The 21st Century Male Role

[betsy]

Maybe your husband and brother know you too well....and are just humoring you.

They don't know what to say to you. Heck, maybe they're even terrified of you! Who knows.

Anyway, hasta la vista!

Of course, the men in your life would only humour you hon -- You've already admitted that because of your gender you are worth less and therefore are treated as such.

Of course the men in your life know exactly what to say to you -- "where's my socks? When's dinner". No need to worry your pretty little fragile female psyche with anything more profound -- you might just get "hysterical" if called on for your opinion on more important matters.

Lol.

[Drea]

Betsy, throughout the entire 7 page thread, you never once clarified or gave an example of what you mean.

Give us one example of one man who has been ruined by women.

One.

Not someone in the news, someone you know.

Heck, you could even make it up.

[Black Dog]

The inferiority of women can't be inferred from their lack of participation in positions of power. All that can be logically concluded is that women have not exercised their abilities in attaining power to the same extent as men.

Ah, so women have traditioinally accepted a lesser and subservient role becaus ethey did feel like having better? Interesting theory. Also interesting is thte fact that you can't abide women who do excercise their abilitie sto attain power.

One might consider the possibility that inferiority is the reason women have been less inclined to attain power, but one would be only guessing - stabbing in the dark so to speak.

One might, but one moight also consider the possibilities that women haven't been afforded the same opportunities as men to acheive any kind of power. Yet you reject that very real possibility in favour of "they musn't have felt like it." Goofy.

One might more logically assume, as I have stated, "The weight of the evidence in fact would lead a logical person to conclude that particular qualities (characteristics) combine in individuals that allow them to attain power - to be potential leaders, if you will.

What evidence?

That seems to me to suggest that a few men and women are superior in their ability to attain power than the rest of us - no more, no less. Ergo what?? Complicated? I don't think so

Not complicated. Silly. The weight of evidence does not suggest power derives from merit.

I can only repeat, "Again your argument is circular. You're saying that historically men have attained power as a privilege of their gender. On what do you base this contention? You're asking us to believe your conclusions on the basis of a premise that is neither proven nor probable." You haven't proven, or even given evidence that your premise is true. All you've done is insist, and I quote, "...there's strong historical evidence to suggest that men have been privileged on the basis of gender. There's even strong contemporary examples as well. Unless of course you think that the widespread and institutional oppression of women in places like the Middle East, for example, is due to women lacking the right stuff to be successful."

There's nothing circular about it.

I suppose the widespread dominance of males over females, in your theory, is equal to the dominance of men in leadership roles.

Equal? I don't know about that. But talking about "leadership roles" is cutting things mighty thin. Male dominance over females is a power dynamic.

Even if it were true, you would have to prove that oppression is a quality that would enhance the possibility of attaining power...

Oppression is a demonstration of power. It also reinforces pre-existing power dynamics. It's a vicious circle.

..and you would then be left defending a very narrow definition of power and attempting to apply that definition to all forms of power from benign and altruistic to dictatorial and fascist

Narrow? Quite the opposite.

Anyway, it's a moot point because bullying dominance is the complete antithesis of the type of power we're discussing, that attained by means of ability.

Ah ha! So we have acknowledgment that power is not, in fact, always attained as a result of ability. And then we're asked to disregard that fact? Give me a break. Power is power.

Actually, no, I don't think I have.

Yes: "The fact is, that historically, men hold power to a greater extent than women." Your words.

Sorry, I lost the reference for this, but let me guess. You want us to get into personal relationships, spouses inability to deal with each other and probably themselves, custody battles and the lot. Spare me. Take it up with Drea or Kuzadd or whoever.

Now who's peddling a narrow definition of power. You think that women's inability to acheive positions of political and economic authority is the only relvant thing here? You think the power dynamics that occur in the day-to-day interactions of individuals are irrelevant? That's ridiculous.

Apparently a little too deep for you to get the significance. But we can't keep going over the same issues just because you have limited focus. The liberal mind does have difficulty dealing with facts, or even with fiction in any consistent way. Looks like you possess the liberal mind, B. Dog.

And now, arms flailing wildly, betsy enters the ad hominem portion of today's program.

And again he circles. You attempt, I think, to prove that power is gender based, and at the same time, in an attempt to prove it, you make the assumption that power is gender based.

Here's what we know: men, traditionally have held more power than women in just about every sphere, from the political to the social (again, this is something you acknowledge). We ask why that is. Given that disparity and knowing the innumerable examples of institutional oppression and limitation of women, it seems reasonable to assume that gender is a factor. Nothing circular about it.

Societies develop according to their needs and preferences. That you don't approve is irrelevent. If a society wants men in control, hunting, fishing, etc. and women looking after the kids, goats and garden, that's what society gets. If a society wants women in control, and looking after the kids, goats and garden, and men hunting, fishing, etc., then that's what society will get. Do you think that's not what's happening today?

Utterly simplistic, which, I suppose, is the appeal. What, you think social norms and practices are that mercurial? You don't think practices or norms born of neccesity don't endure even after they've outlived their social utility?

[betsy]

I said: The inferiority of women can't be inferred from their lack of participation in positions of power. All that can be logically concluded is that women have not exercised their abilities in attaining power to the same extent as men.

You said: Ah, so women have traditioinally accepted a lesser and subservient role becaus ethey did feel like having better? Interesting theory. Also interesting is thte fact that you can't abide women who do excercise their abilitie sto attain power.

I hate to be too brutally honest, but you truly do seem to be a dull person. I simply say here that all that can be concluded from the fact that fewer women are in positions of power is that they haven't exercised their abilities. Unlike you, I understand that the evidence supports nothing else. Unlike you I don't conclude that men have conspired against women, that they aren't capable, that they didn't feel like it, or anything else you might dream up.

I said: One might consider the possibility that inferiority is the reason women have been less inclined to attain power, but one would be only guessing - stabbing in the dark so to speak.

You said: One might, but one moight also consider the possibilities that women haven't been afforded the same opportunities as men to acheive any kind of power. Yet you reject that very real possibility in favour of "they musn't have felt like it." Goofy.

One might, as you do. But one would be wrong, as you are. Reread the above concerning making unwarranted inferences from the evidence at hand starting at "I hate to be too brutally honest, but..."

I said: One might more logically assume, as I have stated, "The weight of the evidence in fact would lead a logical person to conclude that particular qualities (characteristics) combine in individuals that allow them to attain power - to be potential leaders, if you will.

Then you said in a typically brilliant come-back: "What evidence?" Note: I said it would lead a LOGICAL person to conclude...

I said: That seems to me to suggest that a few men and women are superior in their ability to attain power than the rest of us - no more, no less. Ergo what?? Complicated? I don't think so.

And you said: Not complicated. Silly. The weight of evidence does not suggest power derives from merit.

What evidence?

I said: I can only repeat, "Again your argument is circular. You're saying that historically men have attained power as a privilege of their gender. On what do you base this contention? You're asking us to believe your conclusions on the basis of a premise that is neither proven nor probable." You haven't proven, or even given evidence that your premise is true. All you've done is insist, and I quote, "...there's strong historical evidence to suggest that men have been privileged on the basis of gender. There's even strong contemporary examples as well. Unless of course you think that the widespread and institutional oppression of women in places like the Middle East, for example, is due to women lacking the right stuff to be successful."

You said: There's nothing circular about it.

Yes there is, nya-nya-nya.

Furthermore, that strong historical evidence that doesn't exist seems to exist when YOU want to base a nonsensical premise on it. As I said (what seems) long ago, history doesn't discriminate, it's just the evidence. I might add that it's evidence that is almost always misused in an attempt to distort the truth.

And on and on it goes. If I continued with this I'd truly have to question my own abilities.

However I do have a story for you, B. Dog.

I've had dogs all my life. Most have been quite clever as far as cleverness goes in dogs - dogs of all colours and stripes. But they all give themselves away, demonstrate that their thinking processes lack reason, in one telling trait. Before a dog lies down, he circles and circles and circles. If one was not familiar with this trait in dogs, one might assume that some amount of reasoning was going on as he circles and circles and circles. There's not. He just does it because he's always done it. Finally he lies down and sleeps. I'm sure he has many dog-thoughts running through his head - chasing squirrels, birds, maybe girl dogs (I'd call them bitches but...well, you've probably heard that that's an insult to women - people running in your circle would probably support that reversed analogy, but I digress). But reason he does not have. He proves that lack of reason by doing the very same thing again - over and over - circling.

Hasta la Vista.

[Drea]

Where's your example!!!???

[Black Dog]

I hate to be too brutally honest, but you truly do seem to be a dull person.

If the joke bombs, sometimes the comedian must accept that perhaps the audience isn't the problem. If you feel your points are being missed, perhaps you should look at how you present them. Your random word generator writing style is certainly not helpful.

I simply say here that all that can be concluded from the fact that fewer women are in positions of power is that they haven't exercised their abilities. Unlike you, I understand that the evidence supports nothing else.

What evidence? You've got nothing.

Me: Sexism is a factor in women's comparative lack of power.

besty: nuh uh! Human society is a mertiocracy. Those that prosper do so because they work at it. Those that don't because they don't have the ability or choose not to excercise the for some reason.

Me: That's simplistic. Given the perponderance of historical evidence of power accumulating on gender lines, one cannot dismiss the role of gender in determining how power is distributed.

Betsy: Yeah I can. Watch: la la la la la la....

Unlike you I don't conclude that men have conspired against women, that they aren't capable, that they didn't feel like it, or anything else you might dream up.

Strawman. I certainly never suggested a conspiracy ( a term which implies a concious effort on the part of some select individuals), nor did I ever suggest power derives soley from merit: that was your baby. As for "they didn't feel like it," that's essentially your position: women have power because they haven't excercised their abilities. Why? Who knows!

Again: I have never suggested gender was the essential determinant for power. I simply noted that, due to the strong correlation, gender (or, morer accurately, sexism) cannot be dismissed as a factor.

You on the other hand, have given us an all-or-nothing statement, backed by zero evidence and relying on the same type of faulty logic you claim I'm employing. Projection, thy name is betsy.

One might, as you do. But one would be wrong, as you are. Reread the above concerning making unwarranted inferences from the evidence at hand starting at "I hate to be too brutally honest, but..."

Blah blah blah. You've given us no reason to think your little theory is any more valid than mine. I hate to be too brutally honest, but you're flailing.

Then you said in a typically brilliant come-back: "What evidence?" Note: I said it would lead a LOGICAL person to conclude...

Deflection. You have no evidence.

Me, I've offered examples (patrilineal inheritance was one). You: nothing.

Yes there is, nya-nya-nya.

Your most coherent comment to date. well done.

Furthermore, that strong historical evidence that doesn't exist seems to exist when YOU want to base a nonsensical premise on it.

A oatmeal raisin cookie to the brave soul who can figure out what the hell she's on about here.

As I said (what seems) long ago, history doesn't discriminate, it's just the evidence.

If you think history is an unvarnished account of reality, you're even dumber than you sound already.

And on and on it goes. If I continued with this I'd truly have to question my own abilities.

You should. You're a brutal writer, completely incapable of expressing a coherent argument. You're resorting to ad homiemns now to deflect from your own poor arguments.

[betsy]

Hmm-h-hmm.

[Catchme]

There is such a delicious irony in all of this, here we have a women, presumptuously thinking not only does she have a right to speak for ALL men in saying they are emmasculated, but she thinks she as a woman has a right to tell them, those men that are emmasculated by " other women" what to do about it.

I suppose the convoluted thinking here is that, if a women says it is so, it must be, as somehow saying women would not tell men.

LoL, betsy, really you are being a bit over the top in your insistance upon telling men that they are, being emmascualted, when they are telling you they are not.

[betsy]

There is such a delicious irony in all of this, here we have a women, presumptuously thinking not only does she have a right to speak for ALL men in saying they are emmasculated, but she thinks she as a woman has a right to tell them, those men that are emmasculated by " other women" what to do about it.

Oh I thought it's understood I'd said goodbye to you too since I'd already waved bye-bye to your clone.

Heh-heh....anyway...yep, indeed there's a yummy irony in all of this. And just in case you didn't get it, read what you've just written carefully! And like I said to the other....

THINK, GIRL! Think what comes out of that mouth. You only perpetuate the stereotyping of women!

I only hope you two are not university students. It wouldn't bode well for the future of women in leadership roles, to say nothing of how it would reflect on the quality of your particular institution.

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY WHAT I THINK!

And here’s your very own hasta la vista!

[Drea]

Betsy,

Where is your example?

No I am not a university student -- been in the business world for more than 25 years...

LOL

The stereotyping of women are done by those people who believe that women are not smart enough, or that they are too emotional or too whatever to be "equal" to men.

Come on now Betsy, do you seriously believe that you are worth less than a male?

Seems as though you do.

Sad really.

I've got a great book my hubby gave me for mother's day -- Life Lessons for Women (it'll help with your self esteem) by the folks who wrote the "Chicken Soup" series of books.

Cheers Betsy

-- Drea