• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Much Of This Is Truly Harassment????

How Much Of This Is Truly Harassment????

  • Total voters
    55
CLAX1911 said:
Post 251.



Are white people men of color? If not, the usage of the word "only" specifically excludes them.

Funny, how you accuse me of lying. :roll:
Click to expand...

You don't understand the difference between "the only people that have it hard in America are non whites" and "the only men that American culture is "hard on" on men of color" ?
 
Fiddytree said:
Yes and no. To what extent it is possible to truly separate sex from gender roles is incredibly tricky. So let's take instead some general gender role assumptions: 1) women are nurturing and in so doing, protective 2) men are public figures, often in charge of guarding and creating the public sphere.

Now let's take a look at teaching. In the beginning, pre-adult teaching was a man's world. It afforded him some prestige as a leader in the public sphere (albeit, not quite professionalized) and guiding pupils to become part of that public sphere. But as time went on the meaning of pre-adult teaching shifted. With the growth of colleges and universities, men were joining those circles more often. Far greater prestige was afforded to college and university teaching-a male dominated field. Public and professional prestige was a man's benefit, not a woman's. Where prestige went, so too did men, leaving women to pick up the slack where prestige was removed.

That being said, either because of men's expectations for themselves or because of some inner-drive from women as mothers, advocates, and teachers, public school education (if one removes administration from the equation) is incredibly female-dominated. We perpetuate it, perhaps to some extent of a biological or neurological difference, but also largely because society accelerates whatever (if any) inner inclinations there are.
Click to expand...

Exactly. At the end of the day, this is all common sense.

It simply happens to be "ideological heresy" for a lot of people, so they don't like to hear it said out loud.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Exactly. At the end of the day, this is all common sense.

It simply happens to be "ideological heresy" for a lot of people, so they don't like to hear it said out loud.
Click to expand...

But I am highlighting some serious problems with the idea that it is completely or mostly innate.

Some of it may be, but individual professions change. In the medical field for instance, men preferred to have positions of authority which established, again, professional prestige. The problem was when it came to, say, women's health, they weren't all that knowledgable. Midwives and other trusted women used methods not embraced by the professional men doctors. Later it turned out that they had started to embrace women's medical knowledge and attempted to usurp the traditionally-female dominated practices. Once again, they used their prestige and their scholarship as justifications to remove women from their place in society. Nurses, for instance, became the woman's domain and were subservient to the trained male in medicine.

As I said, what became "men's work" and "women's work" shifted over time. However, a somewhat consistent rhetorical basis remained to justify those changes. Women were the nurturers, but they weren't that smart. Men on the other hand, were professionals, smart, and public figures, but not nurturers.
 
Fiddytree said:
But I am highlighting some serious problems with the idea that it is completely or mostly innate.

Some of it may be, but individual professions change. In the medical field for instance, men preferred to have positions of authority which established, again, professional prestige. The problem was when it came to, say, women's health, they weren't all that knowledgable. Midwives and other trusted women used methods not embraced by the professional men doctors. Later it turned out that they had started to embrace women's medical knowledge and attempted to usurp the traditionally-female dominated practices. Once again, they used their prestige and their scholarship as justifications to remove women from their place in society. Nurses, for instance, became the woman's domain and were subservient to the trained male in medicine.

As I said, what became "men's work" and "women's work" shifted over time. However, a somewhat consistent rhetorical basis remained to justify those changes. Women were the nurturers, but they weren't that smart. Men on the other hand, were professionals, smart, and public figures, but not nurturers.
Click to expand...

At the same time, however, you're basically just talking about the same theme playing its self out over and over again in slightly different ways. That does seem to imply "innate" factors at play.

Even in "Matrilinieal" societies, the same dynamics you described above tend to be in place, with males filling "prestigious" warrior, political, or hunter roles while women tend to fill roles more related to the domestic running of day-to-day affairs. It simply happens to be the case that the focus of the societies in question has been shifted in such a way as to make the domestic side of things much more important than than the political or warrior side, so the women basically run things on a de facto basis.

In short, the lyrics may change, but the tune remains the same.

What is or is not "women's work" or "men's work" changes over time. However, the fact that men and women alike tend to gravitate to certain gender centered archetypes in undeniable.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
What is or is not "women's work" or "men's work" changes over time. However, the fact that men and women alike tend to gravitate to certain gender centered archetypes in undeniable.
Click to expand...

There are women fighter pilots. There are women leaders of state. There are men being great stay-at-home fathers.

It's not that genders prefer one job or another; it's that society sets up a structure where certain jobs are assumed to be one gender or another and most people, because they grow up in that society, fall in line with that. When society expectations change (i.e. with teaching) then people's behaviors change.
 
"have a nice evening" that guy should be shot for being so cruel.
 
paddymcdougall said:
There are women fighter pilots. There are women leaders of state. There are men being great stay-at-home fathers.

It's not that genders prefer one job or another; it's that society sets up a structure where certain jobs are assumed to be one gender or another and most people, because they grow up in that society, fall in line with that. When society expectations change (i.e. with teaching) then people's behaviors change.
Click to expand...

They are all minorities, and show absolutely no signs of becoming anything more than that any time soon.

Again, at the end of the day, there is really no evidence whatsoever to suggest that women or men are being "culturally oppressed." They make the choice to focus on some careers over others all by themselves.

They do so in every culture we are aware of, no matter how "egalitarian" it may appear.

Frankly, there is nothing wrong with that, other than it happens to ruffle some people's ideological feathers the wrong way.

There is also a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that tossing aside more conventional models doesn't really work especially well anyway.

For instance, women who make substantially more money than their husbands can be shown, on a statistical basis, to cheat and file for divorce more often. They simply find it harder to respect their mates, or find them sexually desirable.

Likewise, the entrance of women into the workforce en masse has a lot to do with how our society's birthrates have fallen into the toilet in recent decades. For the first time in history, most of the Western world has more people dying every year than are being born.

Men are also massively more likely to abuse children than women, so "stay at home" fathers arguably aren't a great idea for the vast majority of couples anyway.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
They are all minorities, and show absolutely no signs of becoming anything more than that any time soon.

Again, at the end of the day, there is really no evidence whatsoever to suggest that women or men are being "culturally oppressed." They make the choice to focus on some careers over others all by themselves.

They do so in every culture we are aware of, no matter how "egalitarian" it may appear.

Frankly, there is nothing wrong with that, other than it happens to ruffle some people's ideological feathers the wrong way.

There is also a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that tossing aside more conventional models doesn't really work especially well anyway.

For instance, women who make substantially more money than their husbands can be shown, on a statistical basis, to cheat and file for divorce more often. They simply find it harder to respect their mates, or find them sexually desirable.

Likewise, the entrance of women into the workforce en masse has a lot to do with how our society's birthrates have fallen into the toilet in recent decades. For the first time in history, most of the Western world has more people dying every year than are being born.

Men are also massively more likely to abuse children than women, so "stay at home" fathers arguably aren't a great idea for the vast majority of couples anyway.
Click to expand...

Any documentation on any of your allegations?

I'll show you how that works. Here's an article about men moving into "traditionally female" occupations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/business/increasingly-men-seek-success-in-jobs-dominated-by-women.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

While women continue to make inroads into prestigious, high-wage professions dominated by men, more men are reaching for the dream in female-dominated occupations that their fathers might never have considered.

The trend began well before the crash, and appears to be driven by a variety of factors, including financial concerns, quality-of-life issues and a gradual erosion of gender stereotypes. An analysis of census data by The New York Times shows that from 2000 to 2010, occupations that are more than 70 percent female accounted for almost a third of all job growth for men, double the share of the previous decade.
Click to expand...

So yes, which jobs you go for is not determined because of some biological imperative.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Any documentation on any of your allegations?
Click to expand...

The drawbacks of being a female breadwinner

Does a More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex?

Warning Bell for Developed Countries: Declining Birth Rates

Male versus Female: who is more likely to perpetrate child abuse

I'll show you how that works. Here's an article about men moving into "traditionally female" occupations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/business/increasingly-men-seek-success-in-jobs-dominated-by-women.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So yes, which jobs you go for is not determined because of some biological imperative.
Click to expand...

That is still only a small minority. There is no evidence whatsoever that any kind of "equilibrium" or "role reversal" is going to be reached here, with 50% of men choosing to be stay at home dads and preschool teachers, and 50% of women choosing to be infantry ground pounders, professional athletes, or corporate sharks.

Besides which, I already noted that professions tend to sway back and forth between the genders, depending on cultural perceptions. It is the archetypes which remain the same, not the set professions.

We might very well see more male nurses, if nursing becomes a more "macho" and prestigious field. Likewise, we might very well see more women in the corporate world if the macho elements are toned down, and the values women tend to gravitate towards are more strongly emphasized.

It doesn't change the fact that both sexes tend to have an innate and overwhelming preference for one over the other, however.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your links. The first article doesn't actually support your earlier statement -
For instance, women who make substantially more money than their husbands can be shown, on a statistical basis, to cheat and file for divorce more often. They simply find it harder to respect their mates, or find them sexually desirable.
Click to expand...

For example, it says:
even whether couples choose to stay married.
Click to expand...
which doesn't say it's the women who are deciding on divorce. And

Men who were completely dependent on their female partner’s salary were five times more likely to cheat than men who made an equal amount of money.
Click to expand...

The men are cheating, not the women.

And the rest of the article certainly seems to say it's men's attitudes that are the problem
many men still believe it’s important for them to earn more than their wives.

t in relationships where women make a little bit more than their partners, men are about 10% more likely to require prescription pills to combat erectile dysfunction (ED), insomnia, and anxiety.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like we should focus on men's self-esteem, reassuring them they have more to contribute to a relationship than just money, rather than blaming the women for earning more.

I do agree that men are more likely to abuse children than women; however, I don't see that as a reason to keep them from being stay-at-home fathers. There are many men who make wonderful fathers; why are you judging them all by those men who do abuse? And all caregivers do need support systems - play groups, other parents to chat with, short-term day care. I just can't agree with your conclusion
Men are also massively more likely to abuse children than women, so "stay at home" fathers arguably aren't a great idea for the vast majority of couples anyway.
Click to expand...

But thank you for posting the links.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Thank you for your links. The first article doesn't actually support your earlier statement -


For example, it says:
which doesn't say it's the women who are deciding on divorce. And



The men are cheating, not the women.

And the rest of the article certainly seems to say it's men's attitudes that are the problem


Sounds to me like we should focus on men's self-esteem, reassuring them they have more to contribute to a relationship than just money, rather than blaming the women for earning more.

I do agree that men are more likely to abuse children than women; however, I don't see that as a reason to keep them from being stay-at-home fathers. There are many men who make wonderful fathers; why are you judging them all by those men who do abuse? And all caregivers do need support systems - play groups, other parents to chat with, short-term day care. I just can't agree with your conclusion

But thank you for posting the links.
Click to expand...

I was mistaken with regard to cheating. However, I was correct with regard to divorce.

When she makes more marriage difficulties jump and divorce rates rise by 50%.
Click to expand...

Secondly, we don't really know the causes of these problems. The researchers are simply speculating.

All we do know for a fact is that marriage dynamics where the woman holds a disproportionate amount of power tend to turn out badly. Men feel listless and unnecessary, and women lose respect for them as such. Things fall apart from there.

Removing "traditional values" from the equation doesn't seem to help much of anything either.

Due to the effects of welfare and high levels of unemployment, a lot of black women tend to make more than their men in the black community, and there really is no expectation of marriage or "traditional gender roles" there.

The result has basically been the complete disintegration of the family unit, with single mothers being the order of the day, and listless men only hanging around long enough to sire children out of wedlock, before moving on to the next target.

It's essentially the Hypergamy principle in action. Women aren't going to "settle down" with any one mate if they aren't getting anything out of it they couldn't get otherwise.

A lot of men are pretty much dogs anyway besides.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
At the same time, however, you're basically just talking about the same theme playing its self out over and over again in slightly different ways. That does seem to imply "innate" factors at play.

Even in "Matrilinieal" societies, the same dynamics you described above tend to be in place, with males filling "prestigious" warrior, political, or hunter roles while women tend to fill roles more related to the domestic running of day-to-day affairs. It simply happens to be the case that the focus of the societies in question has been shifted in such a way as to make the domestic side of things much more important than than the political or warrior side, so the women basically run things on a de facto basis.

In short, the lyrics may change, but the tune remains the same.

What is or is not "women's work" or "men's work" changes over time. However, the fact that men and women alike tend to gravitate to certain gender centered archetypes in undeniable.
Click to expand...

I think there's probably something about a social impulse to follow what is masculine and feminine, but the particulars shift over time. Thus medicine and teaching aren't inherently female or male, but shift over time.

But I suppose that's enough of a diversion from our young lady on the streets facing comments about her butt and breasts. ;)
 
Fiddytree said:
I think there's probably something about a social impulse to follow what is masculine and feminine, but the particulars shift over time. Thus medicine and teaching aren't inherently female or male, but shift over time.

But I suppose that's enough of a diversion from our young lady on the streets facing comments about her butt and breasts. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, I would argue that there is a certain "baseline" biological impetus which forms the foundations of the social impulse in question (though, yes, I absolutely agree that the social side of things shifts over time).

However, as you said, the discussion of that topic has gotten us more than off track enough for this thread already. :lol:
 
Gathomas88 said:
Most of the instances shown definitely count. Though... I'm not especially sure what it's supposed to prove, other than that the skeezy kinds of guys you tend to find hanging out on inner city street corners often have incredibly poor manners.*

(*Even though the men who catch the most Hell over this will, of course, be Middle Class White boys at college who have never 'harassed' a woman in their lives. :roll: )
Click to expand...

I see dems fighting an apparent war against women.
 
Gathomas88 said:
You call that a "war?"

Kind of weak, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

The moniker of "war" in culture war is a bit much, but it is the argument for dominance of one particular aspect of ideology opposed to another particular aspect of ideology.

That rarely ends. Cato the Elder was engaged in his own culture war, with many parallel discussions of masculinity and femininity.
 
JumpinJack said:
Oh. Sorry. I didn't pay close enough attention. :doh
Click to expand...

We are not talking about harassing or scary situations in this thread... we are talking about a woman walking down the street past a guy just sitting there who asks her how she is doing. THAT is what the thread is about because THAT is what is being called harassment and THAT is what is supposedly fearful to women, and you. See the difference...
 
ThePlayDrive said:
If a man raises his hand to hit his wife everyday, but only hits her once a year, is her fear of him hitting her "unrealistic" just because the odds of him hitting her are low? No. As I'm sure you know, fear is not simply based on an analysis of odds. It's usually a response to external stimuli. In this case, the external stimuli are unknown men with unknown intentions and mental states making unsolicited comments on your body. The fear of something happening is certainly "realistic".

And, for the record, here's the story of a women who ended up being murdered for not responding to a man's "catcall" :
Click to expand...

We are talking about men sitting there saying hi and asking "how are you doing". Keep it in perspective... jeez :roll:
 
sangha said:
Actually, we are discussing a range of behaviors in this thread.
Click to expand...

I haven't been and people talking to me about what I have been talking about should understand this...
 
Bodhisattva said:
We are talking about men sitting there saying hi and asking "how are you doing". Keep it in perspective.
Click to expand...
I used that analogy to illustrate why your argument that frequency dictates how "realistic" a fear does not apply to all situations not to argue that catcalling was the same as domestic violence. I assumed that you would be open to my example since you used an example involving tsunamis which is much less related to the subject matter than my domestic violence example. Why is it "not in perspective" for me to use an example involving domestic violence, but it is "in perspective" for you to use an example involving tsunamis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom