Is it sort of like what One Brow and aintnuthin/hopper used to do when they had their long-winded multi-page discussions?
Jazzfanz: Racist, Sexist, Anti-gay remarks Ok. Swears and All Caps Not Ok.
- Thread starter BabyPeterzz
- Start date
To say that many women feel the pressure of infantilization, you only need to actually accept what these women say and the evidence they present. To say the pressure is not present, you need to deny that these women are accurately reporting their treatment by society and claim they don't really understand the evidence. When the latter argument is undertaken by men (very rarely do women make it), it is (by some) referred to as "mansplaining".
Post #75:
Post #104
Can you hold your breath into a past time?
QuinSnydersHair
Well-Known Member
Wow. I didn't think you could be any more arrogantly ignorant than you were but I stand corrected. No need for me to say anything more.
Can SOMEBODY please explain to me what exactly this is?
Or I WILL have a temper tantrum.
Just like a two-year old...
https://thesocietypages.org/socimag...ickey-mouse-and-the-infantilization-of-women/
https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/pdf/2010/carlson.mkt.pdf
https://anirenicon.com/2011/06/14/t...a-theology-of-aging-getting-age-wrong-part-2/
From post #82:
When you ask me what look to me like pompous, manipulative questions, I show you enough respect to answer them, because I don't know you and might be mistaken.
There are people who have me on ignore, some have even publicly declared it to be so. When you misquote me with what is supposedly a humorous reinterpretation, they have no original available by default.
I didn't bring up your upbringing. I asked, rhetorically, how you could have a conversation that did not involve your upbringing, a point which stands regardless of your upbringing.
Unless that person is me. Then, you seem to have no issue with ignoring what I am actually saying, and re-interpreting it to fit into some predefined categories, none of which match. When you're dealing with me, you feel free to respond to caricature, assumptions, and misunderstandings, without a single care to check on the accuracy of your interpretations, or what I might "objectively" mean.
If one has most of their conversations with people of essentially similar backgrounds and points of view, it can be difficult to tell when one is relying on that common background to correctly interpret a specific idea. So, it's easy enough to think that one is good at understanding an objective idea when most people are sharing one's subjective interpretations. However, that's fooling oneself.
Calling me arrogant and ignorant, and then flouncing, is so much easier than defending what you've said, or acknowledging error. For example, you could have actually quoted what you think I misspoke about, rather than make a content-free claim, particularly when, asked to resolve a contradiction, you stated a point I have been stating all along.
Between us, I'm the one who has made posts in other threads acknowledging I was wrong and apologizing to people for it. I have not seen this behavior from you. So, I don't find yours accusations in any way persuasive nor sincere.
All of this effort to find some tie, any tie between Nate telling a poster to stop crying or something similar and the infantilization of women. Pretty embarrassing.
Shelob tbh
I hate spiders.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
.....don't mind spiders, but way into snakes!
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgExTrqH0n8
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
post #82?
That seems to be my comment on the "fogwall of suck" post. And yes, I think it does apply here.
Also wonderfully ironic that Mickey Mouse is the author's chosen metaphor for the infantilization of women she describes. Mickey Mouse itself (himself?) is a metaphor for simple-mindedness - or stupidity, if you will. Last I checked (ok, not really, but ykwim) Mickey Mouse was/is a male character. Ironic for her to use the example of the infantilization of a male cartoon character and attach it to female human people.
The whole idea that only females are infantilized (is that a word?) is ludicrous. I postulate that it happens to males as well. Really, if you want to analyze things, Mickey Mouse and most other cartoon characters are infantilizations of men. Well, except perhaps for Popeye. But then again, the poor fellow was stuck with a name like Popeye.
What about all the stereotypes of men who can't "cut the apron strings"? Men who have absolutely no survival skills so they need a woman to mange their life for them?
The jargon swings both ways.
Everything you say is correct, but doesn't seem to be quite on point. Mickey Mouse was used as an example of what infantilization looks like, but I don't think he was referenced as an example of the infantilization of women.
Perhaps we grew up watching different shows/movies, but in those I watched, the men who could not cut the apron strings were were humiliated, not lauded nor approved. "Mama's boy' is an insult even to the pre-teen boy, while 'Daddy's girl' is not supposedly an insult (correct me if I have misunderstood here, please). None of the men that were held up to be role models were overly attached to their mothers. They were dutiful, and sometimes appreciative, but highly independent.
You get the occasional story about how becoming a man means separating from your parents; sometimes is the main plot point of the movie. I don't recall any such stories for women.
Much more common in the media is the man who can't cook, run a vacuum cleaner, etc. However, those typically seem to reinforce stereotypes; these men are the same ones who are successful professionals, capable of juggling multiple advertising accounts, legal cases, or medical patients. Their ineptness in the home seems to be played for laughs. but is not considered a negative trait.
What were some of the messages you saw where men being childish was considered a sexy or desirable trait?
I think one major point of the "helpless man" portrayal is to make a woman think he needs her to "take care" of him...
In other words to make him seem more attractive to her.
Anyhow, I wonder what will show up if I google "cartoonification of men" - perhaps nothing! Sounds to me like a fantastic topic for a PhD thesis! I know we've got some academic types around here, maybe I could persuade one of them to take up the cause.
In other words to make him seem more attractive to her.
Anyhow, I wonder what will show up if I google "cartoonification of men" - perhaps nothing! Sounds to me like a fantastic topic for a PhD thesis! I know we've got some academic types around here, maybe I could persuade one of them to take up the cause.
I agree completely. This male caricature is helpless at doing 'woman's work', so the woman is really useful being at home. We all want to be needed and valued.
Here's one result from a Google search:
https://clarissasblog.com/2009/10/17/infantilizing-men/
OK, I'll just go burn my bra now.
I'll leave the mess for my husband to clean up.
I'll leave the mess for my husband to clean up.