Stickler, kudos for the expression "fogwall of suck" - I think that's a pretty good figure of speech! Not sure I'd always agree it applies here, but it's appropriately descriptive of threads that are going poorly.
Jazzfanz: Racist, Sexist, Anti-gay remarks Ok. Swears and All Caps Not Ok.
- Thread starter BabyPeterzz
- Start date
Stickler, kudos for the expression "fogwall of suck" - I think that's a pretty good figure of speech! Not sure I'd always agree it applies here, but it's appropriately descriptive of threads that are going poorly.
Absent other evidence, I take your refusal to answer for yourself as an answer for yourself.
I've already stated that some women don't feel that pressure.
If you care to do any reading on the subject at all, there is an abundance of writing on the subject of the infantilization of women. It's a long-standing, well-understood notion which existence I feel no particular need to defend. You see it in notions like hairiness is unfeminine, school-girl fantasies, mansplaining, dumbing down according to gender, etc.
As I said, I'd really like to believe you are capable of seeing that cultural forces can influence notions without being directly stated. However, you are making that belief difficult to hold.
Yet another white male, from his perch of cultural superiority, telling someone how great the culture is. I am unimpressed by the reasoning, and saddened by the lack of compassion. If you were religious, you would be a discredit to your religion.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I am missing how triangle man is wrong when he states that we should listen to what people say, and not just so we can judge whether they said it correctly or not, but rather for the actual content.
OB it sounds to me like you are far more concerned with how something is said rather than what is actually said. So I can say I want to kill all african americans, and as long as I don't use the N word you have no issues with that? I know that is extreme hyperbole but at the end there your frustration was showing (white male...cultural perch...etc.) and that is exactly how you came across.
When dealing with human behavior psychologists have found it most effective to remove reinforcers, both positive and negative, in getting a behavior to stop. Even a negative reinforcer can be enough to perpetuate the behavior, as you can see in teenagers particularly, when you try to punish them they often push harder (of course this happens generally anyway in conditioning, it is called an "extinction burst"). Generally it is more effective to remove reinforcers for an undesired behavior, while increasing reinforcers for a replacement behavior.
Note: Obviously when the behavior has immediate dire consequences punishment must be used or some other means to stop the behavior immediately, but for most behaviors this works very well.
OB it sounds to me like you are far more concerned with how something is said rather than what is actually said. So I can say I want to kill all african americans, and as long as I don't use the N word you have no issues with that? I know that is extreme hyperbole but at the end there your frustration was showing (white male...cultural perch...etc.) and that is exactly how you came across.
When dealing with human behavior psychologists have found it most effective to remove reinforcers, both positive and negative, in getting a behavior to stop. Even a negative reinforcer can be enough to perpetuate the behavior, as you can see in teenagers particularly, when you try to punish them they often push harder (of course this happens generally anyway in conditioning, it is called an "extinction burst"). Generally it is more effective to remove reinforcers for an undesired behavior, while increasing reinforcers for a replacement behavior.
Note: Obviously when the behavior has immediate dire consequences punishment must be used or some other means to stop the behavior immediately, but for most behaviors this works very well.
I missed that part as well. I just think the words someone uses, the cultural context they are spoken in, etc. are a part of the actual content. You seem to be arguing for a pure content that is separate from word choice, which seems bizarre to me.
I think that if you use a metaphor like 'slower than a Mormon in a math class', you need to recognize that even though you don't mean to harm any of the Mormons, you are reinforcing the notion that Mormons are unintelligent, you not only insult any that overhear, but affirm the to the listener that it's OK to insult Mormons (of course, Mormons are not stereotypically associated with a lack of intelligence, so it's not quite as culturally sharp as some other choices may have been). Word choices have real consequences, they do not exist in a vacuum. Returning to the source of this tangent, associating maculinity with a thick skin is just as harmful and just as untrue.
I agree with this general position. Finding specific applications for positive reinforcement is trickier.
QuinSnydersHair
Well-Known Member
The blanket statement that the far majority of women are infantilized is by nature, infantilizing them. You're, in essence, saying the far majority of women are treated like children, infants, if you will, and this is simply not true.
Question. Do you understand what infantilization means?
If so, are you part of society? I mean, do you have any sort of exposure to the media where there's a visual medium?
Giving a hint to answer to VINYLONE's questions, why do you think discussion the pressures that society places on women is somehow infantilizing them, in particular when this is based on many women's description of these pressures, offered with copious evidence?
Well, that's not quite the response I was looking for. I'm not sure if I'm proud of the fact that even when I'm trying to prove a serious point, people think I'm trolling, or if it makes me want to log out of life.
I have a couple of serious questions that I would like you to answer, please.
1) Are the males of our species typically born with testes?
2) Are the females of our species typically not born with testes?
3) Why is it, do you think, that women cry more than men (starting at puberty) by approximately 4-1?*
Also, "prolactin, which also controls breast milk production, is present when someone cries emotional tears. The protein gets the endocrine system flowing, making people more prone to crying. Women may possess as much as 60 percent more prolactin in their bodies at any given time compared to men."
So when I mentioned that men have thicker skin than women because of their balls, I really meant it. Girls cry during The Notebook, guys don't. Girls get their feelings hurt easily, guys don't. Girls take offense at every little thing, guys don't. Start screwing around with hormones (like giving yourself synthetic testosterone shots every week, for example) and all bets are off; I cried during the preview for the new Transformers movie (dem childhood memories, doe) and then bawled like a girl during most of Malyficent.
Sometimes (see: always), stereotypes exist for a reason.
*source: https://curiosity.discovery.com/question/woman-cry-more-than-men
Yes to both.
Smaller tear ducts and social conditioning. There may be hormonal contribution as well.
I don't equate 'not crying' with 'having a thick skin'. Some male posters here have ludicrously thin skins, despite apparentlyh never shedding a tear. I would venture that equating a thin skin with crying is itself sexist.
Girls admit to having hurt feelings, guys don't. The behavior indicates otherwise. I don't think there's any more sensitive group than white Christian males, generally. They over-react to everything.
Dude. When something affects you emotionally, you cry. If you have thick skin, small things tend to not make you emotional, and therefore you cry less. If your hormones, or smaller tear ducts, or higher percentages of certain proteins in your body make you cry more/less than the other sex, and therefore have thicker/thinner skin, it's not sexism -- wait for it -- it's science. Again.
I'm basing my opinion off of scientific facts. You're basing yours off of what you likely read in some feminist blog, written by Pearl Watson or someone of her ilk. The fact that you equate over-sensitivity to being a white, Christian, male says to me that you're happy to be profoundly wrong in this thread, because, well, you're you and you're never wrong regardless of facts.
So is it my turn to say, "Nice troll"?
Link?
QuinSnydersHair
Well-Known Member
Yes and why? I have a feeling where you're going but don't want to be presumptuous.
QuinSnydersHair
Well-Known Member
I don't think discussing the pressures that society places on women is infantilizing them. Where did I say that?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
May be hormonal contributions? You do realize that a burst of certain hormones in vitro us what determines gender in the first pace? Pretty powerful stuff those hormones. You have to be trolling here. Otherwise you just strongly implied that nurture is stronger than nature. Social conditioning trumps hormonal influence. Interesting implications there.
Or is it just in certain cases like when you agree that's the case our have an argument to win?
Is it possible that hormonal influence has shaped society in the first place so it's merely a reflection of our evolved nature? Maybe natural selection has evolved women who cry more easily and men that don't because that is a sign to our species of their respective fitness as mates and desirable traits in offspring.
I answered your straightforward question in a very direct and straightforward manner. I back my statement 100%
Then maybe you should speak less in absolutes as if you are the spokesman for all women.
You ever have conversations with a person, or is it all just groups of people with you?
You couldn't come to grips with the idea of communicating with somebody as a person so you decide not only am I some great white monster, but I'm also a disgrace to my religion.
You must really be out of spin and ideas. "unimpressed by the reasoning, and saddened by the lack of compassion"... give me a break, troll. geez
It's in my post.
You don't have to defend him just because he's a liberal like you, 'Evil.
Do you think any of this has changed in the last few decades?
Ok. Explain it to me. What do you think it means to infantilize a woman?
QuinSnydersHair
Well-Known Member
Uh, no.
Associated with both. However, in speech and written communication there is this concept called "context," and sometimes this idea tends to narrow things down or exclude one thing or the other.
There was no context in what I said that made it a sexist remark. If I said "you're crying like a woman" bam, there is the sexist connotation. Crying in general is hardly associated with just women. More over, in this context the word was more a synonym with "complaining," which is pretty universal by every gender, and when crying and complaining go together I tend to associate it with children, not women. Now if I would have made a comment about crying because someone was getting too emotionally invested in an issue, there is a connotation it has with women. But in this case, it was another word for "complaining." I used the word "crying" because it conveyed what I felt was the especially whiny nature of the complaint.
Though I'm sure some awful professor has written a 20 page dissertation telling me how wrong I am.