Women in authority?

[lmnop9876]

I've never seen a group of men grope a woman. That's what I've never seen. I've seen depictions of things like that on TV. I've even put myself in harms way defending women who were assaulted, but it was a single male individual not a gang in a bar.

It's the generalizations about white Anglo males that I don't like.

I certainly never had a group of women grope me. Never been a rock star so that's not gonna happen. Thank you Jesus! Men and women obviously see things differently. If a woman makes a pass at me, I simply ignore it. No harm no foul. It doesn't really bother me, unless she's my boss. That bothers me. So in that respect I can relate with a woman. However, if a woman puts her hands on me, again I don't feel threatened. Now if I were a woman that would be a serious violation from a man. That I can relate to and as a man it would infuriate me to see another man treat a woman that way.

I don't recall generalising about white Anglo males. I recall you emphasising that in any of the ANGLO bars you'd been in, you hadn't seen anything like this. I recounted an experience with a group of Anglo-Australian males that occurred in previous weeks. That was as close as I came to generalising about white Anglo males. I was talking about the general expectation that that kind of behaviour will take place and general acceptance of it being signs of an implicit cultural acceptance of the objectification of women.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

It's got nothing to do with race. It's got everything to do with the human condition. If I were born black in this country I'd have a whole different set of problems to deal with then I do being white. I don't think we should criticize cultures or races we should seek solutions rather then assign blame.

In the final analysis we are all the same spirit, soul and body. We find ourselves under different pressures due to our color, geography, ethnicity, and gender, etc., but essentially we are the same within. Reverse our roles and, we'd all be acting the same, because we are the same within.

Addendum: in other words if I were born black in America, I'd fall into the statistics that blacks do. Not because of my color but because of the circumstances my color would require that I confront.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Then do as YOU SAY "get another job", that was your advice to WOMEN in that position wasnt it? Its not that big of a deal in OUR case but when it affects the mens side its ONLY THEN ~OUR FEELINGS~ (much disregarded) are USED to invoke sympathy "in us" by mirroring back "our own" when none was shown from the outset.

What they feel only comes in handy here?

You lost me here.

I was pointing out when the women are in that postion your reaction is similiar to stone. That a woman's feelings (in a position discussed) can be treated as "no big deal'. BUT the second you need someone to see your point ~our feelings~ become important only to your point.

Its as if THEN only an "APPEAL TO" OUR FEELINGS is USED to wrestle a right answer or sympathy (from us) FROM THAT which MIRRORS our very OWN (in another) who is supposed to know vulnerability in the same way.

If the man was not brought into the picture its "as if" our feelings or point are completely discarded otherwise. The importance of our feelings comes in only in so much as THEY can be USED to gain sympathy for your point.

Again not following you.

I was joking on The woman you put me with made me do it deal. That its the womans fault which is often followed with an exceptional male story.

My parents had eight children. Mom was in and out of the hospital and bed ridden much of my youth. Dad, never raised his voice to her, never struck her, worked 24/7 to provide for us kids. Mom was a very loving woman but was often unable to care for us. I loved her deeply and know she loved us but, was unable. Dad, could have easily walked out but didn't. He didn't get much in return, a sickly wife and eight mouths to feed. In all of that I never heard him curse never heard him say something bad about Mom. The man just worked and slept often literally 365 days a year to keep food on the table.

I thought so. Your father was still around and did his duty then.

Others dont, marraiges and commitments to them differ depending on the man or woman I never said otherwise. My mom took on your Fathers job with no husband and less kids. She did a darn good job by herself as well.

Again not following you. Adam made the mistake of loving his Eve more than God's word and more then himself.

Im talking about "Pauls words" and being silly (as you say) Adam was "formed first" IF the woman is to LEARN ANYTHING she would learn it from HIM right?

Appears 20th century Eve has learned much from her man, I was just being sarcastic

 

[Fireinfolding]

there is such a thing as cultural norms and values people, and criticising them doesn't mean i'm being racist.

I never read you that way, you appeared to clarify yourself well enough for me not to misunderstand you. If you had been then I completely missed that because thats not what I heard.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I've never seen a group of men grope a woman. That's what I've never seen. I've seen depictions of things like that on TV. I've even put myself in harms way defending women who were assaulted, but it was a single male individual not a gang in a bar.

It's the generalizations about white Anglo males that I don't like.

I certainly never had a group of women grope me. Never been a rock star so that's not gonna happen. Thank you Jesus! Men and women obviously see things differently. If a woman makes a pass at me, I simply ignore it. No harm no foul. It doesn't really bother me, unless she's my boss. That bothers me. So in that respect I can relate with a woman. However, if a woman puts her hands on me, again I don't feel threatened. Now if I were a woman that would be a serious violation from a man. That I can relate to and as a man it would infuriate me to see another man treat a woman that way.

Well and good enough then, I gotta feed my field mice I certainly wasnt hearng the same thing in pjw's posts though. I thought he was pretty clear but I dont specifically look to pick apart anothers post, its not what drives me.

 

[2ducklow]

I was trying to think, maybe you are just being ironic here 2duck . But your continuous insistence throughout this debate on refuting points that didn't bear any resemblance to what was being said, I really believe you are serious, that you really do think you 'have a knack for getting to the heart of the matter' and that you really do understand what people mean better than they do themselves.

Not all people just some people.

It is mind boggling they way you reject their patient explanations of what the said, on the basis that you understand their point so much better than they do. There is the obvious advantage in that it is much easier to refute your mischaracterisation of what they said, but I think you actually believe it.

and I believe my characterization of what they say is totaly accurate, and their denials totally strange. ex. I say dresses are for women and not men. they say in response, "i wear a saronge and I"m a guy." or "guys wear kilts" I conclude from that that they are justifying men wearing dresses because of thier assertion that men wear kilts and saronges. , They conclude that there response to my assertion that men shouldn't wear dresses has no relevancy to my assertion. this is the typical really wierd thing i deal with over and over in debating with people.
When I say 'dresses are for women" they should say "yea right on, you got it dude." then they are agreeing with me. or they should give examples of men wearing dresses which would disagree with me. guess which option they choice? yet they say "we didn't say men can wear dresses." totally blows my mind ,, How can you guys do that and keep a straight face? Then you guys look at me like I'm some kinda wierdo cause I figured your response to my assertions had something to do with my assertions. really really really strange.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Originally Posted by pjw
there is such a thing as cultural norms and values people, and criticising them doesn't mean i'm being racist.

I never read you that way, you appeared to clarify yourself well enough for me not to misunderstand you. If you had been then I completely missed that because thats not what I heard.

Amen, amen.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

Then do as YOU SAY "get another job", that was your advice to WOMEN in that position wasnt it? Its not that big of a deal in OUR case but when it affects the mens side its ONLY THEN ~OUR FEELINGS~ (much disregarded) are USED to invoke sympathy "in us" by mirroring back "our own" when none was shown from the outset.

What they feel only comes in handy here?

Once again utterly lost here. Don't have a clue what you are saying. Anyone?

I was pointing out when the women are in that postion your reaction is similiar to stone. That a woman's feelings (in a position discussed) can be treated as "no big deal'. BUT the second you need someone to see your point ~our feelings~ become important only to your point.

Its as if THEN only an "APPEAL TO" OUR FEELINGS is USED to wrestle a right answer or sympathy (from us) FROM THAT which MIRRORS our very OWN (in another) who is supposed to know vulnerability in the same way.

If the man was not brought into the picture its "as if" our feelings or point are completely discarded otherwise. The importance of our feelings comes in only in so much as THEY can be USED to gain sympathy for your point.

Lost again.

Here's what I'm saying it's real simple. If you don't like your job, get another one, if you can't and you need the job then, deal with it. Pray for changes, do something to change it, don't just belly ache and claim it all men's fault, or women's fault or some race's fault ... we all have things to deal with we don't like.

I thought so. Your father was still around and did his duty then.

Others dont, marraiges and commitments to them differ depending on the man or woman I never said otherwise. My mom took on your Fathers job with no husband and less kids. She did a darn good job by herself as well.

Im talking about "Pauls words" and being silly (as you say) Adam was "formed first" IF the woman is to LEARN ANYTHING she would learn it from HIM right?

Appears 20th century Eve has learned much from her man, I was just being sarcastic

OK, this part I get ... funny ... accurate. [/QUOTE]

Some times maybe you're just talking over my head.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Not all people just some people.
and I believe my characterization of what they say is totaly accurate, and their denials totally strange. ex. I say dresses are for women and not men. they say in response, "i wear a saronge and I"m a guy." or "guys wear kilts"

Now that was clarified concerning "american made dresses". Even I said men shouldnt be in dresses made for women here because we have no such "kilt custom" or "Saronge custom" given we are a "melting pot" of various cultures having nothing to boast in concerning the DEPTHS of ours (verses the shallowness of it all most often) you might see a Saronge or a kilt in celebration of such customs acceptable from where they come from. But such cultures dont see such things as womens clothing but mens. Thats not saying its right (in our own) for a man to buy a womans dress at Macys and wear it out as acceptable, its not.

You appeared to be insisting DRESSES = women and PANTS = men. NOT that both could be acceptably worn by women but you refused at first to get specific remember? So without specifics the kilts and the Sarongs came in and now your throwing a tizzy fit

I conclude from that that they are justifying men wearing dresses because of thier assertion that men wear kilts and saronges. ,

You concluded wrongly if your lumping me into it. Pants (as is custom here) is not nessesarily for men (in general) elsewhere. It looks like (what we here) might call) a dress but is not regarded as womens wear.

They conclude that there response to my assertion that men shouldn't wear dresses has no relevancy to my assertion. this is the typical really wierd thing i deal with over and over in debating with people.
When I say 'dresses are for women" they should say "yea right on, you got it dude." then they are agreeing with me. or they should give examples of men wearing dresses which would disagree with me. guess which option they choice? yet they say "we didn't say men can wear dresses." totally blows my mind ,, How can you guys do that and keep a straight face?

Dresses are for women here. But you didnt clarify (in the beginning) that Dresses (and pants) can be worn by a woman. It was an sorta "either or" thing you appeared to be showing. In regards to pants (or shorts) I agree these are for men (not dresses).

I take exception with it only in regards to those countries (or cultures) that allow for those specific articles (as mentioned). Those (which appear like dresses) according to their own traditions (to the shallow minded macho men here) who are without any knowledge of anothers cultural wares.

Thats all.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

Well and good enough then, I gotta feed my field mice I certainly wasnt hearng the same thing in pjw's posts though. I thought he was pretty clear but I dont specifically look to pick apart anothers post, its not what drives me.

Are you suggesting I'm picking apart his posts? Is that what drives me? I'm trying to understand his perspective. He's not pointing the finger at white Anglo females he's pointing them at white Anglo males. Which to be technical I'm not, but, I look like one. So, that's how I'm perceived. Anyway, if you say something like African Americans males are violent, that's a generalization and a racial comment. True, some are and so are males in all other cultures. Now if you say violence in this culture or that culture is disproportionate to other cultures, if accurate that is not racist. However, if you infer it is because of color or race that this condition is so, then, you're being racist.

All people regardless of race or gender are in spirit the same. Race and gender do put us in different circumstances. Geography, physical, and mental abilities give us different advantages or lack there of. But inside in spirit we are all equal creations. Of course I don't think we have the same gender roles but we are in spirit all created to be God's children. If I were born a woman, or black, no doubt statistically I would fall into the same categories as blacks and women do in regard to any number of things, and, visa, versa.

I don't see all women as one particular type nor all men nor all races nor people of various faiths. To group people together and generalize is what I have a problem with.

 

[lmnop9876]

Are you suggesting I'm picking apart his posts? Is that what drives me? I'm trying to understand his perspective. He's not pointing the finger at white Anglo females he's pointing them at white Anglo males. Which to be technical I'm not, but, I look like one. So, that's how I'm perceived. Anyway, if you say something like African Americans males are violent, that's a generalization and a racial comment. True, some are and so are males in all other cultures. Now if you say violence in this culture or that culture is disproportionate to other cultures, if accurate that is not racist. However, if you infer it is because of color or race that this condition is so, then, you're being racist.

correct. if I say that Aboriginal cultures today are cultures of welfare dependency, alcohol and other substance abuse, and abuse of women and children, that would not be racist. they are not like that because they are Aboriginal, these are cultural traits that have developed in the past 100 years. why is it assumed that I am being racist because I express my opinion about what I believe to be a cultural trait of western cultures?

I have not once said that white Anglo males are sexist or objectify women. what I have said is that there is a cultural trait in western cultures that expects and accepts the sexual objectification of women by men, and have presented evidence that this is the case. those who oppose my view have yet to present any evidence refuting it.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Once again utterly lost here. Don't have a clue what you are saying. Anyone?

In short "the using" our feelings to show your point whereas our feelings and our point appeared disregarded.

Our feelings "became important" only "to use" to show the importance of your point. The "weakness" card (on equal ground was being sought out by you). You were leveling the playing field in regards to the woman (in authority) and how the man "must feel". Our feelings only became important (even acknowledged) the second you needed to pull sympathy and weakness to the mans side. "Get a new job" was our solution but you were trying to gain sympathies (mirroring the likeness of our own) which was shown none (through what you blew off regarding us). You raised the IMPORTANCE of our feelings (even appealing to them) in order to grab our sympathies (as if you did) towards the weak position of the man. You appeared to be trying to make the double stadard less visible by creating one through your words and the appeal itself (to what appeared to matter very little to you).

Well only until you could use it for yourself. Am I any clearer?

You appeared to make an appeal to our feelings only when (and insomuch) as they can be "used" to shown your own point. Presented as if they mattered. Ours appears to go unacknowledged until the time you need to utilize them for your own benefit. Its the way you worded it. Your conversations have interesting paterns.

Here's what I'm saying it's real simple. If you don't like your job, get another one, if you can't and you need the job then, deal with it. Pray for changes, do something to change it, don't just belly ache and claim it all men's fault, or women's fault or some race's fault ... we all have things to deal with we don't like.

Well I couldnt get a new job in the Army when I was raped on duty. And now Im near certain it must have been those seductive fatigues that invited the intruder. Your right,theres always some easy answer, a way out and its never one parties fault.

Yeah you right, "deal with it" (and you do) along with others attitudes to stuff like.

How thankful I am for your kind wisdom.

Some times maybe you're just talking over my head.

That would be over your heart as well.

I admit Im not as clear as I would like to be. I get practice here.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

In short "the using" our feelings to show your point whereas our feelings and our point appeared disregarded.

Our feelings "became important" only "to use" to show the importance of your point. The "weakness" card (on equal ground was being sought out by you). You were leveling the playing field in regards to the woman (in authority) and how the man "must feel". Our feelings only became important (even acknowledged) the second you needed to pull sympathy and weakness to the mans side. "Get a new job" was our solution but you were trying to gain sympathies (mirroring the likeness of our own) which was shown none (through what you blew off regarding us). You raised the IMPORTANCE of our feelings (even appealing to them) in order to grab our sympathies (as if you did) towards the weak position of the man. You appeared to be trying to make the double stadard less visible by creating one through your words and the appeal itself (to what appeared to matter very little to you).

You're giving me way to much credit, I can't even follow what you're saying let alone do whatever it is you're implying.

 

[2ducklow]

Now that was clarified concerning "american made dresses". Even I said men shouldnt be in dresses made for women here because we have no such "kilt custom" or "Saronge custom" given we are a "melting pot" of various cultures having nothing to boast in concerning the DEPTHS of ours (verses the shallowness of it all most often) you might see a Saronge or a kilt in celebration of such customs acceptable from where they come from. But such cultures dont see such things as womens clothing but mens. Thats not saying its right (in our own) for a man to buy a womans dress at Macys and wear it out as acceptable, its not.

You appeared to be insisting DRESSES = women and PANTS = men. NOT that both could be acceptably worn by women but you refused at first to get specific remember?

Nope never did, you made that up. I never said pants are only for men. several times I specifically said such things as womens pants aree so feminine no man would wear them, and that its a matter of conscious as to weather one things a garment is masculine or feminine. apparently you want me to write a dissertation along with my simple assertion that dresses are for women only. pants don't figure into it when I say dresses are for women only.

So without specifics the kilts and the Sarongs came in and now your throwing a tizzy fit

the specifics was 'women only shouldwear dresses" no need to discuss pants or zippers or belts or elephants cause the topic was 'women should wear dresses not men." uh i think only women can throw a tizzy.

You concluded wrongly if your lumping me into it. Pants (as is custom here) is not nessesarily for men (in general) elsewhere. It looks like (what we here) might call) a dress but is not regarded as womens wear.

then why bring it up when I say dresses are for women and not men? remember the pic of the pres in a dress brought up cause I said dresses are for women not men. no relation to anything I said right?? man i can't believe this.

Dresses are for women here. But you didnt clarify (in the beginning) that Dresses (and pants) can be worn by a woman. It was an sorta "either or" thing you appeared to be showing. In regards to pants (or shorts) I agree these are for men (not dresses).

I take exception with it only in regards to those countries (or cultures) that allow for those specific articles (as mentioned). Those (which appear like dresses) according to their own traditions (to the shallow minded macho men here) who are without any knowledge of anothers cultural wares.

Thats all.

all i said was dresses are for women and i get all these things about men in kilts and men in saronges and pictures of famous men in dresses, and I'm not suppose to take that as anyone trying to prove that men should wear dresses and cause I did I'm so dumb right? twillight zone time folks. I noticed all the men ran for cover when I asked them what dress they were wearing lol. kinda put a screetchin halt to them tryin to prove men should wear dresses when it got personal.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Are you suggesting I'm picking apart his posts?

Sorry, I needed to shoot out the door to feed my animals (as I said) and I did post in a rush. I can very easily see how you could have drawn that but no not there did I mean to imply that. I meant to stay on me not on you.

I just read the overall of someones post not to pick it apart so I wouldnt notice it if he did because I dont look to zoom in and find fault with it naturally, thats not my way. specially since he kept clarifying over and over again.

In most heavy debaters (here) some do have a way about them wherein they appear to thrive and move in on every imperfectly worded thing. I didnt see much imperfectly worded in pwj's posts. Not only that but he is gentle and kind and very easy to hear. His way speaks well of him.

Is that what drives me?

I dont know, does it?

 

[JWNEWMAN]

That would be over your heart as well.

I admit Im not as clear as I would like to be. I get practice here.

Hmmm... over my heart? You don't know me well enough (at all) to make such a statement so, I'll chalk it up to, you must be having other problems?

It's not a matter of your being clear, it's a matter of knowing you. I don't therefor I can't comprehend what you are trying to say sometimes. That, or, I'm just not smart enough to understand your complicated view of things.

Not so easy to get someone's drift over the internet. If I knew you personally I'd probably get what your driving at.

 

[Fireinfolding]

wow, guess i hit the nail on the head to get you this riled up.
then why bring it up when I say dresses are for women and not men? remember the pic of the pres in a dress brought up cause I said dresses are for women not men. no relation to anything I said right?? man i can't believe this.


all i said was dresses are for women and i get all these things about men in kilts and men in saronges and pictures of famous men in dresses, and I'm not suppose to take that as anyone trying to prove that men should wear dresses and cause I did I'm so dumb right? twillight zone time folks. I noticed all the men ran for cover when I asked them what dress they were wearing lol. kinda put a screetchin halt to them tryin to prove men should wear dresses when it got personal.

Ducklow I quoted you thinking you were PWNEWMAN I mistook WHO it was I was quoting.

Its my fault that quoted you at all. Had I realized I wouldnt have.

I honestly dont care to talk to you so I wont respond to you except to clarify that it was "me" who screwed up here and I was not careful concerning who I quoted.

I'm not interested in further conversation with you.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

In most heavy debaters (here) some do have a way about them wherein they appear to thrive and move in on every imperfectly worded thing. I didnt see much imperfectly worded in pwj's posts. Not only that but he is gentle and kind and very easy to hear. His way speaks well of him.

To be frank I think you like pjw's point of view because it meshes with yours. If he held my position I don't think you'd have the impression of him being gentle.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Ducklow I quoted you thinking you were PWNEWMAN I mistook WHO it was I was quoting.

Its my fault that quoted you at all. Had I realized I wouldnt have.

I honestly dont care to talk to you so I wont respond to you except to clarify that it was "me" who screwed up here and I was not careful concerning who I quoted.

I'm not interested in further conversation with you.

Honey, don't be too hard on yourself! They're identical twins.

​

 

[JWNEWMAN]

correct. if I say that Aboriginal cultures today are cultures of welfare dependency, alcohol and other substance abuse, and abuse of women and children, that would not be racist. they are not like that because they are Aboriginal, these are cultural traits that have developed in the past 100 years. why is it assumed that I am being racist because I express my opinion about what I believe to be a cultural trait of western cultures?

I have not once said that white Anglo males are sexist or objectify women. what I have said is that there is a cultural trait in western cultures that expects and accepts the sexual objectification of women by men, and have presented evidence that this is the case. those who oppose my view have yet to present any evidence refuting it.

First of all America is culturally diverse. I don't see that western society objectifies women. Nor do I see evidence that it does. Nor read any evidence from you that it does. You've stated your opinion. Which has been refuted by other opinions and you've made ridiculous sweeping statements like, put a woman in a group of Anglo men and watch them howl and grope her no matter what she's wearing... an absurd statement to say the least.