Thursday, March 5, 2009
Uncle
Okay, I give up. I have been having an exchange over at MarkyMark's, trying to understand this apparent need for some men to paint all women with a broad brush. But, now that it has devolved to the point that instead of responding to me, people are talking about me, I think it is probably best for me to let it go. My question remains unanswered, which is frustrating for me. I would prefer to continue to try to gain understanding, but if the response is talking about me in the third person rather than addressing what I say, I don't see how understanding can happen. (I would really like to ask in what way I have been hypocritical...if anyone can let me know I would appreciate it)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
The thread there is huge, and I'm lazy.
What was the question?
Against my better judgment, I will try to explain this one more time.
You ask: Why do some men paint all women with a broad brush (viz., "All women are skanks", "All women are feminazis").
I say: Because of evidence.
Hypothetical scenario: You and I are in a room, and I tell you to watch out for the ghosts, because they'll hit you in the face with a banana-cream pie. Even if you have an initial concern, the longer you go without getting hit in the face with a banana-cream pie from some invisible force, the more you will act as if the ghosts are not there, no matter how much I warn you about it.
It's the same thing here. Too many men have been disappointed time after time. These men have met women, gotten their hopes up, and then had them dashed because the woman in question had been thoroughly Oprahized.
So, you can queue up all the objections you want about "not all women are like that", but these men are NOT going to take a woman's word for it, because they have before and got burned.
*CORE POINT FOLLOWS*
As far as they are concerned, a "good woman" is a purely hypothetical construct with no basis in reality.
I'm only very slightly off that position. As far as I'm concerned, there are statistically zero good, marriageable women out there. Sure, I've met one or two, but in the panorama of my life, that is a vanishingly small number.
I sympathize with your frustrations L.
"We are in "the fall." Marriage rates are falling, birth rates are falling, the percentage of people who are married is falling, the percentage of children born to married parents is falling, our home values are falling, and the stock market is falling.
Build your ark, MM. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better."
Nothing like a postive outlook, eh?
What hope do we have, if we sit idly by, wringing our hands in despair.
Learner,
I'll try in vain to explain this from my POV. In addition to what MS said above, in addition to the evidence the vast majority of women are skanks, I'll tell you why I find your line of questioning to be annoying. One, it seems as if you do not get it, in spite of our efforts to the contrary. Two, your incessant questioning makes it appear as if you're trying to undermine us in a subtle way; you come of as trying to undermine us, and do so in a specious, insidious way.
Let me ask YOU some questions: why did you and your sisters stand idly by and say nothing about feminism? Why do you not condemn women who engage in a skanky lifestyle? Why are you silent on women's bad deeds? I know that, with women, silence is a powerful tool for social sanctions, but to us men, silence = assent; silence = agreement.
MarkyMark
Learner,
Here's something else to chew on: when you asked follow on questions, they didn't seem to reference the previous ones in a way that indicated that you were actually paying attention. For example, you should have asked, "Do you mean X, or do you mean Y by that?" rather than the way you asked your questions. If you'd asked them in a way that indicated you were listening and thus TRYING to grasp the issue, I think your reception would have been different. Unfortunately, you came off as trying to undermine and belittle our points, even if you didn't intend to do so.
Oh, and if you want to see why men think women are skanks, I just posted a comment by Zed; as of right now, it's the newest post on my blog, so check it out. He explains things beautifully there. If you don't get our point after reading THAT, then you never will.
MarkyMark
MarkyMark
"But, now that it has devolved to the point that instead of responding to me, people are talking about me"
Good to see u on the receiving end this time. That oughta learn ya!
EW,
The question is, why the hyperbole? Why do all women have to be skanks (or whatever) for men to decide that the risk is too great for them?"
MS,
Wow, after answering questions that I did not ask (like, why do men think women are skanks?, or why don't you want to marry or have a relationship with a woman?) I think you actually may have come close to answering my actual question this time. Thank you for the effort.
It is this part of your reply that I am referring to Too many men have been disappointed time after time. These men have met women, gotten their hopes up, and then had them dashed because the woman in question had been thoroughly Oprahized.. Are you saying that for men to not get their hopes up only to be disappointed that they need to believe that all women are skanks (or whatever characteristic)?
So, you can queue up all the objections you want about "not all women are like that", but these men are NOT going to take a woman's word for it, because they have before and got burned.
I have said this before, but it does not seem that I was able to get my point across. I would not expect any man to take my (or any women's) word for it that I am (or they are) not a skank (or whatever). I would, however, expect that he not assume I am a skank (or whatever) when my behavior says otherwise.
A woman who is not a skank, even if she does not behave like a skank, has a problem when she runs across a man who operates under the asumption that all women are skanks and treats her accordingly. Does this make sense to you? If I was going to guess, I would say that your view would be that you are not concerned about her problem, am I correct?
MarkyMark,
You answer questions that I am not asking. I ask why the hyperbole? Why does it have to be all women for men to decide that the risk is not worth it? I get answers to the questions that I am not asking like "why do men think women are skanks" and "why don't you want to be married or in a relationship".
While, I have repeatedly agreed that, yes, the morality, sexual and otherwise, of many women is nothing short of apalling. I have repeatedly affirmed your right and the right of every man to decide if he wants to marry or not and have even said that I could understand why a man would find it beyond his risk tolerance. I have tried to reframe the question, I have tried to come at it from a different angle (ie; asking why a woman would object to being called a skank when she is not one) but I keep getting the same answers to the same questions that I am not asking.
Perhaps that is because some hidden gotcha, some deceitful maneuvering on my part is suspected such that instead of answering what I am actually asking, you (not just your personally) argue some point that I am not even disagreeing with in order to cut me off at some pass that I am not even headed for.
Let me ask YOU some questions: why did you and your sisters stand idly by and say nothing about feminism? Why do you not condemn women who engage in a skanky lifestyle? Why are you silent on women's bad deeds?
You are free to ask me any question you want to Mark. I am not guaranteeing that I will answer, but if I didn't I would tell you why. First, I cannot answer for other women, I can only answer for myself. I have repeatedly criticized feminism on my blog, on your blog, on EW's blog, and on others, including feminist blogs, as well as in my real life to "real life" feminists. I have also repeatedly condemned poor behavior, including skankiness, in all of those same places. Why do you assume that I have not, when I have done so on this blog in posts thay you have commented on and on your blog?
when you asked follow on questions, they didn't seem to reference the previous ones in a way that indicated that you were actually paying attention. For example, you should have asked, "Do you mean X, or do you mean Y by that?"
Mark, is there a specific exchange where you feel that my not referencing previous questions, or my not asking a clarifying question caused a lack of understanding? It seems to me that I did reference my previous questions and I did ask "did you mean x or y" questions. (for example: If I am not correct, please correct me. Or are you saying all women are feminists?, Well, I guess #3 came from her recent post, Are you saying that because feminism encouraged later marriage and women to engage in premarital sex, that removes complete responsibility from men to abstain from premarital sex (since we agree that is what is best)? Or just that women have more responsibility than men to be the gatekeepers)
Oh, and if you want to see why men think women are skanks, I just posted a comment by Zed; as of right now, it's the newest post on my blog, so check it out. He explains things beautifully there. If you don't get our point after reading THAT, then you never will
Again, that was not the question I asked. As I said when I answered Zed's question, I am well aware why men think women are skanks.
palsywalsy,
If you would like to give a specific example of when I talked about someone instead of responding to what they have said to me, please do so.
Kathy,
Thanks for the sympathy.
I don't know, perhaps I have been too optimistic to think things could be better.
Learner,
All I can say is this: from where I sit, from where I live my life every day, the vast majority of women are skanks-end of story. They're skanks in terms of conduct, clothing, and attitude. When most of the attention I've received from women in recent years has been from MARRIED women, am I supposed to think highly of them?
That, and I guess after having been on the RECEIVING END of feminist generalizations, I can't help but give back. We men have TRIED to discuss this sort of thing in a polite, respectful way, only to be called all sorts of names such as misogynists when we said or did nothing of the sort; we got accused of hating women and all that crap. IOW, being nice hasn't WORKED!
So, we figured we'd steal some pages from the feminist playbook, since you gals have soundly beaten our sorry asses in the war of the sexes! We figured that we'd study those who beat us, and then steal their strategies and tactics. Well, feminists are loud, obnoxious, and get in your face; they're mean; and they're relentless! Seems like they remade society by doing that; seems to me like they were successful beyond their wildest dreams. Why not imitate what they've done, since it's worked so well?
Then again, we're dealing with the WRITTEN word, which will not allow for the subtleties of communication to reveal the true meaning. So much gets lost via the written word. If we were talking face to face, then we might not be going around in circles...
MarkyMark
Learner, I probably contributed some to the volley of attacks you received. You probably noticed that I submitted, however clumsily, that perhaps men aren't blameless in this whole affair. You may have also noticed just how well that went over and how riled up the natives got. Then I realized I was waging a pointless, quixotic battle to open some minds, and so I withdrew from the fray. This left a lot of folks rather worked up and eager to find a new target.
And then you asked a question.
You're welcome!
All I can say is this: from where I sit, from where I live my life every day, the vast majority of women are skanks-end of story. They're skanks in terms of conduct, clothing, and attitude. When most of the attention I've received from women in recent years has been from MARRIED women, am I supposed to think highly of them?
Mark,
Okay, I'm confused. I'm not sure why you are telling me this again if you understood what I said about what my question was. You do understand that I understand what you said here, right? Or was there some other reason for you to say this?
Why not immitate what feminists have done? Well, there is the fact that what they did was wrong. I think they had to play dirty because they didn't have a leg to stand on. Feminism is unnatural and counter how God has designed men and women. Feminism couldn't stand on reality and simple fact, so they had rely on sound and fury that signifies nothing and to play dirty. They have no other cards to play.
Jesse,
Gee thanks! :)
Sometimes I am an optimist to the point of foolishness. I think that if people can just reason together they can come to a point of understanding. Sometimes that works well, sometimes it gets me what I got on that thread.
Learner,
I just had inspiration! I don't know if it's the Divine variety, but I've had inspiration nonetheless. I think I can answer your main question. I cannot answer all of them, but the main one you posited I can answer. Here goes...
You asked why men need to act under the assumption that women are automatically bad. I'll give you an analogy from riding a motorcycle that I think will clear this up for you...
When I'm out there riding, I act under the assumption that EACH & EVERY CAR DRIVER IS TRYING HIS BEST TO KILL ME! I act under the assumption that, until I know otherwise, that the cager is my enemy, and that this enemy is trying to destroy me, the motorcyclist. After all, all cars look alike from a distance; they don't do anything to distinguish themselves, do they? Intellectually, I know that this is not true; intellectually, I know that not all cagers are trying to kill me. However, until I know differently, I have to operate under that assumption. Having said that, there are a couple of important caveats that must be considered now...
Number one is simple physics; no matter how small a car is, it still has MORE MASS than the biggest bike out there. Even one of those diminutive Smart Cars is bigger than the biggest bike, say a Honda Goldwing. Furthermore, a car has protection in the form of a body, windows, and doors; a bike has none of that, save perhaps a front windshield. To put it another way, the biggest bike will lose in a collision with even the smallest car. So, simple physics dictates that I assume, as a motorcyclist, that every car is out to get me, because being wrong can be deadly.
Now, the second caveat to consider is this: between my time in the saddle and my time as a former, professional driver, I've seen all SORTS of insanity out there on the roads; it's as if cagers' stupidity and foolishness know no limits. For example, a couple of years ago, I was riding my motorcycle down I-287 when some cell phone yapping bitch in her Range Rover cut me off, missing my front wheel by only a few feet! Now, are all drivers like this? No, but considering the immense cost I'll pay for being wrong, I'll assume that all cagers are dopes until I can discern otherwise.
In short, when a cager first enters my field of view, I automatically assume that they're my enemy, and that they're trying to kill me. Upon further observation, if their conduct gives me reason to, I won't necessarily KEEP them in the 'enemy' category, but until I'm sure, I have to assume that they are. IOW, until they distinguish themselves, they remain in the 'enemy' category. Again, the laws of physics put me at a distinct disadvantage, due to smaller mass and no protection. If I'm wrong and some idiot cager hits me, best case scenario has be going off to the hospital with serious injuries; I can't afford to guess wrong, so until I know otherwise, I'll assume that all drivers are out to get me.
Now, what does this have to do with anything? Well, until I know otherwise, I assume that a woman will hate, fear, suspect, and disrespect me for being a man. I'll assume that, because of her hatred & fear, she too will be out to get me. Furthermore, because the laws and government are on her side, just as in the saddle, I'm operating a a distinct disadvantage WRT women. All it takes is one woman to point the finger in my direction, and I am destroyed-end of story. Oh, and it only takes ONE woman to do this!
IOW, let's say we have 1,000 women out there. Out of those thousand, 999 of them are good, with one of them bad. Well, if I cross paths with that one, evil woman, then the consequences are catastrophic for me, are they not?
Ergo, until I know otherwise, I assume that a woman is out to destroy me, because she hates me as a man. If she's college educated, then that is doubly true. After all, she's had at least four more years of feminist indoctrination, time in which her fears and hatred of men have been stoked to an even higher intensity. Add to that the collective SILENCE of women when it comes to man bashing, unjust divorce laws, and so on, what are we to assume, other than the fact that she agrees & supports these things?
Let me give you a great example. You're in your early 40s, so you're old enough to remember Lorena 'Slice & Dice' Bobbitt. When women across America CHEERED this, what, as a man, was I supposed to think?! When we didn't see other women crying out against this, what were we supposed to think? I'll tell you what we thought: that women hate us; they do not care about us as human beings; and that they indeed do not view us as such! From where I sat as a man back in the early 1990s when this happened, I found it, and still find it, hard to view women as anything other than the enemy. Sorry, but that's how it is.
You asked why men feel the need to categorize all women as skanks. Well, the ones who are not skanks do not do enough to DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES from those who are skanks. Just like when I'm in the saddle riding my motorcycle, until I see tangible evidence to the contrary, I'm assuming that a woman is a skank; that she's a feminist; that she hates me as a man; and that she'll try to destroy me because of that. To view women in any other way is to court disaster, because IT ONLY TAKES ONE to point the finger, an wreck my life-only one! It doesn't matter if every other woman out there is good; if I run into the evil one at the wrong time, then I'm toast. The only prudent course of action is to assume that all women are indeed 'like that'.
You want men to judge you as an individual, ma'am? Then ACT like it! Don't go along with every single trend like most other women do; don't be a herd creature like your typical woman! Do something to distinguish yourself in a good way, and guys just might be inclined to cut you some slack; they just might be inclined to judge you as an individual. Until I see that from a woman, I have to assume the worst, simply because being wrong is so costly for me as a man. I hope that THIS answers your question...
MarkyMark
Okay, I'll take a shot at answering the question too. (And, keeping in form, I'll see if I can't offend some folks in the process.) I can't really speak to the experience of older guys, as I haven't yet crossed the 30 line. So maybe from their point of view, they've gotten so much reinforcement and seen so many crappy women that they simply don't believe a lot of good women exist. Having grown up with the current generation of young-adult women in the West, I can understand this.
But I thought a commenter at MM's (Zed?) made a good point in bringing in the definition of hyperbole and showing that it's not intended to be taken seriously or word-for-word. I can't imagine any man who would truly, honestly say there can't possibly be a single non-skank woman (not even "good" but just anything meeting some threshold above "skank") on the face of the earth. So said man hated his mother that much? And any women in his extended family? And every single woman he's ever met? Read anything about? Heard about? Heard friends talk about? You get the idea...I just don't see this happening in the real world.
In other words, no man really takes the hyperbole he paints women with to be an absolute fact of the universe, regardless of whether or not he claims otherwise. It's just a convenient way of conveying the truth that "non-bad" women seem exceedingly rare, such that one need not make allowances as if he were dictating legalese every time he states the truth.
I was recently arguing with my father about this and I'll use here the same example here that I employed then. I'm from the middle of nowhere in the Midwest, so it's safe to assume as I walk on the streets of any East Coast city that nobody I see attended the same high school as me or even grew up in the same area of the state as me. Is that necessarily true? Well, no, there is always the possibility that I could happen across someone of similar roots. But assuming that not to be the case is sufficiently close to reality that I don't need to make allowances for the exceptions.
Granted, in this example I'm not really disrespecting people by assuming they're not from my town, and maybe the same isn't true of men viewing women. But still, the principle of using hyperbole to stereotype the world into something we can much more easily deal with and act according to is one that holds in both cases. And thus the use of hyperbole.
Actually, upon hitting the "preview" button, I think MM's analogy of motorcycles vs. cars and the image of a man simply avoiding destruction captures it a lot better...
Jesse,
Your analogy was good too. If Learner doesn't get it after THIS, then I give up!
MarkyMark
"Sometimes I am an optimist to the point of foolishness."
You and me both L!
Because I always try
to see the best in
men and women, I sometimes come across as disingenuous, I think.
c’est la vie.
Learner and Kathy,
Keep it up, because the world needs people like you to counterbalance the natural pessimists like me. And my camp seems to be growing in number. That's not news unless you lived in a cave for many years until recently, but there you go.
Mark,
Thank you for trying. I do appreciate it. If you would hang with me for just a bit longer I think if you can answer this question we may actually "get there". If you choose not to respond, that is fine too. You don't owe me any answers.
Until I see that from a woman, I have to assume the worst, simply because being wrong is so costly for me as a man.
Why do you have to assume "the worst" in order to choose to avoid the risk? Would you need the Dr. to tell you there was a 99% chance you would die from an operation before you could decide it was not worth the risk? Could you not make the same decision to avoid the risk even if there was, say, a 66% risk of death from the operation?
One other question for thought. If men assume all women are skanks, are we getting to the point that it is too risky for a non-skanky woman to associate with men?
Mark, that post just gets better every time I read it. It deserves a place of prominence, but for now it'll have to settle for some blog comments of my own...
Jesse,
Some days I get weary of counterbalancing the pessimists ;)
In other words, no man really takes the hyperbole he paints women with to be an absolute fact of the universe, regardless of whether or not he claims otherwise. It's just a convenient way of conveying the truth that "non-bad" women seem exceedingly rare, such that one need not make allowances as if he were dictating legalese every time he states the truth.
Jesse, some men act on the hyperbole as though it were fact. Not all, not even most, not even many, but some do. That is not very convenient for the 1 in 1000 "non-bad" woman that such a man runs across who gets treated like something she is not.
One other question for thought. If men assume all women are skanks, are we getting to the point that it is too risky for a non-skanky woman to associate with men?
Seems significant that you only said "men" without including a qualifier. Do you think all or most men view women that way? Do you think the "system" puts you at great inherent risk for being wrong in your judgment? If the answer to either is yes then I think you're onto something and you probably answered your own question as well.
But let me suggest that the odds of meeting a woman-scorning man and the potential lifelong consequences of associating too closely with one who does aren't on the same level as they are in the reverse. I'd actually be willing to give a little on the latter on account of rape and abuse, but certainly not the former. Playing defensively and "opting out" or being timid is far from the same as being on offense and having the hammer of the "justice" system to work with.
Learner,
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while I'll judge women as individuals, they have to prove to me that they're WORTHY of such benefit of the doubt. Until I see a REASON to take a woman out of the skank/feminazi category, I assume that she is. I know that not all women are like this, but until I KNOW DIFFERENTLY, my own safety dictates my caution. Again, it only takes ONE to destroy my life. I've been falsely accused, so I'm speaking from experience here. That one experience changed me forever; in many ways, it changed me forever...
MarkyMark
Learner said...
I would really like to ask in what way I have been hypocritical...if anyone can let me know I would appreciate it.
I thought long and hard about jumping in to this discussion - since I have stepped up to the role of "bad cop" and been very heavy-handed in making some of my points, and seriously doubt than anything I say at this point will get heard. But, a serious (and hopefully sincere) question does deserve a serious, and sincere, answer. I do hope that what I have to say will get heard, and I will put every effort into making the message as clear and un-confrontational as possible.
Thankfully, one of the "good cops" here pointed it out in a way that hopefully could be heard.
Jesse said...
Seems significant that you only said "men" without including a qualifier. Do you think all or most men view women that way?
Now, let me juxtapose his question with one of your points -
Learner said...
Could not some of the derailment involved in arguing the "but I didn't mean all women, I meant some women" be avoided by avoiding the hyperbole to begin with by saying "some women" or "most women" (or whatever is actually meant)?
Certainly. But, given that you have made such an issue about "hyperbole", why are you not practicing what you preach? If you are going to blame "hyperbole" for derailing discussions, is it not reasonable then to expect you to use the same techniques you offer as prescriptions for men?
Now, my point here is most emphatically not to jump on you for expressing yourself in that particular manner - because I actually know that it is the most natural thing in the world to be focussed on the thought you are trying to convey and not to spend all your time and effort parsing every word so that it cannot possibly be misconstrued.
But, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect of you that you grant the same kind of latitude toward "imperfections" in communication that you, yourself, might need from time to time. That is what actually faciliates and makes possible communication. There is a message sender and a message receiver. Both of them need to expend some cooperative effort to insure that the message gets across the interpersonal gap with its meaning intact.
Now, I read all your statements above about "you are answering a question I didn't ask." And, I know that men are working from a position of years of frustration over women SEEMING to be actively working to PREVENT the message from getting across, and thus tend to completely empty out Fibber McGee's closet on women - who are then overwhelmed as any human being would be.
So, I'm not going to do that and will confine my remarks to one question which you did clearly and unambigously ask - why did I call you a hypocrite.
I've already addressed the double standard of behavior - in which you blame the "derailment" of conversation on men's lack of qualifiers, but then yourself make statements without the qualifiers you are seeming to ask of men.
But, another point is the way that the issue seems to jump from shell to shell. Using the classic definition and example of "hyperbole" - "these books weight a TON" - the lack of precision and qualifiers in that context would provide no problem. You would undoubtedly take the intended meaning and understand that your friend was saying "these books are really heavy."
So, why in this other context are you appearing to behave entirely differently?
"Perhaps that is because building pyramids is not a negative thing."
So, is it that message is not being presented well enough, or that the message is negative which is the cause of the APPEARANCE of resistance to understanding the content?
I find it difficult to believe that you truly do not understand the use of hyperbole in general. I find it difficult to believe that if a friend of yours said "these books weigh a ton" that you would be as resistant to the feeling being conveyed. I find it much more plausible that the second reason you gave is the real reason - because the message is negative and women don't want to hear it.
So, what you are calling "hyperbole" is actually intense frustration on the part of men who have trying for years to get some points across to women, and encountering, WHAT APPEARS TO MEN to be universal resistance among women to hearing what men have to say.
When someone actively resists something you are trying to accomplish, it is virtually impossible to not view them as an opponent. In fact, that is the very literal dictionary definition of "opponent" - "one who opposes."
So, when women oppose us on our attempts to call women out on their bad behavior, and make excuses for it and attempt to justify it, it seems to us that they share the same values as the women who are the ones actually engaging in the behavior - that they share the same values and see nothing wrong with it.
So, a woman who shares the same values as a skank, a woman who sees absolutely nothing wrong with what the skank does and makes excuses for the skank's behavior, and is doing the skank's work of trying to silence and suppress objections to the skanks' behavior, looks absolutely no different than the skank does - to us men.
Now, you also asked this -
"Why do you think a woman might object to the statement "women are skanks"?"
A fair enough question. However, this takes place in the context of a long history in which the needs and feelings of women always take precedence over those of men.
As I said in my reply to you which MM pulled out and posted as its own post - the rules are changing more toward quid-pro-quo, something for something. In order to get men of the future to have regard and concern for women's feelings, women are going to have to start demonstrating concern or regard for men's feelings - even in those cases where women find it difficult to empathize with men.
So, I will end with these return questions -
Why do you think men might object to women APPEARING to justify the behavior of skanks, and dismissing men's perspectives as being of any significance?
And, just exactly what differentiates a "non-skank" who does justify such behaviors, and actively opposes men's attempts to hold them accountable, from an authentic "skank"?
Jesse,
Seems significant that you only said "men" without including a qualifier.
It took me a minute to figure out what you referring to, since I did qualify a similar statement in my reply to you. But I saw you were quoting what I said to MM. This was an error on my part due to fatigue (I am whooped because I am running our admissions process this week/weekend...I should not have been replying to comments that late when I was tired). Thank you for pointing it out to me so I could clarify.
Do you think all or most men view women that way?
As I said in my comment to you, no.
Do you think the "system" puts you at great inherent risk for being wrong in your judgment?
I am not sure what you mean by the "system", Jesse (the legal system maybe?). Could you elaborate?
If the answer to either is yes then I think you're onto something and you probably answered your own question as well.
Well I had one "no" and one "I am not sure what you mean" so could you explain what you are thinking here?
But let me suggest that the odds of meeting a woman-scorning man and the potential lifelong consequences of associating too closely with one who does aren't on the same level as they are in the reverse.
I would not disagree with this Jesse. I agree (as I have said) there is risk for men to associate with women under the current legal system. Are you saying for the risk to women to matter that it would need to be equal to or greater than the risk men face? If so, why is that?
Playing defensively and "opting out" or being timid is far from the same as being on offense and having the hammer of the "justice" system to work with.
I understand this. I am not equating them. I had come to the conclusion that because it seems to me that you guys are still answering the questions that I am not asking, that maybe you don't know the answer to the question that I am asking. The question you referenced above ( If men assume all women are skanks, are we getting to the point that it is too risky for a non-skanky woman to associate with men?)
was my tired brain carrying the situation out to it's logical conclusion. What is a women, who is not a skank, to do if men must assume she is a skank in order for them to decide that the risk of associating with women is too great for the man to take? If she has to "prove" to some men that she is not a skank, not for them to leave her alone, but for them to not treat her like a skank it seems to me that it would be in her best interest to have nothing to do with men who express those sorts of views.
Mark,
I know that not all women are like this, but until I KNOW DIFFERENTLY, my own safety dictates my caution. Again, it only takes ONE to destroy my life. I've been falsely accused, so I'm speaking from experience here. That one experience changed me forever
I think your caution is wise Mark. I would not tell you to do otherwise. Unfortunately I understand from personal experience about experiences changing you for life. I think that your experience of being falsely accused was a terrible and reprehensible thing and I am sorry that it happened to you.
I am wondering if perhaps you don't know the answer to my question Mark. Is that why you didn't answer my "operation risk" question?
Zed,
since I have stepped up to the role of "bad cop" and been very heavy-handed in making some of my points, and seriously doubt than anything I say at this point will get heard.
Well, I don't know why that would be so. What do you think you have said already that I have not heard that would lead you to think I would not hear you when you reply now? I ask this because I want to know, not in a rhetorical manner.
I do hope that what I have to say will get heard, and I will put every effort into making the message as clear and un-confrontational as possible.
You can be confrontational Zed. It just seems to me that you were confronting me about issues that I was not disagreeing with you about and not answering the question I was asking (or at least attempting to ask).
Thankfully, one of the "good cops" here pointed it out in a way that hopefully could be heard.
Jesse said...
Seems significant that you only said "men" without including a qualifier. Do you think all or most men view women that way?
I addressed this in my reply to Jesse.
Now, let me juxtapose his question with one of your points -
Learner said...
Could not some of the derailment involved in arguing the "but I didn't mean all women, I meant some women" be avoided by avoiding the hyperbole to begin with by saying "some women" or "most women" (or whatever is actually meant)?
Certainly. But, given that you have made such an issue about "hyperbole", why are you not practicing what you preach?
Fair question Zed. I know that you do not know me from Eve and are probably not very familiar with my blog, but I do try to avoid hyperbole and am open to clarifying when called on it. As I explained to Jesse I made the qualification in the comment right before that one, and out of fatigue and the late hour I neglected to use the qualifier in the comment to MM that Jesse asked about.
If you are going to blame "hyperbole" for derailing discussions, is it not reasonable then to expect you to use the same techniques you offer as prescriptions for men?
Absolutely it is reasonable. (Though I am curious at your use of this example of hypocrisy since it occurred after you suggested that I was being hgypocritical...what were you referring to when you made the comment about hypocrisy at MM's?)
Now, my point here is most emphatically not to jump on you for expressing yourself in that particular manner - because I actually know that it is the most natural thing in the world to be focussed on the thought you are trying to convey and not to spend all your time and effort parsing every word so that it cannot possibly be misconstrued.
Actually I do spend a good bit of time doing just that for my research.
But, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect of you that you grant the same kind of latitude toward "imperfections" in communication that you, yourself, might need from time to time.
I have no objection to granting all kinds of lattitude by asking the speaker (or writer) to clarify. This is why I often will ask men who say "all women are X" if that is what they really mean. It is not unusual at all for the men to tell me that yes, he means all women.
That is what actually faciliates and makes possible communication. There is a message sender and a message receiver. Both of them need to expend some cooperative effort to insure that the message gets across the interpersonal gap with its meaning intact.
Zed, I agree that both parties need to seek to understand eachother, which is why I was asking questions.
Now, I read all your statements above about "you are answering a question I didn't ask." And, I know that men are working from a position of years of frustration over women SEEMING to be actively working to PREVENT the message from getting across, and thus tend to completely empty out Fibber McGee's closet on women - who are then overwhelmed as any human being would be.
I am not sure what to say in response here except what is Fibber McGee's closet?
I could say that I am not working to prevent the message from getting across, but I have a inkling that you would not believe me since you appear to have decided that is true.
So, I'm not going to do that and will confine my remarks to one question which you did clearly and unambigously ask - why did I call you a hypocrite.
I've already addressed the double standard of behavior - in which you blame the "derailment" of conversation on men's lack of qualifiers, but then yourself make statements without the qualifiers you are seeming to ask of men.
I asked about this above...this happened after you said I was a hypocrite.
But, another point is the way that the issue seems to jump from shell to shell.
I'm not sure how it makes me a hypocrite because I make an argument that you disagree with or are not following, could you clarify?
Using the classic definition and example of "hyperbole" - "these books weight a TON" - the lack of precision and qualifiers in that context would provide no problem. You would undoubtedly take the intended meaning and understand that your friend was saying "these books are really heavy."
I don't think I addressed this "classic example" of hyperbole at MMs at all. I didn't address it because there was so much to say or respond to, and because this example did not relate to the "all women are skanks" statement because it did not involve the use of an insult or negative assumption that would negatively effect the subject of the hyperbole for whom it was not true. This was why I did address the "all men are abusers" as the comparison instead, because it was a more accurate comparison in type.
So, why in this other context are you appearing to behave entirely differently?
"Perhaps that is because building pyramids is not a negative thing."
I believe I have explained this above. I was pointing out the obvious difference between these examples of hyperbole you offered ("weighs a ton" and "Egyptians build pyramids")and "all women are skanks". I did this by pointing out that if you said "Egyptians are promiscuous" that Egyptians that are not promiscuous would object to this because it was a negative thing. Please notice I said Egyptians who are not promiscuous, not Egyptians who are promiscuous but don't want to admit it, and not Egyptians who are not promiscuous but want to deflect criticism away from those who are promiscuous.
So, is it that message is not being presented well enough, or that the message is negative which is the cause of the APPEARANCE of resistance to understanding the content?
I find it difficult to believe that you truly do not understand the use find it difficult to believe that you truly do not understand the use of hyperbole in general. I find it difficult to believe that if a friend of yours said "these books weigh a ton" that you would be as resistant to the feeling being conveyed. I find it much more plausible that the second reason you gave is the real reason - because the message is negative and women don't want to hear it.
There are a couple of things that I want to address here. First, my resistance to the hyperbole was not about the idea that many women are skanks, because I have no resistance to negative messages that are true and accurate. I have said as much repeatedly and I also do not justify skanky behavior. I clearly stated that I do not justify skanky behavior, and that I think bad behavior whould be pointed out in the thread. So, why would you presume that your second reason was more plausible when there was evidence to the contrary in what I said in the thread?
I objected to the hyperbole both because, as an exaggeration it is not true or accurate, and because it is a negative thing that has consequences for those of whom it is not true. There is no reason to be concerned that the books actually do not weigh a ton. The book is not being insulted thusly. There are no negative consequences for books that do not weigh a ton.
So, what you are calling "hyperbole" is actually intense frustration on the part of men who have trying for years to get some points across to women, and encountering, WHAT APPEARS TO MEN to be universal resistance among women to hearing what men have to say.
I understand that it is out of frustration, that much is quite obvious (though it still does not address what I was asking about). Also, at this point I have to ask, is it any wonder that I am concerned about being taken for a skank, when it is presumed that I am resisting a message even though there is evidence to the contrary?
When someone actively resists something you are trying to accomplish, it is virtually impossible to not view them as an opponent. In fact, that is the very literal dictionary definition of "opponent" - "one who opposes."
So, when women oppose us on our attempts to call women out on their bad behavior, and make excuses for it and attempt to justify it, it seems to us that they share the same values as the women who are the ones actually engaging in the behavior - that they share the same values and see nothing wrong with it.
Where did I oppose you on your attempts to call women out on their bad behavior, or make excuses for skanky behavior or attempt to justify it?
So, a woman who shares the same values as a skank, a woman who sees absolutely nothing wrong with what the skank does and makes excuses for the skank's behavior, and is doing the skank's work of trying to silence and suppress objections to the skanks' behavior, looks absolutely no different than the skank does - to us men.
Who is this women you are referring to who shares the same values as a skank, who sees absolutely nothing wrong with what the skank does and makes excuses for the skank's behavior, and is doing the skank's work of trying to silence and suppress objections to the skanks' behavior? Am I to assume you are saying that this describes me? If so, what have I said that gave you the idea that a single word of this was true about me. I am seriously asking this. Please be specific. Direct quotes would be helpful (as it would for all of my "where did I say" questions).
Now, you also asked this -
"Why do you think a woman might object to the statement "women are skanks"?"
A fair enough question. However, this takes place in the context of a long history in which the needs and feelings of women always take precedence over those of men.
As I said in my reply to you which MM pulled out and posted as its own post - the rules are changing more toward quid-pro-quo, something for something. In order to get men of the future to have regard and concern for women's feelings, women are going to have to start demonstrating concern or regard for men's feelings - even in those cases where women find it difficult to empathize with men.
I asked the question you refer to as a means of trying to get you to understand what I was really trying to ask ("the question"). I thought if you understood that there are bad consequences for women who are not skanks I could ask again why it was necessary to expose non skanky women to that risk. Men would still be able to decide that women are not worth the risk even if they are not "all skanks". In other words, why do women all have to be bad for men to opt out?
So, I will end with these return questions -
Why do you think men might object to women APPEARING to justify the behavior of skanks, and dismissing men's perspectives as being of any significance?
I would object to a woman who justified the behavior of skanks and who dismissed men's concerns (and in fact I have done so all over the blogosphere and in my everyday life).
And, just exactly what differentiates a "non-skank" who does justify such behaviors, and actively opposes men's attempts to hold them accountable, from an authentic "skank"?
I have no idea. Is one of these women supposed to be me? How so? I'll ask again, where have I justified skanky behavior? Where have I opposed men's attempts to hold skanks accountable? Please, feel free to hold skanks accountable for their behavior.
In closing (whew!), Zed, I thank you for the effort associated with your comment. I also want to reiterate that I asked all of these questions because I do want to know the answers.
By "system" I'm implying not only the legal system (though that is a big one for men) but society at large, in how it encourages and rewards behavior. For example, I'd say women are generally rewarded for making false accusations, or at the very least, shielded from any fallout for doing so (and thus not provided with as strong a disincentive). I'd also say women are encouraged to disparage men in public, as this is somehow seen as "asserting independence" or "being strong" or some such nonsense. So even if there isn't a legal fallout, for men there can be some risk to job, reputation, emotions, etc., just from getting too close (without even intending to) to the wrong woman.
So, do you think the same can be said of how men treat women, in general? Do you see enough dangerous actions from men around you that you have reason to tread with caution whenever they're around, so as not to bring undue harm upon yourself? If you viewed most men as despisers of women, playboys, or otherwise harmful to associate with, I figure you'd take steps to limit your interaction with them. If you think there great consequences to being wrong and you can't tell ahead of time if you're wrong, then I again figure you'd take steps to protect yourself out of mere self-interest, and understandably so. Otherwise, if the number of "those" men isn't high enough or the inherent risk isn't great enough, then why go out of your way to limit access to the potentially "good" ones? That's the line of thinking I was/am getting at.
Are you saying for the risk to women to matter that it would need to be equal to or greater than the risk men face?
Well, no, but my previous post was a bit off. I assumed you were basically asking whether the whole relationship situation is as poor for women as it is for men, which in hindsight was a leap. So let me back up and take another run at that one...
The amount of risk and danger required for women associating with men certainly doesn't have to be on par with what men see from their side in order to be worth considering. So, what exactly is the threshold at which point folks should start taking "above and beyond" precautions around the opposite sex? And are women there now? I don't have a good answer for either. Maybe it depends on the person? But, unfortunately, whatever the threshold is, I'd say for men it's already been crossed.
What is a women, who is not a skank, to do if men must assume she is a skank in order for them to decide that the risk of associating with women is too great for the man to take?
I don't think men must assume she is a skank but rather that it's prudent for men to assume she represents a real and present danger to their livelihood and be accordingly cautious in how much they just "let it out" lest they stupidly put themselves in trouble. Does this mean they don't respect women? It doesn't have to, and I'd hope it wouldn't. So I don't see that a woman puts herself in danger by associating with men who treat women with both respect and caution.
But the bar she has to meet in order to build a stronger, more personal (i.e. more risky) relationship could be higher than she thinks is fair. And she's right in a sense; that isn't being fair toward good women. But what choice do men have? As I see it, the thinking behind this is fair. As MM's motorcycles vs. cagers post pointed out, like it or not the wise thing to do from a man's POV is often to assume danger (not necessarily skankiness though) and set the standards for thinking otherwise high enough for self-preservation. The goal is to keep out as many bad ones as possible, so to speak, not let in as many good ones as possible.
If she has to "prove" to some men that she is not a skank, not for them to leave her alone, but for them to not treat her like a skank it seems to me that it would be in her best interest to have nothing to do with men who express those sorts of views.
Agreed. If a man has already concluded that all women might as well be filthy, vile creatures, then his behavior would reflect that and he's probably not worth dealing with. But I don't see the danger in associating with men who are respectful (or at least not disrespectful) but don't give you the benefit of the doubt. They would seem to be worth dealing with because they're willing to regard you in particular more highly as they are provided more reasons to. That goes along with how you answered the first two questions about odds and risk; if the odds or risk were vastly against you then there would obviously be more danger to consider.
i'm going to jump in here without reading the original, referenced post and thread, but i have read all the comments posted here.
first, to the men, i believe that learner is innocent in that she is not trying to pull a fast one on anyone ... she is simply, sincerely, honestly, trying to understand that which she does not.
i think the comment, i believe made by mark, that written communication lacks what we might be able to achieve face-to-face, is extremely valid here, and i believe that if you were to talk with learner (which i have several times) i think you would find her to be sincere and without a hidden agenda.
***
i think that i might, to some degree, understand what the men are saying and why the hyperbole.
i was sexually abused by my dad, abused in many ways by both of my parents, and abused by my first (and only)/ex husband.
it has taken many years of intentional work, years in therapy with an excellent, biblical, male counselor, several support groups, and mentors to be where i am today.
yet, for the longest, i classified all men as perpetrators ... why? because i was unable to distinguish between a healthy man and an abusive man. did that mean that all men were abusers? no. it meant that i was unable to differentiate between the two. does this mean i was wrong to do so? no. i needed to protect myself until i was able to work through all the sewage and get to a place where i could be taught the difference ... and i had to be willing to be taught the difference ... and to be willing to be taught the difference, i had to be in therapy for a looong time with a man who took the time to develop a significant trust-level with me.
are all men wrong? no. am i all wrong? no. are some men perpetrators? yes. am i sometimes wrong? yes.
i used to be so fearful of all men that if a man walked into a waiting room and sat close to me, i would have to move or leave so as not to hyperventillate and have a complete panic attack. is that wrong of me? no. it was indicative of what i'd been through and where i was in my recovery, or in my working through my past and moving forward into my future.
is this still a problem for me? sometimes. is it wrong of me? no. it is simply indicative of my experience.
it is better for me to err on the side of protecting myself than to err on the side of allowing myself to be victimized again. does that mean i might move away from a healthy man because my insecurity and fears kick in, and for whatever reason, my ability to reason and pull out all that i have learned and apply it to that particular situation isn't mentally accessed at that moment? yes. (could be b/c i'm exhausted ... could be b/c i'm dealing with a sick child who is taking all my attention ... could be b/c of many different variables).
does any of this make me bad? no. it makes it what it is.
unfortunately, this has caused me to be overly cautious of healthy men, though they probably would not even know this is all going on inside my head.
fortunately, God is good, and He is patient with me ... and He has continued to teach me, sometimes a tiny grain of sand at a time, Truth. and the Truth is that not all men are bad, not all men are perpetrators, not all men hurt little girls.
my therapist said something to me once that continuously rings in my head. he said, "Ame, your dad was only one man." i don't need to continuously cross-generalize all men to be like my dad.
so, now as a 44 year old woman, i am divorced from an abusive sex addict who preferred prostitutes over me, with whom i have two incredibly beautiful daughters, inside and out. (and i'm not being all motherly here on my evaluation of their beauty; they are truly beautiful with great personalities).
i have had both my girls in counseling since the divorce. their first counselor took both girls through an age-appropriate workbook to teach children what is and is not appropriate behavior for another person toward them and their body ... b/c they have a dad who has made so many inappropriate choices ... though, so far, he has not sexually abused them in anyway.
i have to teach my girls about legal and moral and appropriate behavior and teach them how to protect themselves in various situations ... b/c i have to send them to their dad's every other weekend.
to balance this, i must also teach them that God made men, as well as women, in His image ... and that this is a good thing.
now i am engaged to an incredible man who is kind and good and doesn't abuse us in any way. my oldest, who is 11, is having the most difficulty with the coming marriage. she often says, "Mommy, the only thing I know (in a dad-like figure) is bad. I'm scared he will be the same. How do I know he will be good to me and not mean, Mommy?"
she has valid concerns. her only experience is with a dad who is mean and selfish and beligerent and has a violent temper.
but i know not all men are bad, and i want my girls to know not all men are bad, so i will marry this man, who is a gift from God to all three of us, and i will allow God to slowly teach my daughter that there really are good men out there.
***
it seems from what i am learning out here in the single world (i was married the first time for 20 years and married at the age of 21) that if this situation i just described that i have experienced were reversed ... in that if i were male and my perpetrators were female ... and my responses to women were the same as my responses are to men, that i would be more highly critisized. it seems to me that men are not allowed the same favor as women when it comes to protecting themselves from people who could hurt them, again. it seems, from what i am hearing the men say, that there is a double-standard ... that it is okay for women to mistreat men, for whatever reason, including valid reasons ... but it is not okay for men to mistreat women, for whatever reason, including valid reasons.
i must state here ... learner is not and never has abused or mistreated any man. i am not stating that at all or inferring that at all on any level. i am simply making a comment based on what i believe i am perceiving out here.
***
i believe i am also seeing out here a difference in the ways men and women think and process information, and i believe that is leading to some of the misunderstandings.
***
i continue to learn about men, healthy men. blogging has been a safe way for me to learn about healthy men, and Amir and SXM have both been instrumental in teaching me much about healthy men. they have both been wounded by women, but they have both taken the time to be as objective as possible and to listen to me and to discuss issues with me with as much objectivity as possible. i am thankful for the men who have been able to do this so i could learn about men from healthy men.
if not for these men and what i have learned, i would not be in this relationship with my fiance, so i am eternally grateful for them.
***
Mark said:
"When most of the attention I've received from women in recent years has been from MARRIED women, am I supposed to think highly of them?"
interesting ... it's been about 13 years since i worked outside the home in the corp world, but when i did, i was a married woman ... and i was often hit on by men, both single and married. (and being conservative, especially in the way i dress and present myself, has always been priority for me) i learned to make significant choices to present myself as a married woman and to put my husband, figuratively, between myself and men i worked with. so i believe you when you say you have received more attn from married women than single woman. i am sorry for that.
after i posted my comment, i saw that Learner and Jesse also posted comments ... so i did not read those last two before writing mine.
***
i wanted to come back out here to say to the men ... Learner is on your side. her questions are innocent. she is trying to learn, not to oppose you. she is not trying to engage you in battle. i believe it would be wise for you to teach her and bring her in on your team ... she is a great asset in what you are trying to say ... and she will willingly try to convey your message to women who need to hear it.
Ame,
I believe that Learner is sincere, and that, if not on our side, is at least symPathetic to our POV. Having said that, on NG's forum, we had a woman like her; her handle was 'My Name is Kelly'. MNIK would ACT like she was on our side, but would ask incessant questions so as to subtly undermine us, our views, and our arguments. It took a long time to see that. Unfortunately, we ended up banning her, something we seldom do to anyone on there. In my 4+ years on the forum, I think we've only banned a handful of people, BTW.
Anyway, we're TRYING to answer her questions, and we don't seem to be getting through at all! I've taken my best stab at it, and I'm not going to say any more. When you REPEATEDLY answer a question only to be met by more, it comes off in different ways, none of them good. Is the person not listening? Are they not understanding? Do they give a hoot about understanding? I could go on, but you get my point. Anyway, this causes frustration for those of us trying to answer the question, and feeling as if we're getting nowhere...
MarkyMark
Ame, Jesse, Mark,
Thank you for your comments. I will be back tonight to respond.
Oops, didn't mean to leave you out Kathy.
Mark,
i think your frustration is valid. communication, at it's best, is difficult. add in the multi-faceted levels here in these discussions, and it borders on impossible.
i am sorry for the woman you had to ban who abused you. that is not right.
i think there are some other factors here to perhaps consider. at no fault of her own, learner has never been married. therefore, she has not been in a relationship with a man where she was forced to learn to communicate with him ... and given lots of practice to be successful (though communication btw men and women is a continuous challenge to remain successful).
even with all i've been through, communicating with my fiance is work. why? because men's brains and women's brains are wired differently.
your concerns seem so simple to you men, so cut and dry, so black and white. but, because God wired us differently, it is not simple to women.
i think the books, *For Women Only* and *For Men Only* do a great job of illustrating these truths.
given all of this, if you determine learner to be on your side, if you determine that she have no hidden agenda, if you determine that she is truly sincere, then i would hedge that it be worth the risk to continue to work with her while striving to avoid making her feel deficient because it takes her awhile to 'get it.'
it comes across to me, personally, if i may be so bold, that the message you men have is sincere and valid and very important, however, sometimes, your approach is offensive toward women. if this is not a concern for you, then you can be whatever you care to be. however, if you care for your message to reach those whom i believe it should reach, then, perhaps, if you desire, you might want to consider how to tap into the brains of women in a way that makes it into their brains. admittedly, this would not be easy. just a glance through any bookstore on communication btw men and women and how much shelf space they allow for this topic will show you how difficult it is.
but there are some women, like learner and myself, who really do care to get your message. had i not come to know Amir and SXM, had i not learned from them, had i not heard your message from their pov, i would not have been successful in my relationship with my fiance. they were able to tap into my brain in ways that made sense to me. i wholly support them and their message.
think of it as though women run on 110 volt and men on 220 ... and we need adaptors to connect the two together. none of this is wrong or bad, it just is. finding the right adaptor, though ... that is the challenge.
in this discussion with learner, both you men, and she, are trying to find the right adaptor so you can plug into each other and both understand each other.
if learner did not think you were worth the time, she would have bugged out long ago. however, i believe she really does care about you and your message, so therefore she is sticking in there and trying to understand and learn.
i think your anaolgies are excellent. there's a book called *The Language of Love* if i remember correctly, that shows people how to use word pictures in order to communicate with each other ... which is what you have done with excellence here. that she has yet to fully understand what you are trying to say does NOT suggest failure on anyone's part ... it simply suggests that she has yet to understand.
find the right engine and the right parts for the right bike, and you'll all be smooth sailin down the highway for miles and miles.
btw, Mark ... i had to look up appliance plugs to find the 110 and 220 ... i knew there were two, but i couldn't remember what they were ... all i could think of was 12v ... like the battery! i imagine there's not hardly a man around who wouldn't be able to pop off 110 and 220 off his head without thinking about it :)
Jesse,
Thank you for your response. WRT your description of the "system", no, I know that the same cannot be said of how men treat women in general.
Otherwise, if the number of "those" men isn't high enough or the inherent risk isn't great enough, then why go out of your way to limit access to the potentially "good" ones? That's the line of thinking I was/am getting at.
This statement, with the genders switched, is approaching what I have been trying to ask about. I understand that given the current "system" there is a very real risk to men. It is the other part (if the number of "those" men isn't high enough)that is close to the issue.
So, what exactly is the threshold at which point folks should start taking "above and beyond" precautions around the opposite sex? And are women there now? I don't have a good answer for either. Maybe it depends on the person? But, unfortunately, whatever the threshold is, I'd say for men it's already been crossed.
I understand that the threshold for men taking above and beyond precautions, of both the level of risk and the number of women who are "risky", has been crossed for men. What I am asking about is, why it is important that men consider the probability of skankiness (or another quality...it is just that skankiness was the point in the thread at Mark's) to be so high (all women, or even 95%) in order to decide that the risk is not worth it?
I don't think men must assume she is a skank but rather that it's prudent for men to assume she represents a real and present danger to their livelihood and be accordingly cautious in how much they just "let it out" lest they stupidly put themselves in trouble.
What you have said here sounds quite reasonable to me Jesse. Do you see a difference between assuming that all women represent a significant danger and assuming that all women are skanks?
So I don't see that a woman puts herself in danger by associating with men who treat women with both respect and caution.
I would agree with this Jesse. Caution and prudence are wise for men in the current "system".
I think the problem comes when a man assumes the "skank part", because that is going to influence the respect (or as you said, lack of disrespect) with which he treats women.
But the bar she has to meet in order to build a stronger, more personal (i.e. more risky) relationship could be higher than she thinks is fair. And she's right in a sense; that isn't being fair toward good women. But what choice do men have?
I am not really concerned about the height at which the bar is set. I totally support the right of men to set that bar anywhere they want, including at the "no way is this ever happening" level.
As I see it, the thinking behind this is fair. As MM's motorcycles vs. cagers post pointed out, like it or not the wise thing to do from a man's POV is often to assume danger (not necessarily skankiness though) and set the standards for thinking otherwise high enough for self-preservation. The goal is to keep out as many bad ones as possible, so to speak, not let in as many good ones as possible.
I understand this Jesse, and agree that Mark's motorcycle example is a good one with regard to the question of the amount of caution a man should use around women. However it does not explain why hyperbole is necessary in order to set the bar of caution as high as any man wants to. This was what I was trying to get at when I asked Mark Why do you have to assume "the worst" in order to choose to avoid the risk? Would you need the Dr. to tell you there was a 99% chance you would die from an operation before you could decide it was not worth the risk? Could you not make the same decision to avoid the risk even if there was, say, a 66% risk of death from the operation?
But I don't see the danger in associating with men who are respectful (or at least not disrespectful) but don't give you the benefit of the doubt.
I agree Jesse.
Thank you for being willing to have this exchange with me. It is helpful for me to understand.
Ame,
Thank you for your kind words. I am about done in right now though, so I need to sleep and I will respond tomorrow :)
Ame,
On second thought, I'll make one point while I am thinking of it. What you have said about your feelings about men due to your experiences does seem parallel in some ways. I think some questions may help (if anything it too personal you can email me the answer if you prefer, or tell me to shove off! ;) ) When you were feeling fear around men, even though you were very cautious, would you have said that all men were perpretators if asked about it? In your mind did all men have to be predators in order for you to decide that the risk was too great for you to associate with them them (I think you did say this but I want to be sure)? You say that it was because you could not tell the difference between good men and bad men. I can understand that. I wonder if the men would think that is true for them as well, or if it is another reason or reasons.
Learner - that is absolutely true. in my mind, all men were perpetrators. in all honesty, i'm not far from that now, but i am better. i KNOW not all men are perpetrators, but it is still very difficult.
i will not allow my girls to play with friends when only their dad is home unless i know both parents really, really, really well and trust them both. that takes time, but there are a few dad's out there that i trust enough to allow my girls to play with their daughter's without the mom home.
another reason i have a very difficult time distinguishing between healthy men and perpetrators is that, more often than not, little girls who have been sexually abused grow up to marry abusive men (which i did). that makes my hyper-sensitive to fear that i may make that same choice again. in other words, i do not easily trust my own judgement.
one of the reasons i have come to trust men like Amir and SXM is that i have emailed them and asked them questions which they have freely answered. not questions like, "are you a perpetrator," and i honestly cannot even think of any right now. but when i've had questions of any nature, related to this topic or not, they have freely answered.
before 'meeting' these two men, there were several other men who took the time to answer some very pointed questions which were related. they were patient and honest with me. one man's wife emailed me with some of the answers, and the three of us have become good friends.
i must say here that i am VERY cautious with married men. there are healthy boundaries which i strictly adhere to. i respect and honor the institution of marriage. period.
my fiance and i have discussed these issues at great length, and he continues to allow me to bring up these discussions. he answers every question i ask honestly ... and what has been so, well, shocking to me, is that he has answered the questions all so healthy ... like what i've heard and read healthy men are like. i know this may sound weird, but he's proving to me that there really are healthy men out there.
in all honesty, i will probably never be able to walk into a room with men and feel comfortable and not put up a guard to protect myself from the 'what if.' the wounds inflicted on me were too young and too deep and from the very men i should have been able to trust in my life. i cannot change that or remove it from my psyche.
so i do understand these men who use a broad stroke to paint 'all women' as one certain thing.
and i do understand that they continue to do so.
what saddens me ... is that they DO continue to do so with such pain and bitterness from the wounds inflicted by women who have gone before those like you and me.
it is easy to gather a bunch of buddies around and bash women and keep the wounds stirred up. it is even natural to do so.
i think it is difficult to come to a place where one decides enough is enough ... and it's time to heal. healing, though, does NOT mean forgetting ... it DOES mean taking the time necessary to forgive ... forgiving does NOT mean forgetting. there is a reason wounds leave scars ... there are things we are to remember so as not to be wounded again. but living with such anger and pain is hard; i know. but healing is really, really, really hard, too.
i also am NOT saying that by forgiving and healing these wounds one would automatically *love* all women. that would be unrealistic. these men have been deeply wounded. it would be foolish for them to trust implicitely. however, they might be able to come to a place where they are able to protect themselves with something other than anger. that is very hard to do. most of the time i can do that; sometimes i cannot.
Learner ... i will also add this. my fiance is shocked, SHOCKED, at what he does for me that amazes and astounds and surprises and shocks me ... all things he sees as 'normal.' he is shocked b/c he cannot believe that these things would be so abnormal to me when they are so normal to him. i expect to be treated poorly. i expect to be hurt. i expect to be treated with unkindness and meanness and hate.
but he does nothing of the sort.
and in his shock, he realizes just how badly i've been hurt in my life, and it breaks his heart. he says to me all the time, and pls forgive me for stating it just the way he says it, but he says, "you've been shit on all your life, and that is ending now."
i believe him ... and then i don't. i believe him as he continues to prove he's not going to follow in the footsteps of the men who've gone before in my life. but i do live in fear he will somehow change and become like them.
he is EXTREMELY patient with me. his extreme patience and unconditional love, something i have NEVER experienced before, are bringing to light just how insecure and fearful i really am. and he handles my insecurities and fears with ease; they are not a burden to him. i know, know, know God has raised this particular man up for me, because to be very honest, i am a LOT of work.
and to top all that off, he's put up with all the other hell my ex has dumped into my life these last eight months, all of which you are well informed.
and perhaps God arranged it all this way. he and i began dating in june, and this hell with my ex began in july. this man has stuck with me through hell, and is still in this hell with me, and he's not leaving. he tells me all the time that he is not leaving, he is here, he is permanent. perhaps, as i write and think about this here, God knows how much i need to know in the depths of my heart that i am loved, no matter what, because i have never ever known that kind of love before.
***
when in my sexual abuse recovery group, we spent a lot of time on forgiveness. basically, the depth of the offence determines the length of time and depth of work needed to forgive that offense. if someone accidentally steps on your barefoot with boots on, that can easily be forgiven and forgotten, (unless they are someone you are around often and continue to do the same thing ... then you'd be smart to remember so you keep your bare feet far away from their boots!)
these men have been wounded deeply, and the process of forgiveness will be significant, if, in fact, they ever get to that place.
forgiveness is giving up the right to get even. it is NOT forgetting. it is NOT allowing that person to do the same again. it is NOT stating that the offense was 'okay.' the offense was NOT oaky. they should NOT forget how they were wounded. and they should NOT allow that person to do the same again. yet in giving up the right to get even, when we forgive, we no longer hold the offense over the head of the person who offended.
forgiveness is ALL about the person wounded and NOTHING about the person who did the wounding.
forgiveness is also nothing about whether or not it is received. if you offend me, and i forgive you, i am not responsible for whether or not you accept and receive my forgiveness. as a matter of fact, there are times when it is unsafe to even confront one's offender, even to let them know they have been forgiven.
***
one of the writers who commented said you need to prove yourself not to be like the women they've experienced before ... that you need to distinguish yourself from them.
he is correct. and that is difficult to understand.
i am hoping that eventually i will no longer be fearful of my fiance, ever. but i have many reactive fears from my past experiences. i am hoping that he and i will develop so many new, healthy ways to act/respond that these new ways will begin to become my new normal and drown out the previous experiences.
is it his fault that he must do this? absolutely not. he never abused me. but he is paying the price for those who have gone before him and wounded me so deeply.
does that give me liberty to just lay it on him? absolutely not. i must still take responsiblity for myself and my emotions and my feelings and my experiences and my behaviour.
it's a very fine line, really. there are some, like Amir and SXM, who tread it well. they, too, have been deeply wounded. but their forgiveness and grace are evident.
Learner,
To answer your question, please do the following: 1) spend some time on Askmen.com reading the dating & love advice for men; 2) spend some time checking out PUA websites & shows, such as The Pickup Artist on VH1; 3) look at the fact that 70% of single women voted for Obama.
Why is the latter important? Because it shows the players of the world to be right; because it shows that women will fall for a smooth talkin' devil's line of BS.
Is that not what the PUAs say? PUAs posit that, if you just push a woman's emotional buttons right, you'll take 'em to bed every time. PUAs who are successful with women hold very harsh opinions of them. You can go to Uzem & Luzem's blog to read some of what he says; he's a successful PUA, and his opinion is that the vast majority of women are skanks. Ergo, assuming most women are skanks will be accurate. I hope that this answers your question.
MarkyMark
Oh, and check out GGW and the Travel Channel's series on the world's nicest beaches. They had a show on Spring Break, and it showed your typical, 'nice' college girl next door acting like ANYTHING but!
Mark,
It seems to me that you are answering the question, "why do men think women are skanks?". As I have said, that is not the question. I am well aware that the sexual morals of many women are apalling. I visited the blog you refer to once many months ago and that was more than enough to illustrate the depths many human beings have sunk to. Beyond that I work at a public university that is in the top 10 party schools every year and overhear spring break stories in person. I cannot figure out why you think that I don't get this point. I have acknowledged it in almost every reply. I will briefly say that I doubt that the women portrayed in the TV shows and blogs you mention represent the entire population of young women. Only about 50-60% of my female students go on "spring break" to the beach. They don't all party either, at least 1/3 of them don't drink at all. But, the young women who are not at spring break and who are not out partying are not going to be who people write blogs about or do TV shows about.
I think if you can answer one question we may be able to move toward you understanding what the question is. I have asked this question of you twice before and you have not answered it. The question is: Why do you have to assume "the worst" in order to choose to avoid the risk? Would you need the Dr. to tell you there was a 99% chance you would die from an operation before you could decide it was not worth the risk? Could you not make the same decision to avoid the risk even if there was, say, a 66% risk of death from the operation? How about answering this question at face value? I am not going to pin you to any parallel to the actual question. I just think it will help you to draw the parallels and in doing so will make the original question more clear.
Ame,
I do understand what you are saying and thank you for sharing that. I just wonder if the men would say they are coming from the same place.
Learner,
I'll take your question at face value; I'll take it LITERALLY, as stated and written; even then, it doesn't make sense! I'll answer it as I best understand it...
While I can't put a percentage of success on an operation to decide whether or not to go through with surgery in your hypothetical, I'll simply lay out a general principle I'd follow. If the surgery were to ameliorate the pain in my knees, then neither percentage would work for me. Whether you're using the 66% figure or the 99% figure, we're talking probable to certain death for a sore knee; in that case, no I don't do it.
However, let's say I have a bad heart, and nothing will cure it EXCEPT this experimental technique. If I don't have the operation, I will definitely die. However, if I have the operation and it is successful, then I'll take a chance; even if there's a 66% chance of dying in the operating room, I'd do it. Why? Simply because the alternative, certain death, is worse than probable death, which your scenario proposes.
I hope that this answers your question. Your question was poorly phrased though, because as presently worded, it doesn't quite make sense; I took a GUESS at what you meant. My dinner is ready, so I have to go...
MarkyMark
Zed,
If you see this comment there is one other thing from one of your last comment's at Mark's I would like to clarify.
For me, one starting point might be a woman who knows why women shouldn't sleep around when young, get married, then get a divorce and take her husband to the cleaners. It's one of those things that you either know or you don't. With someone who doesn't, it is exhausting and futile to try to explain it to them.
I did not ask the question because I don't know why this behavior is reprehensible. The behavior of any woman who engaged in those sorts of things should be condemned. I asked it because you seemed to be taking a sort of cultural/moral relativistic approach. It was the logic of that way of determining acceptable behavior that I was questioning.
Mark,
My question didn't really have anything to do with the probability of the success of the operation. It had to do with how high a risk has to be before it is too great to consider. If the risk the outcome would be bad was at 66% would that not be a great enough risk to decline? Would you have to think of the risk at a 99% level to decline?
I am actually coming to a greater understanding of the answer to my question through all the bits and pieces, even if the question still may not be clear to you or to others here. Actually I just read a comment from your buddy Christopher at your blog that helped me understand a bit more as well. I do think you for your willingness to try.
oops, thank you, not think you! Hope you enjoyed your dinner.
Learner,
If the question were about risk assessment and risk management, then I think that I best answered that one via the motorcycling analogy. I don't know how else to answer this.
MarkyMark
Mark,
It's okay. I think I get some of the why of it now, though I'm not sure that the whys are helping you guys. Thanks again for your effort.
Learner,
Your questions seem to center around the use of hyperbole, in which case we just disagree on how damaging or degrading it is I think. I don't dispute that it's often used and is unnecessary. But I don't see it as a bad thing really, but more as simply colorful communication. That's the point I made in my first response, with statements like
It's just a convenient way of conveying the truth that "non-bad" women seem exceedingly rare, such that one need not make allowances as if he were dictating legalese every time he states the truth
and
the principle of using hyperbole to stereotype the world into something we can much more easily deal with and act according to is one that holds in both cases
So I guess I'm back to the point of saying hyperbole is out there and is unnecessary, but isn't a big enough deal for me to take into account in and of itself in most cases. I usually get the idea behind it, or at least I think I do.
That being said, I wouldn't use it in just any setting, and I do see where it could be unnecessarily offensive or repulsive in a collateral damage sense. For example, I wouldn't go to an event with mixed company and start shooting off about how all women in the world are bad, nor would I go to lunch with a group from my church and talk about how all contemporary worship stinks. But over at MM's or with close friends I do every so often paint the other half in simplistic terms, not because I believe the literal meaning of it but because I'm not worried about shocking or offending anyone present (and I just like to vent sometimes). Or when I'm talking with family or close friends I might blast contemporary worship styles and poke fun at them, but not because I intend to degrade them but because I'm just expressing an opinion in strong language to people who are familiar with how I feel.
I guess, all that to say, I don't see the use of hyperbole in such settings as a bad thing. Context matters. And there is a difference between hyperbole and bitterness...is it the latter that you're really getting at more?
Jesse,
I am actually learning a great deal through this (about issues in my own life even), some of which I don't think I can articulate well at this point. The issue goes beyond hyperbole, but I didn't realize that at first.
I dislike hyperbole in most situations and prefer people say what they mean and mean what they say. I don't think all hyperbole is harmful, though I think, as you mentioned, that in the wrong situation it can be a problem.
Hyperbole is usually a problem in a discussion where people are attempting to communicate about something, especially if they are not understanding eachother. Particularly about controversial issues, because people will latch onto the falseness of the hyperbole instead of your point.
Women, even women who may otherwise be inclined to listen, may be turned off by the kind of hyperbole that is common on some MRA blogs. I also realize many of these guys are beyond the point of caring if they facilitate the ability of women to "hear" them or not. I started this blog because I want women to hear and get it, so it concerns me.
However, what I am coming to realize is that some of these guys are so averse (for valid reasons) to being vulnerable to a woman that they actually do need to think of all women as bad to protect themselves. That's what was not making sense to me...the need (and I do think for some it is a need) to think of all women that way. I could not figure out why it would not be enough to think "Well, 2/3 (or whatever) of women are "bad" and the risk is just too high for me, so I will stay away from them".
That may seem obvious, but it was not to me, because my brain doesn't work that way (which, by the way is not necessarily a good thing for me).
So, yeah, maybe it isn't really hyperbole. And, I don't know that it is bitterness either (though I know for me personally that unforgiveness has held me back). So, I'm not sure what to call it, though I think I understand better. Thanks for your input bro!
Post a Comment