« There is no barrel bottom to scrape Friday open thread | Main | The Color of the Country: Demographic History of the US Black Population »

January 30, 2012

Comments

It is unfortunate that "Sexuality, for good or ill, is a context for a variety of kinds of power trips."

I think that can be ameliorated, though never totally eliminated.

Feminists will not help with the solution. They are in league with the problem; part of the power trip - just trying to turn the tables, but laying power pollution on sexuality (nature) all the same.

We will be free when the power of love overcomes the love of power (to slightly paraphrase Jimi Hendrix).

Why not just first accept and teach that sexual desire is natural. Then teach that it is ok to express that desire and also, how to express that desire, how to receive it and how to deny it and how to receive denial. All honestly and openly.

That would help eliminate a lot of the weirdness.

Next, legalize prostitution so that those with unusual kinks could get their groove on without having ti impose it on those that don't share the same kinks.

But most importantly - it goes well beyond sex - teach love. That is what is lacking. That is where the problems of expression come from. What do we teach in our society? War. Killing. Greed. Ownership of as much as possible.....you know the rest. How is someone caught up in all of that going to express his or her nature in a cool way?

More better posts. let's talk about love.

So, to me, it would be better to be just a little more precise

Correct, my bad.

I agree that the great majority of men treat women with respect. For "men", please read "men who behave the ways described in Doc S's articles".

let's talk about love.

Now I have that Salt'N'Pepa track running through my head.

Not a bad thing, actually.

Now with the introduction of sheep, we've got ourselves a regular heavy petting zoo going in this thread.

I'm certainly open to a post by avedis, if he is invited by the powers that be, centering on silly men's issues, upon which I can bring to bear a flock of geese, a sloth on a leash, the worm ourobouros, a rabbit in a top hat, a lemur riding a billy goat, two other guys fighting over the hindquarters of a horse costume, and my blind man's personal share of the elephant.

Laura, in my employment immediately previous to current, it was a very woman dominated workplace; with women making up about 75% of middle management. There were many sexual harassment actions initiated by women against men in the years I was there. I never saw any men sexually harass any women. Could have happened though, I guess.

At the same time, I was frequently the subject of the same women's attention (yeah, go ahead and laugh like stoned hyenas, it's still true). Everything from compliments on how I looked, to full head turns and hair flips and wide smiles to legs "accidently" touching under the conference table, but then staying there, glued to mine, to invites to happy hours and then, after a drink or two to offers of rides to ....wherever we could be alone.

This came from lower on the food chain, peers and superiors.

Another component of this scene was that some of the men would be pissed off at me because the women they wanted, but who paid them no mind, made it clear they wanted me. So I had to look out for male peers revenge as well.

The worst was when a woman was engaged to be married. Those women, maybe 85% of them, were always looking for a good lay before locking leg irons with Roger and his spare tire. Temptation almost got the better of me on a couple of occassions.

Ditto recently divorced.

I am a seemingly simple jarhead and horseman with a mystic twist. I was born with a free spirit and a square jaw line and high cheek bones and I keep myself in good shape. And I am a gentleman.And I smile a lot. I am not a coward.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that Women are every bit as naughty as men. The only difference is they are sneakier about it; which may be a virtue in some people's minds.

That is what these conversations here sound like to me. Men are loud and monkey like and therefore bad. Women aren't loud. Therefore good.

Also, a lot of fear. OOOOOOh that scary guy might do this or that. So men are loud and they are scary because they are physically stronger on average. That's what this all boils down to based on comments.

My inner menagerie agrees pretty much with every word of avedis' 10:07 pm comment.

Yes, love.

What I want to know is, what is up with cats and boxes?

Count, why does a sloth need to be on a leash?

I used to have a dentist friend, male, married and a hell of a nice guy. He couldn't keep a hygenist because they hit on him so often. He said that they thought having an affair with the boss was part of the job. His wife, also a friend and a very nice person, got really annoyed about it and tended to blame him.

He was probably not at fault, Laura. A lot of women are very sexually agressive. Not good thing, not a bad thing - just what it is, in my experience any way.

Women frequently hit on men who are attractive, strong and/or represent power and/or security in some culturally defined way.

Feminists want to tell women to be otherwise, but i think it is biologically wired for them to seek an alpha male, however their current envirnmont and conditioning defines it. Feminists are just messed up odd balls. They can't play the game so they try to sabotage it. It's too bad they are left to hate. They'd do better by themselves, and by me and you, to find an alternative that helps them love.

A dentist makes a good pay check. that's usually enough. If he is handsome and/or kind that is a bonus that makes him irresistable.

His wife should appreciate what he has to endure, as a man. Rather than scold, reward ;-) his loyalty and honesty - he did after all tell his wife all about it, right?

Wonder if anyone sees this (from the Nate Silver's live blogging of the Florida primary, 8:43, but the author is Micah Cohen, not Nate Silver) as having some import. I would like to think it does, but hell if I know.

As has been noted, female voters were a key factor in Mr. Romney's Florida victory. According to exit polls, Mr. Gingrich actually only lost to Mr. Romney among men by 5 percentage points, 41 to 36. But among women, who were about 49 percent of the electorate, Mr. Romney was favored over Mr. Gingrich 51 percent to 29 percent.

Somewhat surprisingly, Mr. Gingrich, who has been married three times, performed better among married men than unmarried men. He lost married men to Mr. Romney 35 percent to 37 percent, but he lost unmarried men 25 percent to 47 percent.

The difference in preferences among married and unmarried women was subtler. Mr. Romney beat Mr. Gingrich among married women 51 percent to 28 percent, and among unmarried women 44 percent to 28 percent.

I wonder how unmarried is defined, never been married or divorced now,

Has anyone noticed ... there is something very odd going on with comments.

I've had several disappear after having them confirmed as being posted.

Then, when I check back in, there are comments from others way up thread which weren't there previously, suddenly appearing.

Why indeed, avedis.

Because one's enemies must be kept under close supervision.

I tried living apart from sloth and controlling it remotely via an ankle monitoring bracelet, but if you let sloth out of your sight, it will find you like a thin gas seeping under your door and have its way with you. It will push you down on the couch for the count and put a pillow over your face, with the help of its cousins acedia and ennui.

I have most of my other demons under various states of lock down and solitary confinement, but occasionally anger, covetousness, envy, gluttony, lust, and pride break out and hold hands and run rampant and naked through the streets.
Roadblocks are set up, S.W.A.T teams are placed on alert in hovering helicopters, and the city is temporarily evacuated.
__________________________
Laura, I like your point of view.

But, why is it that MY experience with female dental hygienists is one of vague unrequited eroticism on my part alone, which I keep to myself, being sheepish, which in turn is not difficult considering their entirely professional manner, not to mention their wielding of gleaming instruments of torture as they cause tears of endearment to roll down my cheeks in response to the plaque being dug out from under my gums and then the inevitable vigorous flossing, which I like to call the unhappy ending.

Then they ask to see me again in six months to which I respond let's make it a year. I'll call you.
____________________
So I'm thinking about this idea of love being the answer to our subway platform sociopaths and in true American style, I think a reality show would be the optimum venue for working out the kinks in the idea.
We could have a panel of celebrity experts in the venal sins .. say Dr. Drew, Dr. Joyce Brothers, Donald Trump, Gary Busey, and a rotating cast for the fifth inquisitor, say disgraced politicians who had been caught in various states of just left of whoopie over the years, (with the shade of Art Linkletter serving as announcer and M.C.) interviewing the newly betrothed couple, she a woman who was heading home at night from work across a desolate subway platform and who spotted a perpetrator, now her husband, across the tracks doing his thang, and called out to him, the declaration echoing through the subway tunnels, "My love, at last, I've found you. Marry me and we shall flatten the sweet grasses of meadows for eternity with an occasional break for you to run into the bushes to reveal yourself to passing traffic. Let my love change you, until menopause sets in, at which point my nurturing instincts will disappear with the cold Arctic winds. Come with me ... wait, watch for the trains before you leap the tracks, and we shall seek our destiny and fortune, like the Kardashians, those hopeless capitalist romantics.

He, fumbling with his gear, not believing his luck at finding a woman who understood his neediness, well, since his weird uncle died, his mother's brother, who lived in the upstairs bedroom at the end of the hall, buttons up (why don't I buy pants with zippers, he reproves himself), slicks his eyebrows,' wipes the drool from his chin, sniffs both armpits, and goes hither to his redeemed life.

The inquisitors pounce.

We'll go to commercial break here and be right back with more of "Dancing With The Maniacs".


Count, one thing I've noticed is that comments that are too long (and it is not all that long) seem to get approved, but never appear. Are the comments that are not appearing on the long side?

Discussions like these remind me why I don't like unthreaded forums. There's just too much to address, including stuff said directly to me and about what I've written about, and even if I did, it's not very likely it would be heard. Posts aren't even numbered here. But anyway, the gist of it is:

Yes, a lot of harassment isn't really about the target, but the harasser's peers. The harasser wants to put his (or her) drunkenness/self-confidence/indifference/whatever on display.

Yes, harassment continues even when people ignore it. The above point is why.

Yes, I'm tired of discussions clearly framing men as bad and women as good; and where we're expected to take on faith the claim that "most men don't know how about this". Dr Science says she just discovered this recently. Well, some of us didn't discover it recently, and have been told for a long time that we aren't considerate enough to women's concerns, and we damn well better get out there and take responsibility for our fellow men.

I see in threads like these that men are very willing to question, downplay and outright discount their own experiences in favour of trusting anecdotes from women.

I doubt there is a man here who hasn't also had unpleasant experiences with drunks, the homeless (who are overwhelmingly men), or other marginalized people. Nor, I think, are there men who haven't been subject of unpleasantness from groups of women too full of alcohol and their own company.

Those of us who aren't too good looking (or, at least have at one point been judged as unattractive) can probably tell anecdotes about girls interpreting any social interaction as a creepy advance, looking at you like some kind of dirty satyr. CCDG's bus commuters are also not a surprise to many of us, I'd wager.

Which is not to say attractive women don't have legitimate concerns, or that what men experience on this particular issue is equally bad. But what's also on display in this thread is one of their big privileges: Men's eagerness to discount their own experiences and take the blame for what other men do.

The gender differences that exist in unpleasantness from strangers, I attribute primarily to:

* There being more homeless, socially marginalized men.

* The social norm that it is a man's duty to initiate romantic and/or sexual advances. This affects it both directly in the obvious way, and indirectly in "Frat boy"-style harassment by which young men (among other things) desensitize themselves to rejection.

Some of you asked what institutional remedies I propose. First of all, I propose we politically target the reasons why so many more men than women are homeless and in prison, including sentencing disparity and unequal access to relief resources. Less marginalized men leads to less subway masturbators, but frankly that isn't the most important reason why we ought to do it.

That's the easy part. The difficult part is the second point. Just saying to women "Go out and initiate advances!" is as unhelpful as telling men to "get their act together". It's deeply entrenched in our societies that a woman has value (or lacks it!) based on what she is, whereas for a man it depends more on what he does. I don't have any easy solutions to that; but at least it is worthwhile to resist the feminist conception that gender privileges only go one way.

Feminists are just messed up odd balls. They can't play the game so they try to sabotage it. It's too bad they are left to hate. They'd do better by themselves, and by me and you, to find an alternative that helps them love.

Not even a week after getting pwned on this very topic by Dr S. in re her marital status and longevity, he comes back with this. Astonishing.

Actually pretty much every self described feminist I know is in a very successful long term relationship with kids.

There's a word for relying on the same rhetorical tactic again despite it resulting in an epic fail every single time. Can someone remind me what that term is?

Actually pretty much every self described feminist I know is in a very successful long term relationship with kids.

Including, frex, my wife. So yeah, what Phil said.

I have no particular argument with any of Harald's points. I agree with CCDG and McK that the great majority of men don't spend their days harassing women, and in fact are quite respectful toward them. I agree with sapient that being hooted at is not the same as being raped.

All of that said, many women I know consistently express some combination of frustration, annoyance, and fear at the range of weird, unsolicited, and unwelcome stuff they receive from j-random men in the course of their daily lives.

When I first moved to New England I lived in a primarily Dominican neighborhood. Dominican Republic, not the religious order. I rented a room from friends, a married couple with a young daughter.

When the wife would go shopping at the neighborhood corner store, she would have to walk a gauntlet of young and not-so-young guys, who would make a weird hissing sound and express their general interest in getting her in bed.

So, yeah, hooting. But seriously, WTF? She just wanted to buy some groceries. She would not take her daughter along, she didn't want her kid to see that crap.

And for the record, I'm not sharing this tale to single out Dominicans, nor am I interested in spawning a lengthy and vigorous sub-thread about Hispanics and their nasty ways. IT'S AN EXAMPLE, and there is no lack of them. There are lots of demographics where being offensively freaking rude to any woman in earshot is just part of the deal.

Men don't have to deal with that kind of crap. They have their own various plates o' crap to deal with, just not that one.

You don't have to be 'anti-men', or a weird separatist feminist extremist, or a 'sheep like male commenter', to recognize that simple fact.

Several folks here have lamented what they see as a knee-jerk 'all men are bad' sentiment. I'm here to lament the knee-jerk defensiveness of many male commenters who can't or won't recognize or acknowledge that it's a different world for men and women.

My wife went to a meeting last night and gave a friend of ours, a younger woman, a ride home. Why? Because she doesn't like the idea of a woman having to walk a half-mile or mile through town late at night, alone.

Men simply do not have to factor that kind of thing into their daily calculus. Women do.

And no, my wife is not a hysterical whiny weirdo. She simply recognizes the reality of the world as it is.

From what I, as a man, can see, it's a different world for women. It would be great if that were not so. Or even just less so.

I've had several disappear after having them confirmed as being posted

What I notice, FWIW, is that it's not just the length of the comment, but also (or maybe just) the amount of editing you've done on it.

Lots of edits, with deletes insertions copies and pastes, the comment will go off to the land of the orphan socks.

Write a comment straight through, even a longish one, it'll probably find it's way to ObWi.

If I edit a post a lot, sometimes when I'm done I'll cut and paste to notepad, kill the browser and fire up a new one, and just cut and paste back from notepad to a fresh comment. That usually works.

Maybe the typepad editor buffers every keystroke up in one big tangle and then gets confused.

I had a female friend who had spent time in Turkey, and told me that her reply to the hooting and crap of the sort mentioned above, which seemed especially bad there, would be to ask the guy saying that 'gee, would you say that to your mom?', which often stopped them in their tracks. I realize that isn't an institutional solution, but it seems pretty useful.

Also, do feminists not count like Republicans and Democrats and conservatives and liberals among "groups that we don't generalize and talk smack about" in the posting rules?

Thanks lj, yup:

Regarding "love is the answer", feminists, who I can't and won't differentiate from women in general, are fine with love, just not in the workplace as part of their job description or as part of their subway commute.

Why not just first accept and teach that sexual desire is natural. Then teach that it is ok to express that desire and also, how to express that desire, how to receive it and how to deny it and how to receive denial. All honestly and openly.

How odd. This is exactly what I see feminists arguing, day in and day out.

When they do mention the "how to express that desire [w/o being rude or]" they typically get an avalanche of ridicule, derision, and "lemme explain to you how things really are, little lady" crap.

Also, a lot of fear. OOOOOOh that scary guy might do this or that. So men are loud and they are scary because they are physically stronger on average.

Some of that fear is perfectly justified. And it's rather hard to tell, I think, whether one's fear is justified or not in the moment.

But it's not just fear. There is also frustration/anger at being treated shabbily and then ignored or ridiculed when they speak up about it (e.g. "feminists are just misfits").

But most importantly - it goes well beyond sex - teach love. That is what is lacking. That is where the problems of expression come from. What do we teach in our society? War. Killing. Greed. Ownership of as much as possible.....you know the rest. How is someone caught up in all of that going to express his or her nature in a cool way?

Now this - THIS - I get to agree with, which is nice. The cynical side of me questions how possible it is, but eh, let's be idealistic for a bit. Yes, indeed, let's teach more love and less domination (which is what war, greed, and the rest is all about). No feminist I'm aware of would have any problem with that, btw.

In answer to avedis, above, regarding sloth:

Why indeed, avedis.

Because one's enemies must be kept under close supervision.

I tried living apart from sloth and controlling it remotely via an ankle monitoring bracelet, but if you let sloth out of your sight, it will find you like a thin gas seeping under your and have its way with you. It will push you down on the couch, and lie on your chest until you are unconscious.

Its cousins, acedia and ennui, will show up too and hold a pillow over your face until all of your good intentions fall fast asleep.

I have most of other deadly demons under various states of lock down and solitary confinement, but occasionally anger, covetousness, envy, gluttony, lust, and pride manage to break out and run rampant through the streets naked and holding hands.

Roadblocks are set up, S.W.A.T teams belay down to rooftops from hovering helicopters, and the city is temporarily evacuated.

Laura, I like your point of view.

But, why is it that MY experience with female dental hygienists is one of vaguely unrequited eroticism, on my part alone, which I keep to myself, being sheepish, which in turn is not difficult to do considering their entirely professional manner, not to mention their wielding of gleaming instruments of torture as tears of endearment roll down my cheeks in response to the plaque of thwartedness being dug out from beneath my bleeding gums, and then the inevitable vigorous flossing, which I like to call the unhappy ending.

Then they ask to see me again in six months, to which I respond, how bout we make it a year. I'll call you.

I once had a hygienist high-five the dentist as he entered the room to make the real money, but I thought it was a congratulatory celebration of my dedication to brushing or perhaps because of some gold mine they had detected on my mouth X-rays.

I guess it was something else just between them.

A lot of women are very sexually agressive. Not good thing, not a bad thing - just what it is, in my experience any way.

A lot? Really? And it's neither good nor bad? My experience, and that of many companies and individuals I've represented over the years, is that workplace sexual banter and interaction even on the mild flirtation level produces a lot more bad than good. Co-workers who are interested in each other can agree to meet after work or on weekends. As for 'a lot' of women being sexually aggressive, I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder.

Some years back I managed a firm of 45 lawyers and maybe 90 support staff. A negligible number of female staff tried to interest younger lawyers in going out. When asked by the younger lawyers whether the firm allowed that, the response was 'right after you've resigned.' Vertical dating is a recipe for disaster, even when the incidence is small.

So, my experience is that well run organizations don't tolerate what you describe and the vast majority of women I know very much appreciate that.

Women frequently hit on men who are attractive, strong and/or represent power and/or security in some culturally defined way.

Is this 'a lot' of women who do this or some women? Sure, there are women who are drawn to the football star or the boss or whatever, but, from personal experience, having been both a jock and the boss (and within acceptable bounds of decent physical condition and appearance), over 30 years, I've had maybe three or four overt advances--a statistically miniscule number.

Maybe you hang somewhere where there is an unusually high number of insecure women who rate their own value by having a male companion, regardless of the price they pay in self esteem and respect. If so, that's sad, for you and those women you know.

Feminists want to tell women to be otherwise, but i think it is biologically wired for them to seek an alpha male, however their current envirnmont and conditioning defines it. Feminists are just messed up odd balls.

Sure they are. And alpha males are apparently douche bags with zero capacity for nuance or comprehending what others have to say. How's that for a broad generalization? Some here may have noticed that Doc S and I are, far more often than not, not on the same page. I defended a very unpopular guy who had been fried thoroughly on the left and in the media who was falsely accused of rape. My guy won, because the evidence in that one, isolated instance, was overwhelming that the alleged victim was, in fact, a willing participant with a history of deflecting her own bad decisions with allegations of assault. This incident represents one false accusation out of about 50 in my personal experience that have been completely meritorious. So, when feminists like Doc S talk about 'rape culture' or the 'patrimony', while I often disagree with the breadth of her or their applications, they aren't making this stuff up.

If you can't learn something from those who you don't generally agree with, you have your own issues. And, Avedis, not to put too fine a point on it: you self-proclaim your issues every time you comment.

McTex: you're bringing it in this thread. Bravo.

Be prepared to learn that you are a social misfit with a poor family life. You may also be a wimpy coward lacking a sqare jaw.

So, I've been thinking about this idea of love being the answer, even for our subway platform self-busking sociopaths and in true American style, I think a reality show would be the optimal venue for working out the kinks in the idea.

We could have a panel of celebrity expert inquisitors ... say Dr. Drew, Dr. Joyce Brothers, Donald Trump, Gary Busey and either the Baldwin brothers or a cast of disgraced politicians who had been caught in various states of just left of whoopie over the years rotating through fifth slot, (with the shades of Art Linkletter and Soupy Sales sharing the M.C. duties) interviewing the newly betrothed couple .....

.... she a woman who was heading home at night from work across a desolate subway platform and who spotted her blue-eyed Lancelotwhenalittlewouldhavesufficed, now her husband, across the tracks doing his thang, and called out to him, the declaration cannonading through the subway tunnels: "My love, at last, we meet. Marry me and we shall flatten the sweet grasses of the meadows for eternity with an occasional break for you to run into the bushes to reveal yourself to the passing pedestrian traffic. Let my love change you and fix you, until menopause sets in like a cold Arctic wind and my nurturing instincts go the way of the other extinct species."

"Come, let us go now .... Wait! Watch for the 11:07pm to Flatbush before you leap the tracks ... my silly, lovable lunkhead .. and we shall seek our destiny and fortune like the Kardashians, those hopeless, overtaxed capitalist romantics who make up roughly 14% of what remains of our productive economy."

He, fumbling with his gear, not believing his luck at finding a woman who understood his needs, well, since his weird uncle died, his mother's brother, who lived in the upstairs bedroom at the end of the hall and only emerged to trim his ear hair before the bathroom mirror in his boxer shorts and suspenders, buttons up (why don't I invest in trousers with zippers, he reproves himself), slicks his eyebrows, wipes the drool from his chin, checks his cellphone messages, sniffs both armpits, and goes hither on the steed of fulfillment to his redeemed life.

The inquisitors, led off by Dr. Drew, pounce. By the end of the show, the blissed-out couple hit the jackpot in divorce court, which is available on the opposite side of the rotating set.

We'll go to commercial break here and be right back with more of "Dancing With The Dysfunctionals".

So, I've been thinking about this idea of love being the answer, even for our subway platform self-busking sociopaths and in true American style, I think a reality show would be the optimal venue for working out the kinks in the idea.
We could have a panel of celebrity expert inquisitors ... say Dr. Drew, Dr. Joyce Brothers, Donald Trump, Gary Busey and either the Baldwin brothers or a cast of disgraced politicians who had been caught in various states of just left of whoopie over the years rotating through fifth slot, (with the shades of Art Linkletter and Soupy Sales sharing the M.C. duties) interviewing the newly betrothed couple .....
.... she a woman who was heading home at night from work across a desolate subway platform and who spotted her blue-eyed Lancelotwhenalittlewouldhavesufficed, now her husband, across the tracks doing his thang, and called out to him, the declaration cannonading through the subway tunnels: "My love, at last, we meet. Marry me and we shall flatten the sweet grasses of the meadows for eternity with an occasional break for you to run into the bushes to reveal yourself to the passing pedestrian traffic. Let my love change you and fix you, until menopause sets in like a cold Arctic wind and my nurturing instincts go the way of the other extinct species."

"Come, let us go now .... Wait! Watch for the 11:07pm to Flatbush before you leap the tracks ... my silly, lovable lunkhead .. and we shall seek our destiny and fortune like the Kardashians, those hopeless, overtaxed capitalist romantics who make up roughly 14% of what remains of our productive economy."
He, fumbling with his gear, not believing his luck at finding a woman who understood his needs, well, since his weird uncle died, his mother's brother, who lived in the upstairs bedroom at the end of the hall and only emerged to trim his ear hair before the bathroom mirror in his boxer shorts and suspenders, buttons up (why don't I invest in trousers with zippers, he reproves himself), slicks his eyebrows, wipes the drool from his chin, checks his cellphone messages, sniffs both armpits, and goes hither on the steed of fulfillment to his redeemed life.
The inquisitors, led off by Dr. Drew, pounce. By the end of the show, the blissed-out couple hit the jackpot in divorce court, which is available on the opposite side of the rotating set.
We'll go to commercial break here and be right back with more of "Dancing With The Dysfunctionals".

Count, you need to start putting out a newsletter.

I think the real problem is that feminists tend not to go for square-jawed, muscular horsemen, instead prefering sheepish cyber-wimps. It's a rather upsetting form of victimization. (I kid; I kid. Or do I...?)

"...It will push you down on the couch, and lie on your chest until you are unconscious.

Its cousins, acedia and ennui, will show up too and hold a pillow over your face until all of your good intentions fall fast asleep."

So sloth's are not only rapists, they are gang rapists?

These must be male sloths. By all means. Keep them on a leash.

McT, yeah, I got 'it' about 50 posts ago. Men are abusing women in every way possible all the time and they need to learn to behave themselves and be more sensitive to women.

Actually my mom and dad taught me that when I was in grammar school. Yawn.

Dr S really isn't presenting anything so very intellectually challenging. There isn't a lot of nuance to pick up on; especially when she repeatedly leaves out an entire side of the equation.

Or, what I have learned on the subsequent 49 posts is that some women, Like Dr S, unreasonably harp on the overgeneralization that men are incorigible pigs and that all the problems of the world are their doing and if only women were allowed to have a voice and were treated properly all would be fine and happy.

It's hilarious. If women behave badly in Dr S' world (very rare, but does happen) it is not the womens' fault. They were driven to it by men via a range of techniques from insidious cultural psy-ops to overt violence.

It is you that are missing nuance. For example, Dr S stated that if a woman says she has been raped then she has been raped. Think about for a second. You're a lawyer afterall. You, yourself, defended a man accused of rape. You say he is/was innocent. How do you reconcile what you did and Dr S' hyperbolic one sided perspective on male/female relationships and interactions.

Another nuance that is perpetuated by Dr s and many of those commenting here is that if you criticize Dr S then you are, by ObWi definition, suspect of being an abuser or rapist or misogynistic pig...or just not enlightened..again, no middle ground.

Do I reveal issues? Probably. So do you. That is part of having an honest open conversation. We all have "issues" and they color what we have to say if we are speaking from the heart. So what's your point?

Whether you believe it or not, working in corporate settings, I have had a number of overt advances made by women. Actually, a few gay men as well - one who came right up and said, "I find you very attractive and I'd like to go to bed with you tonight".

Maybe your law firm was a better run organization. maybe you missed some of what was happening because you were The Boss. I don't know.


BTW, I do think you can be married and still have serious gender issues. So, being married is not evidence to me that anyone is capable of normal inter gender relationships.

For example, Dr S stated that if a woman says she has been raped then she has been raped.

I don't recall her saying that.

Much of your post is you reacting to figments of your imagination: hyperbolic stuff that people didn't actually say. I'm sure it's what you heard, but that doesn't make it so.

what I have learned on the subsequent 49 posts is that some women, Like Dr S, unreasonably harp on the overgeneralization that men are incorigible pigs and that all the problems of the world are their doing and if only women were allowed to have a voice and were treated properly all would be fine and happy.

No, you quite clearly "learned" that long ago, and brought it with you into conversations here. Much like your belief that feminists are misfits who can't get laid.

Nobody here said those things. Nobody said "women are better than men." That's in your head. It might even be an "issue."

"Or, what I have learned on the subsequent 49 posts is that some women, Like Dr S, unreasonably harp on the overgeneralization that men are incorigible pigs and that all the problems of the world are their doing and if only women were allowed to have a voice and were treated properly all would be fine and happy.

It's hilarious. If women behave badly in Dr S' world (very rare, but does happen) it is not the womens' fault. They were driven to it by men via a range of techniques from insidious cultural psy-ops to overt violence
"

You lost me there. I don't think that's accurate. You do seem to have a stereotype in your head that you get mad at and argue with instead of interacting with the commenters here. Baggage?

For example, Dr S stated that if a woman says she has been raped then she has been raped. Think about for a second. You're a lawyer afterall. You, yourself, defended a man accused of rape. You say he is/was innocent. How do you reconcile what you did and Dr S' hyperbolic one sided perspective on male/female relationships and interactions.

Like Rob, I don't recall Doc S saying that. I don't believe she would say that, and if she did, I would have disagreed. So, that's how I reconcile the two. Let me add something else: when I took in my client on the one false allegation case I've ever seen, very early on in the case he agreed to take a polygraph at my request (this is public record BTW and not a violation of the atty/client privilege). My instructions to the former FBI polygraph examiner were to 'swab him out like a defecting Soviet spy.' My guy cleared with flying colors. I requested the polygraph because when a women says she was raped, she was, 99.9% of the time.

FWIW, I think there are many more bogus allegations of sexual harassment than there are of rape.

As for the rest of your comment, as we say sometimes down at the courthouse, res ipsa loquitar.

Is this mic on?

Could we bring up the house lights, please? Wrath is in the house heckling sloth from down front.

"Another nuance that is perpetuated by Dr s and many of those commenting here is that if you criticize Dr S then you are, by ObWi definition, suspect of being an abuser or rapist or misogynistic pig...or just not enlightened..again, no middle ground."

Look, it's either "nuance" or its "no middle ground".

Nuance is what happens when sheepish people invite sloth, acedia, and ennui over for a game of strip poker, with an eye toward a gang bang --- and we can't find the playing cards so everyone goes home early because they need to get to work early, where the real fun happens.

"No middle ground" would be along the lines of men wanting the women in their lives to be both the Madonna and a slut with no middle ground, except for time out to do the laundry.

"Whether you believe it or not, working in corporate settings, I have had a number of overt advances made by women. Actually, a few gay men as well - one who came right up and said, "I find you very attractive and I'd like to go to bed with you tonight".'

Did these encounters end up like your version of my encounter with sloth and its cousins?

We need details ...... and, invitations to your corporate Halloween and Christmas parties.

For example, just before I dropped off to sleep, I noticed my female friend ennui was wearing nylon stockings and a top hat, and little else, but all she wanted to discuss was why I hadn't cleaned the leaves out of the gutters yet.

You'd think SHE, of all the venal sins, would know.

O.K., now you.

sloth, acedia, and ennui

See now, you keep naming these three together, but they're not exactly the same thing.

Sloth and acedia, OK, but ennui is different. Ennui is a special French kind of affliction, where you are bored out of your skull with the tedium of life, but you still want to wear fabulous well-tailored clothes and have a nice dinner, preferably with a good Cote du Rhone.

"Nobody said "women are better than men.""

We try not to state the obvious here at ObWi.

sloth, acedia, ennui are cousins not triplets I realize, but I try to spend more time with ennui

"Look, it's either "nuance" or its "no middle ground"."

It's both and neither.

It's a nuance toward being manichean. Is there a term for that?

I just can't get too excited about ennui. She just doesn't do anything for me.

"Yes, indeed, let's teach more love and less domination (which is what war, greed, and the rest is all about). No feminist I'm aware of would have any problem with that, btw."

I guess you know a different breed of feminist than I do. The ones I know are all about siezing power from males and then running things, oddly, exactly as males do; albeit with more over-compensation and therefore less humanity.

"For example, Dr S stated that if a woman says she has been raped then she has been raped.

I don't recall her saying that."

I went back and looked. I couldn't find that statement, though I was sure it was made. My bad.

I will say though, at the risk of rehashing the whole thread, that her reaction to Brett's comments implied it is out of bounds to question whether or not a woman who says she was raped was actually raped.

I guess you know a different breed of feminist than I do.

Apparently.

The ones I know are all about siezing power from males and then running things, oddly, exactly as males do; albeit with more over-compensation and therefore less humanity.

Two things here.

1) I have no illusions about some fairy tale woman-run world that would magically be great in comparison to a male-dominated world (see: Thatcher, Margaret, various Queens, etc.). Equality doesn't mean everybody gets a magic pony;

2) I'm not sure what you mean by "less humanity" due to overcompensation, but I can guess. To the extent this happens (I haven't noticed it at work), I'd expect to see it die out naturally as women with power becomes less and less of an oddity.

As for the rest: you thought Dr. S. said something she didn't. You went and checked, and now realize she didn't say it. My suggestion is that you keep that in mind the next time you read something of hers and start getting fired up. Pause for a second, don't immediately assume she's attacking men, and *then* respond.

Because seriously, she's not a man-hater, and neither are the feminists I read on the web all the time. You will get a few in the comments, and you will see push-back from the other commentors. Because, quite obviously, the way to a better more equitable society is not to simply flip-flop and have a matriarchy. If someone is arguing that in the name of feminism, they're doing it wrong.

I have no illusions about some fairy tale woman-run world that would magically be great in comparison to a male-dominated world

The proverb "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is no respecter of gender.

This is off topic but I want to share. I had the opportunity to call my state sseator today and urge him to ote yes on the marriage equality bill before the Washigton state legislature. i was proud to able to do this. I have friends and nighbors who are in life long committed relatioships with people of the same gender and i told my senator that I hope their relationships can be honored as my relationship with my husband is. i hope the bill passes. Gay people should not be second class citizens any more.

Also, do feminists not count like Republicans and Democrats and conservatives and liberals among "groups that we don't generalize and talk smack about" in the posting rules?

We haven't cracked down on people ragging on Republicans in recent memory.

It passed!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad