RE: Benevolent Sexism

RE: Benevolent Sexism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aylee -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/23/2015 9:30:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Nthrall I despise the frequent TV scenes of men giving women their jackets, and having nothing but shirts themselves. This is a sexist statement that women are weaker, whereas actually they're not (in many ways including handling cold and pain). wow, despise, that's a pretty harsh word. And how do you know they are giving the chick the coat because they think she is weaker? I have done this and it had nothing to do with thinking she was weaker and everything to do with not wanting the girl I care about to stand there and shiver. Interestingly that this person is not considering that some of us just get colder than others. I have been offered many a coat (even while wearing my own) because I am freezing cold and the person I am with is warm in nothing put a t-shirt. I think amusement may have been felt by the person, but I don't think "weakling" is what was going through their mind.

slvemike4u -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/23/2015 9:39:41 AM)
I always thought it was just a sign of my affection/caring for the person receiving the coat. If that led me to shiver a little than the expression was that much stronger....never ever did it occur to me that this was an expression of how I perceived relative strengths and weaknesses. She was cold,I could do it and was willing to do it for her comfort,even if it diminished my comfort a bit. Hell,it's not like we(the generic we) were walking around in Alaska or something.

PeonForHer -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/23/2015 12:31:33 PM)
... Besides, you want her to be warm and ready for some lively rumpy pumpy when you both get home. [:)]

Kittenluv954 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 4:41:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko FR While it's not quite the same thing (or is it?), it does make me think: I would be curious how many of those women that complain about men holding doors open for them or paying the bill also have no expectation of being given a diamond ring before marriage. I was talking to someone on the phone recently who had just gotten engaged. She was describing the ring in detail. I said something to the effect of "Oh, that sounds beautiful. And what did you get him?" ...Silence. the engagement ring was historically given as conveyance for consideration of a marriage contract where the man would receive a sizeable dowry for the wife to be. it's an old tradition that has stuck around over the years, but explains why traditionally women don't buy a ring. But they did do away with the dowry... yep. and i guess men could have stopped buying rings then too /shrug They could have. I wonder though...how many women would have said yes to the proposal without it? i have known many women who have accepted marriage proposals without an engagement ring, one of them has been married 12 years now and never did get one. she thinks its a silly afterthought at this point, and prefers to spend money on the kids. trufax. i guess your theory that women all sit around waiting to judge men and their suitability for marriage based on a ring just kinda fell flat.

thishereboi -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 4:48:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 i guess your theory that women all sit around waiting to judge men and their suitability for marriage based on a ring just kinda fell flat. You might be right. But I like to look at context before deciding things like this. Could you possibly link the post where he said that so we can all decide?

Kittenluv954 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 4:56:01 AM)
No, and I'm sorry you cannot read his insinuation.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 5:01:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko FR While it's not quite the same thing (or is it?), it does make me think: I would be curious how many of those women that complain about men holding doors open for them or paying the bill also have no expectation of being given a diamond ring before marriage. I was talking to someone on the phone recently who had just gotten engaged. She was describing the ring in detail. I said something to the effect of "Oh, that sounds beautiful. And what did you get him?" ...Silence. the engagement ring was historically given as conveyance for consideration of a marriage contract where the man would receive a sizeable dowry for the wife to be. it's an old tradition that has stuck around over the years, but explains why traditionally women don't buy a ring. But they did do away with the dowry... yep. and i guess men could have stopped buying rings then too /shrug They could have. I wonder though...how many women would have said yes to the proposal without it? i have known many women who have accepted marriage proposals without an engagement ring, one of them has been married 12 years now and never did get one. she thinks its a silly afterthought at this point, and prefers to spend money on the kids. trufax. i guess your theory that women all sit around waiting to judge men and their suitability for marriage based on a ring just kinda fell flat. And in the 42 years since I turned 18, I've yet to meet one...including my daughters...including 32 years of helping women. And thanks, THB...I was wondering the same thing myself.

Lucylastic -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 5:15:46 AM)
Well im one.......didnt have a ring, we BOTH paid for the ring i wear now, 27 years later.

Kittenluv954 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 5:42:29 AM)
my only point here is, women agree to get married with and without rings. every day. and that's pretty much it.

Lucylastic -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 6:37:51 AM)
OK as I havent been to a wedding in many years, are the brides parents still expected to pay for the majority of the wedding? theres some "benevolent" sexism not brought up.[8\|] Goes back to dowry for chattel passing of a woman to the next "owner"....my dad had three girls... he did pay a big percentage towards mine but we did a very simple "cheap" wedding. My sisters wedding was lavish, so she paid a lot to have what they "needed" to have. They paid for the entire wedding party to have men in top hat and tails, cravats, and spats of all things, and the cost of that alone cost more than my entire wedding ), they were still in debt when their marriage broke up. I told my eldest if she wants to get married, we will give her train tickets to gretna green and a ladder(where elopers used to go in the UK to get married) How much is a wedding these days??? That isnt sexism, thats Wedding Marketing madness up the wazoo. And people fall for it, and its not just the women.

Aylee -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 6:42:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko FR While it's not quite the same thing (or is it?), it does make me think: I would be curious how many of those women that complain about men holding doors open for them or paying the bill also have no expectation of being given a diamond ring before marriage. I was talking to someone on the phone recently who had just gotten engaged. She was describing the ring in detail. I said something to the effect of "Oh, that sounds beautiful. And what did you get him?" ...Silence. the engagement ring was historically given as conveyance for consideration of a marriage contract where the man would receive a sizeable dowry for the wife to be. it's an old tradition that has stuck around over the years, but explains why traditionally women don't buy a ring. But they did do away with the dowry... yep. and i guess men could have stopped buying rings then too /shrug They could have. I wonder though...how many women would have said yes to the proposal without it? Does your oppression of women know no bounds? Sheesh! The engagement ring symbolized that the woman was off the market. It was and is a way for men to signify that some woman was/is their "property," and for other men to keep away. Of course men do not want to show the same! Because they are a bunch of no-good, scummy philanderers. It shows the depths of your depravity that you would blame women for this system.

GotSteel -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 6:44:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 the engagement ring was historically given as conveyance for consideration of a marriage contract where the man would receive a sizeable dowry for the wife to be. it's an old tradition that has stuck around over the years, but explains why traditionally women don't buy a ring. Modern engagement rings are mostly about a corporation manipulating culture to increase profit: quote: ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring#20th_century 20th century In the United States, the popularity of diamond engagement rings declined after World War I, even more so after the onset of the Great Depression.[26] In 1938, the diamond cartel De Beers began a marketing campaign that would have a major impact on engagement rings. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the price of diamonds collapsed. At the same time, market research indicated that engagement rings were going out of style with the younger generation. While the first phase of the marketing campaign consisted of market research, the advertising phase began in 1939. One of the first elements of this campaign was to educate the public about the 4 Cs (cut, carats, color, and clarity). In 1947 the slogan "a diamond is forever" was introduced. Ultimately, the De Beers campaign sought to persuade the consumer that an engagement ring is indispensable, and that a diamond is the only acceptable stone for an engagement ring. The campaign was very successful. In 1939 only 10% of engagement rings had diamonds. By 1990, 80% did.

thishereboi -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 9:00:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 No, and I'm sorry you cannot read his insinuation. If by his insinuation you mean the shit you made up in YOUR head, then no, I can't. But at least you came back and admitted he hadn't actually said it, it's more than some do.

Lucylastic -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 9:05:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 No, and I'm sorry you cannot read his insinuation. <snip>you mean the shit you made up in YOUR head.<snip> Saving that for prosperity....and shits n giggles Irony has been smited.

Kittenluv954 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 9:11:58 AM)
It's clear to anyone reading the thread there is no quote, no admission really needed on my end. I stated the obvious. The insinuation that women would not agree to marry a man without an engagement ring is still implied in what he wrote, and is still incorrect.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 9:29:07 AM)
quote: And in the 42 years since I turned 18, I've yet to meet one...including my daughters...including 32 years of helping women. And thanks, THB...I was wondering the same thing myself. Count me as one. I dated my ex-husband for several years before we got married. During all that time I told him that if it came to the point of engagement, I didn't care for a ring. When he proposed, it included a plain, thin band with a diamond on it, and he had the idea that we would go together and pick out an elaborate setting for the diamond. I refused. I wore the ring he gave me as my wedding ring, but only because he insisted. He didn't think it was appropriate for a married woman to not wear one. But I stuck to my refusal to "upgrade" from the original piece. I would have been happy without it. As an aside, he did purchase a band for himself, again because he thought it was appropriate, not because I thought it necessary. But he didn't wear it long as it interfered with his work. And it did not matter to me.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 10:51:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 It's clear to anyone reading the thread there is no quote, no admission really needed on my end. I stated the obvious. The insinuation that women would not agree to marry a man without an engagement ring is still implied in what he wrote, and is still incorrect. Actually, that wasn't the implication. The implication was that there were SOME women, not all...hence my question of how many. This article...by a woman who doesn't want one...seems to recognize that quite a few do and that somehow for some, it is an indication that the man is serious. http://www.xojane.com/relationships/i-dont-want-an-engagement-ring

slvemike4u -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 11:10:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954 No, and I'm sorry you cannot read his insinuation. <snip>you mean the shit you made up in YOUR head.<snip> Saving that for prosperity....and shits n giggles Irony has been smited. Ain't that the fucking truth....what a joke

crazyml -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/24/2015 4:33:05 PM)
Nah... you may not have intended to imply that very few women would go ahead without a ring, but that is definitely how it came across. By asking the question in that way, there's a strong sense that it's rhetorical and that you expect the answer to be "very very few".

CreativeDominant -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/25/2015 2:14:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Nah... you may not have intended to imply that very few women would go ahead without a ring, but that is definitely how it came across. By asking the question in that way, there's a strong sense that it's rhetorical and that you expect the answer to be "very very few". I'm so glad you know exactly what I'm thinking. I guess there's no need to post anything to you about what I think.

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0546875