Sexism (of both types)

[Seshat]

That only accounts for one form of rape, Rapscallion.

[Rapscallion]

Aye, but the form described in the post - I have doubts it could be managed.

Rapscallion

[Lace Neil Singer]

I wasn't talking about that form. O_o You're making me spell it out, damn you! XD

OK, say a woman drugs a man and then penetrates him with a dildo; that would be rape. Or indeed any object that she inserts into his "special area"; that would be rape. If she just touches his genitals or rubs herself on him, that would be sexual assault. There are also cock rings that can be put on men; dunno about the specifics, but they possibly could cause a state of rigidity, as could horse tranquilisers.

Here are some links I dug up; there were a lot more on google than these; some however treated it as a joke, like saying "Would any man resist rape by a beautiful woman?" which kind of supports what I was saying earlier about teacher rape.

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_A...759365,00.html

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...cle1027927.ece

http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2003/as-...4p592-rape.php

http://www.fathermag.com/news/rape/

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V111/N37/gorgen.37o.html

[Rapscallion]

Have to admit that I'd not heard of this. I was more thinking along traditional lines of forcibly having sex with.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Dude, that's totally possible. A guy doesn't have to be aroused just to pop a stiffy. Just think, we have morning wood. Didn't get aroused at all, yet you still wake up with a raging hard on.

[Rapscallion]

You've obviously not seen my dreams.

I only get fleeting memories of them, and they disappear from my cortex within seconds, but it's far to say that it's damned annoying.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

...Okay...Thanks for sharing that tidbit of information.

But it's totally possible to get an erection without being aroused. Sometimes it just happens. Maybe it's because I'm young I can still manage to do that, and maybe when your an old fart like some members on here you can't remember it, but it's totally possible.

P.S. - Please don't kill me

[Lace Neil Singer]

Plus, men being executed get, uh, wood... doubt they're turned on. O_o

[horror]

I must admit, I'm not too up on my feminist issues, though I do like to try and understand them.
However, this post falls in perfectly with a conversation I was having with a friend last night.
To paraphrase, he stated that families fall apart more because women have decided to work, and as such have made family values a #2 priority behind their career.
I in turn posed the question, "Why should a woman be a housewife? Why can't a man be a househusband?" and was more or less told that men are hunter/gatherers and can't care for children.
WHAT!?
I'm not going to bore everyone with the rest of the details of the conversation, but my friend was essentially exhibiting sexism to both genders simultaneously, in that he suggested women should have to stay home, and that men are incapable of caring for the children they spawned.
The whole conversation left me dumbfounded and I could barely argue any points because I was just so speechless. I don't mean to turn this into a debate about women's issues, but I just thought I would point out that some men perpetuate the sexist stereotypes against them without even knowing it.

[Greenday]

I in turn posed the question, "Why should a woman be a housewife? Why can't a man be a househusband?" and was more or less told that men are hunter/gatherers and can't care for children.
WHAT!?
I'm not going to bore everyone with the rest of the details of the conversation, but my friend was essentially exhibiting sexism to both genders simultaneously, in that he suggested women should have to stay home, and that men are incapable of caring for the children they spawned.

Scientifically, your friend has a point. Men, overtime, have evolved to be hunter/gathers, whereas women have evolved with other things that make them better at running a household than a man. In this day and age, things are evening out, but I'd still say this applies for the majority of people in the world.

[Seshat]

If men can't care for children, my niece and nephew have suffered SEVERE neglect for large parts of their life.


. . . yeah. I won't stand for that sort of sexism against men either. And yes, horror's friend was sexist against both genders.

[blas87]

If men can't care for children, then my father must be a woman in disguise.

I'll never let anyone try to convince me that I need to stay at home, be a house-frau, pop out litters of children, and spend my days watching soaps and cleaning the house and tending to the kids.

Hell no. I can do whatever the hell I want. Any man that has that old fashioned point of view isn't for me. I'm a career woman with too many goals, and none of which involve children or being Martha Stewart.

[Ree]

This is a really interesting issue, and I'm glad it was brought up because I have often felt along these lines myself.

I think the reverse discrimination is a backlash against all those years of oppression and male dominance, adding in a healthy dose of political correctness.

In my own work environment, men have always been paid more than women.
I have been with my employer over 20 years. I am now in a supervisory position, yet my wages as a supervisor are less than those of the men on staff, some who have been with the company for less time than I have.

I had one guy who had just started and was at minimum wage.
My employer came to me a few days after he started and said, "I didn't realize he had children. I can't give him minimum if he has a family." (The guy had shared custody of his children only on alternate weeks.)
Meanwhile, we have women, some single mothers, starting at minimum and staying there for at least their first 3 months probation.

That being said, there are other areas where I see what Mysty is talking about.

Still within my own personal work environment, if a woman calls in, or has to leave early because her child is sick, they don't like it, but they understand.
That same man, once he had been there a few months, had to call in because his little boy was sick, and I heard from the manager, "Does he not have family or a babysitter who can look after his kids?"

In our own home, with the foster children, we have to be on guard all the time to avoid situations where my husband could be accused of improper acts with the young girls that we take in. He has to be so careful about the way he comforts them, or offers a hug. He has to always be aware of the way he even puts his hand on their arm.

If I am going to be out of the home for any period, I have to have a whole bunch of safeguards in place so my husband is not alone in the house with her overnight.

If we were to take in a boy, and I gave him a hug or put my hand on his arm or shoulder or rubbed his back, that would be seen as perfectly acceptable comforting and nurturing acts. My husband could be at work until very late in the evening, or he could even go away to a food show overnight, and there would be no concerns about my being alone with a male child.

My husband has always worked long hours, leaving me alone to look after our daughter, although, when he was home, he was wonderful with her.
He did all of the same childcare duties that I did.

If I had a chance to go out for an evening, and he stayed home with her, I always heard, "Oh, is Daddy baysitting?"
I always said, "No, he's looking after his daughter, the same as I do."

When my nephew joined the police force, he had to really work to get the job. Preference was being given to minorities and women, and if one happened to be a minority woman, then a job was all but guaranteed.

He had to pass a rigorous physical test. The tests for the women were all skewed so their levels were slightly lower than what a man had to reach.

I see this reverse discrimination in advertising now, too.
Men are made out to be incompetent boobs who have absolutely no grasp of what is going on with their children or their partners.

They have no idea how to cook, or clean a house or do laundry and are in awe of these wonderful products that do the job so easily. They are amazed at their discoveries, as their families stand on with smug smiles, because they, as women, and the children who are so closely bonded with their Moms, knew all about this product ages ago.

Women are allowed to leer at shirtless men in tight jeans because this is the 21st century and the roles are reversed, but an ad with the reverse action gets an outcry of condemnation as "sexist".

I have an acquaintance whose marriage broke up.
His wife left him and took his child, and made all kinds of wild accusations against him. Now, I don't know him well enough to know whether there was actual truth to it, but from what I do know of him, he did not seem the type to have done what she was claiming. I had worked with his wife briefly, but not directly, as she was in a different department, so I don't really know if she was the type to make false claims either, although she didn't appear to be.
The accusations she was making didn't sound like this guy at all, though.
He went to court to get custody of his children, but the court believed the mother and awarded custody to her, giving him only supervised access.

He was so angered by that, he started a group advocating fathers' rights.
The fact that there are so many of these organizations out there now must say something about the situation.
Deadbeat Dads make headlines and get clamped own on pretty darn hard, but what about Deadbeat Moms?

Anyway, there is no doubt that a lot of it is just an attempt to equalize a playing field that has long been slanted in the other direction, but in my opinion, it is now being slanted the opposite way a little too much.

[BlaqueKatt]

And when I was talking with the military sign-up people when I was career-choosing, I was only permitted to consider non-combat careers.

Historically, of course, I can see the rationale behind letting men fight and not women:

actually I was in a "combat MOS"-Chemical soldier, plus there's medic and a few others

the reasoning is actually due to some actual gender issues-
! some MOSes actually require you to be "in field " for quite some time, without access to showers, and there is the possiblity of infections from not being able to keep clean. The other reason is if a medic has to carry a 180 pound soldier out of a dangerous area is a 100 pound female going to be able to do that?

[Seshat]

The other reason is if a medic has to carry a 180 pound soldier out of a dangerous area is a 100 pound female going to be able to do that?

Actually, I may have said it in this thread - if not, I think I said it somewhere else - but I agree with that.

Any job which involves being able to carry a particular amount of mass for a particular distance, or any other similar requirement, should be discriminatory. But not gender discriminatory: ability discriminatory.

IE: there needs to be a test during the initial interview or training stage, which determines who can and who can't do it.

If a wiry 100 pound person, male or female, is capable of carrying 180 pounds of soldier (or training dummy) out of a simulated battlefield, then go ahead and employ that wiry person.

If a 180 pound person of either gender can't do it, then don't employ them.

That sort of job requirement shouldn't be gender-discriminatory, just ability discriminatory: if you can do it, you can get the job.

As for the washing one: not all women of fertile age menstruate. Those who don't should be considered for the job.


And for Ree's post: YEAH! I can't think of anything you said, Ree, that I disagree with.