Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is there actually an epidemic of babies being thrown in dumpsters?
I'd be right to question your judgment. It really wouldn't speak well of you to anyone ... with the exception of certain fringe elements ... and might earn you some jail time.
From post #129 ...
Colin decided to take the knee ... hoping that dong so would help to decrease the incidence of us SEEING black men being killed by police (on video).
Out of the protests (kneeling and otherwise), I would say, came the call for increased video-graphy of police encounters (i.e. dash-cams, body-cams, etc). That is a good thing.
And, for what ever reasons, we are SEEING LESS black men being killed by police (on video).
(According to FBI records, there was a spike of 50 more police killings of black men in 2015, ... which has since abated, and continues to decrease annually.)
No. Let's not do that later if we need to.
Are there any that could occur with less frequency in an "ideal" world (whatever you would want that to be)?
Every.Single.Time this discussion comes up and a woman shares a story about receiving uncomfortable, unwanted or pushy sexual attention (or worse) another woman pipes up "I can relate". "I know what you mean".
Every time.
If you listen to what women are saying, how can this not be seen as an issue?
Or would I be disrespecting something symbolic that means different things to different people?
Lol oh ok...so you made up a correlation between the two things. You don't have any actual evidence.
No....we need to do that now. The idea that there's a group of "toxic" traits that are associated with "masculinity" in our society is the foundational premise of the entire commercial.
Surely you don't think that the commercial is suggesting that the behaviors are a problem for femininity as well? Or that they are only problematic for a small criminal subset of men?
There's been some of that too ...The country was founded upon direct action....literally shooting and killing our colonial masters.
In a country whose leadership is accountable to the people, it does ...Similarly, kneeling during the national anthem during a football game doesn't have anything to do with police brutality or anything to do with police....at all.
Yes...obviously. The first attempt he made at a protest, where he just sat instead of kneeling, went completely unnoticed lol.
Except that's two very different things you're conflating there.
It's one thing to approach someone, appropriately and respectfully, and be rejected. Unpleasant, requiring resilience and courage, all of that.
It's another thing to (knowingly or not) choose an approach which leaves the one you're approaching feeling threatened, scared or vulnerable.
I'd suggest it'd be a good thing for men who want their success rate to increase to learn the difference and avoid the second kind of approach. And also good for women who want to be able to go about our daily lives without wondering if that random guy at the bus stop is going to be someone we have to (literally) run from, for our own safety.
At first, Kaepernick sat during the anthem. Later, he opted instead to kneel "to show more respect for men and women who fight for the country." The change came at the suggestion of former NFL player and Green Beret Nate Boyer.
View image on Twitter
Nate Boyer
✔@NateBoyer37
Thanks for the invite brother... Good talk. Let's just keep moving forward. This is what America should be all about
8:23 PM - Sep 1, 2016
There's been some of that too ...
In a country whose leadership is accountable to the people, it does ...
Is physical aggression in any way associated with masculinity in our culture ?
I think that the commercial is pointing to issues which are problematic for some men. The commercial calls upon the larger body of decent men to stop enabling such abuses ...
I was too busy shaving my chest.I'm pretty shocked that this hasn't made it onto here yet.
I liked it. The only part that feels a bit "iffy" to me is that I cannot really decipher why those two boys are fighting at the bbq. If it is just horseplay and rough housing, I'm cool with that. If it is using violence to solve a conflict, I very much have a problem with that.
Otherwise, 100% agreement for me.
I'm surprised at how difficult it has been for some men to take a moment and reflect on how they treat women. More than a few just seem to be all up in arms about an advert that suggests grabbing womens' butts or speaking condescendingly towards them is not some inaliienable right.
I've been on this forum long enough to know there will be some opinions on it so...let's here it!
Does the same apply to women?? If they approach a guy in public somewhere...are they wrong for doing so? Are they morally deficient??
My guess is that you don't have any problem with women approaching a man in public to express interest or attraction.
Which is it? Because those two statements are completely contradictory. See the problem?? Either it's not wrong all the time....or it's threatening and intimidating and it is wrong all the time. It can't be both though.
Can you at least acknowledge that some women, some of the time, find it flattering? I had a female coworker talking about an incident just two weeks ago where a guy was hitting on her while she was in her car in traffic and to quote her....it "made her day".
I get that sometimes women find it intimidating....but can you at least admit that sometimes they find it flattering and enjoy it??? I'm not saying all the time, I'm not even saying most of the time...because frankly, the percentages don't matter. I'd just like to see if you can acknowledge that some of the time women enjoy it.
Sorry, but you don't get to just skip past the premise as if it's a given fact. Let's see some evidence that our social construct of masculinity is indeed toxic.
We're talking about catcalling...and while I don't know the official definition....I'm talking about a situation where a man and woman come across each other in public, or perhaps a place of business, where they're doing something other than socializing...and one "hits on" the other. This can be as innocuous as attempting to begin a conversation "hey there" or more directly expressing interest like as in saying something flirtatious or complimentary.
Hopefully that clears it up....because I'm not really talking about any other kind of situation. It's one briefly touched on in the commercial.
While you're at it....tell me if you also think the same about gay men. Can they hit on men in public? This has happened to me a few times in my life...so I'm curious what you think.
Herein lies the problem with the argument in support of catcalling, there is an overrealiance on distorting the interaction where it is turned into simply approaching a woman versus someone aggressively calling out to a woman and objectifying her.Well, we were talking about catcalling, which isn't "approaching," it's usually yelling from some distance away. (And as I noted before, often in groups etc. Building sites can be awful...)
As someone that's been sexually harassed by women, I would say to compare the two is ridiculous because the power differential and the frequency are completely different. A man may be catcalled less than a handful of times in his lifetime, so the experience will feel rather quaint; women experience it far more often, and with far more dangerous behavior (e.g., I know several women that have had men follow them).But no, I don't think it's the same for women. Because the power gradient runs the other way. Men aren't usually scared, intimidated, or threatened by women in public, nor are men often assaulted or killed by women while out and about. So the reasonable fear a woman might have of an unknown man doesn't run the other way.
This is the part I find mystifying about the argument attacking the idea that catcalling is wrong. If you talk to women, a sizable number of them have been assaulted and/or followed. We have data from around the world that shows women change their travel patterns because of this behavior. Don't you think you should have at least some social intelligence about why certain behaviors might be considered inappropriate. I would never harm a child, and even though talking to children is not illegal, I understand why people would have a problem with me hanging out in a park trying to talk to kids.But I would say, if in doubt, don't. Because percentages do matter, when it comes to working out whether your approach is likely to be well received.
Domestic violence rates, for a start? The number of women killed by their partners and ex-partners?
The gay guy catcalling men doesn't happen and arguing as if it's a realistic scenario is funny because it further reveals the weakness of the argument. There is a prevailing argument that catcalling women is somehow natural or simply something men do, but if this were the case, catcalling gay men would be commonplace, it's just "boys being boys," correct? And the fact that we know that's not the case shows how much this is about privilege, entitlement and power as opposed to simple sexual attraction.I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the etiquette of gay attraction. I would imagine, though, that the power differential isn't there, so the sense of threat probably isn't either.
Well, we were talking about catcalling, which isn't "approaching," it's usually yelling from some distance away. (And as I noted before, often in groups etc. Building sites can be awful...)
But no, I don't think it's the same for women. Because the power gradient runs the other way. Men aren't usually scared, intimidated, or threatened by women in public, nor are men often assaulted or killed by women while out and about. So the reasonable fear a woman might have of an unknown man doesn't run the other way.
I said context mattered. Where you are, what time it is, whether you're alone, whether the woman is alone, whether her demeanour suggests she's open to an interaction... all of that needs to be judged.
But I would say, if in doubt, don't. Because percentages do matter, when it comes to working out whether your approach is likely to be well received.
Domestic violence rates, for a start? The number of women killed by their partners and ex-partners?
That's not catcalling. Catcalling is yelling. Yelling, or following someone down the street, are what I'm suggesting are a bad idea.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the etiquette of gay attraction. I would imagine, though, that the power differential isn't there, so the sense of threat probably isn't either.
So....you're saying how loud someone says something and the distance they say it at matters?
I appreciate your honesty here...but at the risk of being redundant, do you think it's fair/equitable to hold men to one standard of behavior and women to another?
Regardless of that though....if you realize that context matters, how can you make a blanket condemnation of the behavior? It's sounding less like it's wrong....and more like it just depends upon the woman and her reaction.
We're talking about "toxic masculinity"....not criminal behavior. If you're saying there's a direct link between the two, then you're basically saying that these crimes happen because of the way our society perceives masculinity.
If that isn't what you're saying...then perhaps you understand why some people found the commercial problematic. If it is what you're saying...I think you should rethink the implications of that idea before you double down on it. For example, blacks and hispanics report domestic violence at 2-3 times the rates whites do.....does that mean that they are also more "toxically masculine"?
Seriously, if you consider a comment yelled to you from across the street threatening....you wouldn't find the same comment threatening if it was spoken to you from arm's length away?
So literally this is only "bad" behavior when hetero men do it?
It seems like the whole problem with this, in your opinion, has a lot more to do with the "potential for violence" than anything else. If that's the case though, by that logic a large enough woman is always going to be in the wrong....or a small enough man should never be hit on. After all, there's a potential for violence there.
What's worse is that at some point, let's say a 6'3" man who is fairly athletic.....can never engage with a woman in ways that you would find completely acceptable if he was 5'3" a of slight build.
The whole commercial presents this idea that there's this large and pervasive problem of men being violent towards or sexually abusive to women....and that simply isn't true.
There's a female version of "toxic masculinity" called "diabolical femininity" that characterizes women as money and status hungry sexual manipulators who use their genetic attributes to drain men of material wealth while at the same time destroying his sense of self. Now, regardless of how many real-life examples of that I might be able to come up with....you can see why it would be wrong to portray women in general that way and then tell them they need to "do better"....can't you?
What's the point of doing it then? To raise awareness of police brutality? Of course not....he was virtue signaling to family and friends.
What kind of protest goes on for 3 weeks unnoticed? One that no one understands.
What's the point of doing it then? To raise awareness of police brutality? Of course not....he was virtue signaling to family and friends.
As someone that's been sexually harassed by women, I would say to compare the two is ridiculous because the power differential and the frequency are completely different. A man may be catcalled less than a handful of times in his lifetime, so the experience will feel rather quaint; women experience it far more often, and with far more dangerous behavior (e.g., I know several women that have had men follow them).
Don't you think you should have at least some social intelligence about why certain behaviors might be considered inappropriate. I would never harm a child, and even though talking to children is not illegal, I understand why people would have a problem with me hanging out in a park trying to talk to kids.
The gay guy catcalling men doesn't happen and arguing as if it's a realistic scenario is funny because it further reveals the weakness of the argument. There is a prevailing argument that catcalling women is somehow natural or simply something men do, but if this were the case, catcalling gay men would be commonplace, it's just "boys being boys," correct? And the fact that we know that's not the case shows how much this is about privilege, entitlement and power as opposed to simple sexual attraction.
If just about every man had that kind of experience of women, we'd have similar reason for that kind of conversation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?