Men's Reproductive Responsibilities

135

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited May 2020
    I don't really know how to respond. There seems to be so much anger behind some of the posts on this thread.

    At first from @Caissa, but more recently from @Soror Magna

    I wanted a epiphanies conversation about men and reproduction. I really didn't want the conversation to be about so-called 'rights', so I attempted to frame it differently in terms of responsibilities.

    We could have ended up here talking about, say, the impact of pre eclampsia on those around a pregnancy. How men find joy and meaning in growing together with their partners towards reproductive choices, and deferring to them.

    Instead we are pointed to the very worst behaviours of men. And male sexual expression is debased.

    Asher
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    asher wrote: »
    I don't really know how to respond. There seems to be so much anger behind some of the posts on this thread.

    At first from @Caissa, but more recently from @Soror Magna

    Men, as a group, don't have a very good record on this subject. Men's bad behaviour runs the gamut - from the sexual double standard (men who like sex are studs and are admired; women who like sex are tramps and sluts, and are treated like garbage) through taking sexual advantage of junior women in the workplace, impregnating women and abandoning them, up to and including excusing rapists because the man clearly couldn't help himself because the victim had the temerity to be wearing a skirt, or to be attractive, or to be female in public, or agreed to come in for coffee, or let the man buy her dinner.

    There's a common idea running through all this bad behaviour - the idea that men have the right to have sex anywhere and everywhere, and it's just natural for men to go around humping anything in sight, and all the responsibility, and the consequences, belong to the women.

    In the face of that sort of crap, anger is easy to understand.

    I know you're not attempting to defend that kind of behaviour, but I think you can understand why some people find this a touchy subject.
  • There is a common idea running through all the bad behaviour you've outlined, but it's not a common idea running through this particular thread. No one here is attempting to condone such behaviour. And if no one here is the target (apart from the generalisation of 'men') then bringing it on board in such a confrontational manner is only going to result in defensiveness and shutting down.
  • Funny how women speaking plainly and directly is so often interpreted as "anger". Nobody is contradicting anything I have written; instead, I get opinions that I'm angry and say fuck too much and that will make men defensive and shut the discussion down, even though no one showed any interest in nearly a week.
    asher wrote: »
    ....
    We could have ended up here talking about, say, the impact of pre eclampsia on those around a pregnancy. How men find joy and meaning in growing together with their partners towards reproductive choices, and deferring to them.
    ...

    Nobody is stopping you from discussing those things. As I understand the boards, unconditional support for couples facing pre-eclampsia can be found in All Saints.

    However, if the question is "I want my partner to risk her life because I believe abortion is murder", well, there won't be much joy in that discussion no matter where it takes place.
  • Funny how women speaking plainly and directly is so often interpreted as "anger".

    Speaking plainly and directly with copious use of the word "fuck" often is anger, regardless of the gender of the speaker. The more angry people get, the blunter they become.
  • On the Ship, Hell is for rants.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Funny how women speaking plainly and directly is so often interpreted as "anger".<snip>
    Whatever the gender of the speaker, I tend to hear ‘fuck’ as an expression of anger or hostility. There have been one or two exceptions to that in my lifetime. One (memorably, because it must have been 45 years ago) was someone for whom, as the conversation progressed, it was clearly no more than verbal padding carrying neither anger nor denotational meaning.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    I've given this some thought as a Host.

    Firstly, I saw nothing wrong with Soror Magna's post and her use of the word "fuck". She used it descriptively. But even she had used it for emphasis, that is as permissible in Epiphanies as in Purgatory. It only gets ruled out of court when used as a personal insult to a Shipmate (e.g. "fuck you").

    In general I thought her post was a perfectly valid comment on males' reproductive responsibilities. Personally I did not read it as an angry post. But even if there was some anger or indignation behind it. that is not ruled out in Epiphanies provided any Shipmate recognises these specific Epiphanies guidelines.
    1. This forum is for topics where issues and identity significantly overlap, plus threads moved from other forums if the Crew think this is appropriate.

    2. This forum is for serious discussion of these topics and will be allowed to reflect all widely held views, even if they are considered offensive by some. It is not intended to be an echo chamber, nor yet a pillory. Purgatory Guidelines also apply.

    I think that, for all Epiphanies Hosts, determining how closely we monitor posts to ensure that both issues and personal identity are respected continues to be a work in progress. On this occasion I saw no reason to intervene re Soror Magna's post and on reflection I still stick to that decision. Feel free to raise any queries in the Styx

    Barnabas62
    Epiphanies Host

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    On the Ship, Hell is for rants.
    The word fuck is not a rant.* Phrasing a post bluntly is not a rant.

    *One of the beauties of the Ship has been recognising that behaviour is orthogonal to swear words.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Funny how women speaking plainly and directly is so often interpreted as "anger".

    Speaking plainly and directly with copious use of the word "fuck" often is anger, regardless of the gender of the speaker. The more angry people get, the blunter they become.
    Anger does not invalidate a position. The idea that debate should be dispassionate invalidates the experiences of people directly affected by the debate. It is akin to the fallacy of giving equal time to all positions.

  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    There's a lovely bit in the film Legally Blonde where Reese Witherspoon's character, Elle Woods, talks about this in a lecture at Harvard Law School.
    (I'm fatigued and can't find it on youtube, apols)

    https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/8835-legally-blonde/discuss/5bb606240e0a26339700e1f5

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited May 2020
    By all means take to the Styx discussions on the acceptability of anger and expletives either here or in Purgatory. But don't discuss those issues here.

    Barnabas62
    Epiphanies and Purgatory Host
  • OK then. Engaging with the substance.

    @Soror Magna wrote:
    ‘women have the first and last word on who they fuck’

    This seems to suggest no substantial construct of male consent

    @Soror Magna
    ‘men rarely have the harsh choices laid out in front of them as above’

    I agree with the broad intentions of your words – and there is nothing in your ‘harsh choices’ that hasn’t been covered here and gained common assent.

    I wonder whether that is how you would lay out the harsh choices to a son? A brother? A father? A lover?

    @Soror Magna
    ‘men have complete control and responsibility over when and where they ejaculate’

    Male children and adults who are victims of rape and sexual assault disagree with you, and find views like yours cause them significant harm. (reference: https://www.livingwell.org.au/managing-difficulties/sexual-assault-and-arousal/)

    To say nothing of bowel movements and wet dreams…

    @Soror Magna wrote
    ‘funny how women speaking plainly and directly is so often interpreted as anger’

    @caissa and I have had tense exchanges on this thread without any shutting down. As others have suggested, foul language is suggestive of anger regardless of gender.

    @Soror Magna wrote
    ‘no one showed any interest in nearly a week’

    I took advice from a host, who advised me not to respond to @caissa last post.

    @Soror Magna wrote:
    ‘if the question is I want my partner to risk her life because I believe abortion is murder’

    This is a straw man. No one on this thread has asked this question.



    I get that there are places where male perspectives on reproduction are oppressive. Perhaps many places.

    To suggest that all male perspectives on reproduction are oppressive would contradict the experience of many couples and parents.

    I started walking a particular road on SoF last November, wondering whether it might be possible in this place to discuss things that concern men. There has generally been respectful engagement (even when disagreeing) since discussion of men’s issues in Epiphanies was greenlighted (after challenge by @lilbuddha – who has been notably gracious and measured since)

    But, the discussion will take place, and if it is not possible to have it here, it will probably take place where there are less diverse voices.

    Respectfully

    Asher
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that a host should intervene re. the use of the f word. I simply thought it's use was gratuitous. That said, it would be an interesting Styx thread of whether or not Epiphanies debate should be more gentle than Purgatory.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    asher wrote: »
    OK then. Engaging with the substance.

    @Soror Magna wrote:
    ‘women have the first and last word on who they fuck’

    This seems to suggest no substantial construct of male consent
    asher wrote: »
    @Soror Magna
    ‘men have complete control and responsibility over when and where they ejaculate’

    Male children and adults who are victims of rape and sexual assault disagree with you, and find views like yours cause them significant harm. (reference: https://www.livingwell.org.au/managing-difficulties/sexual-assault-and-arousal/)

    To say nothing of bowel movements and wet dreams…


    Males being raped is not within the context of this discussion thus far, therefore the logical interpretation of SM's post is that it references willing male participation.
    A man being raped by a woman would have no moral responsibility for a child conceived from that rape.


  • Wanna bet?

    You may think that it SHOULD be that way, but in practice the child still needs a parent, and rape victims are human beings with hearts (sometimes astonishingly large hearts) and may well feel a sense of moral obligation to care for that child in its time of need. If the rape is punished as it ought to be, the child will have no parents at all. And I would not wish the local foster care system on any child, particularly a helpless newborn.

    I can see making a law (if it doesn't exist already) that automatically clears rape victims of parental responsibilities in a legal sense, unless they choose otherwise. The moral and emotional senses are much squirmier. Ask any woman rape victim who has chosen to raise that child.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    asher wrote: »
    OK then. Engaging with the substance.

    @Soror Magna wrote:
    ‘women have the first and last word on who they fuck’

    This seems to suggest no substantial construct of male consent
    asher wrote: »
    @Soror Magna
    ‘men have complete control and responsibility over when and where they ejaculate’

    Male children and adults who are victims of rape and sexual assault disagree with you, and find views like yours cause them significant harm. (reference: https://www.livingwell.org.au/managing-difficulties/sexual-assault-and-arousal/)

    To say nothing of bowel movements and wet dreams…


    Males being raped is not within the context of this discussion thus far, therefore the logical interpretation of SM's post is that it references willing male participation.
    A man being raped by a woman would have no moral responsibility for a child conceived from that rape.


    Thanks @lilbuddha .


    WRT the first quote, I find it surprising that, in this kind of conversation, on a matter as fundamental as consent, you find yourself able to assume it. I've posted upthread hinting at my views of the damage caused by the myth of men 'always being up for it'.

    WRT the second quote, the fuller quote from @Soror Magna was:

    'I forgot the other fundamental principle: men have complete control and responsibility over when and where they ejaculate.'

    Fundamental principles apply in all contexts.

    I'm sure you are aware that when child and adult men are subject to rape and abuse, their bodies will often show signs of involuntary arousal, and ejaculation. And that this causes lasting psychological problems, founded in the lie that soror magna stated as a fundamental principle.

    Asher




  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Anger does not invalidate a position.
    It doesn't, and I didn't say it did. @Soror Magna complained that a woman speaking plainly was often viewed as anger. My reply is that blunt sweary language often reads as anger regardless of the gender of the speaker.

    She is right, and I am also right.
    The idea that debate should be dispassionate invalidates the experiences of people directly affected by the debate.

    Well, yes and no. It depends on whether you want to have a constructive debate or not. Anger engenders anger. If you shout at someone, they usually shout back. It is rare, in my experience, that a shouting match contains any kind of rational debate, although sometimes it serves to clear out some of the emotional baggage so that a constructive rational discussion can be had in the aftermath.

    It's perfectly reasonable to be angry about injustice, perhaps especially when it touches on you personally, and when it touches on matters of identity. If you want to engage in constructive debate, you should be able to explain in a calm and rational way why you are angry. You are, of course, free to shout and yell, but that doesn't communicate anything beyond the fact that you're yelling about something.
  • Thank you, asher, for actually engaging. You're right, I should have been clear that I would only apply my principles to consensual sexual activity. I'm aware of the catastrophic impact of sexual assault on both male and female victims.
    asher wrote: »
    ...
    @Soror Magna wrote:
    ‘if the question is I want my partner to risk her life because I believe abortion is murder’

    This is a straw man. No one on this thread has asked this question.
    ...
    In the context of this discussion, yes, it could be called a straw man. In Catholic health care facilities, it's standard operating practice.





  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    Wanna bet?

    You may think that it SHOULD be that way, but in practice the child still needs a parent, and rape victims are human beings with hearts (sometimes astonishingly large hearts) and may well feel a sense of moral obligation to care for that child in its time of need. If the rape is punished as it ought to be, the child will have no parents at all. And I would not wish the local foster care system on any child, particularly a helpless newborn.

    I can see making a law (if it doesn't exist already) that automatically clears rape victims of parental responsibilities in a legal sense, unless they choose otherwise. The moral and emotional senses are much squirmier. Ask any woman rape victim who has chosen to raise that child.

    Ay-men!!
    Life is never home and hosed; it's ridden hard and put away wet.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    For the last time, the issue of the limits of angry expression in Epiphanies or Purgatory is to be discussed, if at all, in the Styx. Drop it here.

    Barnabas62
    Epiphanies and Purgatory Host
  • asher wrote: »
    ...
    @Soror Magna wrote:
    ‘women have the first and last word on who they fuck’

    This seems to suggest no substantial construct of male consent ...

    WRT the first quote, I find it surprising that, in this kind of conversation, on a matter as fundamental as consent, you find yourself able to assume it. I've posted upthread hinting at my views of the damage caused by the myth of men 'always being up for it'.

    Now THAT is an interesting question. Recently, there has been much more emphasis on consent being not just the absence of a no, but the enthusiastic expression of a yes. And given the social pressures you reference, the messaging can come across as men having to get consent from women and not the other way around. In reality - and let's be honest here, in long-term relationships - there is a lot of "ok, honey" sex happening. But again, "normal" couples wouldn't get into an "I wasn't in the mood and it's your fault we're pregnant" argument.

    Part of the "always up for it" myth is proving manhood by engaging in sexual activity whatever the context. Refusing to have sex is less "manly", but what about if the refusal is practical, like "I don't have a condom" or "you're not on the Pill"? How does "always up for it" interact with "this is probably a bad idea" in the male brain?

  • Part of the "always up for it" myth is proving manhood by engaging in sexual activity whatever the context. Refusing to have sex is less "manly", but what about if the refusal is practical, like "I don't have a condom" or "you're not on the Pill"? How does "always up for it" interact with "this is probably a bad idea" in the male brain?

    It's probably also fair to say that men are generally "up for it" physiologically, if you'll pardon the phrase. In terms of the physiology of sexual arousal, women tend to be rather more complicated than men.

    Just because a gentleman's gentleman is standing at attention and reporting for duty doesn't mean that the man wants to have sex, or that it would be a good idea for him to have sex.
  • @Soror Magna
    Thanks for your responses. It’s taken me a bit longer than I hoped to get here to respond - I only have so much time here and I got waylaid in Styx.
    I don’t really have a ‘worked out’ position on this, but if I can offer some thoughts:

    - Men are not always up for it.

    - Many men are deeply unhappy and feel they are trapped and have no choices (young kids, wife caring, toxic job). I work with many married women (pt, term time only staff), many of whom claim their husbands have no interest in sex. They lament this. Publicly. At length (God I need cock!). In my presence (the only male). I have never known a man do this. All of these things may be linked.

    - I commented earlier that if early sexual experiences are framed as transgressive by punitive parental and other societal frameworks, then this can impact on the developing sexual identity and perhaps contribute to the kind of problems mentioned above.

    - The physical response of the erection should not be taken as an indicator that a man wants sex

    - The young men I know (mid/late teens) are not concerned to prove manhood in the same way that (say) my generation were.

    - These same young men are in many ways frightened of women, feeling that whatever they do might be wrong.

    - I wonder what it is that can happen to some young men in their early romantic/sexual relationships with women that coarsens them.

    - Consent in a new / young relationship is likely to look very different to consent in a long term, respectful, stable relationship ( I liked your term ‘ok honey sex’)


    Arrrgh! Running out of time.

    Please do respond !

    Asher
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    asher wrote: »
    - Many men are deeply unhappy and feel they are trapped and have no choices (young kids, wife caring, toxic job). I work with many married women (pt, term time only staff), many of whom claim their husbands have no interest in sex. They lament this. Publicly. At length (God I need cock!). In my presence (the only male). I have never known a man do this. All of these things may be linked.
    - OK, so you have not experienced this. However, the history of sexual harassment is littered with accounts of men doing this very thing.
    asher wrote: »
    - These same young men are in many ways frightened of women, feeling that whatever they do might be wrong.
    This raises a red flag, ISTM. To be a teen is to be unsure. However, expressing fear "that whatever they do might be wrong." often comes from communities that are not interesting in egalitarian relationships. Many of my friends have children. The boys can be unsure, awkward, shy; but I've never seen in them fear of girls.
    My experience with teens is that they are more likely, as a group, to understand other genders than past generations.
    The source of information matters, as does what one extrapolates from it. After all, there are gay, black republicans; but extrapolating from them that the republican party is largely gay and black would be incorrect.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    asher wrote: »
    - Many men are deeply unhappy and feel they are trapped and have no choices (young kids, wife caring, toxic job). I work with many married women (pt, term time only staff), many of whom claim their husbands have no interest in sex. They lament this. Publicly. At length (God I need cock!). In my presence (the only male). I have never known a man do this. All of these things may be linked.
    - OK, so you have not experienced this. However, the history of sexual harassment is littered with accounts of men doing this very thing.

    Thank you.

    As you know, the context here is a discussion of the myth that men are always up for it.

    Should i have felt harrassed?

    I think not. But their comments are relevant to the context of this discussion- the myth of men being always up for it. Their men certainly weren't, and they were frustrated.

    What did you intend with your comment?

    Recent events suggest I have deficits in reading intention.

    Respectfully

    Asher
  • Why should young men be frightened of women ?

    Goodness!

    I can't imagine a context where discussions of how things are for young men would be consistently trumped by women saying how much worse things are for them, and how it's all men's fault.

    (Note: not disputing that the trumping doesn't represent truth)

    What does it do to young men to grow up knowing they carry the taint of millennia of oppression. And that by virtue of their male gender and their male privilege they are complicit in oppression and always will be.

    I wonder at what age men first inherit this taint. Conception? Birth? Puberty?

    There is nothing they can do. Except be sorry. Forever. Nothing they do can ever remove the taint. Every relationship they have, they will taint.









  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    asher wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    asher wrote: »
    - Many men are deeply unhappy and feel they are trapped and have no choices (young kids, wife caring, toxic job). I work with many married women (pt, term time only staff), many of whom claim their husbands have no interest in sex. They lament this. Publicly. At length (God I need cock!). In my presence (the only male). I have never known a man do this. All of these things may be linked.
    - OK, so you have not experienced this. However, the history of sexual harassment is littered with accounts of men doing this very thing.

    Thank you.

    As you know, the context here is a discussion of the myth that men are always up for it.

    Should i have felt harrassed?
    I think it was harassment. Possibly without intent, but that does not excuse it.
    asher wrote: »
    I think not. But their comments are relevant to the context of this discussion- the myth of men being always up for it. Their men certainly weren't, and they were frustrated.
    When a couple has sexual issues, it can be a lot more complicated than who is up for it.
    Men, as a group, very much do have higher and more straightforward libido. Men are indeed up for it more than women. All men? Of course not. But most men. It doesn't seem to be a myth as much as exaggeration.
    asher wrote: »
    What did you intend with your comment?
    You said
    I have never known a man do this.
    Men do this. I know of no women who've worked in mixed group settings who have not experienced at least this. My intention was to educate.
    And thank you for sharing your experience. Women should be aware that this can happen to men as well.
    asher wrote: »
    Recent events suggest I have deficits in reading intention.
    Everyone sees the world through filters. Humans are wired to do so. We cannot change the wiring, but we can be aware of it and alter the programming, at least a little.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    asher wrote: »
    Why should young men be frightened of women ?

    Goodness!

    I can't imagine a context where discussions of how things are for young men would be consistently trumped by women saying how much worse things are for them, and how it's all men's fault.

    (Note: not disputing that the trumping doesn't represent truth)

    What does it do to young men to grow up knowing they carry the taint of millennia of oppression. And that by virtue of their male gender and their male privilege they are complicit in oppression and always will be.

    I wonder at what age men first inherit this taint. Conception? Birth? Puberty?

    There is nothing they can do. Except be sorry. Forever. Nothing they do can ever remove the taint. Every relationship they have, they will taint.
    What you present isn't the reality for any teen boy I know. It isn't the reality for any adult males I personally know. It is the perceived reality in groups that do not see women as whole people, but rather as objectives.
  • The funny thing is that, in western history at least, it has been a standard trope that women have stronger sexual drives then men. Thus all the jokes in Chaucer, Shakesprare, etc. The reverse idea is of fairly recent origin.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    I hadn't thought of that Lamb Chopped. I wonder when and why it changed,
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    I think when people belong to a group or a class or a nationality with a history involving oppression they can live their whole lives and not be aware of it - especially when young. It was back in the earlier days of social media I think on Livejournal about 20 years ago that I encountered the concept of 'The Invisible Knapsack' originally developed in 1989 by Peggy McIntosh which explained very vividly how colour privilege worked and I don't mind saying it was a bit of a shocker to me. I'd been all the way through higher education and never thought about this. I'd grown up in a white Scottish monoculture (very little diversity) and then studied British and then Scottish history at a posh university which had nothing like the diversity it has now, so I was ignorant.

    Now I suppose I could have been resentful and thought 'Are these people accusing me of being a racist? Am I now marked with some original sin of being born pink which I can never extinguish? But now I am oppressed because these accusations of racism dent my self-esteem and hurt my feelings' but that would have been rather missing the point.

    It did help to give me a clue that a lot of advantages I had and disadvantages to others were invisible to me because they were the water I swam in, so if I didn't listen to the people who were on the sharp end of it and their experiences I would end up unwittingly perpetuating patterns of behaviour and systems that hurt them.

    Nonetheless the ego is mighty and starting from a position of well-meaning ignorance, it stung when I got things wrong and it's really uncomfortable and shaming to look at the areas where I fall short and should do more to overcome my background. And yes, I've had that 'whatever I do might be wrong' thought come up but have also had to recognise that it's (for me) an excuse for doing nothing because it's 'too hard' and too far out of my comfort zone. And when I don't overcome it, I perpetuate habits and structures that harm others and help people like me. But that is not the fault of other people. God forbid I should go join some white pride group to make me feel better or start resenting POC because I have to do uncomfortable self-examination which isn't complimentary to me to work on my blind spots.

    If we're going to talk about Men's reproductive responsibilities, then that conversation can't be honestly held without looking at where male privilege has come into it, it's the water the whole discussion swims in.
  • Louise wrote: »
    If we're going to talk about Men's reproductive responsibilities, then that conversation can't be honestly held without looking at where male privilege has come into it, it's the water the whole discussion swims in.

    Thanks for your post @Louise

    I think it could be useful to have a conversation about that. My question is whether it is possible to do so on SoF without male voices being shutdown.

    I wrote out a series of examples, but I'm choosing not to post them as I don't want to get into quibbling. But I often see statements that associate male posters, by virtue of their chromosomes, with a history of male oppressive action they had no part in. These statements shut men down.

    Tell you what. Do you drink beer? If we can attempt what you propose without sweeping shutdowns, without appeals to gender taint - I'll send you some beer.

    Respectfully

    Asher

    <..dont even know where you are based...>
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    What you present isn't the reality for any teen boy I know. It isn't the reality for any adult males I personally know. It is the perceived reality in groups that do not see women as whole people, but rather as objectives.

    I've read this and read this. I really don't understand your second sentence. Please can you try again with crayons.

    Thanks

    Asher
  • asher wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What you present isn't the reality for any teen boy I know. It isn't the reality for any adult males I personally know. It is the perceived reality in groups that do not see women as whole people, but rather as objectives.

    I've read this and read this. I really don't understand your second sentence. Please can you try again with crayons.

    " groups that do not see women as whole people, but rather as objectives."

    Think the attitude of a stereotypical group of lads. Women being treated not as people with whom to have a relationship (even if the relationship is fleeting and purely carnal) but as targets for sexual conquest. A bunch of lads bragging that they engaged in this sex act, or had that done to them, etc.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited May 2020
    asher wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What you present isn't the reality for any teen boy I know. It isn't the reality for any adult males I personally know. It is the perceived reality in groups that do not see women as whole people, but rather as objectives.

    I've read this and read this. I really don't understand your second sentence. Please can you try again with crayons.

    " groups that do not see women as whole people, but rather as objectives."

    Think the attitude of a stereotypical group of lads. Women being treated not as people with whom to have a relationship (even if the relationship is fleeting and purely carnal) but as targets for sexual conquest. A bunch of lads bragging that they engaged in this sex act, or had that done to them, etc.

    Ok. If so then I can't see how that links to the kind of sensitive young men, hamstrung by the inherited guilt of their gender, that I was writing about.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited May 2020
    OK, using the analogy of how it feels to be called on racism, I gave it my best shot to get across why this is a really deeply problematic approach, but what has been posted in reply shows I haven't got through at all, nor is there any prospect of doing so enough to have a useful non-Hellish discussion.
  • Louise wrote: »
    OK, using the analogy of how it feels to be called on racism, I gave it my best shot to get across why this is a really deeply problematic approach, but what has been posted in reply shows I haven't got through at all, nor is there any prospect of doing so enough to have a useful non-Hellish discussion.

    Ok. Sorry for missing you.

    I've just now re-read what you initially wrote twice. I'll spend some more time with it this evening.

    If you're out, you're out. But if you are able, please do stay in.

    Respectfully

    Asher
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    asher wrote: »
    asher wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What you present isn't the reality for any teen boy I know. It isn't the reality for any adult males I personally know. It is the perceived reality in groups that do not see women as whole people, but rather as objectives.

    I've read this and read this. I really don't understand your second sentence. Please can you try again with crayons.

    " groups that do not see women as whole people, but rather as objectives."

    Think the attitude of a stereotypical group of lads. Women being treated not as people with whom to have a relationship (even if the relationship is fleeting and purely carnal) but as targets for sexual conquest. A bunch of lads bragging that they engaged in this sex act, or had that done to them, etc.

    Ok. If so then I can't see how that links to the kind of sensitive young men, hamstrung by the inherited guilt of their gender, that I was writing about.
    (My writing can seem a little intense, so please do not read this as aggressive or angry.)
    I don't believe in those types of boys. Or, rather, I understand that they exist, but I do not think they are very numerous. Most males complaining that they are afraid of how their actions will be perceived are not thinking of women as people. They are seeing women as objects of romance/sex. And this is problematic. How does a man get to know another man? That is how you get to know a woman. When one gets to know a another person, one understand better how to proceed.
    Women are people, not panic-button encrusted mines, waiting to go off.
  • Quotes file.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    asher wrote: »
    Louise wrote: »
    If we're going to talk about Men's reproductive responsibilities, then that conversation can't be honestly held without looking at where male privilege has come into it, it's the water the whole discussion swims in.

    Thanks for your post @Louise

    I think it could be useful to have a conversation about that. My question is whether it is possible to do so on SoF without male voices being shutdown.
    OK, so let me try here. When a member of a privileged community states that they are being shut down, it often translates to them complaining about losing their privileged position. In other words, merely trying to level the playing field is translated to being shutdown.
    If nothing else, the outcome of the kerfuffle regarding the XY thread should be seen as solid evidence that SOF does not shutdown male voices.
    People tend to think of themselves as the normal. Even decidedly not normal people like me. We can only truly reference the inside of our own perceptions, so this is how we base our pictures of others.
    If one is in a position of being the societal default, it is more difficult to see what others feel.
    On top of this, we naturally feel threatened by anything which seeks to change our position.
    So the privileged tend to see equality of interchange as being shutdown.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited May 2020
    I'm wondering if a narrative based approach to this might be helpful. Separate thread?

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    asher wrote: »
    asher wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What you present isn't the reality for any teen boy I know. It isn't the reality for any adult males I personally know. It is the perceived reality in groups that do not see women as whole people, but rather as objectives.

    I've read this and read this. I really don't understand your second sentence. Please can you try again with crayons.

    " groups that do not see women as whole people, but rather as objectives."

    Think the attitude of a stereotypical group of lads. Women being treated not as people with whom to have a relationship (even if the relationship is fleeting and purely carnal) but as targets for sexual conquest. A bunch of lads bragging that they engaged in this sex act, or had that done to them, etc.

    Ok. If so then I can't see how that links to the kind of sensitive young men, hamstrung by the inherited guilt of their gender, that I was writing about.
    (My writing can seem a little intense, so please do not read this as aggressive or angry.)
    I don't believe in those types of boys. Or, rather, I understand that they exist, but I do not think they are very numerous. Most males complaining that they are afraid of how their actions will be perceived are not thinking of women as people. They are seeing women as objects of romance/sex. And this is problematic. How does a man get to know another man? That is how you get to know a woman. When one gets to know a another person, one understand better how to proceed.
    Women are people, not panic-button encrusted mines, waiting to go off.

    I think people, both men and women, can seem like panic-button encrusted mines when you're a socially awkward, sensitive young man. When you barely understand your own reactions and emotions trying to understand those of others, particularly people who've been socialised differently (and this applies to class and religion as well as gender) is far from easy. The socialisation is important - boys are socialised to respond aggressively to other boys if they've done something upsetting whereas girls generally aren't. That means that to a young man the signs that he's crossed a line are not necessarily there in the same way.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    That means that to a young man the signs that he's crossed a line are not necessarily there in the same way.

    Hence the need for a change of emphasis from a polite "No" to an enthusiastic "Yes"

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    asher wrote: »
    asher wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What you present isn't the reality for any teen boy I know. It isn't the reality for any adult males I personally know. It is the perceived reality in groups that do not see women as whole people, but rather as objectives.

    I've read this and read this. I really don't understand your second sentence. Please can you try again with crayons.

    " groups that do not see women as whole people, but rather as objectives."

    Think the attitude of a stereotypical group of lads. Women being treated not as people with whom to have a relationship (even if the relationship is fleeting and purely carnal) but as targets for sexual conquest. A bunch of lads bragging that they engaged in this sex act, or had that done to them, etc.

    Ok. If so then I can't see how that links to the kind of sensitive young men, hamstrung by the inherited guilt of their gender, that I was writing about.
    (My writing can seem a little intense, so please do not read this as aggressive or angry.)
    I don't believe in those types of boys. Or, rather, I understand that they exist, but I do not think they are very numerous. Most males complaining that they are afraid of how their actions will be perceived are not thinking of women as people. They are seeing women as objects of romance/sex. And this is problematic. How does a man get to know another man? That is how you get to know a woman. When one gets to know a another person, one understand better how to proceed.
    Women are people, not panic-button encrusted mines, waiting to go off.

    I think people, both men and women, can seem like panic-button encrusted mines when you're a socially awkward, sensitive young man.
    I do not agree, not in the context of the discussion thus far. Shyness, fear of embarrassment, etc. those things have always been an issue for the shy and awkward. But the "fear whatever I do will be perceived wrong", especially when framed in terms of 'a history of male oppressive action' is not about being awkward and the sensitivity seems to be focused on self. Part of interacting with other people is focusing on being sensitive to other people. The lack of doing so seems to be at the heart of the narrative of fear.
    That and expecting that one will find a partner. Life has never had this guarantee.
    I am a shy person and an introvert. On top of being awkward as well, I am odd. When all this intersects with other people's personalities, a connection can happen. I am always anxious about how I am interacting with everyone, even long-term friends, even family. I completely understand awkward from the inside.
    One of my few positives is that I do not expect anyone to like me.Hope, yes; expect, no. And, again, I think that expectation is what is driving the narrative of fear.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Louise wrote: »
    If we're going to talk about Men's reproductive responsibilities, then that conversation can't be honestly held without looking at where male privilege has come into it, it's the water the whole discussion swims in.

    Very much agree. Excellent post the whole of it.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Male privilege was the whole basis of the SCC case that I posted early on page 1.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Shyness, fear of embarrassment, etc. those things have always been an issue for the shy and awkward. But the "fear whatever I do will be perceived wrong", especially when framed in terms of 'a history of male oppressive action' is not about being awkward and the sensitivity seems to be focused on self. Part of interacting with other people is focusing on being sensitive to other people. The lack of doing so seems to be at the heart of the narrative of fear.

    To expand on this: I think if a man starts from the position of, "I don't know what it's like to be you. I want to learn. Tell me about what it's like to be female in a male-dominated culture. What would you like to see change? What has harmed you?" they are (if they come across at all sincere) not likely to get shouted down. Then shut up and listen. If you're listening and not talking, you're not going to say something stupid.
  • asher wrote: »
    <snip>
    I don’t really have a ‘worked out’ position on this, but if I can offer some thoughts:

    - Men are not always up for it.

    - Many men are deeply unhappy and feel they are trapped and have no choices (young kids, wife caring, toxic job). I work with many married women (pt, term time only staff), many of whom claim their husbands have no interest in sex. They lament this. Publicly. At length (God I need cock!). In my presence (the only male). I have never known a man do this. All of these things may be linked.

    These are pretty sweeping generalisations that may be true of some men and some women. Some men do feel trapped in their jobs and toxic relationships, but not all. Some women will discuss their partners in unpleasant terms and explore sexual relationships in full technicolour glory, but in my experience, those women are the minority, the sort of woman Shakespeare characterised as Mistress Quickly and her friends in The Merry Wives of Windsor. It hasn't been a major feature of any workplace I have been in; there the female to female relationship discussions have been far more supportive - such as asking for suggestions for presents for partners or what to cook tonight.

    As an aside, I would disagree with Lamb Chopped that Shakespeare characterised women as being sexualised beings - that's again a generalisation - he regularly contrasts the behaviour of Mistress Overdone as a minor character with his heroine Isabella, using Measure for Measure as an example where this is clearly done - many of his main female characters are chaste and celebrated for their continence.

    There are other examples I could point to - that strip clubs mainly cater for men, that the dance troupes like the Chippendales were notable for being an exception to the rule and not being permanent fixtures in a venue, but touring. That experiences of researchers trying to explore that side of women's sexuality found it virtually impossible to find women to interview (11 responses to 500 flyers).
    - I commented earlier that if early sexual experiences are framed as transgressive by punitive parental and other societal frameworks, then this can impact on the developing sexual identity and perhaps contribute to the kind of problems mentioned above.
    I'm not sure where you are getting that early sexual experiences are framed as transgressive.
    - The physical response of the erection should not be taken as an indicator that a man wants sex
    Although that's not necessarily the response to be heard from young men of my acquaintance - the sort of boys who shout out to passing girls that they have an erection and will she help him with it.
    - The young men I know (mid/late teens) are not concerned to prove manhood in the same way that (say) my generation were.

    I would say many of the young men I know (mid/late teens) are interested in having sexual relationships with girls. They are as judgemental as any other young men I've encountered since my own teen years about girls they see as slags, those with too much sexual experience - while willing to pressurise girlfriends into sexual relationships. So then these young men boast about their relationships, giving their ex-girlfriends a bad reputation. This is from spending significant time volunteering in youth work this year.
    - These same young men are in many ways frightened of women, feeling that whatever they do might be wrong.

    Young people, both boys and girls, are awkward about getting together - both frightened of getting it wrong. It's part of teenage dating.
    - I wonder what it is that can happen to some young men in their early romantic/sexual relationships with women that coarsens them.

    Peer pressure? Learning from other young men?
    - Consent in a new / young relationship is likely to look very different to consent in a long term, respectful, stable relationship ( I liked your term ‘ok honey sex’)

    One of the things I was adding into the Sex and Relationships PSHE (Personal, Sexual, Health, Employment education) unit materials I was writing was a section on consent to teach that clearly. There are some great resources now to try to clarify the meaning of consent - like the cup of tea video (YouTube link) from Thames Valley Police or this cartoon (link) from Everyday Feminism
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    asher wrote: »
    The physical response of the erection should not be taken as an indicator that a man wants sex
    Although that's not necessarily the response to be heard from young men of my acquaintance - the sort of boys who shout out to passing girls that they have an erection and will she help him with it.

    Why do you shut asher down like this? He states something about men being treated in a stereotypical matter, and you shut him down and say other males act that way so ... what? He shouldn't mention it? Those "sort of boys" are right? Are in the majority? Why did you shut him down like this?
This discussion has been closed.