Women evolved for group activities, men evolved for isolated activities.
Thus, men think up things like gravity and war and women chat away on their cell phones.
Destroy me in 3, 2, 1…
War is kind of a group activity, isn’t it?
You know he’s just trying to get your goat, right?
so basically, you want all of your friends to think exactly like you do, on everything
Yes, indeed.
Bothers me far less than jim’s implication that I’m sexist scum. But that’s my own hangup. I’ll just say that my mother was married four times and watching her make bad decisions over and over shaped my thoughts on that matter. My 7+ years of posting on this board have demonstrated a pretty strong theme of ‘‘people are responsible for the choices they make in relationships’’ regardless of gender. I’ll leave it at that.
Also I should probably clarify re: Overthinking. I’m not asking opinions so I can decide what to do about my friend. I already made that decision (and actually zoid, you helped me articulate my thoughts about it and he received my feedback well.) I just thought it raised some interesting questions worthy of discussion.
[QUOTE=Robert]
so basically, you want all of your friends to think exactly like you do, on everything
[/QUOTE]
No, I want them to not be bigots. I have Facebook friends that run the gamut of political opinions and I certainly do not agree with them on everything. But I have a very low tolerance for bigotry re: race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Everybody has to draw a line somewhere.
OK… but that sounded more misguided than bigoted…
Yes, we should never ever question anyone, anywhere, about anything.
No one is ever wrong. Ever. Racism, sexism, and other forms of intimidation are just alternatively valid viewpoints.
Or are you open to the fact that just perhaps some things should occasionally be pointed out as insulting and unacceptable?
Interesting you used the word ‘‘misguided’’ because a friend I was discussing this with used the same word. Maybe that is right and I am thinking too one-dimensionally about this subject. But imagine if the genders were reversed, if the rant were ‘‘men are better than women.’’ No way in hell would I tolerate that. So wouldn’t it make me a hypocrite to tolerate the opposite?
Spice Weasel I just wanted to say I have read and respected your posts for some time. While I know it probably means little to you, you have gained my admiration.
I respect your insistence that while there are clear differences between the sexes there is no excuse for hiding behind gender to justify unacceptable behavior.
We are all responsible for our actions and infantilizing women is no better than demonizing them. The only way we’ll all get along is to see each other simply as people first and foremost.
It means a lot to me, actually. Thank you.
Infantilizing and romanticizing women is what leads to the demonization. First you say that women are sooooo much better than men. Then you see a flaw and WHAM, in backlash they become sooooo much worse because they are so sneaky and underhanded.
Essentially, though, any time you make these generalizations, you are depersonalizing the individual. Madonna or whore. No gradations of worth or behavior. No mixtures of bad and good.
I think it goes to intent. The intent of his comments were trying to lead to something good. The intent of MOST rants that start with “men are better than women” is not good. And as far as you being a hypocrite, no, it is tempting to have a moral code that bends not and waivers not, but doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of having a code? Isn’t a code to improve your life, to improve life in general, to perhaps be an example? How could a rigid code accomplish this?
By showing that bigotry isn’t okay, no matter who the target is?
This raises another question. If your goal in life is to minimize the harm caused by bigotry, is it better or worse to cut bigots out of your life?
I’m not saying don’t correct other people if they are being bigoted… well, doesn’t bigotry imply intent?.. got distracted… correct people, yes, but be a jerk about it or quit being their friend, no.
You’re asking if bigotry implies intent. Intent to do what?
Ok, substitute Malice for intent. What about someone who was raised in bigoted environment, becomes a Bigot, but really means no harm and through exposure are able to be talked out of their beliefs. Are they really a Bigot? Or just misguided?
Bigotry is borne of ignorance. Everyone can be talked out of it, if they want to be. So just relabeling it as being “misguided” doesn’t change the conversation.
Clearly there’s no pat answer.
Some people are open to discussion, some will go to their grave clinging to their hate.
As with everything it depends on the individual.
Interesting questions about bigotry.
I probably have a higher tolerance than some people I know. Usually with an individual I can track their particular biases to particular experiences. With that in mid I can understand how they have formed these opinions even if I disagree with the conclusions they’ve reached and the opinions they now hold.
Do I feel the need to call them out, try to educate them or disassociate myself with them? Generally No. I prefer to just Voltaire* them but prefer they say it as little as possible.
If I believe that by what they’re saying or doing they are having an adverse impact on someone else, then I might intervene but if it’s just a thin skinned professional argument picker, then no.
- I know Voltaire didn’t actually author the famous freedom of speech quote, but that’s who it’s generally attributed to.