Female Chauvinist Pigs?

[pnwDUDE]

That's what I mean.  Their morals or lack of them are not a consideration based on what they wear or don't wear.  The same can't be said about women.  No, men can't be forced period.  A dangerous rapist doesn't give a woman victim a choice.  He can use violence to coerce and force her into doing what she doesn't want to do.   A man can dress however he wants, wander in dark alleys at night and there isn't a woman in the world who can use force to coerce him into doing something he doesn't want to.

Eh gads. Are you saying all men are rapists?. Help me here.

Brad

[delalluvia]

Eh gads. Are you saying all men are rapists?. Help me here.

Brad

Of course not.  But usually most rapists are men.  But you're missing the point of my statement.  Women can be forced and coerced by physical means by men.  Men cannot be victimized the same way by women.

[pnwDUDE]

Of course not.  But usually most rapists are men.  But you're missing the point of my statement.  Women can be forced and coerced by physical means by men.  Men cannot be victimized the same way by women.

So are you saying women are weaker???

Brad

[pnwDUDE]

I actually think this is a good discussion. I spent many years in a police car with my partner, who was/is a female. I never thought less of her because she was a woman. When the chips were down (shit was weak), she was there. Tough and ready for the challenge. She is now the Chief of Police (and it is a big west coast city). The only time I saw her as chauvinist, was when, during an OB (Operations Branch) staff meeting, and she said there was "too much testosterone" in the room. I gotta say she was right.

Brad

[opinionista]

Many '50s housewives undoubtedly loved their role.

Some even promoted it. When I was a kid I used to get mad at my grandma because she would made me and my sister do the dishes and help her around the kitchen while my brother got to sit down to watch TV or go outside to play with my male cousins. My grandma would argue that she was teaching us to be women! Luckily, at home my parents didn't allow that and my brother had to do the dishes and help around the house.

[opinionista]

So are you saying women are weaker???

Brad

Women in general have less muscle strength and are shorter in height which make us less strong than most men, and that's a fact. Nothing to do with being sexist. Obviously, there are some women who are lucky to have a stronger physique, and in that sense they are able to compete with men, but that's not the case for the vast majority of us. However, while is true that having a weaker physique put us in certain disavantages, it does not make us cowards.

[lia]

This is a fascinating discussion, particularly to the mother of both a boy and a girl, even though by now both are - at least on paper - adults.

I wrote about one aspect of this elsewhere, i.e. why it's predominantly women who write slash (m/m fanfiction), and some of it seems to me to fit right into this discussion, so here's most of it:

...why women write m/m fanfiction, instead of sticking to what they (should) know, i.e. m/f stories and m/f sex. The trouble is that heterosexual sex is simply loaded with prior assumptions, 1000s of years of conditioning won’t go quietly. Two men meet, they like each other (NOT a prerequisite), they have sex (even if in secret). That's what men do. No no, I know that's not what all men do, but it's accepted by society, nobody thinks of them as "sluts" just because of it. A man and a girl meet, and no, they don't just have sex. Society demands that there's at least some commitment before they have sex, otherwise the girl is considered a slut. Not the boy, of course. And afterwards: does he think any less of her because of it? Does he actually want a relationship? Do we think any less of him if he doesn't? What about the risk of pregnancy? There's an inherent power imbalance in heterosexual relationships, caused essentially by the biological difference. Even today the old double standards often prevail: boys may be given condoms and told to be careful, girls are much more likely to be exhorted to abstain until after marriage. And not entirely without reason: after all it’s the girls who are mainly suffering the consequences of unwanted pregnancy, boys/men can walk away more or less unscathed (except hopefully financially) and society won’t do any more than frown heavily. Another aspect: in my job I see a lot of police reports, and the cases of violence within relationships seem to be about 100 m/f to 1 f/m (though no doubt many more case go unreported). I have yet to see a police report of f/m rape, I see a lot of the other sort, plus the occasional m/m (though the latter are no doubt underreported, too).

The ramifications are endless, and a lot of women, consciously or not, turn to writing m/m fiction to bypass all of them and just concentrate on personality issues. Two equal partners, even their sexual roles interchangeable, just imagine the possibilities. Too bad and really ironic that a lot of those writers promptly proceed to make one (or both) of the protagonists into a woman in all but shape. Conditioning, as I said before.

Edited to clarify: I wrote "girls are much more likely to be exhorted to abstain until after marriage. And not entirely without reason". No, it's not how I brought up my kids, I am well aware of the dangers of forbidden fruit (see alcohol), but I can see how parents who love their daughters and want to protect them from the life-changing consequences of early pregnancy may come to think abstinence is the only way to achieve that.

[serious crayons]

I can see how parents who love their daughters and want to protect them from the life-changing consequences of early pregnancy may come to think abstinence is the only way to achieve that.

True, although over the past few months we have been treated to a high profile example of how well that works.

Interesting post, lia! You are right that heterosexual couplings are fraught with complications. In fact, when I see a straight couple in a movie  immediately have sex on their first night together, I'm always somewhat bothered. Not in a judgmental sense, but I always wonder, do people still do that very often in real life? Do they live happily ever after? I do know a couple of two who had sex immediately upon meeting and went on to have good relationships, but I know of countless more situations where the sex was the end of it.

Men who split after a one-night stand have at least an evolutionary basis, if not a moral one, for doing so. Since men can have virtually an infinite number of children, it makes sense to spread their seed as widely as possible -- the more offspring they have, the more their genes will carry on (some of them presumably in boys who grow up to echo those promiscuous habits).

But also, if a woman has sex with a man on their first night together, it may imply this is a frequent habit of hers. So if she's having sex with a lot of men, and then gets pregnant, which man is going to be stuck providing the time and resources to raise a child that may not be his? There's no evolutionary payoff in that -- his efforts do not go to passing his own genes along. Therefore, again from a purely Darwinian perspective, it makes sense for the man to move on quickly after a brief encounter.

Evolutionary psychology can suck sometimes.

It's funny that movies have no problem breaking this evolutionary "law," (maybe just for the sake of succinct storytelling), but rarely break the "law" that says males are rarely younger than their female partners.

[lia]

Edited to clarify: I wrote "girls are much more likely to be exhorted to abstain until after marriage. And not entirely without reason". No, it's not how I brought up my kids, I am well aware of the dangers of forbidden fruit (see alcohol), but I can see how parents who love their daughters and want to protect them from the life-changing consequences of early pregnancy may come to think abstinence is the only way to achieve that.

True, although over the past few months we have been treated to a high profile example of how well that works.

Well, as I said, a) it's NOT my personal opinion. And b) I may be able to see that parents telling their daughters to wait till marriage quite possibly do so because they love them, but at the same time I am firmly of the opinion that to preach abstinence at the expense of teaching them about birth control is irresponsible.

[Marge_Innavera]

Men who split after a one-night stand have at least an evolutionary basis, if not a moral one, for doing so. Since men can have virtually an infinite number of children, it makes sense to spread their seed as widely as possible -- the more offspring they have, the more their genes will carry on (some of them presumably in boys who grow up to echo those promiscuous habits).

But also, if a woman has sex with a man on their first night together, it may imply this is a frequent habit of hers. So if she's having sex with a lot of men, and then gets pregnant, which man is going to be stuck providing the time and resources to raise a child that may not be his? There's no evolutionary payoff in that -- his efforts do not go to passing his own genes along. Therefore, again from a purely Darwinian perspective, it makes sense for the man to move on quickly after a brief encounter.

Right.

But from a purely karmic perspective, he has no right to squeal like a stuck pig if he finds out that his partner-for-a-night is getting an abortion.