent and evil. (And yes, I know that women do commit rape, but those scenarios are by far more rare.) and this is where we wildly disagree on "nature vs nuture" The fact that women tend to put others desires above their own men do not is part of male privilege. Men are taught that they have the right to have desires, and women are taught that they have the right to be grateful if they are desired. That's just as general as my statements, and also I don't think it holds true. At least, I don't think it explains all the phenomena. Little boys are given the same rules as little girls for "playing nice" yet even at the youngest ages they get in different sorts of fights. My brother was raised in an environment with four sisters and given no preferential/different treatment because he was a boy, yet he is still a mysterious alien to me. I guess a lot of it could be in schools, but I just think there is a lot that socialization alone does not explain. Maybe the larger issue is that I don't necessarily see that it would be beneficial completely to eradicate ALL gender-based behavioral differences, even if it were possible to do so.
If you asked my brother and sister in-law if they had treated their little boy or little girl differenly as toddlers they would adamently tell you "No". Yet my brother plays with his sone a lot rougher than he ever played with his daughter.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jun 4, 2012, 8:37 PM
Post #104 of 173
(15439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
SylviaSmile wrote: drivel wrote: SylviaSmile wrote: drivel wrote: drivel wrote: sorry, gonna elaborate on this one. every girl who's ever wondered if it was really "rape rape" despite the fact that she never said he could put his dick in her, that maybe it was her own fault for being at that party/flirting with him/taking her shirt off, that maybe he could not be expected to stop? that is the result of teaching girls and women that they are the sex objects of men. consent is ASSUMED. their bodies are assumed to be available. that's is what is implied in "no means no." because it's yes until she screams no amirite? [it should be "yes means yes," and we *should* have a culture of requiring affirmative consent, but we don't.] you gonna respond to this one, GO? also, I see what you're trying to get at with saying there are alternative messages. But the fact remains that every girl DOES get the negative messages, even among the ones that also manage to get some positive ones as "alternatives," the positioning of which is itself problematic, as 'biner pointed out. I'm going to be controversial here and say that the issue with rape/not reporting rape goes a bit deeper than just women being trained to think of themselves as sex objects, though of course that is extremely pertinent. I think another part of it also has to do with the fact that women have a peculiar ability to internalize intuitively others' needs and desires and give them preference to their own needs and desires, often more so than men. Obviously that's a very general statement, but it's probably linked to a maternal instinct so that mothers can sense what their children need without having to be told. When this tendency is wrapped up with the complicating factors of sexual desire and a man's unique ability NOT to internalize another's feelings (or easily to ignore them), it can get very dangerous. I agree that "we should have a culture of requiring affirmative consent," yet I can also see how this is still a work in progress when I don't see that guys even from a young age have a tendency to ask permission for things...nature vs. nurture, I don't know, but it does sort of connect back to the risk tolerance issue in just seeing different approaches to doing something that might be considered unacceptable, scary, daring, etc. I'm still aghast whenever I think of the statistics that show that rape, the most awful of violent crimes, is most often perpetrated by someone who actually KNOWS the victim. In fact, this also happened to one of my friends (a "date rape" scenario, which I think is an awful, stupid, and oxymoronic phrase), but she did end up reporting it. I recall her saying that the police in our southern town told her that probably they wouldn't do much to prosecute the guy. Why aren't MEN more up in arms about rape, anyway?? When you think about it, the problem of rape is at the core a MEN'S issue, not a woman's issue--no matter how self-confident a woman is or sure of herself or NOT seeing herself as a sex object, it can still happen to her, simply by the fact of a man being violent and evil. (And yes, I know that women do commit rape, but those scenarios are by far more rare.) and this is where we wildly disagree on "nature vs nuture" The fact that women tend to put others desires above their own men do not is part of male privilege. Men are taught that they have the right to have desires, and women are taught that they have the right to be grateful if they are desired. That's just as general as my statements, and also I don't think it holds true. At least, I don't think it explains all the phenomena. Little boys are given the same rules as little girls for "playing nice" yet even at the youngest ages they get in different sorts of fights. My brother was raised in an environment with four sisters and given no preferential/different treatment because he was a boy, yet he is still a mysterious alien to me. I guess a lot of it could be in schools, but I just think there is a lot that socialization alone does not explain. Maybe the larger issue is that I don't necessarily see that it would be beneficial completely to eradicate ALL gender-based behavioral differences, even if it were possible to do so.
i dont think you could even close to say that's true.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 4, 2012, 8:38 PM
Post #105 of 173
(15437 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
drivel wrote: drivel wrote: sorry, gonna elaborate on this one. every girl who's ever wondered if it was really "rape rape" despite the fact that she never said he could put his dick in her, that maybe it was her own fault for being at that party/flirting with him/taking her shirt off, that maybe he could not be expected to stop? that is the result of teaching girls and women that they are the sex objects of men. consent is ASSUMED. their bodies are assumed to be available. that's is what is implied in "no means no." because it's yes until she screams no amirite? [it should be "yes means yes," and we *should* have a culture of requiring affirmative consent, but we don't.] you gonna respond to this one, GO?
As far as requiring affirmative consent, I think most people who care about each other have no problem reading each others' signals.
I didn't really have much of value to add. But if you want my thoughts: I've always taken the phrase "no means no" to mean that if at any point the woman says "no", then no matter whether she said yes a hundred times, to everything leading up to that, no means exactly that, and all those other "signals" are irrelevant, at that given point in time.
In reply to: also, I see what you're trying to get at with saying there are alternative messages. But the fact remains that every girl DOES get the negative messages, even among the ones that also manage to get some positive ones as "alternatives," the positioning of which is itself problematic, as 'biner pointed out.
Okay, well do you also see how in your original statement, by your omission of those "alternative" messages (if you must call them that), you denied their existence? Your statement was really quite absolute.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jun 4, 2012, 8:39 PM
Post #106 of 173
(15435 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
granite_grrl wrote: SylviaSmile wrote: drivel wrote: SylviaSmile wrote: drivel wrote: drivel wrote: sorry, gonna elaborate on this one. every girl who's ever wondered if it was really "rape rape" despite the fact that she never said he could put his dick in her, that maybe it was her own fault for being at that party/flirting with him/taking her shirt off, that maybe he could not be expected to stop? that is the result of teaching girls and women that they are the sex objects of men. consent is ASSUMED. their bodies are assumed to be available. that's is what is implied in "no means no." because it's yes until she screams no amirite? [it should be "yes means yes," and we *should* have a culture of requiring affirmative consent, but we don't.] you gonna respond to this one, GO? also, I see what you're trying to get at with saying there are alternative messages. But the fact remains that every girl DOES get the negative messages, even among the ones that also manage to get some positive ones as "alternatives," the positioning of which is itself problematic, as 'biner pointed out. I'm going to be controversial here and say that the issue with rape/not reporting rape goes a bit deeper than just women being trained to think of themselves as sex objects, though of course that is extremely pertinent. I think another part of it also has to do with the fact that women have a peculiar ability to internalize intuitively others' needs and desires and give them preference to their own needs and desires, often more so than men. Obviously that's a very general statement, but it's probably linked to a maternal instinct so that mothers can sense what their children need without having to be told. When this tendency is wrapped up with the complicating factors of sexual desire and a man's unique ability NOT to internalize another's feelings (or easily to ignore them), it can get very dangerous. I agree that "we should have a culture of requiring affirmative consent," yet I can also see how this is still a work in progress when I don't see that guys even from a young age have a tendency to ask permission for things...nature vs. nurture, I don't know, but it does sort of connect back to the risk tolerance issue in just seeing different approaches to doing something that might be considered unacceptable, scary, daring, etc. I'm still aghast whenever I think of the statistics that show that rape, the most awful of violent crimes, is most often perpetrated by someone who actually KNOWS the victim. In fact, this also happened to one of my friends (a "date rape" scenario, which I think is an awful, stupid, and oxymoronic phrase), but she did end up reporting it. I recall her saying that the police in our southern town told her that probably they wouldn't do much to prosecute the guy. Why aren't MEN more up in arms about rape, anyway?? When you think about it, the problem of rape is at the core a MEN'S issue, not a woman's issue--no matter how self-confident a woman is or sure of herself or NOT seeing herself as a sex object, it can still happen to her, simply by the fact of a man being violent and evil. (And yes, I know that women do commit rape, but those scenarios are by far more rare.) and this is where we wildly disagree on "nature vs nuture" The fact that women tend to put others desires above their own men do not is part of male privilege. Men are taught that they have the right to have desires, and women are taught that they have the right to be grateful if they are desired. That's just as general as my statements, and also I don't think it holds true. At least, I don't think it explains all the phenomena. Little boys are given the same rules as little girls for "playing nice" yet even at the youngest ages they get in different sorts of fights. My brother was raised in an environment with four sisters and given no preferential/different treatment because he was a boy, yet he is still a mysterious alien to me. I guess a lot of it could be in schools, but I just think there is a lot that socialization alone does not explain. Maybe the larger issue is that I don't necessarily see that it would be beneficial completely to eradicate ALL gender-based behavioral differences, even if it were possible to do so. If you asked my brother and sister in-law if they had treated their little boy or little girl differenly as toddlers they would adamently tell you "No". Yet my brother plays with his sone a lot rougher than he ever played with his daughter.
yeah, I don't think my parents would even make any pretense about treating the sons and the daughters differently in my family.
example- my brother and I were allowed to go camping with our friends in high school overnight, including in mixed-sex groups. my sisters were never allowed to, because it wasn't seemly or proper. they couldn't go in an all girls group because who would take care of them/what if the car got stuck/ they were incompetent to camp without a man. and if they went in a group that included boys, well, somebody might rape them.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jun 4, 2012, 8:49 PM
Post #107 of 173
(15429 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
cracklover wrote: drivel wrote: drivel wrote: sorry, gonna elaborate on this one. every girl who's ever wondered if it was really "rape rape" despite the fact that she never said he could put his dick in her, that maybe it was her own fault for being at that party/flirting with him/taking her shirt off, that maybe he could not be expected to stop? that is the result of teaching girls and women that they are the sex objects of men. consent is ASSUMED. their bodies are assumed to be available. that's is what is implied in "no means no." because it's yes until she screams no amirite? [it should be "yes means yes," and we *should* have a culture of requiring affirmative consent, but we don't.] you gonna respond to this one, GO? As far as requiring affirmative consent, I think most people who care about each other have no problem reading each others' signals. I didn't really have much of value to add. But if you want my thoughts: I've always taken the phrase "no means no" to mean that if at any point the woman says "no", then no matter whether she said yes a hundred times, to everything leading up to that, no means exactly that, and all those other "signals" are irrelevant, at that given point in time.
but she has to SAY no. which means you get to assume yes.
and I think "I think most people who care about each other have no problem reading each others' signals. " is ridiculously optimistic in both parts, plus the implications. that all people who are having sex consist of two partners who care about each other, and that they'll have "no trouble" reading each other's signals.... and that those "signals" will be respected. That last bit is exactly what's omitted in a "no means no" model. It forces women to SAY "no" when they've been trained their whole lives to say yes to men and to doubt their own right to decide.
edited to add: I think that's double ridiculously optimistic when talking about teenagers or young adults who are just starting to be sexual. They're supposed to magically read each other perfectly?
cracklover wrote: In reply to: also, I see what you're trying to get at with saying there are alternative messages. But the fact remains that every girl DOES get the negative messages, even among the ones that also manage to get some positive ones as "alternatives," the positioning of which is itself problematic, as 'biner pointed out. Okay, well do you also see how in your original statement, by your omission of those "alternative" messages (if you must call them that), you denied their existence? Your statement was really quite absolute. GO
I meant exactly what I said.
(This post was edited by drivel on Jun 4, 2012, 8:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
kiwiprincess
Jun 4, 2012, 9:20 PM
Post #108 of 173
(15419 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2007
Posts: 307
|
I was raised equal to my Brothers. My mum was not a feminist but at a school where the rules were girls had to wear skirts I wore trousers and when she said they were more practical and That's how it was going to be no one challenged her further.
Society can be a boys club, and The sexualisation, and objectification of women can be horrifying...I can't watch MTV without wondering why such talented girls are selling them selves like that (I would never let a kid watch Music video's unsupervised ever!)
If a girl knows her value by being valued and encouraged for all her attributes in the Family, she will speak her mind on her personal safety, on her rights, and know what she wants rather than conforming to these stereo types.
Confidence in yourself as a person, is the best tool to have
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Jun 4, 2012, 10:10 PM
Post #109 of 173
(15411 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: NO, there isn't really any way to stop people making those comments. The comments are meant to be nice, and usually people don't even realize that they are using different language for boys and girls.
You're exactly right that people do this quite unconsciously. It's basically the way the species behaves. Society will continue sending this message (IMHO) till there aren't humans any more. Individuals will always have to struggle to "be themselves" despite the message and struggle they should. It's hard for a male to be a stay at home dad and it's hard for a female to be a senator.
If there's one thing that's hardwired into human beings, it's gender differences. There are about 3 million years of primate evolution tied up in females being pretty and males being bold. Cultural behavior is changing rapidly since reproduction and sex were widely decoupled with the pill. In the US, title 9 was a social game changer for females. For the first time in history, large numbers of females started in athletics, which is incredibly empowering. I've seen big changes over the course of my own adult life.
But ...does anybody seriously think females will stop wearing make-up or dressing up to look good? Does anybody seriously think that males will stop going to the gym to be strong?
So now I'll shut up and go away. The interesting thing to me is not the message, but how genes are expressed in individual and collective behavior and how much of that is really amenable to change.
|
|
|
|
|
dr_feelgood
Jun 4, 2012, 11:22 PM
Post #110 of 173
(15396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 26060
|
clee03m wrote: lena_chita wrote: I keep coming back to one simple and yet very telling difference: girls are praised for their looks, from early age. Boys are usually praised for their actions. I have one of each, boy and girl. They are reasonably good-looking, they looked very much like each other when they were little, and they both were absolutely adorable toddlers/young preschoolers. It is really quite ridiculous. I remember a woman gushing over how smart my 3yo SON was when he counted some apples in the cart out loud in the grocery store. Several years later, my daughter got complimented by another random stranger for the exact same thing. Except this person didn't say, oh, look how smart you are. She said: oh, how CUTE you are, so precious!!! I've heard time and time again, directed at my daughter: You are so pretty. You are so cute. Aren't you a precious little princess? What a pretty outfit you have! Look at that cute face! I've heard time and time again, directed at my son: wow, you are so smart. Wow, you read a lot. Wow, that is an impressive vocabulary. The thing is, they both have the same IQ. They both qualify for gifted programs. And they are both reasonably good looking. So why the difference in treatment from complete strangers and random people? If this is not representation of "societal attitude", I don't know what is. While I am not surprised, I am really sorry this is happening. Good thing she has got a great mom who is going to teach her. I would be so angry, but I am not sure how I would be able to prevent this from happening to her. I am almost glad I don't have daughters to have to try to undo what is being done. I have noticed that in our efforts to be gender neutral and minimize heterosexual bias, my husband and I are having some difficulty finding books and toys that we feel are completely appropriate.
Good for you. I just can't help but think of this onion article(because all of my humor is secondhand onion jokes).
theonion wrote: BERKELEY, CA—Citing a refusal to impose limiting social constructs on their offspring, parents Lucas Cady and Kat Loesel reported Monday they will not tell their 4-year-old, Quynn, whether the child is biologically male or female. "Who are Kat and I to say what sexual organs our kid possesses?" asked Loesel, who has dressed Quynn in dull gray smocks since birth and only allows the child to play with toy figures that have been neutered of any conventionally feminine or masculine characteristics. "We think it's important our child's frequent questions about girls and boys go unanswered so that Quynn can discover its true sex for itself." The couple also said that parents should be supportive of children who decide they do not have human genitalia at all.
http://www.theonion.com/...child-its-sex,18395/
|
|
|
|
|
dr_feelgood
Jun 4, 2012, 11:28 PM
Post #111 of 173
(15394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 26060
|
wonderwoman wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: Actually, I used those words to describe you because you once used them to describe yourself one day. Don't remember when it was. Might have been at the gym. I am a bull in a China shop about a lot of things. I just never thought of civil rights as being one of those things.
|
|
|
|
|
clumsy
Jun 6, 2012, 3:14 AM
Post #112 of 173
(15340 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2011
Posts: 34
|
lena_chita wrote: I didn't add personal examples earlier, but if you think that WW's examples are closest to proving Drivel's point, then how about this: -- I was told (by a teacher in sex ed class, who was looking straight at me when she said that): Men do not like women who are smarter than them. -- I was told (by a teacher in elementary school!!): Nobody will want to marry you if you write with your left hand. -- I was told, as a kid, by variety of people: you need to wear skirts more, you look like a boy when you wear shorts; Why do you always climb trees? Men don't like girls with scraped knees; If you keep doing that, your nails will never grow pretty; You would look so much better if you put on some make up; The examples are too numerous to even recall them all. So much of it was along the lines of "behave like a lady, you want to grow up to be a proper lady, so you will find a good husband". .
Lena, where did you go to school? Here or in Georgia? Full blown feminism did not really exist in Soviet Union at that time, and definitely not at schools. Girls were taught to cook and sew, boys made chairs... Good times!
|
|
|
|
|
SylviaSmile
Jun 6, 2012, 1:45 PM
Post #113 of 173
(15315 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 983
|
dr_feelgood wrote: clee03m wrote: lena_chita wrote: I keep coming back to one simple and yet very telling difference: girls are praised for their looks, from early age. Boys are usually praised for their actions. I have one of each, boy and girl. They are reasonably good-looking, they looked very much like each other when they were little, and they both were absolutely adorable toddlers/young preschoolers. It is really quite ridiculous. I remember a woman gushing over how smart my 3yo SON was when he counted some apples in the cart out loud in the grocery store. Several years later, my daughter got complimented by another random stranger for the exact same thing. Except this person didn't say, oh, look how smart you are. She said: oh, how CUTE you are, so precious!!! I've heard time and time again, directed at my daughter: You are so pretty. You are so cute. Aren't you a precious little princess? What a pretty outfit you have! Look at that cute face! I've heard time and time again, directed at my son: wow, you are so smart. Wow, you read a lot. Wow, that is an impressive vocabulary. The thing is, they both have the same IQ. They both qualify for gifted programs. And they are both reasonably good looking. So why the difference in treatment from complete strangers and random people? If this is not representation of "societal attitude", I don't know what is. While I am not surprised, I am really sorry this is happening. Good thing she has got a great mom who is going to teach her. I would be so angry, but I am not sure how I would be able to prevent this from happening to her. I am almost glad I don't have daughters to have to try to undo what is being done. I have noticed that in our efforts to be gender neutral and minimize heterosexual bias, my husband and I are having some difficulty finding books and toys that we feel are completely appropriate. Good for you. I just can't help but think of this onion article(because all of my humor is secondhand onion jokes). theonion wrote: BERKELEY, CA—Citing a refusal to impose limiting social constructs on their offspring, parents Lucas Cady and Kat Loesel reported Monday they will not tell their 4-year-old, Quynn, whether the child is biologically male or female. "Who are Kat and I to say what sexual organs our kid possesses?" asked Loesel, who has dressed Quynn in dull gray smocks since birth and only allows the child to play with toy figures that have been neutered of any conventionally feminine or masculine characteristics. "We think it's important our child's frequent questions about girls and boys go unanswered so that Quynn can discover its true sex for itself." The couple also said that parents should be supportive of children who decide they do not have human genitalia at all.
Ha! I remember seeing that one . . . a classic Onion piece that cuts both ways.
Anyway, increasingly I am seeing how weird my family was/is--I remember being praised for my reading level and swimming performance as a child way more than for any physical traits. Sadly, my sister below me had dyslexia that wasn't caught till somewhat late in childhood, so a good deal of her insecurity had/has to do with not being as intelligent as her older sister (which isn't true, but just perceived that way) and nothing to do with not being "sexy." I picked up the message not to obsess about appearance so well that in my early adulthood, my mom started nagging me to wear makeup because it seemed I hadn't internalized the societal expectation that women should wear makeup daily in order to be "ready to go out." :)
All that said, thinking about these issues so much lately has caused me to scrutinize the things around me more from a feminist perspective. For instance, I just finished the book A Game of Thrones and I was struck by its rank misogyny. Most recently, in ads for outdoor clothes, I'm wondering why the men's clothing featured is actually functional, whereas a lot of the women's selections are things like Prana dresses or Patagonia bikinis, which to me are not extremely practical outdoor wear.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jun 6, 2012, 3:14 PM
Post #114 of 173
(15308 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
clumsy wrote: lena_chita wrote: I didn't add personal examples earlier, but if you think that WW's examples are closest to proving Drivel's point, then how about this: -- I was told (by a teacher in sex ed class, who was looking straight at me when she said that): Men do not like women who are smarter than them. -- I was told (by a teacher in elementary school!!): Nobody will want to marry you if you write with your left hand. -- I was told, as a kid, by variety of people: you need to wear skirts more, you look like a boy when you wear shorts; Why do you always climb trees? Men don't like girls with scraped knees; If you keep doing that, your nails will never grow pretty; You would look so much better if you put on some make up; The examples are too numerous to even recall them all. So much of it was along the lines of "behave like a lady, you want to grow up to be a proper lady, so you will find a good husband". . ' Lena, where did you go to school? Here or in Georgia? Full blown feminism did not really exist in Soviet Union at that time, and definitely not at schools. Girls were taught to cook and sew, boys made chairs... Good times!
And just out of curiosity, how do you know that Georgia was a possible location of my school?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 6, 2012, 4:44 PM
Post #115 of 173
(15295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
SylviaSmile wrote: All that said, thinking about these issues so much lately has caused me to scrutinize the things around me more from a feminist perspective. For instance, I just finished the book A Game of Thrones and I was struck by its rank misogyny.
I haven't read that, but I just finished reading The Hunger Games a couple weeks ago, and I've been thinking about it in relation to this thread, too.
It's an interesting book on a lot of levels, but one of them is how the main character is clearly attractive for who she is and what she does, far more than for how she looks or flirtations. Her looks are barely mentioned, and as for flirtations, she clearly isn't even on the spectrum. Certainly interesting from the perspective of this thread.
And it's a real coming-of-age story, in the same vein that typically is used for books written for boys: overcoming nearly overwhelming adversity as a means to discover who you are and how the world works in a more mature way. Meanwhile, it the struggle is gently tied into the beginnings of an interaction with the opposite sex in a new way.
I'm not familiar with much modern children's/teen literature written from the girl's perspective. Are those elements of this book wholly new?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jun 6, 2012, 5:19 PM
Post #116 of 173
(15286 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
rmsusa wrote: In reply to: NO, there isn't really any way to stop people making those comments. The comments are meant to be nice, and usually people don't even realize that they are using different language for boys and girls. You're exactly right that people do this quite unconsciously. It's basically the way the species behaves. Society will continue sending this message (IMHO) till there aren't humans any more. Individuals will always have to struggle to "be themselves" despite the message and struggle they should. It's hard for a male to be a stay at home dad and it's hard for a female to be a senator. If there's one thing that's hardwired into human beings, it's gender differences. There are about 3 million years of primate evolution tied up in females being pretty and males being bold.
I think this is where you are not quite right.
Gender differences are hardwired into human beings, as well as any animals, but the females being pretty and males being bold idea has a lot more to do with a switch to patriarchy and the whole inheritable private property and wealth concept (e.i. ultimately the advent of agriculture, only a few thousands of years ago) than it has to do with biology.
rmsusa wrote: Cultural behavior is changing rapidly since reproduction and sex were widely decoupled with the pill. In the US, title 9 was a social game changer for females. For the first time in history, large numbers of females started in athletics, which is incredibly empowering. I've seen big changes over the course of my own adult life.
And that is good.
rmsusa wrote: But ...does anybody seriously think females will stop wearing make-up or dressing up to look good?
This is where we start to really diverge. In my version of the future equality both males and females wear makeup and dress up -- if they so choose, of course!
rmsusa wrote: Does anybody seriously think that males will stop going to the gym to be strong?
Hmmm, last time I checked, the majority of males in the US do NOT go to the gym regularly, whether it is to get strong or to look hot.
rmsusa wrote: So now I'll shut up and go away. The interesting thing to me is not the message, but how genes are expressed in individual and collective behavior and how much of that is really amenable to change.
Yes, it is indeed interesting. But the problem is, nobody, including geneticists, can tell you exactly what behaviors are determined by genes, and which ones are not. You seem to believe that more things are determined by genes than I do, for example.
A funny story:
In my attempt to raise kids in a gender-neutral way, I introduced my son to dolls. My Mom got him a BOY doll (do you know how hard it is to even find one?-- we are not talking about Barbie's "Ken" accessory, we are talking about just a doll looking like a little boy).
Anyway, it was a little toddler boy doll, complete with shorts and checkered shirt outfit, and a backpack full of camping accessories. My son didn't want ANYTHING to do with that doll. Or any other doll, for that matter, ever. He was about 2yo at the time, and had not been exposed to ANY TV, or really any significant "cultural" influence. he didn't even speak English, and he was in a home daycare situation. Dolls just weren't his thing.
Whenever he played with his cars and trucks and LEGOs, the games usually involved collisions, loud noises, bangs, lights flashing, dinosaurs devouring fire trucks, etc. etc.
His younger sister, growing up amid a collection of cars and garbage trucks and LEGOs and no dolls attempted to swaddle and nurse a fire truck at some point. Her cars always talked to each other very politely, and invited each other for tea. Eventually she got dolls, and was oh-so-happy about it.
|
|
|
|
|
SylviaSmile
Jun 6, 2012, 5:29 PM
Post #117 of 173
(15286 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 983
|
cracklover wrote: SylviaSmile wrote: All that said, thinking about these issues so much lately has caused me to scrutinize the things around me more from a feminist perspective. For instance, I just finished the book A Game of Thrones and I was struck by its rank misogyny. I haven't read that, but I just finished reading The Hunger Games a couple weeks ago, and I've been thinking about it in relation to this thread, too. It's an interesting book on a lot of levels, but one of them is how the main character is clearly attractive for who she is and what she does, far more than for how she looks or flirtations. Her looks are barely mentioned, and as for flirtations, she clearly isn't even on the spectrum. Certainly interesting from the perspective of this thread. And it's a real coming-of-age story, in the same vein that typically is used for books written for boys: overcoming nearly overwhelming adversity as a means to discover who you are and how the world works in a more mature way. Meanwhile, it the struggle is gently tied into the beginnings of an interaction with the opposite sex in a new way. I'm not familiar with much modern children's/teen literature written from the girl's perspective. Are those elements of this book wholly new? GO
I don't think the coming-of-age/overcoming adversity elements are new, and a lot of the young adult fiction I read as a kid/teen had them, whether the main character happened to be a boy or a girl. After reading the three Hunger Games books, I was actually disappointed at the lack of personal growth Katniss displays in the series (and, incidentally, at the continued references to her beauty and unconscious attractiveness, which I found irksome). I liked the first book, but even there I found her willingness to trade on another character's romantic attraction to her more than a little distasteful. Trying not to give spoilers, obviously, so I'll just say that my overall take is that the trilogy could safely be retitled "Crap That Happens to Katniss"--and I wouldn't recommend it as reading for impressionable young girls.
|
|
|
|
|
clee03m
Jun 6, 2012, 8:04 PM
Post #118 of 173
(15253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 785
|
lena_chita wrote: A funny story: In my attempt to raise kids in a gender-neutral way, I introduced my son to dolls. My Mom got him a BOY doll (do you know how hard it is to even find one?-- we are not talking about Barbie's "Ken" accessory, we are talking about just a doll looking like a little boy). Anyway, it was a little toddler boy doll, complete with shorts and checkered shirt outfit, and a backpack full of camping accessories. My son didn't want ANYTHING to do with that doll. Or any other doll, for that matter, ever. He was about 2yo at the time, and had not been exposed to ANY TV, or really any significant "cultural" influence. he didn't even speak English, and he was in a home daycare situation. Dolls just weren't his thing. Whenever he played with his cars and trucks and LEGOs, the games usually involved collisions, loud noises, bangs, lights flashing, dinosaurs devouring fire trucks, etc. etc. His younger sister, growing up amid a collection of cars and garbage trucks and LEGOs and no dolls attempted to swaddle and nurse a fire truck at some point. Her cars always talked to each other very politely, and invited each other for tea. Eventually she got dolls, and was oh-so-happy about it.
Haha, I can totally relate. My son is obsessed with trucks. All on his own. He loves trains, cars, legos. Not that crazy about that pink baby doll except to put her in her pink baby strollar and take off running, crash into the wall to see her fly off.
He does like pretending to cook and eat. And his favorite color is pink at this moment. And he likes stuffed animals as long as we play truck with it.
Oh well, can't say we didn't try, huh?
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Jun 6, 2012, 8:11 PM
Post #119 of 173
(15252 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
lena_chita wrote: A funny story: In my attempt to raise kids in a gender-neutral way, I introduced my son to dolls. My Mom got him a BOY doll (do you know how hard it is to even find one?-- we are not talking about Barbie's "Ken" accessory, we are talking about just a doll looking like a little boy). Anyway, it was a little toddler boy doll, complete with shorts and checkered shirt outfit, and a backpack full of camping accessories. My son didn't want ANYTHING to do with that doll. Or any other doll, for that matter, ever. He was about 2yo at the time, and had not been exposed to ANY TV, or really any significant "cultural" influence. he didn't even speak English, and he was in a home daycare situation. Dolls just weren't his thing. Whenever he played with his cars and trucks and LEGOs, the games usually involved collisions, loud noises, bangs, lights flashing, dinosaurs devouring fire trucks, etc. etc. His younger sister, growing up amid a collection of cars and garbage trucks and LEGOs and no dolls attempted to swaddle and nurse a fire truck at some point. Her cars always talked to each other very politely, and invited each other for tea. Eventually she got dolls, and was oh-so-happy about it.
That is kinda funny.
BUT....my little brother did have a doll, it was this big doll and it was called "My Buddy". I don't know how long it lasted, but I remember a period of time he took that thing around everywhere with him.
On the flip side I used to love playing legos and toy cars with him too. He never really played dolls with me (and I never forced him...I still had an older and younger sister for that), but I do remember him playing with his GI-Joes and me playing with my Shera dolls together.
Sad thing is that in elementry school even though I played with his toys all the time at home I never felt comfortable playing with at school with the boys. I remember feeling like I would be made fun of if I tried.
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jun 6, 2012, 8:38 PM
Post #120 of 173
(15242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
granite_grrl wrote: lena_chita wrote: A funny story: In my attempt to raise kids in a gender-neutral way, I introduced my son to dolls. My Mom got him a BOY doll (do you know how hard it is to even find one?-- we are not talking about Barbie's "Ken" accessory, we are talking about just a doll looking like a little boy). Anyway, it was a little toddler boy doll, complete with shorts and checkered shirt outfit, and a backpack full of camping accessories. My son didn't want ANYTHING to do with that doll. Or any other doll, for that matter, ever. He was about 2yo at the time, and had not been exposed to ANY TV, or really any significant "cultural" influence. he didn't even speak English, and he was in a home daycare situation. Dolls just weren't his thing. Whenever he played with his cars and trucks and LEGOs, the games usually involved collisions, loud noises, bangs, lights flashing, dinosaurs devouring fire trucks, etc. etc. His younger sister, growing up amid a collection of cars and garbage trucks and LEGOs and no dolls attempted to swaddle and nurse a fire truck at some point. Her cars always talked to each other very politely, and invited each other for tea. Eventually she got dolls, and was oh-so-happy about it. That is kinda funny. BUT....my little brother did have a doll, it was this big doll and it was called "My Buddy". I don't know how long it lasted, but I remember a period of time he took that thing around everywhere with him. On the flip side I used to love playing legos and toy cars with him too. He never really played dolls with me (and I never forced him...I still had an older and younger sister for that), but I do remember him playing with his GI-Joes and me playing with my Shera dolls together. Sad thing is that in elementry school even though I played with his toys all the time at home I never felt comfortable playing with at school with the boys. I remember feeling like I would be made fun of if I tried.
I remember crying when getting a playset that consisted of a dust pan, broom, iron and ironing board for my birthday.
I used to have dolls, starwars action figures, and stuffed animals. I had a treehouse where I moved my play oven to. I played rough. I still do.
Edited to say that, yes, I did have many barbies. Many of them got haircuts and became punk rockers.
(This post was edited by wonderwoman on Jun 6, 2012, 8:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jun 6, 2012, 9:06 PM
Post #121 of 173
(15232 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
granite_grrl wrote: BUT....my little brother did have a doll, it was this big doll and it was called "My Buddy". I don't know how long it lasted, but I remember a period of time he took that thing around everywhere with him.
I do think that many boys will play with dolls, if they can, and there is no stigma associated with it. Just didn't work that way with my two, but that is not saying anything about boys and girls as groups.
granite_grrl wrote: On the flip side I used to love playing legos and toy cars with him too. He never really played dolls with me (and I never forced him...I still had an older and younger sister for that), but I do remember him playing with his GI-Joes and me playing with my Shera dolls together.
I used to love LeGOs and all sorts of construction toys, and I used to love making wind-up cars and cars with engines. But I loved my dolls, too and especially once I started sewing and knitting and making outfits for them, that was fun.
granite_grrl wrote: Sad thing is that in elementry school even though I played with his toys all the time at home I never felt comfortable playing with at school with the boys. I remember feeling like I would be made fun of if I tried.
I used to play with boys more than with girls in elementary school. It really changed around 10yo or so, that's when girls and boys really stopped mingling for several years-- until they started mingling again as teenagers, and then it was wit ha decides sexual interest in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
clumsy
Jun 7, 2012, 1:35 AM
Post #122 of 173
(15205 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2011
Posts: 34
|
I'm sorry if that's wrong - something you said earlier here on RC made me think that you are from there.
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Jun 8, 2012, 5:33 AM
Post #123 of 173
(15153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
lena_chita wrote: Gender differences are hardwired into human beings, as well as any animals, but the females being pretty and males being bold idea has a lot more to do with a switch to patriarchy and the whole inheritable private property and wealth concept (e.i. ultimately the advent of agriculture, only a few thousands of years ago) than it has to do with biology. ....... Yes, it is indeed interesting. But the problem is, nobody, including geneticists, can tell you exactly what behaviors are determined by genes, and which ones are not. You seem to believe that more things are determined by genes than I do, for example.
I'm not sure that it has anything to do with a switch to patriarchy a few thousand years ago, if that even happened, but I'm also pretty sure that this is an hypothesis that can't be falsified. Similar behavior is observed in many species. As you say, nobody knows where the line between nature and nurture lies.
Yes, I do fall on the nature side more than the nurture side. We are "rational", but we are still sexually reproducing animals and we have 600 million years of sexual reproduction evolution and 3 million years of primate evolution behind our behavior.
I think that one of the things our self-awareness as a species gives us is (IMHO) an endless capacity for rationalization. We make up infinite reasons for behavior that is really genetically determined. Mating behavior (sexual selection) is so deeply embedded (IMHO, again) that we really don't have any control over it. Females attract, males approach and females decide. This genetically determined behavior shapes our societies. It's found in both matriarchal and patriarchal cultures in the historical record.
In the end, this may be like all of the religious discussions. Interesting till you've heard and participated in them long enough to know that we'll never have "the answer". Each generation recapitulates them and that's a good thing. Perhaps at some point the rational will overcome the genetic, but it ain't happened yet as far as I can see.
(This post was edited by rmsusa on Jun 8, 2012, 5:38 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 8, 2012, 1:37 PM
Post #124 of 173
(15125 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
rmsusa wrote: and we have 600 million years of sexual reproduction evolution and 3 million years of primate evolution behind our behavior. <snip> Mating behavior (sexual selection) is so deeply embedded (IMHO, again) that we really don't have any control over it. Females attract, males approach and females decide. This genetically determined behavior shapes our societies. It's found in both matriarchal and patriarchal cultures in the historical record.
Sexual strategies abound, and are incredibly various. It's been a while since I read about it, but the "culture" around mating behavior from one species to another seems to have a lot to do with the niche that species occupies and the best strategy for raising young. In some species, females have harems, in some males do. In some, a single couple mates for life, while in others, everyone screws everyone, and what's most important is "getting there first".
I've no doubt that in the history of our kind, as we have occupied various niches, we have had various strategies. Certainly, the long gestation in our species gives females a very strong biological drive to be the "nurturers", but there are plenty of strategies that can work.
Not my specialty, just something I've done some reading about. It's fascinating stuff, actually.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 8, 2012, 1:40 PM
Post #125 of 173
(15124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Oh, and btw, I think in our culture, things seem to be swinging in a new direction, in which boys are raised to be shiftless hangabouts living in their parents' basements until they find a woman who will support them.
G
|
|
|
|
|
|
