Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

My wife, the stark raving feministFollow

#1 Apr 20 2016 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
So..
My wife and I were engaged in a lively argument Socratic dialectic involving religion and sexism.. (she's a bit of a doubtful agnostic)
The particular line of dialog was regarding double standards.
Basically, my stance was this:
If I had a teenaged son and daughter (same age about) and both of them came to me and said "I just got laid by some random person" I would be more upset for my daughter than for my son.

She called this double-standard "disgusting".
I pointed out that this view of mine had little to do with religion and more to do with simple LOGIC at which I pointed out there is a pointedly stark contrast both physically, biologically, mentally, and spiritually between penetrating someone and allowing yourself to be penetrated.

Then she scoffed and called me a Trump supporter. (I'm not.)
I mean.. ISN'T there a freaking difference?! or am I really just walking with the dinosaurs on this?
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#2 Apr 20 2016 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What if your son was penetrated?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Apr 20 2016 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What if your son was penetrated?


Likely react same as if he were my daughter.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#4 Apr 20 2016 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, there's an obvious physical difference. The primary biological difference would be pregnancy. I don't know if there's a mental/spiritual difference -- I guess on that point it's you more in line with fringe feminists who insist that all penis-in-vagina intercourse is inherently violence against women since the female is getting penetrated.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Apr 20 2016 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I'll be scaring the boys away from touching my daughter so I won't need to worry about it. Haven't put any thought into it if she were a he. So yeah, double standard. Don't see what Trump has to do with it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#6 Apr 20 2016 at 8:48 AM Rating: Good
**
457 posts
If I were in a similar situation, I would probably be most upset equally with both of them for it happening with a random person (which I am reading as being someone that they just met and don't know anything about). But, if it were just random sex with one of their friends, I would probably be more upset with a daughter than a son. I know that it shouldn't happen that way, but treating boys and girls differently is something that I think a lot of us have ingrained into us from how we were raised ("Boys aren't supposed to hit girls"). We can try our hardest not to treat them differently, but it still happens.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
Thinking outside the box is fine, but the owner's manual is on the inside.
#7 Apr 20 2016 at 8:53 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
It's a double standard but double standards aren't always illogical.

There are plenty of good reasons why sex is more consequential for women than men. There are plenty of reasons why men are generally stronger than women. There are plenty of reasons why women are generally more compassionate than men. There are plenty of reasons that women are generally more flexible than men.

We can have double standards as long as we don't put limits on people as a result of those standards. We can certainly discuss the scope of those double standards as some will always be out of line with reality but double standards are not evil constructs that need to be avoided at all costs.
#8 Apr 20 2016 at 8:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Don't see what Trump has to do with it.

Trump doesn't want you banging his daughters, duh.
AnimalOnSylph wrote:
I know that it shouldn't happen that way, but treating boys and girls differently is something that I think a lot of us have ingrained into us from how we were raised ("Boys aren't supposed to hit girls"). We can try our hardest not to treat them differently, but it still happens.

I force myself to get past this by punching girls but then allowing them to have random sex with me. For equality.

Edited, Apr 20th 2016 9:57am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Apr 20 2016 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
AnimalOnSylph wrote:
I know that it shouldn't happen that way, but treating boys and girls differently is something that I think a lot of us have ingrained into us from how we were raised ("Boys aren't supposed to hit girls").
A lot of us are/were also the kinds of boys that we wouldn't want our daughters anywhere near. So that probably factors.
Jophiel wrote:
Trump doesn't want you banging his daughters, duh.
That's fine, I don't want Trump's sloppy seconds either.

Cuz he wants to bang his daughter.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Apr 20 2016 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
AnimalOnSylph wrote:
I would probably be more upset with a daughter than a son. I know that it shouldn't happen that way, but treating boys and girls differently is something that I think a lot of us have ingrained into us from how we were raised


Is this not the equivalent to a man simply rationalizing his supposed right to keep a woman subservient? "It's just ingrained in us"

Yodabunny wrote:
There are plenty of good reasons why *** is more consequential for women than men. There are plenty of reasons why men are generally stronger than women. There are plenty of reasons why women are generally more compassionate than men. There are plenty of reasons that women are generally more flexible than men.


That's my thought... there IS a double standard because we are talking about 2 entirely different types of human beings (with exceptions!)... What makes are woman a woman? It is more than just biology.. and to me gender is based upon temperament.. but there is a clear distinction and therefore double-standards are called for in matters regard biology and temperament.

This began as a religious debate about why the bible God seemed to prefer men over woman and hold women more accountable for certain things... I basically said "God could have made 27 different genders and let us asexually reproduce but there is a clear reason that both were created as we were" ..... however I realized that most of these things were NOT actually religious arguments but social arguments.... as I know I would have felt the same way before I "got religion".
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#11 Apr 20 2016 at 9:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
I mean.. ISN'T there a freaking difference?! or am I really just walking with the dinosaurs on this?
Personally I wouldn't care much either way. Only thing I could see myself being upset about would be something like them being 15 and having unprotected sex or similar; at least be taking your pills, use a condom, etc. I'd probably be upset with son or daughter to a similar degree if they were being reckless like that. Maybe it'll be different when it actually happens, but as of right now I don't find myself reacting differently when I imagine one or the other of them having sex.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#12 Apr 20 2016 at 9:58 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
This began as a religious debate about why the bible God seemed to prefer men over woman and hold women more accountable for certain things...
Because it was written entirely by men, with no input from women. The same way the Constitution was most beneficial to white males in the 1800s. Not exactly a mystery.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#13 Apr 20 2016 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Personally I wouldn't care much either way. Only thing I could see myself being upset about would be something like them being 15 and having unprotected *** or similar; at least be taking your pills, use a condom, etc.


Would it matter to you if they were having sex with a different person each night even if they were using protection?
In this case am thinking that they are between 15-17 still living at home etc..
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#14 Apr 20 2016 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Personally I wouldn't care much either way. Only thing I could see myself being upset about would be something like them being 15 and having unprotected *** or similar; at least be taking your pills, use a condom, etc.


Would it matter to you if they were having *** with a different person each night even if they were using protection?
In this case am thinking that they are between 15-17 still living at home etc..
A different person every night isn't something I'd be very happy about, but again, this would be the same for either sex. It's the added risk of of STDs, etc that would be my biggest concern, and that risk is similar enough for both sexes that I don't think I'd be harping on one more than the other about it.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#15 Apr 20 2016 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Either way wouldn't bother me. Not using protection would lead to a long session of verbal beratement mostly centering around the question "Are you retarded?".
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#16 Apr 20 2016 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
**
457 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
AnimalOnSylph wrote:
I would probably be more upset with a daughter than a son. I know that it shouldn't happen that way, but treating boys and girls differently is something that I think a lot of us have ingrained into us from how we were raised


Is this not the equivalent to a man simply rationalizing his supposed right to keep a woman subservient? "It's just ingrained in us"



You can use that argument to rationalize anything, and you can rationalize anything you want, regardless of which words you use, really. That phrase has probably been used to rationalize many things since those words were combined in that manner for that meaning. But, that doesn't make it right.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
Thinking outside the box is fine, but the owner's manual is on the inside.
#17 Apr 20 2016 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Not using protection would lead to a long session of verbal beratement mostly centering around the question "Are you retarded?".
Probably me too, but it'd be a judge asking it at the assault hearing after I shotgunned the kid.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Apr 20 2016 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
I get the feeling there is a lot more to it as to whether or not penetration was involved.

Kelvyquayo wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
What if your son was penetrated?


Likely react same as if he were my daughter.


What if it was a daughter with another woman? My stepdaughter recently has started "dating" people over the internet. My wife and I both seem to agree that it's no trouble at all if it's with another girl, but raises all kinds of alarms when the person she is "dating" is ever male. Obviously there is no penetration going on over the internet, but we seem to have this innate feeling that we need to protect her from males regardless of what they do together. It does feel like a huge double standard, though we can't seem to figure out why it's such a problem for guys to say so much as "hello" to her yet graphic sexual role playing with friends of hers we can confirm are girls her own age is A-OK.

We talk about it sometimes, and we can't figure out what it is about males that horrifies us-- I actually brought up the idea of penetration at one point as you have said, but it didn't seem like the real reason.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#19 Apr 20 2016 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
We talk about it sometimes, and we can't figure out what it is about males that horrifies us-- I actually brought up the idea of penetration at one point as you have said, but it didn't seem like the real reason.
On this, I think the reaction is totally natural for a couple of reasons.

Firstly men are more immediately dangerous creatures. Bigger, stronger, more violent (there's a lot more men locked up than women), etc. Physical intimidation and a propensity towards violent behavior has served our sex well over countless untold millions of years, and those traits aren't going to go away after just a few centuries of civilization. It traditionally makes sense to be more fearful of a male.

Also, pregnancy would have traditionally been a hardship if it wasn't in a marriage, as a women's family could easily end up having to expend energy to raise an new child while a man's family could potentially deny any involvement. Nowadays we have things like birth control, abortion, adoption, DNA testing, child support, etc which makes this less of a concern, but a mere few centuries ago this wouldn't have been the case.

Basically evolution hasn't caught up with civilization yet.

Edited, Apr 20th 2016 10:44am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#20 Apr 20 2016 at 3:43 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Gee, were do I start?

As Female, a Mother of 3 girls, or grand mom of a 13 year old boy, who is beginning to talk to us about his sexuality. I don't see my teenage step grand daughter enough to comment about them.

Yes we live in a world were we want to protect our female children from the danger that sex can cause them, but not our male children. Even as a Feminist, I tend to be more protective of the females in my family then the one male child, who is at an age were if he was female I would be far more worry for. But my worry for my daughters and grand daughters has more to do with a culture that has historically said that force is okay, when hormones are concern. Only in recently history, has there been a push for parents to teach male children that "No" means No and to respect a woman's right to turn you down.

So we now teach our girls that cat calls aren't something they should have to put up with, while for women my age, it was something you just did. Darn I remember getting cat calls when I was in elementary school walking past construction sites. It was like no females were allow to past the site without the workers saying something sexual or whistling at us.

So when my girls were pre-teens we make sure they learn about how to use protection if they had sex. Not just with boys, but with other girls. HIV was something that we talked about early on and made sure they knew how to protect themselves.

Then when I knew they were sexually active, I was more concern with how it affected them emotionally, then the "Oh No!" you aren't old enough yet to have sex message, that we normally give our girls. Darn I was a teenager once and remember how it felt to lose my virginity, because I wanted to and I wanted my girls to be able to decide for themselves when they lost theirs. Then as a 10th grader I had the job of selecting information to put in the library file system and made sure to cover all methods of birth control. So my views on sex education are very liberal.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#21 Apr 20 2016 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
AnimalOnSylph wrote:
I would probably be more upset with a daughter than a son. I know that it shouldn't happen that way, but treating boys and girls differently is something that I think a lot of us have ingrained into us from how we were raised


Is this not the equivalent to a man simply rationalizing his supposed right to keep a woman subservient? "It's just ingrained in us"


I think it's overly simplistic to say it's about rationalizing men keeping women subservient. At least, not necessarily in the context of the social pressures that still exist today. How many males on this forum have been taught to walk up to the door first to open it for a woman? What about walking on the side of the sidewalk closest to the curb when walking with a woman? How about holding her chair for her? Or opening her car door? Or standing up when a woman gets up from the table and you are seated (this ones become far more rare)? Some maybe. Some maybe not. But the point is that at no point were we taught these things (and for some of us possibly berated for failing to follow those etiquette rules) with a justification of "this allows us to keep women subservient".

We can talk about how these rules were created within the context of a culture that did assume men were the providers and protectors, and women were to be treated as objects to be protected (and perhaps more cynically to bear and raise children), and we can even talk about how continuing these traditions is some kind of oblique call back to those times. But for most, they're just nice things to do, that we were taught to do, and not meant in any way other than "Hey. I'm being nice to this person". Does the fact that we may do that for a woman but not for a man still kinda suggest a different standard for each? Certainly. But is society really harmed by this? I don't think so. I think that sometimes it's ok to have "rules" for interacting with each other, and as long as those rules don't extend to things like hiring preferences or how we treat people professionally, and are otherwise just harmless niceties that make social settings go more smoothly, I don't see much problem with it.

I'm sure some feminists will disagree though. And honestly, I get their position. I just think that this is like worrying about the table decorations, while the food is burning in the oven. There are much bigger fish to fry. Also, it actually does become a double standard, because men are often pressured to treat women "better" than men, but then sometimes called sexist for doing so. And sometimes women expect us to treat them differently than we treat men. And honestly? Usually the women asking us to treat them different/better are the ones we're in relationships with, while those calling us sexist for doing so are not. And that's not really a tough choice to make, right? A man will treat his wife/girlfriend how she wants to be treated. That's kinda rule number one. If that offends some feminists out there, they're just going to have to deal with it.


Quote:
This began as a religious debate about why the bible God seemed to prefer men over woman and hold women more accountable for certain things... I basically said "God could have made 27 different genders and let us asexually reproduce but there is a clear reason that both were created as we were" ..... however I realized that most of these things were NOT actually religious arguments but social arguments.... as I know I would have felt the same way before I "got religion".


I also wouldn't necessarily categorize that as "the bible God". As you state, this is less about religion and more about social norms at the time the bible stories were written. From an intelligent design point of view (or from an evolutionary point of view even), there are clear biological differences between men and woman, and thus clear social roles that both would naturally play in early civilizations for those civilizations to be most successful. At the end of the day, the tribe that has the men out hunting and fighting, while keeping the women safe in the village will tend to win out over time over the one that does things the other way around. Survival for most of human history was a fight between attrition via various forms of death, and birth rates. Anything that maximized the rate of children being born and then surviving long enough to procreate would maximize your odds over time. Women had to be in the baby making business, and men had to be in the "protect the more or less continually pregnant women" business. You can argue that most of our social roles derive from those necessities. And those rules would certainly have still been in effect when the bible stories were first being told and later written down.

And one can also argue that this necessity has only really gone away in the last few centuries, as industrialization has created less total labor hours needed to provide the necessities for a society, and as medical advances have improved both our life spans and infant survival rates. It's not a coincidence that women's rights issues have advanced during this same time period. As with most things, it's the realities of the world we live in that drive our cultural changes, not the other way around. I guess my primary point is that it's more than unfair to judge past generations (especially really really past ones) based on the norms of today. And I don't think God really has much to do with it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Apr 20 2016 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
ElneClare wrote:
Gee, were do I start?

As Female, a Mother of 3 girls, or grand mom of a 13 year old boy, .........
.............Then as a 10th grader I had the job of selecting information to put in the library file system and made sure to cover all methods of birth control. So my views on *** education are very liberal.


That is certainly great insight from a pro! Remembering what it was like at that age perhaps is a large part of it... you're from Bmore.. so you may be familiar with Dundalk and Essex... which is where I grew up.. mostly Essex.. I knew pregnant girls in 7th grade... There really is no pretending that these things aren't happening.. Parents that think their kids are angels are just asking for trouble.. I remember what kids my age were like.. majority were womanizing misogynistic douchebags.. even in middle school... Thank God I just hung out with nerds and was too shy to develop such habits...

We also had Sex-Ed in 6th grade (that was 1991 I think) and I don't think there was anything inappropriate for my age at that time.... In fact it was very informative and useful. Now when we start teaching Sex-Ed to 3rd graders... that's a whole different story..

Edited, Apr 20th 2016 11:03pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#23 Apr 20 2016 at 9:11 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Now when we start teaching ***-Ed to 3rd graders... that's a whole different story..
Average age in US for 1st period in girls is 11 1/2, so...time appropriate in 3rd grade I think.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#24 Apr 20 2016 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
gbaji wrote:
Certainly. But is society really harmed by this? I don't think so. I think that sometimes it's ok to have "rules" for interacting with each other, and as long as those rules don't extend to things like hiring preferences or how we treat people professionally, and are otherwise just harmless niceties that make social settings go more smoothly, I don't see much problem with it.
...I'm sure some feminists will disagree though.


I am coming to think that no one should be accused of accidentally giving offense.. but people always can take offense.. whether by choice or by nature...
My concern for this proverbial virgin daughter I pretty much see as just that... just sincere concern.. I cannot see being blamed for simply not have the same species of concern for my proverbial virgin son..
I am reminded of the scene in Jurassic Park when Scottish dude suggests that the blonde chick (ellie?) doesn't go on the dangerous mission and that HE should go instead because she is a woman and he is a man.... and she gets all offended and calls him sexist.
Quote:

I also wouldn't necessarily categorize that as "the bible God". As you state, this is less about religion and more about social norms at the time the bible stories were written.


Well, she specifically brought up the verse about "If you sell your daughter as a slave these are the rules" and the moral implications.... which led into me moving it to the comparison above about why women seem so have different "rules" than men.
Incidentally.. that Bible verse is nothing more than ensuring that a bride gets a fair dowry and is able to leave if the guy shuns her... nothing to do with involuntary 'slavery' anymore than being in arranged marriages is slavery... (which.. ok maybe it kinda was (is).. but I can't think of an alternative to what they could have done that didn't involve the woman simply killing all of the men.. cause they were mostly ******
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#25 Apr 20 2016 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Now when we start teaching ***-Ed to 3rd graders... that's a whole different story..
Average age in US for 1st period in girls is 11 1/2, so...time appropriate in 3rd grade I think.


Do you have any idea how long the 3 years between 8 and 11 are to the mind of a kid that age? Do you even remember?
If you think 8 year old girls should be taught about their periods.. fine.. it should be the parents job at that age... but I suppose since I don't know exactly what you're talking about with "sex ed" I won't continue.

Edited, Apr 20th 2016 11:29pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#26 Apr 20 2016 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Well, my sex ed in grade school was at the age of 10...forty years ago.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 231 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (231)