Here's an excerpt from an article I came across designed to foment hysteria and scare the hell out of young women about the supposed prevalence of rape on campus. Read it and then consider whether this incident should be included in the statistics as a rape, as the article seems to suggest:
A long night at a Santa Clara bar led to a scary situation for senior Melissa Somero, who got more than she bargained for when she decided to stay the night at a male friend's fraternity house in August.
She remembers falling asleep in his bed and then waking suddenly as he joined her. He fondled her breasts and forced her hand on his genitals. When he tried to push her head below the sheets, she fled. She said she confronted her friend about the incident later, and he labeled it a "misunderstanding."
Let's state the obvious: if a woman is asleep without anything more, a man isn't allowed to force her into engaging in sex acts.
But that's not exactly what happened here, is it? We need to know more, don't we? For example, what went on before she got into his bed? What exactly was their relationship? And how drunk was she? How did she end up in his bed? Did she just pass out on his bed, or did she consciously decide to get in?
But just on the facts presented, the presumption has to be that it was not rape. Any other presumption is grossly unjust to the young man. Please understand, a full development of the facts might prove that presumption to be wrong. That includes knowing his side of the story -- because all we hear in this excerpt, as is typical in these gynocentric rape articles, is from the accuser.
In any prior era of the history of the world, to even suggest from these sketchy facts that this "must" have been rape, and that he "must" be a rapist for "taking advantage" of her, would be ludicrous on its face. And I would guess that if these facts were presented to a random sampling of modern adults of both genders, the overwhelming presumption would be that it wasn't rape.
She decided to spend the night in his house, and she was sleeping in his bed. And he's not supposed to think that she is inviting sexual activity? The implicit suggestion from the tone of the article -- which was written by a female and is wholly sympathetic to the position that any assertion of impropriety by a woman must actually have been impropriety -- is that the young man's assertion that it was a "misunderstanding" is bullshit.
You know what? It sounds to me that, at best, it was a misunderstanding for which he was not culpable. More likely, she invited sexual activity and then chickened out when her boyfriend actually had the balls to initiate it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
41 comments:
Definitely. Journalists and their moronic readers can't wait to conclude that a man raped a woman, even when the facts totally contradict that conclusion. And when there just isn't enough evidence to form a conclusion, they just pretend that there is. No wonder so many innocent men are convicted.
Any doubtful situation is always skewed to paint the male as an evil predator. Even being charitable concerning the young woman, does she expect the young man to read her mind?
Here's the problem: whether or not the boy did anything inappropriate depends heavily on the nature of their relationship, their sexual history, what was said that evening, etc. They were probably just making out, and she got cold feet.
We need to redefine rape, and set a very narrow definition, because the legal system is very crude and can't handle nuances such as these. Many men who don't need to be on sex offender databases are on them because we define rape very broadly and are far too eager to believe doubtful accusations.
". . . the legal system is very crude and can't handle nuances such as these."
On the contrary, the legal definition is fine -- if there is an absence of consent, it is a crime to proceed with sex. The problem is that sexual assault advocates are teaching a definition of consent that bears no relation to reality. Consent means real consent, but it can be manifested in a variety of ways -- it need not be verbal, and it need not be enthusiastic.
No, the law is not the main culprit. The real problem is people who lie about rape and aren't punished for it.
But if it need not be verbal, then how do you define it? It's fine if he gets into bed with her and touches her if she's cool with it, but what if she isn't? Does that mean that everybody who has a girlfriend has to get a statement from her that it's okay before he starts the foreplay?
Like I said, the legal system is too stupid, too slow, too run by idiots to answer these questions in a reasonable way.
It is unfortunate but, it seems as if the best way for any male to protect himself from false rape or sexual assault accusations is to buy surveilance equpment, a digital voice recorder, a "nanny cam" and make sure they capture the moment of consent, and the possible moment of non consent/withdrawal from the female, for proof later on.
Anonymous said...
"Definitely. Journalists and their moronic readers can't wait to conclude that a man raped a woman, even when the facts totally contradict that conclusion. And when there just isn't enough evidence to form a conclusion, they just pretend that there is. No wonder so many innocent men are convicted."
This,in my honest opinion, is one of the products of people being "programmed" by the feminists and the media.
I agree it doesn't look like rape itself, but I thought they described the account as more of it being sexual assault or attempted rape. Just wondering...
She decided to spend the night in his house, and she was sleeping in his bed. And he's not supposed to think that she is inviting sexual activity?
I don't know. If they are, as what the article implies, only friends, perhaps platonically, then he really shouldn't assume that's she's inviting sexual activity. That like when I hung out with my male friend some years ago. I was over his house waiting for his mom to take us to this Senior get-together (we were about to graduate high school). We went to his bedroom because he had to change his shirt (originally I stayed in his living but he said I could come in and I was like "sure"). Once there I consciously decided to lay down on his bed to watch "Farscape" on his tv. Then my friend either sat or laid down too and watched tv with me. I didn't see myself inviting sexual activity. We were just friends.
Ultimately a defensive position is a losing position. Remember: the best defense is a good offense.
Those of us who want a return to normal need to stop whining like the skunks that have destroyed Western Civilization and start demanding.
Instead of saying that the kid wasn't guilty of rape - which he clearly wasn't - and concluding that it was all just a "misunderstanding," we need to start pointing-out the obvious. This girl and millions others like her are involved in grifting and conning men and boys.
She's getting some "kick" or "charge" out of using him, his apartment, his bedroom for her little control-dyke fantasies. She gets him to moon over her, pander to her, probably spend money on her all with the implication of future sex and then when he tries to get the pay-off she runs off and feigns surprise.
It's grifting, plain and simple, and we should demand that she be held accountable for her actions and charged with it.
Wow Russ, that's kind of jumping to conclusions isn't it? How can you assume the kind of relationship that they had or what kind of person she is?
She's getting some "kick" or "charge" out of using him, his apartment, his bedroom for her little control-dyke fantasies. She gets him to moon over her, pander to her, probably spend money on her all with the implication of future sex and then when he tries to get the pay-off she runs off and feigns surprise.
Don't you understand that these thoughts of yours are probably shared by actual rapists who thought that just because he paid for dinner, it made him entitled to sex? What makes you think that the two weren't friends just hanging out?
Renee,
I've read many of your posts and would of thought that this tired, old technique used by feminists of accusing a man of being a misogynist or latent rapist for stating obvious truths that feminists prefer not be introduced into the discourse on gender equity was beneath you.
Don't you understand that when you say, ". . .that these thoughts of yours are probably shared by actual rapists who thought that just because he paid for dinner, it made him entitled to sex? What makes you think that the two weren't friends just hanging out?"
You are encouraging this very common form of exploitation of men. Believe it or not, men don't spend their money on women because they believe them to be diva/goddesses that they (the men) just want to serve. They do it because they want to get into their pants. Any acceptance of these gifts with the intention of not ever requiting them by sleeping with the man, giving you the gifts, constitutes a con or a grift.
In an age of "gender equity" the women that engage in it should be punished for it.
There are many men, who have done similar things, rotting in prison, right now. Why aren't women held to the same standard.
You are encouraging this very common form of exploitation of men. Believe it or not, men don't spend their money on women because they believe them to be diva/goddesses that they (the men) just want to serve. They do it because they want to get into their pants.
I'm not encouraging exploitation of men. It seems to me that you are falling for the old stereotype of the ultimate goal of all men is sex in all situations where he pays for everything. I've had male friends who paid for dinner or movies without asking me, or they didn't want me to. Believe it or not, there are guys who do do that because they're nice and are gentlemen. Of course if the guy likes the girl, that's also a reason, but to just assume that they want just sex....I don't know.
I didn't say that all men are latent rapists (I don't know where you got that from in my last comment). I specifically applied what I said to actual rapists. And yes, some have probably had that same mindset that I mentioned.
In an age of "gender equity" the women that engage in it should be punished for it.
There are many men, who have done similar things, rotting in prison, right now. Why aren't women held to the same standard.
How exactly should they be punished and what examples of "gender equity" do you not like?
What standard are you talking about?
Oh, and Russ,
Aren't you the one who also doesn't believe in sex before marriage? What about how men should be more assertive and women being more choosy or whatever constitutes as "demure"?
"It seems to me that you are falling for the old stereotype of the ultimate goal of all men is sex in all situations where he pays for everything."
Not at all. I stated my position pretty clearly in my prior post. I want women to be held accountable for their irresponsible sexual behaviour.
If we did this there would be less irresponsible sexual behaviour on the part of women and this, in turn, would lead to fewer rapes and fewer false accusations of rape.
I don't understand how anybody, but the most hyper-political of feminists could find fault with that position.
"How exactly should they be punished"
Again, I was very clear on this point in my last post - they should be punished in exactly the same way that men are punished - with prison terms.
"What standard are you talking about?"
I'm talking about the standard that puts a man in jail for conning a woman out of her money. If a woman does the same - she should be sent to jail.
Why is it that you (like just about every other woman, I've ever talked too about these issues) has so much trouble with the idea that women, like men, should be held accountable for their criminal behaviour?
"Oh, and Russ,
Aren't you the one who also doesn't believe in sex before marriage?"
I don't know if I'd put it exactly that way, but it is true that I believe society should be organized in such a way as to discourage extra-marital sex. Because as I said in that post - it's just a sensible way to run a society.
At any rate, discouraging irresponsible behaviour in women can only reduce the amount of unwed sex.
Why do you have such a problem with this concept? Do you really believe that women should be allowed to do whatever suits them, without ever being held accountable for those actions?
"What about how men should be more assertive and women being more choosy or whatever constitutes as "demure"?"
I don't know what this question has to do with anything, but why did you place the word "demure" in quotes?
I want women to be held accountable for their irresponsible sexual behaviour.
But why single out women though? You don't think it's anything wrong with men spending money on women solely for the purpose of getting sex?
If we did this there would be less irresponsible sexual behaviour on the part of women and this, in turn, would lead to fewer rapes and fewer false accusations of rape.
Aren't men not guilty of irresponsible sexual behavior too? I mean who are these irresponsible women having sex with? And can you explain the connection with rape to women having sex?
And do you really believe that there are NO men out there who are gentlemen who pay for women just because they're nice?
I don't understand how anybody, but the most hyper-political of feminists could find fault with that position
Well for one thing you're singling out women only. Second you're insinuating that women actively having sex is related to incidents of rape.
I'm talking about the standard that puts a man in jail for conning a woman out of her money. If a woman does the same - she should be sent to jail.
Why is it that you (like just about every other woman, I've ever talked too about these issues) has so much trouble with the idea that women, like men, should be held accountable for their criminal behaviour?
Because a man coning a woman out of thousands of dollars is MAJORLY different than a man buying a woman dinner, a movie, or a gift just because he likes her or as you say, so he can get into her pants. How is SHE criminal if HE makes the decision himself to do these things for her? I can't see how you can compare the two. If a woman IS actually a con-artist then yes, she should go to jail.
I agree with almost all of what Russ has said above. Renee likes to pretend women don't do certain things like play games. Also, she takes the typical 'detached-innocent' view while conversing on some board, but when it's down to the brass tacks I suspect she becomes a completely different person.
Russ, personally I wouldn't credit anything at all that she says on this board, as being truthful. Many of the scenarios she depicts sound too idyllic.
Basically, Renee is using what I call a 'clean-room' technique of arguing - she conveniently overlooks the fact that people are people and, that 'shit happens'.
I don't know if I'd put it exactly that way, but it is true that I believe society should be organized in such a way as to discourage extra-marital sex. Because as I said in that post - it's just a sensible way to run a society.
At any rate, discouraging irresponsible behaviour in women can only reduce the amount of unwed sex.
Ummm and according to you, men buying things for women in order to "get in they pants" is ok? And once again, why only focus on the woman's behavior? It takes two to have sex (usually).
Why do you have such a problem with this concept? Do you really believe that women should be allowed to do whatever suits them, without ever being held accountable for those actions?
I never said that women should do whatever suits them without being held accountable for their actions. My problem is, you keep singling out the women...why. Aren't men not guilty of doing the same thing? Anyway I'm not into the habit of judging others. Men and women can have sex outside of marriage and still be responsible and sensible people, as long as their not over-doing it.
My quote was about how you say that men should be assertive when it comes to dating and relationships. Aren't men buying things for women a sign of assertiveness? He's letting the woman know that he's interested in her. Also you agree that people should wait until marriage to have sex yet you don't seem to have a problem with some men buying things for women just to have sex with them.
Now that I think back on it, I'm not sure why I put the word demure in quotes. I guess I wondered what you meant by demure and if any woman today actually act demure. I need to look that word up lol. I mentioned that before because I was thinking if a woman declining a gift, paying for her own ticket, etc. constitutes as demure, I don't know. You seem to think that many women use men yet you don't like "gender equity". Does "gender equity" include women paying for themselves?
I'll stop now before I confuse myself lol.
Norm,
Renee likes to pretend women don't do certain things like play games.
No I don't. I'm fully aware that women play games. Men too.
Also, she takes the typical 'detached-innocent' view while conversing on some board, but when it's down to the brass tacks I suspect she becomes a completely different person.
Different how may I ask?
Russ, personally I wouldn't credit anything at all that she says on this board, as being truthful. Many of the scenarios she depicts sound too idyllic.
How is any of the scenarios I depicted idyllic?
Basically, Renee is using what I call a 'clean-room' technique of arguing - she conveniently overlooks the fact that people are people and, that 'shit happens'.
Oh, I'm FULLY aware that "people are people and, that 'shit happens'". I just don't like singling out one group of people as the SOLE cause of some of that shit or saying that only one group of people is guilty of a particular bad behavior when everyone is guilty of that bad behavior.
Is there anything wrong with being modest? Many of my fellow men are modest. Some of us to a fault,as it were.
"No I don't. I'm fully aware that women play games"
It's one thing to be aware of something, and another to speak and act in accordance with that awareness.
"Different how may I ask?"
It was just an educated guess..you know yourself better than I do.
"How is any of the scenarios I depicted idyllic?"
something about laying on a bed? For one thing, the scenario about hte bed that you posited, if true, is mostly inapplicable to the case that was being discussed - as you tell us that the guy in your case was a known friend. But your implication that a woman who is not known beforehand as a 'friend', and who goes in a guy's room, lies down and closes her eyes...wouldn't you say she is at least stupid, if nothing else?
When trying to answer that question, you sense yourself getting angry...see what I mean? Sure, in an 'ideal' world two people of the opposite sex should be able to sit three feet apart while naked and have nothing happen. But when I talk this way, you think I am justifying forcing something on someone...that is your detached, cleanroom thinking at work. Besides, very few men would actually force something on the woman is such a scenario. It's feminist propaganda, media-generated hysteria, and rampant misandry, which causes society to believe otherwise.
The fact that you are 'aware' shit happens, see my first response above.
should say "IN such a scenario"
Renee,
You've set-up a bunch of strawmen with your questions. That, combined with the fact that you repeatedly ask the same question even when already answered and you don't answer questions asked of you, indicates to me that you're not really interested in finding out what other commenters here think but just want to cause problems.
Never-the-less I'll attempt to articulate my beliefs on the matter, one last time.
I believe that men and women are very different, with different wants, needs, and abilities. Because Nature has endowed them differently they have different roles in society. With different roles, comes different responsibilities and different privileges (which accrue to them when they successfully perform their respective roles).
Feminism has stripped women of all of their responsibilities and granted them all of the privileges they may have earned had they carried-out those responsibilities. It has further granted them all of the privileges that responsible men might earn, without ever having to earn them. In fact, they are - as a class - congenitally incapable of earning them because they are by definition incapable of performing the male role, because they aren't men.
Norm,
"Russ, personally I wouldn't credit anything at all that she says on this board, as being truthful. Many of the scenarios she depicts sound too idyllic."
I think you hit the nail right on the head. Frankly, she comes across as more than a little creepy.
Norm,
It's one thing to be aware of something, and another to speak and act in accordance with that awareness.
I feel like I've had. How have I not?
For one thing, the scenario about hte bed that you posited, if true, is mostly inapplicable to the case that was being discussed -as you tell us that the guy in your case was a known friend. But your implication that a woman who is not known beforehand as a 'friend', and who goes in a guy's room, lies down and closes her eyes...wouldn't you say she is at least stupid, if nothing else?
I simply went by the article. The article said that the guy was a friend. And I said this: IF they are, as what the article implies, only friends, perhaps platonically, then he really shouldn't assume that's she's inviting sexual activity. IF they weren't friends, then yes, I agree with you. If they have been dating for a while, then that's something different entirely. We don't know, only what the article says.
When trying to answer that question, you sense yourself getting angry...see what I mean?
Ummm no, because I don't get angry. Faaaar from it actually lol. Now some of you though, I don't know.
Sure, in an 'ideal' world two people of the opposite sex should be able to sit three feet apart while naked and have nothing happen.
Of course.
But when I talk this way, you think I am justifying forcing something on someone...that is your detached, cleanroom thinking at work
Wow...you are COMPLETELY wrong. If by "this" you mean your past comments and not the quote above this one, then you are WAAAAAY off in what you think about me. I NEVER thought you were justifying forcing something on someone else. Just because I ask questions and don't agree with you on some things doesn't mean I thought that way of you. Where did you even get that from?
besides, very few men would actually force something on the woman is such a scenario.
Lol pardon the light tone of this but...no shit Sherlock.
You've set-up a bunch of strawmen with your questions.
How. I've read all you comments and I feel that they conflict with each other in some ways.
That, combined with the fact that you repeatedly ask the same question even when already answered and you don't answer questions asked of you, indicates to me that you're not really interested in finding out what other commenters here think but just want to cause problems.
Not true. If it seems like I asked the same question under this particular thread, it's because it really wasn't answered, or , to be honest, your answer greatly confused me. I want to know the reasoning behind it. Personally I think I have answered ALL questions you asked of me. Name one of your questions in this thread that I haven't answered and I'll take it back.
Believe it or not, I really am interested in what you all think. And I mean that.
I believe that men and women are very different, with different wants, needs, and abilities. Because Nature has endowed them differently they have different roles in society.
Of course. I agree wholeheartedly(sp?).
With different roles, comes different responsibilities...
OK.
...and different privileges (which accrue to them when they successfully perform their respective roles).
And now you lost me. What privileges are you talking about and how does that relate to any of the questions I've asked?
Feminism has stripped women of all of their responsibilities and granted them all of the privileges they may have earned had they carried-out those responsibilities.
What are those responsibilities and privileges?
It has further granted them all of the privileges that responsible men might earn, without ever having to earn them. In fact, they are - as a class - congenitally incapable of earning them because they are by definition incapable of performing the male role, because they aren't men.
Like I asked before, what priviledges are you talking about and how does this relate to my previous comments and questions? I know that men and women are biologically different, but I'm not seeing a connection between this fact and our posts on here.
I don't want this to go on forever so if you want to email me this comment then that's fine, just ask.
Oh, and HOW IN THE WORLD am I creepy lol?! By simply having a differing opinion?
"I feel like I've had. How have I not? "
Just an educated guess, based on the fact that you view feministing, and apparently consider it a worthwhile site. I cannot see you through the internet wires, so cannot observe your day-to-day behaviour.
"I don't get angry"
Another symptom idyllic thinkiing.
" If by "this" you mean your past comments "
I was referring to the statement I was making at the exact time I was writing it - i.e. the immediately previous couple of sentences.
How do I 'know' what you think about some things? Let me ask you this: are you of the opinion that frs.com is some sort of 'opposite' of feministing, i.e. one can look at both sites to get a balanced view...and that there is not a lot of hatred spewed on that other site, or if there is so what, or that there is a lot of hatred of women spewed on this site (there is a difference between hatred and anger)?
Also, do you think along the lines of, "well, we have feminist statistics on the one hand, and MRA stats on the other?" The answers to those questions will say a lot about where you are coming from.
Just the fact that you are free to comment here is totally unlike what happens to any man who tries to comment at feministing. Whereas, the worst we have 'done to you' on this site is argue.
Remember, "Women are much more psychologically violent than men." - said by Erin Pizzy, founder of domestic violence shelters for women. (Check if you don't believe me.)
Another symptom idyllic thinkiing.
I was responding to this:
When trying to answer that question, you sense yourself getting angry...see what I mean?
Like I said, I wasn't getting angry. Far from it.
Sure, in an 'ideal' world two people of the opposite sex should be able to sit three feet apart while naked and have nothing happen. But when I talk this way, you think I am justifying forcing something on someone
Now I'm confused. I said I agree with you about the first sentence in the quote. So the second question threw me in for a loop. What were you trying to say? How did you go from that to you thinking that I'm justifying that?
I'll answer the rest soon.
How do I 'know' what you think about some things? Let me ask you this: are you of the opinion that frs.com is some sort of 'opposite' of feministing, i.e. one can look at both sites to get a balanced view...
I would say opposite in some views yes. I basically go to both sited because I agree with some aspects from both of them. You believe something that has always been believed by feminists and the general public, but you find out that that particular belief may be wrong by you going to websites like this.
...and that there is not a lot of hatred spewed on that other site, or if there is so what, or that there is a lot of hatred of women spewed on this site (there is a difference between hatred and anger)?
I honestly wouldn't call what I read from that site hatred at all. I admit I've read some stuff that can be called offensive from a few women posters here. I didn't read a lot of them because I discovered this site a short while ago, so I could be wrong. I've also read what could be called offensive from male commenters over at Feministing. It goes both ways. To be honest, in both situations I would call it less hatred and more immaturity and ignorance. But once again, I could be wrong since I haven't seen such comments in a while.
Also, do you think along the lines of, "well, we have feminist statistics on the one hand, and MRA stats on the other?"
Yeah you can say that. I look up information on each of those statistics and read each side's evidence supporting those statistics. That way, I can have a clear idea which one is more truthful and logical.
Just the fact that you are free to comment here is totally unlike what happens to any man who tries to comment at feministing. Whereas, the worst we have 'done to you' on this site is argue.
From what I've witness, they're pretty polite as long as the guy (and girl) commenting isn't rude, immature, sexist, and downright insulting. Those are the comments that they delete. They also screen comments especially if it's about rape, sexual assault, etc. or when the person posting was raped. They basically don't want comments that sound like those of an rape apologist. But anyway, I think it's to also keep the topic at hand from diverting (I feel like I've been guilty of this myself once in a while).
Renee,
"I've read all you comments and I feel that they conflict with each other in some ways."
Then you are clearly not reading them carefully.
"If it seems like I asked the same question under this particular thread, it's because . . . to be honest, your answer greatly confused me."
I understand that you're confused and I know why you're confused. You (as we all) have been indoctrinated in feminist lies your whole life. This creates a cultural context in which logical consideration concerning gender issues is verboten. So the introduction of a logical argument causes cognitive dissonance (or confusion) in your mind. I would recommend that you ask fewer questions and spend a lot more time reading (at this site and using other sources) about the truth concerning these issues.
"Personally I think I have answered ALL questions you asked of me. Name one of your questions in this thread that I haven't answered and I'll take it back."
It is true that you gave confused, disingenuous responses that were really nothing more than regurgitations of feminist talking points, but you didn't really answer any of my questions. Maybe, as you said, your confusion is genuine and you really don't have any answers to the questions. But you avoided this one entirely:
"Do you really believe that women should be allowed to do whatever suits them, without ever being held accountable for those actions?"
"Do you really believe that women should be allowed to do whatever suits them, without ever being held accountable for those actions?"
I DID answer this. Here's what I said:
"I never said that women should do whatever suits them without being held accountable for their actions. My problem is, you keep singling out the women...why? Aren't men not guilty of doing the same thing? Anyway I'm not into the habit of judging others. Men and women can have sex outside of marriage and still be responsible and sensible people, as long as their not over-doing it."
So my answer is no. But how this question relates to anything I don't know. Why would you even ask me that?
It is true that you gave confused, disingenuous responses that were really nothing more than regurgitations of feminist talking points, but you didn't really answer any of my questions. Maybe, as you said, your confusion is genuine and you really don't have any answers to the questions.
I think all my responses to all of your questions were clear and straight to the point. Also, 99-98% of my comments aren't even based on feminism, just what I believe and what I was taught. It's funny, the way you feel about my questions, I feel about yours. A few of them, I don't think you even answered directly or your logic behind was confusing.
I believe that God gave different characteristics and specific abilities to men and women. I also believe that biologically men and women are different. With that being said, I don't understand the logic behind some your opinions. You clearly believe what I do, but the way you use those beliefs to reach your conclusions greatly confused me.
Annnnd I probably confused you with that one sentence lol.
Look, like I said, I don't want this to take up this particular thread. I'm all for a good discussion so if you have anything more to say and if you want to, you can just email me your response. Just ask for my email. If you choose to respond here, that's fine or I can just email you my response if you choose.
Renee,
I thought some of my other posts explained my position clearly. Maybe rather than trying to explain it in a single post, a step-by-step approach would work better.
You said:
"I believe that God gave different characteristics and specific abilities to men and women. I also believe that biologically men and women are different."
Given this belief (which I agree with whole-heartedly), would you agree that because men and women are biologically different and they have different characteristics and abilities that they also have different roles to perform in society?
Given this belief (which I agree with whole-heartedly), would you agree that because men and women are biologically different and they have different characteristics and abilities that they also have different roles to perform in society?
In the grand scheme of things yes. To me it's more of God assigning men and women different roles in society, not really because of biology. You can say that in a way, biology is a reflection of God's assignments. Are they limited to their assigned roles, no. But some roles men do better than women and with others, women do better than men.
Russ asked:
". . . would you agree that because men and women are biologically different and they have different characteristics and abilities that they also have different roles to perform in society?"
Renee responded:
"In the grand scheme of things yes . . . some roles men do better than women and with others, women do better than men."
I would define a "role" as sort of a collection of tasks and responsibilities.
Given that definition, would you also agree that, assuming a married couple with children hear a loud noise in the house in the middle of the night, that it would be the man's responsibility to go down and find out what is going on?
Given that definition, would you also agree that, assuming a married couple with children hear a loud noise in the house in the middle of the night, that it would be the man's responsibility to go down and find out what is going on?
Yes. I couldn't imagine him wanting his wife to do that.
I get all of this. Now I want to see how all this relates to some of the things we talked about, like the following:
Biology shouldn't be used as an excuse for all behavior. Men and women are biologically different but we still have control over what we choose to do. Does biology excuse men to have sex (mainly premarital sex) but not women? Does it excuse men in spending money on women JUST to get into their pants? Keep in mind that I'm talking only about biology.
Why single out women for irresponsible sexual behavior? It takes two (a man and a woman) to have sex. Aren't men not guilty of doing the same thing? Anyway I'm not into the habit of judging others. Men and women can have sex outside of marriage and still be responsible and sensible people, as long as their not over-doing it.
You don't have to answer all in one post. You can still do the step-by-step thing, I just wanted to get to the nitty-gritty of what we're talking about.
Me:
"Given that definition, would you also agree that, assuming a married couple with children hear a loud noise in the house in the middle of the night, that it would be the man's responsibility to go down and find out what is going on?"
Renee:
Yes. I couldn't imagine him wanting his wife to do that.
Believe it or not, he probably would want his wife to do it, but that simply isn't an option because as a man his role is to go down. It is most definitely not something he wants to do.
Just as men have more responsibility in this arena, women have more responsibility in the sexual arena. Although both parents are responsible for the safety/security of their children, in the case of an intrusion into their home, the man bears primary responsibility. In the same way, both men and women are responsible for their procreative behavior, but women bear primary responsibility. That's only fair.
In the same way, both men and women are responsible for their procreative behavior, but women bear primary responsibility. That's only fair.
Actually it's not. It takes TWO to have sex and procreate, so both men and women should bear equal responsibility. This way of thinking is very problematic because in a way, it encourages a double standard when it comes to sex. You said it yourself:
Believe it or not, men don't spend their money on women because they believe them to be diva/goddesses that they (the men) just want to serve. They do it because they want to get into their pants.
You don't see anything wrong with that, especially in the case of premarital sex? I asked this particular question before by the way, but it wasn't directly answered. You agree that people should wait until marriage to have sex yet you don't seem to have a problem with some men buying things for women just to have sex with them. How can you deal with irresponsible behavior if you only focus on one side of the issue (the women)?
And here's another question that wasn't answered directly.
I mentioned that before because I was thinking if a woman declining a gift, paying for her own ticket, etc. constitutes as a woman not being demure, I don't know. You seem to think that many women use men yet you don't like "gender equity". Doesn't "gender equity" include women paying for themselves?
Oh and you never answered my question about priviledges. What are the priviledges that you speak of?
Sidenote: I think it's interesting that you don't really expect much from men yet you're a guy yourself (I'm assuming, Russ sounds like a guy name). You think that a guy would WANT his wife to go first and investigate suspicious noise in the middle of the night? You think that there is NO WAY a guy would buy something, anything, do something nice without any sexual alterior motives (especially in cases in which they're not married)? I don't know, maybe I expect too much from guys or give them the benefit of the doubt too much.
Renee,
I don't know why you are unable to follow the simple logic of my argument; I don't know if you are congenitally incapable, or if feminist cultural poisoning, is responsible, or if you are just too young (some of your questions and statements evince a degree of immaturity) and therefore lack the experience necessary, but I suspect it is a combination of all three.
This problem is pervasive in contemporary society.
I left some of your questions unanswered because, as I said before, they are merely strawman arguments and have nothing to do with my positions.
Well some of your arguement doesn't contain simple logic. Parts of it isn't even logical at all. And the questions I raised aren't strawmen arguements but pertain to parts of your questions and answers. I even answered one of your questions which was by definition a "straw man":
Do you really believe that women should be allowed to do whatever suits them, without ever being held accountable for those actions.
From wiki on "straw men" (yes I'm using wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman):
Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.
By you not answering some of the questions I asked, I'm left with the impression that you don't have an answer for them.
Renee,
Like I said, I've explained my position clearly and simply and you are still incapable of understanding it. So I think I'm going to let this one drop.
I hope you are serious about learning more about "the other side" of gender issues and that you will continue reading and posting on this blog and others like it. And I look forward to having more "discussions" with you as you learn more.
Russ,
I understand about the roles, biological differences, etc., but I failed to understand your rationale of using that to explain why women are the only ones called out on their "irresponsible behavior". Answers that I consider clear and simple are the ones that answer the question at hand DIRECTLY and to the point, not go around it or answer the question in too broad a form.
Although both parents are responsible for the safety/security of their children, in the case of an intrusion into their home, the man bears primary responsibility. In the same way, both men and women are responsible for their procreative behavior, but women bear primary responsibility. That's only fair.
This explains nothing. You're comparing a God-given responsibility to a responsibility that's shared (or SHOULD be shared) between two people. It's not ok for guys to do nice things JUST SO they can get in a girl's pants just as it's not ok for girls to act "irresponsibly". In this day and age, guys and girls act irresponsibly. Your belief almost alleviates the guys from any responsibility. It perpetuates(sp) a sexual double standard.
Yeah I'm going to let this drop too lol.
I hope you are serious about learning more about "the other side" of gender issues and that you will continue reading and posting on this blog and others like it. And I look forward to having more "discussions" with you as you learn more.
Thanks and I am serious. You'll be seeing me around ;-) Just curious...why did you put discussions in quotation marks?
Post a Comment