Male Strategies to defuse anger

Wibbs

liah wrote: »

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/06/men_perception_.html



What do the tLL men think about that quote? Agree/disagree?

Just saw that Honestly? I don't feel responsible for my gender or its past or present actions. I feel responsible for myself. IMHO pandering to that kinda thinking is not on at all. If by my very gender and with no other cues to inform, someone is scared or feels oppressed by my presence I honestly feel they shouldn't be let out without adult supervision. TBH I would think them daft and dismiss them. Just like the eejits that have been burned in love by one women who then go on to view all women in the same light. It's juvenile thinking.

If it was a woman who had been raped or had lived with an abuser then I could understand it as they have good reason to be, but for those who haven't? No.

seenitall

"7. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
Can't argue here, although i should point out, at the very top of the food chain, our president is female"

Pffft. You're joking, right? The very top of the food chain??? Or aren't you aware that the Irish President is merely a figurehead? Where is her executive power? She is just someone to network at diplomatic parties and pose prettily for photographs.

This really pisses me off. I am afraid that the day when the Irish will have a female An Taoiseach is still very very far away. Along with the rest of the prevalent sexist attitudes that are regretably still so entrenched that most people, either male or female, are still completely unaware of them. Those from Walls' post are some good ones, but your counter-arguments of:

"as the marriage rates are falling, not an issue" (sorry, "hardly a 'big' issue" - what's your point, though? Cos you have just admitted that it exists anyway, therefore the bigness or smallness is not really at argument),

"the PC brigade is working on this" (are you arguing with Walls or yourself?),

"women mention period more than men" (yes, it's called playing into the prevailing sexist prejudice in order to be accepted),

"the praticality of this has been SO discussed, and you can always press charges" (does this mean "well, too bad you are being discriminated against at the hiring stage, but at least we have discussed it so many times, and you can also sue, you know, no matter that the current policy of hiring makes it well nigh impossible to prove discrimination", or does it mean something else? anything else?),

"It's parents' and teachers' fault, not men's" (who said it was only men's fault? the piece is on the subtle and not-so-subtle privileges that men have over women. Women and men are both at fault for sustaining and enabling those privileges.)

...and the rest of them also read somewhat hollow to me. But hey, maybe that's just me.

RedXIV, judging by your post, IMO you are most definitely the proud owner of the privilege of being unaware of your male privilege.

Truley

seenitall wrote: »

"women mention period more than men" (yes, it's called playing into the prevailing sexist prejudice in order to be accepted),

So women have the privledge of being able to use periods as a get out card for all sorts of selfish/aggressive/irrational behaviour.

Can an action be considered sexist if the gender itself is actively enforcing it?

seenitall

Truley wrote: »

So women have the privledge of being able to use periods as a get out card for all sorts of selfish/aggressive/irrational behaviour.

Can an action be considered sexist if the gender itself is actively enforcing it?

Good question about prejudice, and to relate the sexist prejudice to the racial one, see African-Americans calling each other "n*gg*rs".

As far as I am concerned, it is all social prejudice being reinforced by people on both sides of it. Only my opinion, though. I'd be interested to read some different ones.

RedXIV

seenitall wrote: »

Pffft. You're joking, right? The very top of the food chain??? Or aren't you aware that the Irish President is merely a figurehead? Where is her executive power? She is just someone to network at diplomatic parties and pose prettily for photographs.

This really pisses me off. I am afraid that the day when the Irish will have a female An Taoiseach is still very very far away.

Figurehead maybe, but still a person in power, still someone who has to garner support from the entire state to be elected. and of all the people in the country to go network with different countries, we chose a woman, thats got to mean something?

seenitall wrote: »

Along with the rest of the prevalent sexist attitudes that are regretably still so entrenched that most people, either male or female, are still completely unaware of them. Those from Walls' post are some good ones, but your counter-arguments of:

"as the marriage rates are falling, not an issue" (sorry, "hardly a 'big' issue" - what's your point, though? Cos you have just admitted that it exists anyway, therefore the bigness or smallness is not really at argument),

"the PC brigade is working on this" (are you arguing with Walls or yourself?),

"women mention period more than men" (yes, it's called playing into the prevailing sexist prejudice in order to be accepted),

"the praticality of this has been SO discussed, and you can always press charges" (does this mean "well, too bad you are being discriminated against at the hiring stage, but at least we have discussed it so many times, and you can also sue, you know, no matter that the current policy of hiring makes it well nigh impossible to prove discrimination", or does it mean something else? anything else?),

"It's parents' and teachers' fault, not men's" (who said it was only men's fault? the piece is on the subtle and not-so-subtle privileges that men have over women. Women and men are both at fault for sustaining and enabling those privileges.)

...and the rest of them also read somewhat hollow to me. But hey, maybe that's just me.

RedXIV, judging by your post, IMO you are most definitely the proud owner of the privilege of being unaware of your male privilege.

The point I was making with that post is that its very easy to post up a list of the negatives of your gender. Allow me to take the sexual harassment point that Walls made. It's true, far more women will be sexually harassed in the workplace. I'm not disputing that. But I'd just like you to understand that with that counter argument, the fact that at least 90% of sexual harassment cases have a male perpetrator, and as such, men these days are afraid to do anything which may have a sexual overtone that they might not even be aware of. Think of it as Ying and Yang. I'm not saying that you don't have a point, I'm merely stating that it works both ways.

I'd like to point out that I'm all for women's equality etc but there are some things, particularly those mentioned by The minister and Wibbs that will never be equal. Women are always going to be allowed go that bit further in an argument. A woman slapping a man outside a nightclub might get a sympathetic glance or even a laugh from a nearby group of men. switch the roles and that same group of men might take it upon themselves to heartily chastise the man

seenitall

RedXIV wrote: »

Figurehead maybe, but still a person in power, still someone who has to garner support from the entire state to be elected. and of all the people in the country to go network with different countries, we chose a woman, thats got to mean something?

Eh... words "figurehead" and "power" are kind of mutually exclusive, AFAIK.

The Irish Eurosong winner also has to garner support from the majority of the Irish voting public to be elected to go to Moscow/Athens/Berlin. Does that mean they have the power to make decisions on Ireland's future on an executive level?

"We chose a woman..." - yes, a woman was chosen for the job, as the job description is seen as akin to a woman's traditional role in society, i.e. being social, being a hostess, networking, being presentable etc. and deffo NOT making decisions for the good of the nation. Frankly, I don't think that's much of a step in the right direction for the gender equality, especially as it allows just such false argument to come forward and put out a smokescreen of "top of the food chain" etc. Just... meh.


The point I was making with that post is that its very easy to post up a list of the negatives of your gender. Allow me to take the sexual harassment point that Walls made. It's true, far more women will be sexually harassed in the workplace. I'm not disputing that. But I'd just like you to understand that with that counter argument, the fact that at least 90% of sexual harassment cases have a male perpetrator, and as such, men these days are afraid to do anything which may have a sexual overtone that they might not even be aware of. Think of it as Ying and Yang. I'm not saying that you don't have a point, I'm merely stating that it works both ways.

I'd like to point out that I'm all for women's equality etc but there are some things, particularly those mentioned by The minister and Wibbs that will never be equal. Women are always going to be allowed go that bit further in an argument. A woman slapping a man outside a nightclub might get a sympathetic glance or even a laugh from a nearby group of men. switch the roles and that same group of men might take it upon themselves to heartily chastise the man

OK, some fair points there. It is just interesting to see how men chime in with the "hey, it's not just you, it's also men who have it tough out there", whenever the subject of gender equality comes up. When, in my humble, while there is prejudice against men, the scales of prejudice are still firmly weighed down on the women's side, and in a lot of very subtle and insidious ways too, that are therefore more difficult to argue against than any very obvious ones.

Have we gone very off topic with this? Sorry!

Dudess

Walls wrote: »

That is exactly what this blog is talking about. You are being responded to in terms of your gender. Hysterical woman is a term that was common in the 1900s to suggest women were more subject to humors or ailments due to their womb and its moods, making them more irrational. The period comment is suggesting menstrual cycles make you less human and more subject to emotions, instead of deciding you are an adult capable of rationality. People who get these comments thrown at them are being told that they are not capable of being rational, and that their behaviour makes them not suitable for an adult, male society.

Edit: Sorry, no coffee make Walls something something... what I should have said was that you should express your anger, if it exists, without censure of the type described above?

I know a woman getting angry when provoked isn't necessarily irrational or hysterical, you know it, most people know it... but some will use it to belittle her rather than hearing her out, so my tactic would be to stay calm in the presence of people with such an attitude, so as not to give them the satisfaction of being able to just dismiss it as typical crazy woman syndrome.

Truley wrote: »

Out of interest, does anyone here not feel that alot of women bring it on themselves? Personally I've heard more women using the period card to justify irrational behaviour than I've ever heard men.

Possibly, but I'm just referring to that tired old line that gets trotted out (only by SOME) if a woman gets worked up.

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Would anybody agree that the original article is an attempt by a male women's studies lecturer to further ingratiate himself with female feminists? That, judging from the number of thanks in the original post/link, he is quite successful in this strategy? From the article, is he apologetic about this apologetic male behaviour?

Ironic.:D

Very much what I thought too - a man apologising for his gender reeks of spinelessness to me, and I doubt I'd appreciate it if I were a man.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

There is certainly an element of that alright. I would also question the notion that men are visibly angrier than women as an average. Looking back I would say I've observed far more women raising their voices in arguments than men. I've also seen far more women get incredibly emotionally vicious when the bloods up. It may come down to TM's point in a sideways fashion. An argument between two men that gets that personally vicious is more likely to get violent and real damage done, so beyond the usual moron males who talk with their fists as a first response, most men learn early on that taking it to that level is a very bad plan.

Extreme example to illustrate: I remember watching a documentary on organised crime and gangsters and many of them noted a big difference between the reality and film portrayal. Namely the insults and aggressive language. In reality they tend to be more polite with each other as a wrong word can get you killed.

IMHO Women in general have less constraints on that score at least. I've seen and been on the receiving end of real nasty stuff in arguments with exes(not women mates funny enough) that if they had been a man there would have been a couple of occasions where it would have gotten to fisticuffs if Im being honest. That's not an option, nor should it be regardless of gender, but I do suspect with some that this quarter given is taken advantage of.

On the other side, some men, knowing that a woman won't strike back, or may get so frustrated she bursts into floods also take advantage of that.

I'd go along with Logical Fallacy on this point. Some people are dicks simple as. How they act the dick may use their individual genders advantages to do so.

I agree.

I've even noticed this dynamic in pubs. Its subtle but it's there. Generally speaking, the men [aside from the overdrunk ass] are way more polite, which their excuse mes and their awareness of personal space both with each other and other women. Women will push, squeeze bump, whatever and generally [I emphasise generally] are not as diligent and conscious. This is not to say the ladies are rude, but the men seem to be far more aware and conscious of the potential for not honouring these codes. I think it's because the fallout from men fighting is far more dangerous than the fall out from women.



As to your last point Wibbs. This is a fascinating element of human nature. Some men, women and kids to this. They get a thrill out of seeing you lose control, the thrill and exhileration of a different self emerges to show itself.

Walls

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

What relevance to the topic of the thread (which is 'male strategies to defuse female anger') does this have? There's nothing in the list you've posted relating to the subject matter at all.

Hi, the thread is a bit dead at this stage, but just to respond to your question; Napper Hawkins had asked me to explain how had men benefited from the system, which led me to post the list about the unseen male privilege. This was in an effort to point out men exist in a system of privilege everyday and just don't see it.