We teach boys to abuse women. We teach girls that abuse = attraction.

When I was in elementary school, a group of boys in my class liked to pick on me. Sometimes they got really mean, and it bothered me, so I told on them. The teacher I talked to told me that they were “just being boys,” and that they were probably doing it “because they like you!”

When I was a freshman in college, I went to a church on Father’s Day that preached a message about how to raise your sons. The pastor stated that there was something wrong with any boy who plays with Barbie dolls. Not only did he demand that parents discourage their sons from playing with these “girly toys,” he told parents to encourage their sons to steal their sisters’ Barbies and light them on fire, because that’s what “real boys” do.

I’m sure these scenarios don’t shock you too much. You’ve probably heard similar things, and maybe didn’t think twice about them, because these ideas about gender are so ingrained in our culture.

But when we teach boys that being a “real boy” means destroying a girl’s property (especially when that property is the image of a woman), we are teaching them that being cruel to women is what real men do. We’re teaching them that real men hate “girly things” to the point where they destroy them. We’re teaching them that real men have the right to do whatever they want to a woman’s property. We’re teaching them that real men find pleasure in destroying an image of a female body.

And we’re teaching girls that this behavior is desirable. When we dismiss a girl’s concerns with how she is being treated by boys by saying, “oh that’s what boys do,” we’re teaching her that cruel behavior is normal and to be expected. We’re teaching her that her feelings are not as important as protecting the spirit of “boyhood.” When we tell her that “he probably just likes you,” we’re telling her that cruel behavior is not only normal, but a sign of attraction. We’re teaching her that abuse equals attraction. We’re teaching her to expect cruel treatment from any future men.

About 3 women will die from domestic abuse in the United States EVERY DAY.

Boys aren’t born knowing how to hurt and abuse women. They learn.

Girls aren’t born thinking that they deserve to be treated with cruelty by people who claim to love them. They learn. 

What are we teaching our kids?

  • John Case

    I regretfully remember saying this very thing to my girls when they were younger. And I wondered why they were involved in emotionally abusive relationships when they were older. Fortunately, my daughters found their way into much healthier relationships and married men who treat them well, but no thanks to my telling them that mistreatment = affection and interest as kids.

  • oolalang

    I was reading your post and my eye skipped to the third paragraph, and when you said “(especially when the property is the image of a woman)”, all I could think of were the acid attacks that so many women have come to fear in Southern Asia and South America. I went back and saw you were referring to Barbie Dolls, but it’s all part of the same spectrum–and it’s disturbing to me that a pastor would promote something like that (though not surprising unfortunately).

  • Pingback: What are we teaching our kids? | Deliberate Donkey

  • Jim Fisher

    One of my BFF’s taught me that teasing, which I used to think was rather innocuous, is abusive. If we look at our motives for doing it, we tease because we want to embarrass. We embarrass because we want to hurt someone on purpose. Although on the mild end of a spectrum, the other end is the physical abuse that she recently escaped from The teasing of her husband would often escalate to verbal abuse, bullying, and worse.

    If think we all have heard someone justifying their teasing with, “Oh, she’s tough. She can take it. It’s all in fun.” And I now ask, “Fun for who?” and “Why?”

    I can’t thank her enough for opening my eyes to this reality. And I can’t thank you enough, Sarah, for speaking out against abusive thought, speech, and behavior and calling it out for what it is.

  • http://deliberatedonkey.wordpress.com Tending Weeds

    I remember, it was second grade and some kid named Brian something-or-other. I was told the same thing when he poked me with pencils, put tiny shreds of paper down my shirt, or pulled my hair. Ok. He likes me. My 7 year old brain thought playgound or bikes, so I paid attention back, and he got mean. Then it was, “boys don’t know what they want.”

  • smrnda

    Something I’ve noted is that I find conservative, religious men engage in lots of teasing behaviors towards their wives and other women that I know wouldn’t fly in another setting. It’s like they think it’s cute, funny, and ‘boys will be boys’ (and men will be boys = obnoxious brats) after all and that women are supposed to think ‘they can’t help it, the lovable big oafs!’

    The standard for women having to accommodate men is enormous, but men aren’t (at least in that world) really expected to accommodate or respect women.

    I never got the whole ‘teasing’ deal – when I was a girl I didn’t get teased much but I found it to be pretty prevalent. People pretend that it’s harmless but it’s really just being an asshole but being ‘cutesy’ about it.

    When you see boys teasing girls, they are learning that they control public space and have a right to make girls feel uncomfortable. This behavior goes on into adulthood where men sexually harass women in public and think it’s just about the same.

  • Ariel

    When I was in my freashman year of highschool I took an autos class. There were 4 guys around me who were abusive bullys. They would tease me. Try to pin me against the wall with a table. Tell me that I should clean all the tables because I’m a girl. i wasn’t the only girl in the class. But the other girl seems to be getting along fine with the guys around her. Though, maybe they just ignored her. But still, all the other people in class were male. No one spoke up to help me or make them stop.

    When I told my mom about it all she told me, jokingly if my memory serves me correctly, ‘maybe they just like you a lot?”
    Being that I wasn’t 7 and already understood abuse (though I can’t remember any time that she ever really taught me about it, so I don’t know how I knew) I turned around, looked her in the eye and said ‘No ma. They behave that way cause they are assholes who want to make my life shit. Don’t ever tell me that people hurt others because they like them. That is just going to set me up to date a bunch of pricks who hurt me. Don’t ever do that!”
    I can’t remember my mom ever looking prouder of me then when I said that.
    It confuses me. Why tell lie and then be proud when someone doesn’t take it as truth?

  • smrnda

    I never was told that if someone was being mean to me they ‘probably liked me.’ It seems like a pretty twisted notion. I think when people ‘tease’ they are actually expressing their real feelings of nastiness but are taking advantage of the fact that people will think things like ‘he really likes you’ or ‘it’s just for fun.’ It’s just a way of normalizing shitty behavior.

  • judy

    Hi Sarah. I just wanted to point out that the even the language we typically use when we talk about male violence towards women takes the focus off holding men accountable for their behaviour (the term “domestic abuse” really should be used to describe the abuse of domestic workers). You write, “About 3 women will die from domestic abuse in the United States EVERY DAY.” When we call it domestic abuse, as opposed male violence, not only does it minimize its severity (“it’s just a domestic issue”) but it makes the abuse of women by men sound like a natural phenomenon, like cancer or earthquakes. When we describe women as dying from something, we’re using an intransitive verb, and it’s the women who are doing the dying; but women don’t die from domestic abuse the way they die from cancer – they are KILLED by men. So let’s focus on men’s agency in killing women, and use the active, transitive verb: Every day in the United States, approximately three men kill their female partners.

    • http://moonchild11.wordpress.com Sarah Moon

      good thoughts! I’ll be sure to check the language I use next time.

  • Hibernia86

    I don’t think that this post is accurate. Men who hit women are seen as abusers but when women hit men it is seem as amusing or something he must have had coming.

    • alfaretta

      By whom? That may be true in popular culture — but this post is calling out popular culture on its minimizing of abusive behavior.

      Personally I don’t find hitting of anyone by anyone to be amusing. Only hitting BACK can be seen as something deserved.

    • judy

      You can think this post is inaccurate all you like, but reality proves otherwise. Women who abuse men are in the overwhelming minority. Women are more likely to abuse their own children, over whom they have power. When a woman kills her husband it makes the news, because it is exceptional.

      You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts, and I would strongly recommend learning a bit about the world before forming your opinions. To quote the mighty-fine Fran Lebowitz: Think before you speak; read before you think.

      • Hibernia86

        I understand that, but the point is that it doesn’t matter how rare it is for a certain group to do something bad. We shouldn’t react differently when a black person does something bad compared to when a white person does something bad. Similarly, we shouldn’t react differently when a man does something bad compared with when a woman does the same. How common that bad act is for that group is irrelevant.

        • http://moonchild11.wordpress.com Sarah Moon

          Did I alleviate any blame toward abusive women in this article?

          • Hibernia86

            See my response to Judy below.

          • http://moonchild11.wordpress.com Sarah Moon

            That was like, longer than the blog post itself! I’m too tired to read all that. But, anyway, yes, it’s wrong to enable female on male abuse as well. We should always take abuse seriously–though I would argue one of the reasons we don’t take female on male abuse seriously is BECAUSE we have this narrative as a society of women being weak and passive and men being dominant and aggressive. It seems comical to some when men are abused because, according to sexist stereotypes, men aren’t supposed to be abused and women aren’t supposed to be abusers. But that’s a blog post for a different day.

          • http://moonchild11.wordpress.com Sarah Moon

            and it’s important to recognize motives behind why culture enables abuse so we can stop it. when women abuse it’s never a “girls will be girls” narrative. Culture tells the boy to “suck it up,” or they laugh, “You got hit by a GIRL?”

            One problem is ignored because we normalize it. The other problem is mocked because it is not the norm.

          • Hibernia86

            I’d agree with you here.

        • judy

          No, clearly you don’t understand that, because how frequently something happens, and how pervasive it is, matters a great deal. In fact, is the whole point. Because that’s what we’re talking about here: not merely the quality of violence towards women, but the appalling quantity that we, as a society and as individuals, promote and tolerate. The tolerance level for female violence against males is ZERO, so we’re shocked when it happens. But as the prevalence, expectation, and tolerance of male violence towards women is really, really, high, we don’t take notice of it…we just call it “life” or “boys will be boys” or “she shoulda taken more care to keep herself from being raped”. We’ve structured our societies in ways where abuse and exploitation of women and girls is normalized, and we talk about it in ways that don’t put the focus on male agency and behaviour, making it seem natural and inevitable, like the weather.

          And there’s something else that’s deeply offensive about your line of commentary, and it’s this: whenever there’s a discussion about the victimization of women or girls, invariably someone pipes up and tries to make the discussion about men, and how they suffer too. You see it all over the web whenever there’s a post about female genital mutilation – both men and women turn the disucssion to male circumcision. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with discussing the victimization and abuse of men and boys, but there is something insidious about trying to turn a discussion about women’s experience into a discussion about men’s experience.

          But even more offensive is your flat denial of women’s and girls’ experience. The writer tells you something that she has observed and experienced, and your first and only response is to tell her that she’s wrong. In your initial comment you said, “I don’t think this post is accurate.” Your second sentence was unrelated to your first assertion, so you haven’t actually provided any reason why you think the claims and analysis in the post is inaccurate or which elements or statements you find especially erroneous or biased. Why should anyone, and that includes those of us who are genuinely interested in what other people think and why they think it, care what you think when all you’ve shared is a blind assertion?

          • Hibernia86

            1. Judy: “The tolerance level for female violence against males is ZERO, so we’re shocked when it happens.”

            This is false. We, as a society might pay attention to female violence against males because it is rarer, but we certainly have a lot of tolerance for it. More often than not, it is seen as amusing or a victim blaming response is given. Male violence against females is seen as abuse. It might not make the front paper as much because it is more common than female-on-male, violence, but it is pretty universally viewed as immoral while society in most cases just assumes that there is an excuse for the female-on-male violence (“oh, he must have been abusive” they say without proof. Or even, “he must have been a jerk to her” an excuse that would never work for male-on-female violence). That was my point.

            Yes, the term “boys will be boys” used to be an “aw shucks” kind of phrase 30 years ago or so, but today it means the same thing as “men are dogs”. “Boys will be boys” today is an insult, not praise. And while it is true that some people will warn women about risks of being raped in certain situations, that isn’t blaming the woman any more than telling people not to go into the bad end of town at 2 AM is blaming that individual. What they are saying is “Yes, we know that you should be able to party anywhere or walk anywhere at 2 AM, but unfortunately there are violent people out there and it is best to take protection”.

            2. The reason why men talk about their own experiences when it comes to articles about women and gender is that that is often the only time they can. Many online newspapers have women’s sections where gender roles as they apply to women are often discussed. It is very rare that you see an article on how gender roles affect men. The articles on male culture blame the men whereas the articles on female culture blame the culture. And when you finally do see the very rare article that talks about how gender roles can affect men, you will almost always see women in the comments section trying to bring the conversation back to how gender roles affect them. (for example, on Gawker.com a few months ago there was an article on society’s view of male nurses, but in the comments the women immediately turned it into a discussion of the issues of female nurses). Why are you angry at men for doing the same thing?

            If you bring up the issue of gender roles, why can’t both genders discuss how it affects them? We shouldn’t be, to use a feminist term, having “Oppression Olympics”, trying to see who has it worse (Though, ironically, as a circumcised male, I don’t really care so much about that issue and I agree that in that case it is much worse for women because female circumcision removes the majority of the sensitive tissue while male circumcision leaves most of the sensitive tissue intact). Instead we should just work to end all gender roles (It is true that in a post like this one where there is actually a disagreement about how the culture is there will be some debate. But in other cases, where we agree on how the culture is and just disagree on what parts are worse, why don’t we ignore that question and just focus on doing right for everyone.)

            3. I’m not denying her experience. Rather, I’m saying that her experience is not the norm. Most teachers would respond to abuse. And that preacher was a homophobe, which is not representative of large areas in America (a note: the gay rights movement is making it okay for a man to like female culture, but still today it is assumed that if a man likes female culture then he is gay, which isn’t always true). I’m assuming that the preacher’s suggestion for boys to burn their sister’s barbies was a joke about sibling squabbles, not a suggestion that it was okay. I’ve now written two explanations, so calling what I say a “blind assertion” is unfair.

          • http://moonchild11.wordpress.com Sarah Moon

            “I’m saying that her experience is not the norm.”

            Talk to some women sometime. Read the comments on this post and on others that I’ve written. You’re wrong about my experience not being the norm.

          • Hibernia86

            Sarah, boys go to school and boys go to church. They see the same things you do. I don’t think that you should be assumed to be the expert based only on your gender. The experiences of the boys shouldn’t be thought to be false based only on their gender.

          • http://moonchild11.wordpress.com Sarah Moon

            did I say that boys’ experiences are false?

          • Hibernia86

            You said that you haven’t had a chance to read my entire post yet, but then you said “Talk to some women sometime” (suggesting that I don’t) and you said “you’re wrong about my experience not being the norm” without even finishing reading what I wrote. We could each claim that the other one is wrong, but the final answer needs to be based on an objective analysis of society, not trusting the word of one gender or another.

          • judy

            Okay, first off, Sarah isn’t a gender, she’s a person. And as a person her observations and experience are what this post is all about. Your comment that boys go to school and church and see the same things you do is so off the mark, and throws into spectacularly sharp relief your refusal to accept that other people experience the world differently from the way you do. As a man, Hibernia86, there are elements to female experience that you will never know, and chances are you take no notice of. There are things in this world that you don’t even have to think about. It’s called Male Privilege, and with few exceptions (most notably, if you are disabled) all of these apply to you.
            http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/02/two-checklists-for-feminists/

            Most notable and discussion-worthy on that list are number 46, “I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege,” and number 44, “Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to smile.” Literally ever man I’ve ever mentioned this to says, “No, that’s not possible. I’ve never experienced that.” And that’s the point. If you are an able-bodied, heteronormative man, in nearly every society on earth, you get to enjoy and assume things and avoid things that women just don’t. We’re not talking true or false here, we’re talking about DIFFERENCE. Here’s an example that’s sure to get you fired up: Men’s healthcare is non-political. Even men’s sexual health is considered a private, medical matter. But women’s healthcare is subject to debate and opinion and legislation to control it. Doctors and pharmacists in some States are allowed to not do their job if they have moral objections to a woman’s choices for her own body. The religious objections to a woman’s control over her own reproductive organs boils down to the notion that the body of a woman of child-bearing age doesn’t belong to her because she’s either pregnant or could become pregnant with another person, and that person takes precedence. Do we have laws in place whose sole aim is to make it impossible for a man to get a vasectomy or buy condoms?

            Hibernia86, Your argument that women try to take over discussion threads about men’s issues is basically, “Well, they do it too.” Sorry, that’s insuffient. If you really feel that there aren’t enough outlets online to discuss male gender issues (you might be surprised just how many there are), why don’t you go and create one? As a man-loving, thoughtful and educated woman, I promise to always keep my commentary on point.

          • judy
          • Hibernia86

            Ah yes, very funny. It is important to listen to women on gender issues, but how dare a man talk about his own experiences with gender. We’ll just have to shut him up won’t we?

          • judy

            You’re not talking about your experiences of gender except to tell Sarah and the rest of us that we’re wrong and that we’re required to provide video evidence and notarized declarations from witnesses to prove to you that what we say happens to us actually does, because apparently you can’t trust a woman to properly interpret all the nuances of her own experience, and you regard her testimony as unreliable unless supported by others. THANKS!

          • Hibernia86

            You are angry that I’m asking for proof? Seriously?

            Compared to you who acts like on gender issues women are automatically right and men are automatically wrong without proof. I’m sorry but that is ridiculously sexist and illogical. If you read pharyngula then you are presumably a skeptic. I had hoped that a skeptic would remain logical in all facets of her life. Sadly skepticism for many people is restricted solely to the religion issue and for everything else logic seems to wilt.

          • judy

            Talking about one’s experience with, say, street harassment (“Do you have a smile for me?”) isn’t a gender issue up for debate. It’s actual experience that men overwhelming aren’t on the receiving end of. My objection wasn’t that you should believe that women are automatically right about ‘gender issues’, but that you should believe a woman’s testimony until you have good reason to believe otherwise, and it’s an insult to demand corroborating evidence to prove her statement that “this has happened to me”.

            It’s one thing to be a skeptic, which I am, and another thing altogether to dismiss a person’s claim of something that they experience just because you’ve never experienced it yourself.

            And don’t play that, “I had hoped that a skeptic would remain logical in all facets of her life” card with me, buster. Your arguments are so full of logical fallacies and incoherent statements that it would take forever to try to explain it all to you, and I think you still wouldn’t get it.

          • Hibernia86

            Judy: “Okay, first off, Sarah isn’t a gender, she’s a person”

            My point still stands. Just because she is a person does not make her automatically right.

            “And as a person her observations and experience are what this post is all about”

            But she wasn’t talking just about her own experience. She was trying to universalize it to all society, and I was pointing out that that was not supported by the facts.

            While I agree that someone with a privilege can be oblivious of it, it is still your responsibility to prove that they have that particular privilege. Basically saying “you are a man and therefore wrong on all gender matters” is both sexist and illogical. You can find plenty of examples of female privilege in society (if you disagree with that, then maybe a version of number 46 on the list applies to you too) and it would be good for you to listen to the experiences of men, but I would never tell you to accept what a man says on the matter just because he is a man.

            These posts are really long as it is, so I thought I’d just respond to the list of things that you claimed were male privilege and list whether they truly are (for the most recent generation), whether they are not a privilege specific to men, or if the answer is more complicated than that:

            True: 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 45(#1)

            False:1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 38, 39, 44, 45(#2), 46

            Part true/part false/ requires more complex answer: 14, 15, 28, 31, 40, 41, 43

            Since you provided me with a list, I’ll provide you with a list of female privilege. Here is one I came up with off the top of my head in a few minutes:

            1. I will never be drafted into the military against my will,

            2. Potential dates come to me and I get to judge or reject them to their face.

            3. People that are richer than me will still consider dating me regardless of how small my bank account is.

            4. If I’m unemployed, my chance of getting a date does not decrease nearly as much as it does for a man.

            5. I get my first dates (and sometimes many more) paid for as well as my engagement ring by my boyfriend. In general, I am expected to pay less toward my relationships

            6. If me and my boyfriend have a nasty breakup, most community members will assume it is his fault.

            7. If I make less money than my husband, I am not seen as lazy,

            8. If I commit adultery, society is much more likely to excuse my behavior by victim blaming my husband by saying he deserved it for being a bad spouse.

            As for number 44 on the male privilege list, if that was really happening to large numbers of women, you should be able to get witnesses, tape recordings, videos, something to support your claim that it is widespread. A man might be less likely to notice it, but you act like he literally can’t hear it at all. Every time it happens, you should point it out to men that were there. Then maybe they would notice it more. If women pointed it out every time, that would tend to exaggerate it more than events that aren’t pointed out every time, but at least it would prove that it was actually happening.

            As for your examples, the issue of abortion may physically affect women more, but it affects men too since the fetus that either grows into a child or not is his just as much as it is hers. It is about his reproductive freedom just as much as it is hers. And as for the politics of health, it can affect men as well. President Obama made sure that medical insurance (where women paid more) was changed so that the prices would be the same regardless of gender, but he left out car insurance (where men pay more) from that rule. I’ve noticed that those who argue that we should charge differently by gender for car insurance never say the same when it comes to race. So it isn’t about morals or logic but rather about politics.

            There are a few outlets to discuss male gender issues, (one I’ve found are http://www.goodmenproject.com) . They don’t see feminism as the enemy but at the same time they don’t automatically accept every negative thing said about men. But one of the issues is that not only are they few in number, but they are locked out of most media stations. They don’t have tailor made sections like women do on many online newspapers, devoted specifically to them. They have to hope that some writer notices them, which is hard to do when A. you don’t have a natural media base and B. much of the population thinks that since women were historically the oppressed gender that this means that gender norms have no effect on men.

            Finally, why have gender based groups in the first place? Why not just have one group that fights against gender roles for everyone? Feminist groups support gender equality but spend almost all of their time on women’s issues. That is part of the reason for the divide.

          • judy

            “Basically saying “you are a man and therefore wrong on all gender matters” is both sexist and illogical.”

            You’re right. Now show me where I said that…or even where I ‘basically’ said that.

            My responses to your absurd notions of female privilege:

            1. I will never be drafted into the military against my will,
            - This is not true in all countries. And the fact that the United States has never instituted the draft (or “compelled military servitude”) for women in the past, is no proof that they never will in the future.

            2. Potential dates come to me and I get to judge or reject them to their face.
            - This is entirely dependent on your social context. I live in a word where women ask men out all the time and men get to judge or reject them to their face (or on the phone, or by text, or telegram, or written in lights on the side of a blimp). Not being approached by women has nothing at all to do with your being male, and you have no obligation to risk damage to your obviously delicate male ego by asking women out.

            3. People that are richer than me will still consider dating me regardless of how small my bank account is.
            - This is not an element of female privilege. It certainly is the case that women with high incomes or wealth do tend to avoid dating men who have a problem with women who make more than they do.This is a result of the idea that many men have that they debase themselves when they date women who have more financial or political power than they do. Women have to be okay with dating men who are wealthier than they are because, as a group, men make more money and own more property than women do. The truth is, however, with incredibly rare and usually celebrity exceptions, people tend to date others who occupy the same social and professional circles they move in, which means you usually end up dating people who aren’t significantly richer or poorer than you, and there is far less mobility between strata than you might imagine.

            4. If I’m unemployed, my chance of getting a date does not decrease nearly as much as it does for a man.
            - I’m sensing a leitmotif here…is your central complaint simply that you’re not getting all the dates you feel you’re entitled to? Your displeasure with the imbalances in heterosexual courtship rituals and personal relationships is not the same as pointing out that men enjoy ‘male privilege’ and women experience entrenched, institutional misogyny and sexist attitudes and practices in the arena of employment, housing, politics, and the law.

            5. I get my first dates (and sometimes many more) paid for as well as my engagement ring by my boyfriend. In general, I am expected to pay less toward my relationships
            - Again, this is specific cultural artifact, and again the theme is inequities in dating and romance. Personal relationships, with the exception of marriage licenses and contracts themselves, are not governed by State or Federal law. Men are not required by statute to pay for dinner, buy jewellery, or even pay for things that they directly benefit from like contraception and abortion.

            6. If me and my boyfriend have a nasty breakup, most community members will assume it is his fault.
            - So what? You fail to explain or demonstrate how the community response to a nasty breakup privileges women in any material way or punishes men. Do the members in your community run a man out of town if they think he’s responsible for the failure of his relationship with his girlfriend? Perhaps you should consider relocating.

            7. If I make less money than my husband, I am not seen as lazy,
            - Women who care for young children and work full time in their home for no income are routinely regarded as lazy, particularly women of colour and single mothers receiving government benefits. Child care and homemaking is considered something that women are supposed to do in addition to any paid work they do outside the home*. We demonstrate clearly how little we value caregiving and homemaking as work by the hourly wages paid to people who do those sorts of jobs as their profession; usually the pay is below minimum wage which is in itself not a living wage.
            *Notice the turn of phrase here. No one would ever ask a man if he “works outside the home” because historically, and very much still today, it’s assumed that the world of work and the world of men exists outside the domestic sphere.

            8. If I commit adultery, society is much more likely to excuse my behavior by victim blaming my husband by saying he deserved it for being a bad spouse.
            - And when you divorce your cheating wife her standard of living will typically fall, while yours will rise. Adultery is not illegal, and thus a cheated-on spouse is not the victim of a crime. Adultery is also not something that needs to be ‘excused’ by ‘society’. Please tell me what this ‘excusing’ looks like and the material consequences this has differentially for men and women. (Or rather, don’t even try, because it’s not a real thing!)

            Your example of equality in insurance illuminates your willful ignorance and bias. Women incur more medical costs associated with manufacturing new humans than do men. All people, regardless of sex, have bodies that require health care and medical services, and women should not be required to pay more insurance than men simply because the accident of biology has saddled them with a body that requires more health services. A woman can make a choice to not have a baby, but she can’t retroactively choose to not be born with female reproductive organs. Driving a car, on the other hand, is NOT an inevitable fact of life; you’re not going to wake up one morning and find that you’ve come down with a truck or get blood tests results showing that you’ve contracted a nasty case of Full Size Luxury Sedan Syndrome. Men’s insurance rates are higher because men’s accident rates are higher. Insurance is about odds, and the odds are greater that you’ll have more accidents if you’re a man than if you are a woman. If you don’t like it, start a men’s movement devoted to making men better drivers.

            Your comment that “men’s issues” and “men’s experiences” aren’t discussed in the media nearly made me choke on my babaganoush. Who the hell do you think writes most of the news? The male perspective is considered the default perspective, the “unmarked” and “universal” experience. Most of the written and visual history that we have access to was created by men, and up until the last 30 years or so, the overwhelming majority of the characters and faces in media, news, literature, and movies were male. To this day the number of female protagonists in popular movies is far exceeded by males, even when the screenwriters and directors are women.

            Here’s some further reading and facts for you mis-interpret to help support your claim that feminism is responsible for gender divisiveness and the oppression of men:

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/women-own-1-of-the-worlds_b_1076715.html

            http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/women_poverty_economics/facts_figures.php

            https://members.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gender_gap.pdf

          • Lucient

            Accident? Are we not “fearfully and wonderfully made”? You weren’t saddled with anything. I wasn’t saddled with anything. That list you tore apart is kinda hilarious because I have grown up where that list was how it happened to now where it’s “hmmm it could go either way.” I’ve never raped anyone yet growing up I knew that if I was to do such a thing where if it were me and a girl and she “claimed” I did anything, whether I did or not, I lose she wins. I did it. Case closed. If that’s changed, I wasn’t aware of it (again, I don’t put myself in those situations cause again not worth it). Also, the male perspective has changed as the majority of who “writes most of the news” and all that. I have never served in the service but I do understand why some men would not let women serve in the service. I’ve seen the noble reason as well as the derogatory one.

            Back to the above list, you broke down each point. I ask you one question. Was there a time where any of that was true for you in your lifetime? I only ask cause it’s one thing to never experience something and to only hear about it then to experience both sides of the coin. I, personally, have walked down a street, by myself, and worried that I would be taken advantage of (whether robbed, beaten, assaulted, etc.) yet I hear women say that all the time. Before I experienced that, I could not relate. When I tell people that (outside of those who genuinely care about me) I get, “it’s not the same” from the female perspective and I get, “you just a wimp then” from the guys. If this were a matter of sides, I wouldn’t know which to pick… Men are not all evil and Women are not all scorned. Some of us, somehow, slipped through these cracks and are trying live at peace with everybody but it’s kinda hard when you don’t where you can take cover from all the stone tossing and name calling

          • Lucient

            Wow!!! I don’t feel so misunderstood anymore…

          • Hibernia86

            Judy, funny how you demand that I just believe every accusation of male privilege and that I’m not allowed to question it but you get so horribly offended by the idea that you might have female privilege as well. You really do have the privilege of being blind to your female privilege, don’t you?

            1. The laws on the books say that the draft is male only. Until that gets changed, the draft is a female privilege

            2. I was talking about American society at large where the vast majority of the time men are expected to be the ones to ask women out. The fact that your particular group of friends might be different is not proof that America is. If you think that asking people out on dates is so easy, then why don’t you advocate that women do it more in American culture?

            Wow, “delicate male ego”? Sexist much? Newsflash: women can have delicate female egos, as you have shown in your posts.

            3. There are men who are okay with dating women who are richer than them and those that aren’t but you don’t see the first group marrying richer any more than the second group. The reason is because women, on average, don’t marry men who are poorer than them while men, on average, are willing to marry women poorer than them. That is why it is a female privilege, because the opportunity to “marry up” is much more available to women than men.

            4. So you’ve decided that rather than answer my point, you are just going to go for personal attacks (pretending like you know me). When women comment on sexual stereotypes, you sometimes hear people say that they are just saying this because they are ugly and didn’t get dates. You would be outraged if someone did that to a woman, but for some reason you feel free to make negative assumptions about my looks and dating life when you know nothing about either (I’m doing fine in both. Thanks for asking). Resorting to personal attacks when someone dares bring up gender issues is childish.

            5. So you are suggesting that culture doesn’t matter and we should only focus on the law? You should let the feminist groups know this (including this very post we are commenting on) because they comment on culture all the time. Or are you suggesting that culture is only a problem when it hurts women?

            6. You think social standing has nothing to do with life? When people make negative assumptions about black people simply based on their race, are you suggesting that is okay just because they haven’t directly affected the black person financially? All I’m saying is that people should judge the break up based on the individual circumstances rather than based on gender. Why is that such a problem for you?

            7. I call BS on your comment here. Women who raise children are not seen as lazy. Don’t you remember the huge backlash against Hilary Rosen when people believed she had said that?

            8. Again, you seem to think social standing has no affect what-so-ever on people. The fact is that it does matter to people what the community thinks of them because that is how they form friendships and partnerships. If social interaction has no impact on your life, then you must be very lonely. How the heck is the man’s standard of living going to rise when he gives up half his wealth and potentially pays alimony to a cheating wife? I don’t see many women paying alimony to their cheating husbands. Instead they get the house and the kids and a beneficial divorce settlement.

            I again call BS on your argument about car insurance. If insurance was just about odds, then the insurance agencies would charge differently based on other factors such as race or religion. But society would never accept such a difference in charges, only one based on gender. This shows that it is based on politics not on logic.

            The culture of Hollywood does not necessarily depend on the gender of those writing the scripts. We still have a culture where smart women are seen as empowered (think Hermione from the Harry Potter series) while smart men are seen as geeky (think of the show “The Big Bang Theory”) and when they want to show a stupid character, they almost always make them male.Whenever society talks about gender stereotype issues, almost always it is about how those stereotypes affect women. Very few articles in the main stream media ever talk about how gender stereotypes hurt men.

            I never said feminism oppresses men. What I am saying is that for the most part, feminist activists ignore how gender stereotypes affect men while they consider it of supreme importance how gender roles affect women. If people who want gender equality actually focused on it for both genders then we wouldn’t have as much fighting between the genders.

          • judy

            1. You’re right. As it currently stands, women in the U.S. don’t get drafted. And men don’t get drafted either. Whether men or women are subject to the draft in the future is something we can’t know, and thus your original statement that, (as an American woman) “I will never be drafted into the military against my will,” is not a factual claim.

            2., 3., 4., 5. Your examples of female privilege were all within the realm of interpersonal romantic relationships. As I mentioned, none of these things are subject to referendum or are legally mandated. If women tend to date men who make more money than they do, it’s because men tend to make more money than women do. I absolutely support women in being more assertive in dating and relationships, but it’s really none of my business how people conduct their own personal lives.

            6. I didn’t say that social standing isn’t an issue. What I’m saying is that other people’s attitudes and opinions regarding the breakdown of your personal relationships isn’t material issue unless it has a material consequence. Except for my family and friends, I only “care” about what other people think of me as far as how it drives their treatment of me. What people think of you is their own business, but how they treat you is your business. Yes, the opinions that people hold about race is absolutely okay; it’s what people say and do that has material consequences. You will never know if someone “is” a racist; all you can know are the racist things that they say or the racist things that they do. Utterances and actions materially affect other people; your personally held believes that you keep to yourself don’t.

            7. Actually, the backlash against HIlary Rosen laid bare that attitudes about the worth of women’s unpaid labour is class-dependent. It’s okay for women to live off their husbands’ income if they’re raising children and aren’t told to get a job, but Mitt Romney himself said about mothers who are raising children and receiving social assistance benefits that “they need to go out and get a job so they can experience the dignity of work.” So apparently, women with wealthy partners and are home raising their children have dignity, but women who are poor, and overwhelmingly single, who are raising children at home have no dignity.

            8. Men don’t give up half their wealth when they divorce. That’s a myth. Men make more money and own more property than women do, that’s a fact. Alimony, except where the wife financially supported her husband during his professional schooling or training, is a relic. Alimony these days is usually only seen in the case of the super-rich. Most support payments that are mandated by courts are child support, which is an entitlement of the child, not the custodial parent.

            On Car Insurance:
            Race and religion aren’t real things and can’t be quantified. Race isn’t a biological reality, it’s a social myth that has zero correlation with skills or behaviour. Religious beliefs can’t be demonstrated or proven; religious beliefs are simply something that someone claims to hold. Religious practices are indeed behaviours, but they have no consequence to whether someone is likelier than another to have a traffic accident. People in red cars get stopped more for suspected speeding, because of a perception on the part traffic enforcement officers that people in red cars speed more. But that’s a perception, not a fact gleaned by poring over statistics. Fact: Men make more insurance claims than women. Fact: Insurance companies exist to maximize profit. Fact: Insurance companies charge men higher premiums to offset the claims that the company has predicted, based on previous facts, expects to see more of from men.

            On media and pop culture:
            Yes, a stupid character is more likely to be male than female, but that also goes for all other sorts of characters. The attitude is that men can be made fun of in the imaginary world of film and television because in the real world they still have more power than women. It’s okay to take a character down a peg or two, because the people in real life who look like those characters aren’t materially affected by the negative portrayals in media.

            Hermione Granger is awesome. But you’ll notice that the series is called Harry Potter, not Hermione Granger. Male-centered stories are considered universal and for everyone, where female-centered stories are regarded as being aimed at only women and girls. Women’s literature is called women’s literature; men’s literature is just called “literature”.

            Finally, Sarah’s post doesn’t ignore how gender stereotyping and gendered teaching affects men. She says quite clearly that little boys aren’t born into this world with the idea that being a “real boy” is about hurting girls, that they have to learn this behaviour. Feminist theory discusses men all the time, and laments how men are both promoters and victims of patriarchal cultures.

          • Hibernia86

            1. Fine, if want to be specific, then the difference is that women don’t register with selective service, which means that if the draft was declared tomorrow, it is highly unlikely that they would be called. All I’m asking is that they register the same as men. Are you fine with that?

            Feminists criticize men when they, as a group, demanded that their wives change their last names. Or if they demanded that their wives always be the ones to stay home to raise the kids. or if they demanded that their wives always be the ones to cook dinner. All that has to do with personal relationships not laws. Why is it okay for feminists to criticize those things, but when I talk about relationship issues that affect men, then suddenly “none of your business” how people conduct their personal lives.

            If people blame you for the break up of a relationship, they may think poorer of you. If they think poorer of you, then they will act less friendly to you. So yes, it does have a real affect on people’s lives if people automatically blame you for relationship problems based only on your gender.

            Divorce courts divide the wealth equally when there is a divorce, regardless of the amount of money the parents each brought in. And since in the vast majority of the cases, the children go to live with the mother, the house is often awarded to her too. And the census says that 9% of divorced people get alimony, so it is not exactly only for the super rich.
            http://news.ufl.edu/2001/05/21/alimony/

            Race isn’t a biological reality and therefore can’t be known? You might want to tell that to the NAACP. (Also, race is a spectrum, but it is a lie to say that it is not a biological reality. There is in fact a genetic difference between people of different races) The fact is that the census does actually keep track of race, so it absolutely can be known. And don’t we hear from the gay rights groups that gender is fluid? If gender is fluid and you think race is fluid, then why do you think insurance agencies charge differently based on gender but not on race? Politics, not anything logical. You could very well study how many insurance claims are made by people of certain races or religions, but this would never be accepted in our culture because charging a minority more for car insurance would be seen as racist or charging a Muslim person more for car insurance would be seen as bigoted. The only reason we treat gender differently is because of our culture.

            Feminists often criticize the way women are portrayed in film and TV. It is simply false to suggest that this portrayal hurts women in real life but a similar negative portrayal of men does not. That just suggests that you are concerned with your gender and not others.

            While you occationally see a “The Patriarchy hurts men too” post, it is very rare compared with the posts about women and is in no way comparable to the number of gender stereotypes each gender deals with.

          • judy

            1. No, I’m not fine with anyone registering with selective service. I think registering for compelled military servitude is unconstitutional, and that men should not be fined or denied rights to federal progams and employment based on this system. There are people working to have selective service declared compelled service and thus unconstitutional, and I support these efforts.

            If you actually look at the issue of Male Privilege, you’ll notice that the dominant themes are those of employment, housing, politics, and the law. Those are the ones that matter. The issues of taking a man’s name upon marriage, being the one who is assumed to forgo education or put a career on hold to care for young children, or being expected, solely because of your sex, to work both inside and outside the home aren’t “personal relationship issues”. These are issues about discrimination and employment inequities that have material consequences that have primarily affected and disadvantaged women in material ways.

            Again, someone acting friendly to you or not is not something you’re legally entitled to. You are legally entitled to not be discriminated against in your job or housing based on your marital or relationship status, but no one is compelled by law to be friendly to you.

            Actually, at least where I live, men are slightly more likely to be awarded custody than women, and the current average stands at about 50/50. And as you point out, less than 10% of divorces result in someone paying alimony. While that’s not an insignificant percentage, it is still exceptional and thus not the norm. Seriously, if you’re going to ignore my qualifiers, I’m going to ignore your comments. Did I say that alimony is ONLY for the super-rich? No, I didn’t, I said that when it’s awarded it’s USUALLY in divorces of the super-rich. So please stop countering my arguments by claiming that I’ve said things that I haven’t.

            Everything you’ve said about race is complete nonsense. You cannot tell from DNA what ‘race’ a person is, you can only determine the historical geographical location of their ancestors. I don’t think race is fluid. And OMFG, do you not see the difference between biological realities and social constructs? Gender isn’t sex. Religion isn’t real. Grouping people according the colour of their skin and saying that it means anything intrinsic is pure fucking fallacy.

            Ummm, I didn’t say that I wasn’t concerned about how portrayals of men in popular culture affect men. And I happen to know that feminist analysis and gender theory is really quite engaged with how images of men affect men and boys.

            Finally, and this is final because I’m not going to reply to you anymore (don’t try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig), stop referring to FEMINISTS as though they are some homogenous, organized group going around and criticizing all the time. There is feminist analysis and feminist theory, but there isn’t “The Feminists”.

          • Jay

            Please, explain what you mean when you say, “Gender isn’t sex. Religion isn’t real.” How is gender not sex? How is religion not real? This could really go cross-country, I know but this statement I think is more of a philosophical one in the sense that religion (or the talk of religion) is one of the few constants in all people groups (civilized, whatever that means, or uncivilized) and in all time periods. To say, religion is not real is about the same as saying gravity isn’t real. There is a concept there, an understanding of the effects of this “unreal” thing yet we accept gravity as the “force” holding us down. Why? Cause a couple of scientist over and over come up with theories and experiments? To say “religion isn’t real” kinda shoots what your fighting for in the foot cause if it’s not real, why waste time on something you’re not sure of an outcome. If no one ever abuses anyone ever again, what have we gained? What’s the benefit? Where’s the worth? I’m unsure of the particulars when people’s bodies die. I know not what matters when I lay in a coffin someday. Think about it, all this cause for this and men are hurt and women aren’t equal. What’s the point? I ask seriously. What is the point when one day, I’ll no longer be here? Is it a legacy we’re after? Is it just the well beings of humans? Why?

          • judy

            Jay,

            If you wish to understand science, philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, and ontology, and to practice approaching these disciplines using rational and critical thinking, I suggest going to school, or to the library…pretty much any place but a church.

            I’m sorry, Jay, but trying to engage in an intelligent discussion with someone who makes the statement, “To say, religion is not real is about the same as saying gravity isn’t real” would be a colossal waste of my time, and likely yours, as you clearly don’t have even the most basic understanding of how the natural world works, how the natural world is known via scientific methodologies, or even the difference between fantasy and reality. I have no interest in “going cross country” with someone who seems to want to take a discussion about the way boys and girls are both inculcated into believing that abuse=attraction into the realm of questions about motivation and purpose within the greater context of life and death. Seriously, if you want to start having coherent, useful conversations about any topic, start small: focus on one idea, one question, and then proceed from there. You’re no ready for varsity-level arguments yet, Jay. But don’t feel bad; most people aren’t, and that’s okay, so long as they aren’t spending their time getting misinformed and lied to by the likes of Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, the Tea Party, etc.

          • Jay

            Scientist will tell you themselves that their “proven methods” have been “disproved” more than they’ll like to admit. I will not touch your grammar issues or manners. I asked a question and you answered my question. I appreciate it. Next time, try not to use that many words, you tend to sound like a politician.

  • Lucient

    What does a law whose sole aim is to make it impossible for a man to get a vasectomy or buy condoms accomplish? I’m actually curious. Is it to prevent the possibility to create more humans or to help eliminate the possibility to impregnate a women so she can do whatever with her body? Is the focus of that to point out the differences because as much as I would like to experience nurturing and carrying life inside me to one day give birth… no surgery in the world is gonna give me that experience. Why? I am male with male parts. Where do you draw the line to the beginning of life though? I’ve had this discussion before and it’s interesting to know where people really stand on that. If I get a vasectomy or I can’t get one, how does that bring women to an equal platform?

    • judy

      Lucient,

      I have no idea what you’re talking about, and even less idea why you’re talking about it in this thread. I’m guessing you read my sentence “Do we have laws in place whose sole aim is to make it impossible for a man to get a vasectomy or buy condoms?” and it seems that your brain took a right turn at Misunderstood Junction and wandered off into Incoherent Tangentville. No one suggested anything about introducing laws to prevent men from getting vasectomies in an attempt to “bring women to an equal platform”, and there’s absolutely no logical connection between those two things. And your completely non sequitor question about when “life begins” (whatever it is that you actually mean by “life”) is neither germaine nor interesting, so I won’t be addressing that any further.

      And while your question, “If I get a vasectomy or I can’t get one, how does that bring women to an equal platform?” isn’t entirely coherent or logical, I’m going to answer it, if only in an attempt to make it clearer to you what I was talking about when I used the example of vasectomies to illustrate my claim that “Men’s sexual health is considered a private, medical matter” and women’s sexual health is not. If there were laws being introduced and passed by Republican legislatures in at least half the States in the Union whose only aim was to make it impossible for a man to get a vasectomy, or to allow employers to decide that men’s erectile dysfunction medication would not be covered under their employee heath insurance plan, then men would get a tiny taste of what women have been going through for the past 30+ years, and especially so in the past ten years, with regards to their health care access and options. Men’s health care and civil rights are not treated as a political or moral issue, whereas women’s health care and their right to do with their bodies as they choose is. In the United States, women’s rights are put to popular vote, and when those rights are constitutionally protected and can’t be repealed, Republicans and the Religious Right aggressively work to create laws and restrictive, punitive requirements that make it impossible for women to exercise those rights. For example, doctors and pharmacists in many States are legally allowed to not do their jobs by withholding completely legal medical services that violate their personal moral beliefs, and overwhelmingly those moral beliefs mean denying services to pregnant women or women who might become pregnant.

      • Lucient

        Men’s Health is not a private thing just an embarrassing and quite frankly not as interesting as the opposite… if it was private I don’t think you’d see all these adds to boast men’s health as far as the prostate cancer to even erectile dysfunction… As far my illogical questions or points… what was illogical or off topic about them? You mentioned religious beliefs concerning women’s reproductive organs. I thought of the whole pro-life/prochoice debate… Where did I steer wrong?

        “And while your question, “If I get a vasectomy or I can’t get one, how does that bring women to an equal platform?” isn’t entirely coherent or logical, I’m going to answer it…” if it isn’t ENTIRELY coherent or logical, where does it lose it’s logic and coherency in this discussion? You brought up the case of women’s health being public knowledge. Well, duh!!! If a baby somehow was born from a male’s genitals then I think whether we kill the baby in his genitals or not would make his health public knowledge… I didn’t design for women to give birth…

        • judy

          Why should women’s health be “public knowledge” or subject to public opinion or referendum? Just because it’s more “interesting” than men’s? And men’s health does get public promotion – advertisements for erectile dysfunction and awareness campaigns and fundraising for prostate cancer are everywhere, except within political and legislative discourse. What men’s health is not subjected to is this idea (and practice!) that other people’s religious or political beliefs should dictate whether men can exercise their rights to access the health services that they need.

          As far showing you how your vasectomy question is incoherent and illogical, I’d have to explain to you how logic works and how coherent arguments work. You can find this information on the internet, or, if you have the means and the time, study these concepts in a University classroom. You being allowed or prevented from getting a vasectomy doesn’t “bring women to an equal platform” one way or the other. The fact that your ability to access health services in which you make choices about your fertility and sexual health isn’t subject to public debate or is the target of aggressive legislation (see paragraph above), whereas women’s is, is the point I was illustrating by using the example of vasectomies. Men aren’t subjected to this crap.

          You’ll notice that when I said I wasn’t going to address the abortion issue, I was specifically refering to the question of “when does life begin”, because a) in biological terms it doesn’t “begin”, and b) it doesn’t matter. I think you’ve exposed, albeit in a clumsy way, that you hold the view that so many other people do: that because women’s bodies are the ones that gestate fetuses and birth babies, a woman’s body isn’t strictly her own possession, that it somehow belongs to everybody else, or at the very least that a man who impregnates a woman should have veto power over abortion decisions. (Men will often say, “I’m not asking for veto power, I just want a say.” Well, what exactly is “a say”? Having a say in something, rather than merely an opinion or desire for something, is having the right to determine the outcome. So no, you don’t get “a say” – you can only express your opinion or desire – in the case of women who you’ve ejaculated into and who have conceived as a result.) Most men kill their sperm, which is a form of life, at least a couple of times a day, and while the religious right doesn’t condone masturbation, they aren’t (yet) attempting to ban it through political pressure or legislation. A woman’s body, and everything contained within it, actually does belong to her and her alone, and the choices that she makes for herself (and any embyro or fetus within her body is part of herself and she can choose to have it removed) is nobody else’s business. I understand that you don’t agree with this analysis that women’s bodies aren’t public property and that women’s health care, at least in the case of reproduction, shouldn’t be subject to popular vote.

          • Hibernia86

            No a fetus is not part of a woman’s body. It is a separate organism with its own DNA. It is the creation of both the mother and the father. If the mother discovers that she is pregnant during the first trimester and wants to end the pregnancy, fine, but she shouldn’t force the father to reproduce against his will. He should have the same reproductive rights she does. I think for pregnancies to continue past the first trimester, the consent of both parents should be needed. That would be the most just system anyway.

          • judy

            Yes, I said that it was easy to tell from your comments what your opinions are regarding abortion and men’s rights to dictate the choices of women whom they’ve impregnated.

            I’m not asking you to answer this (please don’t), but you might want to ask yourself what you think is so special about the first trimester? Why do you think it’s fine for a woman to terminate her pregnancy in the first trimester without a man’s consent, but not after the first trimester?

            Just because a fetus has its own distinct DNA does not make it separate from a woman’s body, unless and until that fetus can exist outside the womb and breathe and feed of its own accord. Part of the very definition of a fetus is that it exists within a woman’s body, and whether you agree that that REALITY means that it’s “part” of a woman’s body and subject to her choices or not doesn’t change the REALITY that a fetus’ very fetus-hood is defined by its location and mode of existence.

          • Lucient

            I don’t understand this “What men’s health is not subjected to is this idea (and practice!) that other people’s religious or political beliefs should dictate whether men can exercise their rights to access the health services that they need” because this is a big issue for my family and I. It’s like all of a sudden women have become the top abused and outcasted humans of society. Get in line. Men, women, and children of my family for generations have had this going and planned parenthood and all this garbage for prochoice “it’s the women’s choice” nonsense. Give me one woman who can have a baby without the aid in some way shape or form of a man and then we can say it’s the woman’s right to cut off the life of another person inside her womb or not. Until then, saying that a fetus is another part of a woman’s body men’s it’s part the man who impregnated her since his sperm fused with her egg….

            By the way, if masturbation is killing “life” you women kill a “life” every month… how furious would you be if someone called women murderers for a function of their body they can’t control. Masturbation is a form of release whether wanted or not but masturbation is not even the most common release… Please don’t mislabel “life”

          • Lucient

            by the way, this whole life doesn’t begin doesn’t make any sense… are you saying humans are one continuous strand of life and there is no end till an egg or sperm dies?

  • Lucient

    If we want to call a fetus “property” it then would have to be two people’s property because you cannot have this property, the fetus, without having the egg of the women, first person, and the sperm of the man, second person. How is it fair to call then that “property” solely and only the woman’s if the man’s body is a piece of that property? If we are calling the fetus “property” and not a human being…

    • http://moonchild11.wordpress.com Sarah Moon

      How did this blog post lead to a discussion on abortion? So confused.

      • judy

        I know, and I’m going to attempt to put a stop to it here and now by not replying to Lucient or Hibernia86. It’s my fault for bringing up the notion of Male Privilege when I tried to point out that a man can’t reasonably evaluate a woman’s experience as “wrong” based on the fact that he doesn’t experience the world the same way. I think some men just have an irrresistible compulsion to turn every discussion about gender into a complaint about how biology has robbed them of absolute power over reproduction once they’ve produced sperm and ejaculated into a female.

        • http://moonchild11.wordpress.com Sarah Moon

          yup. sigh.

          • Lucient

            so… when a discussion is being fueled and a “particular” wrong in your favor is pointed out, rally the troops. However, the discussion evolves, I dare say, in place where someone, I, who wants to understand “that which I don’t understand and never will cause I’m a guy and you’re a girl” sits here and asks and discuss these topics without making remarks on your intelligence or your way of thinking or even that I’m hurt that I can’t speak my mind and not be automatically pooled into this “some men” bull. If you want me to stop talking, ask. If you want me to clarify what is “clear in my head and in my perspective on life” ask. Don’t diss me. Don’t sit there and say, “How did this blog post lead to a discussion on abortion? So confused.” Talk to me or tell me you don’t talk to me. All that other stuff, just gives me a reason to not take what you think into consideration simply because I “seem” to not agree with you or see things you’re way.

          • http://moonchild11.wordpress.com Sarah Moon

            It’s not my job to make you agree with me. I haven’t blocked you or deleted comments. Carry on, if you wish.

          • http://moonchild11.wordpress.com Sarah Moon

            I just don’t understand what you’re talking about or how you got any of those things from this post. But if my disinterest in discussing abortion on a blog post about abuse is what it takes to convince you that my point of view isn’t worth considering (not even sure what about my point of view you don’t agree with…I have no idea what your position is at this point), then you know, just keep doing your thing I guess.

            Really, I don’t sit around all day and fret about how I’m going to convince people to see things my way. I’m here to tell my story, and if you don’t want to believe it there’s nothing I can (or care to) do about that.

  • Pingback: Link Love (30/06/2012) « Becky's Kaleidoscope

  • judy

    How dare the insurance companies base their rates on actual facts and statistics! They should have to get to know each and every one of their customers and decide whether they’re good people before setting the rates. Perhaps you’d let them put a camera inside your car so they can assess, in real-time, what your individual driving is like.

    There is no “somehow statistically” – there’s actual statistics. Insurance companies aren’t there as a social service, they’re there to make profit, and they’ve figured out that men are more expensive for them to insure if they wish to maximize their profit margins.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003409805160 Firmino

    Therefore, through detesrapion the family hired a lawyer to settle the matter. Alicia Paulino Grisham, the family’s lawyer commented: 7-Eleven abandoned the Faruque family, and they disregarded the wishes of their employee. The reason that she was paying for coverage was because she wanted to protect them and they didn’t care.

  • Hibernia86

    You still are dodging the question, Judy. If car insurance rates are based only on risk, then why not have similar pay rate differences based on race or religion? Funny how we as a society accept different rates based on gender but not race. Sounds like politics is involved here.

    Just because the issue doesn’t affect you personally doesn’t mean you can act like no one should care. Sounds like another case of female privilege.

  • judy

    I didn’t dodge the question, I just didn’t answer the parts that weren’t relevant. See my response on Car Insurance below to answer your rhetorical quip about how funny it is that our society accepts that men and women are charged different insurance rates based on real group statistics and probabilities based on real things like sex and age, and not on identifying features have no basis in biological reality or on beliefs that people claim to hold and can’t be qualifed or quantified.

    I don’t know about where you live, but where I live there are car insurance plans that offer lower rates to older, experienced drivers who have good driving records. And that’s based on how old you actually are, not how old somebody else thinks you are (like attitudes about what race you are and what that means about you as a person) or how old you feel (like religious beliefs, which are beliefs that you hold despite proof or evidence, and often in spite of proof and evidence).

  • Lucient

    Where I live it’s not based on how old you are alone but the fact that I am a guy and dare say a black one at that. Again, my cousin gets a “pass” yet I have to prove myself? Yes, it’s based on facts and racial profiling and sex and the simple fact that back before I began driving I was “identified” as reckless and I need to pay more car insurance and if those are facts, I am an exception…


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X