EXACTLY. And you just got shot.
EXACTLY. "Chivalry" is totally and utterly gone, partly under the pretense of "gender equality." Of course, for the majority, I believe it's total self-interest. Those same men not holding the door or offering that pregnant woman a seat on the train couldn't care less if she's paid to their dollar or has the right to control her uterus.
It just seems silly for him to discuss what "men" might do, when each man would likely react differently (I will never understand why people feel so determined to continuing making the genders monoliths and denying the individuality of, you know, individuals).
Let's look at what happens in disasters: How do the majority of men react with non-family members? And in organizations that do put women in combat: How do those men treat their female comrades? We'd have a lot of actual data to draw upon, instead of sitting in rooms giving our opinions.
Plus, one group's bigotry is not a reason to deny a minority an opportunity. I don't know why American politicians so often refuse to see that similar strain in so many discussions.
I'm reading his inane comment differently: I think he is less concerned about women's abilities to handle combat and more about men's abilities to concentrate on killing when they're being distracted by boobies. (How heteronormative, and yet.)
If women are around, men could be distracted by them. "Emotions" is a nice label for what goes on, but I think he means the general bullshit that goes on in all workplaces: affairs, crushes, INTRIGUE.
Better to keep ladies hidden away than threaten men's concentration. It's the burqa argument, and it prevails in many places in lots of ways.
If those awful stories from the cruise ship disaster showed anything, it's that when men feel seriously threatened, the last thing on their minds is helping the ladies out of harm's way. Maybe being faced with extreme scenarios like that is the one real way to force people to throw aside their bigotries (racial, religious or otherwise), if only for self-preservation.
I find any discussion of qualifications based on gender to be inherently flawed: "Most women don't weigh enough to carry the field packs." Arguments like that make me nuts. Some MEN don't weigh enough either. We can't disqualify an entire gender based on a majority of its members. Some women DO weigh enough, and if they like, they should have the right to try.
Qualifications for combat should be able what a PERSON brings in terms of physical, mental and emotional ability. It should not matter what is between a person's legs if that person can meet the criteria. And even if only 3 women can, well, those three women should have the chance.
Qualifications for combat should be able what a PERSON brings in terms of physical, mental and emotional ability. It should not matter what is between a person's legs if that person can meet the criteria. And even if only 3 women can, well, those three women should have the chance.
The second part of that headline is redundant.
I just wonder if you'd feel differently if the groups in question were different, but it was still a member of one group articulating a preference for surrounding herself with members of another group, especially one better represented in terms of cultural dominance (I'm not sure those words aptly describe what I'm getting at, and because sexism is frequently overlooked, it may not seem similar, but to me it is--WOW, run-on sentence).
I prefer the company of Christians to Muslims.
I prefer the company of white people to Asian people.
I prefer the company of thin people to people who aren't thin.
I prefer the company of people whose native language is English to people from whom it's a second language.
Don't those statements make you uncomfortable? That's how her statement made me feel.
I was talking to my husband about this because on the same day as these comments, a female co-worker told me she prefers male bosses. I was about to burst with sadness. He asked me which I preferred, and I can honestly say it has never occurred to me to consider it: I don't care what's between my bosses legs, where he worships, what color his skin is. I just want a good boss. And she should just want good friends.
Great, great comment.
It's you projecting gender stereotypes. Here's why I think so:
"How {group of people} get their backs up over every little thing and take it all personally as if it's a rejection of {group of people} , when you don't even know a {person of group}. Or is that me being {group}-ist."
I've heard that before. And when I hear it, it sounds like whatever -ism it is.
Nothing's wrong with men. I don't care whom women have as friends. What DOES bother me is predetermining or articulating a preference for relationships based on something like gender, religion, race, physical ability, etc.
I'm with misspenny. I had to reread that comment to make sure I got it. How is that even OK to say? That's not us projecting "issues"...That's STOWE perpetuating gender stereotypes, and I'm surprised you're OK with any stereotyping. Want to hear people complain about men? I could hook you up with some of my MALE friends who date them.
I'm really deeply disappointed anytime a woman makes an anti-woman comment. It lets men know it's alright, and it's not. It also implies that women are a monolith, which we're not.
Again, even if she's "seen some things," how is it OK by you that she use those to make sweeping generalizations about a group? Or maybe we're so accustomed to sexism that we don't even recognize it. If she had identified any other group for preference, it would have raised flags, and it should do the same here.
You're right. The overwhelming majority of the men I've been with weren't "comfortable" with it. For some, that meant they'd do it rarely and for some, it meant never. I was expected to be totally cool with that, and I was. I don't believe in pressuring people to do things they're not comfortable doing because I've been pressured and it, um, sucks.
This is a seriously scary double standard that most women and men don't question and it always gets me upset. (I'm sorry...I'm supposed to be OK with jizz, but you won't go near me when I've got my period. That makes sense to you?)
It doesn't make you a bad feminist. What makes you a bad feminist is doing something you're uncomfortable doing or attempting to live up to external pressure in your personal sexual decisions. I've been feeling increasingly critical of the results of so much emphasis on sex positivity in current feminism thinking. Even Anna feels the need to temper the depressing results of this study by throwing in a sentence or two about how giving blow jobs can be great, lest anyone think she is criticizing a girl's right to express her sexuality (by giving head? That's hardly one-size-fits-all).
This story doesn't surprise me. It's exactly representative of my introduction to giving oral and my feelings on it at the time. I can't say I've developed much from there. I don't enjoy it either, and while I'll do it for my husband and I wish I understood how it (not "giving pleasure" but the actual act) could be enjoyable for others, I still battle with looking at it like a chore.
I'm often convinced that the only real result of the focus on "sex like men" has been for women to feel pressured to perform like porn stars (and truly enjoy it). In that way, we've traded one potentially unrealistic external expectation (chastity) for another.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FETUSES?
If I say I am glad to see this here, it sounds strange...because I wish this article didn't exist because the situation didn't exist. I had already seen this on the TImes site today, but clicked here so that it got a "view"...This is so important. It doesn't reduce the importance of women's struggles in America, but it's crucial we never stop being aware of what's happening to women elsewhere. Ownership of one's body seems the most fundamental right, and I can't even describe the mix of emotions I get reading about these acts of dehumanization.
It also makes me think of something I've been mulling a lot lately: The rape scenes I've been reading about in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo...Does it bother anyone else that rape is depicted for our entertainment and for its shock value in a mainstream movie? Does it normalize it so that we don't think of the rape that happens here as the same as the war crimes in this article? Are these Somali women more "valid" victims because they weren't drinking or going to parties? OMG so many questions.
It makes total sense to me too...and I always tell my family that if I had been born, say, 50 years earlier, I would certainly have taken this route to avoid becoming my husband's property and my (theoretical) children's servant. Studying and working all day sounds wonderful.
I think you make a number of excellent points here, but two things trouble me. First, you seem to assign a disproportionate amount of blame to Amber's mother, and very little to the boys involved in the act itself. It's hurtful when you put air quotes around an important word like "empower." That word means something to a lot of people, not "just" women. It makes me feel like you imply a mother is selfish for pursuing any life outside her children's care.
Most upsetting to me, though, is your contention that I am not a "stakeholder" because I don't have a child. I am FEMALE. That makes me a "stakeholder" in this mire. I had an experience like Amber's in high school but was lucky enough not to have been videotaped. Believe me, I was not celebrated, despite my whiteness. I was labeled a slut while the boy(s) involved were thumped on the back. It took me years to move past that. I doubt she ever will.
I don't deny race is a major factor here, but so is gender bias. You almost seem to be blaming feminism and female empowerment for women's simultaneous denigration, instead of wondering why men feel so threatened by and misled about women's personhood that they behave as those boys did.
There is a major difference between adult women determining their own bodily and sexual destinies and young girls making "decisions" like mine and Amber's. It's just that we live in a culture that's intent on taking advantage of women who are confusing their own sexual desire with their desire for attention from men.
Most upsetting to me, though, is your contention that I am not a "stakeholder" because I don't have a child. I am FEMALE. That makes me a "stakeholder" in this mire. I had an experience like Amber's in high school but was lucky enough not to have been videotaped. Believe me, I was not celebrated, despite my whiteness. I was labeled a slut while the boy(s) involved were thumped on the back. It took me years to move past that. I doubt she ever will.
I don't deny race is a major factor here, but so is gender bias. You almost seem to be blaming feminism and female empowerment for women's simultaneous denigration, instead of wondering why men feel so threatened by and misled about women's personhood that they behave as those boys did.
There is a major difference between adult women determining their own bodily and sexual destinies and young girls making "decisions" like mine and Amber's. It's just that we live in a culture that's intent on taking advantage of women who are confusing their own sexual desire with their desire for attention from men.
You make a great point and in very charged language (I've always hated that rhyme...). I wonder if the author is pointing out that women in some communities and groups enjoy better treatment than others, which can't be contested. While I would say that all women are victims of the sexual double standard and of misogyny, I absolutely agree that the extent to which they suffer differs greatly AND that male outrage over their suffering is only discernible under very particular circumstances.
Thanks for the link. I found it really helpful because I initially bristled at that line because of my own preconceptions with that idea.
The tea, the pantslessness...you may have just described heaven. I like days like this for the same reason you do. PLUS, I'm much less bitter about being at work when the weather is so gross. It makes me thankful for my desk job and stops my grass-is-always-greener fascination with alternative occupations.
That's a good comparison to the Need Meat Redux.
