Feminism, and Masculinity: How to have a more useful conversation.

[Canadian Visitor]

The whole thread is reminiscent of what I had to endure in Catholic school in the 60/70's when they were worried about the Chinese having so many kids that they would take over the world so we were told that it was our DUTY to be good Catholic wives and have large families so we could keep up with the Communists.

Needless to say, that is not what I had in mind when I started this thread!

The idea was to discuss the high level issue of people misunderstanding one another, with the male-female dynamic provided as example.

Misapprehension that occurs by way of people not carefully listening to what others are saying, or understanding how a speaker may have a different life-history, experience, or even biology such that certain words or ideas have a different meaning or a different slant that they would coming from the listener.

I was willing to go w/Oladub's discussion point on the basis that at least he was trying to have a conversation, which I have found almost impossible here as of late.

[jcole]

Needless to say, that is not what I had in mind when I started this thread!

The idea was to discuss the high level issue of people misunderstanding one another, with the male-female dynamic provided as example.

Misapprehension that occurs by way of people not carefully listening to what others are saying, or understanding how a speaker may have a different life-history, experience, or even biology such that certain words or ideas have a different meaning or a different slant that they would coming from the listener.

I was willing to go w/Oladub's discussion point on the basis that at least he was trying to have a conversation, which I have found almost impossible here as of late.

I hear ya, CV, and I know that wasn't your intent; it's just the vibe I'm getting. It's almost as if some people think the only thing women are good for are populating the earth and look decorative while doing so. Oh, and cooking.

[Richard]

I hear ya, CV, and I know that wasn't your intent; it's just the vibe I'm getting. It's almost as if some people think the only thing women are good for are populating the earth and look decorative while doing so. Oh, and cooking.

and what about the laundry? A man can only turn his socks and underwear inside out so many times.

It goes back to how an individual views others and at what level are they allowed to think,act,react etc. as an individual.

The whole thread is reminiscent of what I had to endure in Catholic school in the 60/70's when they were worried about the Chinese having so many kids that they would take over the world so we were told that it was our DUTY to be good Catholic wives and have large families so we could keep up with the Communists.

When you say it was something that you had to endure,is that what you were thinking at that time and age? Or looking back now it is a feeling of something that you had to endure?

Large families were not uncommon as a hold over of the more rural times in order to have help on the farms.Religion also played a role on the birth control aspect.

Two world wars wiped out 120 million people and depleted the population and in the 30,40s a large percentage of the population could not afford to feed another mouth let alone make babies.

Living in a high immigration state it is interesting when dealing with the differences between women in general.

Most foreign women are geared towards the whole taking care of their man aspect until they become Americanized,but yet there are American women who do the same thing,if that is what they are comfortable with why try and convince them it is not the right thing to do.

It is kinda like asking what the meaning of life is,there is no answer,because it will have a different meaning to each different person.

I kinda like the redistribution of people aspect,we could go to Brazil and redistribute their women over here and have a government mandated procreation act.

When you receive a fine if you do not partake in such activities and a tax credit if you do.

In all seriousness,it is actually a real issue in Japan.

Which is actually cause and effect of where we are today and where it leads.

[Zacha341]

I'm missing 'full leaf' spinach with the deep folds and body over the anemic baby spinach...... offerings!

Actually I'm looking forward to the day I can enjoy a head of iceberg lettuce.

[Pam]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQQ6wNfkcmc

Oh. I thought you were making a joke about body parts.

[Pam]

Don't worry guys, there are still some women who want to breed like bunnies.

https://youtu.be/sUiMAg9T2ro

https://youtu.be/gh-kCWF21Xw

[Honky Tonk]

Oh. I thought you were making a joke about body parts.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...... Get your mind out of the gutter, Pam. You should read


"How To Have A More Useful Conversation."

[oladub]

From Suffrage to Suppression: Women Now Lead in Anti-Speech Sentiment

I've often thought the term, "the opposite sex" is odd. We have most things in common from two feet each and hands to largely overlapping set of opinions. This article addresses an aspect of that latter category. Recent polls suggest that women are slightly to moderately more opposed to free speech.

"While there are many women who support robust free speech rights, and many well-known women who have made their career working as advocates and activists for free speech, as a group women are increasingly hostile to freedom of speech."

"Increasingly" means trending. It is curious. Any thought on why? There are some interesting comments after the article suggesting everything from women considering themselves more vulnerable to downtrodden groups have the most to gain from free speech.

[Canadian Visitor]

From Suffrage to Suppression: Women Now Lead in Anti-Speech Sentiment

I've often thought the term, "the opposite sex" is odd. We have most things in common from two feet each and hands to largely overlapping set of opinions.

This part is simple enough, while we are opposite sex, we are the same species. Opposite sex does not mean opposite in everything. It means opposite in sex. Meaning genitals/reproductive organs for the most part, though there are some other obvious physical differences as well.

*****

"Increasingly" means trending. It is curious. Any thought on why? There are some interesting comments after the article suggesting everything from women considering themselves more vulnerable to downtrodden groups have the most to gain from free speech.

In reference to free speech, having read the article.

I'm inclined to find it misleading and alarmist.

I say that as someone who while supporting hate speech laws, also opposes 'safe spaces' and generally loathes mob mentality in all respects.

There in lies the first of many rubs w/the argument put forth.

First the views on free speech aren't binary. They are nuanced.

The question makes them binary either by means of yes/no or by ranking this right against another right or desirable characteristic.

So I would consider the answers to be misleading in that respect.

I would also note that I don't think there has been a dramatic shift in views.

New variations have come up [[ie. safe spaces) but the notion of censorship in one fashion or another is hardly new.

Neither is the male-female variation of this set of views.

Let's start by noting the spread on the first question was only 11 points or so, nothing huge, it implies one sex is slightly differently placed on a spectrum that the other, not in a wildly opposite position.

That said, one of the key physical differences between men and women is the level of testosterone.

This hormone contributes to greater aggressiveness/assertiveness in males.

Its one thing that makes us more competitive, more confident and more willing to take a risk.

Those can all be good things, up to a point.

But they are also a key reason men are more likely to go bankrupt, more likely to commit a crime and more likely to be in a car accident.

That relatively small, but fundamental difference helps foster a difference in perspective.

So does the difference in physical strength and size [[on average).

Women [[as a group) are more likely to depend on others. They are more likely to communicate with others [[women talk more). Its the butt of many jokes, but its also a skill and informs perspective.

Women are as a group more empathetic. They are more likely to care about the feelings of others.

The result is to weigh choices around speech differently.

It should surprise no one that a woman is less likely to be comfortable with being offensive, and equally less likely to accept someone who seems to be trying to be offensive.

There is a risk involved in both engaging in with with confrontational speech.

Some men are every bit as adverse to this; and someone women have no difficulty with it at all.

But when generalizing, men are more likely to thrive on getting a reaction and more likely to believe any negative consequence is worth it, if it advances their cause or their career.

Women tend to be less likely to make that same call. More likely to consider the risks to themselves, their families, and others.

There should be no surprise then that women value un-fettered free speech w/greater suspicion.

That the difference on most of these questions is relatively small is really the more notable result.

****

Is there some broader trend on this issue? I'm not sure that's the case.

Yes, we can find extreme examples of universities, faculties, professors, students etc. protesting someone speaking or dis inviting them etc etc.

But in truth, this isn't new. What's new is some of the language around it, and the fact that it gets discussed and disseminated via social media much more quickly that it would have been in the past.

If an advocate for abolition had been dis invited from speaking at a university in the south, who would have known?

Those immediately involved, perhaps.

But not many more, the news would likely never have reached much beyond that university or perhaps its community.

Today the news will appear in a free speech social media group within hours at most.

For the most part, I don't see any real threat to free speech on the horizon.

Its now easier than ever to self-publish, online or in print, and to disseminate one's view point.

No one is being jailed for holding a view, or discussing same unless the clearly advocate violence, and even then, its incredibly rare.

The medium of protest has simply changed. The sit-in is out, the online boycott is in. etc. etc.

[oladub]

Here's a measurable gender split between male and female college students regarding free speech vs. politically correct speech:

"We found that a substantial majority of college men, 71 percent, said that promoting free speech was the more important priority over diversity inclusion issues," she said. "We found that over half, 58 percent, of college women said the opposite. So they said that promoting a diverse, inclusive society was the greater concern for them." -The Hill 5/31/19

[Richard]

Lol they say that but yet they want to ban everybody from campus that does not cater to thier views.

True Free speech would also allow a racist KKK nazi loving person get up and say thier peace.

[Zacha341]

Useful conversation? How inspired......

The main problem is the extremists within the feminists [[namely the third wave crowd) too often do NOT want reconciliation [[no less a conversation). Nope!

They want a matriarchy to replace the patriarchy!

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!".

The best remediation possible. How very learned. Hah!

The rub is that an increasing percentage of women are questioning feminism as it's working out.

[Canadian Visitor]

Here's a measurable gender split between male and female college students regarding free speech vs. politically correct speech:

"We found that a substantial majority of college men, 71 percent, said that promoting free speech was the more important priority over diversity inclusion issues," she said. "We found that over half, 58 percent, of college women said the opposite. So they said that promoting a diverse, inclusive society was the greater concern for them." -The Hill 5/31/19

Again, there is an artificial distinction; and one without much specificity.

You're being asked to choose between two competing, amorphous ideas.

Surely, few [[or ideally none) of the men backing 'free speech' as a priority imagine that it would be ok if people of particularly skin colour or faith were banned from their campus.

Most particularly if that colour were white.

Put in that context, I'm sure they would prioritize inclusiveness.

At the same time, I imagine the vast majority of women were not advocating jailing people for their political views.

Rather you're identifying that one group [[women) is more aware that some groups on campus may have genuine fears for their safety; or feel that their very real concerns over any number of things may be overlooked.

The identify that 'free speech' is already in place; while those other concerns require addressing.

The young men being asked, have not likely had their speech rights curtailed; but likewise probably feel plenty included and like there's nothing THEY need by way of further improvements to 'inclusion'.

Shock, rich people don't think the biggest priority is covering the uninsured for healthcare; because there's is covered.

Same principle at play.

The other thing that's true, again, is that women, as a group, on average, are more attuned to the emotional state/grievances of others.

Men, collectively, are a bit more obtuse about such things.

Its not a huge deal, nor a concerted effort to thwart free speech.

[oladub]

Canadian Visitor, I was thinking about the 1st. Amendment meaning of speech which is absolute. "No" means none. Here we have 29% of male and 58% of female students, that's double the percentage of male students, prioritizing something over free speech. It might be one of the reasons women are more likely to vote Democratic if there is a biological basis for the difference. Free speech often leads to conflict although long run free speech provides understanding which heads off larger conflict and fosters democracy. There are plenty of religious and political systems that suppress speech in the name of the greater good. The Constitution's first Amendment must be an exception.

[oladub]

I haven't seen any statistics but I'm unaware of any churches with women ministers that have increased membership. Surely there are some but I haven't come across any. It could be that since most denominations are losing membership and liberal denominations are losing the most, it is impossible to determine whether liberal churches with women ministers are losing membership at a faster rate than liberal churches with male ministers. Or is could be that men do not respond well to being led by women ministers. Women political leaders seem to do better with men then women ministers. That's just a personal observation rather than a statistical fact. Does anyone have thoughts about the viability and effectiveness of women ministers relative to their male church members?

Related anecdote: A number of years ago upon receiving communion wine, I happened to glance at our female minister's ankles below her robe as I was swallowing. That caused the wine to go down the wrong pipe and I had a horrible coughing fit at the front of the church. My punishment no doubt.