Is Experience the Only Path to True Understanding?

Wow, dlowan! Lots to chew on there. Some excellent points.

Just briefly, your last paragraph reminds me of something else I wanted to clarify -- the point is less homophobia (though that's part of it) as the element of physical danger. I think it is fair to say that, generally, men feel less physically threatened by a woman, even a strong woman, than by a stronger man.

I like to think that I can learn from the mistakes of others, without having to make them myself. But to be honest, I haven't been doing a very good job of learning from my own mistakes.

hmm.. Ok, this may take things off course here a bit but in the end I'll try to bring it back around to the subject at hand.

There have been quite a few thought provoking (and sometimes heated) threads on A2K in the last few weeks concerning several topics all related to human interaction. There have been threads about racism/race relations, The Supreme Court ruling on Sodomy and the new proposed Constitutional Amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, men/women, religion, etc, etc..

Anyway, Craven's comment:

crystalized a part of the "heat" for me and, when put into the context of all of the discussions, perhaps explains something... larger? different? (I dunno.. Not sure of the right word there.) I don't think this is what Craven had in mind but maybe he feels a tinge of it too.. Only he can say for sure but...

There is hyperbole of course. Hyperbole on all sides in each any every one of these discussions. But it seems that hyperbole is ok (and I mean "generally accepted" here) as long as in the grand scheme of things it is directed at hetero, white males (that could probably be qualified even farther to add "theist" too). In effect, the classic hetero "WASP" male is to blame (probably to harsh of a word but I guess it gets the idea across) for everything "bad" or "evil" in the world and at the same time if that hetero, male WASP says pretty much anything about anyone else they are labeled as misogynist, racist, "religious fanatic", intolerant, etc.. in short order.

The basic premise seems to be that if you are the classic hetero, male WASP you are just supposed to sit there, shut up and accept blame for every social ill whether you actually had any responsibility for any of the issues or not. You are at fault for everyone else misfortune and you can't possibly understand anyone else';s problems/issues. You are at fault for how businesses act, the laws in effect, how everyone else feels about themselves, etc.. Of course there are things that some hetero, males WASPs ARE responsible for doing but it just seems to be a bit of a dumping ground for the world's problems. The hetero, male WASP is supposed to accept blame while others are allowed a free pass because.. well.. because they aren't.

Now, some people will of course see this post as complaining on my part. But it isn't a complaint at all. It's just life. It's another thing that people can't "know" unless they've been there. It's is just another frustration very much like the frustration many other people feel about other issues.

I ain't no hetero-WASP, but I feel the same way. c.i.

I mean, accept what life offers you - to a certain extent. c.i.

Interesting, Fishin'. I think I see what you're saying.

I'd like to comment more later, but quickly, as I've said, I think the accusation of hyperbole here was more hyperbolic than the supposed hyperbole.

Quickly: With great chagrin I note that I am the only person who used "busloads" here. I transplanted that word from another conversationa nd sozobe said half a bus. Not a full bus.

It is a very very relevant distinction to me.

Other quick notes:

I get what fishin' is saying as far as it relates to males. I don't get the WASP angle much as I see other ethnicities blames for sundry things more regularly than whites.

And I've got dlowans post saved in an email (I type long responses in my email so that my boss thinks I'm working :-) ).

Be back later.

In this "busload" line of thought I can offer a brief anecdote that did permanent damage to my attitude toward men (including me);

Engaged in a tall office building, rather late one evening, I left my meeting, called an elevator, and when it arrived stepped in; at first, I barely noticed another occupant in the car, but as we had a long way to go down, my glance occassionally fell on my co-rider, a young woman, and it became apparent to me that she was quite agitated, and uncomfortable. Suddenly I realized, she was "afraid" of me; here I was, an unknown male, late at night in a closed box, from which there could be no escape, if I had less than admirable intentions, and she was frightened; OF ME!
I immediately became violently angry at "MEN", that they had the timerity to do this to me, to paint me with the same brush as the worst of them; wow!
I later managed to convert my annoyance into the realization that the offense was not enacted upon me, but on the poor woman, stranded with "one of them" on an elavator late at night, and it made me crazy that she had to be afraid, and there was nothing I could do about it!

Learning from experience is merely one factor in the myriad of ways we have of coming, rightly or wrongly to realizations about the nature of this world in which we attempt to live mildly, care for others, and do no harm.

and I offer this seperately; as it has no place with the foregoing (I hope);

Understanding the actions of males and females relative to the mating "dance" can diffuse somewhat the obnoxious behaviours involved;

In ape cultures the male will frequently "present" his genitals to a female as a kind of offer - are you interested? (He will also "present" to other males to elicit the proper shows of deference required within the heirarchy - it has no AC/DC intent). The female if so inclined will turn away, appearing demure, but actually offering her rear end as a diplay; a - "what do you think?" so to speak whereas "thinking" has nothing to do with any of it! If she is NOT so inclined she will probably run, fast, as he is not likely to take no for an answer.
The word "civilization" refers to a condition in which this behaviour is no longer applicable, ...........

doesn't it?

BGW,

I used to feel the way you described in teh first post.

I now offer no apologies for being male and offer no apologies for being lumped together with the type of males that I despise.

Later on I will write a satire justifying racism using the arguments the women here have used.

keep you posted; it's an a2k thing, you wouldn't understand, or "only" you would under...........
or, whatever
cheers!

On re-reading this, I wonder if it is the poor apes who have been most discriminated against on this thread - being generally, as far as I know, quite a gentle and civilised bunch, sexually!

Unlike dolphins, I might add!

Doesn't have the same ring, though, does it? "You make us sound like a bunch of dolphins!"

I guess we find the animalness of apes more embarrassing - being so close to 'em- male and female - and all...

I decided not to do a satire. For a few reasons.



I wonder if the comparative rarity is what makes men mind it less, or if it's just the assosiation with danger that you mention.



for many men there is an implicit threat inherent in the experience of being watched by men on buses - that of having a watcher - or more than one, alight from the bus when you do, follow you, and assault or rob you. In fact, this does not happen often.



How people react to the violent minority is what I'll draw attention to in a bit.



Actually it wasn't horrifying so much as funny. The shoe made my day and I was lucky not to lose my pants. I don't blame myself at all. I could have prevented it by taking off the jacket in the bus, and it was stupid not to do so but I felt like I was due for astounding stupidity and I almost got away with it. More on this later.



I think it's horrible to hear people use the "she asked for it excuse". And while I'll readily acknowledge the "special factors" of sexual crime I'd like to debunk one of the fallacies here.

It's not only sexual crimes that generate the silly "asked for it" response. They are just uglier when we are talking about these crimes.

Every single person who heard that I was dumb enough to go through a throng of São Paulinos with a Corithians jacket said I was "asking for it".

Was I? Is wearing a jacket asking to be mobbed and assaulted? Is counting money in front of an ATM asking for it? Was I asking for it when I walked through a favela (slum) wearing clothes that would cost a year's salary for the inhabitants? In no way do I wish to defend the notion that women ask for and to some degree deserve the sexual assaults on them. I simply would like to point out that it is a common reaction.

Me wearing a Corinthians jacket in the midst of the rivals at their game was, indeed stupid, any Brazilian would tell you that you only have to repeat that 10 times to guarantee your death.

But does wearing the jacket make me responsible for being assaulted?

I am bringing this up because many arguments I have heard tried to ascribe this reaction to some insiduous male nature. Be it the tendency to view women as sexual objects or whatever.

I posit that they may come into play but that a quick glance at other areas of life will show that it is not unique to sexual assault.

After all, is a person walking in an alley in the middle of the night asking for it? Are they deserving of, say, a mugging?

That some say things like "what was she doing in his hotel room at 3 AM" and such is not necessarlity indicative of a gender related issue. Though it might be.

I will raise another issue in passing.

What about the succubus? We go on and on about the evil men perpetrate and the attitudes they have, but do women play any part in these attitudes? I hate when rappers call women bitches and hos. I really do. It has a horrible effect on society.

But it's not as simple as that. The succubus has lied about rape to frame celebrity. I am not talking about convictions in which I THINK it was a lie. I'm talking about women arrested because they were caught in this dastardly lie.

I'm talking about the Dallas Cowboys players who videotape their sex partners saying that it is consensual to avoid problems later on.

They also live with hangers-on who are a bunch of leeches. The females often use sex as a means to get close.

I bring this up not to try to villify women but to raise a pont that I think is important. Demeaning generalizations about women (such as "they are in it for the money") are not total fabrications. There are, indeed some who fit the bill.

Yet these generalizations play out quite differently. In my experience when women generalize about men it is far more "acceptable" than when men generalize about women. The negative stereotypes about men are fairgame as well (quick example: in advertising it's ok for guys to be painted as couch-potatoes and zombies, making light of their traditional "place". An ad raising the old saw about a woman's "place" being a kitchen would result in loss of testicles or some such).

It's true that there are some stereotypes that are used with little uproar about women.

On TV men are fat dumb and lazy while the woman is a nagging nuisance (think Simpsons, Family Guy...).

When women say taht men are all dogs or all pigs it is far more acceptable than when men generalize about women (in my experince).



Turnabout is fair play. What about busloads of theives of a certain race? What about people who are afraid of certain races?

Is the guy who crosses the street when he sees a black man right to do so?

What I am trying to say is that many people have had experiences involving violence. Some generalizations are more tolerated than others. A man who has suffered violence at the hand of a black man will not acceptably be able to generalize about black men and paint them in broad strokes as predatory in nature.

Yet women are permitted to do so about men.



Of course I will. When talking about ogling you are often thinking in terms of sexual assault and that is a big difference.

Some fool beeping his horn at a woman is not the same as sexual assault. Not in the least.

It would be like having a concersation about fearing black men, while one person is talking about avoiding black men out of a generalized prejudicial notion that they are predatory while the other is basing the conversation on a real predatory experience.

Sure sexual assault is related to sex. I think you denigrate sexual behaviours that are simply untoward by comparing them to the most heinous crimes. It's a leap that others might not be as willing to make and is, IMO, a horrible way to try to end untoward behavior.

Wanna know how I decided not to do those things?

I was in a car with a friend, I whistled at a girl walking by (which is something I'd never done) and my friend said "what do you think women think when you do that?". I thought, and was embarrassed.

Had she tried to compare me whistling at a woman to sexual assault (as you have done on more than one occasion) I'd be far less likly to listen. That is what I meant about the raging feminism. It often paints men as predatory in nature. It often forwards generalizations that are unacceptable in other scenarios.

Most of us guys have done something stupid to get a girl's attention. Most of us are not rapists and gulty of sexual assault either.

I am more than willing to agree that there is a connection. But to what degree are you willing to paint the untoward as heinous?



I never suggested that there was no such thing as gender discrimination. What I decry is the one-sided nature of such discussions.

In no way do I think men hold the lion's share of sexism. Just that our sexism has shaped history more so than the sexism of women. In the quest to end sexism the "raging feminists" like to paint broad strokes that leave them largely untouched.



So do some men. Some men are simply stupid. I posit that some of these simply stupid fellas might not be predatory but they sure help men get painted as such.



Sigh, this is very funny. DEFINE WARM!! LOL When you struggle to do so and think about the greater difficulty that some have in understanding such concepts then think of this.

How many men who flirt in an "ugly" manner are simply men who have not been able to define "warm". How many of those are criminal?

One of the key points in discussions between you and I is that you seem to think that the majority of men are sexual predators, if you don't it is at least the image you project with the incessant talk of the prevalance of this behaviour.

It would help me if you would try to put this in numbers. I have seen some rants "of Biblical proportions" from you about how common this sexual agression is in men.

Can you quantify this? 1 in 10? 5 in 10? I ask because if I had to guess I'd say you think about 2 in 10 or more. But in conversations I have wondered if you think upwards of 8.



I think so as well. Yet you claim these generalized strokes of the brush are valid because of my lacking experience in being the prey.



I have been physically wounded by certain races. I don't spend a great deal of energy trying to paint them as predatory. Again, i posit that denigrating men is much more tolerated than almost anything. I guess it can be counted as an extreme edge of the feminist movement. But it is what has turned me off feminism and onto gender equality.



Yes yes, and your "feelings" that you plainly recognize as likely being false are harmful and demeaning. If I were to exaggerate the criminal behavior of other demographic groups how would you react?

When men exaggerate the negative behaviors of women how do you react?



Brazilians call each other cuckolds all the time.



My analysis is that the "harasser" did not think himself to be behaving untowardly, until he saw that he was flirting with a woman who was "taken". He had respect for that.

The underlying difference is that he thought he was flirting and you thought he was harrassing.

Not haveing been there I will not say whether it was the altogether too common case of the man not knowing the lines or whether it was the altogether too common case of making the gracesless seem criminal.



I posit that hyperbole trivializes. Seeing the connections you make between innocuous bahavior and the most heinous acts I am not surprised that some have reacted that way. It's like "crying wolf" when it's only an idiot.

I recognize that it's offten impossible to tell the difference. It's a huge complicating factor.

But fear has wrought hyperbole, IMO.



Sigh. Many people have been robbed by minorities. Is it fair for them to connect these experiences and make jokes like: "What do you call an abortion clinic for immigrants? Crime stoppers!!"

I am aware of the prevalence, I disagree with the gerenalized attitudes that would not be acceptable in any other situations.



Recognizing the hyperbole would be the first step. Helping eliminate generalizations would be a nice second.



Me too. I wonder if making hyperbolic generalizations about how minorities are a bunch of criminals would help reduce the crime.



Thing is, gender equality to me means the correction of the wrongs that sexism has perpetrated. In a less sexist society I do not think that the heinous men would dissapear.

The fight for gender equality is something I support unconditionally.

I think that if an extreme is needed (force the entry of females in the ole boy's clubs) then it has merit.

I see no benefit in the predatory paint brush. I see this as two separate issues. One is gender inequality. I think this is quite prevalent.

The other is monstrocity. When I say that I like an extreme edge in social change I am talking about forcing equality. I am not talking about increasing the acceptable level of generalization about men.

I know much of the generalizations come from painful experience, but how willing are you to allow men to use their painful experiences to generalize and denigrate women? Is the man who has suffered pain at the hands of a "gold-digger" justified in propagating that perception about women?



Deb, tonight I think I understand my dillema.

I recognize the prevalence of untoward sexual behavior and even the threatening variety. Quantifying it into numbers we'd probably disagree on exact prevalence but this is not my quibble.

My quibble, as I understand it now, is that the valid issues of gender equality are often confused with the right to generalize and stereotpe men in hyperbolic fashion.

When I called myself a feminist it was usner the definistion of forwarding ideals of equality and erasing the negative stereotypes that men hold about women.

It was not to turn around and use the most dastardly of one group to generalize and propagate stereotypes about the other group.

It's telling that many men, myself included, have almost felt guilty for being a man, and causing the suspicion and fear that men cause. All because the criminal behaviour of the monority becomes to some degree a stereotype for the majority.



The homophobia thing was from sozobe's example. She wanted to add the element of fear so she used the homophobia (fear) to do so.

She didn't choose "big strong women" but chose leering homosexuals instead. Not a real biggie.

P.S.

How many of the threatening advances are simply unwanted ones? I once asked my sister why she was angered by a man's advances when another man had done far worse. She answered that one of the advances was desired and the other wasn't.

I wondered how the poor blokes were supposed to tell.

These are the reaons I never make an advance. Ever.

Oh boy.

A lot to respond to...

To try to clarify WHAT to respond to, with both Fishin' and Craven, may I first ask where was my hyperbole and where was my generalization?

While I wait for that...

If I were one of many white people on a bus when a single, young, black high schooler got on, and looked around uneasily before sitting down, I would seek to send "don't worry" signals in whatever way I could (eye contact and a fleeting smile before going back to what I was reading, perhaps), and would not take his discomfort personally. If that same person later spoke about how uncomfortable he felt, I wouldn't say, "Well, you shouldn't have, I wasn't going to do anything to you, and I bet most of the people on the bus wouldn't, either!" I'd sit there and listen.

What is being characterized as sit down, shut up, and accept blame, I think is more properly a request to listen respectfully, across the board.

soz,

I don't think you used hyperbole at all. you were spot on when you said the hyperbole was on my part.

I was thinking about that a while ago on my way home.

At what point does a valid gripe turn into hyperbolic bashing? You clearly didn't say busloads and in my haste I was hyperbolic. I said as much a while back and my last post is a actually about the more general issue of the "male bashing" I was whining about.

Thing is, I repeatedly dennounced letting hyperbole detract from a valid gripe and on my way home I was thinking about how ironic it was that I did just that.

Anywho, in case it wasn't clear the last time I hyperbolized :-) and read busloads where there were only half busloads.

Oh, you were clear, and sorry for not acknowledging that. I've written and then decided not to post a few responses to this thread, and one of them thanked you for clarifying that... forgot I didn't post the thing.

Oh, I wondered cause you were asking to have it pointed out and I think fishin' was just commenting on my rant (and prolly didn't mean to imply any hyperbowl on yer part), which began with that 'H' word. :-)