A Young Feminist Speaks Out Against Hooking Up

Steph:

It has taken me this long to realize that in order for me to truly claim that women deserve respect, kindness and to have the sort of relationships they want, I have to stop participating in hookup culture.

Do women deserve respect? Of course.
Kindness? To a reasonable extent.
To have the sort of relationships they want? No. An LTR is not your birthright.

@ Susan

The article isn’t showing up for some reason. :/

Lol. I just noticed the happy lookin’ naked guy in the top left corner. This layout is awesome.

Although I agree that you should feel gratified, Susan, I’m of two minds about your e-mailer.

First, yes, it’s a good thing she’s recognized that some serious fallout comes from the hook-up culture. I hope that her new knowledge is timely.

But she’s hardly “flipped”. Commenter Some Handle accurately pointed out her attitudes about men (something she doesn’t seem to recognize in herself), and even Jennifer recognizes that she’s still half deceiving herself about the kind of man she wants. She’s still a feminist.

Yohami stresses that she takes (rather than gives) value, which may be true – I don’t know. Yet I see her talking about respect in those terms. She’s demanding it, which is something the last two generations have been trained to do reflexively. I can’t tell from her words if she’s ready to give it when she’s actually found someone who’s earned hers.

Lastly, I’m surprised that your emailer doesn’t recognize the role feminism has played in creating and maintaining the hookup culture. She seems to think that she can give up one and not the other. It’s not going to work out that way.

Hi there, Pioneervalleywoman!

Despite my gender handicap, I’ve taken a couple of Women’s Studies courses at the university level. I love women, and I thought those classes would be a great way to see the “other side”, as it were.

I learned some stuff, was exposed to some different ideas, and was singled out, blamed, and yelled at a lot.

It was probably a wash, but it was a good lesson for me to understand that there are people out there who think certain things.

At any rate:

I’ve seen some similarities between economics professors and professors in your field. Some profs are like,”Okay, folks – there are two main schools of thought on this issue. School A is blah blah blah, School B is yadda yadda yadda. Know the differences and be able to explain X from both points of view for Friday’s test.”

Those are the good ones, IMO.

Other professors use their classes to advocate their own theories/biases. They say stuff like,”School A is how you should think about this stuff. School B is an outmoded, irrelevant theory espoused by dingdongs who are trying to blah blah blah. Explain why School A is correct in a five paragraph essay, due Friday.”

I’ve had classes from both types of teachers in econ and Women’s Studies.

From what you’re saying, I’ll wager that you’re one of the former types – the good ones. The latter type of WS prof was the one who called me a rapist, sexist, and an oppressor. That prof also insured that I will never again risk my GPA by taking a class in that field, as much as it fascinates me. Emphatically not worth it.

Don’t be blinded by your competence – there are some true assholes teaching your discipline, at least at my school.

If you have the time/inclination, could you elaborate on this statement you made?

“I find it interesting that when I teach these areas, the young women tend to find most intriguing the cultural/difference strand of feminism which is the most conservative of the old school feminist schools of thought.”

Thanks for your time.

Dogsquat

I went through a patch of ‘promiscuity’
.
it’s the fact that lots of women grew up in homes with distant or absent fathers, thereby never getting the fundamental male validation needed during adolescence
.
It’s become conflated with raunch culture
.
And given their small numbers, they eventually do get someone to marry them. All good, no?

Ah well, better to sexually satisfy a string of people rather than not satisfying anyone eh?

Susan re Poor hook ups,
.
Well if we are allowing personal reports and experiences again then fair play. Of course her experience isn’t universal. I have had one or to mediocre ones but generally I got pretty lucky.
.
I do know girls who got precisely the treatment steph recounted but I know other girls who enjoyed the casual scene, pretty much as I did.
.
I am not defending asshats, or manipulative behaviour. I think people should be straight with each other.
.
I got the impression from several paragraphs of steph that she wanted more than short term satisfaction and was looking for something more meaningful. I think that’s a well worn path.

@Esau

What I said isn’t an example of apex fallacy at all, because it takes into consideration all men, not just those at the top of the pyramid. I said that, in general, male validation is sought after heavily by some women. Plenty of women on this site have attested to being involved with all types of men (alpha, beta, omega, etc). Not all men were at the top of the pyramid. Not all men were super attractive/successful alphas. Some women have attested to being involved in “lackluster” hookups with “lackluster” men solely for the attention and not being alone.

I think you got things a little confused there.

Ms Walsh:

I’m not sure what you mean by the sameness/difference debate – are you referring here to sex differences as a social construct? I strongly believe that there are profound genetic/biological differences between males and females, and the denial of those differences has produced a generation (or two) of masculinized females and feminized males.

Dogsquat:

I’ve seen some similarities between economics professors and professors in your field. Some profs are like,”Okay, folks – there are two main schools of thought on this issue. School A is blah blah blah, School B is yadda yadda yadda. Know the differences and be able to explain X from both points of view for Friday’s test.”

Those are the good ones, IMO.

If you have the time/inclination, could you elaborate on this statement you made?

“I find it interesting that when I teach these areas, the young women tend to find most intriguing the cultural/difference strand of feminism which is the most conservative of the old school feminist schools of thought.”

Thanks for your time.

My reply:

Thanks for the welcome, and thanks Dogsquat for recognizing just what I do in the classroom.

I noted both comments together because the argument Ms. Walsh is making ties into the comment Dogsquat found intriguing.

Cultural/difference feminists–think Carol Gilligan, “In a Different Voice,” making the argument that men and women experience the world differently because of gender, whether that is due to immutable biological differences or socialization. That doesn’t make them unequal, but the biological differences do matter. The problems arise, though, when we act as though the biological differences are irrelevant, women are forced to meet a standard of equality predicated on maleness, but women are not men. Thus, they experience inequality and oppression.

This is the quandary, though, differences have traditionally been used to deny women equality even when it was irrelevant, ie., the right to vote in the 19th century. Yet, the problem many equal treatment feminists had with it meant that they wanted to ignore all the biology since it had been used to oppress.

However, cultural/difference feminists types today want to get recognition and even protection for the differences at the same time they recognize that there are instances when the biological differences are irrelevant to equality, again, like voting and owning property, both of which were once used in earlier periods to deny women those rights merely because they were women. At the same time, they can recognize the dominance perspective (a more radical feminist perspective–Catharine McKinnon) that women can be oppressed because of their differences, but they believe it all comes down to lack of respect for their femaleness.

So cultural/difference feminists were behind the types of legislation we take for granted today, pregnancy discrimination and family medical leave.

So how is it more conservative? For obvious reasons–equality but recognition of differences and even protection for women’s traditional roles and socialization.

Now here is something I find striking, reading the works of conservative Roman Catholic feminists who are embracing cultural/difference in the name of “complimentarianism”. When I read their materials, I just don’t think they actually realize it that they share some perspectives! I’m sure my secular colleagues would have a cow to actually think “those women” are actually feminists. Yes, they are, but just of a different stripe.

Now I don’t buy all aspects of complimentarianism, ie., the argument that refusing ordination to women is not discrimination, because women have a role which is different but not unequal–that sounds too much like the old 19th century protectionism–“we will discriminate against you and say it is for your own good.” If anything, I think women’s traditional roles can fit in well with ordination, which is why I’m no longer Roman Catholic, since I like the idea of knowing that if I chose to pursue ordination, I could do so, and because I have known some fantastic women priests.

Maybe not just “any” male, Esau, but tastes can vary.

Some cultural/difference feminist types would argue that women need protection in order to become equal, ie., in the workplace, through pregnancy discrimination and family medical leave.

Jennifer: Maybe not just “any” male, Esau, but tastes can vary.

Women’s individual tastes certainly can vary (though in practice it is not clear how much they actually do vary). But, that’s really quite beside the point. The question for any particular woman is, if “male validation” is so all-fire important to you, then why aren’t you hanging out in some single-male-dominated quarter where attention and validation are virtually guaranteed? If you’re not, then it must be the case, that not all men will suffice to provide said validation; and this in turn brings up the question: how many men, ie what fraction, could give you the validation you so desperately seek? If the answer is a minority, then it’s simply inappropriate to use the general phrase “male validation” or “male attention”; to be at all honest you have to use the phrase “preferred male attention/validation”, and that’s right back where I arrived. QED, again.

Perhaps this argument would be more agreeable to you without the strong binary, “does/doesn’t do it for you”? For instance, would you dispute the statement that, when it comes to delivering “male validation” for any specific woman, some men can do so more than others? ie not all men are equal in this regard? Once you agree to this, though, the argument is exactly the same in its essence; not all male attention is created equal, so effectively the general “male attention/validation” phrasing is still inappropriate.

s”o the argument that these “cultural/difference feminists” make is that women, being a different gender, have different requirements that need to be met in order to thrive in the workplace? I can get with that”

Awesome!

A couple of things come to mind when I first read the post. As mentioned by others, I agree it is positive to see a young woman break from the hookup culture and this should be celebrated. I also agree that this is only a part of the process of evolving beyond this system for the long-term. And not to minimize Steph’s realization, but I think that some of the celebration should be tempered by the fact that there are plenty of silent, perhaps frustrated, young women who already know the hookup culture to be the black hole that it is and thus choose not to participate. All while full knowing that doing so may have many social costs. My point – or question really, is at what point do we hold people responsible for their decision to engage in a certain behavior or set of behaviors in the first place, particularly when said person does so with the knowledge or even an intuitive sense that it is not what they really want or should be doing? I know college is a time of growth, exploration, and transition – but it is also a place where legal adults learn to engage in adult behaviors, so what of this continuum of time and circumstance – at what point does the individual get singled out for their decisions, regardless of other people?

I have always thought the concept of peer pressure to be limiting, primarily because of its inherent diffusive quality when it comes to personal responsibility, but this feels a little too much like a story of peer pressure – or choosing to play, and then choosing to not play. Which feels not quite as celebratory as those who know that it is always false to feel that “…it [insert anything] was the only option”.

Perhaps in this case it is more interesting due to her ties to feminist study, but it does get me wondering about the concept of checking in and out of the hookup culture and how this pattern might be viewed. In my experience, I’ve known women who had their ‘over it’ moment in college only to graduate, move to a new city and start working and discover that while the herd mentality may change, they suddenly find all kinds of reasons to engage in hooking up – and in fact, it can become easier to justify, e.g. too young to get serious, building a career, going off to grad school (I know there are biz and law school folks here who have discussed the prevalence of hook up culture in grad school). So while it is nice to see someone step out of this pattern early, it seems like placing the impetus for the behavior squarely on a culture or setting and not on individual choice gets slippery – that is, we celebrate a learn-through-experience and conscious decision to stop, but we often ignore much of the conscious decision to engage in the first place. The culture, environment, conditions will change, but the individual and the strength of her convictions, her ability to apply those in a variety of settings, and her ability to forego immediate gratification for the long-term are part of the other 90% that will decide whether or not she will be successful in navigating the path toward building a positive LTR/Marriage (assuming that is her goal).

Perhaps my comments here are better suited for a different post, but I am seeing this play out in my life and felt a connection. I am continually challenged to figure out the value and/or relevancy of past behaviors of women I meet. And many, if not most, have a story that starts very similar to Steph’s, but includes a few more iterations along the way…were the choices circumstantial or systemic? While I prefer women who chose not to engage in hookup culture – ever, I can relate much better with those who had the ‘a ha’ moment in college and were able to stay the course as opposed to those who seem to have had the ‘a ha’ moment once every 3 years.

Some Handle,

Yes, many guys did things the way everyone told them to. Steph did things the way that everyone told HER to. But finally, both the guys who sat around not getting any play and the girls who gave it up way too easy to the least deserving guys have to take responsibility for their actions.

You chose to follow people’s expectations, and so did Steph. Guys can’t blame society for their mistakes while insisting that girls take responsibility for theirs. You can’t have it both ways. Either everyone’s to blame or no one’s to blame.

the fact that you’ve lived most of your young life exactly the way everyone told you to
.
So there is “everyone” telling men to live a certain way and there are feminists telling women to live a certain way. Eventually, advisors from the former group will drown out the latter and cracks in the “casual scene” foundation are already appearing.
.

You chose to follow people’s expectations, and so did Steph.

I don’t have a problem with the choices that I made. But, let me ask you this: do you think Stephanies father expected her to blow Ed Hardy’s fresh out of high school?

Guys can’t blame society for their mistakes while insisting that girls take responsibility for theirs. You can’t have it both ways. Either everyone’s to blame or no one’s to blame.

Jesus,
Do you really believe that society (not the self-made whores of girly pop-culture) actually encouraged young women to be college sluts?

OK, so, she is reading Dworkin, “All sex is rape”. Her father (by our assumption) does not want her blowing random guys fresh out of high school, but, yeah, she got a clear message to be a slut.

OK.

Jesus, let me ask you a different set of questions:

Was it society that wanted Madonna to act the way she did, or was she that wanted it?

Brittany Spears?

Carrie Bradshaw and the message that came from Sarah Jessica Parker (et al) via Sex and the City?

Were girls being force fed this stuff or were they lapping it up?

@ Some Handle

Alright, then. If it was completely innate and independent of society, why were women not acting like this throughout history? Why did this trait just suddenly fall out of the sky in the last 30 out of thousands of years of female existence? Where’s the 15th century equivalent of Kesha?

Society had a hand to play here. Saying so doesn’t shift the blame from Steph’s feet.

@ Jesus

Well, yeah it is understandable but resentment, bordering on taunting, has no place in a rational discussion. It’s just a tad absurd to me that all these supporters of Game are the first to promote character change or development in men and the last to recognise it in women.

Alright, then. If it was completely innate and independent of society, why were women not acting like this throughout history?

Why did we not fly in airplanes before, but now we do?

Why is obesity a problem,but before it wasn’t?

How does Susan have the time to write this blog, when, in the past that was impossible?

In short, the Industrial Revolution. But that is a very short answer.

We now have wealth, before we didn’t.

We are freer to do things now that, before, was impossible.

Society had a hand to play here.

There is no reason to go to extremes. No one lives alone on an island.

But, if you were forced to choose between her decisions being based more on who she is or on what society was dictating, which would you choose?

…that you seem to be totally uninformed about…

I love it.

That made my day.

<emWhere’s the 15th century equivalent of Kesha?

Oh, she existed, and was just as scandalous, but all in all she was far more astute and intelligent than Ke$ha and her ilk.

individual choice has mattered, and Steph MADE the choice to step out of it long before many others have.
.
And without the aid of HUS. But other women here will now be preempted and CHOOSE to not seek mythical and false “sexual expression” through experimentation with random cock. Hopping around like a mindless cheap tool is clearly not the way to compensate for lack of good parenting and a nurturing father figure. The TRUTH is the biggest enemy of sex pozoid feminists. Lying. Traps. Shut.
.
Finally
.

* Irrelevant. Susan, someone ate the preview button again. >:[

Interesting points but largely irrelevent. We are talking about social mores, not technological advancements so kindly return those goalposts to their original position, please. 🙂

Our technological advancements have affected our social mores. Take the internet, tv, and cell phones, for examples.

Nowadays, people can meet online and chat and and converse over email, facebook, etc… and even having never met, decide to hook up for sex. Or even a relationship. Deciding to fuck someone you’ve never actually met is definitely a change in social mores over the way things were 15 yrs ago or so. And moreover, it’s a change that wouldn’t have been possible without the technological advancement.

Prior to tv, families spent much more time communicating with each other; kids were more creative and resourceful and performed better in school b/c the forms of “passive entertainment” were fewer; “brands” were far less important to people b/c the power of the media to promote them was for less than it was post-tv, hence people were a bit more frugal; and people had much more active social lives, because they didn’t have a tube to zone out in front of. All far-reaching changes in social mores… and with tv, we aren’t even covering the whole tip of the iceberg.

With cell phones, the importance of private time for reflection has been all but eliminated. People are glued to their phones constantly, whether they’re talking or typing.

Also, let’s face it. Technology makes thinks infinitely easier. And when things are easy, they’re not as well appreciated.

This derisive attitude on the part of males is every bit as offensive as Brownmiller, Dworkin et al. It’s completely intolerant.

And more common. When’s the last time a female dating coach said: “No man in the world can measure up to a self-actualized woman.”?

Some Handle,

Mahoney is right, Steph is blaming the herd herself

I am through with accepting hookup culture as inevitable.

So she no longer “accepts” the HUC as “inevitable”. So are these words of someone who´s been doing their will, or someone who has been following a herd?

Despite our real feelings about these guys, whether we respect them or are repulsed by them, we beg

Plural = Herd.

Anyway, women usually blame everything except of themselves. So I dont know what the real case is, if she decided to slut it up or she was pressured by society. Nevertheless, she is blaming society.

We are making choices.

Sure we’re making choices. But the choices we’re making are based on what is presented to us. Most TV is total crap, but you’ll find people flipping through channels looking for a choice to make. They could choose to turn it off and do something better. Read a book, make an exotic dish, invite friends over, volunteer for the community, comment on HUS, but usually they don’t.

As for kids, they’re basically clueless. I remember being mesmerized by half naked girls on MTV as a kid. Was I choosing to perv on sluts at 7? I suppose, yes, but certainly I was being fed those images long before I had the critical faculties necessary to make an intelligent choice. Everybody has those desires and urges, and it takes an incredibly strong moral principal to resist the onslaught, as now we have those messages on the trains and subways, on taxi cabs and billboards, in banners on websites,in magazines and newspapers, being pushed on us by friends, etc…

Im asking you if these are the words of someone who´s been doing their free will or the words of someone who´s been following the herd.

Well, I can say this much, I have known tons of girls, and very, very few read Dworkin, Kimmel,Brownmiller on a regular basis.

So, this is no herd follower.

To answer your question: everyone is brainwashed. Its called culture.

If that is the case, then why did it change so radically throughout the last 50 years?

Either we are brainwashed, or we are not.

Agh, I messed up the blockquote at the end of my post. That last sentence should not be part of the blockquote but part of my commentary.

Stingray,

Thanks for that input.

Ugh. I have two comments in moderation relating to this discussion. I hate that. By the time they’re cleared the discussion will be over.

very, very few read Dworkin, Kimmel,Brownmiller on a regular basis.

Isn’t the fact that she reads the writings of feminists on a regular basis actual evidence that she IS herding around with feminist ideologues?

Stingray, first off, good for you.

But that is not the point this discussion.

Some people here are attempting to say that our culture pushed girls into being more sexual and at an earlier age. And I am saying that the reason why you see so many girls wearing sweatpants with the word “pink” (or “juicy”, or whatever) is because they are choosing to.

I don’t doubt for one second that we have music and shows with sex and raunch at the center. But we have tons of media with pretty traditional messages (American Idol, the most popular show on the planet, is a great example). We have both sports cars and hybrids to choose from.

Those girls grew up with things like the first female Supreme Court Justice and the first female Astronaut being shoved down their throats… as well as having Madonna and Brittany to choose from. I feel comfortable in saying that the grand majority of parents (especially fathers) would have preferred the girls choose the former to the latter (And some did not have much of a choice, “My way or the highway young lady”).

The point of all those Cosby Show and Everybody Loves Raymond references was that of the Role Models that are, and were, supplied to our culture, all of them had the father being a lovable goof and the mother being smart and nice.

My point was: if the culture was going to pick on someone, it was going to be the guy…not the girl.

However, even with the non-role models like Madonna and Brittany, did we ever have a “sex positive” model (role, or otherwise) for guys? Someone saying with empowerment, and without irony, that you, young man, should pursue sex on your own terms.

Dice Clay? Howard Stern? Both of them, absolutely villafied. And, when it came to mainstream success Howard found it with a fairly timid movie.

Dice Clay, for those that care to remember, was given one of the dumbest movie scripts of all time and a TV show where he was an old-fashioned caring husband and father. I am not kidding.

That is actually changing now. Though, not by much.

I gave you her quote and asking you if THESE are the words of a follower or not.

I absolutely answered your question: post 118

I don’t see how “choosing” and following a herd are mutually exclusive.

The point of all those Cosby Show and Everybody Loves Raymond references was that of the Role Models that are, and were, supplied to our culture, all of them had the father being a lovable goof and the mother being smart and nice.

My point was: if the culture was going to pick on someone, it was going to be the guy…not the girl.

However, even with the non-role models like Madonna and Brittany, did we ever have a “sex positive” model (role, or otherwise) for guys? Someone saying with empowerment, and without irony, that you, young man, should pursue sex on your own terms.

Dice Clay? Howard Stern? Both of them, absolutely villafied. And, when it came to mainstream success Howard found it with a fairly timid movie.

What makes Britney Spears any less a role model than Ray Romano? Why the hell would you want to pick Ray Romano as a role model? You wouldn’t. I get it. That’s your point. But it was fed to you. Just as Britney Spears was fed to girls.

I don’t see how “choosing” and following a herd are mutually exclusive.

OK.

Some Handle,

If we were brainwashed in [pick your favorite year], then why was our culture so different 50 years later?

That question makes no sense, please elaborate.

What makes Britney Spears any less a role model than Ray Romano?

I am not trying to define things for people. If someone sees Brittany as a Role Model and Ray Romano as a scourge on society, fine.

I was simply trying to use the parameters that general society was providing, as I saw them.

Why the hell would you want to pick Ray Romano as a role model?

[Nice Tone]

I was picking anyone. I barely watched the show. But, it was the most popular (family) sitcom of it’s time and put forth pretty conventional views and ideas.

But it was fed to you. Just as Britney Spears was fed to girls.

If Mr Verone was fed to the one set, then Mrs. Verone was fed to the other.

I was simply using the popular Family sitcoms (Cosby Show, Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond) as examples of the Role Models that were being laid out for us.

I didn’t say anyone needed to follow anything.

Jesus: Change “technology” to “cheap energy” and you have it right.

Oh good, my posts from earlier are up. Thanks, Sue. Check out 116 and 122, Some Handle. I wrote those to you. Actually, anybody can check them out (or not) if they’d like.

Susan, would you say that you had to be vigilant against your daughters instincts (not all of them, but some) or media that was being forced on her?

I would say both, plus society in the form of peer pressure. But I realize you asked Sue, and not me.

Stephenie (post 153),
It’s funny, I think people will think that I am contradicting myself, but, I completely agree with you.

A lot of the criticism for Twilight, to use an example, is that promotes abstinence … According to the virgins here they kept their virginity a secret and the girls that regularly hook up encourage each other and are willing to shame the ones that don’t. Even if there are one or two shows that devote time to good values those shows are already filtered as evil and repressive

No, none of us live alone on an island. Yes, we all live in society. But we are making choices. In some situations, we are screwed (the example of only having two choices for President is a perfect one). But, in other areas, like what music we listen to and who we sleep with, we have a lot of wiggle room.

There are people who are having bibles thumped right on their foreheads and others with “liberal” parents encouraging, or allowing, the worst behavior.

But, in general, most of are making choices.

Would you allow your teenage son to be violent towards the neighborhood kids? No. But, honestly, how many guys did you know that genuinely wanted to do that?

Some guys have worse instincts than others.

It is not true that all girls dress like whores. Quite a few have a classy style.

My town, my school, my neighborhood, had both. They all lived in the same culture, yet some made different choices from others.

We are making choices.

Nope, and 118 wasnt even addressed to me.

I must have missed something. I’ll try to find your question.

Media is huge, but culture is too. The good news is that families can create their own cultures. That’s what I did.

Good choice.

I was responding to Mule #77.

I understand.

He said that women are unhappy with the current selection of Mansluts and Sniveling Supplicants. I agree. Are they attracted to Mansluts? Yes …

That is my point. They do not want “Real Men”, they want Alphas, Bad Boys, wanna-be rockstars, artists, etc.

On more than one occasion I have wished I could take them aside and force the red pill down their throats.

Yes, FORCE them to be attracted to Real Men, because, that is not their instinct.

So, I will ask again, do “they” want Real Men?

My guess, “No way”. Some, but not many.

These two statements sem incrongruent to me…unless you are playing fast and loose with the word “relationship”.

“Her instincts, like all of the young women I have known, were urging her toward a relationship. ”

“She had peers who had already gone the slutty route by middle school, and she knew that wasn’t for her.”

Some Handle,

Women instincts. Women want to catch the best man possible, the strong brute male confident one, and want him for more to just sex, like, want him to stick around and be for her only.

Thing is the males providing attraction are usually not the same males providing commitment, so women go for the part of the instinct they find stronger. Be it attraction or comfort / security.

So it makes sense when Susan says “all women are relationship oriented” and it also makes sense when someone else says “all women are sex driven sluts”. Just like every man wants a “sexy” woman to “love” him.

The current culture saves love and relationships for the future and makes emphasis in having fun in the here and now. So in the current order of things, attraction and lust wins, commitment loses. Susan´s daughter friends were having fun and daughter was trying to listen more to the commitment and relationship part of it.

That said even the women in the quick casual market scene view their stuff as “relationships”. Even when they last from one night to a few days in a row. For women “relationships” is a very broad term. Every woman is relationship oriented, regardless of the duration of such relationships.

You gotta listen to them talking about their experiences. Every fling is like a movie.

Some Handle,

Brainwashing determines the kind and type of options you have. Then you pick your options between the ones given. Brainwashing becomes obvious when people dont question the order of things or the options they have, but merely contrast one option vs the other and pick within the very limited spectrum that was provided to them.

Check my past post, which was a response to you.

The current culture saves love and relationships for the future and makes emphasis in having fun in the here and now.

No, some of it does…not all of it.

Right now I think that the most popular sitcom is The Office…and the 2 most popular characters are Jim and Pam. That show is absolutely not saying that. Even the ridiculous Michael character does not really say that.

The evil Dwight, in his own way, does.

Titanic, all 1 billion dollar profits of it, does not say that.

Taylor Swift (I am guessing) does not say that.

Some musicians do say that. Others, do not.

Which albums do we consume, which songs do we download, which shows do we netflix…it depends. It depends on our choices. Yes, people in the South are more likely to listen to Country and people in LA are more likely to listen to, oh, fuck, I have no idea.

But it is wide open nowadays.

Susan´s daughter friends were having fun and daughter was trying to listen more to the commitment and relationship part of it.

No, some of them were, not all (Susan: right?). They were making choices.

Isn’t it odd that few of her girlfriends were constantly trying to get a hockey game together?

I ask, because that is what my friends were doing (though, again, not all of them. Of my 2 best friends, who lie right next to one another, 1 did and 1 did not). The various people mentioned had different instincts.

Why did so many people in the 1960’s start smoking weed, when, up until then, that was absolutely not a part of the culture? A bunch of people, though, still a minority, made a choice.

Snorting Coke in the 80’s…that was absolutely not a part of the culture before then…but, certain people, again, a definite minority, started making choices.

Some Handle,

You´re like playing NAWALT over things. Which would make sense if I was saying AWALT. Everything Im saying of course is an inaccurate, not absolute, generalization. Just like when I say “every man wants a sexy girl who love him” Im leaving gay men and rare men out. But, that.

Taylor Swift fucked John Meyer by the way. So much for her angelical pose.

Some of the other examples you´re giving are about the beta / pedestal brainwash. Titanic for example.

So, to get to the core of it. You´re saying there is NO brainwash, based on the fact that everyone makes choices? do you see making choices as incompatible with being brainwashed? and, what do you think about the stuff Im saying, that brainwash works by limiting the victim choices? if the victim chooses to accept the limitations, there is no brainwash in effect in your view? does the brainwash concept makes sense to you at all? Im curious.

@ Some Handle

RE: judgement and choices.

We’re judged for both. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. See: slutty vs frigid dichotomy. Although the judging isn’t synchronised to occur at the same time in life.

Slut life is all fine and dandy until you hit early tirties when your looks start to wane. That’s when society starts piling in heavy on the criticism and a sizeable majority of men write you off as unsuitable for everything but sex. If you get a partner, he must obviously be a braindead omega doormat. If you don’t, ha-ha! Welcome to Spinster-upon-catsville. Population: you.

Traditional/Sexually reserved life is fairly taxing too in your teens because that is when your training wheels are supposed to come off. If you’re a guy who prioritise LTRs over casual sex, you’re a raving homo. If you’re a girl who holds off on sex, you’re an uptight uppity bitch. And it typically doesn’t get better until your twenties when the whole experimental Spring Break/Freshers craze blows over and people leave their student bubbles.

And when you’re young and pretty, you are also handsomely rewarded for being promiscuous. Guys compliment you all the time and harry for your attention. Pfft, even if you’re unattractive and slutty, you can still get a booatload of attention. They just won’t pay you compliments in public.

Now. Imagine you’re a teenage bint with a pliable backbone, which option do you choose for maximum popularity and acceptance? Which option wins you more Facebook buddies and invites to parties?

Hint: it isn’t the one that involves critical thinking.

What’s the best stratagem RIGHT NOW?

@Stephanie,

Haha, I wonder how just much of feminist claptrap on body sizes has to do with “opposing the patriarchy”, and how much has to do with justifying their ballooning stomachs.

Some Handle,

But, yes, everyone has choices, everyone makes choices, even stuff done under extortion and manipulation are done by choice. The only way people wouldnt make choices is if they had a chip that controlled their bodies directly, bypassing the brain and the will and preferences and personal variations.

Still, I dont see how this relates to culture and brainwashing, and I keep asking you about the link between the two.

The only way people wouldnt make choices is if they had a chip that controlled their bodies directly, bypassing the brain and the will and preferences and personal variations.

Yohami, you do understand that people here are throwing around the word “brainwashed”. So, yeah, I am absolutely going to defend the idea that most of us, most of the time are making choices. And these are rarely predetermined.

Still, I dont see how this relates to culture and brainwashing, and I keep asking you about the link between the two.

What was the original question, I must not have seen it?

If we are making choices, then we are not brainwashed.

I was indoctrinated into traditional christian culture in some ways. I celebrate xmas and Easter, we exchange presents and all that. If I ever have kids, I’ll be readying baskets of chocolate and jelly beans.

Why? Why are these things meaningful to me? Simply because I was raised to think so. I was indoctrinated, or brainwashed. I’m aware of this, and I choose to celebrate anyway, because everyone I know does, because it’s fun, and because even though I don’t think that Jesus popped out on xmas or kicked the can on Good Friday and popped back up on Easter, these days still seem to have meaning for me. That meaning was imposed by the culture that brainwashed me, and yet I still “choose” to take part in the celebrations. I can choose NOT to celebrate, and I would feel no guilt towards god, since I don’t believe in him, but it would leave me with a feeling of emptiness nevertheless…. yes, because I was brainwashed.

So I don’t think that brainwashing and choice are mutually exclusive.

I don’t think anyone is ignoring that personal choices are being made.

Actually, I think that people try quite hard to ignore the personal choices. “Well, he played hockey because everyone else was” Bullshit.

“She blew that guy because everyone is doing it” Bullshit.

Stingray, more than one person here has said that everyone is brainwashed. And that is normal.

Yes, it may be a semantic argument, but it is an important one.

You and I went back and forth about your friend. “Well, she was only acting that way because of the culture.” Bullshit. If she was truly following the script, she would have been nice. Instead, she was cherry picking.

She Made Choices.

Susan would go on and on about how girls basically had no choice but to hook up with all these guys until quite a few men came by to tell her that was not the case. They are, in general, giving it up to some guys.

While others starve.

They are making choices.

If there is a herd going here or a herd going there, it is because we are forming the herd. we are not being sucked up into it.

We are the culture.

This is not to say that certain powerful people do not work overtime to affect how we live. They exists and they certainly do evil things. (The example of basically limiting our choices in Presidential and other elections is a perfect one.)

But, in general, especially with things like really modern pop culture, where we have tons and tons of choice…we are not being manipulated. We are consuming, in general, what we want to consume.

The days of being spoon fed news by Edward R Murrow or Walter Cronkite are over.

We are choosing the Daily Show, and Fox News, and ESPN and DailyKos and LittleGreenFootballs and all the rest.

If any of us are Sheep, it is because we are asking the shepherd to lead us around.

Some Handle,

I think what you are introducing and causing dissonance is really about responsibility. The emphasis on choice. Going with the herd, does it absolve you from responsibility? nope. But that´s the excuse people use to mask their own choices “I only did it because it what people do” “Im not to blame”

Well, yes, you are, you stupid sheep.

If any of us are Sheep, it is because we are asking the shepherd to lead us around.
That phrase reminds me of this song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GbI2Tlt55w

Going with the herd, does it absolve you from responsibility? nope. But that´s the excuse people use to mask their own choices “I only did it because it what people do” “Im not to blame”

Well, yes, you are, you stupid sheep.

Yes, except they are not being herded like Sheep. They are going out of there way to buy expensive Apple Products (or whatever).

They are not Sheep, they are Wild Dogs.

they hunt in packs when it suits them, and they work alone, when it suits them.

But, we see a lot of people doing the same thing (Hockey for some, Vampire chick-lit porn for others) because we tend to be attracted to the same things.

@ pioneervalleywoman September 20, 2011 at 11:22 pm

I’m very much appreciative that you’ve provided your views. A balanced analysis is what I prefer to see.

You pointed out that while there are biological differences, this does not automatically mean there should be unequal treatment. Many of the blogs I’ve seen during the past year tend to gloss over this fact.

Also, particularly on the relationship blogs, the consensus is too often that feminism, in and of itself, is primarily negative. That doesn’t promote intellectually honest debates. Feminism is usually blamed for circumstances where an individual’s lack of self-control is really the issue. Regardless of the amount and types of movements in existence, each person has to be accountable for his/her choices. I don’t see enough of that type of accountability promoted for relationships. Too many solutions offered are based on external factors.

@ Tasmin September 21, 2011 at 1:08 am

So while it is nice to see someone step out of this pattern early, it seems like placing the impetus for the behavior squarely on a culture or setting and not on individual choice gets slippery – that is, we celebrate a learn-through-experience and conscious decision to stop, but we often ignore much of the conscious decision to engage in the first place.

You’ve encapsulated my main critique of the advice primarily given on some of the relationship blogs. I’ve noticed that some people will say they’re promoting wise sexual choices. Yet, much of the attention still goes to those who were/are choosing damaging paths.

The methods common to pick-up artists are, at times, encouraged. After a while, the quality men can start resembling the “cads” because those quality men get intoxicated with the increased amount of interest they do receive. There’s little to no consideration of the quality of that attention. Some of the betas, who are often touted as the prime partners, start becoming more like the cads than they realize.

@ Jesus Mahoney September 21, 2011 at 9:52 am

You chose to follow people’s expectations, and so did Steph. Guys can’t blame society for their mistakes while insisting that girls take responsibility for theirs. You can’t have it both ways. Either everyone’s to blame or no one’s to blame.

This is such a refreshing comment!

Also, some people will become angry at an entire gender when they can’t have the partner they want. That to me is unreasonable because no one is owed companionship. It’s just one of the harsher truths. The angrier you (universal) behave, the less likely you are to attract those who would ultimately be compatible with you. Realistic expectations and a positive attitude go a long way in making someone appealing.

Jesus Mahoney kicks me in the junk:

“Dogsquat shares stories about the military, EMT life, and girlfriends who’ve slept with rock stars with casual passersby. ”

FUUUUUUCCCKCKKKCKCK TEH DEFTONES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Susan said:

“I have to say, though, I cannot believe you’re defending Dworkin. Her remark that “intercourse is a “means of physiologically making a woman inferior” is incredibly disturbing. (This is the comment that is usually paraphrased as “all sex is rape.”) And she decorated her office with a poster that said, “Dead men don’t rape.” She hated all men. She was mentally ill.”

When I want to think of someone somewhat objectively, I find it useful to think of them as if they were one of my patients. I think Dworkin probably had one or more Cluster B personality disorders. The etiology is there – childhood abuse. The sequelae are there, too – drug addiction, splitting, narcissistic traits (forgiving someone “eventually” for taking care of other folks on 9/11 instead of you, because you had a fight with your boyfriend? Yowza.), etc.

Doesn’t mean she’s not talented and smart. Talented Cluster B folks make big splashes in their lives, and sometimes can be downright messianic. They breed disciples who are not easily deprogrammed.

I’m glad I never had to take care of her. I’d have done my level best, but that’s the kind of person who sues people like me when they don’t get what they want.

That kind of patient gives me the creeps. I spend a lot of extra time charting on them, because I’m afraid they’ll drag me into court one day.

I will say that I’m on her side of the porn debate though – which is why Steph can be pro-Dworkin and anti-hookup.

Wait, you’re anti-porn? As in, you think it exploits women?

Octavia at 226:

…I’m very much appreciative that you’ve provided your views. A balanced analysis is what I prefer to see.

… the consensus is too often that feminism, in and of itself, is primarily negative. That doesn’t promote intellectually honest debates.

My reply:

Thanks, and I agree, I dislike the lack of nuance from both sides, from those who see all of feminism as negative to those on the other side who identify with feminism but who fail to realize the nuances amongst equality/protection/domination.

This leads then to what Ms. Walsh just said. I put the key words in parentheses within her quote: “What’s profoundly troubling about sex-positive feminism is the way it embraces self-objectification (domination) in the name of empowerment (equality).”

@Stingray
I think the second definition of brainwashing is the one I was referring I mean I don’t remember the last time the government kidnapped people to make them vote democrat or republican but the repetition of memes and confusion is glaring and systematic.
Empowered strong capable popular women are sexually promiscuous and abstinence and religion is for uneducated prejudiced people. When was the last time you saw a popular show/book/movie that depicted a strong capable woman being a virgin or at least not engaging in a sexual only relationship or that was religious? Women don’t have any positive depiction of sexual prudence and the promiscuous women are usually rich, desired by the guys around then never grow old, never get an STD…all the fun of sex with not a bad consequence. If you don’t have a strong culture to counteract being the family or the school it comes a moment when is norm and like I said before people is lazy given any choice the easy one always will prevail, YMMV.

??? Susan I’m also stuck in moderation…what is up with that? Is because I’m Taino now 🙁

Yohami wrote:

“Good for her if she decides to listen to herself and do what matters. However, having a LTR and finding a committed guy isnt going to fix her either. So I hope she looks deeper.”

Bingo.

What she is really after, no man can give her. Not in a hook-up, not in an LTR and not in marriage either.

Stingray, what I am saying is that we make choices with the cards that we are dealt. Various things influence which cards we get and how will will play them, but choices need to be made.

And, for boys, if you *wanted* to be a Good Man or a Nice Guy, the choice was pretty clear.

For girls, it was much more wide open. (However, I will give them this: if a girl new full well that she wanted to be a wife and mother and raise a family and NOT go to Law/Medical/Journalism/Business/etc. School, well, then, she was just not enlightened).

And if girls were going to choose the Madonna route over the Clair Huxtable route, well, that was their choice.

Some Handle and Ted,

Thanks. I thought so, but I got mixed up as it seemed SH would turn to society for men and choices for women. While I think that for the most part you are right it still feels (I know, I know( like something is missing. I think it might possibly be that part of me screaming (in my most whiny girl voice, mind you) “but those choices were SOOOO hard!”

But, yes, I agree that given the recent history of our society men were given fewer apparent choices for the course of their love lives.

@Stingray
I stopped watched TV a few years because of many reasons including the depiction of the slut as the default mode of a young woman, I do remember when I was a fan of shows like Felicity and Dawson’s Creek were the leading female characters made a big deal out of their virginity for a while and lost it and became sluts right after it, also there was an already slut depicted usually in a charming sympathetic way.
In the case of Felicity I stopped watching after she lost it to a guy she barely knew in a party (no it was not the haircut although I agree it was horrid) and the voice over was something along the lines that the only mistakes worth making are yours because you have to live with them and some other BS like that and the fact that after waiting all HS it was completely okay to have sex with the first guy she felt the impulse too was utter BS for me, but again I was raised differently and in a different environment the culture here has normalized this type of reasoning so much that falls into the repetition part of brainwashing, IMO.
Then we had Dawson’s Creek. The leading guy was depicted as a sweet geeky virgin pretty much during the whole show till college the good girl was presented as the underdog virgin for a while lost it to Pacey (local Alpha) and then casual sex gallore. Good girls having casual sex became the norm and just check any other aimed to teens show like The OC, One Tree Hill, Gilmore Girls, Gossip Girl..not sure about Vampire diaries but the fact that she is supposedly torn between a good vampire and a damn murderer don’t give me much hope, so same old, same old.

I think the only recent show were having casual sex was more or less depicted as undesirable was The Guild in which Codex slept with the Axis of Anarchy leader and was desperate to date him because sleeping with him with no strings attached made her feel like a slut. Not sure how feminists reacted to that but given that is a less than 15 minutes long webseries maybe they didn’t even noticed.

So I know a bit of pop culture and I don’t think there is a lot of good girls depiction where the leading girl is making responsible sexual choices aside from not getting pregnant or getting and STD and that happens magically because few of them even discuss what are they doing to take care of themselves (funny that it looks like talking about the bad consequences of sex is the new taboo, when having tons of casual sex is considered okay), of course I would be more than happy to take all that back if there is currently a similar line of tv and books female characters that are not engaging in casual sex as part of their “growth” in TV or books.

I don`t want to make it illegal, I just think it should be discouraged more strongly for teh damage it does for a mans future relationships.

Butterfly Flower, yeah, just got poked in the left hand after a failed IV and another failed IV insert attempt. That blew up and now I have a swollen vein. Not fun at all.

Then I find out from my retired nurse mother in law that no one aside from professional anesthesiologists (i.e. medical doctors) should be doing IVs in hands. So the nurses that botched the job were wrong. Now I’m kind of pissed off.

On the subject of porn, here’s an interesting CNN article I read the other day:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/take-away-online-porn-and-what-do-you-get/

Susan,

Clap clap for that rant.

I really believe that parents who can’t talk to their children (for example, you mentioned some mothers to daughters) about their pasts are caught up in some level in this. Of course, for some, it is about mere embarrassment and shame they don’t want to get into, which does not help their daughters any.
.
MEN: choose the mother of your daughters VERY carefully. Do NOT marry any woman who has a past that you would not want for your daughter. Promiscuity suddenly becomes a sexually acquired mental disorder when its time for a wife. It is as simple as that and it is a win win for you and your daughter when you avoid women who drag politically confused parenting skills into your home. That little girl deserves the best…marry it!

.

“boys in Weimar couldn’t even engage in innocent outdoor activities like sledding without some policeman coming up and telling them to stop…and that this had to do something with what he saw as the much higher self-confidence of the Brits.”
.
Feminists have failed at increasing women’s self confidence as part of their self serving equality-to-men campaign. Recognizing that, they now resort to suppressing and oppressing the natural self confidence of men to the average level of females by getting to them while young. Eliminate recess time, drugs, discipline etc. Public schools are the target since feminists are champions at sliming their way into government policy decisions and also why feminists support big government. Parents should tar and feather these evil child molesting fucktards.
.

“I don’t regret what I did, it made me who I am today”
.
What would be the typical reaction from a man upon hearing these defiant words from his latest wife prospect? Is this woman before him, her very being, the product of multiple penile encounters? Is it what she is today the model of motherhood? How was his grandfather able to find such incomparable character in his grandmother? How was it possible that non-cock-hoppers just fifty years ago even qualified as women men found desirable? Its astounding that women existing for thousands of years without these recently discovered therapeutic activities! OMG!!

.

This email is most beneficial in helping to confirm what I (we) already know but have trouble verifying sometimes:

a) hookups are not empowering to women
b) hookup culture does not do anything at all to sway any balance of power (real or imagined) toward women – in fact, I suspect it’s the opposite.

I define sluts as women who will give their body up for nothing (or almost nothing), often for self-validation. That is not something to celebrate, and how anyone thinks this is empowering is beyond me. A man who finds himself with such a woman would be a fool for thinking of them as a potential long-term partner. When men hookup with someone they see as a slut (or who calls herself a slut), they turn off their emotional attachment side because attachment will only lead to pain. A woman like this will never have a man’s respect, and why should she?

Women who follow hookup culture are good for one thing: getting your rocks off.

indeed. most boys i runto these days are complete pussies.

I second that. Boys are designed to strive for social dominance. Competition plays on this. You ask a guy to perform a task, and he may or may not perform passably well. You ask a guy to perform a task better than another guy, and you have a challenge.

There’s this mistaken notion that competition is somehow antithetical to cooperation, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. Take football, for example. In order to compete in football, first, you have to cooperate with your teammates. Beyond that, though, you have to cooperate with opposing teams simply by agreeing to play by the rules of the game. Competition is built upon cooperation.

In schools, it’s common to tell students not to worry about where other students are; just to do one’s best. I understand the wisdom in this, but any guy knows that it’s far easier to give it your best when the competition is close behind and catching up.

We’ve become too afraid of hurting the feelings of losers that we create an environment in schools wherein nobody feels the need to strive to win.

When men hookup with someone they see as a slut (or who calls herself a slut), they turn off their emotional attachment side because attachment will only lead to pain. A woman like this will never have a man’s respect, and why should she?
.
Men painlessly participate in the female-enabled casual [fuck] scene with casual classified females while balancing careers and later when their wants and needs change men will shift to a different list and select from the ready supply of wife material, as defined solely by men. Casual women always try to muscle in but are shunned at the discretion of men. Is it fair? No. Does anyone care? Probably, but its inconsequential.

@ Anacoana (Original Steph :D)

Regarding MGTOW,

Why would they want prostitution and porn though, if they’re really going their own way? I’ve also seen them wax lyrical about fembots or something. That’s what I don’t understand here. For people who don’t want anything to do with females, they insist on interacting (regularly, might I add) with female sex workers as well fantasising about artificial replicas of the very thing they seem to dislike. How does that work?

Should just be renamed to Men Going Their Own Way At Select Intervals tbh. They keep cheating. O_o

j mahoney
.
so you run a school with 9 lots of 15 minute boy orientated sessions?
.
good luck timetabling that!
.
plenty of boys can manage normal schooling just fine by the way. we are talking about a subsection for both genders.
.
next some will be saying science lessons is anti- girl!

Kerry Cohen on Good Morning America
Breaking the Silence On Teenage Girls and PromiscuityRelease date: September 1st
.
They have sex too early and for the wrong reasons.
They get STDs. They get pregnant too young.
They have “friends with benefits” but with no benefit to themselves.
They don’t get called. They get dumped.
They hate themselves for being unlovable, for being needy.
They are loose girls, and they are everywhere.
And they need our help.
.
http://kerry-cohen.com/l/dirty-little-secrets
.

*Sigh*. MGTOW is not nearly as impressive as I previously thought now that I know the reality. ¬_¬

Well there are the types that go totally out of the market and don’t even want sex with women, but humans are social creatures so this are probably are minority now but that can change in the future, someone can create the anti-viagra pill and men could just kill their libidos at will and not need sex from women at all. In fact I’m surprised is not done yet, antidepressants effects in libido are well known so in a few years there could be a pill for suppressing that.
I don’t know about you but a whole generation of men that won’t have any contact with women that don’t involve a money transaction doesn’t only impress me, is depressing, YMMV.

But what’s the point of shying away? It doesn’t solve anything?
Human beings primary act over two impulses: avoid pain and seek pleasure. They are avoiding pain so it works from a purely functional and personal POV. The biggest issue is that they are opting out of investing in society. That means that society has failed to them, regardless of you agree or not they are a symptom that our society is dysfunctional.

In any case, they’re such a small minority of humans that any impact they may have will be short-term and will soon be forgotten as we advance imo. But to each his own.

Are you married? If you are single any amount of men opting out is going to affect you to a certain level and if you are married and thinking on having children your children need to reproduce themselves to consider yourself an evolutionary success. So they still can cause and impact if their lifestyle starts to look appealing things are going to get very complicated sooner than later, YMMV.

If CERN is to believed, we’ve breached the speed of light barrier this past week so a libido killer should be small fry. :/

I LOVED THAT NEWS!! Finally physical laws are cooperating with my sci-fi novels, now if only the government had money and incentives for NASA to sent manned missions to Mars…stupid national debt still is on the way of my imagination >:(

Susan Walsh wrote:

Susan, no preview?

Sorry, bear with me. I’ve reintroduced the quicktags for HTML formatting, and if that works OK, […]

Hmm. I do not see them.

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.19) Gecko/2010040116

“You can put the rowdiest douche bag in school in shop class, and he’s likely to be focused, because it feels good to work with his hands”

Generally true, I think, BUT shop equipment can be dangerous if not properly used, and hence you can’t have shop classes UNLESS the school is willing to let teachers enforce minimum standards of behavior. Too many U.S. schools have given up on such behavioral requirements, and this is one of several reasons why shop classes have generally fallen into eclipse…they’re afraid of fingers getting cut off and consequent litigation.

Quite a few of the problems with the schools are the result of the excesses of the “self-esteem” concept. This has been taken to ludicrous extremes, such as the idea that *everyone* has to win a prize regardless of their performance and the insistence that teachers not use red ink in marking papers because it might hurt a student’s self-esteem.

This sort of thing is damaging to all students, but on the average seems to hurt the boys more than it hurts girls.

Is this really true? That sounds so bizarre. In the uk if a teacher was hostile to a boy, or girl, for no reason he or she would be sacked.

A couple of point regarding the above statement:

1. Hostility need not be overt. You can show hostility by unduly criticizing someone’s ideas, simply by ignoring him, by tone of voice or by facial expressions. There are many forms that hostility can take, many of which wouldn’t get a teacher fired. Also, creating a system that doesn’t take into consideration the needs of boys and then punishing those boys for not conforming to that system is another form of hostility.

2. Your assumption that there “is no reason” is a bit obtuse, especially in light of all we’ve been saying. The reason is that boys usually don’t think and behave like girls typically do. Are there exceptions to this rule? Yes. But I think it would be naive to say that there aren’t basic differences between the sexes.

These differences are widely recognized, btw. This isn’t some fringe idea we’re talking about.

–Girls tend to work better in cooperative groups, whereas boys tend to work better individually. Schools tend to have students work in cooperative learning groups, and, at least in the U.S., seat students in groups.

–Girls develop verbal and emotive skills earlier than boys, whereas boys develop spatial and mechanical skills early. Schools focus on the former, where even in math, the push is to have students explain in words how they arrive at an answer. Often, the correct answer in and of itself will not give students full credit. Also, peer mediation and “think sheets” are procedures that play to girls’ abilities to verbalize and emote and are far less successful with boys.

–One of the consequences of the fact that girls develop verbal and emotive skills much earlier than boys is that girls tend to be much better listeners than boys. The longer a teacher stands in front of the classroom talking to students, the more young boys are tuning out. This is often interpreted as laziness or plain disinterest by teachers, whereas it’s a developmentally appropriate response on the part of boys to teachers who like to hear themselves talk.

–Girls rarely channel aggression while playing, whereas aggression is a staple of boys’ play. Schools reward quiet and cooperative play and typically forbid the aggressive play that boys most often find natural. Girls are praised for participating in the type of play that usually comes natural to them and boys are admonished for their more aggressive behaviors, rather than given an outlet for them.

I can go on, but it’s late here….

@ Susan

Omfg. That is so nasty. O_o

A teacher got sacked this week for hugging a child who ran up to him and put his arms around him. It’s in the Daily Mail today. All the parents came out in his support but the governors decreed it as “unlawful touching”, ugh! After eight years of working there too. How are we supposed to get more male role models for boys if men become afraid to enter the profession? Oh and, another teacher called “Johnny Anglais” (Google at your peril!) was a pornstar and part-time stripper but he was permitted to keep his job.

Sometimes I wonder if the authorities are just trolling us.

GudEnuf wrote:

Why doesn’t my link work?

GudEnuf wrote:

Even Immanuel Kant had his failings.

Apparently href attribute was lost from a -tag on process.

@Jess

If a kid speaks out of turn in class (which is unfair isn’t it Susan?) then they will be asked not too regardless of gender.

Perhaps if we encouraged more shouting out of the answers (the first one to get there wins!), the we can stop the slow ones from complaining that they don’t ever get a chance to speak. (The whiners.)

More seriously now, I think this is less about children of whatever sex following a “fair” rule than about children of one sex being made to adapt to the communication patterns of the other sex, while the latter don’t have to learn the former’s patterns as well.

This reminds me of a short conversation between two friends of mine, a woman and a man. The man was complaining that his girlfriend was always asking him, “Do I look fat in this?” before they’d go out, and he never wanted to answer because every answer was wrong. The woman explained (with a condescending smile on her face) that that question really means, “I really want you to give me a compliment, but I don’t want to ask you directly and seem needy.” Then the man asked why women can’t just ask for compliments, because a man really won’t mind giving sincere ones if that’s really all she wants. (I ended up asking him for compliments all night, as did my friend. Hahahaha!)

Jess,

I dont know where you get your facts, I can only speak from what I´ve seen personally. That most confident boys come from schools that inhibit rowdy male behavior… I dont really know what you mean by that, confidence, or rowdy male behavior. For me all of this starts with the comment Susan left a while ago where she compared her daughter´s experience with his son´s experience. I experienced something similar, with the girls promoted for no reason and the guys pushed down for no reason. So Im talking about that.

You know there are schools in the uk that don’t really enforce rules of any kind.

I dont know that! but not enforcing rules sound bad, because the world does enforce rules. Schooling should be about preparing kids for the real world – not about fitting kids in the academy.

The only ‘suppression’ that goes on is the suppression of bullying or student misconduct that is is either dangerous or disruptive.

That is not the suppression the others are talking about. But it sounds like you are putting all male oriented in the same sack as bullying / dangerous. But, disruptive? hell, disruptive of what order? I wish I had been more disruptive when I was at school, instead of letting them put me with the pack and guide me through those somniferous years.

Teachers are always banging on about supporting gifted children and promoting expression and creativity. So this is already going on.

Maybe when its the girls doing it.

I should also add that in Britain the top 200 schools are all very traditionally strict regimes- particularly boys schools. So the evidence appears to be the stricter the school the better the academic (and career) outcome for the male.

I have no clue. My experience is limited to Venezuela and Argentina. Leaving the point about repressing males for a moment, I´ll say everyone leaves school clueless about everything. Even college graduates are clueless. The academy did nothing for them in order to prepare them for the real world. Its not a coincidence that the most successful people quit college or didnt get degrees that match with the business they became successful at.

And here folks is the expected misguided “rebuttal” as some sex pozzy has already gotten in a lather.  Note the best part:

I haven’t seen an article targeted to males that emphasizes waiting to engage in sex with their partner to increase the chances of a marriage 

Yeah, because men are NOT the gate keepers, dumb ass

Oh, and this gem

This  just wait, increase the social price, get a commitment first message, seems to me just another way to shame women back into a sexual repressive time.

Just who is doing the “oppressing” under that scenario.  This author wants to spree fuck and then expects a short stop to scoop her up after all the runs batted in.  Typical sex poz cult asshole.

Sex, too early?

Did you answer, “Love”? You’re adorable. “Sexual strategies for making men ‘fall in love’ typically backfire, because men don’t often work like that,” Regnerus says.

Nobody, men or women, works like that. True love is never only sexual. It has a sexual component between romantic mates, but it’s not the only component.

Part of the problem with the world today is that many people have given up on love and are going after pure hedonism and egoism. Love is about giving to other people from the heart and reciprocation of others’ gifts. Sadly too many have lost sight of this.

I`m afraid the genie has already been let out of the bottle. New studies indicate that women NATURALLY (meaning when not shamed or oppressed) are a lot like men when it comes to monogamy. We are asking women to do something that doesnt come naturally.. It would be like asking men to keep it in their pants… Isn`t gonna happen. I think some of the opinion`s from the so called “experts” lack an over all view of men in general. Obviously we will always have the guys who live by the moto, “why buy the cow when the milk is free.” But THAT, in my opinion, is a large minority of men. It may be a bigger number in men under 28, but for men in general, it simply isnt true. Studies show the majority of men DO want relationships. The free and easy sex scene is not a life style most men cherish. Empty sex gets old for most people. Men and women both know this.

In reference to Stephs artical.

“It has taken me this long to realize that in order for me to truly claim that women deserve respect, kindness and to have the sort of relationships they want, I have to stop participating in hookup culture. It’s flawed and it remains flawed because no one is willing to take the road that involves more clothing. I, for one, think it’s at least worth a try.”

_________________________

 I applaud her artical. She is, ofcourse, right.

The vast majority of men and women want relationships. The trick is what to do until Mr/Ms Right Comes along.

Women, when it comes to men generally are on the insecure side, and validation is sometime needed. This is also true many times after a woman has been jilted and her self esteem is in the pits. They will seek mens approval, many times the they use sex as the barometer.

Problem is sex is only a temporary fix. Soon that fix wears off and another fix is needed. The need for validation is even stronger. It is only when she becomes tired of the games that she sees the light and leaves the life style.

Steph, understood this lesson at an early age and is changing her attitude and so her actions… Still , by some mens views, she is damaged goods. Unfit for a relationship. Those men have their own narrow view. never mind Steph learned a huge life lesson and will probably be a great catch for some deserving man.

The need for validation comes in many forms and at different ages. Could be a college girl who broke up with her boyfriend. Could be a woman who got a divorce from her husband. Women with low self esteem are prime candidates for promiscuity. However Promiscuity is not limited to low self esteem types only.

Susan,

What? Where do you get that number? In the U.S. the current overall divorce rate is 40%.

My bad, seems like I pulled that out of my ass. My point was that if the relationship lasts in monogamy, and the woman is happy, and its not due to the guy being the higher value / the flavor, and neither is cheating, and there´s no submissive beta behavior on part of the guy and she´s not acting all entitled, then it must be love.

@Anacaona

Here, students and non-professional employees are both often required to wear uniforms. Professionals get to dress as they see fit, with the exception of . . . teachers! (Hahahaha!)

As I’ve said, I like uniforms. They’re certainly very practical for those who don’t want to think too much about mixing and matching clothes to create unique-looking outfits–and in the case of many schools in my country, the uniform is also a way to help teachers with tighter budgets save face so that they wouldn’t have to come to school wearing the same clothes over and over again, and seem “poor” to the students. (It was a school for upper class girls, after all!)

But yes, some of the uniforms were quite unflattering . . . and even when the faculty voted on the designs they wanted, sometimes the religious sisters who ran the school would alter the hemline or neckline to make it more “modest” after the vote. There was also one time the seamstress didn’t have enough cloth in one color (rust) to make 50 blouses; she phoned the principal, who approved a different color without even seeing it, and the teachers were stuck with pumpkin-colored blouses for the next three years. 😛

beliita- thanks for your reponses- truly

a lot of people, when presented with challenging questions get snarky- so i appreciate the time you have spent going through point by point.

1. i would say that if everyone forcefully ‘takes the their turn’, then you quickly have a shouting match rather than a constructive, civil discussion for student benefit. Im not a teacher, but your’ colleagues’ have told me thats what happens if you don’t have some sort of rule like ‘hands up and I pick” or “todays chairperson is Brian, he will decide who speaks’

2. you know thats not what i meant. how about a shout across the classroom “hey bella- get your tits out”. that ok? of course in many uk schools I’m told things can be very extreme.

3. answering a teacher back. girls are just as bad at this I’m told.

4. 5.nice joke. i would imagine no running is ‘elf and safety’ and lateness is about not disrupting lessons. I’m told girls can also be just as bad at lateness

6. swearing- I’m told by friends that boys are much more likely to this. in the sites i visited yesterday, some said 80% of uk suspensions (which often involve foul language) were male. I think this rings true.

7. fist fights. I’m prepared to accept some teachers are too reactionary but very aggressive play fighting should be prevented. maybe the teacher saw something that really wasnt appropriate? play fighing can result in broken noses and arms and cracked heads. and sometimes not both parties are willing participants. I’m told this is mostly male conduct.

8.not at all.in fact female to female bullying is more likely to lead to suicide. there is a massive campaign against bullying in the uk and guess what- its currently focussed on female/female name calling and shaming.

9. uniform. i agree- i never saw why kids hated uniform. The top schools all have it though so I suspect it is in a schools best interests to have a strict uniform and I don’t see it as anti male (or anti female)- well there may be a case for not demanding girls to wear skirts but lets no go there today!

10. Homework- i think our best schools are hot on homework but i cannot argue with your logic. Although perhaps less mature boys have the foresight retired for sufficient motivations whereas girls may do. I have heard girls are more likely to complete homework. is that your experience?

11. i didn’t mean the vampire slayer or the plastic lunch fork- i meant a metal weapon. i understand this is a mostly male offence.

so just to be clear then- would you keep all 11?

My bone of contention is the people here who will judge a woman SOLEY on their past

Then you have no contention, at least not with the people here.  It is one of many aspects brought to the table, but the sex pozies do not want it on the table at all

bellita,

taking turns- i rather suspect that in the best uk schools shouting matches are not common. but if it works for you then great- i think my teacher friends would be mortified though.

‘tits out’.-OMG you would be so sacked in the uk. Do you know you were suppressing that guys male instincts though? (i think you were right to stop him)

back chat- one of the reasons i couldn’t be a teacher is the sheer soddishness of some kids these days. I do some charity sports stuff with underprivileged boys at the moment. Because I am promoting sports access to them they are really nice to me, But they treat some other adults like crap on their shoe. I simply couldn’t handle that aggression. I have enormous respect for teachers being able to cope with that relentlessly.

HW- fair enough

Rules- i get your logic totally. I would only say that, and I’m speaking as a lay person here:

a. the best uk schools have loads of strictly applied rules

b. the teachers I know (with one hippy exception), swear blind that well enforced rules make for the best schools ie less detentions, higher standards, less arguments, nicer for staff and kids, more opportunities etc.

OK- we agree on some of the items. Can you see why Im struggling to see where the anti male bias is? maybe you have to be a fly on the wall to see it in action? or maybe the usa system is very different to the uk one?

susan

yohami has been persistently silly. i gave him 3 examples of people that were ‘pro shouting out’ and bellita has expanded on her views

you said boys were being shamed for normal boyish rowdy conduct previously and others have supported that view- one simply has to scroll up

so he can call straw man all day if he likes- its plainly not the case… as he and all can see.

and again i repeat… what schools do not allow recess, sports activities and competition?

What schools do not offer after school clubs? In the uk all this stuff is compulsory.

in the uk, successive educationalist have strived to make the curriculum more engaging to every possible sub section of students, particularly underachieving boys.

yet still we have the male suspension figures and gender performance gap in the uk?

so its not the curriculum or structure that is the differing factor- its simply the ability and determination of an individual school to enforce its rules to enable learning.

when a skillful teacher takes a class of rowdy kids on a wet friday afternoon he/she is most certainly suppressing their desires and modifiying their behaviour. Its not all about providing inspiring lessons and the kids magically falling into line- thats sheer fantasy.

The top schools are all about enforcement AS WELL AS good teaching. A student in such a school wouldn’t dare cheek the teacher, or swear in assembly or give the head teacher the bird because the ethos will have been developed to make it inconceivable.

This allows time for great teaching, great progress and better teacher/student relationships. And this is why your son did better in a strict school.

Thats why MOST sons do better in a strict school. There is time for play and a time for study. Weaker schools allow kids to take ‘recess mentality’ into the classroom.

In your sons new school it wasn’t that the teachers were more talented or the lessons more fundamentally interesting- its that the ethos was different.

I know I’m spewing mantra from teachers and uk politicians here but its all pretty straight forward.

One of my friends (who is tiny) prides herself that she can walk into her classroom and even with the toughest class they fall silent. Even if it was pandemonium moments before. She says its psychological trickery and is achieved by enforcing strict rules from the get go. Once you ‘have them’ you can relax and the rules are automatically followed and she enjoys great relationships with the kids and enjoys her job. I don’t know how she does it frankly but at  the end of the day, however you cut, it IS behavioural suppression.

I think it would be rather nice, if you would at least accept that point, even if you wouldn’t concede the more general point about anti male school bias.

@ Jess September 26, 2011 at 10:52 pm

Now the successful schools may not be to your taste, but most of the students come out with great grades, go onto great careers and think they had a great education. I never met a single guy at uni who thought he was exposed to an anti male school. This is a recent construct and I think it’s BS.

Now you are contending that either the ethos or rules or curriculum is somehow unfair to male students. I have not heard concrete evidence to back this up thus far.

I think there is validity to the need for restructuring schools to give kids more room for creativity.  It’s also necessary to examine charges of discrimination against boys, especially during some of their most formative years.  At the same time, I’m also skeptical of some of the statements about the types and levels of discrimination against boys.

I’ve been reviewing more information about gender biases in schools because it is a serious area of concern.  I also believe it needs to be kept in perspective.  Once girls leave the school, how well are they doing?  Is school the one environment where the traits that are supposedly innate to girls an actual benefit to them? If the answer is yes, then we do have to fix it so that boys and girls feel they are benefiting.  We also have to work on the environments outside of school.

 

 

@Octavia

How long had you been in HUS? Tom has a history of arguing like a woman to many other commenters. Many people that didn’t even knew of other commenters had noted the same patterns and sometimes he slips and says things from a female POV, that he talks like a woman, argues like a woman, uses women words and so on. Is not a dig no one here says that a woman cannot comment or is not entitled to her opinion but we are kind sick of the masquerade.You can say that around 8 different sources are wrong but at least the coincidence should be peculiar don’t you agree?

This situation reminds me when an TV actress husband got an account at IMDB pretending to be a woman to promote her work. He was so freaking obvious for the things he leaked and his overreaction to certain comments we got confirmation from a terciary source and we called him out, man was that thing ugly I think the actress lost a fourth of her fans in the whole process.

Octavia,

I’m cool with whoever Tom is. The issue for me is that Tom is using his personal history in support of his arguments. That would be fine, too, since that is what most people base their opinions on as well. But Tom’s account of his experience sounds phony.

His basic argument is that only betas who can’t score reams of pussy have problems with women of experience. Since, as he claims, he’s always had easy pussy, he’s developed no such hang ups about women who have slept around.

So, not only does Tom consistently boast about his own experiences with women, but he also casts aspersions on anybody with a differing POV by claiming that they’re just jealous.

Since Tom’s personal experience with women is his primary source of evidence in defense of his positions, and further, since his favorite means of critiquing other guys’ points of view is to suggest that they’re rooted in their own personal inexperience…. I think it’s more than fair to call into question what so clearly seems like a bullshit story.

octavia/anna cona

“of arguing like a woman”-

whats that supposed to mean?

did he throw a glass of wine in someones face?

flounce out of the room?

get really angry once a month?

“You can say that around 8 different sources are wrong”- I think I would actually.

It wasn’t 8 independent opinions. One person childishly suggested it and then others followed. They would have read the previous insults.

If my memory serves Tom has offered Susan his mobile number but Susan doesn’t wish to call as to not set a precedent.

So Octavia, you are quite right. I always think guys resorting to name calling is so…I dunno… tragic? I have always thought its the hallmark of someone who feels they have lost the argument.

@Jess

walking around in class whilst doing maths? isn’t maths tough enough?

I don’t know if this was said tongue-in-cheek, but I have to call you out on your bias again. Just because it would be tough for your girly self does not mean it would be tough for boys. In fact, I have personally witnessed boys pull up terrible Math scores by doing exactly that. Change the sentence around and you’ll see what I mean:

Sitting at a desk while doing Math? Isn’t Math tough enough?

Yes, it is tough enough. This strategy makes it easier for boys (and admittedly, some girls). The fact that girls can do something well while sitting still for long periods of time does not mean that boys can fare well under similar conditions. Would you revoke a boy’s passing Math grade because he had to pace around the room to earn it?

In any case, thank you for your well-considered responses. I admit that I know nothing about what the UK is doing for its boys (and probably shouldn’t have tried to argue my points within that limited frame you presented), but I know that boys are falling behind and being handicapped academically in the Philippines as much as in the USA, and I think that’s a terrible indictment on both school systems.

This hasn’t been studied in depth by anyone that I know (likely because the Department of Education has its head in the sand, as usual), but given what we already know from grades, top scholars, etc. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say the system we have now disadvantages boys and is anti-male.

It wasn’t 8 independent opinions. One person childishly suggested it and then others followed. They would have read the previous insults.

Actually it was, many commenters came to a new thread with no previous knowledge Tom started his “arguments” and someone asked or mentioned that he argued like a woman. Also we have had other male commenters disagreeing with us arguing and  we don’t automatically call them women. So there is something about Tom that makes him/her sounds like a woman, YMMV.

Jess,

Tom just sounds, argues, reasons, reacts, like a woman. Just like you, with Tom being more reasonable. There are days he sounds manlier though.

Jess,

Neither saying Tom sounds like a woman, nor that he is more reasonable than you, are insults. Ask anybody – but the mirror.

Jess,

Im not “accusing you”, Im letting you know when you do strawman, so you would change your ways and debate the ideas presented.

 I find your language very anti-female biased and consequently I am finding my natural femininity supressed.

Take your plea to the academy, its called strawman, not straw person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

yohami- but when you did seek to accuse me of straw men I showed that the accusation was unfounded. People were indeed making certain statements and I was debating with them.

and i shall be hunger striking till straw man is replaced with straw person.

anacona- not at all. if you read through a thread in a normal fashion from the top you will notice certain insults, views and narratives. plus the people that do actually post are relatively few. for the last 50 posts on his thread maybe 8-9 people have posted.

Jess,

Its not unfounded. The issue was about schooling being biased against males, and you kept framing it as rowdy behavior. Fact is you avoided all the debate altogether – everything from Susan, Ensemble or myself.

“straw man” is the name of the fallacy. Its not about calling you “man”. Check that wiki link.

anacouna- as i said they will have done so after reading a succession of childish jibes in the preceding threads and posts. simple as.

yohami- if you read back i didn’t frame it as rowdy behaviour only. people spoke about a variety of different factors and for the most part i said they already existed in the majority of schools yet still showed gender performance difference.

as for rowdy behaviour or different communication styles- that was explicitly mentioned as a factor promoting anti male bias and i debated that issue.

i was happy, and continue to be happy, to debate every aspect from curriculum to ethos to rules to structure to delivery. I even asked for concrete examples- alas none were  forthcoming.

Beliita was happy to talk about the classroom management side of things, even though she didn’t know the uk system, which I have admitted is the only one I have been exposed to.

so again your straw man accusation falls flat.

sorry, i mean your straw person accusation falls flat.

yomami

well with your latest accusation, I can only conclude then you don’t understand the term straw man- go read your own link

honestly you might as well furnish your posts with a middle finger icon at the end…

@Jess and @Yohami

Susan, Jesus, Ensemble, myself (Position X): The schooling is biased against boys! boys are getting their normal male stuff suppressed!

Jess (Attacks position Y): Throwing chairs at your professors is wrong! bullying is wrong, sexual attacks are wrong! rowdy behavior has to be suppressed!

Jess, I think Yohami has you pegged here. You don’t think the school system is anti-male, so you point out the Class Y evidence that it is not anti-male while neglecting to address the Class X evidence that it is anti-male. Just because one system is not 100% anti-male doesn’t mean boys aren’t being disadvantaged.

Look, if boys (and girls) want to skip/jump/run/walk or gyrate whilst doing their homework then fine, but I think its reasonable for a teacher not to want a pupil circus inside their classrooms.

It still says so much to me about you that you just assume it will be a circus. You’re not one of those pro-Ritalin people, are you? (Semi-serious question.)

As for the question of the boys who can succeed while sitting down . . . What about all the Chinese women with bound feet who learned how to walk despite the unnatural constriction on their feet? There were thousands of them!

It is true that there have been boys like this for hundreds of years (if not longer). They had real aptitude for the things that require extra concentration and patience but not much physical effort. They were totally in their element in the academe, becoming philosophers, theologians, lawyers and monks. But are all boys like this? Or for that matter, all girls?

The easiest way to critique the one-size-fits-all box of modern schooling is by pointing out how it disadvantages the largest group, even if it doesn’t disadvantage all members of the group. If it’s really the term “anti-male” that you object to, we can use the gender-neutral term “anti-child” and still be able to prove that the system disadvantages boys.

@Jess

sexual attacks- eh? who mentioned that?

I hate to break it to you, but as soon as you came up with “Tits out!”, you framed the “sexual comment” question in terms of a verbal attack. (Or is it not an attack if it’s merely verbal?)

And just because you didn’t explicitly and specifically mention the throwing of chairs doesn’t mean Yohami’s general point isn’t valid.

Jess wrote:

Are you susan’s computer expert? I feel like I’m reading computer code with your posts?

No. And there is no such thing as computer expert. It is like saying that someone is language expert and assuming that he/she speaks all languages.

GudEnuf wrote:

Why doesn’t my link work?

GudEnuf asked, I answered. ☺

yohami- no, you are doing the accusation and false claim routine again- again one has to admire your persistence and consistency.

beliita- a kid yelling ‘tits out’ is not sexual assault- at least not in the uk.

and his earlier point was entirely invalid.

Jess,

Do you get the point about what a straw man argument is, and why I (and others) are saying you are doing it, or, you dont get the point?

belliita,

i havent down that at all but in the interests of clarity then, lets start over:

why don’t you give a quick list of male characteristics (good or bad) that are currently being suppressed in schools….

Jess, I havent done any strawman, now you are doing projection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

So do you understand what a straw man argument is or not? Bellita is pointing at the same thing. Please respond her too.

yohami,

i would refer you to my comments of 2.27

furthermore i have explained the fundamental flaws in both accusations.

4th para in previous post was supposed to say that desk work is not cruel and unusual treatment!

Jess,

So you understand what a strawman argument is, or not? and, do you understand why I am, and others are, saying you are doing strawman?

Yes, no, maybe… ?

Jess,

This is what you said at 2:27

well yohami do you get why you have being making false accusations and that you have indulged in strawmen yourself?

do you get why lots of people jumping on a bandwagon and resorting to name calling (e.g. the Tom thing) has no intellectual validity?

There you are not making clear if you understand what a strawman argument is, nor if you understand why I am calling you on it. So, you are just evading the question.

In that same comment, you are saying Im doing strawman (without making clear you actually understand what a strawman is), doing projection (turning a critique to the person doing the critique), and changing subjects. What does Tom has to do with anything, since Im just pointing that you are reframing the debate in a way it makes no sense? etc.

Pure deviation. Answer the questions, please.

Jess, about the “unjust accusation” of you reframing the issue as rowdy behavior, when the discussion was really about something else:

Jess at comment 292

If you throw a chair at a teacher you get excluded. Whether you are White, black, male or female. Now it may be that a boy, with testosterone is more likely to row a chair. But his exclusion isn’t sexist, it’s a reasonable response.

Jess at comment 344

all nice in theory, trouble is the kids ended up throwing chairs at the teachers.
Its pretty much discredited over here.

Jess at comment 371

Removal of the testes? Asking teachers to not mind chairs being thrown at them? ( tch, how you exaggerate Jess!)

Jess at comment 381

ps sorry to keep using the ‘throwing a chair thing’. Its just it happened to a friend of mine a few years back- she had the audacity to ask a 13 yo boy to refrain from shouting out in class- so you know- she had it coming…

So, pretty much EVERY commentator called you on it. They are talking about gender discrimination, you keep talking about how violent students have to be controlled. Since people are talking about normal male behavior, when you reframe it as violent behavior, you implicitly are saying normal male behavior = violent. But, of course you are not saying that openly, because you are avoiding the “normal behavior being suppressed” entirely.

Its the avoidance of the main (possible difficult) subject, and the attack of the easy subject, what makes your posture a straw man.

So, I finally decide to call you on the issue, and you claim your innocence by doing yet another strawman:

i didn’t say that anyone was promoting the throwing of chairs- you are indulging in straw men yourself there.

Thats right, but Im not accusing you of that. Im not saying you are accusing other people of promoting throwing chairs. Fact is, it is you who kept talking about throwing up chairs and arguing against rowdy behavior whenever anyone else is talking about male suppression. See? yes, you are innocent, but thats not what Im charging you for. You are innocent of many many things, but not from reframing and trying to invalidate an argument by changing the debate to something else, once and again.

Jeez.

Tom wrote:

By the way, there are a lot of “NEW” lurkers who visit this blo from time to time. They may need to hear my side of the eqation.

On Who’s Really Having Sex in College? it was almost half (42.8 %) of men which did not have intercouse. These men all have all right to request that partner of them have not promiscous past (on college for example).

Tom wrote:

Here is my past in a nut shell….. I was a three sport athlete in high school Football, basketball and I pole vaulted in track) I had no problem attracting girls. I played football for a major college, and the groupies were everywhere.

Let these men which have fucked these promiscuous women marry them.

Tom wrote:

As for me defending promiscuous women, I really do not. I defend their right to  promiscuous behavior, if that is what they choose.

Men whch have not itself promiscuous have all right to reject them (promiscuous women) on that basis.

Tom wrote:

I read the story of the guy who was deeply in love with his wife. They never discussed their past. He asked she told, 25. He filed for divorce 6 months later because he could not bear the thought of her with so many others…

If man itself is not promiscous part, that is right.

☹

Anacaona wrote:

This situation reminds me when an TV actress husband got an account at IMDB pretending to be a woman to promote her work.

IMDB = The Internet Movie Database, a website devoted to movies and television shows. ?

Anacaona wrote:

anacona- not at all. […]

anaCAONA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacaona

Your name is too difficult. ☺

Bellita,

This was rhetorical, right?

Right. My point was it wasn’t my business because it wasn’t a part of the discussion that Jess and I were having.

sorry, my opening para in my last post should had said “girls mature faster than boys”

Jess,

See, this is what Yohami has been calling you out on: a straw man fallacy. Because I’m not debating the benefits of having kids raise their hands. In my example, all of the students DID raise their hands. Yet, you argue with me as if that were exactly what I WERE saying:

Finally, I find very compelling, reports of friends who work in highly successful boys schools, that say that they run very, very regimented classrooms where hands up etc are heavily enforced. Their results (included value added and for all types of boys) speak for themselves. On that basis the ‘hands up’ rule has proven highly effective for boys (ergo not anti male)

Now, aside from the fact that it seems incredibly coincidental that you have several conveniently places friends to supply you with anecdotal evidence to support your position (the veracity of which we will not call into question), what’s interesting about this argument is that it seems to be in rebuttal of the opposing view that hand-raising is a rule that shouldn’t apply to boys. I never made such an argument. The straw man that you invented to knock down did. See how that works?

So I’ll ignore that paragraph and let the straw man defend himself.

But it looks like our straw man will have to tackle this paragraph too:

Im told that these days lessons are much more stimulating and that the inspection body OFSTED, will fail lessons if they are boring or just lectures or don’t cater for the needs of the students in the room. But their criteria still mention high standards of behaviour and conduct.

It was the straw man who argued that we should NOT hold students to high standards of behavior and conduct. I hardly see how a physical show of enthusiasm for the lesson (within the rules, remember, because the students in my example were waiting with hands raised) is an example of poor conduct.

Now, for something that isn’t aimed at the straw man:

I accept that some rules, including the one we are debating, are easier to adhere to if you are a girl (on average), but I only think its unreasonable or discriminatory if its genuinely physically unachievable as opposed to merely tiresome or inconvenient or not to the students personal taste (or exact optimum learning pattern even).

I touched upon this in an earlier post. It has to do with the fact that the brains and bodies of boys develop differently than the brains and bodies of girls.

For example, the corpus callosum develops far earlier in girls than in boys. This means girls will excel well beyond boys in verbal tasks and any tasks requiring both left and right hemispheres of the brain.

Also, girls produce higher levels of serotonin and oxytocin, which physically enables them to wait more patiently, sit still longer, and listen better. It also keeps them from being so impulsive.

Boys on the other hand, have brains that develop in ways that cause them to excel at spatial-mechanical tasks.

They also have higher levels of testosterone coursing through their bodies, which makes them more aggressive, competitive, and even reckless at times.

So in response to you, I’d say that while many things are physically achievable, they’re not natural for all. If your idea of what constitutes a model student is largely based on what is natural for girls, then your ideal discriminates against boys.

Check this out:

I accept that some rules, including the one we are debating, are easier to adhere to if you are right-handed (on average), but I only think its unreasonable or discriminatory towards lefties if its genuinely physically unachievable as opposed to merely tiresome or inconvenient or not to the left-handed students personal taste (or exact optimum learning pattern even).

Teaching a lefty to hold a pencil and throw a ball in his or her right hand
is definitely an achievable goal. It might be a bit tiresome and inconvenient, and it’s certain not to their taste (or exact optimum learning pattern) but given enough practice a lefty can learn to write with his or her non-dominant hand just like the rest of the world. But darn them progressive educationalists, they go and allow (and even encourage!) those south paws to right with their wrong hands. Do you know how hard it is for a right handed teacher to show a lefty how to write? What kind of message are we sending students when we allow them to live by different rules? It’s one step away from chaos, I tell you.

P.S.

Aslo they mentioned ‘differentiated’ questioning when they ask a certain question and deliberatelty ask a particular student knowing they will get it right as a confidence boost.

That’s not what differentiated questioning is. Differentiated questioning means recognizing the needs and abilities of all of your various students and designing questions to suit each. It’s not like you ask the English language learner a simple question to stroke his ego and give him a confidence boost. If a question is too easy for a student, he learns nothing; if it’s too difficult, it’s just frustrating, and again, he learns nothing. You want the Goldilocks question that will be just right for a particular student or group of students. That’s differentiation.

teacher friends- the reason I was drawn to the topic is because I have friends who are teachers who have bent my ear for years on this type of issue.

but if you find their opinion unpersuasive thats fine- try TES, The Guardian, DfE, Coalition Government sites, basically any uk site connected with teaching.

“It was the straw man who argued that we should NOT hold students to high standards of behavior and conduct. I hardly see how a physical show of enthusiasm for the lesson (within the rules, remember, because the students in my example were waiting with hands raised) is an example of poor conduct.”

Well if, for whatever reason, the teacher had asked the students not to say sir, sir, sir etc then thats non compliance and therefore poor conduct particularly if its been a repeated instruction.

I know you may thinks thats a bit OTT (I think in most case maybe it would be) but I can see some of my own younger family members throwing a right strop if not indulged every time their hands went up and saying ‘me’ x 100 even whilst another student was attempting to contribute.

Jess,

I imagine teachers like lots of hands reaching for the sky in discussions and even, the odd “sir, sir” within reason but if they were to do it too aggressively or in a way that inhibits others from contributing, yeah, I can see staff saying “look, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please, no shouting miss/sir, just stick your hand up and I promise to give everyone a go.” I think thats fair enough.

I think that would be fair to say if things started getting out of hand, but it’s probably not the norm. My own experience has been that teachers will hold up the quiet, demure student as the model and either state or imply that anybody not living up to that standard is out of line. I would also say that the ones chomping at the bit were largely ignored until they learned to tune out altogether.

I think it’s also fair to admonish students for calling out answers. First of all, it’s a bit rude; second of all, it prevents the teacher from informally assessing the learning of the class as a whole; and third, once the right answer’s called out, the slow kids who take more than a second to work through the question stop thinking about it; i.e. they never get a chance to think things through.

But of course, I never advocated allowing students to call out answers.

All this, and we’re only discussing the piddling little matter of raising one’s hand. But the significance of this piddling little germ is that it’s indicative of the way the entire system thinks about learning. “Girls are more mature than boys.” “Girls mature faster…” The ideal “girl” has become the gold standard against which every male student is judged. Most males fail to live up to this standard, and every male who tries fails himself by accepting a system that is unnatural to him–as unnatural to boys as a system enforcing right-handedness would be to left-handed students.

I think that would be fair to say if things started getting out of hand, but it’s probably not the norm. My own experience has been that teachers will hold up the quiet, demure student as the model and either state or imply that anybody not living up to that standard is out of line. I would also say that the ones chomping at the bit were largely ignored until they learned to tune out altogether. (then thats subtle bias- but my friends angrily deny this- just sayin)

I think it’s also fair to admonish students for calling out answers. First of all, it’s a bit rude; (yes -very!)second of all, it prevents the teacher from informally assessing the learning of the class as a whole; and third, once the right answer’s called out, the slow kids who take more than a second to work through the question stop thinking about it; i.e. they never get a chance to think things through. (totally agree)

But of course, I never advocated allowing students to call out answers.(granted)

All this, and we’re only discussing the piddling little matter of raising one’s hand. But the significance of this piddling little germ is that it’s indicative of the way the entire system thinks about learning. “Girls are more mature than boys.” “Girls mature faster…” The ideal “girl” has become the gold standard against which every male student is judged. Most males fail to live up to this standard, and every male who tries fails himself by accepting a system that is unnatural to him–as unnatural to boys as a system enforcing right-handedness would be to left-handed students. (not sure girls are held as the gold standard- i get the impression, that whilst some sensivity is shown, teachers hold students equally to the minimum set of rules that allows good learning- on that I guess we still don’t quite agree on)

That could be the case I suppose. All industries have their defensive side.
On the other hand, uk teachers are generally liberal and happy, and as a profession, to go on guilt trips.

I have heard a ton about intsitutionised school racism which some black and Asian teachers very angrily deny as much as the White teachers. The anti male thing doesn’t hit quite so low but it’s still a pet peeve I gather.

On the other hand all my teacher friends teach in London, maybe up north teachers are more accepting of the charges.

Susan Walsh wrote:

That’s right. In the US, there are more male virgins than female virgins in college.

I’m not surprised.

It’s not the hookup culture that’s flawed, it’s the guys YOU hookup with. Don’t hookup with guys you don’t respect then you WON’T have this problem!

Quote: “I always knew it was flawed and brewed a great deal of insecurity and crippling self doubt, but felt it was the only option.”

Translation: it was not my fault. Chick logic at its best. She is lying to herself. Indeed:

Quote: “***Even though I’ve had serious boyfriends in college*** I always viewed hookup culture as ***the main*** highway, one that must be taken and hopefully leads to some kind of fulfillment.”

“Main” does not mean “only”. Her body, someone else’s choice… where’s the feminist in this? A self-respecting feminist would have said “I tried it and it didn’t work, here’s why”, wouldn’t she?