Respect for Men

[Gathomas88]

And yet there are a vast myriad of stereotypes and archetypes portrayed in media.

Name them as they relate to women.

Why should we limit the concern to "of men" ?

Why shouldn't we? Again, why do you seem to think that it's "not allowed" to discuss a male-centric issue?

Why must the focus ALWAYS be on women?

 

[calamity]

Name them as they relate to women.



Why shouldn't we? Again, why do you seem to think that it's "not allowed" to discuss a male-centric issue?

Why must the focus ALWAYS be on women?

Because they are much more attractive

 

[TheGoverness]

And yet there are a vast myriad of stereotypes and archetypes portrayed in media. Why should we limit the concern to "of men" ? Is there any reason ? There are negative stereotypes in the media of both genders, and of genders in between.

Great. That's fine. I don't disagree with most of that.

If you want to address those concerns Absent, then go and make a new thread.

Why is the solution, of treating individuals as individuals, unique to men ...? I don't think it is.

*Sigh* Nobody in here is saying or implying it is.

When she's talking specifically about men, i expect that it only applies to men, specifically. That is how language works. It is not unreasonable for me to confirm (as i suspected) that the same basic respects also apply to women. I see no reason to react to such clarification with hostility.

What is unreasonable, is for you to assume that Josie was somehow implying the basic principles of respect only apply to men. Furthermore, why in God's name would Josie ever hold that position in the first place? Does she just have absolutely no respect for herself or anything?

Honestly, i don't know where you get this "pick a fight" garbage from. It is ironic for you to try to scold me for dragging this off topic by asking about women, only for you to then keep trying to drag this topic into my personal motives.

I "keep trying to drag this topic" into your personal motives? The last post that I made was literally the first time I've brought up your personal motivations in this conservation we've been having. Besides that last post I made, I hadn't brought up your personal motivations at all.

However, you on the other hand have been constantly derailing this thread off-topic.


But I can't handle this anymore. I'm so done with this conversation.

Deuces. eace

 

[Zyphlin]

American Dad
Malcolm in the Middle

A single quibble on these two.

In both cases, the Wife is pretty much just as much of a charicature as the father.

Francine is routinely portrayed as ridiculously ditsy and dumb. And while at times they do portray her as more competent and successful, there's times that goes with Stan as well. Pretty much every character on that show is flawed and dumb as times.

Similarly, Lois was often put across as the quintessential over reacting, over bearing, obnoxious bitchy wife that needlessly brow beats everyone. Again, BOTH parents in Malcom in the Middle were caricatures, both of the goofy dad and the overbearing mother.

This is a little different than say, King of Queens or Everybody Loves Raymond, which probably fall more in the "man child doofus husband and smart, sassy, savy, woman that they'd be lost without" formula

 

[justabubba]

A single quibble on these two.

In both cases, the Wife is pretty much just as much of a charicature as the father.

Francine is routinely portrayed as ridiculously ditsy and dumb. And while at times they do portray her as more competent and successful, there's times that goes with Stan as well. Pretty much every character on that show is flawed and dumb as times.

Similarly, Lois was often put across as the quintessential over reacting, over bearing, obnoxious bitchy wife that needlessly brow beats everyone. Again, BOTH parents in Malcom in the Middle were caricatures, both of the goofy dad and the overbearing mother.

This is a little different than say, King of Queens or Everybody Loves Raymond, which probably fall more in the "man child doofus husband and smart, sassy, savy, woman that they'd be lost without" formula

where does edith bunker reside on this scale?

 

[Henrin]

The thread title implies it. I am simply asking for clarification.

Sigh. So the thread she was inspired by to start this thread has the same problem then?

That's not my claim, at all. In fact, you could argue that father's rights is included under the umbrella of primate's rights. It would still be deliberately misleading and imprecise to refer to "primate's rights" when the meaningful reference is "father's rights."

What in the **** is primate's rights? Monkeys don't have the right to own property, they can't vote, they don't have the right to free speech, they don't have the right to bear arms. The phrase "primates rights" makes no sense at all.

 

[Zyphlin]

where does edith bunker reside on this scale?

No clue. Didn't watch All in the Family

 

[Absentglare]

Name them as they relate to women.

Name all fifty states.

Seriously, what are you talking about ? Are you claiming that there are no other stereotypes in media ?

Why shouldn't we? Again, why do you seem to think that it's "not allowed" to discuss a male-centric issue?

Why must the focus ALWAYS be on women?

You clearly aren't even vaguely familiar with my argument. The focus need not be on men or women when the message is "don't treat individuals like stereotypes depicted in media."

 

[danielpalos]

bearing true witness to us and insisting they have to fornicate us into relationships, not only for practice, but also for fun, is a form of respect.

 

[Absentglare]

Great. That's fine. I don't disagree with most of that.

If you want to address those concerns Absent, then go and make a new thread.

And yet those concerns are coincident with the concerns of this thread. I didn't drag abortion or gun control into this thread out of nowhere. I went from the OP to my questions regarding my curiosity about why this should be unique to men.

*Sigh* Nobody in here is saying or implying it is.

That's literally exactly what you (plural) are doing: scolding me for simply asking if this applies to both genders.

What is unreasonable, is for you to assume that Josie was somehow implying the basic principles of respect only apply to men. Furthermore, why in God's name would Josie ever hold that position in the first place? Does she just have absolutely no respect for herself or anything?

I'm not assuming by asking, asking is something i'm doing to prevent myself from assuming and drawing my own conclusions that may or may not reflect your (plural) actual views.

I "keep trying to drag this topic" into your personal motives? The last post that I made was literally the first time I've brought up your personal motivations in this conservation we've been having. Besides that last post I made, I hadn't brought up your personal motivations at all.

However, you on the other hand have been constantly derailing this thread off-topic.


But I can't handle this anymore. I'm so done with this conversation.

Deuces. eace

Btw, "you" can be plural. I figured that, when you seemed to butt into my line of questioning, that you were aware of what you were defending. Apparently you were not ?

 

[justabubba]

No clue. Didn't watch All in the Family

i asked because one forum member implied that tv sitcoms are not written in ways that disparage women. edith bunker came immediately to mind, as did lucy and ethel

 

[Absentglare]

Sigh. So the thread she was inspired by to start this thread has the same problem then?

No because that other thread had things in it that were unique to women like abortion. Why are you trying to derail the conversation ?

What in the **** is primate's rights? Monkeys don't have the right to own property, they can't vote, they don't have the right to free speech, they don't have the right to bear arms. The phrase "primates rights" makes no sense at all.

You're right, both overgeneralizing and under-generalizing are potential problems. That's why language should be precise. Thank you for finally understanding that part my argument.

 

[Harshaw]

i asked because one forum member implied that tv sitcoms are not written in ways that disparage women. edith bunker came immediately to mind, as did lucy and ethel

40-60 years ago. Find some now. Go on.

 

[justabubba]

40-60 years ago. Find some now. Go on.

2 broke girls

what did i win?

 

[Harshaw]

2 broke girls

what did i win?

Weird; the women in that show are smartass heroes who treat their male boss and dumbass male coworker like crap. Where exactly is the disparaging treatment of women in that one?

 

[Henrin]

2 broke girls

what did i win?

What? I can think of a few things in that show that could be seen as disparaging to men, but nothing that is disparaging to women.

 

[Henrin]

No because that other thread had things in it that were unique to women like abortion. Why are you trying to derail the conversation ?

I'm not. I'm continuing the point I was already speaking towards and one that for some reason you think is important; in that, there are issues that only pertain to men or women, so the phrases women's rights and men's rights are completely valid.

Also, can you perhaps be more ironic? You do realize you're the one that has been derailing this thread for the last several pages, right?

You're right, both overgeneralizing and under-generalizing are potential problems. That's why language should be precise. Thank you for finally understanding that part my argument.

The phrases women's rights and men's rights is precise.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Men don’t need more masculine posturing or promises to restore them to forever-gone greatness. What they need is to make their own move toward gender equality, to break down the stereotypes and fetters of masculinity. Feminists, understandably, have focused on women; we have enough to do without being tasked with improving the lot of often-misogynistic men, too. If the white men who feel ignored, disrespected and lost want to see their lives improve, they should take a cue from the great feminist strides women have made and start to embrace that progress. Life really is better with more fluid gender roles that allow individuals to do what they’re good at instead of what’s socially prescribed. Every feminist I know will tell you that men bring much more to the table than physical strength or a paycheck, and that we would love a world in which men were free to be resilient and tender, ambitious and nurturing, expressive and emotional.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/o...region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

Condensation and scorn of men from a feminist, how trite.

 

[matchlight]

Yeah, when women say "Will you .........?" it usually means "right now".

You have to be masters at communicating with each other. Everyone's different and you have to learn how to talk to your partner to keep arguments and miscommunication at bay.

Agreed. When two people really like each other, they make sure their wishes are taken the right way. If there's something you need your partner to do which can't wait, then just say so, in a nice way. And if you only want to remind them of something there's no urgency about, then just say so, in a nice way. In either case, a smile and a kiss are usually a great help. And while we should expect our lovers to be reasonably sensitive and intuitive about our feelings, it's unfair to expect someone else to read your mind.

We are all people, whether male or female, and it's wrong to show disrespect to someone who's done nothing to deserve it. I'm convinced that the choice of words, tone of voice, physical gestures, facial expression, etc. which do the trick are much the same when dealing with someone of the opposite sex that you have romantic feelings for as with a friend of your own sex. Women who really like men wish them well. They don't go around thinking about how to degrade or hurt them.

 

[CLAX1911]

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

Condensation and scorn of men from a feminist, how trite.

Wow, it's like masculinity and schovanism are interchangable. I would call this misanthropic more than feminism.

 

[Nilly]

Yeah, when women say "Will you .........?" it usually means "right now".

You have to be masters at communicating with each other. Everyone's different and you have to learn how to talk to your partner to keep arguments and miscommunication at bay.

You know what, I think you're absolutely correct Josie. Miscommunication is easy to do, so you have to be masters at it. For example, one of you might want to have sex, and the other might not, in which case it's important to communicate clearly, rather than trying to judge body language and other signs that are open to interpretation, potentially get it wrong and make a huge mistake.

Wouldn't you agree???

 

[Deuce]

And yet there are a vast myriad of stereotypes and archetypes portrayed in media. Why should we limit the concern to "of men" ? Is there any reason ? There are negative stereotypes in the media of both genders, and of genders in between.

Why should we limit the concern to negative stereotypes? Why aren't we talking about global starvation!?

 

[Josie]

You know what, I think you're absolutely correct Josie. Miscommunication is easy to do, so you have to be masters at it. For example, one of you might want to have sex, and the other might not, in which case it's important to communicate clearly, rather than trying to judge body language and other signs that are open to interpretation, potentially get it wrong and make a huge mistake.

Wouldn't you agree???

By your own admission, you and your girl don't agree with that. You said you don't need to hear consent from her anymore.

 

[Nilly]

By your own admission, you and your girl don't agree with that. You said you don't need to hear consent from her anymore.

But do you agree?

Earlier you were all 'everyone' can read body language, it's 'obvious'. Now you understand that miscommunications happen. You seem conflicted on the issue. Like how you're conflicted as to whether no means no or if it means carry on.

Let me remind you:

Old Josie:

In context, everyone knows what I'm talking about -- two people who are obviously into each other based on body language.

I'm really baffled by this notion that people can't read each other's body language. You don't need to say "wanna have sex now?" when it's obvious that you both want it.

New Josie:

You have to be masters at communicating with each other. Everyone's different and you have to learn how to talk to your partner to keep arguments and miscommunication at bay.

 

[Henrin]

But do you agree?

Earlier you were all 'everyone' can read body language, it's 'obvious'. Now you understand that miscommunications happen. You seem conflicted on the issue. Like how you're conflicted as to whether no means no or if it means carry on.

Of course miscommunication happens. That doesn't somehow mean we need major change or something. The man makes a move in and the woman says no or turns her head or does something similar and the situation is over. What you have been talking about this whole time in now TWO threads is the asshole that wouldn't obey your rules anyway.