Right, but to what extent to you go out of your way to protect a woman’s (or anyone’s) “feelings” about possibly getting raped vs the fact that most men probably aren’t here to rape you in most circumstances. And it’s important, because people tend to justify a lot of extreme stuff when they are scared, justified or not.
If you don’t think a woman’s “feelings” (your quote marks) matter, why the hell do you expect anybody to think a man’s feelings ought to matter?
Even aside from the fact that you’re being massively dismissive about a real possibility. Most people aren’t going to get in a car accident in most circumstances, either. Are you going to get upset that other drivers put their seatbelts on while you’re on the road?
They do. But i want to point out that the “extreme stuff” we have been discussing here is women limiting their own actions, not attempting to limit the actions of men. I mean, maybe i said it would be polite for a man to exit the elevator first and start walking towards wherever he planned to go. But that’s a pretty insignificant limitation, and i only suggested it would be polite, not something that’s required. So i think your indignation is a massive overreaction.
I don’t understand this back and forth about men vs. women. In a patriarchal society, it’s more like a select few men plus whoever they can fool into supporting them vs. everyone else.
To the extent certain men might be disadvantaged in our society, it’s hardly on account of “matriarchy” or some measure of control by women. Among the many problems of patriarchy is that while some men get to be patriarchs, women are viewed as (at best) valuable property, while other men (not so privileged as to be patriarchs) are treated as disposable.
Men don’t live as long as women? Terrible. But that’s not a problem to be solved by making life worse for women. It’s a problem that stems from people—by and large men—in power treating less privileged men as disposable. Pick your societal ill or burden faced disproportionately by men, and I can pretty much guarantee that’s the root of it: that patriarchs and people who endorse patriarchy at least implicitly view men who are not members of the ruling class as disposable.
Yep. See also post #650. Although you said it better, and more succinctly, than I did.
Actually, you do: it’s how the patriarchy maintains power by sowing division.
As they said in their very next sentence.
I took the bit you quoted as more from a rhetorical POV. e.g. something akin to this meaning:
- I (@ASL_v2.0) am surprised to see Dopers of all people swallowing the elite bait hook, line, and sinker; I expected better of them.
I refer to this as the “girl cooties” phenomenon. Even boys and men who are consciously opposed to sexism and misogyny can be quite uncomfortable about visibly engaging with something that is conventionally perceived to be “for girls”.
Good points all. To which I’ll add …
At least for adult men I really wonder how much it’s
- I don’t want to be seen doing “women’s work” as such.
versus
- I don’t want to be seen doing “women’s work” because that’ll make me seem gay.
The former is definitely an example of girl cooties. The latter is gay cooties. Which cooties are he afraid of and in what proportion?
IMO the latter is probably more top of mind in male observers than female observers of some guy doing the cootie avoidance dance.
I’m not sure that placing women in charge or even a mixed representative demographic of elite would necessarily be “better” whatever that means. Sure, a lot of societies ills are tied to racism and sexism. But a lot of them are also tied to the fact that people in power tend to use their power to prioritize becoming more powerful.
I don’t think there is that much a difference between the two cases. To people with this type of thinking, doing “women’s work” implies being gay. They may rationalize it differently as you say, but at the heart of the issue is that In both cases the person doesn’t want to be feminine (aka un-manly).
Imo, unless it’s biologically mandated, there’s no such thing as women’s work or men’s work. There’s just work.
Huh. First time I’ve heard a version of that “delved and spanned” phrase when it wasn’t a reference to sex. Interesting to know where it came from.
I suppose our feelings matter because we tend to be bigger and stronger and more aggressive and having lots of frustrated angry men around isn’t great for society.
I’m not being dismissive. But the fact is a woman is 2 to 5 times more likely to be killed in an actual car crash on the way to the date than murdered by him.
I’m thinking of a particular example in my mind (which you wouldn’t know obviously) of a former female coworker of mine who holds a lot of right-wing views on immigration. Even though statistically, immigrants tend to be no more violent than anyone else, in her mind “she doesn’t care about statistics”. or like my MIL who seems to be terrified of everything because something bad happened two towns over 20 years ago.
My point is society should not disproportionally uproot itself and reorganize around someone having “bad feelings” about certain things.
It’s definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. I suppose what I’m wondering is if women feeling threatened by men is part of the cause or a symptom of the problem.
I’m not sure how shoving past a woman to get off the elevator first is “polite”. Maybe he should announce “excuse me, I’m in a rush to get to where I’m going and don’t have time to rape or murder anyone today.” That should per her at ease.
Huh? Shoving past? Have you ever taken an elevator at night in a hotel? There are typically one or two people in it, and a woman who doesn’t want to get off first will be standing at the back of the car. He exits first simple by walking out, and not lingering to make her walk past him. (Which wouldn’t be “shoving”, either. At least on the US, the minimum size of an elevator car is plenty large for either of two people to exit first.)
So you think men’s feelings matter because men will become dangerous if their feelings aren’t respected, but you think it’s wrong to act in any way as if random men might be dangerous?
And you think women’s feelings don’t matter because either you think that women are helpless and can never become dangerous, or you’re under the delusion that women only feel fear and not anger?
And you think that the only reason anybody’s feelings matter is if they may react in a dangerous fashion to not having their feelings (respected or coddled, take your pick)?
But you apparently want society to organize itself around men having “bad feelings”.
What uprooting and reorganizing are you hearing being proposed that you are objecting to?
Good question. Women have been expected to act under the presumption that men are dangerous throughout the history of this (and most or all) society/ies. What seems to me to have changed is that the men are now being expected, by a significant number of people, to try to help change this.
And by all means, if someone is standing right next to the elevator door, let them exit first, and don’t “shove past” them. People do communicate by where and how they stand, of course.
Sheesh.