|
Zonie63 -> RE: 10 hours of walking in NYC as a woman (11/8/2014 12:16:07 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FieryOpal
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I don't think that men and women are the same, nor is it even true within genders. No two men are the same, and no two women are the same. We're all individuals.
Precisely. Within any culture, there are differences. However, I was shaking my head after getting into a discussion/debate recently with an otherwise intelligent man close to my age who insists that men and women are alike, that their sole differences are anatomical. [8|] It was like talking to a wall. This was his flawed basis for equality, but his arguments revealed a kind of reverse-equality, where he felt that men were entitled to more rights. I asked him if he were the frontman for the Men's Liberation movement. [:-]
I can see where some things are the same. After all, we're part of the same species, so we're more alike than different. But I can also see where some might believe the differences between men and women as a matter of socialization and conditioning from birth, not solely due to biology. Equality is more of an abstract principle, a human contrivance which doesn't really exist in a state of nature. Because of this, concepts of equality are often vague and imprecise, unable to mesh completely with the laws of nature. I think many people believe that society should still make an honest effort in striving toward equality, while realizing that it will never be perfect.
But some people insist that everything should be perfect, and are visibly frustrated when it isn't. That's where a lot of the consternation over this video seems to be coming from. The basic argument seems to be that these men in the video were bad people who shouldn't be saying or doing stuff like that, and that a woman should be able to walk down the street without being hassled, insulted, or molested in any way. Within that argument is an implied expectation of perfection which may be unrealistic.
Male rights advocates also advocate a similar notion of "perfect equality" from the opposite side. Both sides are frustrated because they can't get everything they want, and neither side seems willing to compromise. That's partly due to the overall society becoming more politically polarized, not something strictly related to gender issues.
quote:
quote:
For some reason, I'm reminded of the 80s teen movie Just One of the Guys....
(Buddy) says something to the effect (in regards to Women's Liberation) that "women are now just as free to be as perverted and sex-crazed as the guys."
OMG, I loved that movie! It's one of those timeless '80s flicks like "The Breakfast Club."
Incidentally, this is why my position has always been that I don't want to be treated like just one of the guys. Why should I, as a female, get knocked down a few notches and operate at a baser, more primitive, animalistic level?
Sure, I can understand that. But this may be where some of the confusion sets in, since the past several decades have seen women pushing to break through societal barriers which excluded women from all-male bastions and institutions. But once they broke through those barriers, there were obviously some things they didn't like once they saw things from the inside.
One thing about Just One of the Guys which I've found to be a relatively common theme in popular culture was the other character Rick, whom Terry starts to get sweet on and is seemingly a nice guy except that he wears dorky clothes (because he comes from a working class family and can't afford better). I don't know if it was unintentional or not, but I thought it sent an odd mixed message in that no one was really interested in Rick as a person. But once he got a better haircut and a set of fancy clothes, suddenly he was an item, even getting a date with the prom queen (at which point Terry started to get jealous).
Of course, he wasn't the geeky, wimpy kid in The Breakfast Club who ended up alone while the others paired off and asked him to write their essays because he was the one who was so smart. The criminal and the jock get the girls, but the brain who tries to be a good citizen does not. That's another bizarre theme which gained prevalence in popular culture.
Just like the base, more primitive character of "Fonzie" was far more popular with the females than the civilized "nerds" from the same show which coined that very term. To be sure, these are all just fictional presentations which should not be confused with reality, but it can't be denied that they've had some level of influence on how people think and see things in society. You ask why you should knock down a few notches to a baser, more primitive level, and I would ask the exact same question.
quote:
quote:
Of course, as with many things, there's a fine line between pursuing and stalking.
If you will recall, this didn't really become taken seriously until the late '80s to early '90s. The same with sexual harassment in the workplace and mandatory corporate-wide sensitivity awareness seminars.
Yes, now that you mention it, I do recall that it was around that time. It's interesting to see commentaries about all those 80s era movies (and earlier) being looked at through 21st century eyes, with many of the younger crowd asking "Was it really like that back in those days???" If nothing else, questions like that might indicate that some progress has been made. It's not like society is standing still or regressing back to an earlier era (although there might still be a risk of that, if we're not careful).
quote:
Not that stalking is ever okay or justifiable, but the backlash effect of this was that (American?) men became more timid.
I remember back in the '80s, my elderly dad quizzically asking me what was the difference between (non-physical) sexual harassment and a man behaving romantically toward a woman. I didn't want to go into the particulars with my dad about overtly sexual behavior or misconduct, so the straightest answer I could come up with off the top of my head was to say that if the woman is attracted to the man, then it's not sexual harassment; if she's not, then it is sexual harassment because his advances are unwelcomed and unwanted. That gave my dad, always the gentleman, a chuckle.
Perhaps some men became more timid, at least in some respects. I think men are probably more flexible and can conform within certain boundaries than many women might give us credit for, but our analytical side might still pore over the fine print and try to look for loopholes. In fact, the general subject matter and overall consensus of this thread seems to indicate that many men aren't very timid at all. But the situations described are not taking place at a job or school or some other controlled, structured environment. It's more out in the streets, in "open territory," so to speak.
As for sexual harassment, my understanding was that men weren't required to be more timid, but just more respectful. If a man makes advances toward a woman and she says no, then that's the end of that. It's when it becomes an ongoing, repetitive thing that makes it into harassment/stalking, not just a one-time faux pas. But if a man of good conscience is told in no uncertain terms that certain behaviors are unwanted, unwelcome, and not okay, then they may feel duty-bound to respect the rights of others. Some people disparage it as "political correctness," and I'll admit that it can get rather silly at times. But if someone is convinced that something is hurtful or offensive to other human beings, then it may be simply a matter of not wanting to hurt others.
quote:
quote:
I don't know any men who believe that there isn't anything wrong with stalking, although people may have differences of opinion as to where the threshold between pursuit and stalking actually is.
If a man admitted to it in public, he'd be crucified. Either that, or I've been hanging out with too many submissive males. [8D] Not nowadays, but back in the day, many a vanilla man (whether single or married) expressed a desire to have an attractive woman show them that sort of interest. Nobody wants an undesirable person to "pursue" them. They considered it flattering. These conversations were more than a decade ago, though.
Perhaps it might be slightly different nowadays, but it wasn't all that uncommon in the 70s and 80s for attractive women to pursue men they found to be attractive. But those who are attractive would already be accustomed to attention from the opposite sex anyway. That's why so many teenage boys dream of becoming rock stars, since they see all the screaming female fans at the concerts.
quote:
quote:
Regarding what people do and their socially unacceptable behavior, I find myself in a quandary about that. I mentioned in an earlier post that this is related to an overall problem of a lack of manners and civility in general, not just in situations like in this video. A lot of people are just plain rude; some act like loud, obnoxious turds. I just can't understand it sometimes. I was raised to be generally nice and polite, with a certain set of manners.
If you don't mind my saying, you and I come from a totally different generation. But I suppose every generation thinks that young people are disrespectful and ill-mannered to a certain extent.
True, and there were a lot of disrespectful and ill-manner youth in my day too. I reached my teen years in the late 70s/early 80s when crime was higher and juvenile delinquency was the in thing. Back then, it might have been the case where we knew what the rules of polite society were, but openly flouted them anyway. Today, however, it seems that fewer people actually even know the rules, probably because of what our generation did to those rules.
quote:
quote:
That may be why some men see it differently. If they see a woman dressed provocatively, the other men might see it as "oh, he just cracked under the pressure," whereas a woman might see it as something quite different.
On a somewhat side note, at least regarding women I know, when it comes to women and clothes, there's a kind of alternate reality which I've never been able to fully understand. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but it's something I've found difficult to fathom, which is why I'm more inclined to avoid any assumptions about why a woman chooses to wear whatever outfit they're wearing. However, I've noticed that many women and men tend to go for the latest fads, fashions, and styles, and I must confess that it's a personality type I don't easily relate to.
I don't think it says anything about one's sexual mores, or that they're open game or "asking for it," but I also don't see that there's anything deep or meaningful about it either. It's probably something simply explained as "everyone else is doing it," the overriding "logic" of popular culture. I remember when Madonna made it big, a lot of women and girls started dressing like Madonna. I'm completely favorable to equal rights for all citizens, including gender equality and all its permutations, but when I see so many people who are free and independent to make their own choices succumb to pressure to conform like that, I tend to wonder.
It really does depend on the mentality of the male and much he sexually objectifies women or how he's been raised. In some foreign countries, this attitude still prevails. Greta referred to the disparate reactions among her Western male friends and her Singapore male friends, the latter implying that if a woman was not dressed modestly, then perhaps she invited inappropriate male behavior and responses to her.
I think religious mores have also played a role in how society perceives these things. Males are human, and as with all humans, their mentality is malleable and generally a product of the society in which they were raised. If religious-based societal conventions tell people that certain parts of the human anatomy are "dirty" and that "fornication" and "coveting" are evil sins for which someone will burn in hell for all eternity, then it may lead to similarly irrational reactions and attitudes.
quote:
Speaking of Madonna, I remember when that whole wearing underwear as outerwear trend started with young women. Women my age wouldn't have been caught dead with our bra straps showing.
No, we cannot control the actions of other strangers, but we can intervene when necessary by speaking out (without putting ourselves in danger, so it's a judgment call) or we can choose to remain passive bystanders. But I do agree that teaching and instilling respectful values starts at home, and that schools can be a stopgap measure for some, but it is by no means the responsibility of the educational system to take on more than it already has. We can blame the breakdown of the modern nuclear family and lack of good male role models, and any other number of sociological factors, but that won't provide us with a solution. Basically, when things can't get handled at the grassroots level, then the government (whether by local ordinances getting passed) and law enforcement will end up getting involved, which will mean more legislation and more political posturing, and loss of civil liberties, ad nauseam.
Well, there's nothing wrong with speaking out against it, although it need not lead to any kind of physical confrontation, depending on how one expresses oneself.
|
|
|
|
