Anyone else wish they were a man?

The Corinthian

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Yes, I saw the discussion over on TGC. It's very sad, no doubt about it. I don't really understand why some men bandy the word "paedo" around so much. Can't they see how damaging it is to their own gender?

Both men and women are typically responsible for perpetuating gender prejudices against the other or even their own gender, so ultimately we're our own worst enemies.

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

Both men and women are typically responsible for perpetuating gender prejudices against the other or even their own gender, so ultimately we're our own worst enemies.

Agreed.

jaffacakesyum

The Corinthian wrote: »

I completely agree, I was just pointing out that it happens, just as men are nowadays increasingly treated as 'potential paedophiles', because of the actions of a few.

Actually there's one thing that I envy of women; the ability to smile back at a kid in a shop without being worried that the mother will give you a dirty look for doing so.

I find it bizaare that this apparantly happens so often, as shown by discussions on boards.ie by male members. In my social group (and I don't mean just close friends I mean in anyone that I have encountered) men are "allowed" (for want of a better word) to be just as openly friendly and loving of children as females. I know this is off topic but I wonder does geography play a part in it? I'm in Dublin and have never encountered this, maybe it is in more rural communities where men are still viewed as potential paedophiles as you say.

Eve_Dublin

I've noticed those who use that word so liberally are also massive readers of tabloid-style papers. TBH, I'd say most of the blame should be put squarely on that type of trashy journalism. Like you, Jaffacakes, it's not something I've encountered among the people I mix with; the people I know tend to veer away from that kind of hysterical media. Interestingly, the yellow press as we know it doesn't exist here in Spain and there isn't that kind of hysteria. I saw some men in TGC blame feminism....well feminism is alive and well here in Spain, so why the lack of hysteria? The phrase "Paedo" was coined by tabloids. It makes sense.

Ambersky

The Corinthian says
Both men and women are typically responsible for perpetuating gender prejudices against the other or even their own gender, so ultimately we're our own worst enemies.

We may be our own worst enemies and there may be much the individual can do to disengage with the gender stereotypes expected.
But if gender stereotyping is something created by and that exists in society there needs to be sufficient numbers of individuals active in changing a social phenomena in order to bring about change. I think there is a fair amount of energy that still goes into creating those gender role stereotypes. It starts at birth, blue for boys and pink for girls.
I have asked many of my friends at baby showers/parties if they would dress a boy in pink and almost all said no.
Sometimes gender stereotypes can still be culturally expected, as in the thread about whether women make the first move or not in asking a man out.
Some women there say they have been known to make the first move and some say they manipulate the situation into one where the man thinks he was the active deciding partner.
If we got rid of gender stereotypes, I mean really got rid of them. Would heterosexuals be ok with that.

GalwayGuy2

If we got rid of gender stereotypes, I mean really got rid of them. Would heterosexuals be ok with that.

I would. (I'm not going to pretend I speak for all men). But...you do know gay men/women can be just as bad at stereotyping?

Like you, Jaffacakes, it's not something I've encountered among the people I mix with; the people I know tend to veer away from that kind of hysterical media. Interestingly, the yellow press as we know it doesn't exist here in Spain and there isn't that kind of hysteria.

Hmmm, isn't spain a bit more of a touchey feely culture?

Eve_Dublin

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, isn't spain a bit more of a touchey feely culture?

Whaddya mean?

GalwayGuy2

Whaddya mean?

If men are more comfortable at showing intimacy, eg: hugging, kissing when saying hello (french i know), walking arm in arms, etc, then it won't be such a shock and people won't put their own perceptions onto it as much. I wonder would a man hugging a child be seen as "unnatural" (to use an extreme word) if a man was seen as being able to operate in the domestic as a woman?

Eve_Dublin

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

If men are more comfortable at showing intimacy, eg: hugging, kissing when saying hello (french i know), walking arm in arms, etc, then it won't be such a shock and people won't put their own perceptions onto it as much. I wonder would a man hugging a child be seen as "unnatural" (to use an extreme word) if a man was seen as being able to operate in the domestic as a woman?

I've reread this bit a few times but I can't understand it. Can you explain again so I can respond?

Just an FYI: Spain has the 2nd highest rate of the downloading of child pornography in the world. The media hasn't created mass hysteria around it like it might've done in the UK, Ireland and the US. It's kept it in perspective. Yes, there are paedophiles in Spain like any country but every man is not a suspect like they're made out in the Yellow Press in the UK and Ireland. It has nothing to do with how tactile the people are. This Paedophila hysteria in the Anglophone countries is relatively recent but the Spanish has always been more tactile than us.

GalwayGuy2

I've reread this bit a few times but I can't understand it. Can you explain again so I can respond?

If patriarchy didn't cause men to be seen as monetary providers and women as carers, and men were seen as childminders as much as women, would a random man being caring towards a random child be seen as suspect and out of the norm? Of course, this is assuming that it is seen as suspect.
I should work on my grammar or something.

Eve_Dublin

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

If patriarchy didn't cause men to be seen as monetary providers and women as carers, and men were seen as childminders as much as women, would a random man being caring towards a random child be seen as suspect and out of the norm? Of course, this is assuming that it is seen as suspect.
I should work on my grammar or something.

Why? I still don't get your point (and I really want to).

GalwayGuy2

Why? I still don't get your point (and I really want to)

Eh, kind of awkward that I can't formulate this thought. If I can't get it across a third time, then it really isn't that important. I didn't meant that in a snide way, but a thought can't really hold water if you can't formulate it.
Hmmm, women are still seen as the carers in both the business and domestic sphere. This is proven by the fact that there are more female teachers, lack of time off for men after a child's birth (which isn't fair towards the woman as it's a hell of a lot of stress) and I remember a test where identical CVs for a childcare role was given by both a man and a woman and there was a massive difference in the job offers for that role. This puts more of the carer role on the woman and so it may be seen as more natural for a woman to be in the caring (or motherly) role than a man, and we made have a stereotype of this role. When this is coupled with the lack of physical intimacy that some men may have towards people, this stereotype of a physically intimate father figure may be entirely absent.
So, if a woman, as an example, shows affection towards an unknown child it conforms to this stereotype of a mother (or eventual mother) figure. But if a man shows this towards an unknown child it could be seen as not the norm as there isn't a stereotype of an affectionate father figure, but there is a working father figure rather than an emotional, or physical, intimate father figure. Since there is no stereotype to fall one, people will put there own perceptions onto that person. This could just be easily a good father, a liberal man, or, unfortunately, a potential danger to their children. (Both men and women are guilty of this)
Btw I mean physically intimate as hugging or shoulder to cry on sort of role.

Eve_Dublin

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Eh, kind of awkward that I can't formulate this thought. If I can't get it across a third time, then it really isn't that important. I didn't meant that in a snide way, but a thought can't really hold water if you can't formulate it.
Hmmm, women are still seen as the carers in both the business and domestic sphere. This is proven by the fact that there are more female teachers, lack of time off for men after a child's birth (which isn't fair towards the woman as it's a hell of a lot of stress) and I remember a test where identical CVs for a childcare role was given by both a man and a woman and there was a massive difference in the job offers for that role. This puts more of the carer role on the woman and so it may be seen as more natural for a woman to be in the caring (or motherly) role than a man, and we made have a stereotype of this role. When this is coupled with the lack of physical intimacy that some men may have towards people, this stereotype of a physically intimate father figure may be entirely absent.
So, if a woman, as an example, shows affection towards an unknown child it conforms to this stereotype of a mother (or eventual mother) figure. But if a man shows this towards an unknown child it could be seen as not the norm as there isn't a stereotype of an affectionate father figure, but there is a working father figure rather than an emotional, or physical, intimate father figure. Since there is no stereotype to fall one, people will put there own perceptions onto that person. This could just be easily a good father, a liberal man, or, unfortunately, a potential danger to their children. (Both men and women are guilty of this)
Btw I mean physically intimate as hugging or shoulder to cry on sort of role.

Are you talking generally? I thought you were specifically talking about why the hysteria exists in Anglophone countries and not in Spain. Things would be even more backwards here when it comes to childcare (Spain is still very traditional in that sense...the average working day here would be from 9-8pm and children are put into childcare for most of that time or most middle-class homes would have a child minder). Men, generally speaking, would be less "hands on" (literally and figuratively) in the role of childcare than in Ireland. Men, from from what I can see, would have more involvement with their kids over there (Ireland).

It's true though. Men here are more tactile and perhaps because they're so tactile with stranger's kids makes it more normal. I don't know tbh. This has always been the case though, I think. The hysteria in Ireland is only a recent thing and it also coincides with the media hysteria. It can't just be a coincidence.

clairefontaine

Has Spain been hit with the kind of scandals that Ireland, Britain and the US has?

Eve_Dublin

clairefontaine wrote: »

Has Spain been hit with the kind of scandals that Ireland, Britain and the US has?

Yes. Every country in the world has. Paedophilia is not isolated to just Anglophone countries. It's how the media has dealt with it that differs.

GalwayGuy2

Yes. Every country in the world has. Paedophilia is not isolated to just Anglophone countries. It's how the media has dealt with it that differs.

As widespread and by a perceived infallible group? (Priests seem to have got the most attention)

Eve_Dublin

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

As widespread and by a perceived infallible group? (Priests seem to have got the most attention)

What's your point exactly?

It's as widespread here as anywhere. I already stated that Spain has the highest rate of downloading child pornography in Europe, for example. There's cases in the press almost everyday but without the "Paedo!!" shock tactic headlines.


Do you genuinely believe that there's been more cases of p-philia in Ireland, the UK and the States than anywhere else??

GalwayGuy2

Do you genuinely believe that there's been more cases of p-philia in Ireland, the UK and the States than anywhere else??

I never said that, but the widespread did give the impression that I did. The Clergy were trusted and were an almost higher class, in some ways, and were most definitely beyond reproach. Then the large amounts of abuse in the Catholic church came to light. Was there a similar moment in Spain?

Eve_Dublin

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I never said that, but the widespread did give the impression that I did. The Clergy were trusted and were an almost higher class, in some ways, and were most definitely beyond reproach. Then the large amounts of abuse in the Catholic church came to light. Was there a similar moment in Spain?

Why are you asking me this?


Edit: This debate has nothing to do with the thread. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make exactly. I'll answer one more question but will you actually say what you want to say and express yourself little better please?

clairefontaine

Ireland is small country and in small places things get amplified like they are in a greenhouse.

I dont know if you are assuming the same hysteria [if there even is hysteria as you claim] exists in larger nations like the UK and the US. It sounds like you are but it's a bit confusing even what you mean by hysteria.

From what I can see not much has been done. Its' not like they've employed buddy systems in schools, or conducted parenting classes for how to spot behaviour changes, how to look for grooming, or what to do if you child says something to you, there is no actual preventative action in response to this so called hysteria in Ireland, so to me it looks like the opposite of hysteria, lassitude or inertia. To call it hysteria implies that it's all in one's imagination, when it's a real problem.

Its not really within acceptable boundaries to approach or touch kids you don't know so if you get a weird look it doesn't necessarily mean they think you are going to commit sexual assault but that maybe you crossed a boundary and are being a little weird.

This thread has meandered from a harmless dream of wanting to be a man to child sex offenders. So just to add the plus of being female is that chances are you will talk about it to someone much more so than if you are a boy. Let's just hope someone doesn't call you hysterical.

Fox_In_Socks

clairefontaine wrote:

Ireland is small country and in small places things get amplified like they are in a greenhouse.

I dont know if you are assuming the same hysteria [if there even is hysteria as you claim] exists in larger nations like the UK and the US. It sounds like you are but it's a bit confusing even what you mean by hysteria.

From what I can see not much has been done. Its' not like they've employed buddy systems in schools, or conducted parenting classes for how to spot behaviour changes, how to look for grooming, or what to do if you child says something to you, there is no actual preventative action in response to this so called hysteria in Ireland, so to me it looks like the opposite of hysteria, lassitude or inertia. To call it hysteria implies that it's all in one's imagination, when it's a real problem.

Its not really within acceptable boundaries to approach or touch kids you don't know so if you get a weird look it doesn't necessarily mean they think you are going to commit sexual assault but that maybe you crossed a boundary and are being a little weird.

This thread has meandered from a harmless dream of wanting to be a man to child sex offenders. So just to add the plus of being female is that chances are you will talk about it to someone much more so than if you are a boy. Let's just hope someone doesn't call you hysterical.

I think most people would be naturally suspicious, yes.

I remember when I was a child, this guy came came up behind me in the supermaret and held his hands over my eyes, and said "Guess who?" or something like that. I turned around with a smile, thinking it might be an uncle of mine or something, and it was a stranger, a fellow of about 60 or so. My mother had a glazed, polite smile on her face, and even at that age, I knew it was a bit weird.

Someone said above in this thread, about them being given suspicious looks if they are a man and were caught smiling at someone's children in a shop. To be honest, why would you you be smiling a stranger's children in the first place? I don't mean that in a bad way, but it's what went through my mind when I first read it.

The Corinthian

I see I'm quoted above, even though I'm pretty certain I didn't actually post the above...

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

To be honest, why would you you be smiling a stranger's children in the first place? I don't mean that in a bad way, but it's what went through my mind when I first read it.

Because they smiled at you first. They do that, you know.

Interesting though that such dark motivations are running through peoples' minds even here.

username123

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

To be honest, why would you you be smiling a stranger's children in the first place? I don't mean that in a bad way, but it's what went through my mind when I first read it.

Because a lot of people like children - and not in a sinister way. Plenty of people smile at children for a variety of reasons, because they are friendly people, because they think the child looks cute, because the child smiled at them, because they dont want to appear cold.....

I smile at peoples dogs because I like dogs.

On the thread topic, Id like to experience what it is like to be a man, but then again Id also like to experience what it is like to be a different type of girl (maybe a glamorous one!). Generally speaking Im happy enough with being a woman, although Id like to be taller (mind you no guarantee of that by being male). Id also like to experience not having boobs for a change and Id really like to try out a shaved head (again, dont have to be male for that either). I can be quite male in my approach to life I am told, in terms of liking technology, being a science nerdy type, not having that much going on in terms of touchy feely-ness and having no maternal feelings.

Fox_In_Socks

The Corinthian wrote: »

I see I'm quoted above, even though I'm pretty certain I didn't actually post the above...

Because they smiled at you first. They do that, you know.

Interesting though that such dark motivations are running through peoples' minds even here.

"Dark motivations?" That implies that I have a motive or an agenda. I don't have any agenda, was only giving my personal opinion.

"Even here?" What's special about this forum/thread?

Eve_Dublin

Tbh, I didn't bring Paedophilia hysteria up on this thread and I don't care enough to continue with the argument. I've said what I have to say on it.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Tbh, I didn't bring Paedophilia hysteria up on this thread and I don't care enough to continue with the argument. I've said what I have to say on it.

Edit: I don't mean that I don't care that men are treated like freaks for smiling at kids in Anglophone countries...it's a shame but I'm not interested in getting into a debate about it. It has nothing to do with the thread.

clairefontaine

That's fine, I just don't think it's fair to posit such a phenomenal generalisation about the peoples and cultures of many many nations including the US, the UK, Ireland, parts of Canada, Australia, etc by calling them a bunch of hysterics who treat men like freaks when they smile at a child they don't know. There are many many men all over these countries who have smiled at kids, from behind their ice cream trucks, in shops, on the school bus, where ever, and do not get treated like freaks. It is a very unfair assertion to make about so many cultures and people.

No its not what the thread was ORIGINALLY about but it is what the thread became about.

Eve_Dublin

clairefontaine wrote: »

That's fine, I just don't think it's fair to posit such a phenomenal generalisation about the peoples and cultures of many many nations including the US, the UK, Ireland, parts of Canada, Australia, etc by calling them a bunch of hysterics who treat men like freaks when they smile at a child they don't know. There are many many men all over these countries who have smiled at kids, from behind their ice cream trucks, in shops, on the school bus, where ever, and do not get treated like freaks. It is a very unfair assertion to make about so many cultures and people.

No its not what the thread was ORIGINALLY about but it is what the thread became about.

For the love of Jesus! You're just inventing stuff now.
:rolleyes:

I said hysteria exists and it doesn't in Spain. I wasn't referring to everyone in those countries (I didn't mention Oz or Canada). Some people have a negative attitude towards men who smile at children in public and they don't here....at all.


You'll have to take that up with Corinthian. I'm only going on what men have said. I haven't heard similar complaints made among Spanish men.

Not sure why I'm getting the brunt of this exactly?

Good night.

Eve_Dublin

clairefontaine wrote: »

That's fine, I just don't think it's fair to posit such a phenomenal generalisation about the peoples and cultures of many many nations including the US, the UK, Ireland, parts of Canada, Australia, etc by calling them a bunch of hysterics who treat men like freaks when they smile at a child they don't know. There are many many men all over these countries who have smiled at kids, from behind their ice cream trucks, in shops, on the school bus, where ever, and do not get treated like freaks. It is a very unfair assertion to make about so many cultures and people.

No its not what the thread was ORIGINALLY about but it is what the thread became about.

Actually can you show me where I said this? I just reread your post. I said the tabloid media created hysteria among it's readership around the issue of Paedophilia. I didn't call the people of those countries "a bunch of hysterics" (I'm Irish btw ).

I think you should get your facts straight before you make accusations like that.

Wibbs

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Edit: I don't mean that I don't care that men are treated like freaks for smiling at kids in Anglophone countries...it's a shame but I'm not interested in getting into a debate about it. It has nothing to do with the thread.

Exactly, lets move on from this line the thread is going in please.

Eve_Dublin

I apologise.

Wibbs

The Corinthian your post has been deleted as per my warning two posts above.

Das Kitty

Roadtrippin wrote: »

I can't stand women who use crying as a weapon...

...It also makes some people wary on how truthful a woman is being when she is crying which is a shame if the woman is actually in tears and just needs some support.

I cry at the drop of a hat, but I could never cry on queue.

I've been accused of trying to manipulate an argument in the past because my eyes decided to spring a leak. (The fact that I was speaking perfectly plainly was ignored).

It's a physiological response, nothing more.

As for the original topic of the thread, I've never really felt I'd like to be 'a man'. I don't have problems with my period, I suppose that goes a long way. Some days I do feel more masculine than others though.

Madam_X

I hate that "x behaviour gives x group a bad name" stuff. No specific behaviour by members of a particular group, no matter how commonplace, should give OTHER people in that group a bad name. It doesn't even make sense, it's just lazy thinking.

clairefontaine

I'm not sure if crying is a woman's trait or a human trait that has been negated out of males very early in their lives.

cantdecide

Das Kitty wrote: »

I cry at the drop of a hat, but I could never cry on queue. I've been accused of trying to manipulate an argument in the past because my eyes decided to spring a leak. (The fact that I was speaking perfectly plainly was ignored). It's a physiological response, nothing more..

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm not sure if crying is a woman's trait or a human trait that has been negated out of males very early in their lives.

If you believe that men and women generally have the same propensity to cry, they don't. I think there are different stresses that bring on crying in women where it just wouldn't occur or at least it would occur less in men. Or at least it would take a lot more stress to bring it out in an average man than an average woman.

It's very subjective and of course there are outside factors such as societal expectations but as far as I'm concerned it's just a physiological fact. I'm not an insensitive person (far from it) but as above, I don't believe that facts change because someone cries. If you've made a mistake at work, in your personal life or in any conflict situation, you shouldn't expect tears to prejudice proceedings on any side. That's not to say that if someone breaks down, they can't be allowed to try and compose themselves but it can't be used as a tactic for any party.

ongarboy

newmug wrote: »

I love being a man. I love the physical strength, the feeling of being invincible, knowing that you could be shot and still get up and kick the sh1t out of the fella who just shot you. I love being able to drive perfectly, instinctually judging speeds and positions and the size of your vehicle without being able to see it, and being able to do this fluently. Your car feels like an extension of you, another part of your body. I am so thankful for the fact that I can compartmentalise everything in life, mainly into sh1t that matters, and sh1t that doesnt. It cuts out a whole pile of stress and drama that women always seem to struggle with. I love the way I can talk to anybody, any stranger whatsoever, any age, any place, and be completely at ease talking to them. But its more about being at ease with yourself, than with the person you're talking to.

It wasn't always this way though. As a boy, most of those things weren't so. You have to learn how to be confident, how to compartmentalise, how to drive competantly. I suppose the only thing you cant "learn" is the physicality of being a man. But you're not a proper, real, fulfilled man until you have all those other things mastered.

Just returning to this post, seeing as the poster confirmed it wasn't a parody, I don't see how most of the attributes/pros you describe are particularly male attributes. The ability to be confident, skilled at compartmentalising the crap from the important stuff, being at ease with yourself etc are attributes of a well adjusted, positive and self confident person of which I can associated many women as being (in fact perhaps more women than men and I'm saying this as a man) but I still wouldn't link them as gender specific attributes but rather overall desirable human attributes.

The feeling of invincibility may be considered a male attribute but to me suggests naivety or worse, arrogance and therefore not a positive attribute at all. I'm sure the dozens of under 25 drivers who die on the roads each year felt they were invincible and which proved tragically was not the case.

As a guy, I admittedly feel I've endured a share of crap because I am a guy but I still prefer the fact that I'm a guy (primarily because I wouldn't be with the love of my life if I was a woman and secondly, but maybe more importantly, I'm for the most part comfortable in my own skin as a man right now which really is good enough for me). As others said, it is virtually impossible to be objective though as we cannot know what it's truly like to be the other gender unless we biologically are that gender.

aaabbbb

For the purposes of getting ready to go out , yes I wish I was a guy. Otherwise HELL NO!

Stheno

cantdecide wrote: »

If you believe that men and women generally have the same propensity to cry, they don't. I think there are different stresses that bring on crying in women where it just wouldn't occur or at least it would occur less in men. Or at least it would take a lot more stress to bring it out in an average man than an average woman.

It's very subjective and of course there are outside factors such as societal expectations but as far as I'm concerned it's just a physiological fact. I'm not an insensitive person (far from it) but as above, I don't believe that facts change because someone cries. If you've made a mistake at work, in your personal life or in any conflict situation, you shouldn't expect tears to prejudice proceedings on any side. That's not to say that if someone breaks down, they can't be allowed to try and compose themselves but it can't be used as a tactic for any party.

I'm not someone who is prone to tears, but the fact that someone is reduced to tears in a situation would always suggest to me that something is wrong, with the one exception if they were someone who turned on the tap and cried at will.

If I was dealing with someone in any situation male or female, and knew them for some time, and they were so upset that they cried, I would be extremely concerned. Basing this on the fact that most people can accept they have made a mistake and get through it but to break down in tears in front of colleagues/superiors is something I would consider an exceptional circumstance.

It did happen to me once when on a training course, I got a call that my dog had died unexpectedly and went to pieces, but that's a situation entirely different to discipline etc.

Galwayguy35

Some men just don't feel comfortable shedding tears in public, but that doesn't mean they never cry.

When our mother died I cried openly as I couldn't help it but my brother never shed a tear although he was just as cut up about it as I was and as we were standing side by side I could tell he was holding it in.

I felt embarrassed that I cried in public though as I kind of felt it showed I couldn't control my emotions and be strong. I felt it showed weakness.

We also never talked about it afterwards, which I think would have been different if it was 2 women.

clairefontaine

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Some men just don't feel comfortable shedding tears in public, but that doesn't mean they never cry.

When our mother died I cried openly as I couldn't help it but my brother never shed a tear although he was just as cut up about it as I was and as we were standing side by side I could tell he was holding it in.

I felt embarrassed that I cried in public though as I kind of felt it showed I couldn't control my emotions and be strong. I felt it showed weakness.

We also never talked about it afterwards, which I think would have been different if it was 2 women.

Women have had to learn to be more appropriate about expressing their feelings, for example in the workplace, but it's still taboo I think for males to express sadness. They get shamed into being strong soldiers, not talking about it and not crying. Sometimes it appears anger or outrage is the only feeling the culture permits for males.

There are studies that show this starts as early as infancy where mothers unconciounsly don't respond to their son's negative feelings as much as to their daughters so they learn to shut down. It's not that the mothers are to blame as such but they are caught in the same cultural double binds. Would have to dig that up, it was a long time ago that I came across it.

I would be embarrassed crying in public too, but I don't think that I'd feel as blackmailed by shame as I would if I were a guy.

On the other hand I know of two men, one as a child who learned how to fake cry to get his mother off his back [particularly nagging controlling mother] and another who uses it to gain sympathy when convenient, but I'd say those are very very rare examples.