|
LillyBoPeep -> RE: guys suck, but i'm not a man-hating dyke (6/15/2011 7:42:27 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
FR to various
The common expression: "Once a cheater, always a cheater" is often mentioned on these boards and is received with enthusiastic nods.
The thing is, it isn't always true. I know this because my father cheater on my mother, there was a subsequent divorce and he remarried the woman he cheated on her with. And he never cheated on her.
As a partner, as a wife, she was just a much better match for my dad and it was a monogamous happy marriage that lasted over 30 years, until his death 8 years ago today.
My father was not a perfect man.
I can't even claim he was all that great a dad as he was rather absent, but as a human being, and as a man in general?
He was a flawed but good man.
this is an excellent point. just because someone does have flaws doesn't mean that they are automatically this lecherous, evil-doing, can't-keep-it-in-his-pants tyrant out to destroy the world. you can make mistakes and have flaws and still be a good person. or heck, even a neutral person! but i dont think one vice causes immediate decent into irrevocable evil. =p
quote:
ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
But that is the problem with generalisations: they may be true some of the time, but even though our perceptions may indicate otherwise, they are never true all of the time.
Of course, Heather herself said 2% of men were decent, so it isn't all the time.
don't people say this every time someone comes to General BDSM Discussion with a post about "why do male Doms all want to do X?" normally people are out in full force against "sweeping generalizations," but here, because this fits the view of the world of a certain group of people who WANT to hold and justify that view of the world, generalizations are now totally okay. =p
quote:
ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
What I have tried to explain throughout the thread is that by nature, Heather, the men you interacted with were scum... but what did you expect?
Richard Gere?
Your sample size was doomed from the beginning. And if that is what you are basing your assessment on, you are going to be right: those men are more often than not manipulative, exploitative and abusive. And yes, some of those men are our doctors, teachers, lawyers, judges, architects, and government officials... and many of them have wives and families.
Under those circumstances, with those men, it is easy to understand how you came to that conclusion if that is all you knew.
However, happy well-adjusted men do not seek out street walkers, hookers, prostitutes, call girls and escorts.
And many depressed, non-well-adjusted ones don't either.
Many of our husbands, boyfriends, fathers, doctors, lawyers, judges, architects and government officials have not only never sought out paid company but have never cheated on their partners.
So it is evident that many women are in agreement about the nature of men, at least on some level.
This is disturbing to me because what does it say about the unknowing messages we are sending to the young men around us?
I have a friend who has been sending that message to her son since he was little. She had good reason: her father molested and abused her. And then she mated with and married someone who was (surprise of surprises) abusive to her.,, and the kids.
He is long gone now, but the remnants are there.
Her son who is now 17 has been hearing man-hate-speak for as long as he could hear.
He is a trans-person now... and there is nothing wrong with being trans, but I can not help but wonder if it isn't because she never gave him any safe room in which to be a man.
i think it's terribly unsound to try to decide the absolute nature of something we can't personally understand. i will never be a man, so i can't say that i will ever really understand a man or his motivations. but i can try, or i can understand them as i see them. we have scientific information that tells about the life cycle of ducks, but we don't really understand what it's like being a duck. =p
and it's sad that so many are willing to sign onto Hannah's version of reality as The Gospel Truth of Men; frankly, that's only one possibly reality, and attempting to apply the conclusions of THAT reality to all the other realities that exist just makes no sense.
i mean, if it's okay to do it to men, why not to anyone else? when someone spends all their time in Compton, is it okay for them to say "all black people are gangsters with guns!" of course not =p is it okay to say "all Jewish people are money hungry!" because you met a money hungry lawyer who happened to be Jewish? =p of course not!
and yet here in this thread there are LOADS of examples of that (even citing faulty statistics to back it up), and it's never acceptable anywhere, but here.
it's a double standard that women use to their advantage; man-bashing is totally okay, but if a man goes off on women because his ex divorced him, took his house, car, and 70% of his money, and won't let him see his kids, he's a terribly bad guy. =p there's no such thing as "acceptable woman bashing," and when men do go off like this, the women who agree with them, like some men are agreeing here, aren't seen in a positive light AT ALL. =p
and it does sadden me that so many people are so quick to totally agree with absolute negativity. where's the dose of reality? if you've never met a nice guy in your life, maybe that has something to do with who you hang out with, and NOT with the entire gender? like it or not, we need each other. =p and you're not going to get very far on either side when you expect everyone you meet to be Atilla the Hun.
|
|
|
|
