I saw the interview and I found that guy’s perspective off-putting as well. He’s clearly got an old-fashioned and offensive view of women, but I can’t really call it mysogynistic because I think it’s just as offensive toward’s men as well. Consider, he’s also basically saying that you’re not a real man unless you’ve accomplished something, like some sort of trial to manhood. The problem is, we’re not some small tribe where a man becomes a man on his first hunt or after some ritual, there is no set cultural reference point for when a boy becomes a man OTHER than some age benchmark, typically 18 or 21 or whatever. And, in today’s society, that is just as true of women.
So, it seems to me, he’s just plain come some old-fashioned views about gender roles, by unfairly underestimating women and placing an excessive barrier to manhood on men. Like the Captain (?) she was also interviewing said, people like this are going to be dying off soon, then we’ll start seeing more real change.
Girls, to become women, had to GET MARRIED. If you didn’t get married relatively young there was something wrong with you and you weren’t really a woman.
Do you think anyone in their right mind felt that Samantha Bee was actually threatening him?
I didn’t see the interview, but I feel like people are getting their politically correct liberal unisex undergarments in a bundle over nothing.
Back in the day, the idea in the OP was correct. Girls become “women” by getting married and having a family while boys become “men” by proving they have the wherewithal to take care of a family (usually through killing, building or smashing something). Obviously a lot has changed over the years and we as a society don’t really have much in the way of shared events that say “congratulations! You’re an adult and ready to join the tribe now!” Maybe graduating high school or college. But that doesn’t really bring any sort of “I’m a man/woman now” epiphany. Most people just sort of drift around for some more years (or longer) or start out as a “freshman” again in some other institution (ie their office, the military, grad school). I mean you don’t feel much different after graduation like you killed a buffalo with a spear or something.
IMHO, maybe it’s one of the reasons there are so many reality shows about overpriviledged middle-aged morons acting like bickering 15 year olds? Or some of the most popular shows and movies are about people in their 20s or 30s floating through life, complaining about and resisting the demands and responsibilities of adulthood for as long as possible?
I think part of it is that “gal” never really took off outside the American south (and in Arizona, it’s such an uncommon term using “gal” will get you odd looks and mild teasing), so “girl” is an overloaded term – acting both as a term for “literal femal child” and “slang term – female equivalent of ‘guy’”. I think it’s the desire for a symmetric term and both have that initial somewhat lax sounding “g” sound.
I try not to use “girl” much because I know it can be misinterpreted, but I don’t think there’s much infantilization or malice intended in most people who use it. Saying “woman” all the time just sounds overly formal and clinical to me, just like using the word “man”. I use them in a formal context, but it just sounds wrong in an informal one when I don’t hear “guy” and “girl” used. I try to use “guy” for everybody, but when the gender is important to the conversation, I subconsciously reach for “girl” before “woman” in an informal setting. Has nothing to do with me thinking women are children or lesser or anything, all it is is a laid back, informal, casual term.
I’ve been trying out changing it to “lady” instead, but found that term has its own problems. When you use it people either think you believe a woman should act “ladylike”, or think you’re referring to an older woman. (And some even associate the word “lady” with “obnoxious entitled woman” because so many people use it in phrases like “and this lady totally went off on me!”). There’s also “chick”, but that’s not much better from an infantilization standpoint – and depending on the company you keep may be misconstrued as sexualizing/objectifying (for reasons I haven’t figured out).
What “misconstrued”? We legitimately, honestly do need a word for sexualizing/objectifying women, because that is entirely appropriate in very many situations, and don’t no feminist try to tell me any different; and “chick” and “girl” are the least-offensive words I can think of for that purpose.
Yes, but girls were considered eligible to do this (get married and have children) simply by virtue of being old enough—hitting puberty, or whatever the societal benchmark was. With boys, merely reaching a certain age wasn’t enough: they had to establish themselves and demonstrate that they could earn enough money, or hold up their place in society.
Yet it’s the women who have this hang-up about age. It’s considered rude to ask them their age. They throw a bitch fit if they have to give their age and most women say they are 29 when they have a birthday even though they are grandmothers. So I’d say they are expected to take it as a compliment because they demanded it from men in the first place.
So to show my boss how awesome and manly I am I should go to his office and toss all his papers on the floor and then laugh at him and call him a pigfucker? So since Obama is the head man of the country he is also the biggest jerk in the country? I can get behind that.
For the seriously hardcore misogynists, there used to be more to becoming a woman than simply growing up. “Become a woman” is an old-fashioned expression that, in the old days, meant: ‘taking a man’s dick in you for the first time’.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking. “I’ll make you a woman” is a sexual threat. And of course, requires a man’s, uh, help.
This sort of all reminds me of the double standard of parenting, too. A man is “a real man” when he does stuff like carries a diaper bag, has tea parties with his daughters or gives his son a bath. When a woman does that stuff she’s just doing what’s expected.
I saw a pic on Facebook today of a guy fishing with his daughter. The sole comment was “Good dad.” Yeah a guy paying attention to his kid. Exceptional! (I am not saying that there is nothing nice or heartwarming seeing a guy with his kid. It’s just not better than when a woman does it, nor is it an exceptional feat for either to spend time with their kid.)
I don’t know what children have to do with this. They are in a protected class all their own. In a perfect world, everybody would be protected equally. I think we can all agree on that point.
But this isn’t a perfect world and a woman has more to fear when threatened by a man than the other way around.
Furthermore, chiroptera’s comments can in no way be considered as a threat of any kind. It’s a comment on an message board made about a person not directly at/to the person. I don’t know how it can be even remotely construed as a threat. An off-hand comment, sure. But a threat?? I don’t see it. Pretty sure nobody else does either. I think you are really reaching and looking for excuses to be offended. And if it makes you feel any better, you are well within your right to feel offended at this. Just don’t expect everyone else to join you.
ISTM that men are referred to as “boys” especially if it’s accompanied by some other description. E.g. “the boys in the back”, “the big boys” and so on.
Here’s a cultural cliche that comes to mind: Does anybody ever tell a daughter, as opposed to a son, that she should do or endure this or that because it “builds character”?
