hannahbanana

I think there are two ways I could interpret the question proposed by Stef: the question is either meant to give you information as to what the other person thinks about a gender as a whole, and/or it gives you information as to what they expect in a relationship. And those two possibilities are also probably linked. For example, it could tell you if the other person has an obvious dislike or negative association with the gender, while also holding them to high relationship standards (ex. I want you, as a man, to be reliable and do whatever handy-man work there is around the house, but I expect that I'll need to nag and complain about it before you do anything), which is a big red flag. I think that might be why it is such a useful question to ask. This may be difficult for you to think about this question because you've said that you don't really make generalizations or haven't had enough experiences to be able to notice trends in behavior. This isn't bad, I think, because the answer to the question can be basically anything, even if you just said what you did now in this thread. That response would say something about you, for your date to make of it what they will. I don't think there's one right or wrong answer (although some may be very obviously wrong ).

The first half made me too emotionally stressed out to pay attention to it...the second half was a little bit better. It made me to sad to see the main character as a little boy who doesn't say anything and just takes all this abuse. It was slightly better when he was older and would speak up and show his personality. It was interesting that it was the same actors throughout, and there certainly were a couple male mentors who were a better example to the boy...but overall I didn't feel like I gained anything from watching it.

I think this a lot of the time too, especially because I came to atheism for rational reasons. I think the main thing is that some people are not atheists for such reasons...to them, it may be out of spite for other religions, or some other reason that isn't backed by rationality, making it easier to move back into religious thinking. I can't really understand it all that well either.

I would also be interested to see the results of such a social experiment with roles reversed or with different people asking, as MMX said. I also think it's funny that when asked why they won't hit her, some of the boys say "Because I'm a man!" This point was also clearly made in text. So, their reason for NOT hitting her, is because they are men, yet the point is still made that it is ALSO because they are men that men hit women. I'm confused. I guess they mean that a "real" man doesn't hit a woman?

Just another sign that no, violence against women is NOT normalized within the culture. http://abc7chicago.com/society/video-young-boys-asked-to-slap-little-girl-in-social-experiment/462246/

Hi, neeeel. First, thanks for posting. I really feel for you, and I can relate to some of your experiences, especially your concerns about being oversensitive. I am also currently focusing on this aspect of myself, and I understand that it can cause a lot of anxiety, second-guessing yourself as you've described in the post I quoted above. There are a couple pieces of advice that I've gotten that I have found pretty helpful for me to understand why I feel this way, and maybe you feel this way too. Maybe it can help you too Someone described to me that being "oversensitive" about certain situations is like if someone poked me lightly in the arm, and I yelled out in pain. That response sounds like an overreaction, but if you look closer and discover a horrible bruise or cut on that arm, then it makes perfect sense that I'd feel extreme pain at a light poke. Try looking at your own experiences: are there deeper hurts that you've felt from people around you (like your parents, since they were the main ones you talked about) that would make smaller things feel worse than you think they should? This leads me to my second point, which I've also found helpful: try to feel more empathy for yourself. This can be pretty difficult, I know...I also still have trouble with it. But I guess it means that maybe you're being too hard on yourself. Especially if there is a deeper hurt as I've mentioned above that puts your sensitivity into more perspective. Of course, you don't HAVE to do any of this, and maybe it doesn't apply to you... But if you're anything like me, you are probably sensitive for a reason, and by showing empathy for yourself and understanding yourself more, you can better understand why it happens and whether there is anything you can/should do to help yourself out. Anyway, I hope this makes sense, and that it might help as much as it helped me. It can be so frustrating, confusing, and frightening to feel that way about yourself... I wish you the best of luck in figuring some of it out

I feel so bad about that interaction you wrote down, and I'm sorry you're faced with these painful feelings. I know it hurts me to imagine people saying children are evil manipulators, so it must be pretty bad for it to be someone close to you saying that. I'm not sure about the answer to number one, since I have little experience with caring for children. My instinct says that I would want to be there for a child who is crying. Even if I may not be able to make it all better, or if it's better for the child to handle the problem herself, I would at least want them to know I am there for them to talk to about whatever is wrong. I wouldn't necessarily need to DO anything, I'd just want to be there, for their own reassurance. For the second question, I don't doubt that there are manipulative children, because there are manipulative adults. It's sad to say, but if you are raised by a manipulative person, or manipulation is the only way to get your needs met as a child, then it doesn't exactly surprise me. Are your aunt and/or uncle manipulative people? From your story, it seemed like your little cousin is lonely and doesn't get much attention. She may just be doing everything she can to get attention (which, at her age, is probably often needed). There may be other reasons why she would be manipulative that I can't think of, but the bottom line of what I'm thinking is that if she IS manipulative, there is a reason. Children are not simply born "evil." But maybe it is difficult for your family to admit that they are poor role models for her, and are avoiding the manipulative behavior that they themselves display.

I hear this all the time, and it also infuriates me. But here are my thoughts on the subject: People who say this, I call "soft-core" feminists, because they usually only hear the "good" things about feminism, but make no effort to do their research to learn about the history and full scope of the feminist movement. It's kind of like Christians who deny that the Westborough Baptist Church has anything to do with "real" Christianity. Basically, they are told that feminism=equality, then think "I support equality, therefore I support feminism," but do not question whether feminism really IS equality. If they admitted that later, their entire lives would be thrown upside-down, just like a Christian who realizes there is no god. It doesn't matter how many people THEY'VE heard condemn men, it matters WHO condemns men in the feminist movement, and that is often the intellectual feminists, who write books and tour around the country giving lectures. The stuff they call the work of whack-jobs is taught in college, in Intro to Feminism classes, and was spoken by many historically prominent feminists, so I highly doubt that it's simply the work of some outlying crazy person. All of what I just said seems so simple, yet it is almost impossible trying to get people to see it, if they are not the tiniest bit skeptical from the beginning. Unless the person I was talking to was even a little bit doubtful, I would consider the discussion useless, sadly enough.

Thanks shirgall...I'd checked to see if someone posted already, but couldn't find it for some reason

1. I personally feel this way. I have more friends who are men than I do who are women. Perhaps I am getting more girl friends than I had before, but this has been how I have felt since pre-school (which makes me question that it is purely of sexual nature). 2. Most of the time, I hang out with a mixture of girls and guys, so I don't know if I can say much about this, besides what I mention in the other points. 3. For me, I feel that I can be much more comfortable and open around men. When I speak to women, I feel more cautious, as if saying something wrong will lead me to be judged. There are certain mannerisms or topics that are just not comfortable to discuss. You often need to have a condescending or sassy attitude about basically everything to continue a conversation. I notice that men are often less inhibited in conversation, so I feel like I am also able to say what I want to say, even if it's something "unladylike." True, I may feel more comfortable about this when I am openly in a relationship, which acts as a sort of "safety net" so I know I don't need to worry so much about romantic advances. Maybe it doesn't really hold that much weight, maybe it does, I'd be interested in any feedback. But from experience, I haven't had too many issues with that, and it never seemed to get in the way of friendships. I think the whole "crazy" bit comes from actual encounters with crazy girls, which ruins it...and once I had a few really good guy friends, I didn't really have much desire to go back to that. And by crazy, I mean the backstabbers, manipulative people...I'm sure that there are some guys like that, but the passive aggression tactics that are attributed to "crazy" are more often associated with women. It can get pretty sickening, to the point where you just don't want to have anything to do it, and that usually means leaving behind most girl friends altogether, since the crazy ones are usually the popular ones and are friends with most of the other girls you might associate with. Again, not sure if this is for everyone, but that was my experience all throughout elementary school mostly. My decision about who my friends would be was basically decided by then. 4. I prefer the company of men or boy-ish women, for the reasons I described above, but also just because we simply have more similar interests. I don't really like too many of the typically "girly" things, and am actually bored to death by them most of the time. So why would I want to hang out with people who are interested in things that bore me, when there are so many other people, often men, who like things that are actually interesting to me? I know the post is long, and a bit rambling, but I hope something can be taken out of it. Cheers

I've got to say, not looking forward to this movie. The trailer starts out with a played out, awkward, and completely dysfunctional family interaction. The dad is stereotypical; only thinking about sports, not emotionally available, completely oblivious to anything going on with his family. The mom is extremely condescending, constantly complaining about "trading down" for the husband over some other (more attractive) man, and puts all the blame on the father for the interaction, even when she had every ability to intervene between the father and the daughter...and this is supposed to be a comedy, for kids. I'm not exactly thrilled to see these (bad) stereotypes made into little jokes. I didn't find it funny at all. Interesting to see that the characters inside the girl's head are the same as those from both of her parents. I don't know, maybe there will be some deeper message in this movie, but if so, the trailer is not showing its best side, I think.

I remember it seeming like a given for a while that Santa wasn't real...but I was resistant to the thought for a long time, because I was confused as to why my parents would tell me Santa was real if he wasn't. I remember asking my mom, and at least she didn't get mad at me. She said something like how Santa was a representation of the generous and giving spirit of Christmas, so even if he wasn't real, he was a good symbol. Sounds corny, I know, and probably an excuse she made so she could justify perpetuating a myth.

Wow, thanks for all the responses, everyone! They are much appreciated Sorry I haven't responded sooner, since I've hit a very busy time in my school schedule...I have not yet had a chance to really read in detail each response, but I am looking forward to as soon as I can. I'm glad other people find this topic interesting as I do, since a lot of times it seems like a given that people will look and act in corresponding ways more often than not. I agree that it is very important when it comes to on-the-spot decisions, or interactions that don't involve long-term contact (for example, calling in people for interviews based on online applications: sometimes the person's look doesn't match the application at all). But I think that it has smaller value in long-term relationships, where you really get to know the person. But at the same time, small markers in appearance can also indicate the mood of the person as well, I think. Especially for someone you know well, you can tell if they are tired or agitated or happy based on very small visual indications that you might not pick up on otherwise. I suppose that's why sometimes meaning and tone can be misunderstood in texts, since you can't see the other person to gauge their appearance. Sorry this may be disorganized, I only have a very short time to write this, but I hope that I can contribute in some way

Thanks, Carl

I think it's interesting to explore the consequences of trying to avoid "victim-shaming." For example, if a girl got raped while she was black-out drunk at a party, what do you say if the advice 'You probably shouldn't get black-out drunk' is viewed as victim-shaming? If feminists are so picky as stated in the article, probably something like "There's nothing you could've done. I'm so sorry." To me, that's a horrible thing, because that means she could be doing literally ANYTHING and still think she has the same chances of getting raped as she has if she's black-out drunk. This makes her feel completely helpless, which is worse, IMO.

I've been thinking about this for a bit now, and I'm interested in how much we rely on physical appearance in making judgements on people (usually playing a role in whether we want to associate with such a person). I find this particularly interesting because this forum is an example where people do not have much opportunity to make such an assessment of someone's appearance. And yet, we still feel that we can get to know someone or recognize peoples' personalities and such on this forum. So, is appearance necessary, or unnecessary but helpful when evaluating a person? Based on this, how much sway does appearance hold over you in your final impression of a person?

I've been thinking about this for a bit now, and I'm interested in how much we rely on physical appearance in making judgements on people (usually playing a role in whether we want to associate with such a person). I find this particularly interesting because this forum is an example where people do not have much opportunity to make such an assessment of someone's appearance. And yet, we still feel that we can get to know someone or recognize peoples' personalities and such on this forum. So, is appearance necessary, or unnecessary but helpful when evaluating a person? Based on this, how much sway does appearance hold over you in your final impression of a person? *edit: I meant to post this in the Philosophy section, not sure how I accidentally ended up here...oops! Anyway, I'll repost this to the appropriate section

I would say that the lack of empathy that you mentioned is very true; not just when it comes to them empathizing with men, but with people in general. I think that women who don't care about men, also don't care about other women, in the empathetic sense. The only reason they care about women's problems, is because they don't want these problems to happen to THEM. When I read blogs and articles by such feminists, I get the strong sense that they don't care about anyone other than themselves, and write such callousness off as being "strong." They are never satisfied with anything, either. I know I don't have any real proof for this, but I think that instinct counts a lot in sensing empathy from one person to the next.

Acknowledging that men have problems too means that the entire concept of the Patriarchy would have to be overthrown....no Patriarchy=no basis on which to make claims that women are being oppressed by society. This would be the downfall of feminism. People generally don't like having their worldview turned upside down like that. I think it was easier for me because I always doubted the existence of a patriarchy anyway, and didn't like the inconsistency of "we want equality for everyone," and "men are horrible."

I feel like everyone involved in this conversation would do some good if they walked away from this thread for a little while to calm down. Everyone seems to be feeling provoked and are getting angered, and that's leading to more provocation for the others. This conversation is interesting and I think it can go somewhere, but right now it seems like it's spinning out of control. I know I'm not entirely involved in this conversation, but it's making me worried and anxious that things are getting rough between so many people. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is causing some anxiety in others, too....it's just a suggestion.

I guess the best example I can think of is that a proof may be sound with given information, but is proven false when more information is given. Several examples of this can be seen in the history of science.

Didn't you know, science is soooo sexist! I mean, in Biology, why do they say that the sperm "penetrates" the egg? Why can't they say that the egg has the power to let the sperm fertilize it? ^ real things that my roommate said she was taught in her intro to Feminism class.

Maybe this could shed some light, and help others understand what your position is on this thread, because I'm curious as to your reasons about why you seem specifically adamant about not associating with tattoo'd women. I understand that there is research showing a trend in how many tattoos a person has and their behavior, and that's a reasonable and important thing to keep in mind. But at the same time, this forum has shown again and again that such trends can be opposed. For example, spanking is connected to a higher risk of violent behavior, lower IQ, and crime, but there are many people here who have experienced the same, if not worse, and are non-violent, intelligent people. But I suppose that's obvious, but I want to keep my point complete So, since I assume you know all this, what is it that changes your mind about such people? What made you able to listen to Stef's advice and associate with his values, even though he has been abused in the past, meaning he could have a high risk for violence? By applying universality, this must be possible for other cases as well, even if some things take more convincing than others. So I guess I'm just a little confused, because by your association with this forum it seems that you are willing to accept that there are exceptions to people with "red flags" in their pasts, but you sound very adamant about people with tattoos not being worth you associating with. So, is there anything different in your base opinions about people with tattoos that makes you less likely to trust them, as compared to other similar cases? I understand that you could feel the same way with tattoo'd people as you do in other cases, and you're just trying to make a point here about the importance in research when making first impressions of people, and are probably getting frustrated because people are acting like it doesn't matter at all, correct? If that's the case, just let me know; otherwise, I'm still interested in what you have to say.

looks awesome

http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/drunk-girl-viral-hoax-video-785463 So there was a video released recently, spurred by the viral video of a woman getting catcalled in NYC, of a drunk girl walking through the streets, and men trying to take advantage of her state. It turns out that it was all staged, and furthermore, the men in the video were lied to, being told that the video was for a student film, and a comedy. I'm pretty disgusted by the underwhelming response. Most sources don't make a big deal out of it, and some even try to pull things like "Sure it was a hoax, but it reveals the true nature of how our culture treats consent." Not sure exactly what that means, or how a fake video gives any truth or information regarding this statement: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/is-the-youtube-video-of-men-trying-to-take-a-drunk-girl-home-fake-does-it-matter-9858512.html I guess this shouldn't surprise me, but it's still pretty upsetting.