Schoolgirls attack sexual predator!

October 31, 2003 11:09 AM

Schoolgirls attack sexual predator!Kind of awesome in its own "aha, the tables are turned" way--but schoolgirl mob mentality can be horrifying.
posted by jennanemone (225 comments total)

Was Jessica involved?
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:19 AM on October 31, 2003

No pictures! Damnit.
posted by scottq at 11:19 AM on October 31, 2003

Dar Williams' flinty kind of women come to life!
posted by jburka at 11:28 AM on October 31, 2003

No pictures! Damnit.


posted by jpoulos at 11:29 AM on October 31, 2003

And we have just witnessed the spawning of a whole new porn fetish, Catholic School Girl's Kicking Ass.

Oh boy, where's the fetish site to see late 20's "teenagers" abusing fat, ugly balding losers?
posted by fenriq at 11:30 AM on October 31, 2003

The girls came and started kicking him and punching him thereby supplying him with fantasy material for the rest of his life.
posted by alms at 11:34 AM on October 31, 2003

I love this! Finally revenge for all the crap the school girls put up with. Maybe that'll keep his mind clear the next time the "urge" comes over him.
posted by Red58 at 11:34 AM on October 31, 2003

Don't feel it was mob mentality, just chasing off a predator from a private area then giving him a whacking before he did the same.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:38 AM on October 31, 2003

I had three nearly simultaneous reactions:
a. Awesome!
b. So were they wearing those pleated...oh never mind.
c. The turd probably enjoyed it.
posted by jalexei at 11:40 AM on October 31, 2003

Just for you, scottq.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:42 AM on October 31, 2003

Don't feel it was mob mentality, just chasing off a predator from a private area then giving him a whacking before he did the same.

I think I just wanted to emphasize that one should never underestimate the potential ferocity of a pack of angry schoolgirls.
posted by jennanemone at 11:44 AM on October 31, 2003

Hehe, sounds like a lost episode of Sailor Moon.

Good for them. And if anybody gets the brilliant idea that these girls should be prosecuted for beating this wanker? I'd like to remind them that according to the article he'd already done this 7 times and had yet to be caught. Is the vice squad is too busy pretending to be 13 year old girls on the internet?
posted by ilsa at 11:46 AM on October 31, 2003

For extra fun, picture them dressed as Japanese school girls. And armed with katanas or big long chains with spikey balls at the end.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:46 AM on October 31, 2003

I think I just wanted to emphasize that one should never underestimate the potential ferocity of a pack of angry schoolgirls.

Truer words were never spoken.
posted by jokeefe at 11:54 AM on October 31, 2003

Sorry to interfere with anyone's internal pictures - but here's a fuller story (before suspect was named) with photo.
posted by soyjoy at 11:56 AM on October 31, 2003

Soyjoy,

So that photo taken before they made themselves up for crash's photo, right?
posted by smcniven at 12:01 PM on October 31, 2003

I think I just wanted to emphasize that one should never underestimate the potential ferocity of a pack of angry schoolgirls.

You're telling me.
posted by majcher at 12:13 PM on October 31, 2003

Damn soyjoy, they're not anywhere near as hot as the other pic above. Now the whole fantasy's been ruined.
posted by fenriq at 12:27 PM on October 31, 2003

Reality does that.
posted by thekorruptor at 12:29 PM on October 31, 2003

Lunch Money, the card game of school girls kicking the crap out of each other at recess.
(no, seriously, it's fun!)
posted by mkultra at 12:30 PM on October 31, 2003

Having lived in Philthy for a few years, it is very easy for me to see this happening.
posted by adampsyche at 12:32 PM on October 31, 2003

soyjoy, anyone photoshopped that pic yet? ;-P
posted by mischief at 12:50 PM on October 31, 2003

Aw, leave 'em alone, you pervs. You don't want 'em coming after you, believe me.
posted by soyjoy at 12:55 PM on October 31, 2003

Wow, I thought the ultra-violent schoolgirl assassins in Kill Bill were a little far fetched, but I'm not so sure now.
posted by bobo123 at 1:20 PM on October 31, 2003

Apparently the Saint that these girls' school was named after, Maria Goretti (warning: annoying music) was a young girl who fought off a rapist, forgave him and was eventually made the patron saint of modern youth. From this site:

"Maria quickly matured in grace and holiness in the eyes of friends and other acquaintances. After losing her father to malaria, she developed great strength and maturity. Her charming modesty, cheerful obedience and the serious, but free acceptance of a hundred thankless home chores distinguished her from the other children who would play in the dusty streets of Ferriere. Perhaps the highlight of her life was her First Holy Communion, which she dutifully prepared for and awaited with great anticipation. She truly seemed to be advancing "in wisdom, and age and grace before God and men."

Lured by the passions of his day and nurturing the dark side of his soul with impious reading and thoughts, Alessandro Serenelli had been a thorn in lovely Maria's side. He propositioned her on several occasions and harassed her with impure suggestions. On July 5, 1902, he would be denied no longer. As she once again rebuffed his sexual advance, shouting, "No! It is a sin! God does not want it!", Alexander lunged to the deed, stabbing Maria 14 times.

Doctors in Nettuno tried to save Maria's life to no avail. After 20 painful hours of suffering during which she forgave and prayed for Alessandro, Maria entered Heaven fortified with the Last Sacraments. Her last earthly gaze rested upon a picture of the Blessed Mother. It was July 6, 1902.

Almost fifty years later on June 24, 1950, Pope Pius XII stood on the steps of St. Peter's in Rome and pronounced Maria Goretti a Saint and Martyr of the Universal Church to half a million people. He proposed her as the Patroness of Modern Youth and set July 6th as her feast Day. Her mother, and her murderer, attended the canonization ceremony together."
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:47 PM on October 31, 2003

Apparently the Saint that these girls' school was named after, Maria Goretti, was a young girl who fought off a rapist, forgave him and was eventually made the patron saint of modern youth.

Oh, wow. That's a really bizarre, neat coincidence. Cool.
posted by jennanemone at 2:31 PM on October 31, 2003

What I want to know is why people tend to refer to highschool aged boys as "youths" and highschool aged girls as "schoolgirls".
posted by kayjay at 2:44 PM on October 31, 2003

woo hoo! philly represent!
posted by RubiX^3 at 3:04 PM on October 31, 2003

I refer to high school aged boys as "morons," but I'm an embittered teacher, so what can I say? /wink
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:04 PM on October 31, 2003

Oh, just never underestimate the power of teenagers in school uniforms...
posted by Katemonkey at 4:13 PM on October 31, 2003

So, if twenty boys from an all-boys school beat up a woman, it would, I assume, get a similar reaction from all of you?
posted by Hildago at 4:34 PM on October 31, 2003

Hildago: assuming said woman had been repeatedly exposing herself to the boys?
posted by biscotti at 4:48 PM on October 31, 2003

Yes, and that the boys didn't love it.
posted by Hildago at 4:55 PM on October 31, 2003

Whatever happened to just laughing at such a sad twat (and calling the police?)

I hope he gets his time in jail, and the girls get prosecuted too.
posted by Blue Stone at 6:11 PM on October 31, 2003

Women regularly get paid to expose themselves. Men who expose themselves get arrested and sometimes beaten.

How is this a society that oppress women?
posted by spazzm at 8:06 PM on October 31, 2003

spazm - follow the $
posted by troutfishing at 9:16 PM on October 31, 2003

Ooops - sorry about the "z" dropout.
posted by troutfishing at 9:17 PM on October 31, 2003

Women regularly get paid to expose themselves. Men who expose themselves get arrested and sometimes beaten.

Riiiiiiight... because the women who are regularly paid to expose themselves never get beaten...
posted by soyjoy at 9:28 PM on October 31, 2003

The problem with Iraq right now is not tha... oh, wait.
posted by namespan at 9:31 PM on October 31, 2003

Women regularly get paid to expose themselves. Men who expose themselves get arrested and sometimes beaten. How is this a society that oppress women? --spazzm

Yeah, because females are the leading predators of young men. Because women hold down young men and force themselves upon them. Because of all those young pregnant men.

Go pick a fucking real fight...cause you got no ammunition in this one, sparky.

Troll, troll, trolling away....

Go Philly!
posted by dejah420 at 10:30 PM on October 31, 2003

Many girls from this school nickname themselves the Goretti Gorrilas. I don't know what this guy was thinking.
posted by romanb at 11:36 PM on October 31, 2003

"Yeah, because females are the leading predators of young men. Because women hold down young men and force themselves upon them."

You're confusing the issue - I was talking about oppression by society, not oppression by men.

And there's no need to be rude just because you don't agree with me.
posted by spazzm at 4:42 AM on November 1, 2003

Soyjoy: True, but they don't get beaten because of exposing themselves.
And, as I said in my previous comment, there is a difference between an oppressive society and male violence.

And why is it one can never have a discussion about equality of the sexes without someone saying "well yeah, but men are rapists"?
posted by spazzm at 5:09 AM on November 1, 2003

Women regularly get paid to expose themselves. Men who expose themselves get arrested and sometimes beaten. How is this a society that oppress women?

Troutfishing said it, but I'll expand just to clarify. Because the men to whom those women are exposing themselves want the women to expose themselves. They seek it out and control the event. They choose which women and under what circumstances. The women are young and hot and part of their fantasy.

Conversely, the women to whom the men you're speaking of expose themselves are out in their real life, often very young, and not interested in seeing some ugly 40 year old guy's dick. They are repulsed, not turned on. They are caught off guard, unprepared and uninterested in the sight.

Occasionally women do go out to see guys naked, in the same kind of context as the men (at a strip club) and under those conditions it's a positive thing. But being flashed is obviously not; the guy doing the flashing is implying a threat, one which is very real to many women.

Also, see Dan Savage's column this week (scroll down).
posted by mdn at 6:37 AM on November 1, 2003

The word you are seeking, spazzm, is "profiling".
posted by mischief at 6:44 AM on November 1, 2003

mdn: So exposing oneself is ok if one is young and hot, but not if one is old and wrinkled?

I don't know if ageism is a good thing, and I certainly am uncomfortable about laws that only apply to people who are deemed insufficiently hot.
posted by spazzm at 8:24 AM on November 1, 2003

Yay, girls.

And ...
the women ... often very young...not interested in seeing some ugly 40 year old guy's dick.
... the guy doing the flashing is implying a threat, one which is very real to many women.


And yay to mdn for explaining the difference in terms that even somebody with the IQ of this guy's dick could understand.
posted by NorthernLite at 8:31 AM on November 1, 2003

Dalin said she kicked the suspect with her Eastland black school shoes.

Why did I think this line was so funny? Ah ha.
posted by wobh at 8:57 AM on November 1, 2003

spazzm, I know you're being willfully obtuse just to rile people up, but it really makes you look dumb.

Can you comprehend the difference between doing something because you want to, and doing something because someone else makes you? Can you, for instance, see that choosing to go out for food you enjoy is quite different from being forced to ingest food you don't like? Do you understand the difference between sex and rape? This is based on the same distinction; flashers are obviously not concerned about the consent of those they reveal themselves to.
posted by mdn at 8:58 AM on November 1, 2003

So exposing oneself is ok if one is young and hot, but not if one is old and wrinkled?

It's not about age, it's about context. Young, hot, old, wrinkled, doesn't matter, what matters is whether you're stripping/erotic dancing/whatever (taking one's clothes off under some form of contract in a venue where people are there for the purpose of seeing people take their clothes off), or exposing oneself (showing random people, who haven't contracted to see them, your naughty bits). But I suspect you knew that.
posted by biscotti at 9:09 AM on November 1, 2003

I'm actually not asking these questions to rile people up - this is something that's been on my mind for some time.
Female violence against men is seen as entertaining and 'good' - we all know the cartoon stereotype of the wife waiting for the husband with a rolling-pin in her hand - while male violence against females are (rightfully) considered very, very bad. Yet it turns out domestic violence by women against men is common, and for some actually a problem.

Can we have a just society as long as any form of violence is cheered on?
posted by spazzm at 9:41 AM on November 1, 2003

While we're on the subject of nudity - when a man is nude, he's implicitly threatening women. When a woman is nude, she's being repressed by men.

In fact, no matter who is nude, it's the man's fault and he should feel bad about it because he's obviously doing it to hurt women.

It's puritanism all over again.
posted by spazzm at 9:51 AM on November 1, 2003

Since when is mob rule suddenly OK as long as it's girls vs. "dirty old men"?
posted by dagnyscott at 9:59 AM on November 1, 2003

Female violence against men is seen as entertaining and 'good'

Not by me, it's not.

I don't agree that a man is threatening a woman merely by being nude, it's dependent on context. Exposing oneself to someone who hasn't contracted you for it can be construed as threatening, regardless of the gender of who's doing it.

And for the record, I don't approve of what these girls did. Vigilanteism isn't okay just because it's chock full of ironic goodness.
posted by biscotti at 10:05 AM on November 1, 2003

While we're on the subject of nudity - when a man is nude, he's implicitly threatening women. When a woman is nude, she's being repressed by men.

No. When a person imposes his or her nudity on others, it is fundamentally different from when a person agrees to fulfill someone's fantasy by being nude. Women who check out a show at chippendale's don't file police reports. Again, do you understand the difference between rape and sex? Consent is vital to sexual matters. Flashing is different from stripping because the flasher does not have consent.

Female violence against men is seen as entertaining and 'good'

What?

- we all know the cartoon stereotype of the wife waiting for the husband with a rolling-pin in her hand -

I guess child abuse is 'good' too, since we all know the stereotype of homer wringing bart's neck...

while male violence against females are (rightfully) considered very, very bad.

This has only been the case for about 30 years or so. Before that it was perhaps, rather uncouth, or something, but certainly not the business of courts.

Yet it turns out domestic violence by women against men is common, and for some actually a problem.

And just like female domestic abuse, this issue is getting more attention and being taken more seriously as more victims come forward. A recent thread got into this topic...
posted by mdn at 10:26 AM on November 1, 2003

"I guess child abuse is 'good' too, since we all know the stereotype of homer wringing bart's neck..."

When there is a thread on child abuse, you don't see comments like " I love this!" and "Awesome" (see previously in this thread).
While the perp certainly deserved it, it seems to be a trend that violence by women is ok, because when women do it it's, you know, cool.
posted by spazzm at 10:36 AM on November 1, 2003

While the perp certainly deserved it,

maybe this has more to do with the "awesome" comments...

it seems to be a trend that violence by women is ok, because when women do it it's, you know, cool.

than this unsupported supposition. When women commit child abuse, people don't say it's "awesome", do they?
posted by mdn at 10:50 AM on November 1, 2003

mdn:
My apologies - should have specified that I meant violence by women against men, as relating to violence by men against women.
posted by spazzm at 10:55 AM on November 1, 2003

Catholic, school girls rule...

...violent mobs of same, more so.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:23 PM on November 1, 2003

could someone please tell me why taking off clothes is a crime? and why beating him up is not?
he surely is sick. but he did no bodily harm to anyone. i remember vacationing in a town in italy (a catholic country i hear) when i saw a guy doing just that in front of a girls school. i took a picture, with one old woman shaking her head in the background. A nun waved to him saying 'go away'. the girls, from what i saw, laughed.
and, also, "corrupting the morals of a minor" as a crime charge? welcome to the land of the saudi...
posted by bokononito at 3:47 PM on November 1, 2003

You know, the thread actually began with a whole bunch of comments about how 'cute' or 'sexy' it was - not, yeah beat those evil men, but, isn't it adorable when girlies try to stand up for themselves... There were a few comments basically saying this was a fantasy - and the reason for that is that generally speaking, 14 year old girls do not pose a threat to grown men. Grown men, on the other hand, have the capacity, should they choose to exercise it, of harming 14 year old girls, or forcing them to do things they don't want to do. Because they have that power, exposing themselves is a reference to that - it says, I can make you see something you didn't want to see, and if I wanted to, I could make you do something you don't want to do.

The reverse is simply not the case - women in general do not pose a threat to men in general. A man walking alone at night is not generally made nervous by a woman walking in the vicinity. I do martial arts, where we do sparring without weight classes. I can tell you from personal experience how massively different it feels to fight someone significantly smaller than you, who simply doesn't seem capable of really hurting you, versus someone significantly larger than you, who you are viscerally aware could cause physical harm. Skill makes up for some of that, but it's interesting to note that that feeling exists, especially when you start out. I think people who are naturally larger/stronger don't have much conception of how frightening other people can feel to individuals who are particularly on the smaller/weaker side of things. Even height makes a lot of difference - I've long thought that some kind of force-field height equalizer would be a really interesting invention - so that when you walk into the office, eg, everyone's at eye level with each other (I know it would be a massive energy drain for no good reason, even if someone could figure out how to do it, but I still think it would be really interesting to see how behaviour and attitudes were affected.)

where was I? Yeah, look, I don't support vigilante justice, and don't think what these girls did was "awesome", but I think it's completely different for someone to support a weaker victim who strikes back than it is to support a stronger aggressor who strikes first. And I'm pretty sure you appreciate that difference too.
posted by mdn at 4:11 PM on November 1, 2003

i speak not the english good. so too kind you will be prior to i am wonder is why 'predator' call to name weenie wagger and mr. kenneth lay given to name 'former ceo'? america crazy and wild of place.
posted by quonsar at 4:17 PM on November 1, 2003

mdn: While your generalizations about size are, well, generally true - the fact remains that numbers matter more than size if fisticuffs. This single man posed no physical threat to a group of 3 girls.

Try the old genders-juxtaposition:
What if three teenage boys decided that a street prostitute was 'exposing' herself in an 'indecent' manner, and proceeded to beat her up and handle her over to the police, who happily jailed the hooker. Then the boys received words of praise in the local press.
posted by spazzm at 7:00 PM on November 1, 2003

Doh. "matter more than size in fisticuffs".
posted by spazzm at 7:01 PM on November 1, 2003

and proceeded to beat her up and handle her over to the police

Heh. Nice phraseology.

But if you really are not just trolling, spazzm, look: Your analogies are poor. For one thing, if you wanna "just switch genders" in an example, you have to switch all the social constructs, assumptions and history that goes with them. But even if you did, you're also working with faulty premises, with hyperbole, as with your declaration that "violence by women against men" is just generally considered "cool." Get real.
posted by soyjoy at 7:46 PM on November 1, 2003

"[...] you have to switch all the social constructs, assumptions and history that goes with them."

What do you mean? Is differential treatment of people based on what they where born as ok if it's somehow caused by "social constructs, assumptions and history"?

And do you not agree that some of the comments in this thread, as well as the tone of the linked article, seems to laud the violent actions of these young women?
posted by spazzm at 8:31 PM on November 1, 2003

Face it, you guys, profiling based on gender is just plain okey-dokey!
posted by mischief at 9:11 PM on November 1, 2003

mischief: Apparently.
posted by spazzm at 10:30 PM on November 1, 2003

What do you mean? Is differential treatment of people based on what they where born as ok if it's somehow caused by "social constructs, assumptions and history"?

There's no time where it's not caused by that. That's why you can't just switch one person for another. A man repeatedly, compulsively exposing his genitals to schoolchildren is not equivalent to a prostitute in scanty clothes waiting for a john. Teenage boys chasing down someone and beating them up, as teenage boys are wont to do and have done throughout modern history, is a different phenomenon from one trio of girls fighting back against one flasher. If you have some other more cogent news stories to support your "trend" theory, let's hear 'em, cause this one don't fit it. People giggling about the irony and cultural resonance of this man-bites-dog story does not, to my eyes, signify a trend.
posted by soyjoy at 10:42 PM on November 1, 2003

I acknowledge that what the girls did was illegal. I am not a big fan of violence. That being said, I still think that this is pretty awesome.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:02 AM on November 2, 2003

"Teenage boys chasing down someone and beating them up, as teenage boys are wont to do and have done throughout modern history, is a different phenomenon from one trio of girls fighting back against one flasher."

So you keep saying. But you do not explain why.
Why is it ok to beat flashers, and not prostitutes?
After all, it's only a question of degrees of exposure.

Note that I'm not advocating violence about sex workers, I'd just like to have an explanation.
posted by spazzm at 12:48 AM on November 2, 2003

"violence against sex workers"...sorry.
posted by spazzm at 12:49 AM on November 2, 2003

After all, it's only a question of degrees of exposure.

No, it's a question of threat. The hooker would not pose any threat to the boys. She wouldn't have the capacity to rape them, and she very likely wouldn't have the size to be a physical threat to them. Again, I don't support the actions of these girls, but they were responding to his actions. Boys beating a hooker wouldn't be.

My point about the size thing was that this guy probably felt more threatening to the girls than reason would necessarily entail. In reality, men have a pretty accessible achille's heel, but plenty of women pay hundreds of dollars to take self-defense workshops that basically teach them what seems obvious - yell no & kick him in the balls. It's a little befuddling, but I think the basic reason is that the sense of disparity is visceral, and your body feels fear. It's not a cognitive thing. Those workshops let those women habituate something that wouldn't have occurred to many of them, because the instinct is not to fight when someone's bigger than you.

The attackers know this, too, or feel it too; this guy didn't feel wary of three girls. When the victims strike back, it makes it seem like maybe other aggressors will think twice next time, which is why I think people were cheering the girls on.

But like I said, the thread started with a bunch of jokes about how cute and sexy this was! What do you make of that? Can you imagine similar reactions to boys standing up to an aggressor?
posted by mdn at 5:10 AM on November 2, 2003

I say good on the girls for defending themselves.
posted by dabitch at 6:29 AM on November 2, 2003

mdn: As I pointed out above, it was not a question of threat - even a grown man can be defeated by three girls. Relative body size is simply not a factor when the numbers are 3 to 1. Besides, you're assuming that this guy was huge and the hooker in my thought experiment was petite - this may not necessarily be the case.
And the boys would be responding to her actions if she exposed herself.

Your attempt at an answer leaves my curiosity unsatisfied - why is it (all other things like body size and degree of nudeness being equal) okay to beat flashers who are exposing themselves, an not hookers who are exposing themselves?

"Can you imagine similar reactions to boys standing up to an aggressor?"

If by 'aggressor' you mean 'naked person' - I can quite easily imagine the reaction in the media to three young boys beating a hooker for acting 'indecent', yes. I'm pretty sure no-one would consider it cute. Why is it laudable when girls do something which, apart from them being girls, is essentially the same thing?
posted by spazzm at 7:07 AM on November 2, 2003

spazzm, I still find it hard to believe you're not just trolling, because your analogies are so absurd.

Let's put aside the fact that you like to talk in generalities about a 'trend,' then when we explain the general state of social status/physical size/sexual history intersections between males and females, you rush back to this one exceptional incident (again, if you have others to cite, let's see 'em) as if it's the defining example. That's just sloppy debating.

But specifically, you've put forward a scenario you say is analogous and then wondered if and why people's reaction would be different. When disparities have been pointed out, you've claimed that there may be specifics in the situation that you didn't mention previously. So let's hear it - what is this analogous situation you want us to parse? Is the prostitute repeatedly going to a schoolyard, picking out particular boys, and positioning herself (with flashlight?) so they have to gaze at her fully exposed genitals? Is she wearing some kind of trenchcoat or other overwear that can disguise what she was just doing, so the boys would not have other recourse in trying to stop/apprehend her after she does this (e.g. "officer, you know that prostitute that dresses like so? She's been repeatedly exposing herself to the kids")? What exactly is the size/weight relationship between her and each of the boys as you see it? Are the boys somehow part of a subset of teenagers not known for vigilantism or violent acting-out, so that their now-violent reaction would be fundamentally ironic?

Spill it. What's the story you're proposing? I posit that if you somehow came up with a true analogy on all terms, then yeah, the reaction might be similar. (Again, that reaction is bemusement at the irony, the turning-the-tables dynamic, not mischief's lame "profiling based on gender.") But if significant portions of the situation are non-analogous, then don't be surprised if the reactions are also different.
posted by soyjoy at 9:05 AM on November 2, 2003

Here's an article on why we find it "hilarious" when men are victims of female violence.

Men can be victims of sexism too....
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:48 AM on November 2, 2003

soyjoy: Take the scenario you provided, if you like. Would it be laudable for the boys to "kick her ass" under the circumstances you describe? Yes, I know it's unlikely, but why is this thought experiment so unpalatable? Is it because male violence towards women is so strictly sanctioned by society, while female violence towards men is all but condoned?

It's astonishing how few are even willing to admit that females perpetrate violence against males, and the strength of the emotions that are stirred up by implying that all men might not be rapists and all women might not be saints.

"[...] a subset of teenagers not known for vigilantism or violent acting-out [...]"

The article mentions nothing about the reputations of the kicking girls. Unless you mean to imply that they have good reputations and are non-violent simply because they are girls.
posted by spazzm at 10:13 AM on November 2, 2003

"They'd had 'a mock fight', they both giggled, in which she'd broken his finger. Hilarious."

Interesting read, SpaceCadet.
posted by spazzm at 11:10 AM on November 2, 2003

spazzm, we live in the age of gender McCarthyism where you can't hold any possible view that might be considered anti-feminist without being thought of as some kind of outsider or general threat to society (the way McCarthy called you a "commie" if you didn't agree to very specific ideology).

Modern feminism has perverted the original ideology of feminism (which by dictionary definition is "equality amongst the genders") and co-opted the movement as a way to seek privilige and advantage for women. This is why we're at the point where it's hilarious to mock men who've been battered, or generally hold the view in marketing and advertising that men are idiots, unsophisticated, clumsy, slow etc and it's all good humour. Men have become not only the bogeymen (potential rapists/abusers), but also the clowns too, when it suits the situation.
posted by SpaceCadet at 1:15 PM on November 2, 2003

will someone please tell me what possible threat a man who "repeatedly, compulsively expos[es] his genitals to schoolchildren" represents? all our lives we have read accounts of the arrests of men who "repeatedly, compulsively expos[e] [the] genitals to schoolchildren". that's what the fuckers DO - THEY WAG THEIR WEENIES. DO YOU SUPPOSE WAGGING A WEENIE AT A CHILD INCITES A CHILD TO SEXUAL ACTIVITY? perhaps that is the fantasy of the chronic weenie wagger, perhaps it's even YOUR fear or fantasy, but in reality this is so doubtful as to be ludicrous. why not just ask your kid about that, for christ's sake? how about asking an expert? this kind of behavior is no mystery, and far from unfamiliar to authorities of every stripe from medical to religious to military to law enforcement. it is the act of exposure and the reaction to it which serial waggers seek. please delineate the precise manner in which the 'victims' are or were harmed? tell me, does the pattern of optical impulses formed by the image of a penis, traveling along the nerves to the cortex of a pre-teen somehow scar the vision, OR the psyche, in ANY demonstrable manner? do the optical nerves acheive some resistance to this dreaded imagery prior to the age of consent? this whole sequence of events is frosted with bullshit right out of the gate - driven by media 'predator' mythology, and a dark, sick fear of our own (and especially, our childrens) genitalia. 'predator'. [here, q issues a snort of derision.] what would you call that sick fucking beast in the white house? those schoolgirls are, unlike thier victim, violent and unrepentant criminals bathing in the laudatory noise of a nation of sex-crazed morons.
posted by quonsar at 1:23 PM on November 2, 2003

there was a real picture posted of these girls. They aren't little girls. They're big Philly girls who do pose a serious threat, I think, to anyone who upsets them.... and that should be considered cause for legal action against them.

That said, there should also be legal action against the man. What he did was very wrong. But the key term is legal action, not violent vigelante-ism.
posted by dagnyscott at 2:18 PM on November 2, 2003

SpaceCadet & Spazzm, as I've said on this thread and the other one, I think the fundamental pharse in that article was "since the 1970's" we've seen domestic abuse of women as a monstrous crime. For thousands of years before that, it was simply part of the deal. I think now the reverse abuse, which is far less common, is getting the proper attention it absolutely does deserve.

will someone please tell me what possible threat a man who "repeatedly, compulsively expos[es] his genitals to schoolchildren" represents?

I addressed this above: he has the capacity to rape; he is specifically taking pleasure in his ability to override the consent of those he exposes himself to (since he's exposing himself to people who specifically do not want to see what he's showing), and so implicitly referencing that capacity.

Would it be laudable for the boys to "kick her ass" under the circumstances you describe? Yes, I know it's unlikely, but why is this thought experiment so unpalatable?

she can't sexually assault them, though. Again, I don't condone what these girls did, and I appreciate the need to take seriously the female on male violence, but there is a fundamental dynamic at work that simply can't be reversed.
posted by mdn at 4:58 PM on November 2, 2003

I think now the reverse abuse, which is far less common, is getting the proper attention it absolutely does deserve

You are wrong about the bit where you say it's far less common:-

123 studies on Domestic Violence show it's not a gender issue.

mdn, I know your views are very extreme when it comes to feminism, but to argue for it at the expense of accuracy is futile. We are all privy to the truth now the spread of information has reached every corner. You can't pass such general stereotypes anymore ("far less common for a woman to be violent towards a man"). Your view is an anachronism. Do you feel your view dying out? I do.

Let's hear it for the truth!
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:57 PM on November 2, 2003

she can't sexually assault them, though

I normally agree with you, mdn, but not here. Of course she can sexually assault them, you don't need a penis to do that.
posted by biscotti at 6:41 PM on November 2, 2003

"I addressed this above: he has the capacity to rape [...]"

Almost any male has the physical capacity for rape - but in a just society one is generally judged by what one has done or intend to do, not what one could do.

And that "overriding that consent of" line just doesn't ring true - that would mean anyone who dabbles in bondage is a potential rapist.

"she can't sexually assault them, though."

So it's her lack of a penis that absolves her? I have to point out that, while I don't defend his particular choice of perversion, the flasher didn't rape anyone either. He might have had the capacity to do so, but so does any man.

That's the problem with a lot of modern day debate on gender equality - it's ok to freely exchange the words "male" and "potential rapist".
posted by spazzm at 6:46 PM on November 2, 2003

And that "overriding that consent of" line just doesn't ring true - that would mean anyone who dabbles in bondage is a potential rapist.

what do you mean? Bondage is consensual, or if it's not, it's some kind of torture...

Of course she can sexually assault them, you don't need a penis to do that.

yeah, I dunno, it's a cloudy area, I guess. I mean, I hesitated with that statement... Maybe it isn't about capacity but likelihood? You don't hear of females raping males. Of course, perhaps that's another underreported area, like the domestic violence thing.

mdn, I know your views are very extreme when it comes to feminism, but to argue for it at the expense of accuracy is futile.

I don't think my views are extreme. In any case, I am completely open to revising them, and do not insist on things if I am shown evidence that refutes them. Please do not be an asshole. Just present the counter-information respectfully, and I will correct my mistaken assumptions. I appreciate the link you provided. I think it is worth pointing out that perhaps part of the reason things like that get underreported is due to a kind of anti-feminist macho man attitude, where it is considered embarassing to be physically hurt by a woman. In other words, perhaps you & I have more common ground than you think.

the flasher didn't rape anyone either. He might have had the capacity to do so, but so does any man.

But why does he want to show his dick to people who don't want to see it? There's a power dynamic thing going on that's not totally unrelated, don't you think? Most men don't engage sexually with people who aren't interested. This guy's level of sexual engagement is far more limited than a rapist's, but the difference between sex / rape is analogous to the difference between strip club / flasher.
posted by mdn at 7:10 PM on November 2, 2003

Spazzm - Hate to break it to you but in some cases, men who start off with relatively mild forms of criminal sexual behavior, such as voyeurism and exhibitionism, do escalate into more serious crimes such as rape. Not all, some.

I can understand the girl's rage. You don't go about your daily activities expecting someone to show you their genitalia, rub his crotch up against you/fondle you while you are on public transportation - do you? When it happens, you feel enraged and helpless. Helpless because this is not something you're prepared to deal with - you didn't do anything to encourage the behavior. Enraged because by this act, the individual is, in effect, saying you don't have the right to your own body - they can take it from you. They can MAKE you see them naked. They can put their hand under your skirt or rub their erect penis against your hip, whether you want it or not. The implied threat is that they would do worse if they got a chance.

In moments when this has happened to me I momentarily wish that I had the body mass of a man so I could kick his ass, then I realize that he wouldn't even be bothering me if he believed I posed a real physical threat to him. Then I get more angry and feel even more impotent, which is the exactly what the sick fuck is looking for.

I could definitely see how a mob of young women who had put up with this asshole's weenie-wagging for a month would lash out when the tables were turned. It's not pretty, but it's human.

Spazzm, if it was a group of 10 year old boys who did the asskicking in this case, would you be crying foul quite as loudly as you are now?
posted by echolalia67 at 8:29 PM on November 2, 2003

"what do you mean? Bondage is consensual, or if it's not, it's some kind of torture..."

Yes, it's consensual, but restraining someone's movement is a form of overriding their consent - even if it's just a game. So by the rationale that flashers are potential rapists (because they enjoy overriding the consent of others) then the same must be true for the BDSM crowd.

"But why does he want to show his dick to people who don't want to see it?"

I have no idea, but the fact that he did does not make him a rapist. The comparison between flashing and rape is, as I've shown above, based on flawed logic.

"Hate to break it to you but in some cases, men who start off with relatively mild forms of criminal sexual behavior, such as voyeurism and exhibitionism, do escalate into more serious crimes such as rape. Not all, some"

Of course you have lots of psychological literature to support this claim so I'm not even going to bother asking. But the key word here is "some". Flashing is not rape, irregardless of wether it (allegedly) leads to it in some cases.

"You don't go about your daily activities expecting someone to show you their genitalia, rub his crotch up against you/fondle you while you are on public transportation - do you?"

Of course not. But if I happened to see some naked genitalia, I wouldn't react with violence. I only use violence for defense - and I don't mean defense of my "moral purity".

"They can put their hand under your skirt or rub their erect penis against your hip, [...]"

That all sounds fun, but that's not what we're discussing here - the man in the article exposed himself, but he did not molest the girls physically, nor was there any indication that he intended to do so.

"Spazzm, if it was a group of 10 year old boys who did the asskicking in this case, would you be crying foul quite as loudly as you are now?"

I probably wouldn't have to - male violence is already heavily sanctioned by society. The boys would be far more likely to face consequences for their vigilantism. And I must point out that I did not intend to cry foul - I'm just asking questions.
Which brings us back to the original question - why is female-on-male violence ok, but male-on-female violence isn't?
All the explanations I've received so far seem initially plausible, but on closer inspection they are shown to be flawed.
posted by spazzm at 11:15 PM on November 2, 2003

mdn :she can't sexually assault them, though

mdn, sexual assault does not only equate to only a man pentrating a woman (rape). Sexual assault is about power and control (I think even most modern feminists agree here). A child is most like to be abused (physically/sexually/through neglect) by their mother than anyone else, for example. Please read that link. The mother is never seen as a "bogeyman" though in society. Why is that? These are the questions being asked on this thread as to why modern society shrugs it's shoulders to female violence and sexual abuse.

I think it is worth pointing out that perhaps part of the reason things like that get underreported is due to a kind of anti-feminist macho man attitude, where it is considered embarassing to be physically hurt by a woman

Or perhaps it's down to stereotypes we are talking about, where a man can expect ridicule when he reports that he's been beaten by his wife? (Never mind if it's something like having hot water poured onto him while he was asleep). Or perhaps it's due to the fact that domestic violence laws are heavily in favour of women, from 40 years of modern feminism? If a man calls the police regarding a domestic violence incident, he will be the one removed from his home, whether he's victim of perpetrator.

Spazzm, if it was a group of 10 year old boys who did the asskicking in this case, would you be crying foul quite as loudly as you are now?

They would be questioned by the police and referred to their GP who would no doubt put each one on a course of Ritalin. They would be seen as "unruly" and "delinquent", not "empowered" and a "potent force" (mentioned above) as kicking girls would be seen. See the difference? Isn't feminism for equality? How about equality here! Treat perpetrators of violence the same, and not give female perpetrators "mitigating circumstances". There should be none, except in physical self-defence.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:46 AM on November 3, 2003

I would like to vent a personal frustration at this point: the fact that male genitalia are still considered taboo in most contexts.

In Europe you will regularly see nude women in all forms of advertising and in regular television programming, but it is still rare to see a penis. Anyone who has spent any time at a nude beach will certainly agree that, even to the most puritanical westerner, after a couple of hours of viewing various and sundry, the big, bad horrible penis becomes pretty bland stuff. Whenever there is such a mindless censorship of nature, strange things are likely to happen.

That said, I've been the target of flashers more than once, and I always knew that the intent was aggressive. I reacted as I usually do when when someone is aggressive towards me, which is to (when possible) deflate their balloon, so I laughed and pointed. But I was a lot older than these girls, and, travelling back in time, I think I would have simply been terrified if it had happened to me when I was 15 and alone, but, maybe, if I were with my girls, I would have done the same thing these girls did. Maybe the question to be addressed here is not so much a male/female thing, but an age thing; if I tease a young child, I shouldn't be surprised if they just throw a ABC block at my head instead of simply marvelling at how ridiculous I am.
posted by taz at 5:13 AM on November 3, 2003

and... another thing occurs to me: the difference between a flasher (aggressive behaviour) and someone just walking around with their dick out. The flasher is intently focusing on your face to see your reaction (and get their kicks) the other guy is usually drooling and staring nowhere in particular. Even at 15 I wouldn't have been scared by the second guy.
posted by taz at 5:33 AM on November 3, 2003

taz I agree with you regarding nudism. I see nothing wrong with showing off the human body in it's full form, male or female. From a male perspective, the novelty value of nudity wears of on a nudist beach after about 5 minutes.

Clothes do the damage: they titilate and it's interesting that "sexiness" is equated with revealing as much of the body as possible, but not quite all. It plays with the idea of showing (or almost showing) that which should not be shown - in the same way, the flasher mind-set is the same - revealing that which should not be shown. Nudism bypasses this titilation altogether.

On the same side of the coin as male-flashing, isn't it hypocritical to say it's OK for women to wear provocative clothing (provocative to the male eye), yet complain when a man provokes a reaction from a women (albeit rather clumsily) by flashing? Both provoke. Neither provocation was asked for.
posted by SpaceCadet at 6:16 AM on November 3, 2003

I wouldn't say so. Most provocative female clothing is used (however clumsily) to attract, whereas most flashers aren't motivated by the desire to "attract", and, in fact, would probably be repelled or discouraged if someone were actually attracted by their bad, bad behaviour.
posted by taz at 6:32 AM on November 3, 2003

but taz, neither provocation was asked for. You're legitimising one simply because the provocoteur wants to attract whereas the other (you assume) doesn't want to attract. What's the difference to the person provoked? Is it the assumption that men always want to be sexually stimulated (they always want to be provoked into thinking sexual thoughts)? Actually we don't! So there's your conundrum. I guess you'll tell men not to look, but it's the same as telling the school-girls not to look. They not only looked, but got incensed enough to chase the guy and kick the living daylights out of him.
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:01 AM on November 3, 2003

From the article soyjoy linked:
"He just starts walking real slow with it just out," the ninth- grader said.

"He walked real slow like it was OK."

"he was like 'what did I do? I did not do anything,' " Kopicko recalled.

You know what would be funny?
If this guy was really just absent-minded and forgot to zip his fly. :D
Imagine the shock and trauma of walking along, thinking about what you're going to have for dinner, when suddenly you're attacked by a mob of screaming teenagers.

Ha-ha.
posted by spazzm at 7:17 AM on November 3, 2003

SpaceCadet: The difference between something intended to attract me and something intended to shock and frighten me are, indeed, very different things; I think I already made a point of saying that a clear view of a penis is not something that, in itself, would send me off screaming - even at a tender age.

spazzm: This is a funny thought, especially when you imagine that he was absent-minded in exactly the same place so many times before.
posted by taz at 7:38 AM on November 3, 2003

"They can put their hand under your skirt or rub their erect penis against your hip, [...]"

That all sounds fun, but that's not what we're discussing here - the man in the article exposed himself, but he did not molest the girls physically, nor was there any indication that he intended to do so.

spazzm: I hope you're joking, really. What I described has everything to do with the topic at hand, in that it's about someone imposing their sexual desires on someone who doesn't want anything to do with it.

We had a "dirty old man" living in my neighborhood when I was a kid. All of my playmates were scared of him, he was the neighborhood boogeyman. The adults dismissed him as a "funny uncle" and told us to ignore him. We had no idea what he wanted to do to any of us, all we knew was that he exposed his penis to us and he was interested in doing something "bad". It's easy as an adult to dismiss a guy like him as a harmless loser, but to a child a guy like that can be percieved as a genuine threat. I remember that we used to fantasize about having our dads beat the guy up - anger and agression are natural reactions to someone imposing themselves on you in such an intimate and unwelcome way.

As for the question about the 10 year old boy, instead of going on an anti-feminist rant, why don't you put yourself in the place of one of those children and then judge. I'd be no less sympathetic if the kids in question were boys or girls. I'd understand if I had a child and he/she reacted this way to an unwanted sexual act - I'd advise them not to take the law into their own hands and let authorities handle it. Inside, however, I'd feel as I do in this situation, that the bastard had it coming, if for nothing else, assuming that his unwilling audience would just sit back and take it.
posted by echolalia67 at 12:14 PM on November 3, 2003

All being said, the best reaction I heard of was when a guy walked up to a friend with his penis out, thrust it in her face, and said "Suck it, bitch". She just happened to have a megaphone in her hands so she directed it right at him and said "that looks just like a penis, only smaller" at top volume.
posted by echolalia67 at 12:19 PM on November 3, 2003

"What I described has everything to do with the topic at hand, in that it's about someone imposing their sexual desires on someone who doesn't want anything to do with it."

No, it does not, as pointed out above. If you can't see the difference between raping someone and being naked, I can't see that we have anything further to discuss.

"[...] instead of going on an anti-feminist rant [...]"

Where did I say anything about feminism or feminists?

"This is a funny thought, especially when you imagine that he was absent-minded in exactly the same place so many times before."

According to, you must admit, the testimony of teenagers with a bent for vigilantism. I'm not saying he didn't - I don't know - I'm saying we all have already judged him because he's male and his accusers are girls.
posted by spazzm at 2:34 PM on November 3, 2003

Classic defense, spazzm - "she made it all up" - only here it's times three. Well, sorry, but

The flasher was already a marked man. "We put the girls on notice. A composite sketch was done; it was plastered all over the school," said Goretti President Ritamarie Frey.

D'oh! So much for that "testimony of teenagers with a bent for vigilantism" angle. Unless the fact that the school president is also female makes her suspect as well.

Police yesterday charged Rudy Susanto, 25, of South Philadelphia, with harassment, stalking and indecent exposure.

D'oh! So much for that "poor wittle weenie-waver" defense.

But Frey was unhappy that the students had beaten up the man after they caught him. "We don't really condone this kind of vigilante behavior," she said. "There are many impressionable young ladies, and we don't want to send a message that they should be raised to hero status."

D'oh! So much for the "we always cheer girls beating up on men" angle.

So to sum up, yet again -

* People "cheering on" the "schoolgirls" are doing so in reaction to the irony, rather than literally condoning anti-male violence

* Any "trend" of mainstream culture celebrating women attacking men must await its second first example, as this one fails miserably.
posted by soyjoy at 2:54 PM on November 3, 2003

No, it does not, as pointed out above. If you can't see the difference between raping someone and being naked, I can't see that we have anything further to discuss.

Taking your clothes off at a nude beach/ at a resort where most people expect nudity and don't consider it to be a big deal - being naked. Hanging out at home with no clothes on - being naked. Taking your clothes off at a sex club - being naked. Taking out your genitals and waving them at someone in an environment where no one expects/wants to see a naked person, like a high school for example, for your personal gratification - imposing your sexual desires on someone who is not a willing participant.

I'm not saying it's rape, but it's still unexpected and/or unwelcome on the part of the flashee and therefore an agressive act on the part of the flasher. It's not about it being men or women, or boys or girls - if it was a woman mastrubating in front of a boys high school or a couple "doing it" for the thrill of being discovered/seen, it's the same thing. The reaction of the flashee might be different, but it's still an imposition of the flasher's sexuality on an unwary/unwilling audience.
posted by echolalia67 at 3:27 PM on November 3, 2003

soyjoy: Yes, all very impressive - but still no explanation of why female violence and nudity is more tolerated than male violence and nudity.
posted by spazzm at 3:30 PM on November 3, 2003

"It's not about it being men or women, or boys or girls - if it was a woman mastrubating in front of a boys high school [...]"

And the question I've asked (and still have not received a satisfactory response to) is: If what you describe above was the case (woman masturbating outside of boys high school) and the boys beat her up, would we still see the kind of comments we've seen in this thread? Would the parents express their pride in the local paper?

Now, someone pointed out above that the woman does not have the capacity of raping the boys, to which the response is :
1. There is no proof that the flasher intended to rape anyone.
2. Does that mean anyone without a penis can act in any way she/he pleases, no matter how offensive?
3. (This is the most important one) women are perfectly capable of committing sexual abuse - most child sex abuse is done by the mother, as previously pointed out.

"People "cheering on" the "schoolgirls" are doing so in reaction to the irony, rather than literally condoning anti-male violence"

And you have of course read the mind of every person who's posted in this thread, so I can see no point in doubting your assertion regarding their reactions and what caused them.

"Any "trend" of mainstream culture celebrating women attacking men must await its second first example, as this one fails miserably."

Oh, come now. Male-on-female violence is almost completely absent from the repertoire of mainstream movie heroes (when did James Bond beat up a chick? Once or twice, perhaps.) while female heroes (Charlie's Angles, for example) kick male ass left right and center. Are you seriously telling me that if the roles were reversed people would not bat an eyelid?
posted by spazzm at 3:48 PM on November 3, 2003

So by the rationale that flashers are potential rapists (because they enjoy overriding the consent of others) then the same must be true for the BDSM crowd.

no, because the difference between a game and not a game is a big fucking difference! The difference between consensual bondage and non-consensual bondage would be huge. If people want to consent to playing a "flasher" game with each other, that's their business; non-consensual exposure is something different.

No, it does not, as pointed out above. If you can't see the difference between raping someone and being naked, I can't see that we have anything further to discuss.

Obviously they're different, just like going to a strip club is different from having sex. But they're not completely unrelated.
posted by mdn at 6:55 PM on November 3, 2003

I can't see that we have anything further to discuss.

You've hit the nail on the head. We already dispensed with your agressive, serial, flashlight-wielding prostitute who somehow poses an implicit rape threat to the boys (with the flashlight, perhaps? Because otherwise, again, the analogy fails in its relevant details), but here she is dragged back in. I've knocked down your blase suppositions with facts and you shrug it off and continue asking the same rhetorical questions without addressing the facts at all, instead just claiming that you still have the question. So, yeah, given that, I don't see any point in going further with this. I'll leave it to mdn with her "extreme views of feminism" (chortle) to carry on if she wants.

Before I go, though, I can't leave this bullshit about "most child sex abuse is done by the mother" sitting here to stink up the thread. Patently absurd, hideously offensive, and it's a clear indication of spazzm's mindset that this would make sense to him, and he would call it a "most important" point. Well, surprise, surprise, if you look at the actual data that was linked, it says exactly the opposite.

First and foremost, there are five times as many single mothers as single fathers, so it would be a surprise if any data based on raw numbers did not put them in a higher percentile in every category (e.g. if individual behavior were exactly equivalent, we should see womens' percentages all at five times mens'). Then comes the fact that the overall "maltreatment" data includes the abuse of "neglect," which we're not discussing here, and yes, mothers have a higher percentile in that category (we won't get into how many of these mothers got into a situation where "they" were neglecting their children). If we look, however, at what spazzm so casually claimed, "most child sex abuse is done by the mother," we see that, no, within the maltreatment subcategory "Sexual Abuse," a MALE parent acting alone is the perpetrator more than five times as often as a FEMALE parent acting alone - the only categories in which mothers are measured against fathers. So in ONE-FIFTH of the total number of situations, fathers are sexually abusing children FIVE TIMES as often as mothers - in other words, a full TWENTY-FIVE TIMES AS OFTEN. For every ONE mother who sexually abuses a child, there are TWENTY FIVE fathers doing so. And spazzm has the gall to say "most child sex abuse is done by the mother."

When men are so desperate to hold onto their privileged position, to hold back the inevitable cultural shift that is empowering women, that they stoop to despicable lies like this - or just as bad, believe them without examination - when they malign and defame mothers for a crime so thoroughly, historically and currently owned by men, there's no point in trying to have an honest argument. It may, in fact, provide the answer, spazzm, to the question you keep asking.

Hope that's useful to ya, cause it's all you're getting out of me. G'night.
posted by soyjoy at 8:04 PM on November 3, 2003

"because the difference between a game and not a game is a big fucking difference!"

Yes, but you have to admit that there's also a difference between being nude without asking the permission of people in your immediate vicinity, and tying someone up.
While the first one is illegal, the second one isn't (assuming consent of course) - but the point is that both create a feeling of overriding someone else consent. Someone earlier made the case that the fantasy of overriding consent was what made flashing a precursor to rape. But while there is no real overriding of consent in BDSM, there's no real physical restraint or rape in flashing, either.


"We already dispensed with your aggressive, serial, flashlight-wielding prostitute [...]"

No, we haven't. I tried to provide a thought example analogous to the linked story, but you added the "aggressive, flashlight-wielding" part. And you have not dispensed with it - my point still stands that if the sexes where reversed and the boys beat up the prostitute, there would have been far less praise.

"And spazzm has the gall to say "most child sex abuse is done by the mother."

From the link you posted:
"A "Mother Only" was reported as the perpetrator for 40.0 percent of child victims (figure 4-2). A "Father Only" accounted for 16.6 percent of victims, and "Both Parents" accounted for 18.7 percent."

I looks like the data is actually supporting my claim, but that's not the issue - the issue is that females are capable and frequently carry out sexual abuse. This was also the context in which the factoid was originally brought to your attention.

The point was made that the non-flashlight-wielding naked prostitute would not be deserving a beating because she couldn't sexually abuse the boys, to which some helpful soul pointed out that females are, in fact, not only capable but frequently guilty of doing just that.

If have "gall" for pointing out the facts to you, then I sincerely apologize - but I continue to be amazed at the level of ferocity this debate can inspire in otherwise sane individuals.
posted by spazzm at 8:50 PM on November 3, 2003

"are capable of and frequently carry out". Sorry.
posted by spazzm at 9:26 PM on November 3, 2003

"For every ONE mother who sexually abuses a child, there are TWENTY FIVE fathers doing so."

I don't know how you arrived at that figure, but it can not be supported by the data you linked. Which I think you'll have to admit if you calm down, take a deep breath, read a statistics textbook and re-read the deduction that lead you that statement. :)
posted by spazzm at 9:34 PM on November 3, 2003

"For every ONE mother who sexually abuses a child, there are TWENTY FIVE fathers doing so."

There are lies, damned lies, and fabricated soyjoy statistics.

My original link was to highlight that mothers are the most likely to abuse their children. Not the strange paedophile lurking outside the playground. Not the father. Not the uncle. Not the brother. The mother. Child abuse in any form (physical/sexual/neglect) is dispicable, yet we profile the wrong people as dangers to our children. Why do we do that? Could it be modern feminist brainwashing that tries to send the subliminal message that women are morally superior to men?

Question to mdn, echolalia67 and soyjoy:-

Do you believe women are morally superior to men?

Lastly, I wish we could lose our hangups with the naked male body. If we lost the hangups, flashers would lose all their "shock" power by showing us something that has an everyday context. Was the flasher going to jump on one of the girls in broad daylight? How many flashers have flashed, then raped their victim(s)? Shouldn't we just laugh at flashers or ignore them? Also nobody has answered my previous question:-

"On the same side of the coin as male-flashing, isn't it hypocritical to say it's OK for women to wear provocative clothing (provocative to the male eye), yet complain when a man provokes a reaction from a women (albeit rather clumsily) by flashing? Both provoke. Neither provocation was asked for."

Is this too awkward to answer? As pointed out:-

The reaction of the flashee might be different, but it's still an imposition of the flasher's sexuality on an unwary/unwilling audience

Men don't want female sexuality thrust in their faces 24/7 (stereotypes aside), yet we can't complain about it to the police (imagine the laughter). Isn't this hypocritical?
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:14 AM on November 4, 2003

....and the pre-empt answers, it doesn't have to be a physical threat to be harrassment.
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:17 AM on November 4, 2003

....and to pre-empt answers.....sigh
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:20 AM on November 4, 2003

Do you believe women are morally superior to men?

No, of course not. Morality is not based on gender. What we're arguing here is much more a question of big dog/ underdog.

Lastly, I wish we could lose our hangups with the naked male body. If we lost the hangups, flashers would lose all their "shock" power by showing us something that has an everyday context.

I completely agree. I have even upset people around here by
suggesting that rape is made worse by social stigma and the exaggerated power of male sexuality.

Was the flasher going to jump on one of the girls in broad daylight? How many flashers have flashed, then raped their victim(s)? Shouldn't we just laugh at flashers or ignore them?

My point earlier about the size thing was that this guy probably felt more threatening to the girls than reason would necessarily entail. In reality, men have a pretty accessible achille's heel, but plenty of women pay hundreds of dollars to take self-defense workshops that basically teach them what seems obvious - yell no & kick him in the balls. It's a little befuddling, but I think the basic reason is that the sense of disparity is visceral, and your body feels fear. It's not a cognitive thing. Those workshops let those women habituate something that wouldn't have occurred to many of them, because the instinct is not to fight when someone's bigger than you.

The attackers know this, too, or feel it too. The flasher probably gets a rush knowing he's freaking out these girls. A few weeks ago, I was walking in a hallway and a guy walking toward me stood in front of me and wouldn't let me pass - he thought it was funny, just kept moving to block the way, but he was a complete stranger and bigger than me and standing too close and obviously the one with power. It was no big deal, but it did make me feel kind of small and impotent. I mean, I said something like, "dude, what's your problem?" but of course he made that into a joke too - and there was no cause for actually physically doing anything, which I'm prepared to do if I'm threatened. The point is, women deal with this kind of stuff on a regular basis. Men are bigger and generally have control. It's not about morality; if women were bigger I'm sure we'd have developed the same sense of power (wasn't that a star trek episode?)

When the victims strike back, it makes it seem like maybe other aggressors will think twice next time, which is why I think people were cheering the girls on. But like I said, the thread started with a bunch of jokes about how cute and sexy it was, which would never have happened if boys had fought back against a flasher. If boys had fought back against a male flasher, they would probably have been generally supported. If they had fought against a female flasher, probably less so - but they certainly wouldn't have been belittled as cute and harmless.

"On the same side of the coin as male-flashing, isn't it hypocritical to say it's OK for women to wear provocative clothing (provocative to the male eye), yet complain when a man provokes a reaction from a women (albeit rather clumsily) by flashing? Both provoke. Neither provocation was asked for."

Men are perfectly welcome to wear revealing, provocative clothing. And women are equally barred from flashing. This is a false analogy.
posted by mdn at 6:28 AM on November 4, 2003

spazzm & space - look at the table, the "sexual abuse column." Look at the chart, the "sexual abuse" bars - the medium-purple for mothers and fathers, respectively.



If you still can't see this, it's further evidence of how distorted your vision is. One more time:

"Most child sex abuse is done by the mother" is a pathetic, outright lie.

I'm not going to answer further rhetorical questions. Just wanted to make sure y'all could actually see the data.
posted by soyjoy at 7:15 AM on November 4, 2003

soyjoy, please don't misrepresent my post which is:-

"A child is most likely to be abused (physically/sexually/through neglect) by their mother than anyone else, for example. "

(and your table actually confirms my quote)

And further:-

My original link was to highlight that mothers are the most likely to abuse their children. Not the strange paedophile lurking outside the playground. Not the father. Not the uncle. Not the brother. The mother. Child abuse in any form (physical/sexual/neglect) is dispicable, yet we profile the wrong people as dangers to our children. Why do we do that? Could it be modern feminist brainwashing that tries to send the subliminal message that women are morally superior to men?

I did not say:- "Most child sex abuse is done by the mother".

Please do not misrepresent my posts!!

mdn:Men are perfectly welcome to wear revealing, provocative clothing. And women are equally barred from flashing. This is a false analogy.


Says who? Oh, says you! Thanks for representing the whole of the male population there, but some of us do find certain female clothing....a.....hm, distraction at times. Sometimes it's welcome, sometimes it's just an unwelcome distraction. Isn't distraction in the eye of the beholder? Since the distraction is unprovoked, isn't it a form of harrassment? Personally, I couldn't care less......my point of this argument is that it's similar to flashing.....wanting to get a reaction, be it explicit or implicit. I don't care for flashers, nor scantily clad women.....in fact, I prefer to go the whole way and accept nudism as it by-passes the titilation of the human form (which I think is a perversion in itself - the titilation that is).
posted by SpaceCadet at 8:27 AM on November 4, 2003

"A child is most likely to be abused (physically/sexually/through neglect) by their mother than anyone else, for example." (and your table actually confirms my quote)

*Scratches head*
posted by dgaicun at 9:14 AM on November 4, 2003

Duh, space cadet, as I said repeatedly, the quote "Most child sex abuse is done by the mother" is from spazzm, who was specifically addressing sexual abuse (remember, the subject of the thread?). Your points about "neglect" abuse and any statistics thereof are irrelevant to this discussion. However, it's worth noting that even counting "neglect," your overall claim that "mothers are the most likely to abuse their children" is wrong because the numbers are determined by the total number of victims rather than the number of mothers and fathers, so the fivefold difference in raw numbers must be factored in.
posted by soyjoy at 9:23 AM on November 4, 2003

Duh soy joy:-

spazzm & space (my emphasis) - look at the table, the "sexual abuse column." Look at the chart, the "sexual abuse" bars - the medium-purple for mothers and fathers, respectively.


soyjoy, my point is relevant. I was stating that we wrongly profile "stranger danger" as the main risk to children, when in fact, it's their very own mothers. Why is that? Nobody has yet answered this.

However, it's worth noting that even counting "neglect," your overall claim that "mothers are the most likely to abuse their children" is wrong because the numbers are determined by the total number of victims rather than the number of mothers and fathers, so the fivefold difference in raw numbers must be factored in

from your own source:-

Female Parent Acting Alone 131,166 (neglect)
Male Parent Acting Alone 33,866 (neglect)

It's still a fact that the majority of victims are abused by their mothers. That is a fact. I never stated anything else. My point is to ask why we don't acknowledge the elephant standing in the living room.

dgaicun, it's a real head-scratcher ain't it! And look at the table provided by soyjoy for confirmation of this fact.
posted by SpaceCadet at 10:27 AM on November 4, 2003

It's still a fact that the majority of victims are abused by their mothers. That is a fact. I never stated anything else.

Sorry, but you did. Even if we ignore spazzm's scurrilous lie about sexual abuse, and broaden "abuse" to include "neglect"...

My original link was to highlight that mothers are the most likely to abuse their children. *

This sentence, which is false, is not equivalent to the following true sentence:

"A child is most likely to be abused ... by their mother than anyone else."

If you can't see why they're different, there's not much more I can do. To make the latter claim, you need only consider the number of victims. For the latter, you have to include the ratio of single mothers v. single fathers (as caretakers) or it's invalid. Simple as that.

OK, like I said, read the data. Walking you through it is getting as tedious as the previous discussion, but now it's there in the table for anyone to see, so you guys can go on spinning it all day long.
posted by soyjoy at 10:52 AM on November 4, 2003

Says who? Oh, says you! Thanks for representing the whole of the male population there, but some of us do find certain female clothing....a.....hm, distraction at times.

? I don't think you read my post. I said men are perfectly welcome to wear provocative clothing, just as women are likewise not allowed to flash strangers. The analogy is false because it's the actions which are differentiated, not the gender of the person. Both men and women are allowed to walk around scantily clad, and neither men nor women are allowed to flash people. If you want to get into a discussion about why nearly naked is different from naked, or why active confrontation is different from being seen as arousing, that's one thing, but don't couch it in gender terms. Again, men are not arrested for wearing tight tank tops and short shorts (just go get a coffee in chelsea or the west village...). They may do it less often, but they have just as much right to it as women.
posted by mdn at 11:30 AM on November 4, 2003

A child is most likely to be [sexually] abused ... by their mother than anyone else . . . [to make this claim] you have to include the ratio of single mothers v. single fathers (as caretakers) or it's invalid. Simple as that.

SoyJoy, you're not using "acting alone" as a proxy for "raising alone" are you?
posted by dgaicun at 12:36 PM on November 4, 2003

mdn: Both men and women are allowed to walk around scantily clad, and neither men nor women are allowed to flash people.

Well.....that's just it! I'm asking, why is that so? I'm aware that men and women are allowed to dress in a sexually provocative way. It's even de rigeur for women to make exhibitionist galleries on the internet, prancing around in their body length coat and nothing else underneath. Can I call them "dirty old women"? Or are they suddenly "empowered"? Where do people draw the lines? Is a flasher not an exhibitionist? Is one wrong, but one right? I'm confused, truly.......let's turn to nudism....seriously, I'm sick of clothes......
posted by SpaceCadet at 1:50 PM on November 4, 2003

SoyJoy, you're not using "acting alone" as a proxy for "raising alone" are you?


I think soyjoy is.

"Acting alone" does not equal "raising alone" soyjoy. A mother can abuse her child while father goes to work, or vice versa. Your whole argument crumbles with your massive oversight of assuming "acting alone" equating to "raising alone".
posted by SpaceCadet at 1:56 PM on November 4, 2003

Well.....that's just it! I'm asking, why is that so?

I addressed this above. It's an issue of intent.

I'm aware that men and women are allowed to dress in a sexually provocative way. It's even de rigeur for women to make exhibitionist galleries on the internet, prancing around in their body length coat and nothing else underneath. Can I call them "dirty old women"?

you have a choice of whether you want to visit that website.

.......let's turn to nudism....seriously, I'm sick of clothes......

I'm all for that. I grew up with hippies; in the summertime, especially when swimming, my family & our friends were commonly nude and it was totally fine. I have no problem with nudity.

Flashers are not nudists. They are specifically trying to play a power game and confronting people with their sexuality. Like in that above example I gave of the guy stopping me in the hallway: I have no problem when I'm walking down a hall and someone accidently tries to pass on the same side I do and we end up doing that little back and forth thingy - but it's different when the person is actively trying to confront and control...
posted by mdn at 3:02 PM on November 4, 2003

soyjoy:
I'd like to know how you arrived at
"For every ONE mother who sexually abuses a child, there are TWENTY FIVE fathers doing so."

No, actually I would not. It's a strawman and it doesn't have anything to do with the topic we're discussing:
While Charlie's Angels kick male miscreants left and right, you hardly ever see James Bond beating up a woman. Would it be perfectly OK if the roles were reversed?

You're trying to take a debate about gender differences in society's limits on violence and nudity, and turn it into "all men are rapists"-demagoging by using child sex abuse.

But, against better knowledge, I'm going to explain why your assertion I quoted above is incorrect:
You claim that there are 5 times as many children abused by fathers as by mothers. You also claim that there are 5 times as many single female parents as male parents.
Somehow, you multiply these two and arrive at for every 1 mother who abuses her child, there's 25 fathers who abuse his child.
This is clearly not so - the statistics you yourself linked shows that 9,057 where abused by the father alone, while 1,659 where abused by the mother alone. You get (9,057/1,659) = 5.46 children molested by the father for every one molested by the mother. This is a far cry from the 25:1 ratio you claim in your little tirade.
And all while you're accusing others for being liars - nice touch.

(Others have correctly pointed out the "acting alone/raising alone" fallacy, so I won't repeat that)

Still, abuse (not limited to sexual) is far more often done by the mother than the father.

So, back to my original (non-rethorical) question:
Why is society much more tolerant of female violence and nudity than male violence and nudity?

If you can't answer this question without breaking your rigid pre-supposed mental model of how society works, I suggest it's time to reconsider your stance.

"[...] who was specifically addressing sexual abuse (remember, the subject of the thread?)."

And here I thought the subject of the thread was vigilantism and the differences in what's considered acceptable for different genders.

Whenever there's a debate about the gender roles in society and someone points out that females are, in fact, getting a rather free reign compared to males, somebody shouts "all men are rapists/child sex offenders!" (or words to that effect) and the debate is effectively over. Thanks, soyjoy.
posted by spazzm at 5:28 PM on November 4, 2003

"Flashers are not nudists."

While this is certainly true, I feel there's something inherently wrong about judging someone by his/her intentions.

Don't get me wrong, if someone with a 5x5 meter back yard has 3.5 tonnes of fertilizer, I'd certainly say he's intending to hurt someone - but the punishment for that is certainly less severe than the punishment of actually blowing someone up.

In the case of nudism/flashers it is less clear cut - there's no physical harm involved - and we can only guess at the flasher's motivations since (I assume) none of us are flashers, and there's no clear advantage (monetary, access to sex) to flashing someone.

In any case, the difference between flashers and nudists is a matter of definitions.
If, for example, while a nudist is prancing around in his home, with the curtains drawn, he realizes that the morning paper just arrived. He peeks out of his window to see if anybody's out there but sees no-one, so he thinks "ah, screw it, I won't need to put on clothes to walk 3 meters to pick up a paper". So, thinking that there's no-one around, he walks out to pick up his "Morning Herald" or whatever, and (just as he's bending over to pick up the paper) the neighbor's wife happens to see him.

Is he a flasher? Or is she a voyeur?
I know it's unlikely, but before making absolute moral statements, one should consider the less clear-cut possible cases.
posted by spazzm at 6:36 PM on November 4, 2003

somebody shouts "all men are rapists/child sex offenders!"

And who, pray tell, has shouted that? Citation, please?

No, actually I would not. It's a strawman and it doesn't have anything to do with the topic we're discussing:
While Charlie's Angels kick male miscreants left and right...

Oh, gosh, I didn't realize anybody other than you was discussing Charlie's Angels. Maybe that's where I went astray.

the statistics you yourself linked shows that 9,057 where abused by the father alone, while 1,659 where abused by the mother alone. You get (9,057/1,659) = 5.46 children molested by the father for every one molested by the mother.

Oh, OK, so in other words, your statement that "Most child sex abuse is done by the mother" was absolutely wrong, is that what you're saying? Once you admit that, we can haggle over how you want to figure the obviously disproportionate ratio of mothers to fathers as caretakers for children. But we don't even need that factor to see that the disparity is wildly and completely on the side of fathers.

And no, this doesn't mean (yawn) "all men are rapists." It means we should not blame women for the damage men do, have done, and are, by all indications, continuing to do.
posted by soyjoy at 7:01 PM on November 4, 2003

It means we should not blame women for the damage men do, have done, and are, by all indications, continuing to do.

Finally soyjoy crawls out of her shell to reveal her militant, radical feminist beliefs. And yes, I do discredit people who have such extreme views, and I certainly discredit the above quote as hyperbole.

I state a fact that the majority of child abuse cases are ones in which the mother is the offender, and you turn it on it's head!

you have a choice of whether you want to visit that website. (re : exhibitionist websites)

I guess I should have provided links to such sites (will later as I'm at work now!), but there are plenty of exhibitionists who are......exhibitionists....photos of them clearly "flashing" in front of public - and yes, they're women! Is this different from men flashing? Are men "dirty" but women "clean"? If you don't distinguish a difference (which I don't) between blatant exhibitionism (i.e. showing your parts directly to a public) and flashing (ummm, the same) then how come so many women can get away with this (and even produce documentary evidence on the internet??).
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:37 AM on November 5, 2003

"It means we should not blame women for the damage men do, have done, and are, by all indications, continuing to do."

I'm not saying we shouldn't - I'm saying women should have their fair share of the blame. The fact remains that most children that experience abuse experience it from their mother - the one person the should be able to trust.

While I admit that I mistakenly added 'sexual abuse' where 'abuse' would have been correct, the fact remains that most abuse is done by the mother. Your mathematical contortions does not dispel the reality that women, too, are sexually abusing children.

I assume you refuse to accept this because facing this reality would mean we'd have to rethink your attitude toward male violence as compared to female violence and sexuality.

The first step of defending the status quo is denying that there is a problem.

"And who, pray tell, has shouted that? Citation, please?"

You have, I reluctantly admit, better sense than to say it outright, but this comes pretty close:

"[...] the damage men do, have done, and are, by all indications, continuing to do."

Notice how that sentence makes it sound like men, and only men are guilty of sexual misconduct? When in fact, more women than men are the perpetrators behind child abuse?

"Once you admit that, we can haggle over how you want to figure the obviously disproportionate ratio of mothers to fathers as caretakers for children"

Actually, I don't care any more. You don't have the will or the mental capacity to see why your deduction is incorrect, I'll just seek comfort in the fact that if anyone else still bothers to read this thread, they see you for what you are - a person with no understanding of statistics.

But if you'll care to explain how you arrived at the figure, I'm all ears.
posted by spazzm at 10:20 AM on November 5, 2003

"And who, pray tell, has shouted that? Citation, please?"

More to the point - you've managed to twist this debate into a shouting match about child sex abuse - if I'm not much mistaken the original post was about teenage female violence, flashers and vigilantism.

It's an old tactic: If you can't win the discussion at hand, table a topic which will provoke a stronger emotional response.
It rarely fails - it's exactly the same tactic as talking about 9/11 when the invasion of Iraq is discussed, or mentioning the atrocities of WWII when modern-day Israel is under debate.

In short, it's an appeal to emotions, not intellect - rage, not logic.

You executed it masterfully, and I remove my hat to you, sir or madam.
posted by spazzm at 10:50 AM on November 5, 2003

Finally soyjoy crawls out of her shell to reveal her militant, radical feminist beliefs.

What shell? I'll happily cop to being a radical feminist, SpaceCadet. You could've just asked. It's not the only thing I'm "radical" about, after all. And spazzm...

Your mathematical contortions does not dispel the reality that women, too, are sexually abusing children.

I assume you refuse to accept this because...

Again, you're charging me with something I've never said. Here's the point I made: Women are not only not sexually abusing children more than men, as you falsely stated, but are doing it in numbers far less than men. And BTW, this -

I mistakenly added 'sexual abuse' where 'abuse' would have been correct

is disingenuous: If you'd phrased it accurately it wouldn't have supported your point, which was

3. (This is the most important one) women are perfectly capable of committing sexual abuse - most child sex abuse is done by the mother, as previously pointed out.

The really humorous thing is calling me "a person with no understanding of statistics" and emotion-based when it seems to be your emotional attachment to your cause that's stopping you from seeing some very simple, basic things about these stats. (In case you missed it, I had already given up on futher critiquing your mythical flashlight-wielding-prostitute thought experiments - I only continued to comment in order to keep this one basic fact straight).

Now, we've come to agreement that "most child sex abuse is done by the mother" was false, right? That was my main point, but we also had SpaceCadet's claim that "mothers are the most likely to abuse their children." SpaceCadet has wisely left "sexually" out of it, so he could have legitimately said, "most child abuse is done by the mother" as long as we were considering "neglect" as abuse. But as I said, those two statements are not equivalent. Here's why.

I doubt you'd argue with the assertion that most family dinners are cooked by mothers. Let's say five times as many family dinners are cooked by mothers as by fathers. Now let's also say that mothers burn the dinner 10% of the time, while fathers burn it 20% of the time. What can we say that's true about this? "Most family dinners are burned by mothers" is true, because of the larger total number of dinners cooked by mothers. "Mothers are more likely to burn dinner than fathers" is not true; in this example, fathers are twice as likely to burn dinner.

That's why SpaceCadet's sentence was off - a failure to consider the total number of cases (I hope you're not going to argue with the point that there are vastly greater numbers of children whose primary caregivers are mothers - whether "raising alone" or not - than fathers). And that's why, once you factor that total number in (children are at least five times more likely to be raised primarily by mothers than fathers) you get a much greater disparity, around 25 to 1, for fathers v. mothers as sexual abusers. That's using the data SpaceCadet linked. There are plenty of other studies - Wyatt (1985); Saunders et al. (1999); West (1985); Russell (1983); Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith, 1990 - that find the number of mothers as sexual abusers to be next to negligible.

That's why your statement "most child sex abuse is done by the mother" was so egregious, and why I would not let it sit there unchallenged. The fact that you could say it with a straight face (and remember, not "misspeaking" - you said it to explicitly back up a point about sexual abuse) explains a lot about where you're coming from and why further gender discussion with you is pointless.

The first step of defending the status quo is denying that there is a problem.

Amen, brother. A-freakin-men.
posted by soyjoy at 1:37 PM on November 5, 2003

soyjoy, my basic point was to highlight the offender-profile assumptions people make when they consider child abuse. The pavlov's dog reaction to the phrase "child abuse" is a man in a mac-coat hanging around the playground. In reality, it's not him, but the mothers pushing their sons and daughters on the swing who commit the most abuse, as an aggregate figure, which is REALITY! I'm interested in numbers, not percentages, because we all KNOW women are the main caregivers. But we SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRUST THESE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MAIN CAREGIVERS. Clearly, that trust is misplaced on many occasions. That is my point. Misperceptions and false stereotypes. Please do not downgrade neglect as something trivial: it can be as serious as starving a child to death, or leaving them locked in a room 24 hours a day, or a myriad of other horrendous tortures from denying a child something (be it food, stimulation, love, sleep, whatever).

Earlier I said : I guess I should have provided links to such sites (will later as I'm at work now!)(re: exhibitionist sites)

Well, here's some NSFW links to female flashers (click on the links on the right hand side of the page).

It took me about 90 seconds on Google to reach this page. I've check out some of the links, and I find it hilarious. If they were men, I'd find it even funnier, but somehow public opinion would find it all very sinister because they're men. Why is flashing male genitalia bad, but female OK? Not only OK, but widely documented on the internet? These people are flashing in front of the public (i.e. the photos show they are literally flashing in front of other strangers).

Society is so peculiar!!!
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:21 PM on November 5, 2003

"The first step of defending the status quo is denying that there is a problem.

Amen, brother. A-freakin-men."

The status quo right now is that female-on-male violence and female nakedness is largely accepted, while male-on-female violence or male nakedness is heavily sanctioned by society.

I have given numerous examples of this, all of whom you have pointedly ignored, while again and again bringing up the subject of child sex abuse.

Furthermore, you have not managed to keep a civilized tone, which indicates that you're trying to drag the debate down to it's lowest level.
posted by spazzm at 5:37 PM on November 5, 2003

"your mythical flashlight-wielding-prostitute"

I'm still curious as to where you got the flashlight from.
posted by spazzm at 5:45 PM on November 5, 2003

SpaceCadet: Why is flashing male genitalia bad, but female OK?

It's not to me. I don't want to be an unwitting/unwilling participant any any exhibitionist's fantasy world. However, I think the answer to your question can be summed up in one word: socialization.

We are socialized to regard the female body as attractive and desireable. We use it to sell all sort of products - tires, tools, wine, cars, etc. We view it it museums. It's the foundation of a multibillion dollar industry - porn.

Why is this? Because, overall, there is still an assumption that the people with the money/power are men. People sellling a product want to get the attention of the people with the money - which has, until recently, been men. Men, straight men that is, don't want to look at another man's penis. Tons of images of women's bodies everywhere used to sell almost everything = an assumption that women's bodies are more beautiful and desireable than men's. So a woman exposing herself is both less shocking because it's so familiar and, by virtue of socialization, viewed more positively because women's bodies are considered more attractive.

There is also an old idea at play - women, virtuous gentle protectors of all that is decent and good, must be protected against the uncouth, animalistic sexual desires of men, lest they be ravaged or, at the very least, corrupted by it and therefore unfit to fill their alotted role as society's moral guardian. Feminism has developed within the context of this - it's no wonder that certain strains of feminism, despite proclaming themselves as champions against the male dominated staus quo, are in many ways perpetuating it, at least in the sexual realm.

Also, like it or not, many women are a little afraid of men: they're bigger and stronger than most of us. They commit the majority of violent crimes. They commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes against women. I wish it was a case of me saying this because I'm a "man-hater" (which I'm not) but the statistics reflect this unfortunate reality. It doesn't help that the media makes big bucks out of scaring people to death and one of their favorite bugaboos to trot out for ratings is the rapist/serial killer/child molester. You can't blame us for getting a little jumpy when some weenie-wagger pops out at us on a lonely deserted street (in my experience, they tend to avoid busy streets).
posted by echolalia67 at 6:16 PM on November 5, 2003

echolalia67:
Why you may be correct in stating that men commit more violent crimes, that is no excuse for vigilantism.

Guilt has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, one cannot say that these youngsters were justified simply because their antagonist belongs to a group who is known to commit more violent crimes.

If we were to assume that it was ok to judge people based on the group they belong to, and replace 'male' with another demographic that is over-represented in violent crime statistics, I think most of us see why that is not a valid social guideline.
posted by spazzm at 6:50 PM on November 5, 2003

I'm interested in numbers, not percentages, because we all KNOW women are the main caregivers. But we SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRUST THESE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MAIN CAREGIVERS.

I gotta admit, I didn't catch that slant. It seemed at the time the discussion was centered on whether there was any more rational reason to fear rape from a male than a female. I don't disagree with what you've capped there, but I would also argue that we should not hold fathers to a lower standard.

And I wasn't trying to trivialize neglect, though I'd still maintain it's a different kind of animal than active abuse. Either way, I believe we've got the whole who-said-what-about-which-thing sorted out now.

The status quo right now is that female-on-male violence and female nakedness is largely accepted, while male-on-female violence or male nakedness is heavily sanctioned by society.

Well, no, see, there we still disagree. First, I wish you'd stop using "sanctioned," as it has two opposite meanings, and you wind up seemingly arguing against yourself. But assuming you mean "proscribed," yes, female nakedness is more accepted than male nakedness (because, ahem, the rules were laid down by men), but you haven't offered any proof that actual female-on-male violence is "largely accepted." Thought experiments don't count as proof because no matter how illuminating, they're only conjectural, and cherry-picking stuff like Charlie's Angels is just plain silly; you can mention that, I can mention Austin Powers vs. the Fembots or whatever, and we can go on all night, one-for-one.

And the flashlight came up because, due to the difference in structure of male and female genitalia, to achieve the same effect of forcible viewing, a woman would need a flashlight, I suggested (and you accepted), otherwise, your analogy falls apart. So to reiterate just one more time: I'm not going to collaborate on hastily-assembled "what-if" looking-glass scenarios. Lastly, I didn't bring up child sex abuse, you did, with a sentence that turned out to be both defamatory to mothers and incorrect. Since it was defamatory, I did not want to leave it there as though it were correct. So I kept on it until the record was corrected. Hope that's clear now.
posted by soyjoy at 7:09 PM on November 5, 2003

"female nakedness is more accepted than male nakedness [...]"

Now that we at least agree on something. Who's to blame for this is irrelevant - unless one is trying to derail this into a "men are to blame" flamefest.

The important thing is: Should it be so? Is it good that male nakedness is proscribed while female nakedness is celebrated?

"I can mention Austin Powers vs. the Fembots"

I'll have to admit that I haven't seen all the Austin powers movies, but in the one I recall there was only one fembot, and it apparently self-destructed - the bespectacled hero did not have to lift a finger towards it.
Not to mention that the fembots are, in fact, robots and thus technically sexless.
The fact that movie-makers have to resort to the 'female-looking robot' ploy to get away with portraying male-on-female violence is also telling in itself, of course.

And if you want to go one for one you've still got some way to go - I've mentioned two franchises (one of them the biggest in the world, or one of the biggest) and you have mentioned one movie.

"And the flashlight came up because, due to the difference in structure of male and female genitalia, to achieve the same effect of forcible viewing, a woman would need a flashlight [...]"

So essentially you're saying that her lack of a penis absolves her or at least reduces the severity of her crime?

If so you are practically making my point for me.

And what is "forcible viewing"? Is it somehow worse for men to be naked because the male genitalia is easier to spot from a distance? What about women with large labia - should they be punished as hard as men with small penises? Perhaps smell should be a factor?

"My god, your genitalia is stinking the place up! For the protection of these young, voulerable sould, I'll now proceed to pummel you!"
posted by spazzm at 7:43 PM on November 5, 2003

"souls", not "sould". Sorry.
posted by spazzm at 7:44 PM on November 5, 2003

And "vulnerable", not "voulerable". Sheesh.
posted by spazzm at 7:54 PM on November 5, 2003

So essentially you're saying that her lack of a penis absolves her or at least reduces the severity of her crime?

It's obvious that Soyjoy is referring to the fact that women's reproductive organs are not as visible as men's (not to mention the fact that we are so accustomed to seeing women's pubic hair that it's hardly shocking) and to achieve the same effect, a woman would have to...well, let's just say I can see where a flashlight would come in handy. And I agree that if a woman did such a thing, then that'd be a pretty offensive thing to do.

Now, if the theoretical teenage boys being flashed by a woman:

- were unaccustomed to seeing naked women

- had been socialized to think of women's bodies as less desirable and attractive as men's

- grew up in a culture where women are regarded as potentially threatening figures who had had a strong, barely repressed, violent streak and whose superior physical strength could be used to cause them serious physical harm

- raised in a culture where they saw countless depictions of very young, scantily clad men used to sell lipstick, blenders, pantyhose, waterheaters etc.

- had been raised in a culture where women's sexuality is something to fear because some women are known to express their rage and contempt towards men by performing sexual acts clearly intended to shock, humilitate, degrade, and frighten them

- were raised in a culture where the news media revels in hyping up news stories about women's violence against men and gleefully uses the public's fear and facination with violent women to pump up their ratings

- were raised to believe that they were a walking target for vicious, sexually predatory women and that they were powerless to stop violence toward them

- found themselves frequent targets for harrassment by older women as they walked down the street

Then yeah, I'd feel a little schadenfreude toward the pervert who was exposing her genitals to them and would think they were gutsy, if a little overzealous, in clocking her one.

You can't hold up female and male nudity as equivalent in this culture because they are not regarded as equal and the same. We experience them through a filter of social values that can't easily be lifted, reversed or done away with.

As I mentioned earlier, even feminism is colored by these long-held values and beliefs - the ideas that you find offensive, such as the assumption of women possessing a more evolved and refined moral sensibility, come from ideas that have been held in our culture for centuries. The aforementioned concept was once used to justify to deny women the vote or an opportunity to have a professional career. Now it is often used to justify awarding women sole custody of children even when evidence of her actual fitness to raise children is questionable at best.
posted by echolalia67 at 8:39 PM on November 5, 2003

spazzm: Perhaps smell should be a factor?

That's pretty fucking misogynist thing to say, spazzm. I can't help but write you off as a clueless asshole when you say shit like that. You are not doing your cause any favors.
posted by echolalia67 at 8:45 PM on November 5, 2003

"That's pretty fucking misogynist thing to say, spazzm"

Why? It's not like I'm implying that females smell more than men. In fact, you automatically assume that's what I mean when in fact I have given no indication of that.
If you didn't assume that, then why am I a misogynist?

"I can't help but write you off as a clueless asshole when you say shit like that."

And just how are statements like that going to further this debate?
posted by spazzm at 10:40 PM on November 5, 2003

"[...] grew up in a culture where women are regarded as potentially threatening figures who had had a strong, barely repressed, violent streak [...]"

That's my point exactly!
This way of thinking (that men generally are bad people) is so ingrained in our culture that most people can't even see it for the prejudice it is, and regard it as truth.

What if, instead of using the word 'man', substitute it with a more visual cue - say 'persons with blue skin'.
If these people with blue skin were:
1. Considered to be 'barely repressed' and possessing a 'violent streak'.
2. Overrepresented in violent crimes statistics.
3. Filling me with a feeling of fear.

Would it then be okay for me and 2 of my friends to kick some blue person ass whenever we felt the slightest bit uncomfortable by his/her blueness?

Do you see what I'm driving at here?

The other things you point out - prevalence of one sex in marketing, for example - can hardly be considered justifications for violence.

Prejudice is prejudice. If you can't see it in yourself, you have no right to condemn it in others.
posted by spazzm at 11:06 PM on November 5, 2003

spazzm: What about women with large labia - should they be punished as hard as men with small penises? Perhaps smell should be a factor?

and

"My god, your genitalia is stinking the place up! For the protection of these young, voulerable sould, I'll now proceed to pummel you!"

Uh...given the statement that followed the one I posted above, what other conclusion was I supposed to make?

Sorry, but that statement made you sound like a clueless asshole.

Additionally, you never bothered to address the posting prior than that one, the more pertinent one. I've replied to your question about whether or not I'd condone the violence in the schoolgirl/flasher scenario if the genders were reversed.
posted by echolalia67 at 11:07 PM on November 5, 2003

"Uh...given the statement that followed the one I posted above, what other conclusion was I supposed to make?"

That genitalia smell?
Both penises and labia was mentioned in the previous sentence. There was no reason to believe that I think that pussy smells, or something in that vein.
I was merely pointing out, in what I was hoping was a humorous way, that dispensing violence based on such vague things as the relative size, visibility and smell of genitalia is a ridiculous thing.

"Sorry, but that statement made you sound like a clueless asshole. "

Apology accepted, I guess.

"I've replied to your question about whether or not I'd condone the violence in the schoolgirl/flasher scenario if the genders were reversed."

I believe I just responded to that, by pointing out that using the prevalent attitudes of society to justify selective enforcement of moral guidelines is not a sound strategy, nor just.

I usually don't respond to people who call me a 'clueless asshole', but I'm making an exception for you. I like you.
posted by spazzm at 11:36 PM on November 5, 2003

I wasn't apologizing.

Tired, have the flu, didn't entirely read your posting. But here's the things you did bring up

"[...] grew up in a culture where women are regarded as potentially threatening figures who had had a strong, barely repressed, violent streak [...]"

and

The other things you point out - prevalence of one sex in marketing, for example - can hardly be considered justifications for violence.

Funny that those were the only items in the scenario I posed that you brought up. Nothing about being a constant target of harassment (which, as a former catholic school girl I can say is indeed constant - the uniforms are perv magnets), nothing about the fact that there is a type of crime almost exclusively perpetuated by one gender against the other and how the fear of that would factor into a violent reaction toward someone who is deliberately behaving in a way they hope will frighten, shock, humiliate and anger you.

Take sex and gender out of the equation and think about someone who is "deliberately behaving in a way they hope will frighten, shock, humiliate and anger you". Doesn't an assumption on their part that the person they are fucking with won't/can't retaliate make this person something akin to the schoolyard bully? Isn't someone who is acting in such a fashion putting themselves at risk for a violent reaction from the person they are directing such behavior towards? I certainly think so, and therein lies the key to my schadenfreude toward this situation. I don't have much sympathy for people who get off on making me or other people feel frightened and humiliated.
posted by echolalia67 at 11:45 PM on November 5, 2003

" I wasn't apologizing."

So I assume that you still think I'm a clueless asshole, then?

"Tired, have the flu, didn't entirely read your posting."

Not apologizing, but making excuses. Oh well.

"Nothing about being a constant target of harassment (which, as a former catholic school girl I can say is indeed constant - the uniforms are perv magnets)"

And catholic schoolgirls are, of course, the only people in this world who have to suffer, and furthermore this suffering gives them the right to lash out violently at the slightest annoyance?

"nothing about the fact that there is a type of crime almost exclusively perpetuated by one gender against the other"

That doesn't mean that all members of said gender (male, I assume) are potential perpetrators of said crime (rape, I assume).
And rape isn't the issue here, if I'm not mistaken.

"[...] someone who is deliberately behaving in a way they hope will frighten, shock, humiliate and anger you."

What, you mean like someone calling me a clueless asshole in an internet chatroom?

Regarding the fear, I believe I addressed that with the 'blue person' analogy.

"Doesn't an assumption on their part that the person they are fucking with won't/can't retaliate make this person something akin to the schoolyard bully?"

Maybe, if a schoolyard bully is 'fucking with' his victim by being nude. Oh, that's right - most children are actually allowed to be naked.

"I don't have much sympathy for people who get off on making me or other people feel frightened and humiliated."

And I am not saying that you should, of course.
But your feelings is no excuse to use violence against anyone or encourage others to do so - after all I'm not lashing out at you for calling me a clueless asshole, even though it's a definite possibility that you said it hoping to humiliate and/or frighten me and thus getting you off.

You seem to demand that people take your feelings into consideration, but you do not care about the feelings of others.

And while you claim to be a catholic schoolgirl, I realize that this is the internet and you are therefore most likely male, 37, bald and living in your parent's basement.
posted by spazzm at 12:22 AM on November 6, 2003

We are socialized to regard the female body as attractive and desireable. We use it to sell all sort of products - tires, tools, wine, cars, etc. We view it it museums. It's the foundation of a multibillion dollar industry - porn.

Why is this? Because, overall, there is still an assumption that the people with the money/power are men. People sellling a product want to get the attention of the people with the money - which has, until recently, been men. Men, straight men that is, don't want to look at another man's penis.

My oh my echolalia67, this is the purest fantasy. Welcome to 100% social conditioning theory 101. No nature exists. Only social conditioning. I am heterosexual because society told me to be, for example. People are brainwashed completely into believing what is attractive and what isn't - there is no nature. No genetic attraction.

You...... are joking?

By the way, women hold the purse strings in most families. Why not also brainwash them into purchasing via male sexuality? The reason why not is simply because the rules of sexual attraction aren't EXACTLY THE SAME male > female as they are female > male. Yes, sexual attraction works differently between the genders. Read any biology book (or is that just propaganda?).

So if "women ruled the world" (emphasis on quotes because the opposite is not true) then there'd be a huge male porn industry? LOL! We're all brainwashed?? Do women secretly want this male porn now? Why on earth do the "men in power" want to brainwash the public into believing the female body is more attractive than it is? Why do I find certain women attractive but not others? Could it be genetic attraction? It could well be......in fact it is!!

Never mind the bilogical, genetic rules of attraction, it's all 100% social conditioning in your opinion! I'm glad we're conditioned into our sexual tastes, otherwise we'd never pro-create! What about the animal kingdom where one gender generally does the work of physically attracting the other? Are they brainwashed too? With peacocks, the male is the "attractive" one and shows off his feathers etc. Are peacocks brainwashed?

That is the purest feminist drivel - this idea of 100% social conditioning.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:45 AM on November 6, 2003

But we SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRUST THESE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MAIN CAREGIVERS.

gah. In other threads, you argue that they are more genetically disposed to be better caregivers, and hence should stay home with the kids... make up your mind.

What about the animal kingdom where one gender generally does the work of physically attracting the other? Are they brainwashed too? With peacocks, the male is the "attractive" one and shows off his feathers etc. Are peacocks brainwashed?

what about lions or horses or nearly any other mammal? There is not one "attractive" gender; male and female bodies are both beautiful (take a look at David). Anyway, we're a different animal than they are, plus we've got the capacity to learn or habituate traits that aren't biologically ingrained.

Feminism doesn't claim "100% social conditioning" as you endlessly claim. It merely points out that there are women who don't like the traditional set-up, so it obviously isn't biologically necessary that we fill those roles, since our biology disagrees. This may not be true of all women, but it is undoubtedly true of some of us, so clearly there is some degree of social conditioning.

Slavery was "natural" in that it happened in most cultures on earth - but we found a way to move beyond it; we eventually came to see that it wasn't a positive part of society. Women, likewise, were the property of men, and had no power over money or politics or culture or higher learning; if the husband were so inclined, he could beat and rape his wife without remand.

I am not saying this is how it always was: surely there were loving relationships and happy wives, and especially on farms or in small towns where women could actively be part of the economy, plenty of people probably didn't worry about it. But when my grandmother turned 18, she couldn't vote; when my mother first looked in the wanted ads, "female" jobs were listed separately. We've only recently become a society that can look at the reverse discrimination.

Finally soyjoy crawls out of her shell to reveal her militant, radical feminist beliefs.

I thought soyjoy was a boy...
posted by mdn at 6:19 AM on November 6, 2003

"We've only recently become a society that can look at the reverse discrimination."

This doesn't mean reverse discrimination is desirable, fair or at all something to celebrate. Reverse discrimination is, after all, still discrimination. The hardship of females in ages past cannot be used to justify hardships for males in the present.

Two wrongs doesn't make a right, and so on.

Your analysis is correct, I just wanted to clarify this point.

When it comes to gender roles and biology, I guess it's evolution's solution to the problem of making enough babies - right now under-population isn't exactly a big problem, so we're mostly free to create our own gender roles.

"I thought soyjoy was a boy..."

That's allright - I thought you were a boy too.
posted by spazzm at 7:03 AM on November 6, 2003

gah. In other threads, you argue that they are more genetically disposed to be better caregivers, and hence should stay home with the kids... make up your mind.

This is not a contradiciton. The majority of mothers are the best carers for their children (I never said they weren't), I was simply pointing out the cultural stereotypes of child abuse which were wholly inaccurate - and made this point by stating that the most likely offender of child abuse is the mother (by aggregate). Because this is true does not mean a mother isn't in all likelihood the best caregiver for their child (why do these two things contradict? please explain mdn).

mdn, don't know why you've gone on about traditional roles et al - wrong thread!! We were talking about flashing/exhibitionism/male violence/female violence and why they are viewed differently. I merely responded to a post that was tantamount to saying we have no instincts in us - we're purely brainwashed/programmed. This is a very dour look at the human psyche, and totally inaccurate. We are natural! We can't deny our nature (any more than a homosexual can't deny his homosexuality to himself). That was all I was saying.

soyjoy's a boy? Gee, it's hard to tell on this internet thingy.
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:46 AM on November 6, 2003

And while you claim to be a catholic schoolgirl, I realize that this is the internet and you are therefore most likely male, 37, bald and living in your parent's basement.

Doing your best to dissuade me of my impression of you? Keep going.

I am indeed a former catholic schoolgirl and, therefore a woman. Baldness does not run on either side of my family. And I live in a victorian flat in California where we have garages, not basements. You are, however, in the ballpark agewise.

On top of it, you continue to keep saying, in effect, "Well, that's just stupid" when I try to explain a woman's perspective on why the girls probably did what they did. Not helping to foster understanding between the sexes.

It's not about the naked penis, it's about the useless asshole who was attached to it. He behaved in a way that he knew would be upsetting and cause his unwilling audience to feel threatened, humiliated and angry. He behaved this way repeatedly. The unwilling audience finally got pissed enough to snap and let loose on him. Again, take the nakedness out and look at the dynamic. He was, in his own way, behaving like a schoolyard bully, at a schoolyard no less, and he got the trouncing that we all have fantasies about giving to whatever bullies we have to deal with in our day to day life.

As to whether or not we should be upset/threatened by male nudity, to me, that's a different subject entirely. Change the way we teach human biology/sex ed in K - 12, legalize nude beaches, allow male/female full-frontal nudity on television, films and in advertizing - then maybe male and female nudity will be regarded in the same light. Do that, and the flasher has lost his power to evoke the response he so desperately desires. BTW, I'd love for that to happen, but I don't think it will any time soon. Our country is still too puritanical.

And SpaceCadet, it's not feminist drivel. People are influenced by the values of the cultures they live in. True, the social conditioning interacts with biology, it doesn't trump it. But as I was pointing out, we are more accepting of female nudity in our culture, in part because men 18 - 35 are the advertizing industry's holy grail, despite any delusions you might have about armies of hatchet-faced fishwife female spouses who harry and nag at their poor defensless husbands until he is so demoralized that he surrenders his paycheck with nary a word of protest.
Besides, the question that I was answering was, "why is female nudity acceptable and male nudity isn't?" Unless you have some plausible theory about how women "naturally" find the female form more attractive than the male form, your biology theory doesn't hold much water.

So if "women ruled the world" (emphasis on quotes because the opposite is not true) then there'd be a huge male porn industry? LOL! We're all brainwashed?? Do women secretly want this male porn now?

Well, there would be if I ruled the world, along with mandatory IQ tests for driver's licences.

I remember back in college we discussed a study done on women to examine their response to graphic sexual images. They were fitted with a device that measured genital temperature, blood flow, and lubrication. Physiologically, women responded in similiar ways to their male counterpart. When asked, however, what they felt in response to the images, the reported feeling embarrassed, repulsed, and uncomfortable. So explain why that is, if you will.

Now, please don't take this to mean that I think that the women being flashed are secretly getting turned on by it. I mean, have you seen most flashers? Think an unwashed Rosanne with massive amounts of body hair and a penis - that's what most flashers, in my experience, look like. Really, you want to gouge your eyes out afterwards. Maybe it was their outraged asthetic, not moral, sensibilities that drove these girls to go off on the guy.
posted by echolalia67 at 10:25 AM on November 6, 2003

"He behaved in a way that he knew would be upsetting and cause his unwilling audience to feel threatened, humiliated and angry. He behaved this way repeatedly. [...] Again, take the nakedness out and look at the dynamic."

So the flasher essentially behaved in the same way as someone who calls people "clueless asshole" for no good reason in internet discussion groups.

I guess it's the old saw over again:
"Do as I say, not as I do."

"Change the way we teach human biology/sex ed in K - 12, legalize nude beaches, allow male/female full-frontal nudity on television, films and in advertizing - then maybe male and female nudity will be regarded in the same light."

And until then it's perfectly allright to beat people up for being nude?
Oh wait, it wasn't the nudeness that was offensive - it was the fact that he was nude to make people feel "threatened, humiliated and angry", and therefore a violent response was in order. Does that mean I can beat up anyone who makes me feel "threatened, humiliated and angry"?

Or does it just apply, somehow, when the person feeling "threatened, humiliated and angry" is someone you can identify with?
posted by spazzm at 2:23 PM on November 6, 2003

"Maybe it was their outraged aesthetic, not moral, sensibilities that drove these girls to go off on the guy."

I'm not sure what's least appealing - violence as tool for enforcing moral norms or violence as criticism of personal appearance.
posted by spazzm at 2:27 PM on November 6, 2003

"Not helping to foster understanding between the sexes."

Oh please. If you wanted understanding between the sexes you wouldn't be advocating violence against males.
posted by spazzm at 2:33 PM on November 6, 2003

Spazzm, I'm done. You fail to convince me of anything but your deliberate obtuseness and your focus on the argumentative equivalent of lint instead of dealing with the actual topic at hand. Clearly, I haven't advocated violence against men. I've only said that in this particular case, I have insight into why it happened and that on a certain level I experienced a certain satisfaction in seeing someone who is behaving like obnoxious jerk have the consequences of his actions jump up and bite him in the ass.

If I went into a church or on the grounds of a school and kept popping out at people naked for a month, I would not be suprised if I got smacked around when people finally got fed up of it. It wouldn't be okay for them to hit me, but it would be understandable.

Unless you can prove that he was schizophrenic and so delusional that he didn't understand that what he was doing was offensive, he is as responsible for getting beat up as are the girls who beat him.
posted by echolalia67 at 6:26 PM on November 6, 2003

"It wouldn't be okay for them to hit me [...]"

At least we agree on something.

"he is as responsible for getting beat up as are the girls who beat him."

I'll grant you that flashing is different from, say, dressing provocatively, but isn't that just blaming the victim?

"You fail to convince me of anything but your deliberate obtuseness [...]"

If I'm coming across as obtuse, I sincerely apologize - but I'll have to point out that I'm not the one calling people 'clueless asshole' in this thread.

I've time and again pointed out the logical inconsistency of your arguments, but I guess you can say I'm 'obtuse' if you by 'obtuse' mean 'not sharing your prejudices'.

The main arguments for why feamle-on-male violence is ok is that:
1. Males are larger.
2. Males are more aggressive.

Which, if you think logically about it is no different from the arguments used to keep women out of certain jobs in the past:
1. Women are physically too weak.
2. Women are not assertive/lack leadership ability.

While the latter are generally discredited, the former are still seen as valid arguments by a large segment of society.

Add to this the argument that "most rapists are male, and the girls therefore were right to feel threatened by this male, even though he's not a rapist".

In other words, he had it coming because he's male.

Truly, our society hasn't achieved equality - we have merely replaced one form of discrimination with another.
posted by spazzm at 8:20 PM on November 6, 2003

I remember back in college we discussed a study done on women to examine their response to graphic sexual images. They were fitted with a device that measured genital temperature, blood flow, and lubrication. Physiologically, women responded in similiar ways to their male counterpart. When asked, however, what they felt in response to the images, the reported feeling embarrassed, repulsed, and uncomfortable. So explain why that is, if you will.

Then why isn't there a massive porn industry aimed at female heterosexuals? Surely commercial markets are demand-led? Or are you alluding to some kind of "patriachal conspiracy theory" here?

I simply think there isn't a demand for it. Men and women's sexuality work differently. End of story.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:04 AM on November 7, 2003

This doesn't mean reverse discrimination is desirable, fair or at all something to celebrate.

I agree, and I think the issues of female on male domestic violence and custody rights etc are being addressed these days, as they should be. But the claims that, eg, spacecadet makes about women's natural roles are still out there - so women's issues are by no means all done with or anything.

When it comes to gender roles and biology, I guess it's evolution's solution to the problem of making enough babies - right now under-population isn't exactly a big problem, so we're mostly free to create our own gender roles.

yeah, exactly. I think maybe we agree...

"I thought soyjoy was a boy..."

That's allright - I thought you were a boy too.

You're not alone; for some reason many people assume I am male at first. According to that online "remarkably accurate gender test" which I'm too lazy to look up, I am :)

actually, I thought soyjoy was female at first and then I thought I remembered at some point reading that he was male.

This is not a contradiciton. The majority of mothers are the best carers for their children (I never said they weren't)

Maybe they aren't actually better caregivers, but just stereotyped as such, and so automatically given the responsibility of being better caregivers, while men are allowed to fail in that respect but it's easily forgiven, for after all, they're men, what do you expect... etc. In other words, women are trapped by certain expectations of people like you.

I merely responded to a post that was tantamount to saying we have no instincts in us - we're purely brainwashed/programmed. This is a very dour look at the human psyche, and totally inaccurate. We are natural! We can't deny our nature (any more than a homosexual can't deny his homosexuality to himself).

NO ONE SAID that humans are 100% programmed by society! All that was suggested was that biology is not the only component! Or if you like, that gender is not the only component of biology - to follow up on your homosexuality argument, you could claim that there's no such thing as homosexuality because men by nature are attracted to women and that's just how it is. The fact is, different men and different women have different biologies! That I'm female doesn't mean I will match your conception of the prototypical female.

Perhaps my personal traits etc are all the result of nature and not culture - how can I really know? - but that does not mean that therefore I must be a better caregiver or be less aroused by viewing porn or any of the other assumptions you attribute to my femaleness. We are all individuals; our traits vary even within certain categories to which we belong.
posted by mdn at 4:24 PM on November 7, 2003

While humans may be programmed by society to a larger or lesser degree, let's not forget that society is almost completely programmed by humans.

(Unless one subscribes to the "instituted by God/Allah/Javeh/Ganesh/whatever" viewpoint.)
posted by spazzm at 6:14 PM on November 7, 2003

While humans may be programmed by society to a larger or lesser degree, let's not forget that society is almost completely programmed by humans.

Sure: but which ones? There are power dynamics in all societies. When people speak of humans being programmed to some degree by society, they mean that humans are prone to be affected by what the majority or authorities expect, ask, or demand of them.
posted by mdn at 6:28 PM on November 7, 2003

Agreed. It seems we are living in a society of words, thus it is shaped by the most vocal group - they decide what's true and what morals and norms are deemed worthy.

Is there even such a thing as absolute truth or blind justice?

Maybe the age of rapid, unhindered communication can change that, but it looks like the internet is going to end up like the printing presses: Owned by a small group of extremely powerful people.
posted by spazzm at 11:07 PM on November 7, 2003

to follow up on your homosexuality argument, you could claim that there's no such thing as homosexuality because men by nature are attracted to women and that's just how it is

mdn, I'm just suggesting that genders have behavioural traits/instincts attached to them. Not that 100% of men must be attracted to women, or vice versa. I agree that there are women in this world who have no "mothering instinct" for example, and nothing wrong with that!! But I just feel the pendulum has swung too far towards denying natural traits. For example, a lot of stay-at-home mums feel stigmatised because they don't work, and it's as if their role has become insignificant. My view just tries to redress the balance of nature and nurture.

Maybe the age of rapid, unhindered communication can change that, but it looks like the internet is going to end up like the printing presses: Owned by a small group of extremely powerful people.

I disagree spazzm.....I think the internet has been a great vehicle for people to express themselves without censorship, and will continue to be! I can't see how it can be controlled by only a few companies as it's a peer-to-peer network that grows and grows. It's been great that we can express our views here, even if we disagree! You know what mainstream media is like - they have their own agendas - the internet is a place where you can find the truth.
posted by SpaceCadet at 10:08 AM on November 8, 2003

Just to make sure anyone still paying any attention to his blather regarding gender understands what they're dealing with:

I choose traditional roles [for women] in the situation where they come into conflict with equality between the sexes. No irony, no nothing. Straight answer.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:24 AM PST on November 7

No, that's not a statement of his choices for himself, as the "for women" is integral to the question that's a response to, and he is not a woman, yet he is choosing for women.

Keep those attitudes in mind when assigning weight to his comments.
posted by NortonDC at 6:00 AM on November 10, 2003

Norton, are you cyber-stalking me? There are laws against your type of behaviour. It's one thing to direct an ad-hominem attack against someone on a particular thread, but to seek out which threads this person has posted on and attack them wherever you find them is just.....plain.....scary.

Seriously, you are making feel a little queasy. Get out more Norton. Listen to some music. Eat some good food. Have a glass of wine. We have a difference of opinion. No big deal. Live with it. Don't get so personal.
posted by SpaceCadet at 6:23 AM on November 10, 2003

Perhaps you should get out more SpaceCadet.
posted by dabitch at 7:11 AM on November 10, 2003

Perhaps, you should get out more dabitch.

etc. etc.
posted by SpaceCadet at 12:25 PM on November 10, 2003

So, SpaceCadet, having your own words quoted to you offends you? Good to know that you've removed that barrier to having everyone find your posts repulsive.

For those that care about the gender topics covered in this thread, I really do recommend reading the last few screens of posts in the thread I pointed to just above, to enhance your understanding SpaceCadet's perspective on gender roles and equality. I think you'll find it worthwhile in helping to evaluate his posts in this thread, too.
posted by NortonDC at 4:34 PM on November 10, 2003

mdn, I'm just suggesting that genders have behavioural traits/instincts attached to them. Not that 100% of men must be attracted to women, or vice versa. I agree that there are women in this world who have no "mothering instinct" for example, and nothing wrong with that!! But I just feel the pendulum has swung too far towards denying natural traits. For example, a lot of stay-at-home mums feel stigmatised because they don't work, and it's as if their role has become insignificant. My view just tries to redress the balance of nature and nurture.

you're still making assumptions about what the natural traits are, though. Why not simply allow that taking care of kids is a perfectly acceptable trait whichever gender you are? There's no need to associate it more strongly with one gender or the other, even if it happens to work out that a greater percentage of women find it appealing. The point is just that individuals should feel comfortable taking on roles that they want to take on. You view is not trying to put balance back into something but is prescribing what sort of balance there ought to be. As I said in the other thread, the whole point of feminism is that people should be free to make their own choices regarding roles regardless of their gender.

And you aren't being "stalked" - your comments on the other thread are directly relevant to this discussion. Norton got you to admit your position, and it's telling. You claim that you aren't against non-traditional roles, yet you ultimately feel that traditional roles are more important than freedom of choice!
posted by mdn at 7:55 PM on November 10, 2003

Actually, mdn, SpaceCadet is against non-traditional roles for women. A man, such as himself, is to be free to pursue whatever role he desires, including homemaker and single parent, but he thinks that women had better stick to their "traditional roles," inside the family.

It might be a nitpick, but after weeks of pulling teeth I want the full sour flavor of what was revealed to come through.
posted by NortonDC at 9:33 PM on November 10, 2003

you're still making assumptions about what the natural traits are, though. Why not simply allow that taking care of kids is a perfectly acceptable trait whichever gender you are? There's no need to associate it more strongly with one gender or the other, even if it happens to work out that a greater percentage of women find it appealing. The point is just that individuals should feel comfortable taking on roles that they want to take on. You view is not trying to put balance back into something but is prescribing what sort of balance there ought to be. As I said in the other thread, the whole point of feminism is that people should be free to make their own choices regarding roles regardless of their gender.

So you're really saying there are no gender traits. That's quite a claim you make there, mdn. As a male, I have no male traits but only individual traits - i.e. there's no common traits/instincts between myself and other males, as there are no common traits between yourself and other females - everything is purely individual in your world view.

Norton, hey if I'm such a "fucking idiot" (very civilised) as you called me in the other thread, why do you keep responding to me? I'll ignore you if you ignore me. Please don't post again while drunk.
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:05 AM on November 11, 2003

So you're really saying there are no gender traits.

That's not what she's saying at all. She's saying that expecting or forcing someone to take on a traditional gender role rather than allowing them to choose for themselves is wrong. Just because a higher percentage of women take on traditional female roles doesn't mean that ALL women should be expected to do so. People should be free to choose which roles they wish to assume, and such choices should be individually made, and not based on gender, but preference.
posted by biscotti at 7:30 AM on November 11, 2003

That's not what she's saying at all. She's saying that expecting or forcing someone to take on a traditional gender role rather than allowing them to choose for themselves is wrong. Just because a higher percentage of women take on traditional female roles doesn't mean that ALL women should be expected to do so. People should be free to choose which roles they wish to assume, and such choices should be individually made, and not based on gender, but preference.


Yes, and this is not the point I am making:- I am against the denial of gender traits by the politically correct among us. That is as bad as someone expecting all women to become mothers. Both viewpoints are absurd. I totally agree, and have never, ever disagreed with the idea of a single person choosing the life they want, so long as it's not to the detriment of others.
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:02 PM on November 11, 2003

biscotti, don't be too surprised that he distorted mdn's post. As for his comments about what I said, that's another lie. I didn't call him a "fucking idiot." In fact, I didn't even call him an "idiot," but that distinction's kind of subtle, so I'm not surprised that he missed it.

P.S.--
SpaceCadet, asking me questions might not be the best way to get me to stop responding to your posts. Just a friendly hint. Because I'm a giver.

On preview: nope, nothing changed.
posted by NortonDC at 5:04 PM on November 11, 2003

So you're really saying there are no gender traits. That's quite a claim you make there, mdn.

nope, that's not what I said. I just pointed out that gender traits are unimportant. They're the statistics of tendencies among the similarly-chromosomed. They do not tell us anything about the future; they merely document the past. That is, what females choose to do can be reported and compared with the choices of their male counterparts, and perhaps we can gain some kind of sociological or scientific knowledge therefrom, but that should have no effect on the choices of other women. It's irrelevant to a discussion on childcare. The people who want to stay home should stay home. The ones who want to keep working should keep working. All this should be figured out before birth, obviously... But the point is, gender shouldn't be a factor in the decision, even if it turns out that most of the time the woman wants to stay home.

As a male, I have no male traits but only individual traits - i.e. there's no common traits/instincts between myself and other males, as there are no common traits between yourself and other females - everything is purely individual in your world view.

well, what defines our genders we obviously have in common - but personality traits are tendencies within genders, not absolute boundaries. Males may tend to be, e.g., more assertive, but there is clearly overlap; some women are more assertive than some men. So how can you attribute a set of traits exclusively to a gender? There will always be exceptions and crossovers.

Sure, you can say black people are better at sports and asian people are better at math, but when it's time to try out for the basketball team or the mathletes, we don't say, well he's black, he's on the team: we let each person try, and judge them on their competence (re: this task), not on incidental (to this task) traits that tend to occur concomitantly.
posted by mdn at 6:34 PM on November 11, 2003

mdn:well, what defines our genders we obviously have in common - but personality traits are tendencies within genders, not absolute boundaries. Males may tend to be, e.g., more assertive, but there is clearly overlap; some women are more assertive than some men. So how can you attribute a set of traits exclusively to a gender? There will always be exceptions and crossovers.

Am I saying there are no exceptions? No I am not. I am talking about general traits that have a commonality that can be identified by gender, not individual personality. You are one of the politically correct who wish to whitewash any features that may (shock!!!) distinguish the sexes. This is revisionist biology! And before you knee-jerk, biology includes the make up of the brain and the personalities/traits that are shaped because of the physical differences of the brain between genders. I am not saying 100% of people (but if I did, it would be easy for to you to construct a counter-argument, which you are doing - the old straw man).

mdn:I just pointed out that gender traits are unimportant.

This article might give you an insight into the physical differences between the genders and how they influence behaviour. It also highlights the importance of recoginising the differences with this example:-

article:"Today, the research on brain differences could protect survival by improving treatments for a variety of disorders. An example of how insights could lead to refined patient care is illustrated by a recent imaging study. The research shows, on average, that women synthesize the chemical serotonin at a lower level than men. Currently serotonin is a popular drug target because it has been implicated in a number of diseases, including depression. Scientists may be able to expand the synthesis finding and develop customized treatments. The research also could help improve the evaluation of therapies. "

So you see, your revisionist biology is actually counter-productive for each gender. Gender traits are important.

mdn:Sure, you can say black people are better at sports and asian people are better at math, but when it's time to try out for the basketball team or the mathletes, we don't say, well he's black, he's on the team: we let each person try, and judge them on their competence (re: this task), not on incidental (to this task) traits that tend to occur concomitantly.

Absolutely. Managers pick the best players to make the best team. I agree with you - and for example, it's true that physiologically, black people are generally better sprinters than any other skin colour (witness any professional 100 metre final to see this). This doesn't mean all non-black sprinters are bad. No. I've hammered this point home time and again:- I'm merely balancing the politically correct view that denies the influences our very own gender (and in the example I used, ethnic origin) has on us. What about male hobbies/interests that don't interest women, and vice versa? 100% brain-washing? Or perhaps it's simply nature and nurture??

Again, please don't do the strawman thing and repeat what you've already said that "100% of women are not like that - I'm not!!" - look, I am not saying all for gender. I am saying there are general commonalities that can be distinguished by gender. Where have I said 100% for anything?

You seem to think I'm against freedom of choice - I am not. I am against revisionist biology that assumes gender traits are "unimportant". It's revisionist because clearly there are differences, and it's beneficial for everyone to recognise this. Why does this contradict with freedom of choice?
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:49 AM on November 12, 2003

I am talking about general traits that have a commonality that can be identified by gender, not individual personality.

As I said, there are no general traits which are absolute by gender. There are only tendencies within groups. Not all men are X; not all women are not X. It just doesn't work that way. It's useful for broad overviews, but in personal lives, stereotypes don't tell us much.

You are one of the politically correct who wish to whitewash any features that may (shock!!!) distinguish the sexes.

Once again, I did not say that. As all my comments above attest, the differences between different groups when it comes to science, statistics, medicine, etc, can be interesting and useful, but in themselves they are not reasons for individual choices or expectations.

So you see, your revisionist biology is actually counter-productive for each gender. Gender traits are important.

As I made clear above, they aren't important for making choices about roles. Gender should not be considered a factor when the parents are deciding who's going to stay home with the kid. "you're the woman" is not an acceptable argument (and nor is "I'm the woman"). "I really really want to," or don't want to, or my job v yr job or any number of other things are worthy of being considered. But the definition of gender does not include any particular rights or responsibilities.

I'm not sure it's worth hammering this out further: all I"m getting at is that, sure, stereotypes come from somewhere; traits tend to clump in certain groups. But that shouldn't be a factor when you're dealing with individual people. No one should feel pre-defined - prejudged - based on belonging to a certain group. You seem to be advocating prejudice, prejudgment. If you're not, then who cares what the statistics of what women want are? It doesn't tell us anything about individual cases.
posted by mdn at 7:27 AM on November 12, 2003

As I said, there are no general traits which are absolute by gender. There are only tendencies within groups. Not all men are X; not all women are not X. It just doesn't work that way. It's useful for broad overviews, but in personal lives, stereotypes don't tell us much.

But there are gender-specific traits/instincts that shape behaviour, as the article I linked to points out. It actually states that it's worth investigating these differences in how we think and behave (as distringuished by gender). These are not "tendencies" - these are biological differences that cause tendencies in behaviour. Big difference. It also doesn't contradict with your idea that there are cross-overs of behaviours and exceptions. You're just assuming I'm saying "100%" again when I am not.

sure, stereotypes come from somewhere; traits tend to clump in certain groups

It sounds to you like it's a bad thing (using "stereotype"), as if these differences should be ironed out so we can be an androgynous single-coloured homogonised group of people. What ever happened to celebrating diversity??! It's the differences that make the gene pool strong......

You are pretending I'm arguing a certain point when I am not (in order to make your counter-argument easy): I am not against individual choice - I'm against the school of thought that denies such obvious differences in gender in the name of "equality". Difference does not mean inequality. Equality does not mean denying natural differences between people. My argument simply says that women have a tendency (now I can use that word) towards certain likes and wants, and men have their own set of tendencies. This doesn't infringe with their freedom of choice, not even on an individual level - it's an observation. Just like the fact that most women do prefer to look after their children rather than climb the corporate ladder, this doesn't give a woman who doesn't want to do this any less freedom. I'm against the denial of natural tendencies in the name of political correctness and an "absolute equality" which is absurd - as absurd as making a rule that every ethnic origin must be represented in a 100m final (there wouldn't be enough lanes but you get my point).

It's almost as if you think people only choose freely when the choice doesn't match a traditional role. Female nurses and male fireman are suckers in your world view, as is the stay-at-home mum - I guess they were brought up to believe blue is for boys and pink is for girls, right? If they choose a traditional role, you seem to think they've been brainwashed into choosing it.
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:41 AM on November 12, 2003

"fireman" should be "firemen" (or should it be firepersons?)
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:42 AM on November 12, 2003

These are not "tendencies" - these are biological differences that cause tendencies in behaviour. Big difference.

why is that a big difference?

It also doesn't contradict with your idea that there are cross-overs of behaviours and exceptions. You're just assuming I'm saying "100%" again when I am not.

all I"m pointing out is the fact that it is NOT 100% means that the knowledge is useless in practical life. It is meaningless. All it does is tell you ex post facto what the percentages are. It doesn't give you any information about the best route for the individuals before you. All through the previous thread and all through this one, people have been trying to get that point across to you. Feminism nowhere says that men and women don't have different tendencies; all that's at issue is CHOICE. Because tendencies are not absolute, some women will be more masculine in a traditional sense than some men. But that's not a defect; that's merely an individual tendency.

it's an observation. Just like the fact that most women do prefer to look after their children rather than climb the corporate ladder, this doesn't give a woman who doesn't want to do this any less freedom.

what's the reason for the observation? Why do you feel it's important to point out? For some, it might feel like an attempt to define what a "real woman" would do. What is so upsetting to you about treating people primarily as individuals, and considering the various categories to which they belong (gender, race, ethnicity, hair color, height, weight) as secondary?

(or should it be firepersons?)

Firefighters. you know, it wasn't funny in the last thread either.
posted by mdn at 7:54 PM on November 12, 2003

These are not "tendencies" - these are biological differences that cause tendencies in behaviour. Big difference.

why is that a big difference?

It's a big difference because I've described the physical cause of these different tendencies. You missed that peice of information out conveniently as if there was no cause to these different tendencies. Big difference.

what's the reason for the observation?

I just enjoy deconstructing politically correct myths that are widespread these days. You have done your best to deny basic biology. You seem to think anyone who takes on a traditional role must have been brainwashed and it's nothing to do with their tendencies, caused by their physical characteristics, distinguished by gender. I never said people can't make their own choices. I am saying people's choices are influenced by their gender traits - this is in direct opposition to modern feminist beliefs that denies this (after all, it's in their interest to deny this to move away from people's tendencies to take on traditional roles - as they are opposed to traditional roles).

You look down on those who choose traditional roles, and yet it's their choice to take on these roles. If people are free to choose what they want, let them choose it. Freedom of choice doesn't exclude the choices you don't want to make. Those choices must be open to others. Modern feminism tries to whitewash certain choices as "oppressive" and "sexist", when in fact, many people want to make these choices. I am arguing for freedom of choice stronger than you are here!

When over half of working mothers would rather be at home and 95% of teenage girls want to be stay-at-home mums, they are expressing their instincts. Because you don't have these similar instincts (I assume), you think they are "oppressed" and have been brainwashed since birth. Well, nobody is pointing a gun to their head. Are you against these women making their own free choice? I do know that a modern feminist would deride and ridicule their choice, which is not really the behaviour of somebody who fights for freedom of choice. If you're a modern feminist, freedom of choice excludes traditional roles.....not very free that. Modern feminism uses ridicule to try and influence women's choices...a stay-at-home mother is "shackled to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant" whereas a working mother is "empowered".

Firefighters. you know, it wasn't funny in the last thread either.

You assume I am from the United States. I am from the United Kingdom. We don't say "firefighters" here. We say "firemen". Just thought somebody would pick up on "firemen" as sexist - you know, politically incorrect.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:19 AM on November 13, 2003

You have done your best to deny basic biology. You seem to think anyone who takes on a traditional role must have been brainwashed and it's nothing to do with their tendencies, caused by their physical characteristics, distinguished by gender.

holy fucking mother of god. Do you even read the responses to your posts? As I have said at least four quadrillion times, I understand that there are basic tendencies among races and genders; I MERELY THINK IT'S WRONG TO JUDGE INDIVIDUALS BY GROUP TENDENCIES. Get it?

You look down on those who choose traditional roles, and yet it's their choice to take on these roles.

again, if you have read the previous responses to your posts, you'll have seen that no one here is claiming that choosing to be a stay at home parent is any less worthy than choosing a professional life. All that is being suggested is that it is no better or worse for either gender - that we shouldn't hold it up as ideal for women and disparage it as weak for men. Either something is all around acceptable or it isn't; it shouldn't be distinguished by gender.

Modern feminism tries to whitewash certain choices as "oppressive" and "sexist", when in fact, many people want to make these choices. I am arguing for freedom of choice stronger than you are here!

I swear, please go back and read the entire marriage thread, and then this entire thread, and tell me where anyone here said that women who want to stay at home are oppressed. In fact, we have all said many many many times that people should be able to do whatever they want to do (which obviously includes staying at home if that's what they want); the only issue is that there ought not be certain expectations or prescribed roles based on someone's gender. It doesn't make a difference what the stats are; what makes a difference is that everyone has the same opportunities, the same options open to them.
posted by mdn at 6:10 AM on November 13, 2003

SpaceCadet: "I am arguing for freedom of choice stronger than you are here!"
SpaceCadet: "I choose traditional roles [for women] in the situation where they come into conflict with equality between the sexes. No irony, no nothing. Straight answer."

I think SpaceCadet has tendencies.
posted by NortonDC at 6:20 AM on November 13, 2003

NortonDC, that is my choice, not my choice "[for women]" (as you inserted and therefore misquoted me). I can't choose for women as a whole, as nobody can. We are talking about individual choice here. Duh!

Oh and Norton you never did answer your own question: what would you choose in the situation where traditional roles come into conflict with equality between the sexes? Funny you never answered that.....in fact never even gave an example situation.

And yes, I have tendencies. So do you.

What is your point?
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:07 AM on November 13, 2003

I swear, please go back and read the entire marriage thread, and then this entire thread, and tell me where anyone here said that women who want to stay at home are oppressed.

OK, I will...

Here's what I found from this thread:-

biscotti:this sounds awfully like you're supporting keeping women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen to keep them from getting uppity and having ideas about improving their lot in life.

Improving their lot if life? Sounds like biscotti looks down on stay-at-home mums here.

mdn:If you're going to root for the woman as primary caregiver, at least give her some motivation, such as a higher likelihood of custody should such a decision become necessary.

at least give her some motivation? To you, being a stay-at-home mum isn't rewarding enough. They need further motivation.

mdn: Personally, I would much prefer that the traditional notion of a family fall by the wayside

So much for freedom of choice.

I MERELY THINK IT'S WRONG TO JUDGE INDIVIDUALS BY GROUP TENDENCIES

I'm against the denial of these tendencies by people like yourself who claim that men and women have absolutely the same roles to play in a family ("it shouldn't be distinguished by gender") - "mother figure" and "father figure" are social contructs and the whole works of Freud are just plain delusional in your modern feminist view.

I'm describing human behaviour. You're talking about human rights.
posted by SpaceCadet at 8:48 AM on November 13, 2003

Improving their lot if life? Sounds like biscotti looks down on stay-at-home mums here.

It seemed more than obvious to me what I was saying here, "improving" went along with the "barefoot and pregnant" and "uppity" parts, it was using sarcasm to make a point. It was a response to your comment about how traditional roles keep families together, which to me implies that as long as women don't go getting ideas about having careers, they won't get any ideas about changing their lives. It's your interpretation which changes my comment from one about wanting women to have the OPTION to do more than be a stay at home mom (by not being expected to assume traditional roles if that doesn't suit them) into one about it being a BAD thing to be a stay at home mom - my comment was about your attitude, not about stay at home moms. I think it's great when women choose to stay at home, but I think it's bad when they're expected to, or are kept there by being forced into a 'traditional role' which they might not choose if they knew there were other options. It's not about what I think about elective stay at home moms, it's about what I think about people who think that's a woman's place, and your comments here and elsewhere seem to consistently imply that you're someone who thinks that a woman's place is in the home, with the kids.
posted by biscotti at 9:45 AM on November 13, 2003

biscotti, I actually agree with you here. Yes I do! I have always championed the right for someone to choose the life they want. We may disagree on the best way to live a life, but freedom of choice is something that should be open to everyone (as long as it doesn't hurt others in the process).

I'm against the revision of history ("women were 'oppressed' before feminism") and the revision of biology ("men and women are not distinguishable by behaviour"). These lies are told by modern feminists to try to indoctrinate the message into people that to choose a traditional role is oppressive and sexist. I'm against the way they restrict freedom of choice through their disinformation.
posted by SpaceCadet at 1:26 PM on November 13, 2003

SpaceCadet - that is my choice, not my choice "[for women]" (as you inserted and therefore misquoted me).

That's another lie from you, SpaceCadet. Here is the original wording of the question:

I can't tell what you really want: women to get back to families and take on traditional roles, or true equality between the sexes. These are very different positions. Which is closer to your heart?

And here is the final wording, the version you directly answered:

what [do] you choose to support when these two things come into opposition: traditional roles for women versus equality for both sexes?

All along it has always been about your beliefs regarding women. All along. Your answer? "OK, Norton I choose traditional roles in the situation where they come into conflict with equality between the sexes. No irony, no nothing. Straight answer."

That is you finally giving a direct answer to the question after weeks of evasions, lies, distortions and dodges. The "for women" has always been at the core of the question, and that is the question you answered. I included it in your answer here for the benefit of those that had not read your weeks of lies and evasions in the other thread, to give them full meaning of your answer. It is entirely appropriate and truthful to include it.

If you want to accuse someone of distorting comments and misquoting for their own benefit, look to yourself and your bogus accusation that I called you a "fucking idiot," which was, of course, merely one more of your transparent, ridiculous, and wholly in-character lies.
posted by NortonDC at 4:32 PM on November 13, 2003

I'm against the revision of history ("women were 'oppressed' before feminism")

Being legally considered property isn't oppression? Being unable to vote isn't oppression? Having no right to legal protection from violence committed against you by your husband isn't oppression? Inability to get out of marriage for any reason isn't oppression? All these things were common before feminism, that's not "revision of history", it's fact. Come on, man.

and the revision of biology ("men and women are not distinguishable by behaviour").

Men and women as individuals are not distinguishable by behaviour. Nobody is arguing that overall behaviour of groups may well be distinguishable by gender, but it's individual people we're talking about here. You seem unable to grasp that just because the overall picture of a big group of people may look one way, the individual people who make up that group may or may not be reflective of the whole, and should be treated as individuals, not as part of a group. There's no "revision of biology" going on, there's you talking about groups and other people talking about individuals and a seemingly insurmountable inability for you to see that group characteristics do not equal individual characteristics, and should not be used to determine appropriate courses of action for individuals.
posted by biscotti at 5:41 PM on November 13, 2003

at least give her some motivation? To you, being a stay-at-home mum isn't rewarding enough. They need further motivation.

The 'further motivation' isn't something beyond the initial motivation; it's simply a recognition of her choice as valid and worthwhile. If a woman chooses to be the primary caregiver, that should be taken into account in the event of a divorce. if it's not, if she spends 6 years caring for the kids and then the dad gets custody and she's expected to get out there and support herself, then the message is that the work she did was of little value. I do not think the woman should be given preference in custody as the woman, but I do think the primary caregiver, whoever it is, should be given preference, as primary caregiver.

mdn: Personally, I would much prefer that the traditional notion of a family fall by the wayside

So much for freedom of choice.

How do you figure? All that matters to me is that various options are open for people of whichever gender. The traditional notion of a family comes with expected roles. I would prefer that expected roles fall by the wayside. That does not preclude personal decisions that more or less match those expected roles, but they should not, in my opinion, be expected.

I'm describing human behaviour. You're talking about human rights.

but "human behaviour" isn't absolute. What about human being's behaviour? What about individual's behaviour? You can quote statistics and point to likelihood, but what good does that do? In the end, human rights are more important than the general tendencies of groups, aren't they? How can they not be? Should black people be precluded from applying to MIT? Should asian people be precluded from applying to the NBA? What benefit is there in creating rules based on stereotypical examples? Just because it may be a minority of the group that is inclined to pursue a route doesn't make it any less important that the route be open. Why not simply encourage the notion that staying home & taking care of kids is a noble and worthy pursuit for anyone, regardless of their gender?
posted by mdn at 5:57 PM on November 13, 2003

You can quote statistics and point to likelihood, but what good does that do?

It tells you what people want. That's my whole point. Modern feminism tries to tell everybody what women as a whole want. I look at it from an instinctive point of view, not an ideological point of view. On the individual level, you seem to think instincts suddenly fall by the wayside, and somehow because we're looking at someone on the individual level they lose all their gender characteristics. This is not even disingenuous - it's plain daft. Each individual belongs to a gender. Each individual is shaped by their gender traits. You talk as if every human being is an exception to the rule of biology. Yes, as a composite of characteristics, we are all unique and I'm glad we are! But being unique doesn't mean we don't share gender traits or desires or instincts, as you discount as somehow being individual means you lose all group characteristics and shared aspirations. For you, every (wo)man is an island, with utterly unique instincts and traits.

To reverse the question the helpless Norton keeps asking me: mdn, biscotti: do you find traditional roles oppressive? If you do, then surely you are looking down on men and women who happily choose these roles.

I say again: isn't freedom of choice about accepting other people's choices too? Modern feminism clearly tries to interfere with people's choices. As I said earlier, I enjoy deconstructing politically correct myths.

mdn:I would prefer that expected roles fall by the wayside.

Why? If you are a parent, there are responsibilities expected of you whether you like it or not. With these responsibilities come roles. Where is your responsibility?

Why not simply encourage the notion that staying home & taking care of kids is a noble and worthy pursuit for anyone, regardless of their gender?

mdn, so in your ideal world, a woman works right through her pregnancy and goes straight from work to the hospital to give birth. She's back at work a few days later while the father stays home with the powdered milk and the bottle? Is that better than the mother breast-feeding and spending a stress-free pregnancy? You just don't live in the real world. Interesting that none of you who express your opinions against me are mothers (hardly an assumption or it would have been raised earlier). This is only a theoretical exercise for you people. Some of us have experience of parenthood.
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:39 AM on November 14, 2003

mdn: What benefit is there in creating rules based on stereotypical examples? Just because it may be a minority of the group that is inclined to pursue a route doesn't make it any less important that the route be open

Who's talking about rules? I'm talking about human behaviour - what people want. I don't like social engineers who try to deny this simple truth about the choices people want to make. I'm all for freedom of choice (for the one millionth time) - let people make their choices, without interfering with them, telling them they're "oppressed" and victims of a patriachy. It's as daft as forcing people to marry and have children. Both are against freedom of choice.
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:47 AM on November 14, 2003

Modern feminism tries to tell everybody what women as a whole want.

It does no such thing.
posted by dabitch at 4:37 AM on November 14, 2003

do you find traditional roles oppressive?

Only if they are expected of people. Only if people are not offered a choice about whether to assume them or not. If they're freely chosen, they're not oppressive. There's a chasm of difference between "I'm a stay at home mom because that's what I always wanted to be" and "I'm a stay at home mom because my husband/the Bible/society says that's where I belong". It's about CHOICE, not roles - the roles are unimportant in this discussion, the CHOICE to assume them or not is what's relevant. I don't know how to state it more clearly than that. Someone has to assume certain tasks (not roles, but tasks which make up the roles), who does so is unimportant, as long as the tasks are being done. In the "Column A" of "traditional female role tasks" and the "Column B" of "traditional male role tasks", what matters is that all tasks in each column are done, not who does them, or even that one person assumes all tasks in one column - there doesn't have to be one person assuming the "female role" and one the "male role".

And you're just wrong about feminism. That's your personal experience getting in the way again.

And you're AGAIN misconstruing what mdn has been saying - her ideal world is one in which people have the freedom to decide for themselves what they should do. Not one in which women work all the way through their pregnancies etc. etc. unless they WANT to, that's your creative interpretation at work again. Why can't you understand that it's about CHOICE? You keep twisting people's words into shapes that make them about rules, which clearly seem to be what YOU want, but isn't at all what anyone else wants, or is even talking about.
posted by biscotti at 9:59 AM on November 14, 2003

biscotti, thank you for answering the question.

I repeat: I talk about human behaviour. The majority of men and women today still choose traditional roles. What does that tell you? There's a predisposition to choosing such roles. I believe this predisposition is based upon gender traits. OK, got this far?

What I like to deconstruct are the myths that deny the above paragraph. They are the myths of modern feminism and political correctness that try to whitewash human nature and desire. Most woman want to be mothers and take care of their children. Not be CEOs of a company. It's a fact. Sorry to burst the bubble of you modern feminists. It's just what women want. I describe human being behaviour. So simple, so simple. Mothers are on my side. You non-mother students keep replying,but your opinion is weak based upon your lack of life experience.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:36 PM on November 14, 2003

Now that I think of equality, "oppression" and work......what would happen to society if the employers of plumbers, brick layers, welders, pipe fitters, iron workers, coal miners, trash-collectors, mill workers, farm-hands and construction laborers (just as example professions) were asked to make sure 50% of their workforces were represented by women? Do you think that there would be enough females to fit those roles? Hey, equality and all that!!! We're all equal aren't we??? No expectations!! Hahahahhahaha......
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:14 PM on November 14, 2003

Most woman want to be mothers and take care of their children. Not be CEOs of a company. It's a fact. Sorry to burst the bubble of you modern feminists. It's just what women want.

That shouldn't burst anyone's bubble, except yours, since you're again misrepresenting what most feminists are about. I know very few feminists who say that all women want to be CEOs, what they say is that they shouldn't be prevented from doing so based on their gender. And it's what SOME women want, not "women", SOME women. As to your second comment, most feminists would never say that 50% of any workforce had to be female, just that women should be given equal consideration.

I describe human being behaviour. So simple, so simple.

No, again, you describe SOME human beings' behaviour. Some women (maybe even a majority) stay home with the kids, some women are CEOs - why do you only seem to care about the former?

Mothers are on my side. You non-mother students keep replying,but your opinion is weak based upon your lack of life experience.

First of all, this comment isn't relevant to the argument about choice vs. no choice or even traditional roles vs. non-traditional roles, it's a cheap appeal to nonexistent authority. Second, I'm not a student. I was a pediatric nurse and IT professional before my current incarnation as housewife/dog trainer. I have no kids of my own, but I have plenty of kid experience. And anyway, my lack of children doesn't preclude my being able to formulate an educated opinion about whether people should have choices about the roles they assume in their lives. If you agree that people should be able to choose which roles to assume, as you stated you did, then what are you arguing about? And/or why do you keep changing what the discussion is about? What does "Mothers are on my side mean"? My mother sure isn't on your side, and neither are any of my multitude of friends who are mothers, if your side is the one that says that traditional roles are the only way to run a family.
posted by biscotti at 6:06 PM on November 14, 2003

First of all, this comment isn't relevant to the argument about choice vs. no choice

Sorry, I don't understand this. Who is arguing for a lack of choice here? Read my posts carefully. I'm actually arguing against the lack of choice the modern feminist view tries to persuade women they really have - that traditional roles are oppressive, sexist and unworthy - a view mdn holds and alludes to many times (which I've already highlighted), but is frightened to say directly.

I said:- Now that I think of equality, "oppression" and work......what would happen to society if the employers of plumbers, brick layers, welders, pipe fitters, iron workers, coal miners, trash-collectors, mill workers, farm-hands and construction laborers (just as example professions) were asked to make sure 50% of their workforces were represented by women?

biscotti replies:- As to your second comment, most feminists would never say that 50% of any workforce had to be female, just that women should be given equal consideration

mdn states that gender traits are irrelevant, yet they certainly appear to be relevant in the job market. Why don't modern feminists impose positive discrimination in these job roles, to balance the gender representation (like they have done in other job markets and universities)? Is it because they are undesirable jobs? Perhaps they are not pushing their message of equality in areas that don't suit them/are undesirable for them? Perhaps some jobs are better suited to a particular gender...oh but child care is different, that's equally suitable to men or women according to modern feminists (despite biology suggesting otherwise). This is seeking privilige and advantage when they want it and overlooking the areas they have no interest in seeking equality.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:54 AM on November 15, 2003

Don't lose track of the absolute fact that SpaceCadet is directly, clearly, and explicitly arguing against "equality of opportunities" and "equality of governmental protection" for women:

NortonDC: what [do] you choose to support when these two things come into opposition: traditional roles for women versus equality for both sexes.
SpaceCadet: What is "equality between the sexes" for you Norton?
NortonDC: As used in the question, I'm referring to equality of governmental protection and equality of opportunities not eliminated by gross anatomical differences between the sexes (meaning that I am not including breastfeeding, etc.).
SpaceCadet: I choose traditional roles [for women] in the situation where they come into conflict with equality between the sexes. No irony, no nothing. Straight answer.

posted by NortonDC at 7:20 PM on November 16, 2003

Norton, how embarrassing for you to not only misquote me yet again (by adding "[for women]"), but to link to the original quote to prove you've misquoted me!! Are you some kind of intellectual masochist?

How on earth can *I* choose for women? How ridiculous. The original quote I made clearly states "I choose traditional values...." - ME. MYSELF. I. Not WOMEN.

And.......you never did answer the question yourself which you promised you'd do.....wonder why that is......

I'll ask you again:-

Norton, what do you choose to support when these two things come into opposition: traditional roles for women versus equality for both sexes?

Clear answer please. (hint: I hope you answer equality for both sexes regardless of the situation - I look forward to the counter-argument).
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:32 AM on November 17, 2003

Here is the original wording of the question:

I can't tell what you really want: women to get back to families and take on traditional roles, or true equality between the sexes. These are very different positions. Which is closer to your heart?

And here is the final wording, the version you directly answered:

what [do] you choose to support when these two things come into opposition: traditional roles for women versus equality for both sexes?

All along it has always been about your beliefs regarding women. All along.

Your answer? "OK, Norton I choose traditional roles in the situation where they come into conflict with equality between the sexes. No irony, no nothing. Straight answer."

That is you finally giving a direct answer to the question after weeks of evasions, lies, distortions and dodges. The "for women" has always been at the core of the question, and that is the question you answered. I included it in your answer here for the benefit of those that had not read your weeks of lies and evasions in the other thread, to give them full meaning of your answer. It is entirely appropriate and truthful to include it.

How on earth can *I* choose for women? How ridiculous.

Yes, fortunately for the world, you lack the power to insure the choices you seek to make for women are enforced on them. Glad you brought that up. Since you are obviously impotent to impose your will on women, your answer is primarily useful as way to let others evaluate your motives and to aid in judging exactly how little regard your opinions deserve.

The original quote I made clearly states "I choose traditional values...."

Yes, that was your direct answer to this question: "what [do] you choose to support when these two things come into opposition: traditional roles for women versus equality for both sexes?" Emphasizing the "I" in your answer to that question does reinforce that, yes, you really are announcing your decision for women.

And.......you never did answer the question yourself which you promised you'd do.

That is yet another of your lies, SpaceCadet. I never promised to answer that question, and I never lied about having answered it, and I never claimed it was "easy" to answer and then dodged, distorted, lied, and evaded to keep from answering it for weeks. That was you, SpaceCadet. But I did answer all the questions that you directed at me that appeared prior to my indication that I would answer them. To refresh your memory, here are your questions and my answers:

**
Think men and women deserve equal access to their children, whatever their marital status, you're a feminist. Think gender-neutrality when sorting out who pays child maintenance, you're a feminist. Think gender-neutrality interms of application of the law when there's a domestic violence issue, you're a feminist.

So why do many feminists disagree with the above paragraph?
**

I don't know that many feminists do, since I've never encountered any espousing those positions.

If feminists are truly interested in equality amongst the genders, why can they never see the inequalities men face?
False statement. The existence of a single feminist, such as myself, that sees discrimination applied to men invalidates your statement.

It would be absurd to assume men don't face any inequalities, so why the lack of interest, given that feminists are for gender equality?
Whether your question concerns me in particular or feminists as a whole, it's founded upon the false assumption that I have no interest in equality for men. If I'm interested in equality, then that automatically applies to both sexes of humanity. You understand the word "equal," right?

Does my answer f**k up the false dilemma you fed me?

No, because, as you have clearly demonstrated subsequently, the question was not a false dilemma and this question was based on another lie of yours.

What is "equality between the sexes" for you Norton?
As used in the question, I'm referring to equality of governmental protection and equality of opportunities not eliminated by gross anatomical differences between the sexes (meaning that I am not including breastfeeding, etc.)

What words are you spoon-feeding me?
None, I've been asking a single question that hinges upon your sexist bigotry, which you only recently openly declared.

What do you want me to say?
"I, Andrew Lang, am a sexist bigot that wants to stack the deck to protect my own personal desires at the expense of half of humanity."

Of course traditional roles creates different roles for mother and father! Does that make it "unequal"? No.

Apparently this was another lie. I'll let you continue to sort out your own answer before addressing this one.

And now to the question you did not ask me in that period: Norton, what do you choose to support when these two things come into opposition: traditional roles for women versus equality for both sexes?

To maximize clarity, I will substitute the definition of "equality" you asked for and received in the course of the prior thread: when support for traditional roles for women comes into opposition with support for equality of governmental protection and equality of opportunities not eliminated by gross anatomical differences between the sexes (meaning that I am not including breastfeeding, etc.), I choose to support equality of governmental protection and equality of opportunities not eliminated by gross anatomical differences between the sexes.
posted by NortonDC at 4:45 AM on November 17, 2003

Norton, you do waffle on. I think you could make your point more succinctly if you simply said:-

"I, NortonDC, am a militant modern feminist only interested in equality where women appear to suffer discrimination (notice my questions are always about women)".

Why do you confuse feminism belonging exclusively to womanhood? Isn't feminism about gender equality?? Why do you pose questions involving only one gender? I think you've given yourself away many times in being an advantage seeker rather than being truly egalitarian.

How do you define government protection? Positive discrimination? Affirmative action? If so, why don't modern feminists fight for equality in job areas such as plumbers, brick layers, welders, pipe fitters, iron workers, coal miners, trash-collectors, mill workers, farm-hands and construction laborers?? Are they only fighting for equality in areas that interest them? If so, it's all about privilige and advantage, not true equality. You can't pick and choose about equality. Either everything is equal, or it's about seeking advantage.
posted by SpaceCadet at 6:30 AM on November 17, 2003

More distortions and lies from SpaceCadet, already adressed:
NortonDC (3:16 PM PST on November 8): Whether your question concerns me in particular or feminists as a whole, it's founded upon the false assumption that I have no interest in equality for men. If I'm interested in equality, then that automatically applies to both sexes of humanity. You understand the word "equal," right?

Why do you pose questions involving only one gender?

I didn't. mdn posed the question. I pressed you to answer it, which, after weeks of dodging, distortions, evasions and lies you did:

I choose traditional roles [for women] in the situation where they come into conflict with equality between the sexes. No irony, no nothing. Straight answer.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:24 AM PST on November 7

posted by NortonDC at 7:04 AM on November 17, 2003

I choose traditional roles [for women] in the situation where they come into conflict with equality between the sexes. No irony, no nothing. Straight answer.

Third time you've misquoted me Norton.....you really are an intellectual masochist....you enjoy looking very silly. Even more ridiculous, you again link to the quote you misquote to make it very easy for people to see that you've misquoted me!

You didn't answer me what governmental protection includes. Are you including positive discrimination here? Affirmative action? Equal representation? In all areas of life? Or only some? If only some areas, why only some areas? Please elaborate on this vague term.

...and equality of opportunities not eliminated by gross anatomical differences between the sexes (meaning that I am not including breastfeeding, etc.)

I don't understand the meaning of this. Could you phrase it in plain English? Do you mean physical differences must be taken into account when dealing with gender equality? If so, where are the lines drawn? The "etc" is a bit of a cop-out. Give me clearcut examples.

To maximize clarity, I will substitute the definition of "equality" you asked for and received in the course of the prior thread: when support for traditional roles for women comes into opposition with support for equality of governmental protection and equality of opportunities not eliminated by gross anatomical differences between the sexes (meaning that I am not including breastfeeding, etc.), I choose to support equality of governmental protection and equality of opportunities not eliminated by gross anatomical differences between the sexes.

I had to re-quote the above in full to give it a proper response....

Do you believe in positive discrimination? Affirmative action? Equal representation? If not, why not? (for these are the tools used to enforce rigid equality). What about the lowering of training standards in the emergency services to ensure equal representation of gender? Are you a proponent of such measures? You have to elaborate on how you think equality manifests itself as "government protection" - not just say it's right and fair. Then again, you're not one for giving examples - the real world's just to random and natural to your theoretical world.
posted by SpaceCadet at 8:19 AM on November 17, 2003

Given that it took a month to get you to answer one question you described as "easy" to answer, I'm perfectly comfortable not jumping at every demand for information you make, and instead focusing on keeping your answer foremost in people's minds:

I choose traditional roles [for women] in the situation where they come into conflict with equality between the sexes. No irony, no nothing. Straight answer.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:24 AM PST on November 7

...and...

Here is the original wording of the question you're answering:

I can't tell what you really want: women to get back to families and take on traditional roles, or true equality between the sexes. These are very different positions. Which is closer to your heart?

And here is the final wording of the question, the version you directly answered:

what [do] you choose to support when these two things come into opposition: traditional roles for women versus equality for both sexes?

All along it has always been about your beliefs regarding women. All along.

Your answer? "OK, Norton I choose traditional roles in the situation where they come into conflict with equality between the sexes. No irony, no nothing. Straight answer."

That is you finally giving a direct answer to the question after weeks of evasions, lies, distortions and dodges. The "for women" has always been at the core of the question, and that is the question you answered. I included it in your answer here for the benefit of those that had not read your weeks of lies and evasions in the other thread, to give them the full meaning of your answer. It is entirely appropriate and truthful to include it.

posted by NortonDC at 8:46 AM on November 17, 2003

Norton, why do you feel it necessary to include "[for women]" in my quote everytime? Why can't you let it stand on it's own, if you're so convinced of the emphasis of my answer? How on earth can I choose for half the population of this planet? I can only choose for myself. If your question is asking me to choose for half the population, it's a ridiculous question.

I'm perfectly comfortable not jumping at every demand for information you make, and instead focusing on keeping your answer foremost in people's minds

I know you're comfortable with avoiding questions.

After all this time, I'm still completely unaware of your opinion on gender equality. Do you agree with positive discrimination? Affirmative action? Equal representation? If not, how is gender equality enforced? Let me know the details.....
posted by SpaceCadet at 11:26 AM on November 17, 2003

It tells you what people want. ..Each individual belongs to a gender. Each individual is shaped by their gender traits. ..For you, every (wo)man is an island, with utterly unique instincts and traits.

No, I merely said that traits that may be common in a group should not be expected in a member of said group.

To reverse the question the helpless Norton keeps asking me: mdn, biscotti: do you find traditional roles oppressive? If you do, then surely you are looking down on men and women who happily choose these roles.

As biscotti said, traditional roles are only oppressive if they are expected rather than chosen. The primary thing about modernity is freedom of choice - democracy allows it in our gov't, and social change allows it in our private lives. We are not expected to live under an authority merely because he (his family) has "always been" the authority; we are not expected to live according to certain expected roles merely because that's how it's "always been". Instead, each of us is free to create the future we desire. It can be a tough thing to do, a stressful thing even, but I think it's just about the most important aspect of our culture. All we're suggesting here is that women should not feel obliged to fulfill certain aspects of parenthood while men feel sequestered from partaking in them. Obviously certain things are determined by bodily capability, but so much is not. Greater involvement of fathers in early childhood seems like a wholly positive element of feminism to me.

I say again: isn't freedom of choice about accepting other people's choices too? Modern feminism clearly tries to interfere with people's choices. As I said earlier, I enjoy deconstructing politically correct myths.

I think you misunderstand feminism, or are reading off of some very limited version of the philosophy.

mdn:I would prefer that expected roles fall by the wayside.
Why? If you are a parent, there are responsibilities expected of you whether you like it or not. With these responsibilities come roles. Where is your responsibility?

as biscotti pointed out above, those responsibilities do not necessitate specific roles; the duties can be divided in any number of ways, including bringing in other family members.

Why not simply encourage the notion that staying home & taking care of kids is a noble and worthy pursuit for anyone, regardless of their gender?

mdn, so in your ideal world, a woman works right through her pregnancy and goes straight from work to the hospital to give birth. She's back at work a few days later while the father stays home with the powdered milk and the bottle? Is that better than the mother breast-feeding and spending a stress-free pregnancy?

In my ideal world, the woman works through her pregnancy if she wants to, and doesn't if she doesn't want to, and goes back to work at the point where she sees fit to do so. I think it's great when parents share parenting duties, when both get up in the middle of the night, when both stay home with the baby for a little while.

However, if one parent feels particularly inclined to stay home, and the other is at a stage where he or she wants to keep working, then that's fine too. I don't have an ideal for other people. All I want to be sure of is that options are available.

You just don't live in the real world. Interesting that none of you who express your opinions against me are mothers (hardly an assumption or it would have been raised earlier). This is only a theoretical exercise for you people. Some of us have experience of parenthood.

Parents I know have split the early parenting duties pretty evenly, and mothers I know have expressed their desire to get back into their lives - of course they're overjoyed by the child, but they don't want to lose touch with adulthood either. If both parents share responsibilities, both can share the benefits, among them a retained connection to one's profession, creative pursuits, or other non-kid-related parts of life.
posted by mdn at 3:00 PM on November 17, 2003

In my ideal world, the woman works through her pregnancy if she wants to, and doesn't if she doesn't want to

I disagree. You believe in freedom of choice, regardless of whether it's harmful to another human being or not. This ideology shrugs it's shoulders at pregnant women who smoke (it's their individual right to do so), pregnant women who drink to excess (it's their individual right to do so), pregnant women who risk premature birth/miscarriage* by continuing to work a stressful job (it's their individual right to do so), pregnant women who use other forms of drugs that directly affect the unborn baby's health (it's their individual right to do so). In fact, a pregnant woman can do whatever she pleases according to your beliefs.

*my own wife almost went into early labour at 6 months while she worked as a nurse. Her doctor refused her to work for the remaining time of her pregnancy.

You champion freedom without responsibility. This is where our beliefs are different. Individual freedom does not extend to hurting others or putting others at risk in my opinion. That's where I draw the line - and you do not. Simply, our actions affect other people. We must be aware of this if we are to pursue freedom with responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is just anarchy and selfishness and ultimately harmful behaviour.

Parents I know have split the early parenting duties pretty evenly, and mothers I know have expressed their desire to get back into their lives - of course they're overjoyed by the child, but they don't want to lose touch with adulthood either. If both parents share responsibilities, both can share the benefits, among them a retained connection to one's profession, creative pursuits, or other non-kid-related parts of life.

Don't know why you think a working life is the only way to "go back into adulthood". As I pointed out many times, working mothers are one of the most stressed-out people in our society, the majority of them dreaming to get back to a simpler life. There are many stay-at-home mums who suddenly find they have time to pursue hobbies, take an open university degree, meet up with friends etc. Think I've said it 100 times, but it's another step to have a family with two breadwinners, both coming home stressed at the end of the day, both with chores to get done around the house and of course parental duties. I do know that two full-time workers in the house tend to rota the duties. What happens is they both become more tired and stressed out - e.g. both parents work all day, then one of them will take care of feeding the baby through the night and make up for the lost sleep the next day when the other parent takes babyfeeding duties - Of course if they are using mother's milk, it will have to be prepared in bottles before hand, frozen, then the bottle placed in warm water to thaw back to body temperature - and all the while the baby is crying for milk. Been there, tried that. My opinion is based upon trial and error! Sharing duties absolutely equally means both parents work harder.

Also I've said that it doesn't have to be the man who's the breadwinner. If his wife has better career prospects than him, it would be common sense for her to be the breadwinner. It just so happens that for obvious biological reasons, fathers can pursue a career uninterrupted and mothers cannot. Just my personal opinion. Your opinion never takes such obvious things into account (or you willfully ignore such things).
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:59 AM on November 18, 2003

Feminism mugged by reality (female author)

I wonder if someday a feminist will ever say the office is "a comfortable concentration camp," as author Betty Friedan famously described the home of an affluent suburban housewife in her landmark 1963 work, "The Feminine Mystique." Or if a feminist will ever admit that there is an eternal difference between men and women in their goals and in how they want to live their lives.

I doubt it, Phyllis.
posted by SpaceCadet at 10:59 AM on November 18, 2003

The Choice Revolution (female author)

"Brokaw rejects the notion that this makes her some kind of 1950s Stepford wife, and Belkin agrees. 'She is not trapped,' she says. 'This is a choice.'

That observation, like the opinions on work and motherhood of those profiled, is a simple matter of common sense and recognition of reality. That a seasoned journalist should find this 'explosive' shows how pervasive the Betty Friedan mindset has been. "

Seems there's a common sense revolution happening.....
posted by SpaceCadet at 11:20 AM on November 18, 2003

As I pointed out many times, working mothers are one of the most stressed-out people in our society, the majority of them dreaming to get back to a simpler life.

What happens is they both become more tired and stressed out - e.g. both parents work all day, then one of them will take care of feeding the baby through the night and make up for the lost sleep the next day when the other parent takes babyfeeding duties.

Hey, SpaceCadet, the new stay-at-home-moms of my acquaintance are by far the most stressed out people I know. They "work" all day too, in case this is news to you, in taking care of the baby. And then they usually "work" part of the night as well doing the same thing while their husband gets some sleep to face the next day at the office. And if the baby has any health issues, this is *far* more stressful than any office job.

This attitude that staying at home with the baby gives moms an "easier" time because it's less work than going into an office is condescending. But it's good to know your opinion that this is a "simpler life" for us. Nice.

Sharing duties absolutely equally means both parents work harder.

Whereas your way just the mom gets to work harder. Thanks. Good to know where you stand.

I don't know what your experience has been, SpaceCadet, but I know lots of women who have chosen to stay at home with their babies during the day thinking this is the healthy thing for their child's development. And many find that by the time their husband comes home, if they do not get out into the world and have adult contact and conversation, they will go stark raving bonkers. This is a very good reason why duties should be shared. Raising a child is a huge responsibility. Two brains and psyches to share that responsibility are better than one.
posted by onlyconnect at 12:50 PM on November 18, 2003

Hey, SpaceCadet, the new stay-at-home-moms of my acquaintance are by far the most stressed out people I know

Lucky for them they're not taking on a full-time job as well then.... don't think they'd be cut out for that.

Sharing duties absolutely equally means both parents work harder.

Whereas your way just the mom gets to work harder. Thanks. Good to know where you stand.

I don't understand your logic. Give a woman a 40 hour-a-week job, throw in 5-10 hours commuting time while giving half the household duties to the husband will make her life easier?Do you think that half of household duties equates to a full-time job? Let me guess, for you the house is the "comfortable concentration camp" but the workplace isn't? Why would that be?

...if they do not get out into the world and have adult contact and conversation, they will go stark raving bonkers.

What is stopping them from going out into the world? I don't understand this. Do you think household chores are 24/7? Kids aren't allowed out into daylight? What are you on about? Sounds like your friends need to get a life, not a job. Jesus, some people have no imagination....

Anyway, here's some essential reading for you onlyconnect.
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:06 PM on November 18, 2003

Sharing duties absolutely equally means both parents work harder.

Yes. This is what happens when a new baby is introduced into the equation of a marriage. It will be more work FOR BOTH PARENTS. Under your scenario, (man = Tarzan = job, and woman = Jane = mom, where there is NO splitting and sharing of chores), the mom actually works a longer day than the dad, but she doesn't get paid for it, and she will have to deal with presumptions like yours that she is achieving a "simpler life" that is "easier."

Sounds like your friends need to get a life, not a job.

Your remarkable glibness about the amount of work in keeping a house and being the primary, go-to parent responsible for a very young child or multiple young children suggests to me that you need to watch yourself some Oprah, right quick. Sure, I know moms who get their kids out in the stroller every day for errands, etc., but protracted (= several hours) adult contact is not the norm among my friends who have very young children, beyond forming some sort of playgroup.
posted by onlyconnect at 3:51 PM on November 18, 2003

I disagree. You believe in freedom of choice, regardless of whether it's harmful to another human being or not. This ideology shrugs it's shoulders at pregnant women who smoke (it's their individual right to do so), pregnant women who drink to excess (it's their individual right to do so)...

Pregnant women who want to have their children will choose not to engage in behavior likely to cause harm or miscarriage. Pregnant women who don't want to have their children should feel that they can terminate their pregnancies.

*my own wife almost went into early labour at 6 months while she worked as a nurse. Her doctor refused her to work for the remaining time of her pregnancy.

doctors have the right - indeed we pay them to do this - to prescribe our activity (if we disagree vehemently, we'll seek a second opinion). Husbands, bosses, other members of society don't have the training and authority to do that.

You champion freedom without responsibility. This is where our beliefs are different.

No, I believe that laws are already in place which protect other people from the overextended freedom of individuals. Things which are not determined by law are determined by individual judgment. I believe women should have the right to judge for themselves what they do and don't want to do so long as it is in accord with the law. Do you disagree with that?

We must be aware of this if we are to pursue freedom with responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is just anarchy and selfishness and ultimately harmful behaviour.

where have I suggested that I support freedom without responsibility? I merely think that women should be responsible for their own lives.

Sounds like your friends need to get a life, not a job.

you're being a real jerk. If mom is the only one looking after the babies, you're suggesting she bring the 2 year old to a cocktail party? Some nights, dad can stay home with the kids and mom can go interact with grown-ups.
posted by mdn at 7:26 PM on November 18, 2003

SpaceCadet: Sharing duties absolutely equally means both parents work harder.

onlyconnect: Yes. This is what happens when a new baby is introduced into the equation of a marriage. It will be more work FOR BOTH PARENTS.

NO. I meant it's more work for both parents to share roles than dividing them up equally. This is based on my own experience. If there's a team of any people, you don't expect each member to do exactly the same thing in equal proportion. Division of labour is what society is all about. A family is a microcosm of this work principle. Imagine if we were all expected to make by ourselves everything we use. Hardly a good way to live....

onlyconnect: Your remarkable glibness about the amount of work in keeping a house and being the primary, go-to parent responsible for a very young child or multiple young children suggests to me that you need to watch yourself some Oprah, right quick

In various stages of my life I've been a house-husband, breadwinner, and part of a double-bread winner family. If anyone is glib, it's you as all you can offer is second-hand anecdotes to back up your opinion. I can refer to my own first-hand experience.

mdn: Pregnant women who want to have their children will choose not to engage in behavior likely to cause harm or miscarriage. Pregnant women who don't want to have their children should feel that they can terminate their pregnancies.

....and grass is green and tomatoes are red. You avoid my point:- individual freedoms that cause harm to others is not freedom, but anarchy and a very solipsistic view of the world. You clearly do not realise a heavily pregnant mother under workstress is potentially causing harm to her unborn child. Luckily the medical profession disagree with you, and so do most mothers who take time off a good few months before giving birth. Still, it's interesting you admit such a lack of respect to an unborn child (or perhaps I'm being unfair and you really are just ignorant of the medical facts).

mdn: you're being a real jerk.

Name-calling now.....first sign of losing an argument.

mdn, you sound like you've just stepped out of a Women's Studies class circa 1963. It's as if Feminist Mystique has just been released and you can't believe the things Betty has written - that evil patriarchy! You seem to hold a grudge against the system regarding the unfair treatment that women received hundreds of years ago.

....well wake up, it's 2003. I give so many links to people who share an antipathy towards modern feminism - many of them female authors. This feeling of antipathy is growing whereas proponents of feminism are getting fewer and fewer in number (as it becomes clear how divisive such ideology is). It's widely recognised now that Women's Studies is nothing more than out-of-date propaganda. The last rites of modern feminism will be when Women's Studies is removed from college campuses as an out-moded and unnecessary, politcally incorrect (how ironic!) subject.
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:14 AM on November 20, 2003

SpaceCadet, you're going to have to forgive me if I take anything you claim to be "based on my own experience" with a grain of salt, because you have made statements in previous threads (e.g., tender years doctrine) that have been 30 years outdated and completely wrong. I'm just saying.

I spoke to a friend with a newborn about this issue this today, and she had a good laugh about the idea that what she was doing -- the 3am feedings, constant attention, etc. -- was giving her a "simpler life" that was "easier" than her previous job, and she reminded me that she's 100% responsible for the life of another human being. Your comments here make me think you don't fully appreciate the work that moms do -- because if you did you'd never derogate it with terms like simple and easy.

Finally, your way of doing things (someone stays home, someone works, 100% of the time) leaves one parent somewhat alienated from the kids and uninvolved with their lives. I think that's sad. I still agree with mdn that it's all about choice, though, and women and men should be free to choose what's best for their own situation. Otherwise we may as well go back to letting you own us.
posted by onlyconnect at 4:48 PM on November 20, 2003

individual freedoms that cause harm to others is not freedom, but anarchy and a very solipsistic view of the world.

spacecadet, please read my post above again. My point was just that women are capable of judgment and of listening to the advice of their doctors. Where do I advocate solipsism?? All I said was that women can make their own choices. Do you not trust individual women to make reasonable judgments without a social expectation?

You clearly do not realise a heavily pregnant mother under workstress is potentially causing harm to her unborn child. Luckily the medical profession disagree with you, and so do most mothers who take time off a good few months before giving birth.

I do not suggest anywhere that pregnant women shouldn't take time off. All I said was that individuals should make those choices with their own doctors and as they see fit. Different forms of work will have different levels of impact on the body; different women will have different capacities during pregnancies. It's entirely an individual decision, to be made by each woman, with the advice of her doctors.

mdn, you sound like you've just stepped out of a Women's Studies class circa 1963. It's as if Feminist Mystique has just been released and you can't believe the things Betty has written - that evil patriarchy! You seem to hold a grudge against the system regarding the unfair treatment that women received hundreds of years ago.

I am truly baffled as to how you've come to this conclusion. The entirety of my claim has been to treat women as individual human beings, rather than to address individual women primarily as belonging to the class "woman". This is true for individuals in terms of what sort of life they want (only work, only home, or some combination) and in terms of how they deal with medical conditions, which is what pregnancy is.

I take no issue with the fact that the disability of pregnancy may determine a woman's capacity to work and be active for a period of time. It is one of the few medical conditions which is often sought after and usually has a beneficial end, but that doesn't change the physical fact that undergoing pregnancy is taking on a temporary disability (which is why abortion rights are important).

As for feminism no longer being relevant, I think the main reason for that is that the basic beliefs of feminism have been more or less adopted by the mainstream. Women are welcome to and even expected to contribute to society as thinkers, makers and actors, not just reproducers. That's great. However, when people like you suggest that actually "women" just want to return to how things used to be, I feel a need to outline and defend the basic tenets of feminist philosophy, as we've done for you in this thread. Once again, what it comes down to is individual choice, and universal opportunity. That's all.
posted by mdn at 8:52 PM on November 20, 2003

mdn:Where do I advocate solipsism??

You can't advocate solipsism as it's a state of mind adopted by a person who believes they are the only real person in the world. You adopt a form of moral solipsism here:-

mdn:In my ideal world, the woman works through her pregnancy if she wants to, and doesn't if she doesn't want to

This is an example of the arrogant belief that personal rights override the rights of others, including the unborn. A hallmark of modern feminism.

I am truly baffled as to how you've come to this conclusion. The entirety of my claim has been to treat women as individual human beings, rather than to address individual women primarily as belonging to the class "woman".

Why have Women's Studies? If you are right, it's a clear own-goal for feminism to have such a curriculum in colleges that clearly group individuals who happen to be female as "women". Also, please only represent your own personal view, and understand you don't represent other women when you speak (particularly as the majority of the female race don't subscribe to your point of view in the first place - I say that from behavioural observation).

Incidentally, what is wrong with identifying somebody by their gender? Is our gender something to be ashamed of? Are you irritated by differences between men and women? Why would that be? Could it be that nature doesn't fit in with your politically correct ideology?

Or perhaps you like to impose subjective morality, whereby any ideology is fine regardless of whether it's harmful to the individual practicing it or any other innocent people caught up in it.
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:06 AM on November 22, 2003

majority of the female race

Oh dear......gender....gender....gender.....
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:18 AM on November 22, 2003

mdn: In my ideal world, the woman works through her pregnancy if she wants to, and doesn't if she doesn't want to

This is an example of the arrogant belief that personal rights override the rights of others, including the unborn. A hallmark of modern feminism.

No, it's only the way you imply it is if you believe that women are more likely to choose a course of action out of a lack of interest for their baby than the opposite. Not all jobs are so stressful, physically or mentally, that there's any reason for a woman to stop working during a pregnancy if she doesn't want to. And, I know this will come as a shock to you, but most women will probably choose the course of action that's best for their baby.

I don't really see how you can reconcile the fact that on the one hand you're waving your arms about how women want to stay at home with their kids and you have the statistics to prove it (which implies that women agree with your idea of what's best for the children) and on the other hand you're waving your arms about how women are all selfish and evil and only care about working even if it hurts their baby and we should take their right to choose away from them. You can deny all you want that you're advocating removal of the right to choose, but your consistent posting on this topic clearly implies otherwise. If you REALLY believe that women want what you feel is in the best interests of children when it comes to children who are born (i.e. staying at home) then you should support a woman's right to decide whether she should work through her pregnancy or not, because, according to your own data, they will make the right choice most of the time (where "right choice" = "choice in the best interests of the baby").

mdn nowhere says ALL women SHOULD work through their pregnancies, just that they should be able to make that decision for themselves. And let me ask you this, since you made your comment about "arrogant belief that personal rights override the rights of others", what possible solution are you suggesting? It's logical to assume that your solution to this is to remove a woman's right to self-determination, remove her right to choose how she manages her pregnancy and children.

The bottom line here is that either you think women are incapable of making good decisions and must have their decisions made for them, or you think women are capable of making good decisions only when it supports your argument. Either way, I hope you're just not articulating your thinking very well, because you seem to have some serious issues with women.
posted by biscotti at 10:08 AM on November 22, 2003

most women will probably choose the course of action that's best for their baby.

I meant to add: and sometimes that will be not working, and sometimes that will be working, in the absence of physical reasons not to work, it often depends on what will make the mother happier, since a happy, relaxed, non-stressed mother tends to mean a better pregnancy, and many women find working less stressful than not working. It's not about whether someone works or not, that's meaningless in the absence of other information.
posted by biscotti at 9:07 PM on November 22, 2003

biscotti:I don't really see how you can reconcile the fact that on the one hand you're waving your arms about how women want to stay at home with their kids and you have the statistics to prove it (which implies that women agree with your idea of what's best for the children) and on the other hand you're waving your arms about how women are all selfish and evil and only care about working even if it hurts their baby and we should take their right to choose away from them.

I'm replying to mdn's belief that a mother can choose whatever she likes, regardless of other lives. She didn't qualify her belief with "in the best interests of the child". An important omission. Her belief is soley in the best interests of the first person singular.

I didn't say women follow mdn's belief at all. I know mdn's view is only held by a few radical feminists out there, and that the vast majority of women live a lifestyle that is conducive to a good family life. If every women was like mdn, we would have only anarchy and utter selfishness, with everyone taking absolutely no personal responsibility for their actions.

I think she assumes feminism is still a popular movement where in fact it's seen as a divisive, anti-social ideology in most people's eyes today. We are in 2003, not 1963. No ideology has the right to assume power over people's lives indefinitely. Thank God for that.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:13 AM on November 23, 2003

I'm replying to mdn's belief that a mother can choose whatever she likes, regardless of other lives.

No, there's no "regardless of other lives" implicit in what mdn said, that's your own addition. The issue is whether or not a mother can choose whatever she likes, what other option do you suggest? Forcing women to quit work during pregnancy by law? Why would you assume that working is always the worst thing for the pregnancy when it's clearly not (it depends on the type of work involved)? And why would you assume that most women would choose to work even if their job was such that it was the worst thing for the pregnancy?

She didn't qualify her belief with "in the best interests of the child".

She didn't have to (in fact, your own assertion is that women WOULD choose the option best for the child, since you keep bringing up your study about how women want to stay home and that in your opinion that's best for the children - pick one, either women generally want to do what's best for children or they don't). She was talking about whether or not women should have the option to choose, and clearly they should. Do you feel it's up to outside parties to decide what's best?

Her belief is soley in the best interests of the first person singular.

Nonsense. That's your (angry, misogynist) interpretation of what she said. It's a big stretch to assume that "best interests of first person singular" automatically means "worst interests of/no consideration for anyone else".
posted by biscotti at 4:36 PM on November 23, 2003

thanks biscotti.

Spacecadet, as biscotti said, my point was merely that women are capable of judging for themselves, and should be trusted with that judgment (& of course, should listen to the advice of their doctors, some of whom - gasp - may be female themselves....)
posted by mdn at 7:01 PM on November 23, 2003