[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

It's very true but it's also preaching to the choir. Men who value the opinion of women will ask for it in the first place, and men who hate themselves won't be all that surprised that women in general will hate them, too. In fact, that's their default assumption. Hence pick up culture.

What of these women who are furthering to the fracture of #metoo. To the splintering of feminism. Over the Aziz Ansari incident. There are more than a few. (I won't bother with further links to.)

As women who identity as feminists, as survivors of sexual assault, as supporters of #metoo, does their opinion now suddenly mean so little when previously it was for everyone to pay heed to.

What reason do these women have to do anything other than support feminism and #metoo. To rally around those who have suffered at the hands of sexual assault.

Let's not be so ignorant or self-centered to reduce their agency to nothing when it does not provide what we want. I'm the first to argue that men deserve to have a say. I'll also argue that women hold more of a stake in it and may be better qualified to determine what is and what is not.

If not for well considered pieces, by women, I would have relented by now. I'd have had to accept that as a man I may simply not understand as best I could. Yet women are arguing exactly as I, at times with fervor, and much more to lose. They see it as an assault on agency as I do.

I'm interested to explore how it can be so divisive among women. Why these women can so swiftly face a call for their feminist card to be revoked. How we have saw men verses women with the roles reversed.

It seems to have ran its course here, though. And I cannot continue to deflect the negativity, few as it has been, for pursuing such.

I'll boil down my opinion and move on. Grace. Good! Ansari. Bad!

What? They're trying to exclude someone from #metoo because they don't think she's was enough of a victim, the link you posted denied her victimhood entirely. Women can internalize patriarchy without knowing it, even ones that consider themselves feminists. Grace being a victim too isn't going to kill feminism.

If it's not quite moved on from, not just yet.

Stengah wrote:

What? They're trying to exclude someone from #metoo because they don't think she's was enough of a victim, the link you posted denied her victimhood entirely.

Isn't exception always to do with failing to meet a certain criteria? It's not personal. It's matter of fact.

They're not denying that she is a victim. There saying she is a victim of something that is not sexual assault.

Stengah wrote:

Women can internalize patriarchy without knowing it, even ones that consider themselves feminists.

How insulting is that to the woman that don't agree. You are refusing to accept that they have done their homework, so to speak, and simply came to a different conclusion. No consideration for their experiences. No respect for their womanhood.

Stengah wrote:

Grace being a victim too isn't going to kill feminism.

If it is not sexual assault yet is treated as sexual assault it damages the movement. It lends strength to the naysayers who claim accusations are too trivially thrown around, and blindly supported in a tribal fashion.

RnRClown wrote:
Stengah wrote:

What? They're trying to exclude someone from #metoo because they don't think she's was enough of a victim, the link you posted denied her victimhood entirely.

Isn't exception always to do with failing to meet a certain criteria? It's not personal. It's matter of fact.

They're not denying that she is a victim. There saying she is a victim of something that is not sexual assault.

To call "Grace" a victim is to trivialize victims and to diminish "Grace."

How can you read that as anything except Brawley denying that Grace is a victim?

Stengah wrote:

Women can internalize patriarchy without knowing it, even ones that consider themselves feminists.

How insulting is that to the woman that don't agree. You are refusing to accept that they have done their homework, so to speak, and simply came to a different conclusion. No consideration for their experiences. No respect for their womanhood.

Less insulting than they're being to a woman who took months to come to terms with her own victimhood. I'm saying that the reason she came to a different conclusion is because she has internalized viewpoints and opinions promoted by the patriarchy. It's not just me as a man doing this, that's why I rebutted with an article by a women who was disagreeing with women who were attacking Grace. Here's another one with a personal (content warning) example of how some of the suggestions being given to Grace wouldn't work and could get her killed.

Stengah wrote:

Grace being a victim too isn't going to kill feminism.

If it is not sexual assault yet is treated as sexual assault it damages the movement. It lends strength to the naysayers who claim accusations are too trivially thrown around, and blindly supported in a tribal fashion.

First: It was absolutely sexual assault, anyone claiming otherwise is glossing over the latter half of Grace's story (or didn't read it at all and are writing their thinkpieces based on what they've heard about it). It wasn't initially, but when he continued after she told him she was not ready for and did not want what he was trying to get her to do it certainly was. Second: Did you read the article I posted? Because it uses this hypothetical fear to say that this is exactly the reason Grace's story needs to be talked about, to navigate and map out the boundary between sexual assault and bad sex. Because there are more victims out their like Grace than there are those who were in a Weinstein situation (or more accurately, there are more guys like Aziz who went a little bit too far on a date than there are Weinstein who use the power of a media empire to find and silence their victims. Ignoring the messy cases in favor of the clear cut ones isn't going make things much better.

To Raise A Feminist Son, Talk To Him About Aziz Ansari

As the articles in defense of Aziz Ansari have said, women have agency. Yes, we do. But we don’t just show up in our encounters with men with an Uber app on our phones and that glorious word, “No.” We show up awash in the rules and ruse of patriarchy and its son, rape culture. As comedian and writer Kate Willett posted on her social media page:

“Good flirting…is paying such deep attention to another person’s emotions and body language that you create more intimacy with them. It’s a two-way, playful, fun exchange that makes everyone feel good. Sexual harassment is the opposite. It’s devoid of empathy, and it’s about forcing your will upon another person without having any regard for their desire. You’re comparing a paint brush to a wrecking ball.”

Sure, yes, our culture is transmuting. #Metoo, in all its iterations, all its humiliations, and all its chaos, is part of the transmutation. But there’s so much more to talk about — more deeply and with more nuance — with our sons and daughters and friends and partners.

Every woman I talk to about this feels differently than the men whose opinions I read here.

An article about educating girls and boys about good sex. Basically a continuation of themes in Stengah's linked article albeit on the specific issue where too much emphasis is placed on male pleasure and not enough on female pleasure and agency. It's good food for thought and also ties into the article Hypatian linked a few pages back about conceptualising who we want to be.

On the Aziz Ansari issue, I got my wife to read the babe.com article to see what her views were. She said it was Grace's weakness that she didn't express a firm no and shouldn't have gone back to Ansari's place, but did so because she wanted the relationship with Ansari enough that she was willing to put herself in a situation where she was not ready for the escalation. I post this not to validate any Ansari defenders or victim blame, but to reinforce the importance of teaching young men and women to set clear expectations and respect and uphold them; that women should feel confident and safe to say no, I am leaving, or I think you should leave now, and for men to respect a rejection and to also gauge their partner's wishes even without an express clarification because assuming consent is present absent physical resistance is part of rape culture and needs to be dismantled.

Not That Bad

Grace's story is common. It's so common that I don't have to imagine it because I remember it. I laugh about it without smiling. It's the story of so much bad sex. And when I hear that bad sex described as a sexual assault, it forces me to reexamine my own history. And see, I just started feeling strong again.

I believe her; I don't agree with her.
I'm telling you this not because I think she is wrong,
but because I think I am.

...

Women have already taken enough of a painful personal inventory to be able to say #metoo; I am not eager to go back over what I've come to comfortably accept as "crappy hookups," or "sh*tty sex," and come to realize that yes, that was sexual assault too.

If we begin to call all sexual assault what it is, we will have to voluntarily admit more pain into our lives, pain that we have up to this point refused to let in the door. If we call this kind of sexual encounter an assault, then women who have been weathering what they call bad sex will suddenly have justification for the icky feelings and shame that follows them home in the cab. And yet, we'd really rather just hit the showers.

I've taken that cab, crying. And I've taken that shower. And I would never have told the story, because I would have been afraid of someone thinking, "That's not that bad," the way I just f*cking did. I don't have to imagine what happened to Grace because I remember it.

...

If you shared my hesitation to stand up with Grace on this one, I'm just asking you to hang out and ask yourself why. You don't have to come up with answers. It's enough to notice and wonder.

These uncomfortable conversations are part of #metoo, as much as the truth telling and hearing. The only easy day was yesterday, when we found ourselves mostly in agreement that Weinstein is a slimy bag of dicks, and Spacey is a scummy, flesh-eating bacteria.

This was never going to be easy or smooth. It's absurd to think that we'd be able to push through what Frances McDormand called a tectonic shift without revealing fault lines we didn't know were there. We're going to find ourselves on opposite sides of things. We're going to disagree. And we're going to get uncomfortable. Remember that you, too, are socialized. Even though you've been hurt, you are also trained to hurt others. I am; I do. I'm trying to do better.

My 5-year-old Chicken told me the other day,
"I think the opposite of brave isn't scared.
The opposite of brave is quiet."

Remember, we don't fail when we disagree. We fail when we go quiet and walk away. Stick around. Be honest. Don't be scared. Or be scared, but don't be quiet.

Stengah wrote:

Less insulting than they're being to a woman who took months to come to terms with her own victimhood.

As women who may have taken time to come to terms with their own, I am not so sure. They are the women who may feel trivialized.

Stengah wrote:

I'm saying that the reason she came to a different conclusion is because she has internalized viewpoints and opinions promoted by the patriarchy.

I'm saying that's insulting. You do not know this to be true for how she got there.

Stengah wrote:

It's not just me as a man doing this, that's why I rebutted with an article by a women who was disagreeing with women who were attacking Grace. Here's another one with a personal (content warning) example of how some of the suggestions being given to Grace wouldn't work and could get her killed.

We cannot go down the route of what could have happened. There's nothing there. She could have been killed by merely going back to the apartment. She could have been killed by any date she has ever had. Never happened.

I realize that women are disagreeing with one another. It's in a prior post as something that interests me enough to play devil's advocate.

Stengah wrote:

First: It was absolutely sexual assault, anyone claiming otherwise is glossing over the latter half of Grace's story (or didn't read it at all and are writing their thinkpieces based on what they've heard about it).

Not everyone agrees. You do not get to dismiss those who disagree by suggesting they failed to read or to understand.

Stengah wrote:

Second: Did you read the article I posted?

Yes. I did read the article. I have also read 'To Raise a Feminist Son'. And much more.

I've also read those in opposition.

I am a feminist and I support Aziz Ansari: The true victim of this vexing incident is the #MeToo movement.

Ashleigh Banfield Slams Aziz Ansari Accuser.

Aziz Ansari is Innocent.

Aziz Ansari is Guilty. Of Not Being a Mind Reader.

Let's be honest about Aziz Ansari.

These are the views of women.

I asked my wife what her take was. I got a similar response.

Being devil's advocate is unpleasant. Interesting, but unpleasant.

I have to keep saying that it is not to defend or support Ansari. If that happens it is as a byproduct of seeking what is most accurate.

Protip: don't be a devil's advocate. Its generally not approved of on d&d. Using it as a shield is sh*tty.

We have to go down the route of what might have happened. Every woman dismissing Grace's claim that it was assault goes down that route when they say what she could have done to stop it sooner or made herself more clear, they just pick the cheery ending.

Unlike the women who would dismiss Grace's victimhood, Icm not dismissing them for just disagreeing. I'm dismissing them because they skip over and leave out the parts of Grace's story that are clearly sexual assault so they can say that he stopped when asked to. It took repeated attempts to get him to back off at all, and even then he started back up each time. It didn't end with them watching Seinfield like many of the articles claim, during Seinfield he tried sticking his hand down her pants and started trying to make out with her again. Even after he relented and called an uber for her he continued to try to make out with her. She had to get out of his apartment before he finally stopped coming after her.

SallyNasty wrote:

Every woman I talk to about this feels differently than the men whose opinions I read here.

I'm asking this as a foreigner, so I won't presume to dictate to you how to run your culture.

To me, Ansari pressing on repeatedly when he was given a clear signal to stop was grossly inappropriate. Is it not? Not a rhetorical question. To some corners of PUA culture, that was was absolutely and completely in line with expectations. I note that there is always this emphasis on "Men must be aggressive," and "Men must 'take the lead,'" often directly leading to advice to ignore boundaries or statements or to repeatedly try and to exert pressure against contrary preferences.

Is this where we want to be with this? Where would you stand, and exactly how do the women you know prefer their males to be aggressive? In Ansari's place, which of his actions would you have done and felt good about it whatever the woman may have said later?

I think he was saying that none of the men here on either side has expressed the opinion most of his female acquaintances have. Not that all of them think Ansari did nothing wrong.

Stengah wrote:

I think he was saying that none of the men here on either side has expressed the opinion most of his female acquaintances have. Not that all of them think Ansari did nothing wrong.

Perhaps. I'm interested in exploring which particular actions were acceptable and which were not.

Americans here often have a hard time grokking Asian mores and practices, and think it overly complicated. But it is communicative. One of those things is the "Three No" standard. Most of the time, when offered something we really like, we decline from politeness. The second decline might be from shyness. But a third "no" is seen as a definite hard stop. Once you get to that point, that's an honest and forthright answer and you are supposed to treat it that way.

I hold a similar standard with my wife, though I'm a little hesistant to apply that in general. If she refuses to reciprocate sexual escalation thrice, that's a hard no and I will no longer escalate whether with an initiative or with a reciprocation maneuver. She doesn't want it, so I'mma go do something else.

Scope of Thread wrote:

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

RnRClown wrote:

Being devil's advocate is unpleasant. Interesting, but unpleasant.

Stop doing it. Not interested in anyone suppressing personal views or offering them under the guise of 'devil's advocate' in these forums. Certainly not in a protracted way. Either offer arguments from your own perspective or mosey on, please.

General note for the thread: it's devolving into a court case about the details of what happened in one reported incident and the state of public opinion. My read on the intention of the thread is to offer personal takes on the wider issue and how we discuss it with other men, try not to veer too far into distancing, intellectual backflips.

I do appreciate your willingness to engage in and your contribution to the conversion, Stengah. Others, too.

Stengah wrote:

Protip: don't be a devil's advocate. Its generally not approved of on d&d. Using it as a shield is sh*tty.

I won't deny that I have used it as a shield. I don't see the questions being asked. They don't quite hold true for me. I think they're worth walking through. It seemed a plausible way to move forward.

I don't often participate in D&D. I abhor confrontation. It's something I'd be seen to handle well, but I inspect my own contributions over, and over, and over, to see if I could have done better. It's not something I enjoy. My issue. Moving on.

Stengah wrote:

We have to go down the route of what might have happened. Every woman dismissing Grace's claim that it was assault goes down that route when they say what she could have done to stop it sooner or made herself more clear, they just pick the cheery ending.

"I feared for my life..." is the greatest defence in the world where it is applicable. For it to be applicable there needs to be something to suggest it.

Those questioning Grace's actions choose a cheery path because there was nothing to indicate force, and nothing to indicate violence.

Stengah wrote:

Unlike the women who would dismiss Grace's victimhood, Icm not dismissing them for just disagreeing. I'm dismissing them because they skip over and leave out the parts of Grace's story that are clearly sexual assault so they can say that he stopped when asked to.

I don't know quite what to make of this. It is possible. I read one report with those details and one without. It's something I assume most were, or are now, aware of. Amendments can be made. Opinions can change. I've been looking out. It appears these women stand by their opinions. Or they don't care enough about their views, nor the responses they receive, to check in.

Certis wrote:
RnRClown wrote:

Being devil's advocate is unpleasant. Interesting, but unpleasant.

Stop doing it. Not interested in anyone suppressing personal views or offering them under the guise of 'devil's advocate' in these forums. Certainly not in a protracted way. Either offer arguments from your own perspective or mosey on, please.

Got it.

Personally, and to move on, whilst I'm unsure of the sexual assault categorization it is clear to my understanding that Aziz Ansari was not only overzealous, but selfish, and irresponsible towards the emotional wellbeing of Grace. As someone in his profession, and with his claims to support and respect women, he has disgraced himself and could do with talking at length on how he accepts the criticism of his behavior, and how the blame lays predominantly with him. He was as close to crossing the line as is possible without categorically doing so. I respect those who believe he did indeed cross that line.

I apologize for monopolizing what is an important thread that can be so much more than this one news story.

FWIW Certis, I think it's a worthwhile discussion to keep having. Women face so much more of what Ansari did (regardless of what one classifies it as) than they ever will what Weinstein did, and this one story is pretty integral to the wider conversation about consent.

RnRClown wrote:

Stengah wrote:
Unlike the women who would dismiss Grace's victimhood, Icm not dismissing them for just disagreeing. I'm dismissing them because they skip over and leave out the parts of Grace's story that are clearly sexual assault so they can say that he stopped when asked to.

I don't know quite what to make of this. It is possible. I read one report with those details and one without. It's something I assume most were, or are now, aware of. Amendments can be made. Opinions can change. I've been looking out. It appears these women stand by their opinions. Or they don't care enough about their views, nor the responses they receive, to check in.

Many of the articles saying it wasn't assault have pushed the narrative that while Ansari was a bit aggressive, he stopped when asked and then they watched Seinfeld until she left with no further incidents.

I am a feminist and I support Aziz Ansari wrote:

She said 'no' only when they were in front of the mirror at which point he backed off, they put on clothes and watched Seinfeld.

Aziz Ansari Is Innocent wrote:

That night, she did tell him, “I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you.” In which Aziz replied, “Oh, of course, it’s only fun if we’re both having fun.

Aziz Ansari Is Guilty. Of Not Being a Mind Reader. wrote:

They dressed, sat on the couch and watched “Seinfeld.” She told him, “You guys are all the same.” He called her an Uber.

Let's be honest about Aziz Ansari wrote:

However, it also sounds as if he ultimately did take no for an answer, and checked up on "Grace" with a text the next day.

The Humiliation of Aziz Ansari wrote:

Eventually, overcome by her emotions at the way the night was going, she told him, “You guys are all the f*cking same,” and left crying.

And the actual story (bolding mine to indicate where he kept after her despite already being told no):

Babe wrote:

“I just remember looking in the mirror and seeing him behind me. He was very much caught up in the moment and I obviously very much wasn’t,” Grace said. “After he bent me over is when I stood up and said no, I don’t think I’m ready to do this, I really don’t think I’m going to do this. And he said, ‘How about we just chill, but this time with our clothes on?’”

They got dressed, sat side by side on the couch they’d already “chilled” on, and he turned on an episode of Seinfeld. She’d never seen it before. She said that’s when the reality of what was going on sank in. “It really hit me that I was violated. I felt really emotional all at once when we sat down there. That that whole experience was actually horrible.”

While the TV played in the background, he kissed her again, stuck his fingers down her throat again, and moved to undo her pants. She turned away. She remembers “feeling in a different mindset at that point.”

“I remember saying, ‘You guys are all the same, you guys are all the f*cking same.’” Ansari asked her what she meant. When she turned to answer, she says he met her with “gross, forceful kisses.”

After that last kiss, Grace stood up from the couch, moved back to the kitchen island where she left her phone, and said she would call herself a car. He hugged her and kissed her goodbye, another “aggressive” kiss. When she pulled away, Ansari finally relented and insisted he’d call her the car. “He said, ‘It’s coming, but just tell them your name is Essence,’” she said, a name he has joked about using as a pseudonym in his sitcom.

Ansari ultimately did take no for an answer, but he also tried very hard to turn it into a yes. He's not a monster deserving of jailtime, but he does need to spend some time learning that no means no, not try harder.

RedJen wrote:

<.<
>.>
Someone brought up the topic of Emotional Workload earlier. This article does a pretty good job of explaining it from a woman's perspective.

<.<
>.>

This is from a few pages back. Page 2! I earmarked it because I'd like to see how our family dynamic formed us. It's also a thoroughly insightful read. It explains its "Women Aren't Nags—We're Just Fed Up. Emotional labor is the unpaid job men still don't understand." subject header really well. It got lost amongst the waves of incoming probes to discover what this thread could be.

What piqued my interest was the family dynamics.

Gemma Hartley wrote:

“Children learn their communication patterns and gender roles (kids can recognize 'proper' gender behavior by age three) from a variety of people and institutions, but their parents are the ones that they, in theory, interact with the most,” notes Dr. Ramsey. So if we want to change the expectations of emotional labor for the next generation, it has to start at home. “For parents, this means making sure that one spouse does not do more of that type of labor than the other. Speaking in terms of how emotional labor is currently divided, girls will hopefully learn not to expect to have to do that labor and boys will hopefully learn not to expect females to do that labor for them. Children watching parents share that emotional labor will be more likely to be children who expect that labor to be shared in their own lives.”

Our sons can still learn to carry their own weight. Our daughter can learn to not carry others'.

This is more what I am intrigued by at this particular time.

Do you see yourself mimicking what you learned from your parent(s)?

Do you or did you once align with the assumed societal gender roles?

Would you describe your upbringing as more patriarchal or more matriarchal?

Do you see your children following more to that of their gender match parent?

I haven't answered my own questions. I know. I'll wait to see if it gets any traction. Also, my mum just came over. No more time!

Am I mimicking my own parents? Sadly no. My parents were worker bees, both. I'm a lot lazier than that. My mother handles the finances and the house. My dad handled the day job and whichever handicraft fancy he's on at the time, which was usually useful. In one sense, I do mimic them. They both carried emotional labor. In many ways, my dad carried more, because he usually was the peacemaker and appeaser. His patience was nothing short of legendary in the family.

I'm unsure about whether I'm assuming gender roles as normal. I am the breadwinner. It feels normal. I try to do housework and stuff, but once again, lazy. So much my bad. I try to at least pick up after myself and I am always, vocally, and eternally grateful to my wife for keeping things together at home. She usually doesn't ask much. Whatever she asks, it gets done.

I think my upbringing is still patriarchal? Maybe. My mother was certainly the more powerful partner, but that's because she's just such a powerful and intimidating woman. She looks cancer and death in the eye and laughs at its face. I imagine if she were more physically inclined, she'd be some sort of adventurer.

My kids somewhat take after their mother. But my wife swears they also take after me. I suspect it's mostly the slobbiness and the sloth.

Stengah wrote:

FWIW Certis, I think it's a worthwhile discussion to keep having. Women face so much more of what Ansari did (regardless of what one classifies it as) than they ever will what Weinstein did, and this one story is pretty integral to the wider conversation about consent..

I agree it's a topic worth exploring but I'd like to politely flag up that this page has mostly been you and RnRClown doing the line-by-line-quote-reply thingy. I don't know about you but I find when a discussion has reached the line-by-line-quote-reply thingy it's pretty rinsed out.

Maq wrote:
Stengah wrote:

FWIW Certis, I think it's a worthwhile discussion to keep having. Women face so much more of what Ansari did (regardless of what one classifies it as) than they ever will what Weinstein did, and this one story is pretty integral to the wider conversation about consent..

I agree it's a topic worth exploring but I'd like to politely flag up that this page has mostly been you and RnRClown doing the line-by-line-quote-reply thingy. I don't know about you but I find when a discussion has reached the line-by-line-quote-reply thingy it's pretty rinsed out.

It's called fisking and it's everyone's (except the fisker's) indication that the conversation is no longer useful.

If playing armchair detective about the latest celebrity sexual assault is worth discussing, then I'd prefer it was its own thread, and this thread could instead be men talking to men about feminism.

Gravey wrote:

It's called fisking and it's everyone's (except the fisker's) indication that the conversation is no longer useful.

I've been trying to remember the word for that for ages. Thanks Gravey!

Okay. My mum has been and gone. We, and my wife, put on a few old records and chatted. It was nice, and much needed.

I mimic a lot from my mother. Less so my father. From him I would attribute the moments where I become guarded and closed off. Also my lack of ambition and a one strike and you are out mentality with trust. From my mother is the independence and the strength to persevere. Shouldering the weight of others as well as myself in spite of feeling it unfair or imbalanced.

My work ethic is good. That comes from my mother. My ability to pick up every role within the home is from my mother, as is the willingness to. I forgot how good I can be with children, which comes from my mother, until my nephews and a niece came along. I clearly mimic what I saw from my mother, and stored what she entrusted to me as her eldest of three children in helping to raise my two younger siblings. I can see where I would fill in where my father was absent with basic tasks such as minding the baby, bottle feeding, rocking to sleep, putting back to bed after nightmares, setting the table, brewing some tea, tidying toys away, hoovering. General things that can lessen the load for a solitary parent, as she effectively was in most every way.

I have never aligned with the assumed male gender role. I can tire off household chores, but so can my wife. What has happened is that my wife is very attuned to fulfilling the role she learned from her family dynamic. The carer. The organizer. My wife feels at a loss if I cook, and if I wash up. She has taken it as a slight against her when I have put on a load of washing. More than once she has explained she was getting around to it and I did not need to take over. I'm doing it because it needs done, I am able to do it, and I have the time. That's the whole thought process.

I have no children so I cannot comment on that particular question.

My upbringing was much more matriarchal. Strong leading mother. In and out passive father. Strong leading grandmother. Supportive reserved grandfather. Strong leading great grandmother. My great grandfather passed away when my mother was young.

Our one stop corner shop was owned and ran by a woman, and her mother. Nursery was lead by two women. My first four Primary School grades had four female teachers. The principal and vice principal roles were at one time held by women. In High School the two form teachers I reported to were women. Two of my three jobs have saw me work alongside and answer to women, much more than men. All but one job interview, successful or otherwise, have involved women. Bank. Dentist. Letting agent (until recently). All women.

It took me some time to understand, and accept, that I am more of an exception than a rule.

Not sure if this is the best place for this but given the direction the thread has gone, thought it could use a bit of a pause. The last line is a killer

A few things.

Anyone watch the newer Chappelle special all about the Hollywood sexual scandals? Any thoughts if you have? Honestly, I felt like he brought up many good points. (If you haven't seen it, before you jump to the conclusion that this is not something worth discussing here, its not a string of jokes like normal stand up, but more of him voicing his thoughts on the whole situation.) One such point worth discussion is the idea of having imperfect allies and the danger of attacking someone trying to support. Are other famous men who are worried they MAY HAVE crossed a line with a girl going to be afraid to stand up in support because it may paint a cross-hair on their backs. Related to that is the idea of corrupt people in a corrupt system are not bad people, but rather people who have been trained by that system. In other words, how much can you blame a famous actor for having trouble accepting a woman not giving obvious consent? Even if the rest of society is SAYING that you can't be so aggressive, if what they see in their environment is enforcing a different idea, the environment is going to win. You can't be mad at a wild dog for peeing inside. And you can't say people aren't animals and are better than that, because when on a mass scale have we ever proved that?

That kind of ties in to my feelings about all this when I really start digging into it: the issue is so much grander. I think this is really just another symptom of our societies "illness?" (I don't have a better word right now), rather than an "illness" on its own. (And don't worry, I'm not leading towards suggesting extreme actions or a return to puritanism.) But I must ask how much sexism, anti-feminism, and sexual harrassment and sexual aggressiveness is all related to other issues in our nation like racism, class-ism, corruption both political and less extreme forms, AND the much less news-worthy epidemics of selfishness, lack of empathy, impatiences, self-centeredness, lack of and inability to communicate, lack of honor, and lack of pride in oneself and one's communities. (And NO, its not just the millennials that are like this!) Most of GWJ is here because we are less like this and are happy to have found an oasis where other people are as well. So my question: CAN WE REALLY ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF FEMINISM WITHOUT ALSO FIXING THESE OTHER ENTANGLED ISSUES AND THE UNDERLINING PROBLEMS THAT CAUSE THEM?

agentwred wrote:

A few things.

Anyone watch the newer Chappelle special all about the Hollywood sexual scandals? Any thoughts if you have? Honestly, I felt like he brought up many good points. (If you haven't seen it, before you jump to the conclusion that this is not something worth discussing here, its not a string of jokes like normal stand up, but more of him voicing his thoughts on the whole situation.) One such point worth discussion is the idea of having imperfect allies and the danger of attacking someone trying to support. Are other famous men who are worried they MAY HAVE crossed a line with a girl going to be afraid to stand up in support because it may paint a cross-hair on their backs. Related to that is the idea of corrupt people in a corrupt system are not bad people, but rather people who have been trained by that system. In other words, how much can you blame a famous actor for having trouble accepting a woman not giving obvious consent? Even if the rest of society is SAYING that you can't be so aggressive, if what they see in their environment is enforcing a different idea, the environment is going to win. You can't be mad at a wild dog for peeing inside. And you can't say people aren't animals and are better than that, because when on a mass scale have we ever proved that?

I think people are generally willing to accept imperfect allies, provided the acknowledge that they're imperfect and are sincere in their efforts to be an ally now that they know better. Unfortunately, a lot of the imperfect allies get hyper-defensive when their bad behavior gets called out. A lot of them dance around actually admitting what they did or saying the words "I'm sorry." Some of them don't really get why what they did was so wrong, and are only making an apology for getting caught. They rarely actually want to change, they usually just want the spotlight off them.

That kind of ties in to my feelings about all this when I really start digging into it: the issue is so much grander. I think this is really just another symptom of our societies "illness?" (I don't have a better word right now), rather than an "illness" on its own. (And don't worry, I'm not leading towards suggesting extreme actions or a return to puritanism.) But I must ask how much sexism, anti-feminism, and sexual harassment and sexual aggressiveness is all related to other issues in our nation like racism, class-ism, corruption both political and less extreme forms, AND the much less news-worthy epidemics of selfishness, lack of empathy, impatiences, self-centeredness, lack of and inability to communicate, lack of honor, and lack of pride in oneself and one's communities. (And NO, its not just the millennials that are like this!) Most of GWJ is here because we are less like this and are happy to have found an oasis where other people are as well. So my question: CAN WE REALLY ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF FEMINISM WITHOUT ALSO FIXING THESE OTHER ENTANGLED ISSUES AND THE UNDERLINING PROBLEMS THAT CAUSE THEM?

It's important to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. They all need to be worked on, but we can't just sit paralyzed on one issue because we're not sure how fix all of them at the same time. We can treat the symptoms and the causes at the same time. It's not so much about achieving all the goals as continuing to work at them, I don't think any of them will truly be 100% solved, we'll always be working to improve and guarding against backsliding.

So here is a situation. Last week was my birthday and a someone from high school asked if I wanted to go out. This is a lady that I'm just friends with. So I kind of assume she would be paying for stuff. I actually ended up paying for everything.

I'm sure if any of my guy friends took me out on my birthday they would have paid or at least offered. I could understand if this was date but it wasn't. Is this normal for when men and women go out for the guy to pay for everything? I go out with more women than guys and usually we pay for ourselves.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

So here is a situation. Last week was my birthday and a someone from high school asked if I wanted to go out. This is a lady that I'm just friends with. So I kind of assume she would be paying for stuff. I actually ended up paying for everything.

I'm sure if any of my guy friends took me out on my birthday they would have paid or at least offered. I could understand if this was date but it wasn't. Is this normal for when men and women go out for the guy to pay for everything? I go out with more women than guys and usually we pay for ourselves.

For me, it's normal to split the cost, regardless of who I'm out with, date or not. The exception is if someone offers to pick up the tab, but there's no expectation of that.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

So here is a situation. Last week was my birthday and a someone from high school asked if I wanted to go out. This is a lady that I'm just friends with. So I kind of assume she would be paying for stuff. I actually ended up paying for everything.

I'm sure if any of my guy friends took me out on my birthday they would have paid or at least offered. I could understand if this was date but it wasn't. Is this normal for when men and women go out for the guy to pay for everything? I go out with more women than guys and usually we pay for ourselves.

I think it depends. I personally like to pick up the check for friends every now and then as a gesture of good will and generosity. That being said, I don’t think a man should feel obligated, especially if it’s not a romantic date.

I will say that I’ve gotten in trouble in the past for not paying my date’s entire way. What’s funny is my date was mostly cool with it, but then she talked with her friends who started bad mouthing me as either a skin flint or a broke loser. For bad or good I think there’s some hard wiring where women get judged for looks and beauty and men get judged for money and status. We can and should do our best to mitigate this but we’re also fighting thousands of years of culture and hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

I've never gone out with any friends, female or male, and paid for them or expected them to pay for me without it being offered either before going out or as the bill arrived.

Your specific situation it kind of depends on how it came up. If she called you up and said it's your birthday I want to take you out then sure I'd expect to be treated. If it was just something like happy birthday and I haven't seen you in a while let's meet up I'd assume we're splitting the bill. No clue how you ended up paying for both without offering. That's strange to me.

Early stages of dating are far more complicated and since I haven't done it for the last 17 years I don't even know current etiquette. Generally when I was dating if I asked someone out I'd plan on paying. If it evolved into a serious relationship then we'd start splitting the bills.