Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know how many times I have explained this in this thread, but here goes once again. I did not start this thread because some people disagreed with the name change of another thread, and the thread I started is not about the name change, although it has drifted over to that, which is fine.What I was seeking to understand is the basic anti-male undertone to the objections and the extreme nature of the feelings, as if some women felt they could no longer get what they were looking for in the thread unless the thread title indicated it was for women only. That didn't make sense to me and still doesn't, although the discussion has helped me quite a bit with "understanding".
I do readily understand that a few things make sense as uniquely female subjects, such as the pain of childbirth and feminine hygiene products. But an attitude of generalized hostility toward half of the human race is something I cannot readily understand, and that is the subject of the thread. Please note I am not saying that all women who posted in this thread have a generalized hostility toward men - it is obvious that is not the case, but in a few posts this comes out with amazing clarity.
They couldn't get what they were looking for from the thread unless it was for women only because what they were seeking were the experiences of other women. What is so hard to understand about that? It is exactly as my analogy infers. On the hypothetical thread I mentioned, do you think the Republicans who started the thread would get "what they were looking for" if it was other than Republicans who posted? NO because what they were seeking was the opinions of other Republicans. Chances are, before it got closed, that thread would have devolved into an "anti-Democrat" undertone, not because they hate Democrats, but because they felt their thread was altered by those Democrats into something different than what is was.
I feel like you aren't going to accept any answer that doesn't include women being "anti-male".
Truth is the war is on men, while wimmen pretend to be the victims.
Actually there are some women who make war on men and some men who make war on women (and men can be very good at pretending to be victims, too).
My wife always bristles at the unfair default assumptions that tend to screw men out of their rights as fathers and often out of excessive amounts of their earnings in divorce situations. She disrespects women who undermine their ex in the eyes of their children. She believes that most men just give up on being fathers because there's just no point. They have minimal access and they are demonized for doing everything "wrong".
So there are women who fight for the rights of men, too.
There are women who make war on other women, such as their husband's ex. I've seen that one first hand. Also I've seen first hand, 2nd wives jealous of a man's children, particularly female children, via the 1st wife, and treats them as competition.
Basically there are all kinds of screwed up and non-self-aware people in the world doing all sorts of screwed up things. Would that it were so simple that there is only one "real" "war" and it is women against men.
They couldn't get what they were looking for from the thread unless it was for women only because what they were seeking were the experiences of other women. What is so hard to understand about that? It is exactly as my analogy infers. On the hypothetical thread I mentioned, do you think the Republicans who started the thread would get "what they were looking for" if it was other than Republicans who posted? NO because what they were seeking was the opinions of other Republicans. Chances are, before it got closed, that thread would have devolved into an "anti-Democrat" undertone, not because they hate Democrats, but because they felt their thread was altered by those Democrats into something different than what is was.
I feel like you aren't going to accept any answer that doesn't include women being "anti-male".
Excellent post ! Why is this simple logic so difficult to understand for the OP ? He seems to have left the building ?
Actually there are some women who make war on men and some men who make war on women (and men can be very good at pretending to be victims, too).
My wife always bristles at the unfair default assumptions that tend to screw men out of their rights as fathers and often out of excessive amounts of their earnings in divorce situations. She disrespects women who undermine their ex in the eyes of their children. She believes that most men just give up on being fathers because there's just no point. They have minimal access and they are demonized for doing everything "wrong".
So there are women who fight for the rights of men, too.
There are women who make war on other women, such as their husband's ex. I've seen that one first hand. Also I've seen first hand, 2nd wives jealous of a man's children, particularly female children, via the 1st wife, and treats them as competition.
Basically there are all kinds of screwed up and non-self-aware people in the world doing all sorts of screwed up things. Would that it were so simple that there is only one "real" "war" and it is women against men.
Exactly! I like your wife as it really is about being fair to everyone.
For some of the negatives remarks here, it is just a reflection of how some people function in their world, so it is no surprise they blame everyone, including their mother, but themselves. You can read the same posters making the same negative remarks no matter what the subject, so just ignor them if they bother you. Makes me want to send copies of Dale Carneige's books to everyone.
Excellent post ! Why is this simple logic so difficult to understand for the OP ? He seems to have left the building ?
Some people "just don't get it," and likely never will.
I have been in many consciousness raising groups, and consciousness does seem to be raised with exposure to other people's perspectives and ideas, but the difference is that the people participating WANT to be there, are open-minded and genuinely WANT to learn.
In this case, on this thread, there is a hypothesis and an expected "result," despite results of "the experiment."
OP: You say you have garnered some understanding while dissing the flack you got on the "other thread." Can you recap what you have learned, on this subject?
There have been many interesting responses . . . some of the sexism is astounding, but my guess is that the world conspires with those people to keep the prejudices in place, and short of a miracle, not much will change those who are firmly entrenched in particular world views.
But getting back to the "psychology" of it all - I personally try to ask myself what my triggers are pointing to . . . why do I get upset when "x" says "y." The answer, inevitably points to some wounding that was received. I think if we could all be more honest about our personal wounding, we would be more likely to see projections out in the world.
In the case of male oppression (which I am sensitive to) - for me, that simply points to numerous experiences of being a female in a patriarchal society. It can be sometimes maddening because females are marginalized in many invisible ways.
When I see a male not able to see their male privilege (because they have never known anything else), under the right circumstances, it can irk me - other times I can shrug it off. Speaking personally in hopes that others will look at their own psychology and maybe shed some new light on some long held world views (I'm idealistic that way - studied Process Work for years, so I always have hope that this type of dialog can somehow evolve consciousness . . .if only an inch at a time).
Exactly! I like your wife as it really is about being fair to everyone.
Yeah, I'm quite partial to her as well ;-)
She had an amicable divorce with her ex and split custody 50/50 without him having to ask for it and I've seen her absolutely refuse to grouse about her ex in front of her children, always speaking respectfully of him, even when she is livid with him (and he can be a booger sometimes -- but he's still a good dad, even an exceptional one, and that is what counts).
I said an amicable divorce -- that was until her ex remarried and his new wife, who had pursued a rather epic scorched-earth policy against HER ex, expected and demanded that he do the same. That is when a divorce that was as gentle on everyone as divorce can possibly can be, turned into an ocean of the smelly brown stuff. Took years to repair the damage.
So this is the kind of stuff I am talking about. It's just not as simple as "all women are crazy" or "all men are pigs". Would that it were!
In the City-Data Retirement Forum there was a long-standing sticky thread entitled "Women retiring alone to a new state". About six months ago the moderator changed the title to add the word "men": "Men and women retiring alone to a new state". Well yesterday all hell broke loose (sorry you can't go read it as it was taken down quickly). The OP complained (raged, actually) about the title change, lamenting the loss of the "safe haven" that the women had enjoyed for so long. I objected to the anti-male feeling tone of the post. Several women just about tore me a new one. The gist of it seemed to be that many women will just not post unless they feel protected within a cocoon of other women; males make them uncomfortable, as they (women) don't like confrontation, etc. There is something mutually supportive about the women flocking together. However, as a male I don't feel the same way about males flocking together. All-male activities can be fine, but I am not threatened by women.
I argued essentially that ideas are ideas and information is information and it shouldn't really matter, especially as far as posting goes. I would genuinely like to understand the ladies' attitude, and I hope it doesn't appear I am just trying to stir up a hornet's nest here, although I admit that is one possible outcome of my thread. It sure stirred up a hell of a hornet's nest over there!
The women's attitude which I described seems so strange and foreign to me (can that many of them really be that fragile?), so I am hoping someone will be able to explain it. Perhaps that will prove impossible, sort of like someone who likes Brussels sprouts explaining why they taste good to someone who doesn't?
Ironically, perhaps the mutual incomprehension proves the women right: perhaps they need their own threads? If so, I would love to gain an understanding of why, of how that is the case. Thanks for any help you can render, whether you are male or female. And although I have a thick skin, my hope for this thread is to avoid mean-spiritedness and recriminations. I have tried to word this OP so as to avoid instant polarization but I don't know if I succeeded because I am treading on ground which remains mysterious to me.
I am male, age 69, a retired high school teacher.
I got through the first page of comments and this was my immediate thought.
Why can't you let it go? Is it such a pressing concern you feel need to air it out on a public forum as a pubescent teenage girl/boy might?
As far as men making more money, I do understand that your use of the pronoun "you" in the sentence I bolded was intended to mean "you men in general", not just me personally. However I wish to point out that I personally did not make one dime more money because of my gender.
I do readily understand that a few things make sense as uniquely female subjects, such as the pain of childbirth and feminine hygiene products.
Those are the only uniquely female subjects you can think of, eh? Seriously, dude, you have answered your own questions right there if you just sit and cogitate on it for a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider
Please note I am not saying that all women who posted in this thread have a generalized hostility toward men.
They don't. Just to you, at this point, because you are acting passive aggressive, extremely thick, and are attempting to hide your utterly entrenched sexism and irritating condescension under the ridiculous guise of "puzzled, harmless male who just doesn't understand those WIMMIN!" and just don't want to admit it.
(The question is how do I know I didn't make more money because of my gender).
Are you being dense on purpose? The public school district for which I worked as a high school teacher for 34 years employed both men and women teachers, and they were paid from the same salary schedule. I had copies of the salary schedules, and there was nothing on them about gender, one way or the other. There were only two factors - years of teaching experience and educational level. A female teacher with my same years of experience and my same educational level made the exact same salary I did, to the penny.
Over the 34 years, I would say that my bosses (principals and assistant principals) were about evenly matched between men and women.
I am not claiming that the teaching profession is analogous to all other professions, but you questioned how I know that in my personal case, I didn't make more money because of my gender.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
?
