"Girls 'believe they are better than boys from age four'"

iptba

I thought this was interesting from various angles.

I've heard it said that the education system can be more designed for girls than boys. Different things can stimulate males and females I think. A female teacher might do things that they might like or stimulate them but might be less of interest to males.

Then maybe boys (and girls) pick up other signals from society e.g. advertisements.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11151143

1 September 2010

Girls 'believe they are better than boys from age four'

Girls believe they are cleverer, better behaved and try harder than boys from the age of four, research suggests.

By the age of eight, boys had also adopted these perceptions, the study from the University of Kent found.

etc

Wolfe Tone

According to that girls are deluded from age four...

metrovelvet

Why wouldn't they think that? They develop faster than boys.

Maybe its a stupid idea in the first place to have them start school at the same age.

myflipflops

Anyone doing research into boys thinking girls are 'icky up to the age of about 12 and then changing their opinions??

Not really groundbreaking research here, you just have to talk to any 4 year old girl.

honru

Doesn't this stem from the whole "little girls are made from sugar and spice, little boys are made from snails and dog sh**" or whatever the rhyme goes like.

Nolanger

iptba wrote: »

I've heard it said that the education system can be more designed for girls than boys.

Of course it is when most school teachers are female. No one cares either. The next generation of Irish men are fu*ked.

Princess Peach

I don't agree.

I have KNOWN since birth that girls are better than boys

Mrmoe

I would say that teaching methods definitely play a part in this. I would not say for definite that girls develop faster than boys but more so that they develop differently. Male teachers would be better able to teach young boys as a result.
With only 17.5% of those involved in primary school education there is definitely a disadvantage for boys. The decrease in male teachers in primary education does not bode well for the future.

iptba

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why wouldn't they think that? They develop faster than boys.

Maybe its a stupid idea in the first place to have them start school at the same age.

I've heard the argument which made some sense that forcing young boys to sit still for that long may not suit them and so that argument (not to send them to school too early) seemed to make some sense.

I also have heard consistently that girls mature emotionally/socially (not sure what was the exact term) earlier (I read once or twice that men catch up by age 29). However, I'm not sure if girls are much brighter (IQ or whatever) than boys of the same age. And in primary school, another guy and I were clearly the best at maths.

[Aside: By the way, in the leaving cert, boys consistently do better at the top for maths (although the media don't seem to mention it that much) e.g. 395 boys got A1s in Maths vs 219 girls. In Irish, another core subject which most people do, 502 girls get A1s vs 173 boys. Girls generally do much better in languages - see: http://examinations.ie/statistics/statistics_2010/gender_ard_2010_excluding_less_than_10.pdf ]

Jesus Wept

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why wouldn't they think that? They develop faster than boys.

In what sense?

metrovelvet

The-Rigger wrote: »

In what sense?

School begins at the end of toddlerhood, around 4 or 5 years old. Developmentally girls have been talking and being trained alot longer than boys have because the boys tend to be later than girls developmentally. There are exceptions of course.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303120346.htm

I can well imagine at 5 when my son starts school he will have a huge problem sitting down for five hours. I think a lot of boys are a like this. Its not ADD or AHDH, its just kinetic energy.

ipta- I wouldn't want to say that one gender has a higher IQ at that age than another. Aside from knowing nothing about it, I would suggest that IQ test how good you are at IQ tests, and not necessarily a true barometer of intelligence. Not only that, but teaching methods could influence how they learn also. For example, I had very little difficulty with maths or economics until graph were introduced to explain things. I had understood what was being taught without any difficulty until the teacher used a graph and suddenly the same concept I understood ten minutes ago was completely gobbldy gook.

As for maths- I was also very good at maths, from primary through to secondary and then started deliberately being not so good at maths because I didn't want to get stuck in the geek class with a bunch of greasy boring boys, ie in the social siberia of honours maths. Now I'm pathetic at maths.

Balmed Out

I dont consider girls to be as clever as boys in most regards, they do however try an awful lot harder. A boy may stumble his way with little to no effort to say 400 points in his leaving. A girl with the same amount of points will have spent evening after evening & weekend after weekend studying. She will be attentive in class with clearly indexed and cross referencing notes while the boy will spend the class staring at her legs or dozing. Going into college she will have forgotten all the theorems and quotations that she memorised and still will be under the impression that Argentina is an area in the south of Italy and Tanzania is a brand of self tan lotion.
This general knowledge particularly of geography and history is quite disturbing. I suppose it comes from the fact that girls conversations tend to revolve around hair straighteners and lip gloss.
However girls are far more organised then boys to be fair. This in conjunction that so many study housewife education sorry home economics explains their superior point tallys.

Balmed Out

Balmed Out wrote: »

I dont consider girls to be as clever as boys in most regards, they do however try an awful lot harder. A boy may stumble his way with little to no effort to say 400 points in his leaving. A girl with the same amount of points will have spent evening after evening & weekend after weekend studying. She will be attentive in class with clearly indexed and cross referencing notes while the boy will spend the class staring at her legs or dozing. Going into college she will have forgotten all the theorems and quotations that she memorised and still will be under the impression that Argentina is an area in the south of Italy and Tanzania is a brand of self tan lotion.

That's a horrible blanket generalisation to make

I suppose it comes from the fact that girls conversations tend to revolve around hair straighteners and lip gloss.

Wtf

spurious

Nolanger wrote: »

Of course it is when most school teachers are female. No one cares either. The next generation of Irish men are fu*ked.

It's not true that no-one cares. Teachers (mostly women) have been trying to get more men to become teachers, particularly in the primary sector, for years.
The DES are well aware of the situation job-wise and achievement-wise.
Not everyone is as apathetic as some here.

Much easier moan and blame everything on women than actually do something to change it.

Balmed Out

Think teaching is a far less attractive job for men then women. With so many problems with child protection and the vast majority of offenders being men male teachers have to be very careful not to get into a situation which could be misconstrued.

Gary4279

In fairness though men rule the world.

Galvasean

Balmed Out wrote: »

Think teaching is a far less attractive job for men then women. With so many problems with child protection and the vast majority of offenders being men male teachers have to be very careful not to get into a situation which could be misconstrued.

Interesting that you mention that. I remember when I was in school a male friend of mine wanted to do primary school teaching as his first choice on the CAO. Upon hearing this the usual response from people was, "What are you, a peedo or something?" Yet, a female friend was in the same boat and recieved no such vitriol.
Many years later she's a teacher and he works in marketing.

IMO there is definately a negative stigma attached to any man who wants to teach children.

Macha

Galvasean wrote: »

IMO there is definately a negative stigma attached to any man who wants to teach children.

Historically, it stems from anything to do with children being considered women's work and therefore beneath men.

Nolanger

There was a newspaper article a few days ago by a female teacher who said she used to tell the boy pupils in the schoolyard to stop kicking their football so hard!

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

Historically, it stems from anything to do with children being considered women's work and therefore beneath men.

And now that's turned into "omg don't let a man near my children"

iptba

Gary4279 wrote: »

In fairness though men rule the world.

So feminists like to say. Whether the handful of men (out of the 3 billion in the world) in such positions* rule it to suit other men is another question, which might derail this topic.

* and some women "run" some countries e.g Germany, Australia, etc

iptba

metrovelvet wrote: »

ipta- I wouldn't want to say that one gender has a higher IQ at that age than another.

Well, the girls studied think something along those lines:

Girls believe they are cleverer

Macha

bluewolf wrote: »

And now that's turned into "omg don't let a man near my children"

Well that aspect of it would come from the men and their "uncontrollable needs" meme.

Not that I can say I've ever seen any research showing that it the idea that all men are pedophiles is a common one. Can anyone link to some studies?

Peyton Manning

Oh yeah? Well boys know they are better than girls from age three.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

Well that aspect of it would come from the men and their "uncontrollable needs" meme.

Not that I can say I've ever seen any research showing that it the idea that all men are pedophiles is a common one. Can anyone link to some studies?

I think it's mostly anecdotes - though there is that airline who wouldn't let a man sit beside an unrelated child on their planes, he'd have to be re-seated.

iptba

taconnol wrote: »

Well that aspect of it would come from the men and their "uncontrollable needs" meme.

Not that I can say I've ever seen any research showing that it the idea that all men are pedophiles is a common one. Can anyone link to some studies?

I think it is more like all/most men are potential pedophiles - a bit like "all men are potential rapists" (which I've heard some feminists say). The worry, or one worry, would be that a false allegation would stick. It would seem hard to relax in such a job.

Galvasean

bluewolf wrote: »

I think it's mostly anecdotes - though there is that airline who wouldn't let a man sit beside an unrelated child on their planes, he'd have to be re-seated.

Where is this wonderful airline? Gonna book me some holidays!

Macha

bluewolf wrote: »

I think it's mostly anecdotes - though there is that airline who wouldn't let a man sit beside an unrelated child on their planes, he'd have to be re-seated.

That is unbelievable. Which one is it? I'm afraid anecdotes don't really hold much water with me.

iptba wrote: »

I think it is more like all/most men are potential pedophiles - a bit like "all men are potential rapists" (which I've heard some feminists say). The worry, or one worry, would be that a false allegation would stick. It would seem hard to relax in such a job.

Yes, well, it all stems from the same concept that men have urges that cannot be controlled, thus excusing all sexual predatory/unacceptable behaviour by men. Unfortunately these things are often a double-edged sword and in this case has had the undesired effect of also portraying all men as predators, as you say.

My point is I'm not sure who we are trying to blame for the lack of male primary teachers.

hollypink

taconnol wrote: »

That is unbelievable. Which one is it?

It's true incredibly: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10401416

BA has compensated a passenger who was "humiliated' over its policy of not allowing single male flyers to sit next to solo child travellers on its planes.

British Airways cabin crew told Mirko Fischer to move after he swapped seats with his wife and ended up sitting next to a boy he did not know.

Mr Fischer, 33, accused staff of harassing him and said the policy contravened the Sex Discrimination Act.

BA apologised to the businessman but denied the policy was discriminatory.

A spokesman told the BBC the policy was now under review.

Social Disorder

Some amazing quotes in that article. For one..

BA initially defended itself and said when staff originally made the request they genuinely believed Mr Fischer was travelling alone and had no intention of embarrassing, humiliating or angering him by asking him to return to his allocated seat.

So... only single men can be child molesters? That ignorance alone shows how ridiculous the policy is.

Apart from that, just shows how backward as a society we are. He was only awarded costs, standard in any case you win, and a mere 750 euro. Wonder what the average compensation is when the shoe is on the other foot.

johanz

If women are better, why are all the best stuff done by men?

iptba

taconnol wrote: »

iptba wrote:

I think it is more like all/most men are potential pedophiles - a bit like "all men are potential rapists" (which I've heard some feminists say). The worry, or one worry, would be that a false allegation would stick. It would seem hard to relax in such a job.

Yes, well, it all stems from the same concept that men have urges that cannot be controlled, thus excusing all sexual predatory/unacceptable behaviour by men. Unfortunately these things are often a double-edged sword and in this case has had the undesired effect of also portraying all men as predators, as you say.

When I have heard feminists say "all men are potential rapists" one can't say that it was an "undesired effect" that it "portray[ed] all men as [potential] predators". That's passing the buck. Feminists I've heard saying it were not saying it in any sort of context to excuse men.

The word misandry comes to mind.

IrishEyes19

Balmed Out wrote: »

I dont consider girls to be as clever as boys in most regards, they do however try an awful lot harder. A boy may stumble his way with little to no effort to say 400 points in his leaving. A girl with the same amount of points will have spent evening after evening & weekend after weekend studying. She will be attentive in class with clearly indexed and cross referencing notes while the boy will spend the class staring at her legs or dozing. Going into college she will have forgotten all the theorems and quotations that she memorised and still will be under the impression that Argentina is an area in the south of Italy and Tanzania is a brand of self tan lotion.
This general knowledge particularly of geography and history is quite disturbing. I suppose it comes from the fact that girls conversations tend to revolve around hair straighteners and lip gloss.
However girls are far more organised then boys to be fair. This in conjunction that so many study housewife education sorry home economics explains their superior point tallys.

Sorry to sound so blunt here, but what century are you currently living in? I'm fairly sure and if you have been to college which from this post I do question, you will find most girls or young women do not portray this insulting and degrading description you have written here.

Furthermore, housewife education? Either you're highly bored in your life or have been watching too much 18th Century dramas , but your stereotypical idea of what women are actually good at and what their strong points are, are frankly wrong and just insulting.

Hair Straighteners and Lip gloss are basic objects in which some women not all, enjoy to use and should not feel any less intelligent for using them.

To finish, your post here appears to be nothing more than a quick way to either (a) Engage in a silly way to prove boys are better than girls, or (b) make yourself better for not reaching your potential which truthfully I can't say whether you did or not.

But a word of advice, I don't think its fair or that you are in any position to make disparaging remarks about women which you clearly don't understand.

Disparaging - Used that word a lot in university by the way....which I may add I'm doing quite well in whilst straightening my hair and applying my lip gloss during ALL my lectures!! :rolleyes:

Macha

iptba wrote: »

When I have heard feminists say "all men are potential rapists" one can't say that it was an "undesired effect" that it "portray[ed] all men as [potential] predators". That's passing the buck. Feminists I've heard saying it were not saying it in any sort of context to excuse men.

The word misandry comes to mind.

We've been here a million times before but it would be nice if people made an effort to distinguish between different types of feminists. That infamous quote was made by one feminist, Marilyn French, is consistently taken out of context, and I doubt many women or feminists agree with it. I'm actually amazed that you can claim that you have physically heard feminists say it because I am quite an active feminist and I've never heard a single feminist I know say it, except to dismiss it.

Trying to pin the theory that men have a tendency towards sexual predatory behaviour on the feminist movement is a nonsense because its origins lie in stereotypes that were set up by the patriarchy, ie that women are sexually passive, having no significant sex drive, while men are rapacious, unstoppable sexual beings. (I might add it is a set of stereotypes that I see many people on boards express on a regular basis so it hasn't gone away). The negative impacts for men of similar stereotypes can be seen in other areas, such as family law, social acceptance of emotional, flamboyant men, etc etc.

So I'm sorry but it is you that is trying to pass the buck by trying to portray this as some sort of feminist conspiracy against men when in fact the stereotype of men's sexuality is one that was created by men, not women.

I'm also still waiting for evidence that this is a significant factor in men's decisions not to become teachers.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

We've been here a million times before but it would be nice if people made an effort to distinguish between different types of feminists. That infamous quote was made by one feminist, Marilyn French, is consistently taken out of context, and I doubt many women or feminists agree with it. I'm actually amazed that you can claim that you have physically heard feminists say it because I am quite an active feminist and I've never heard a single feminist I know say it, except to dismiss it.

Trying to pin the theory that men have a tendency towards sexual predatory behaviour on the feminist movement is a nonsense because its origins lie in stereotypes that were set up by the patriarchy, ie that women are sexually passive, having no significant sex drive, while men are rapacious, unstoppable sexual beings. (I might add it is a set of stereotypes that I see many people on boards express on a regular basis so it hasn't gone away). The negative impacts for men of similar stereotypes can be seen in other areas, such as family law, social acceptance of emotional, flamboyant men, etc etc.

So I'm sorry but it is you that is trying to pass the buck by trying to portray this as some sort of feminist conspiracy against men when in fact the stereotype of men's sexuality is one that was created by men, not women.

.

Hold on a stop the music. Why pretend its one feminist out of a gazillion who claim this? There was a culture at Barnard - the sister school to Columbia U in which girls were told that every man is a potential rapist and getting eyed up and down is a form of rape. This type of philosophy spread to many woment ivory towers such as Bryn Moore and Smith College. And Antioch even brough it sensitivity training for the male students and introduced a policy on dating which required that the man ask explicit permision for each movement he made. [May I kiss you/ I am going to touch your left nipple right now is that ok?"/Im going to lift up your skirt [if she was indeed wearing a skirt as some lecturers put forth skirt wearing as internalised oppression/]

Maybe men did set up the stereotypes. But certainly arch feminism helped fortify them.

As for the airline policy and BA - I dont think its that all men are potential pediphiles, but that the majority of pedophiles are men. Its a stupid policy anyway even outside of that. My guess is that the whole unaccompanied minor thing will be knocked on the head anyway.

IrishEyes19

taconnol wrote: »

We've been here a million times before but it would be nice if people made an effort to distinguish between different types of feminists. That infamous quote was made by one feminist, Marilyn French, is consistently taken out of context, and I doubt many women or feminists agree with it. I'm actually amazed that you can claim that you have physically heard feminists say it because I am quite an active feminist and I've never heard a single feminist I know say it, except to dismiss it.

Trying to pin the theory that men have a tendency towards sexual predatory behaviour on the feminist movement is a nonsense because its origins lie in stereotypes that were set up by the patriarchy, ie that women are sexually passive, having no significant sex drive, while men are rapacious, unstoppable sexual beings. (I might add it is a set of stereotypes that I see many people on boards express on a regular basis so it hasn't gone away). The negative impacts for men of similar stereotypes can be seen in other areas, such as family law, social acceptance of emotional, flamboyant men, etc etc.

So I'm sorry but it is you that is trying to pass the buck by trying to portray this as some sort of feminist conspiracy against men when in fact the stereotype of men's sexuality is one that was created by men, not women.

I'm also still waiting for evidence that this is a significant factor in men's decisions not to become teachers.

I totally agree and Id like to point out as well, although I'm not an active feminist but have a basic understanding of the concept, feminism at least I believe is about women creating a space where the are equal as men and breaking the concepts where they belittled and undermined before, feminist's and most of them don't waste their time saying women are better, it completely undermines what they were saying in the first place. Just a thought.

FruitLover

Princess Peach wrote: »

I have KNOWN since birth that girls are better than boys

Jaysus, are you in for a shock when you grow up...

IrishEyes19

metrovelvet wrote: »

Hold on a stop the music. Why pretend its one feminist out of a gazillion who claim this? There was a culture at Barnard - the sister school to Columbia U in which girls were told that every man is a potential rapist and getting eyed up and down is a form of rape. This type of philosophy spread to many woment ivory towers such as Bryn Moore and Smith College. And Antioch even brough it sensitivity training for the male students and introduced a policy on dating which required that the man ask explicit permision for each movement he made. [May I kiss you/ I am going to touch your left nipple right now is that ok?"/Im going to lift up your skirt [if she was indeed wearing a skirt as some lecturers put forth skirt wearing as internalised oppression/]

Maybe men did set up the stereotypes. But certainly arch feminism helped fortify them.

As for the airline policy and BA - I dont think its that all men are potential pediphiles, but that the majority of pedophiles are men. Its a stupid policy anyway even outside of that. My guess is that the whole unaccompanied minor thing will be knocked on the head anyway.

Agreed, but as you said that type of philosophy is believed by a minority of women such as the groups you mentioned. I honestly don't think the majority of women see most men as potential rapists. If so, there would be a lot more single women in the world. lol.

In fact, most women don't go around comparing that women are better than men or vica versa either. This thread has kind of become the type of school yard argument we faced in primary school when boys were icky and girls were icky, lol.

metrovelvet

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

Agreed, but as you said that type of philosophy is believed by a minority of women such as the groups you mentioned. I honestly don't think the majority of women see most men as potential rapists. If so, there would be a lot more single women in the world. lol.

In fact, most women don't go around comparing that women are better than men or vica versa either. This thread has kind of become the type of school yard argument we faced in primary school when boys were icky and girls were icky, lol.

No. But there is a puritanical streak in feminism which encourages women not to wear make up, which condemns the male gaze and objectification of women. I think they probably agree with the principals behind hijabs if they are honest with themselves.

Minority or not, they are not rare, and they are still prevalant enough that they have supersceded the voice of more moderate feminsts.

D-Generate

BA, Qatar and Air NZ all have policies prohibiting males sitting next to unaccompanied children although BA have now said they have stopped this policy. The best was when they made the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, move away from the children he was sitting next to...... who just so happened to be his own children!

Sadly I do believe that the persecution of males will have reprecussions on the next generation of youngsters. Its getting to a stage where the only males a child can have in their life is their father and even then some schools won't let Dad's wait at the gates to collect their kids. A whole generation is coming along that has only interacted primarily with females, Generation XX I do believe.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

That is unbelievable. Which one is it? I'm afraid anecdotes don't really hold much water with me.


Yes, well, it all stems from the same concept that men have urges that cannot be controlled, thus excusing all sexual predatory/unacceptable behaviour by men. Unfortunately these things are often a double-edged sword and in this case has had the undesired effect of also portraying all men as predators, as you say.

My point is I'm not sure who we are trying to blame for the lack of male primary teachers.

Think someone linked it already
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_sex_discrimination_policy_controversy

I don't know if the attitude is to blame for lack of teachers by the way, but it is something prevalent and I do think it may have SOME kind of influence.

Herbal Deity

iptba wrote: »

When I have heard feminists say "all men are potential rapists" one can't say that it was an "undesired effect" that it "portray[ed] all men as [potential] predators". That's passing the buck. Feminists I've heard saying it were not saying it in any sort of context to excuse men.

The word misandry comes to mind.

taconnol wrote: »

So I'm sorry but it is you that is trying to pass the buck by trying to portray this as some sort of feminist conspiracy against men when in fact the stereotype of men's sexuality is one that was created by men, not women.

"Feminism!"

"Patriarchy!"

"Feminism!"

"Patriarchy!"

"Feminism!"

"Patriarchy!"

"Feminism!"

"Patriarchy!"

"Feminism!"

Sometimes I wonder just how constructive these discussions are...

IrishEyes19

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. But there is a puritanical streak in feminism which encourages women not to wear make up, which condemns the male gaze and objectification of women. I think they probably agree with the principals behind hijabs if they are honest with themselves.

Minority or not, they are not rare, and they are still prevalant enough that they have supersceded the voice of more moderate feminsts.

Ok fair enough metrovelvet, but speaking from a daily basis, most women you meet on a day to day basis dont spout that crap, and wear make-up and so on if you get my drift. These are select groups.

IrishEyes19

Herbal Deity wrote: »

"Feminism!"

"Patriarchy!"

"Feminism!"

"Patriarchy!"

"Feminism!"

"Patriarchy!"

"Feminism!"

"Patriarchy!"

"Feminism!"

Sometimes I wonder just how constructive these discussions are...

I dont think they are constructive at all, but destructive. You guys and girls getting off on the idea of which sex is better is riddiculous. Honestly in the modern world, I think most people are just glad to have each other's company if you're lucky to have that in friendship or relationship. Leave the playground games to the kids.

Macha

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder just how constructive these discussions are...

I think that's quite an unfair depiction of the debate. Negative stereotypes exist, we're just discussing where those stereotypes come from.

IrishEyes19

taconnol wrote: »

I think that's quite an unfair depiction of the debate. Negative stereotypes exist, we're just discussing where those stereotypes come from.

taconnol, it's all directed at women though, that it's women targeting men unfairly and so on. Fair enough if the debate was a two way street here. I'm not a feminist by nature at all, but level up the sides here a bit.

Herbal Deity

taconnol wrote: »

I think that's quite an unfair depiction of the debate. Negative stereotypes exist, we're just discussing where those stereotypes come from.

To me it just seems that all too often one side is trying to pin negative stereotypes on "the patriarchy" and the other on "feminism".

I don't think this has much to do with either. I think it's just an effect of 21st century shock media cultivating fear. The other obvious example of this is "All Muslims are terrorists".

It's too new a phenomenon to be pinned on patriarchy, and it's unfair to pin it on feminism because a few radical misandrists support the notion that all men are potential rapists/paedophiles.

Macha

Herbal Deity wrote: »

To me it just seems that all too often one side is trying to pin negative stereotypes on "the patriarchy" and the other on "feminism".

I don't think this has much to do with either. I think it's just an effect of 21st century shock media cultivating fear. The other obvious example of this is "All Muslims are terrorists".

It's too new a phenomenon to be pinned on patriarchy, and it's unfair to pin it on feminism because a few radical misandrists support the notion that all men are potential rapists/paedophiles.

Of course the chicken-licken element of our media has played its role but it is no coincidence that it's men who are being labelled as having a tendency towards sexual predatory behaviour. This stereotype has existed for a long time and was a construction by the patriarchy, not women.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

Of course the chicken-licken element of our media has played its role but it is no coincidence that it's men who are being labelled as having a tendency towards sexual predatory behaviour. This stereotype has existed for a long time and was a construction by the patriarchy, not women.

That's because sexually predatory behavior was laudatory, tied up in power, prestige and empire, to the players of today. T is right. Patriarchy created this myth and needs to sustain it. Only they are getting hoisted by their own petard.

iptba

taconnol wrote: »

Trying to pin the theory that men have a tendency towards sexual predatory behaviour on the feminist movement is a nonsense because its origins lie in stereotypes that were set up by the patriarchy, ie that women are sexually passive, having no significant sex drive, while men are rapacious, unstoppable sexual beings.

The point wasn't where any views originally came from, it is how they continue. Plenty of negative comments have been made by feminists about men and sex. (BTW, saying I heard x say y, to me includes x saying y in written information - saying I read x write y/similar doesn't sound right.)

taconnol wrote: »

The negative impacts for men of similar stereotypes can be seen in other areas, such as family law, social acceptance of emotional, flamboyant men, etc etc.

Yes, stereotypes can cause problems. The question is whether it is just men who are responsible for any stereotypes about men - many of us don't accept that all feminists have never said anything negative about men, never said stereotypes, etc.

iptba

Herbal Deity wrote: »

"Feminism!"

"Patriarchy!"

"Feminism!"

"Patriarchy!"

"Feminism!"

"Patriarchy!"

"Feminism!"

"Patriarchy!"

"Feminism!"

Sometimes I wonder just how constructive these discussions are...

Well at least there is scope for discussion.

In academic gender discussions and probably in other types of situations, there is a lot of talk of patriarchy and the like and less questioning of some things feminists. There's less scope for censorship of opinions on the internet.

After I wrote that, I see Taconnol has made a good point that we are discussing where negative stereotypes come from (although it hasn't been too indepth I accept thus far).