skirtcafe.org

Stu wrote:

"Boys might start to realise that – gasp! – they’re not in fact another, superior species. Girls might start to question leniency extended to male people who do not in fact look or act any differently to them. We’d have to stop spouting b***ocks such as “boys will be boys” in order to justify all manner of dickish behaviour."

Sorry, but this is FOUL! This is an example of the odious type of Gloria Steinem feminism that demonises boys and men while portraying females as perpetually oppressed. I would like the writer to crawl back under her stone and die

I disagree strongly with your characterisation of this as foul. Western society remains male-dominated and, as men, we are usually completely blind to the privilege we have. "Boys will be boys" has many serious implications from school bullying (OK, not so much school bullying as duct-taping a child to a post) to out-and-out sexual assault of an unconscious woman. Allowing people to excuse foul behaviour by boys/men with "boys will be boys" creates a society in which men can do what they want to women and girls and nobody can stop them, it also creates an expectation that maleness means meanness, which demeans us all.

If someone, man, woman or anyone else, decides to be a dick, that is their choice and they are making that choice because they want to be a dick. It is not because they are any particular sex or gender. If we allow men to behave like that just because they are men, we all suffer. It is long since time we left that attitude behind us like we did the dark ages.

ethelthefrog wrote: .... If we allow men to behave like that just because they are men, we all suffer. It is long since time we left that attitude behind us like we did the dark ages.

Thanks for writing this. I agree.

"Western society remains male-dominated "

No. that is a myth. You live in the UK. Who is your Head of State? Your country's prime minister? Your home secretary? What about the first minister of Scotland? How about the head of the largest UK police force? Western society is no "male dominated". Men are most likely to be the main breadwinner in any society for a host of reasons, but women's influence overall is just as strong.

""Boys will be boys" has many serious implications from school bullying"

Utter nonsense. Girls are every bit as likely to be bullies as boys. They just enact their bullying in a different way to boys, i.e. they are more likely to engage in in-group exclusion and verbal bullying whereas boys are more likely to bully physically.

"Allowing people to excuse foul behaviour by boys/men with "boys will be boys" creates a society in which men can do what they want to women and girls and nobody can stop them, it also creates an expectation that maleness means meanness, which demeans us all."

That is a mis-characterisation of the "boys will be boys" tautology. The adage relates to the natural nature of boys to indulge in loudness, physical rough-and-tumble, etc at a young age and mischief when they get older. I have never heard the expression being used to excuse male violence against females and I doubt you have.

It looks to me as though you have swallowed a feminist myth and I am very happy to offer you an antidote.

I wonder why Brock Turner thought it was OK to sexually assault an unconscious woman. His "oh please be gentle on me" statement to the judge focussed on his manly achievements: he was on the swim team and was white and successful, and all that means that he can assault someone and (almost) get away with it. I guess that is all part of the myth of feminism.

As is the fact that, although we have a woman prime minister, even she can only appoint seven more women to a Cabinet of 23. Or is that part of the myth too?

How about the myth that women earn less than men do for the same work?

Or the myth that nearly five times as many women are raped than men are (in the UK).

Or the myth that women scientists can't create interesting content on YouTube without being bombarded by abusive comments?

Or the myth that women say words in films.

Or the myth that popular computer games use women characters only as things to be assaulted and killed, or as attractive bodies to sell the game (incidentally, the near-naked woman on the game poster is not even in the game) and women who point this out get actual death threats.

Or the myth that "like a girl" is used as an insult. (Particularly to men who wear skirts because, when we put on "women's clothes", we are lowering ourselves to the status of mere women, thereby invalidating the masculinity of every man around us and opening us up to harassment and/or abuse on the street.)

Or that women's bodies are used to sell everything from ice cream to men's shoes (incidentally where women are, literally, offered for sale in a vending machine).

So yes, I do think that western society is male-dominated, and I do think that we, as men, need to do something about it, and I reject the suggestion that taking a stand against misogyny means that I have signed up to a myth, or that it undermines my manhood or that of anyone else.

I wonder why Brock Turner thought it was OK to sexually assault an unconscious woman.

Brock Turner? OK - here is a female academic's perspective on that case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN7_pqgK8V0

As is the fact that, although we have a woman prime minister, even she can only appoint seven more women to a Cabinet of 23. Or is that part of the myth too?

Appointed by a WOMAN prime minister from MPs elected by the people - 52% of whom are women.

"How about the myth that women earn less than men do for the same work?

Your link is the Fawcett Society - a feminist group. Here is some REAL research:

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/public-po ... Report.pdf

I can show you several other studies by economists which prove the same thing, but here is a feminist admitting that the "gender wage gap is a myth:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina ... 73804.html

"Or the myth that nearly five times as ... n the UK).

Because the way the law is framed, it is nearly impossible to prove a woman raped a man. Look at the wording:

Rape (s. 1 Sexual Offences Act 2003

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)He intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Or the myth that women scientists can't create interesting content on YouTube without being bombarded by abusive comments?

I don't believe that. Please procve (yes PROVE !!) that women scientists can't create interesting content on YouTube without being bombarded by abusive comments. And that doesn't just mean finding someone who has actually received such comments - but that it is physically impossible for women scientists to produce content on You Tube without being "bombarded" (your word) with abusive comments.

Or the myth that women say words in films.

Disney films, eh? That proves ... what, exactly? Are you seriously suggesting that scriptwriters consciously make female characters silent because they are women because .. sexism??That is risible.

"Or the myth that popular computer games use women characters only as things to be assaulted and killed"

Oh, that old chestnut. The Anita Sarkeesian baloney. Her myths have been busted countless times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6flKG51iWw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRSaLZidWI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHPqUddXCu8

And even by a feminist!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w

Or that women's bodies are used to sell everything from ice cream to men's shoes

And men's aren't?

http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/h ... ng-152925/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwYCvTpYMCA

I do think that western society is male-dominated

If men dominated society, you could show me a list of rights that we privileged men enjoy that our wives, sisters, mothers and daugfhters are denied. But you can't. I, on the other hand, can name several rights that women enjoy that I do not.

You have been lied to for so long that it has never occurred to you to look at the other argument.

Can you please calm things A LOT please you two. It's in danger of getting out of control. We are lied to all the time about all manner of things. So much so that I watch the news broadcasts very little. We don't want to add feminism to the list of banned topics. Aster all it's because of the politics-almost-flame-war that I can't mention that we have a General Election in June. I'd like to but I can't. I also can't say that there's not any of the parties that I would like to vote for so I won't. There are arguments on both sides and as good old Homer Simpson once said, "You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." Also Andrew Lang said, "There is the type of worker who uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts—for support rather than illumination."

So please, calm yourselves.

Sinned, you got there before me and you make a good point.

I was just about to say that it looks like Stu and I are both going to remain convinced that the other has been brainwashed by one side or the other. I'm willing to agree to disagree and we can both collect evidence from both sides of the argument and come to our own conclusions.

EtF

Of note here is that "bad behaviour" (and what's being bandied here at the moment is close to the worst) should not be condoned when it happens, and there are no excuses for it. Drunkenness is not an excuse for it, nor is being under the influence of any other sort of drug, nor is privilege -- either real or perceived -- and that includes societal "status" (be it socio-economic, caste, or whatever other measure one may care to invoke). We would do well to recall that.

Thank you EtF there are many things in life where agree to disagree is appropriate as facts and truth are moving targets sometimes. Typical examples recently over diet. I am a diabetic and so am sensitive to ensure that what I eat helps with my condition so I read two articles just the other day which piqued me. One was about butter and cream which, according to the traditional medical thinking, are bad for you as they contain saturated fats. Now medical opinion is starting to, believe it or not, realise that they are not the villains they were thought to be. We have always eaten butter in our house and have held the belief that the medics have never proved that it is bad for me. I am starting to follow a Low Carbohydrate High Fat diet which is recommended by Diabetes.co.uk which I hope will lose me weight and help my condition and of course butter is a recommendation. The other article was about salt and that reducing salt doesn't actually reduce blood pressure. Proving both conjectures is inordinately difficult as I am discovering so until they do I follow my gut feeling about my body.

Couldn't agree more. My gut feeling dictates my diet, i.e. when I feel hungry I eat!

Tom

I have found that what is bad for you today is good for you tomorrow!
I too am diabetic and I do eat sugar, oat meal and cereals all are claimed to be bad for you. Yet My blood glucose levels are well with in the normal levels and I get high praise from my Doc. What she don't know won't hurt her.
I use only butter and sugar I do not like the alternatives both in taste and the fact that they are actually bad for you since they are not natural foods. I eat beef and pork, I like my beef extremely rare. A good char on the outside and almost raw on the inside barely warm. Modern pork I like medium rare nice and juicy. So it really depends on you and how your body reacts to what you eat.

Sinned - yes, that's fair enough. I didn't have views one way or the other on this until I was required to teach critical discourse analysis at university and, to do that, I had to study critical theory and its ugly sister, radical feminism. That was SUCH an eye opener! Anyway, let's get back to the topic in hand and discuss how great it is to wear trousers.

Oh, I mean skirts .

Just on the subject of lies, there's ab book on my list to read. It's by Dorothy Rowe and called Why We Lie. I picked it up, like most of the books I read, from Poundland for, you guessed it, a pound. If I get a book that, to me, is a dud then I can pass it on to the charity shop with a clear conscience and have lost a mere trifle in cash.

Sinned wrote:Thank you EtF there are many things in life where agree to disagree is appropriate as facts and truth are moving targets sometimes. Typical examples recently over diet. I am a diabetic and so am sensitive to ensure that what I eat helps with my condition so I read two articles just the other day which piqued me. One was about butter and cream which, according to the traditional medical thinking, are bad for you as they contain saturated fats. Now medical opinion is starting to, believe it or not, realise that they are not the villains they were thought to be. We have always eaten butter in our house and have held the belief that the medics have never proved that it is bad for me. I am starting to follow a Low Carbohydrate High Fat diet which is recommended by Diabetes.co.uk which I hope will lose me weight and help my condition and of course butter is a recommendation. The other article was about salt and that reducing salt doesn't actually reduce blood pressure. Proving both conjectures is inordinately difficult as I am discovering so until they do I follow my gut feeling about my body.

Guess who finances part of the training of diet consultants. Uniliver?!

Reading it, a few thoughts come to mind.
1- being that now everything has to be political correct, thus a decision has to be motivated in such sense.
2- if it can't be placed in a "box" one can't understand it.

Live and let live.