This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - typhonblue
In a situation where one sex has social supremacy over another, is legal equality irrelevant?
My amazon review of "Nasty Men." Let's see if they post it:
5.0 out of 5 stars Double Standards--Alive and Well, April 13, 2008
By Jane Doe - See all my reviews
For the connoisseur of sexist double standards, this book and "Nasty Women" are both a real treat.
In "Nasty Men" the author states that one should never base your self-esteem on another's opinion. However in "Nasty Women" it is evident that Jay considers it acceptable and correct for a man to base his self-esteem on a woman's estimation of him. He goes on to say it is acceptable for a woman to have control over a man's self-esteem and to use that control to motivate said man into accepting and attempting to achieve the expectations and standards she sets out for him.
One of the women in "Nasty Women" describes her husband thus: "When we first married he was a slob, ignorant and irresponsible. He's much better now." Her husband believed, on the other hand, that she liked him better during the initial stages of the relationship, suggesting her highly critical behavior was reserved for later on. In other worlds, she built him up early on in the relationship only to tear him down later on.
In "Nasty Men" Jay outlines the profile of an `invalidator'. An invalidator focuses on the flaws of their spouse--oops, sorry, got a bit gender neutral there--their _wife_. An invalidator praises their spouse--gets them addicted to the self-esteem boost they provide--then tears them down.
Of course from "Nasty Women" we see that when a wife focuses on the flaws of her husband, builds him up in the initial stages of the relationship, only to cut him down later on, this is not at all abusive, but appropriate behavior. Jay explicitly outlines this very strategy for women to wield influence over their husbands. He advises women to offer praise then criticize. To build their husbands up then tear them down.
If we translate the advice given in "Nasty Women" into the descriptions given in "Nasty Men" Jay is advising women to be abusive invalidators! His only caveat is that women moderate their invalidation so that men don't turn off completely--In order to prevent men from waking up to the abuse and exiting the relationship emotionally, women must remember to moderate their invalidation with praise. Interestingly, waking up to the abuse and exiting the relationship emotionally is exactly the strategy he advises women to do when confronted with a male `invalidator.'
Reversing this, let's imagine Jay implied it was acceptable for men to set the standards of behavior and conduct for their wives, then said men should use their control over their wives' self esteem to motivate them to achieve those standards. Then he said that men shouldn't be too invalidating, or their wives will catch on and take steps to protect themselves emotionally.
Finally, some mention is made of the reason why women become nasty--previous emotional abuse, trauma, etc. Little mention is made of the possibility men might become nasty due to some previous trauma (One description mentioned an `overbearing[abusive] mother'.)
It's obvious Jay is speaking to a female audience for both books. (Strangely enough.) I'm afraid I don't think I'm his intended audience, despite being female, because I find his double-standards to be ghastly. I appreciate ugly and horrific things for their sheer shock value--thus the five star rating--but in terms of actual relationship advise I'd steer clear of these `gems'.
My husband finally gets his siamese kitten.
Unfortunately we were in such a rush we forgot the cat carrier. (D'oh!) So we had to improvise.
I don't know if it's already been done, but how about a browser that switches male and female pronouns, possessives, etc. to reveal hidden sexism?
On another thread it was pointed out that I made a negative generalization 'most women don't do motherhood well'.
I stand by it. Although I would add to that the caveate, _they aren't given the tools to do it properly by society._
From what I can infer from my limited understanding (mostly derived from observing the interactions of mothers and children and my experiences with dogs and horses) children appear to require from their parents a kind of 'calm assertive' energy or 'passive leadership'. In other words parents need to be leaders for the benefit of their followers--their children-- and in order to be leaders they have to face problems with a calm, persistant attitude.
Most mothers I've observed are incapable of this form of 'calm assertive' energy. They over-react constantly, like a weasel in a dynamite field.
Often this behavior is seen as cute and harmless, unfortunately it's not. Children raised in this manner often become paralyzed by nervous disorders.
I would have to say I put the blame on two competing ideologies. Christianity, with it's focus on tyranny through submission, doesn't teach women how to be 'calm, assertive' leaders. And modern victimist philosophies teach even uglier forms of learned helplessness.
I wonder if those ancient tribal societies that so horrified the Victorians (frankly if it horrified the Victorians, it probably was a very good thing) that put young women who had come of age through a test of mental and emotional endurance through isolation had it right.
Before you can become a mother, you must master yourself.
As much as society has let down young men by banishing age old rituals of manhood, it may have also let down young mothers by banishing age old rituals of female introspection and psychic endurance.
Are women innately evil or empowered to act on their evil sides to a greater degree?
Sometimes I'm told by people that I'm a feminist. It's happened on this board and others.
A teacher of mine, who knew my politics _and_ disagreed with them, even suggested that some people might see me as a feminist.
I'll call myself a new frontier feminist.
Feminists say they want equality with men; that they want to embrace men's social mileu, take on the rights of men.
But, just like the oppression-embracing victims that they are, always stop short at the _responsibilities_ of men.
This is obviously a form of female oppression! After all, human growth is stunted without responsibilities. So these old fogies and Victorian matron-wanna-bes want their daughters hobbled by a lack of responsibilities. They're obviously tricked by the patriarchy into thinking freedom is someone _else_ taking responsibility for your actions. Women have been infantilized by the patriarchy!
No longer should women be excluded from this last bastion of male-exclusivity: chivalry. Women should hold themselves responsible for the _benefit_ of men; They should use their powers to provide for the goals of men.
Thru responsibility comes personal growth. And, up to this point, men have been hogging almost _all_ of the responsiblity _and_ the personal growth.
It's time women get theirs. It's time to address the CHIVALRY GAP.
I was thinking about the "woman and children" topic recently and I realized that an abused wife(or one who is willing to claim abuse) has more protections then a child abused by his or her mother.
In fact women, in general, have far more protections then children _in the advent that the child's protections negatively impact the mother_.
A simple question.
When you can only observe men in cages(in the west) how do you know what is a sex difference based in biology and what is a reaction to being caged?
This forum seems to have been started as some sort of joke by this fellow bobknight44. Perhaps some of the guys on here could go there and start an actual discussion on abused husbands.
There is a feminist shark lurking in those waters as well.
Curezone gets a lot of traffic. 8,000+ visitors at a time. This forum is going to languish and die as it is, but it could be a valuable asset spreading the word about husband abuse and providing a sounding board.
I think I've got it.
1. Advocating violence against a person or group of people based on them being female.
2. Expecting women to revolve their lives around men's goals.
1. Advocating violence a person or group of people based on them being male.
2. Expecting men to revolve their lives around women's goals.
Misogyny is not:
1. Expressing anger or resentment due to special privilages that women are granted.
2. Expressing anger or resentment due to men being expected to order their lives to sacrifice for women.
3. Expressing anger or resentment due to the social forces that women exploit to get men to do what they want.
4. Expecting women to live up to the same responsibilities as men in exchange for the same rights of citizenship.
5. Being upset at _women_ for indulging in 1-4.
These angers and resentments, directed at women, are not misogyny because they are not against woman as woman, but woman as sole scion and ruler of society.
1. Expressing disinterest or dislike of female behavior or bodies. Sometimes used to justify Misogyny 1 & 2. However everyone has the right to dislike something and avoid it. While recognizing that others _like_ it and don't need to avoid it.
From my recent (disappointing) foray into a Relationships forum on another site I've come to realize a profound fact about our culture.
We encourage women to demand respect for their _personal selves_, while insisting men sacrifice their _personal selves_ for the good of the family.
Let's change this list to reflect the common behaviors of abusive women.
Abuse is behavior that is deliberately intended to cause emotional or physical damage:
* physical abuse - punching, slapping, pinching, shoving, using objects to inflict physical damage. i.e. Abuser pinches the victim in front of the children and the victim screams in pain while the abuser laughs aloud and says, "You've got to be kidding me! That couldn't have hurt you!" or, punching the victim in the upper arms or legs so that bruises won't show, or, slapping the victim in the back of the head, etc.
* verbal abuse - used with as much success as fists in causing the victim to feel degraded, humiliated, worthless, hopeless, helpless, and (often) as if they (the victim) are completely insane. i.e. "You're the one that needs therapy, right kids? SHE'S THE ONE taking antidepressants!" or, "How can you sit on your ass all day and tell me you're tired from watching kids?"
* religious abuse - any derrogatory remarks about one's religious practices, refusing to allow the victim to practice religious beliefs, bartering the victim's right to attend religious functions, forcing the victim to adopt the abuser's "religious beliefs," using religious doctrines as a tool of affirmation for the treatment of the victim. i.e. "YOUR religion says that a woman must obey him," or, "YOUR religion says that I have husbandly rights to your body," or, "You can go to church after you've given me sexual favors."
* sexual abuse - any use of sexual innuendo, demands, or acts that are deliberately intended to cause humiliation, degradation, shame, pain, and fear. Discussing the sexual activities of friends and/or acquaintances as a form of entertainment. Forcing a victim to engage in a sexual act that is distasteful to them. Forcing the victim to participate in risky sexual behavior. Forcing the victim to trade sexual favors in exchange for having family or personal needs met. Rape. Forcing the victim to watch or engage in pornographic videos or images. i.e. "Do you know what Frank's wife lets him do to her?" or, "Where's my birthday blowjob?" or, "I'm not letting you get groceries until you bend over and take it."
* financial abuse - refusing to allow victim access to joint finances, keeping victim isolated from financial information, spending victim's income without discussion or permission, creating unreasonable debt, creating loan/credit accounts using victim's personal information, refusing to pay bills in order to generate fear in the victim, forcing the victim to contact institutions that the abuser owes money to, forcing the victim to lie about why bills aren't paid. i.e. "You are not buying groceries without me coming along - you're not authorized to use this checkbook," or, "You don't need to know what's in the account! It's MY money since I earned it!" or, "I opened an account at Macy's in your name so I could get Junior a stereo for his birthday."
* emotional abuse - tearing down the victim's level of self-esteem by isolating the victim from family and friends, keeping the victim unsure of their own mental health, constant reference to victim's physical and/or mental health issues, blaming the victim for incurring medical bills, demanding that the victim apologize when it's inappropriate, goading/provoking the victim into striking back verbally or physically (makes their case for the victim being a nutbag), forcing the children to agree with the abuser when he/she is harassing the victim, using the health and well-being of children against the victim. i.e. "I am only ONE man working and you refuse to work. You can't work, anyway, because day care is too expensive," or, "Your friend, Libby, is trouble and I don't want you hanging around with her," or, "Your own MOTHER thinks you're nuts," or, "Your medical bills are KILLING us," or, "Just what this family needs is you to be sick another day."
Abuse is not disagreement or argument. Human beings are allowed and expected to disagree and engage in healthy argument - healthy means NOT INTENTIONALLY CAUSING DAMAGE. Healthy also means that one will apologize if their words cause damage for another person.
Abuse IS when one person (friend, lover, spouse, parent, minister, supervisor, doctor, and so on) intentionally says or does something to exert control, dominance, fear, and shame over another person.
I know he sounds like a schmuck. However, if the genders were reversed and it was the wife with the gambling problem, would there be quite as much blame flying around?
Please don't post there, okay!
Also... I noticed a feminist there using all the bad stories about men to suggest there was still ugly bias against women in the west that needs correcting.
I wonder if she just needs a few stories of the reverse to change her hard line.
I recently talked to a divorced dad.
He explained to me that his ex-wife accused him of all sorts of things while they were divorcing then stole his kids for three months so he couldn't see them.
I've talked to his eldest girl as well. Her mother is the picture of lazie-faire parenting. She simply _doesn't_ parent, just exists in the same sphere as her children. Before I talked to his eldest, I was a bit baffled by his two youngest boys who seem to be incapable of sitting still and being quiet. The man himself always seemed quite disiplined and firmly intolerant of his boy's bad behavior and yet they kept persisting and persisting. Now I realize that he doesn't have enough influence over them from the time he does get, Wednesdays and every other weekend, to train them to be well behaved. The eldest girl, despite telling me how much more strict her father is, says she prefers him because he actually parents and gives his kids activities to do and structure rather then treating them like houseplants.
I've been wondering more and more if many women are simply incapable of being decent parents. They seem to have no knowledge that cwuute liddle babies that give them all those wonderful tingly feelings down there grow up to require structure and leadership and training in being an adult.
I suppose when the after-glow wears off many mothers are simply too self-absorbed to do the real work of parenting. Once the benefit to themselves of having a liddle baby that gets them soo much attention wears off, they're through. I say mothers because it always seems to be mothers who fall into this lazy pattern.
If these people had dogs instead of kids they'd be considered a public nuiscance.
I'd imagine the whole "charging her husband with frivolous and unfounded accusations" and stealing her kids away would have alerted the court that she's a selfish nut and not suited to raise children. So why does she still have them full time? Why aren't women who are incapable of raising their children and express their insanity outright through pathological behavior _allowed the task of raising kids?_
Once again, benefits go to mommy, responsibilities go to dad.
Yet they dominate male-female discorse.
Why? Why would non-feminist politicians and law makers feel compelled to listen to them and enact increasingly draconian protections for women against men?
Hot Fuzz is awesome!
I was a bit worried during the beginning when the main male character was talking to his ex that it would end up having another awful man-grovels-his-way-back-into-ex's-good-graces subplot.
Lets just say I was very happy to be wrong.
The fight scenes... well, they were awe-inspiring. Priceless.
Everyone should watch this movie.