Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
"Willful ignorance of history" is a pretty strong accusation. Am I correct in thinking that what you're stating is that willravel, myself and others are intentionally ignoring historical repression of women in order to attempt to defend our fellow men?
I believe that history serves a very useful purpose. At the same time, I don't think it does any good to continually hold onto the past. There comes a point where you have to draw a line between 'learning from history' and 'holding a grudge.'
Now, I'm not saying sexism doesn't happen; I'm certainly not so naive as all that. By the same token, I believe in leading by example. I believe in equality and for that reason I endeavour in all things to treat women as equals. While this means that I find acts of outright chauvinism to be morally reprehensible, it also brings me into conflict with the feminist crowd on occasion, as I don't believe in holding the past against the present. Feminism creates a barrier and barriers are counter-productive to a goal of actual equality. Or that's how I see it, anyway.
I don't make excuses, not for myself nor for any idiots you may encounter. aberkok mentions 'Idhitthaterati,' which is an interesting concept but not one I can condone. Behaviour engaged with the sole intent of making a woman uncomfortable is inexcusable (as would be the reverse), but this is not the same thing as an off-hand remark. This is why I am continually stressing proper social context. Saying something like that on the street probably isn't appropriate, whereas in a bar or other social setting it may be okay.
Again, if you're looking for an explanation for such a group, I suspect you're looking in the wrong place. As none of the men here seem to belong to it, we can't really tell you why these guys do what they do.
|
I'm not holding onto the past. You're taking my remark into an unintended context. I was responding to aberkok's conversation with will about gender inequality. I am not saying that my argument is resting on the historical oppression of women, but to say that it has
no impact on this issue is, in my opinion, willful ignorance.
Charlatan is right, this conversation is very much like the dialogue about race.
Quote:
|
I don't think the analogy of family members really holds up, because it's a different situation. My intuition on the matter is that men aren't comfortable having members of our immediate family objectified in that way because we're not comfortable with thinking of our family members in a sexual context; or, in the case of a wife or significant other, we're not comfortable in many cases with other men thinking of them that way. If a guy makes a comment about my sister being hot, it forces me into a situation where I have to think of my sister in a sexual way, which needless to say is something that I'm not the slightest bit comfortable with. If someone makes a comment about my wife or girlfriend, I'm forced to acknowledge that other men think of her that way. While personally I'm not sure I'd have a huge issue with that, for many men it crosses the boundary by forcing them to acknowledge that other men think of their wives in a sexual context and that they thus have competition. Neither of these are comfortable situations, which is why they're taboo. I don't think they have anything to do with a woman's reaction.
|
I did not say that the reactions are the same, I said they were similar in that they are visceral reactions as in immediate, negative, emotional reactions. And I take it that forcing YOU into a situation where you are forced to think about your sister having sex is wrong? But my argument has no merit? Interesting.
I'm with abaya in that this is all about respect. You can talk 'til your blue in the face about respecting a woman's equality, but as long as you're okay with every woman around you being available for 'male bonding exercises' and 'childish fun' (as long as they aren't your sister, of course) then it's all just blah, blah, blah.