Log in

View Full Version : Female Perpetration of Child Sexual Abuse:



Monty Cantsin
29th June 2005, 05:55
This is not necessarily OI material but I didn’t know whrere else it could go…

http://movingforward.org/v2n6-cover.html

-----------------------------------------

Female Perpetration of Child Sexual Abuse:
An Overview of the Problem


By Lisa Lipshires

Seven years ago, a client of Massachusetts psychologist Marcia Turner said something that shocked her. The woman, who had been sexually abused throughout her own childhood and was living in a house with other adults and their children, said, "The little three-year-old girl in my household is coming on to me, and wants me to have sex with her. I think I will, because I know that I will be gentle and kind to her, and it's inevitable that she is going to be abused."

Although Turner had previously counseled male sex offenders, she had never encountered a woman who wanted to sexually abuse a child. Alarmed, she consulted other therapists, but none had ever encountered -- or even heard of -- female sex offenders. Turner realized that "this is something we need to look at," and decided to make female perpetrators of child sexual abuse the focus of her practice.

Betsy K., a survivor of sexual abuse by her father, realized five years ago that she had also been sexually abused by her mother. As she was confronting the abuse, other women in her area who had been sexually abused by their mothers were starting to deal openly with their experiences. "It was something that people were just barely beginning to talk about," Betsy recalled. Nonetheless, she and the other women formed a weekly self-help group for women survivors of female-perpetrated sexual abuse.

Betsy K. and Marcia Turner are part of a small, growing number of people confronting the issue of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse. Many feel they are fighting an uphill battle against societal denial and cultural stereotypes of women and men.

Societal Denial

In her 1993 doctoral dissertation, "Female Sex Offenders: Societal Avoidance of Comprehending the Phenomenon of Women Who Sexually Abuse Children" (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI), Boston psychologist Laurie Goldman analyzed the ways society minimizes the scope and impact of sexual abuse by women.

Goldman initially planned to conduct in-depth research of female perpetrators. To that end, she distributed 315 letters to therapists and clinics, took out an advertisement in a major newspaper, and contacted several clinicians who treated sex offenders. She also placed 10 poster advertisements in highly visible locations. Her eight-month search yielded only one woman who was willing to discuss what she had done. Goldman knew from reliable sources that female offenders were being treated, but clinic administrators insisted that no such women were under their care.

In addition, within 48 hours of having been hung, all of her posters had been removed. Unable to obtain subjects for her study, Goldman decided to focus on the societal denial that makes female perpetrators such an elusive population.

Goldman discovered that denial of female perpetration is woven into the very systems meant to protect children. She learned that one of her new female clients had previously disclosed that she had sexually abused a nephew, but the Massachusetts child protection agency had not referred the case to the Attorney General's office. In fact, Goldman's client subsequently admitted that she had abused two other children since her first disclosure.

This treatment of the problem by the State of Massachusetts is not unique. In the State of Washington, for example, one human services professional reported that when an accused female offender was brought before a judge, the judge declared, "women don't do things like this," and dismissed the case. In another case, a New England prison warden told Goldman that she had only one woman in her system who had been convicted of child sexual abuse because "public sentiment did not allow for such charges to be brought to trial in her conservative state."

This comes as no surprise to Gail Ryan, facilitator of the Kemp Center's Perpetrator Prevention Project in Denver. She has found that female adolescent sex offenders "are much less likely than male adolescent offenders to be caught or charged."

Iowa State University sociologist Craig Allen, who conducted a study Of 75 men and 65 women who had been convicted of sexually abusing a child, refers to this process as a form of societal "gate keeping." By the time female offenders could be referred to a therapist for treatment, he writes in Women and Men Who Sexually Abuse Children: A Comparative Analysis (Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press, 1991), "only those
women would be left whose behaviors were so deviant" that their abusiveness could not be denied "at any of the preceding 'gates' in the system." Allen's gate keeping hypothesis could account for why female perpetrators appear so rarely in therapists' case studies and why, when they do, they are generally described as psychotic or otherwise severely disturbed.

Ruth Matthews, a St. Paul psychologist who has worked with 50 adolescent and 70 adult female sex offenders, says another major reason why adult female perpetrators are rarely seen in treatment is that many are mothers. In such cases, she says, dependent children are generally reluctant to turn in their mothers.

If children -- whose disclosures still provide the primary means of reporting offenders -- are being abused by mothers who are single parents or who carry out the abuse with male partners, disclosure would cause them to be removed from their homes and placed in foster care. By contrast, when there is an offending father and a non-offending mother, a child's disclosure would not mean "as much of a loss," says Matthews. "They still will have their home, they still will have a parent, and their family will stay intact."

Prevalence of Abuse by Females

If children seldom disclose, and if female abusers are often winnowed out of investigations and court proceedings, how much female perpetration is actually going on? Because of the hidden nature of child sexual abuse and because of problems with the way in which child abuse data are collected, nobody can provide a definitive answer to this question.

There are two main sources of information on the extent of child sexual abuse: data gathered by state child protective agencies and retrospective studies that seek to determine the percentage of adults who were sexually abused as children.

Two retrospective studies of adult populations are frequently quoted by researchers and child advocates. The Los Angeles Times survey, conducted in 1985, found that seven percent of the abuse reported by male and female participants in the study was perpetrated by women. Sociologist Diana Russell's 1978 San Francisco-based study revealed that four percent of the women who reported having been abused indicated that the perpetrators were female.

The Times survey and the Russell study were based on a random selection of participants. Other retrospective studies focusing on narrower populations have found much higher rates of female perpetration, although some of these findings have yet to be replicated. In a 1981 study, 60 percent of 412 male and 10 percent of 540 female undergraduate psychology students at the University of Washington who recalled childhood sexual contact with a post-pubescent person at least five years older than themselves said their abusers were female. (Fritz, G., Stoll, K., and Wagner, N. "A Comparison of Males and Females Who Were Sexually Molested as Children," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1981, vol. 7,54-59.)

In another study, doctors at a New Jersey medical clinic found that 11 out of 25 teenage males who revealed that they had been sexually molested named females (ages 16 to 36) as their assailants. These perpetrators were "usually acquaintances of the victims -- most often a neighbor, baby-sitter, or other trusted adolescent or young adult." (Johnson, R., and Shrier, D. "Past Sexual Victimization by Females of Male Patients in an Adolescent Medicine Clinic Population," American Journal Of Psychiatry, 1987, vol. 144,650-662.)

Finally, a study of 582 college men found that up to 78 percent of those abused as children had been abused by females. (Fromuth, M., and Burkhart, B. "Childhood Sexual Victimization Among College Men: Definitions and Methodological Issues," Violence and Victim, 1987, vol. 2, no. 4, 241-253.)

Researchers do not know why some studies uncover a higher rate of female perpetration than others, but The National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse (NRCCSA) asserts that because of a lack of standardization in reporting and inconsistencies in research methods and definitions of sexual abuse, "the firm statistics everyone desires" on the prevalence of abuse "simply are not available." (NRCCSA News, May-June 1992, vol. 1, no. 1.)

The inconsistencies noted by the NRCCSA can be found in the other main source of data on child sexual abuse: yearly reports from the 50 states' child protective agencies. The American Humane Association which was responsible for gathering these data from 1973 through 1987, found that approximately 20 percent of substantiated cases of child sexual abuse during that time period had been perpetrated by females. (Information on perpetrator gender is not available for 1988-1992; data eventually will be available for 1993 and subsequent years.) However, not all states require the gender of perpetrators to be included in their reports. Thus, says John Fluke, Director of Research and Program Analysis for the American Humane Association, there are inherent difficulties in getting good information, given the fact that we're working with 50 different systems of information development."

Another difficulty, as University of New Hampshire sociologist David Finkelhor notes in Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research (New York: The Free Press, 1984), is that the "child abuse that is mandated for reporting in most states is only child abuse committed by parents and other caretakers." As a result, abuse perpetrated by children, adolescents, and unrelated adults or strangers is unlikely to appear in yearly reports; a sizeable proportion of sexual abuse committed by males and females is therefore generally not recorded.

Improvements are being made in this regard. Last year the National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse, which
has been collecting national data since 1988, began to ask states to include perpetrator gender in their reports.

Range of Abuse

The abuse that females perpetrate can range from subtle, non-contact forms such as exhibitionism and voyeurism to overt sexual touching and/or penetration. In his study of offenders, sociologist Craig Allen found that both genders engaged in a range of abusive behavior. Therapist Marcia Turner says that her clients have claimed to "digitally penetrate, orally stimulate, insert things into kids, and have kids do things to them like. . . stimulate their genitals."

Other therapists, including those specializing in male survivors of sexual abuse, have noticed an apparent pattern in clients' reports of female-perpetrated abuse. Minneapolis psychologist Peter Dimock has counseled 400 to 500 male survivors of sexual abuse since 1980. He found that, for the 25 percent who recall being abused by a female, most experienced the abuse as subtle or seductive. Very often, Dimock says, if the female abuser is in a parental or caretaking role, she will perpetrate the abuse "under the guise of caretaking, where it has involved putting medication on the child's genitals, inserting suppositories or enemas," or she will make an excuse to expose her body to the boy, "clearly with an intent to arouse, but, again, under the guise of normalized behavior."

Nic Hunter, a psychologist from St. Paul, author of Abused Boys: The Neglected Victim of Sexual Abuse, and editor of The Sexually Abused Male, Volumes I and II (all from Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990), has also found in his work with hundreds of male survivors that approximately 25 percent were sexually abused by females and that in general, the abuse was "very covert in that it was disguised as something other than a sexual contact."
Dimock adds that female abusers frequently treat their victims like romantic partners, taking them on "date-like outings."

Not all survivors or victims report that sexual abuse by females was subtle or covert. Of the 93 women who perpetrated in Michigan therapist Bobbie Rosencrans' recent four-year study of survivors of maternal incest, 65 percent reported that their abuse had been violent. Karen K., a survivor of maternal incest from Washington State who edits the newsletter S.O.F.I.E. (Survivors of Female Incest Emerge!), has read nearly 500 letters from survivors in the past 18 months. She feels that "women are more creative and more brutal in their abuse."

Abuse Aftereffects

Therapist Bobbie Rosencrans' research on 93 female and nine male survivors of maternal incest (Rosencrans had originally planned to study female survivors only, but nine men asked to be included as well.) is the most comprehensive study to date of survivors of female perpetrators. Rosencrans found among her study participants many of the reactions shared by survivors of male-perpetrated abuse: depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and high rates of eating disorders and substance abuse. She also found, when she asked her participants what they would want the public to know about maternal incest, a nearly universal wish to tell society that "this really happens."

Gender Identity Issues

One of the most common reactions to female-perpetrated abuse is shame about gender identity. Phyllis E, who was sexually abused by both her mother and her father, remembers feeling a deep disgust for her mother's body -- a disgust that carried over into a hatred of her own female self. "I couldn't stand my own body for years," she says. "I couldn't understand how men could stand women's bodies."

Tom, a therapist and survivor of abuse by three females, including his mother, has also felt a deep confusion about his gender identity. Along with subjecting Tom to unnecessary enemas, masturbating him in the bathtub, and making him sleep in her bed and watch her dress, his mother perpetrated against him a type of behavior that Indiana therapist Christine Lawson refers to as "perversive abuse." Perversive abuse, Lawson writes in "Mother-Son Sexual Abuse: Rare or Underreported? A Critique of the Research" (Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 17, no. 2) is abuse of a child's sexuality and "may include behavior such as forcing the boy to wear female clothing ... and generally discouraging the child's identification with males." Tom says that "until I was five, I hadn't the foggiest notion that I wasn't a girl."

Psychologist Mic Hunter says that the societal belief that "when sexual contact takes place" between a male and female, "the male is responsible for it" can place an extra sense of shame and responsibility on boy victims of female perpetrators. There is also the cultural myth, exemplified by movies such as "Summer of '42," "Men Don't Leave," and "My Tutor," that sexual contact between an adult female and a young boy is a desirable initiation into manhood. Hunter has witnessed this during training sessions at the offices of various district attorneys. Often, he says, "there will be a female attorney on staff who is trying to prosecute a female perpetrator [of a male victim], and the male attorneys will say, 'Look, we're not going to waste the taxpayers' dollars on this. This is every man's fantasy.'"

Rick S., a survivor of maternal incest as well as sexual abuse by a female nurse, confirms that he struggled to accept that what was done to him was inappropriate and wrong. "I adored my mother," Rick says, "and she doted on me, especially in the early years." When Rick got to high school, he says, "I felt like I was unfaithful to her if I thought of going out with a girl." He had "no idea that you were supposed to grow up and develop and learn." He saw his peers growing up and finding age-appropriate dates, and wondered what they had that he didn't.

Confronting Gender Stereotypes

A widespread societal belief that female-perpetrated sexual abuse is improbable -- particularly if the abuser was one's mother -- has made it especially difficult for survivors of female abusers to disclose their experiences and has left them with perhaps an even deeper sense of isolation. Remarkably, though 81 percent of the women in Rosencrans' study were currently in therapy, only three percent had revealed to their therapists that their mothers had abused them sexually.

Karen K. remembers believing for years that she was the only survivor of mother-daughter incest. "I felt completely isolated and alone with who my perpetrator was," Karen says. In response to Rosencrans' study (Safer Society Press, 1994), one woman wrote, "I've never met anyone who was sexually abused by their mother. I didn't know that 93 other people existed."

Betsy K. believes that the sexual abuse of daughters by mothers is even more taboo than the sexual abuse of sons. Between mothers and sons, Betsy says, "People would believe, probably, that there was some sort of sexual contact, though they
might not look at it as abuse." But in our homophobic culture, "females sexually abusing females -- Oh God, nobody, nobody wants to believe that. I think it's as hard to believe, or close to as hard to believe, as ritual abuse ... It doesn't get the attention it deserves."

Moving Past Secrecy and Shame

It was liberating for Betsy, in a survivors' march and rally several years ago, to carry a sign: "Mothers Can Be Abusers, Too." She and other survivors of maternal incest glued photographs of their Mothers onto the sign, and Betsy held it up while she recounted the story of her mother's abuse. Betsy spoke so loudly, one woman later told her, that she had heard her from nearly a quarter of a mile away and she had to stop and listen. Months later, a stranger approached Betsy at a workshop and said she saw Betsy's sign at the march and that it had really helped her to reveal, for the first time, that she had also been sexually abused by her mother. "It was very moving," Betsy says. "I'll never forget that. It speaks to survivors helping survivors ... I think we can, as a community, really heal each other."

Lisa Lipshires is a freelance writer and human services professional.

Suggested Reading

Allen, Craig (1991). Women and Men Who Sexually Abuse Children: A Comparative Analysis. Brandon, VT: The Safer Society Press.

Evert, Kathy (1987). When You're Ready. A Woman's Healing from Childhood Physical and Sexual Abuse by Her Mother. Walnut Creek, CA: Launch Press.

Kelley, Susan J., et al. (1993). Sexual Abuse of Children in Day Care. Child Abuse & Neglect vol. 17,71-89.

Lawson, Christine (1993). Mother-Son Sexual Abuse: Rare or Under-reported? A Critique of the Research. Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 17, no. 2.

Middlebrook, Diane Wood (1991). Anne Sexton: A Biography. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. (Note: Anne Sexton's daughter, Linda Gray Sexton, disclosed in Middlebrook's biography that her mother had sexually abused her.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments?

Taiga
29th June 2005, 10:30
I'm really confused about this:

The little three-year-old girl in my household is coming on to me, and wants me to have sex with her.

Just can't imagine...

*Hippie*
29th June 2005, 20:27
It is disgusting how so many people turn their heads at women abusing children.....

Women can be every bit as much of a sex offender as a man. Almost every guy I have dated has admitted to me they were harrassed or coerced into sex by a female at least once in their life. People need to wake up to what is going on!

Le Libérer
30th June 2005, 16:21
It makes sense that we dont want to convict our mothers. Women are traditionally the care takers of children. But wouldnt women have more opportunity to do so?

There seems to be a double standard when it comes to convicting men and women sex offenders. I have a colleage (a counselor who works within penal system) that works with sex offenders. He tells me that there are no counseling techniques that work as a "cure". Teaching abstinance is just about the only option. I once asked him if he ever counseled women sex abusers. He said they never came down the pike.

It just seems strange that in this culture, a man who has sex with minors will almost always be charged with the crime and his female counterpart will not! We dont think a woman seducing a teenage male as abuse in this culture. In the media and film, hell, he almost always gets a pat on the back.

Monty Cantsin
30th June 2005, 16:37
Yes, last year in Australia there was a big outcry because there where two very similar cases of penetration with minors one perpetrated by a female teacher and one a male teacher…the male teacher got the book through at him and the female teacher got let off.

"He said they never came down the pike.:

what's the "pike" ?

Le Libérer
30th June 2005, 16:43
Oh goodness, now to explain a southern u.s. term- down the pike would be never made it to him- or never made it thru the penal system-

redstar2000
3rd July 2005, 03:02
There is also the cultural myth, exemplified by movies such as "Summer of '42," "Men Don't Leave," and "My Tutor," that sexual contact between an adult female and a young boy is a desirable initiation into manhood. Hunter has witnessed this during training sessions at the offices of various district attorneys. Often, he says, "there will be a female attorney on staff who is trying to prosecute a female perpetrator [of a male victim], and the male attorneys will say, 'Look, we're not going to waste the taxpayers' dollars on this. This is every man's fantasy.'"

If it's "every man's fantasy", then how is it "abuse"?

It strikes me that there's something about the character of the "child abuse industry" that compels a reckless expansion of their concerns into areas that are really none of their business.

Adolescent sexuality is none of their business...unless violence or the threat of violence is involved or unless some combination of authority and status is used to intimidate the adolescent.

It's probably not a great idea for young high school teachers (male or female) to initiate sexual encounters with high school students (male or female)...but that is very far removed from the sexual molestation of children.

What makes the sexual molestation of pre-pubescent children so devastating in its effects is that children do not understand what is "expected" of them in a sexual context...it is a baffling and incomprehensible experience.

On the other hand, it's very difficult to get adolescents to not think about sex "all the time" -- the hormones are pumping away more strongly than they ever will again. The opportunity to be sexually initiated by an attractive and experienced partner is one they rarely decline and frequently initiate.

That's not "abuse"...it's the way humans learn about sex.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Publius
3rd July 2005, 03:53
"He said they never came down the pike.:

what's the "pike" ?

It's an idiom.

It's refering to a turn-pike, historically, a road where you paid a fee to travel on the road, at a toll booth. The operator would move the pike (Read: Spear;Read: Pointy Stick) out of the way, allowing you to pass.

As a side note, turnpikes were very successful, as private roads.

ÑóẊîöʼn
3rd July 2005, 10:27
As a side note, turnpikes were very successful, as private roads.

Funny how turnpike also means 'traitor'

Publius
3rd July 2005, 12:48
Funny how turnpike also means 'traitor'

I was unaware of that.

Are you certain?

ÑóẊîöʼn
3rd July 2005, 19:02
After a bit of googling I feel I may be mistaken. It could be that that particular usage is particularly archaic or out of fashion.

Redmau5
3rd July 2005, 19:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:27 AM
Funny how turnpike also means 'traitor'
I think you mean "turncoat".

red_orchestra
3rd July 2005, 20:12
humm, I think the human psyche is complex. I think the more we dive into the issue of sexual behaviour we will find that as soon as a person is sexually aware then it is just a matter of time until something happens. Sexuallity cannot be suppressed naturally as it is a natural phenomina.

However, some boundaries should be in place*

Loknar
6th July 2005, 09:05
There is also the cultural myth, exemplified by movies such as "Summer of '42," "Men Don't Leave," and "My Tutor," that sexual contact between an adult female and a young boy is a desirable initiation into manhood. '

Cultural myth? what the hell does that mean?

If I had a daughter and i found out she was having sex with her male teacher, I'd kick his ass and burry him under his house.

if i had a son and found out he was having sex with his female teacher, I would say "are you OK,?" if he feels he is ok then big deal.


it is every mans fantasy to have sex with his highschool teacher. women, you don’t get it, just leave it alone.

praxis1966
7th July 2005, 02:36
I think part of the issue, as RedStar addressed, is the age of consent. It varies from state to state in the U$, but for the most part it is 16. Oddly enough, and I don't know how common this is, but where girls are concerned in the state of Florida the age drops to 14 if the girl happens to be of what statute calls "a post-chaste nature." In other words, it's ok if she's not a virgin.

In any case, most of the females who I know that began having sex before 16 or so are almost unanimous in their belief that they started to soon, ie weren't emotionally prepared for the reprecussions. I'd also wager that this is the case for boys that young and to argue otherwise is a form of sexism. I know several men who began having sex in their pre-teen or early teen years that are fucked up beyond all comprehension, many without being aware of how whacked out they are.

Anyhow, I'm reminded of a case that stemmed from my home state. There was a middle school teacher in her late 20s who began having sex with one of her 13 year old male students. She got busted and it was all over the news for a while recently, but what some people may not have heard is that the two now have plans to wed. *Does his best Forrest Gump* Betty Ford here he comes, and that's all I have to say about that.

Loknar
7th July 2005, 05:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 01:36 AM
I think part of the issue, as RedStar addressed, is the age of consent. It varies from state to state in the U$, but for the most part it is 16. Oddly enough, and I don't know how common this is, but where girls are concerned in the state of Florida the age drops to 14 if the girl happens to be of what statute calls "a post-chaste nature." In other words, it's ok if she's not a virgin.

In any case, most of the females who I know that began having sex before 16 or so are almost unanimous in their belief that they started to soon, ie weren't emotionally prepared for the reprecussions. I'd also wager that this is the case for boys that young and to argue otherwise is a form of sexism. I know several men who began having sex in their pre-teen or early teen years that are fucked up beyond all comprehension, many without being aware of how whacked out they are.

Anyhow, I'm reminded of a case that stemmed from my home state. There was a middle school teacher in her late 20s who began having sex with one of her 13 year old male students. She got busted and it was all over the news for a while recently, but what some people may not have heard is that the two now have plans to wed. *Does his best Forrest Gump* Betty Ford here he comes, and that's all I have to say about that.
If one starts to have sex early that usually means they don’t have a strong home life.

Guys who sleep with their teachers wont be affected like a girl would be. for teenage girls especially there is alot more emotion involved. the guys can get hurt if they think there is more to their 'relationship' than sex, but if he knows it's just a lay a day he wont be damaged.

Believe me, for guys sex isnt all that traumatic

redstar2000
7th July 2005, 05:31
Originally posted by Loknar+--> (Loknar)If I had a daughter and I found out she was having sex with her male teacher, I'd kick his ass and bury him under his house.[/b]

Indeed.

You don't recognize her right to choose her sex partners; you assume she must be the "victim of male lust".

Or perhaps you still think of daughters as a kind of property...and pre-marital sex "damages" her value in the "marriage market".

May I extend my warmest welcome...to the 21st century. :lol:


praxis1966
In any case, most of the females who I know that began having sex before 16 or so are almost unanimous in their belief that they started too soon, i.e., weren't emotionally prepared for the repercussions.

Heartbreak comes to us all...no matter "when" we start.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

ÑóẊîöʼn
7th July 2005, 05:50
Personally I find the idea of 'Fragile Femmes' to be a disgusting holdover from 19th century romanticism.

It's also sexist.

Loknar
7th July 2005, 06:36
Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 7 2005, 04:31 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 7 2005, 04:31 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
If I had a daughter and I found out she was having sex with her male teacher, I'd kick his ass and bury him under his house.

Indeed.

You don't recognize her right to choose her sex partners; you assume she must be the "victim of male lust".

Or perhaps you still think of daughters as a kind of property...and pre-marital sex "damages" her value in the "marriage market".

May I extend my warmest welcome...to the 21st century. :lol:


praxis1966
In any case, most of the females who I know that began having sex before 16 or so are almost unanimous in their belief that they started too soon, i.e., weren't emotionally prepared for the repercussions.

Heartbreak comes to us all...no matter "when" we start.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
No i'd think she is the victim of some sick bastards lust. teenage girls can be lured just as male boys can, but what she is looking for is more than likely some form of companionship. where as a teenage boy would be looking for a good time.

the thing is, guys understand this, that if a female teacher comes on to him , well, he is one lucky bastard and it is EVERY guys dream.

but, if i have a daughter who is seduced, I'd first put her teacher in about 4 different suitcases, then I'd blame my self.

Loknar
7th July 2005, 06:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:50 AM
Personally I find the idea of 'Fragile Femmes' to be a disgusting holdover from 19th century romanticism.

It's also sexist.
did you ever think that this line of thought guys have is just because men are the natural protectors of women? IN the 1860's in the south, respect for women was apart of the culture. In Missouri confederate guerillas had only 1 crime for which a man could be shot, and that being to disrespect a woman in any manner. (well also desertion)

It isn’t that guys see women as week, it is that we feel honor bound to them. At least I do and more men like this in my opinion are needed because today, despite all women have achieved in terms of equal rights, spousal abuse remains a problem.

ÑóẊîöʼn
7th July 2005, 08:25
did you ever think that this line of thought guys have is just because men are the natural protectors of women? IN the 1860's in the south, respect for women was apart of the culture. In Missouri confederate guerillas had only 1 crime for which a man could be shot, and that being to disrespect a woman in any manner. (well also desertion)

Thank you for proving my point. Men are not the 'natural protectors' of women, they are perfectly capable of defending themselves you chauvinist prick. Gender roles are cultural not part of human nature.


It isn’t that guys see women as week, it is that we feel honor bound to them.

'Honour-bound'? What fucking century is this again?

Loknar
7th July 2005, 08:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 07:25 AM

did you ever think that this line of thought guys have is just because men are the natural protectors of women? IN the 1860's in the south, respect for women was apart of the culture. In Missouri confederate guerillas had only 1 crime for which a man could be shot, and that being to disrespect a woman in any manner. (well also desertion)

Thank you for proving my point. Men are not the 'natural protectors' of women, they are perfectly capable of defending themselves you chauvinist prick. Gender roles are cultural not part of human nature.


It isn’t that guys see women as week, it is that we feel honor bound to them.

'Honour-bound'? What fucking century is this again?
OK, I show respect for women and all I get is heat from feminazies like you.

do you know why most men laugh at the feminist movement? It isn’t because the rights of women issue, it's this butch "I hate men " attitude, the shitty poetry, the “feminist riots” (if you call burning your bras and not shaving your pits ’rioting’) and the “I am woman hear me roar” crap that comes from people like you. Go ahead, stomp every mans balls you see. Women like you only drive men away (If you’re lesbian then i guess it's cool) or you somehow get some pussy man who takes your shit.

And lets backtrack, I never called you a name, I only say men should protect women (and are the natural protectors of women) and all I get is ‘YOU MUST BE A SCHOVNIST” bullshit from you. I respect most women, but women like you piss me off.

btw, Quantrill (a guerilla leader) would have had me shot for what I just said to you. Yeah, men who want to protect women must hate them....

Black Dagger
7th July 2005, 10:27
I respect most women, but women like you piss me off.

NoXion is male. Although it is not suprising that you assume anyone arguing in a feminist or pro-feminist manner is a woman, no real man would ever let such "“I am woman hear me roar” crap" pass their lips, fuck off you sexist pig.



And lets backtrack, I never called you a name, I only say men should protect women (and are the natural protectors of women) and all I get is ‘YOU MUST BE A SCHOVNIST” bullshit from you.

You never called anyone names? From that same post,
"feminazies like you", and of course the sexist diatribe that followed.
You 'only' said that men should 'protect' women and that men are the 'natural protectors' of women, really? Do you understand what the term chauvinism means? In this case male chauvinism. Bounded up with that statement is the sexist assumption that women 'need' men to 'protect' them, that is- that they are weak, 'helpless creatures', delicate etc. You don't think that women might find such a characterisation patronising? As rs2000 said, 'welcome to the 21st century' :rolleyes:

ÑóẊîöʼn
7th July 2005, 11:44
OK, I show respect for women and all I get is heat from feminazies like you.


I'm not a feminazi. Support your moronic assertion.


do you know why most men laugh at the feminist movement? It isn’t because the rights of women issue, it's this butch "I hate men " attitude, the shitty poetry, the “feminist riots” (if you call burning your bras and not shaving your pits ’rioting’) and the “I am woman hear me roar” crap that comes from people like you. Go ahead, stomp every mans balls you see. Women like you only drive men away (If you’re lesbian then i guess it's cool) or you somehow get some pussy man who takes your shit.

Typical anti-feminist garbage. Learn something about the movement before you criticise it, little man.


And lets backtrack, I never called you a name, I only say men should protect women (and are the natural protectors of women) and all I get is ‘YOU MUST BE A SCHOVNIST” bullshit from you. I respect most women, but women like you piss me off.

First - I'm not a woman, secondly, learn to spell, and thirdly stating that men are the natural protectors of women is chauvinism.

Hopefully you won't learn that the hard way when some woman who refuses to take your bullshit breaks your jaw.


btw, Quantrill (a guerilla leader) would have had me shot for what I just said to you. Yeah, men who want to protect women must hate them....

Chauvinism is the not the same as misogyny.

*Hippie*
7th July 2005, 16:22
Loknar, you are a stupid tard. :angry:
To say a female can't make the same sexual decisions at the same age as a male is absurd.
I pity any woman who dates you.

redstar2000
7th July 2005, 17:31
Originally posted by Loknar
No I'd think she is the victim of some sick bastard's lust. Teenage girls can be lured just as male boys can, but what she is looking for is more than likely some form of companionship.

Your insight into female sexuality is truly "awesome". :lol:

I feel very sorry for any daughters you might ever father.


In the 1860's in the south, respect for women was a part of the culture.

Missing the Confederacy, are we?

So, um, which women are we talking about here? The pampered dolls of the landed aristocracy? The wives and daughters of laborers and small farmers? Slave women???

You sound very much like a modern apologist for Islam...who would claim that Islam "really respects women".

To you (and to him) I would reply that you don't have the faintest conception of what respecting women entails.

The very idea that she is a person with her own agenda is as incomprehensible to you as quantum mechanics...or communism.

If you truly want to "protect women", the best advice I can offer you is to enter a monastery at the earliest possible moment...at least that will protect them from you.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Loknar
7th July 2005, 21:50
OK men, if i am ever walking down the street and I see a woman being harassed by another man, I'll just say "naw, i wont get involved, she can handle it."




To say a female can't make the same sexual decisions at the same age as a male is absurd.

I didn’t say that. i am saying her decision to engage in that with another older guy is probably more emotional. And if an older guy wants a girl that young he is a sick son of a ***** and should be hacked into pieces. If you guys wont life a finger as your daughter carries on a relationship with her teacher "because she can make a logical decision" then you are stupid asses. teenage boys and girls cant make logical decisions the same as adults can and they can be misled easier. i am only saying that when boys do it it is probably not for an emotional reason where as a girl who does it it may be made on emotion which in my book means some sick asshole has taken advantage of her,


"Oh, girls cant make emotionless decisions you are a male chauvinist pig"

there, I said what you want to reply with so don’t waste your time.

rebelworker
8th July 2005, 02:40
Ok I got a question guy,

if men are womens natural protectors, then who are womens natural predators...

cant be the same answer.

Ok so most men are bigger than most women, its not then a given that women naturally need men to protect them otherwise whales and elephnats would have taken over the world by now.

Most harm that comes to women comes from men, being patronizing about men protecting women dose nothing to change this, obviosly I come to the aid of women in distress, but dose this mean i shouldnt also come to the aid of men in distress.

Women need men to stop fucking with them, not men to protect them, this should be the task of all men who care about women:

First check our own behavior, how do we relate to women? do we trully treat them as equals?

Second Encourage other men to do the same..

Third step in when needed to deal with men who are not doing the first two.


This means little shoit too, simple shit like cleaning up after ourselves, not pushing sex on women, not treating all women as object of sexual conquest, listening to what women are saying all the time, ect ect..

I have always thought of myself as someone who respects women, i have not always treated women right, it took me a long time to grow up and face my personal behavior towards women and take responsibility for treating them the way they want to be treated, and speaking up when other men dont, Im stil working on it but getting smarter every day.

Some advice on what i have learned about respecting women

And to redstar, I was a bit disturbed by your post on sexual encounters, in this sick world we live in we can not trust older people to initiate or teach younge folks about sex, there are very real presonal power dynamics that will be abused, the safest thing is for young people to explore sex togeather, hopefully they will be less likely to carry alot of the hangups and fucked up power shit around sex that most adults have not leared to get past.

rebelworker

LSD
8th July 2005, 03:12
OK men, if i am ever walking down the street and I see a woman being harassed by another man, I'll just say "naw, i wont get involved, she can handle it."

What about if you see a man being harrased by another man?

Surely your desire to help innococent victims shouldn't be dependent on the sex of that victtim!

Anything else is sexism.


I didn’t say that. i am saying her decision to engage in that with another older guy is probably more emotional.

Prove it.


And if an older guy wants a girl that young he is a sick son of a ***** and should be hacked into pieces.

How young are we talking?

If we're saying pre-pubescent, then I entirely agree. But if we're talking 16? 17?

You really think that someone should be "hacke into pieces" for being attracted to a 17 year old?


i am only saying that when boys do it it is probably not for an emotional reason where as a girl who does it it may be made on emotion

It "may" be made on emotion?

But with boys it never is? :lol:

Look, if you're going to assert that women are more emotional and more liable to be "taken advantage" of, you're going to have to provide evidence.

Loknar
8th July 2005, 04:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:40 AM
Ok I got a question guy,

if men are womens natural protectors, then who are womens natural predators...

cant be the same answer.

Ok so most men are bigger than most women, its not then a given that women naturally need men to protect them otherwise whales and elephnats would have taken over the world by now.

Most harm that comes to women comes from men, being patronizing about men protecting women dose nothing to change this, obviosly I come to the aid of women in distress, but dose this mean i shouldnt also come to the aid of men in distress.

Women need men to stop fucking with them, not men to protect them, this should be the task of all men who care about women:

First check our own behavior, how do we relate to women? do we trully treat them as equals?

Second Encourage other men to do the same..

Third step in when needed to deal with men who are not doing the first two.


This means little shoit too, simple shit like cleaning up after ourselves, not pushing sex on women, not treating all women as object of sexual conquest, listening to what women are saying all the time, ect ect..

I have always thought of myself as someone who respects women, i have not always treated women right, it took me a long time to grow up and face my personal behavior towards women and take responsibility for treating them the way they want to be treated, and speaking up when other men dont, Im stil working on it but getting smarter every day.

Some advice on what i have learned about respecting women

And to redstar, I was a bit disturbed by your post on sexual encounters, in this sick world we live in we can not trust older people to initiate or teach younge folks about sex, there are very real presonal power dynamics that will be abused, the safest thing is for young people to explore sex togeather, hopefully they will be less likely to carry alot of the hangups and fucked up power shit around sex that most adults have not leared to get past.

rebelworker
You're right on the dime. There shouldn’t be a need to have men to protect women and the greatest threat to women is men I agree. That is why we must fight those kinds of men and men can do that be kicking those other guys asses around.

Loknar
8th July 2005, 05:01
What about if you see a man being harrased by another man?

Surely your desire to help innococent victims shouldn't be dependent on the sex of that victtim!

Anything else is sexism.


no it shouldn’t be dependant on the sex of the victim, though i would be more outraged if it was a woman being harassed. and yes i would absolutely step in if it was another man.




Prove it.

Cant really do that now can i? though how many times have you met women who said "I dunno I was young and looking for companionship, I never got any at home. my father was never there.." I know a few....



How young are we talking?

If we're saying pre-pubescent, then I entirely agree. But if we're talking 16? 17?

You really think that someone should be "hacke into pieces" for being attracted to a 17 year old?


No it is normal if the girl is 17 and he was attracted to her. but leave it at that.

but if he takes advantage of my 16 or 17 year old daughter then I am placing him into 25 different duffel bags.


It "may" be made on emotion?

But with boys it never is? :lol:

Look, if you're going to assert that women are more emotional and more liable to be "taken advantage" of, you're going to have to provide evidence.

I didn’t say they were more likely to be taken advantage of, but women tend to be more on the emotional side than men are.

redstar2000
8th July 2005, 05:39
Originally posted by rebelworker
And to redstar, I was a bit disturbed by your post on sexual encounters; in this sick world we live in, we can not trust older people to initiate or teach younger folks about sex; there are very real personal power dynamics that will be abused; the safest thing is for young people to explore sex together; hopefully they will be less likely to carry a lot of the hangups and fucked up power shit around sex that most adults have not learned to get past.

The decision "who to trust" is always an individual one...you can't "make a law" about who is trustworthy and who is not -- well, you can make such a law but your efforts to enforce it will generate more tragedy than it will prevent.

It would seem to me, in one sense at least, that sex is like any other learned skill -- it works out better between one experienced person and one inexperienced person than it does between two inexperienced people.

The question of "power dynamics" exists in every relationship...and trying to figure out if there is real abuse going on can be a thorny problem.

Particularly for someone outside the relationship.

But unless we have actual evidence for violent abuse, we must leave matters to the people involved...regardless of the age difference between them.

Human emotional entanglements are probably the most complicated part of human life...all of us are really beginners, when you get right down to it. Trying to make laws about this stuff just leads to more grief and misery.

The main thing is to make sure that when people weary of a particular relationship they are free to dissolve it without hindrance (much less any threat to their personal safety). One of the greatest hazards that women still face today comes at the end of a relationship -- when some violent men refuse to let go. And age is no protection from this hazard -- a woman of 40 is in as much danger as a girl of 14.

There are many tragic stories of women of all ages being murdered by their ex-husbands/boyfriends...and the protective mechanisms in place are woefully inadequate. I don't think it would be unreasonable for municipalities to provide a publicly-paid bodyguard for women who are in such danger.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

LSD
8th July 2005, 05:45
but if he takes advantage of my 16 or 17 year old daughter then I am placing him into 25 different duffel bags.

The problem is that you're assuming that any sexual relationship between your daughter and an older man must be him "taking advantage" of her. Whereas if it was your son having a relationship with an older woman, he knows "what's what".

That's sexist.


I didn’t say they were more likely to be taken advantage of, but women tend to be more on the emotional side than men are.

Prove it.


Cant really do that now can i?

Then don't make blanket assertions!

Raisa
8th July 2005, 10:28
Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2005, 04:45 AM

but if he takes advantage of my 16 or 17 year old daughter then I am placing him into 25 different duffel bags.

The problem is that you're assuming that any sexual relationship between your daughter and an older man must be him "taking advantage" of her. Whereas if it was your son having a relationship with an older woman, he knows "what's what".

Well girls are emotional. So are boys I think. And generally their more easily aroused. This arguement can go on forever but hte issue is....

Younger people are more easily manipulated into doing things like that because in general, alot of their self image depends on others.

Real young children learn right from wrong through positive treatment. If they got a good reaction then what they did was good and if they got a hurtful reaction it must have been bad. This is when alot of children are being abused.
And at this time they dont even know its abuse. Sometimes they are cool with it at the time because the adults are manipulating them into thinking their doing a good thing- and kids thrive off of encouragement and pride. And this is the sad sad part, because that is where all the guilt comes from. The fact that once they realized they were abused, that they derived any kind of joy from it at all. It makes them feel like their not really innocent and that they have to right to talk about it. Alot of the time from talking to different people, I think that is the thing where all the self esteem issues and self desgust comes from.

The reason a 17 year old girl and an older man is often manipulation is becuase of society. And the age limit. It isnt always manipulation, but alot of times the girl is real happy someone older likes her and tries to be everything she can, and the man is taking an easy ride with his head layed back cause he knows he can get more for less with the young girl. "Look at this young girl, I can call her and she will drop whats shes doing, she loves to give me head any time of the day.....women my age want all this shit, its tireing, this girl just likes to chill or get ice cream or something.!"I sort of think this is a sad part of growing up. Because women are often in this position all the time. Giving giving giving. Even if the man is her age. Same shit. And thats where the problem is at.

If you really want to protect your daughter dont be a prude. Teach her how to make sure men treat her like a woman and not a trick. Teach her to make sure she is treated equal in the bed. To assert herself. We arent educating our llittle women enough, and they get al these self esteem problems and so many of us just let men walk all over us. Man many younger girls I know 14-15-16..they have all given head and never gotten it, and think nothing of it. Thats not equal and this whole thing is bad for boys too, becuase the non assertiveness of many females encourages cheauvanism.

That is the true solution to what youre saying "emotional fragile females". Teach your daughter how to make sure she gets treated right .

Don't Change Your Name
8th July 2005, 19:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 08:05 AM
If I had a daughter and i found out she was having sex with her male teacher, I'd kick his ass and burry him under his house.

if i had a son and found out he was having sex with his female teacher, I would say "are you OK,?" if he feels he is ok then big deal.


it is every mans fantasy to have sex with his highschool teacher. women, you don’t get it, just leave it alone.
It's also every man's fantasy to have sex with a schoolgirl dressed in a school uniform.

If you had a son who is a teacher and had sex with a (female) student? You probably wouldn't kick your own son's ass and "burry him" and you'd say "but it's our fantasy to fuck a schoolgirl!".

And if you had a daughter who was a teacher and you found out she had sex with a (male) student, what would you say?

What you claim is bullshit. Females can also feel attraction for male proffesors. If it's more "emotional" in women is irrelevant.

Severian
8th July 2005, 19:53
Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 28 2005, 10:55 PM
Goldman initially planned to conduct in-depth research of female perpetrators. To that end, she distributed 315 letters to therapists and clinics, took out an advertisement in a major newspaper, and contacted several clinicians who treated sex offenders. She also placed 10 poster advertisements in highly visible locations. Her eight-month search yielded only one woman who was willing to discuss what she had done. Goldman knew from reliable sources that female offenders were being treated, but clinic administrators insisted that no such women were under their care.
She knew they were common, even though she could find only one.


Goldman decided to focus on the societal denial that makes female perpetrators such an elusive population.

In the absence of actual perpetrators to study, she decided to study the belief they were rare, on the assumption it was wrong.


Allen's gate keeping hypothesis could account for why female perpetrators appear so rarely in therapists' case studies and why, when they do, they are generally described as psychotic or otherwise severely disturbed.

Alternately, you could explain these facts with the simpler hypothesis that female perpetrators are rare, and usually severely disturbed.


Two retrospective studies of adult populations are frequently quoted by researchers and child advocates. The Los Angeles Times survey, conducted in 1985, found that seven percent of the abuse reported by male and female participants in the study was perpetrated by women. Sociologist Diana Russell's 1978 San Francisco-based study revealed that four percent of the women who reported having been abused indicated that the perpetrators were female.

But of course the writer can't accept that. So she prefers irreproducible studies based on smaller, nonrandom samples, which are ordinarily considered less accurate.

Another source of bad information about sexual abuse is "recovered memory" hypnotherapy. Which is capable of producing false memories, and is practiced by a number of harmful, scam-artist "therapists". There are even some hypnotherapists who specialize in "recovering" memories of alien abductions.

Rebelworker wrote:

And to redstar, I was a bit disturbed by your post on sexual encounters, in this sick world we live in we can not trust older people to initiate or teach younge folks about sex, there are very real presonal power dynamics that will be abused, the safest thing is for young people to explore sex togeather, hopefully they will be less likely to carry alot of the hangups and fucked up power shit around sex that most adults have not leared to get past.


I agree. There is a power imbalance that makes consent problematic. And yes, power imbalances matter. To take an extreme case, sex between a prisoner and a guard cannot ever be considered consensual.

It may be that the age of consent is too high in parts of the U.S. - I have the impression it's lower in some other countries - and of course it should be the same for boys and girls, heterosexual or homosexual. Some allowance should be made for two people just over and just under the age of consent, also. And "statutory rape" - strange term - should not be considered the same as child sexual abuse.

But a lot of BS and exploitive desires have been rationalized in the name of "sexual liberation", which is a politically problematic approach.

redstar2000
9th July 2005, 05:34
Originally posted by Raisa
Teach your daughter how to make sure she gets treated right.

I agree absolutely! Don't give her any of that crap about "this is just how men are" and you "just have to accept that" or else "you'll always be alone", etc.

Tell her bluntly that it's better to be alone than to put up with being treated like shit!

Men can change the way they treat women...but most of the time, that change is a response to women's demands!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Raisa
9th July 2005, 10:46
"What you claim is bullshit. Females can also feel attraction for male proffesors. If it's more "emotional" in women is irrelevant. "


Word. Damn some teachers are just sexy. Ugh! :lol:

What if your daughter likes a female teacher?
No one ever thought about that one eh?! But its a real thing. Every so often, that shit is me. Some of the women I've liked who are my teacher, I could tell in their jaded demeanors they werent getting it good at home - probably didnt even feel beautiful anymore, but I thought they were beautiful and deep inside I always wanted to show them how beautiful they really were, because I thought that such women deserved to know! Can you believe that after we reach 45 or so, many of us women forget? Thats horrible! There are some real amazing women in the world. Too bad they forget.
But you know, one way or the other, I dont want to cause trouble so I kept it to myself. Sometimes the teacher knew. The eyes don't lie. ;)

Man redstar, Im glad you see what im saying about educating our little women on how to be treated.
The older I get the more greatful I am my mother was real with me. Ima have to make another post on this shit in philosophy or something so I dont side track the Sexual Abuse thread.

Loknar
10th July 2005, 10:05
I am curiousl do you guys think I am a sexist or that I have some ill will towards women?

LSD
10th July 2005, 11:29
I am curiousl do you guys think I am a sexist or that I have some ill will towards women?

I think that you have a sexist and antiquated parochial views of women and gender roles.

You see women as "weaker", men as "stronger", and think that men have a "duty" to "care for" women.

Loknar
10th July 2005, 22:15
Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 10:29 AM

I am curiousl do you guys think I am a sexist or that I have some ill will towards women?

I think that you have a sexist and antiquated parochial views of women and gender roles.




I think that you have a sexist and antiquated parochial views of women and gender roles.

I think men and women should assume a role different to one another for the sake of raising a well balanced child. Any psychologist will tell you that this blurring of gender roles really doesn’t do any good for children.

as to a patarich, no not really. I think 1 in the family should have command rule over certain decisions (well minor ones). all these marriages you see failing i guarantee you there was no role any of them assumed.



You see women as "weaker", men as "stronger", and think that men have a "duty" to "care for" women.

Physically women typically aren’t as strong as men are, but do I see women as weaker? no. IN spirit, resolve ect women are probably equal to men in that area. But physical strength, naturally speaking (this means with out any body building), men will be stronger.

I think men have a duty to protect women yes. I don’t think men should abandon their women to save their own asses. a man will hold off an enemy of thousands to let his wife get away. are you saying women should hold off thousands to let her husband get away? No man with an ounce of self respect will allow that to happen.

LSD
11th July 2005, 00:01
I think men and women should assume a role different to one another for the sake of raising a well balanced child.

Men and women should assume any damn role they please!

There is no "should"!


Any psychologist will tell you that this blurring of gender roles really doesn’t do any good for children.

Well, the ones on the dole of the AFA sure will!

The rest, well, they'll honestly tell you that they don't know.


I think 1 in the family should have command rule over certain decisions

And should the gender of that "1" be male or female?


I think men have a duty to protect women yes.

Which is sexist, antiquated, and parochial.


I don’t think men should abandon their women to save their own asses. a man will hold off an enemy of thousands to let his wife get away. are you saying women should hold off thousands to let her husband get away?

I'm saying that men and women should treat each other as equal.

With neither in need of special "protection" from the other.

You claim that you don't see women as "weaker". Well, if not, why is it that the men are doing the "holding", while the women are doing the "getting away"?

...and don't say "physical strength". A couple of semi-automatics and you'll see what "physical strength is worth!

Loknar
11th July 2005, 04:52
Men and women should assume any damn role they please

There [b]is no "should"!


fine with me, just not the same exact role.



Well, the ones on the dole of the AFA sure will!

The rest, well, they'll honestly tell you that they don't know.


no some do actually say this.

i believe it, but i also think allot of them are full of shit. Just like Benjamin Spock.




And should the gender of that "1" be male or female?

In each relationship, go with who is better at what.



Which is sexist, antiquated, and parochial.

Wouldn’t you protect your wife?


I'm saying that men and women should treat each other as equal.


I agree


With neither in need of special "protection" from the other.

You claim that you don't see women as "weaker". Well, if not, why is it that the men are doing the "holding", while the women are doing the "getting away"?


Because any honorable man would die first to save his family. If a hundred people were chasing you and your wife, and it looked like they would overtake you unless 1 of you stopped to hold them off at a narrow passage, who is supposed to hold the enemy off? You are, as the husband.

and if a man runs and allows his wife t be killed he is a shameful and should have a tatoo on his forehead indicating he abandoned his family to be killed.

*Hippie*
11th July 2005, 07:59
I don't see the difference between a woman not defending her family and a man not defending his family. To say there is a difference is sexist. I don't see why you are having a hard time understanding that. Besides, the situation you talk about never happens in real life.

LSD
11th July 2005, 10:06
fine with me, just not the same exact role.

Why not?

And, just to clarify, what do you even mean by "role" in this context?


Wouldn’t you protect your wife?

I would protect her and she would protect me.

As equals!


If a hundred people were chasing you and your wife, and it looked like they would overtake you unless 1 of you stopped to hold them off at a narrow passage, who is supposed to hold the enemy off? You are, as the husband.

That's a ludicrous hypothetical, but regardless, you have still not answered WHY!

Why is the "man" the one who does the protection and the "woman" the one who does the running?

...could it be that you see women as "weaker"?


and if a man runs and allows his wife t be killed he is a shameful and should have a tatoo on his forehead indicating he abandoned his family to be killed.

But if a woman does so, she shouldn't?

Why, because men are "stronger" and have a "duty"?

God damn it, how can you even spout this reactionary sexist crap! :angry:

Loknar
11th July 2005, 23:44
I would protect her and she would protect me.

As equals!


Yes she should protect you, but not to the extent she'd lose her life over it.; If it came down to it, you as the man should sacrifice first.

I think guys like you like feminism because you no longer have to hold the door or be the one to risk life and limb for your woman. It's is quite cowardly.


That's a ludicrous hypothetical, but regardless, you have still not answered WHY!

Why is the "man" the one who does the protection and the "woman" the one who does the running?

...could it be that you see women as "weaker"?


Why shouldn’t the man protect his wife? He should do it because it is common decency and any responsible man would do it. if you don’t then you are a coward that would get her and you killed. I'd sacrifice my self before i allowed that to happen.



But if a woman does so, she shouldn't?

Why, because men are "stronger" and have a "duty"?

God damn it, how can you even spout this reactionary sexist crap! :angry:


No, just because men have that duty. you are lazy and wouldn’t life a finger to help your own wife, you'd take the kids and run off when in fact she should take the kids and run off. the man is the protector of his family ,And no the reason why she is running is not because men are stronger. It is because a man should be the first to protect the family while the woman should get the rest of the family to safety. and i think you want to use the feminist movement to absolve your self from any traditional responsibility.



in other words, you want to hide behind your wife.

Elect Marx
12th July 2005, 10:56
Loknar

The likelyhood is that you feel you are honorable and fulfilling your "duty" because that dogma doesn't challenge your sexist views. Obviously you cannot provide material reasons for your sexism, so you resort to abstraction and personal attacks, how honorable of you… what a gentleman!

Sure, I hold the door for my G/F and just try to stop her from doing it for me; its called mutual respect and yes, I think we would both risk out lives for one-another.

I will admit as well that I am not ready to kill myself on a whim; only a fool believes dying protects anyone, I can only protect someone as long as I live.

If I am a coward for wanting to live, then I plead guilty and I hope the people I care about are “cowards” too.

There is no honor in death; if anything, honor is how you live.

LSD
12th July 2005, 11:08
If it came down to it, you as the man should sacrifice first.

Why?

What is the rational justification for this sexist assertion?


No, just because men have that duty.

Why?

From where to men derive this duty and why is it gender-dependent?


the man is the protector of his family

Why?

"the man" isn't anything. People are people, there's no "propper" gender roles (unless you can provide evidence for your assertions).


a man should be the first to protect the family while the woman should get the rest of the family to safety.

WHY!?!


and i think you want to use the feminist movement to absolve your self from any traditional responsibility.

And I think that you want to use "traditional responsibility" to keep yourself in a position of power and your wife subserviant.

Makes you feel all "important" does it, knowing that you're "protecting" her?

I'm sure the Mullahs would agree. :angry:

Loknar
13th July 2005, 03:37
So do you have any balls? Or would you run and allow your family to be carved up with out even TRYING to help them?

Raisa
13th July 2005, 07:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:52 AM
Because any honorable man would die first to save his family. If a hundred people were chasing you and your wife, and it looked like they would overtake you unless 1 of you stopped to hold them off at a narrow passage, who is supposed to hold the enemy off? You are, as the husband.

And do you know why that really is so?

Not cause the husband is stronger, but because that woman already made his babies, probably raised his babies...given up so much of her life to raise 'his' family, even though society doesnt always SEE sexism, they SEE deep inside that a woman compromises so much of her own self in life for a man - due alot to her subhuman historical position beneath them- that for her to sacrifice all these things and then her LIFE included is really going to be the straw that breaks the camels back!

They're all at that point going to look at the man and go "what a peice of useless shit! He exploited that woman untill she died for him! She gave up everything."

LSD
13th July 2005, 08:50
So do you have any balls? Or would you run and allow your family to be carved up with out even TRYING to help them?

Do you "have any balls"? Are you going to defend your claims?

rebelworker
24th July 2005, 22:12
This is rediculous, my wife being killed by an angry mob??????

OK I carry heavy things for my women friends, some if them didnt like this at first so I stopped doing it for a while, some later decided just cause they could life heavy shit didnt mean they had to, some of them now continue to get me to carry heavy shit, others dont and we do it togeather. I wil never get married but thats a different story(this dosnt mean that i can be responsible to a lover or partner, I just try and treat all my friends well including the ones i may be sleeping with).

MOST WOMEN DONT GET KILLED BY ANGRY MOBS, and its not because they were defended by their heroic husband, most women who are killed are likely to be killed by their husband or boyfriend. Pick up a newspaper it happens every fuckin day. Again if men are womens natural preditiors they cant also be their natural protectors...

As to abandoning YOUR woman, just the way you said that shows how we are taught as men to feel ownership over women we are close to. SEXISM!!! you have it, I have it, we are all raised with it, the question is can we be really strong and challenge it.

Loknar
25th July 2005, 08:19
Did I say women are killed by mobs? Do you have any imagination or did your mom just read the manifesto as your bed time story?


and ok, i wont use a word that entails possessition


How about this, do you save your self, or that other person whom you have deep feelings for?

It is a very simply question…..and the circumstances are hypothetical.

Mujer Libre
25th July 2005, 08:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:19 AM
How about this, do you save your self, or that other person whom you have deep feelings for?


You're mising the point. Why is it that you think the one doing the saving should be the man? Surely women can exercise their right to hypothetical heroism?

The fact is, that by reducing women to a being that needs protection (which apparently can only come from a man), you are not treating them as independent humans, more like children.

LSD
25th July 2005, 15:58
How about this, do you save your self, or that other person whom you have deep feelings for?

You try to save the other person, of course. But that goes for both men and women, not just men!

Loknar
27th July 2005, 04:03
Are you guys scared????? Can you live with leaving your wife to die? Depite the fact I see women as equal, I think the mans duty to the family is to die first and allow his wife and kids to get away....

again, does this sound like sexism? I really do look out for women.,,

LSD
27th July 2005, 04:16
Depite the fact I see women as equal, I think the mans duty to the family is to die first and allow his wife and kids to get away....

Again, WHY??


again, does this sound like sexism?

Of course it does. You are saying that men must "take care" of women, implying superiority, dominance, and greater responsibility on men's part.

Elect Marx
27th July 2005, 05:26
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 09:03 PM
Are you guys scared????? Can you live with leaving your wife to die? Depite the fact I see women as equal, I think the mans duty to the family is to die first and allow his wife and kids to get away....

again, does this sound like sexism? I really do look out for women.,,
Yes; I am sure they would be better off in this predatory class system, with one less person to look out for them.

I think your eagerness to die is comparable to abandonment.

If someone I cared about steped in front of a bullet when we might have both lived...

I would be SO proud of them! :rolleyes:

Loknar
27th July 2005, 07:59
Ok go tell your girlfriends this thread, i'm sure they'll stick with you.

Elect Marx
27th July 2005, 08:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 12:59 AM
Ok go tell your girlfriends this thread, i'm sure they'll stick with you.
This is basically spam. You are dodging the issue but if it makes you feel better, I'll tell my GF about this thread and she will likely think you are an arrogant sexist. Enjoy it!

Mujer Libre
28th July 2005, 01:11
Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Jul 27 2005, 07:46 AM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Jul 27 2005, 07:46 AM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 12:59 AM
Ok go tell your girlfriends this thread, i'm sure they'll stick with you.
This is basically spam. You are dodging the issue but if it makes you feel better, I'll tell my GF about this thread and she will likely think you are an arrogant sexist. Enjoy it! [/b]
Well I AM a woman and I think he's an arrogant sexist so yeah... I don't feel that my partner has to protect me any more than I feel protective of him.

LSD
28th July 2005, 01:41
Ok go tell your girlfriends this thread, i'm sure they'll stick with you.

Absolutely, because she'll know I treat her as an equal and not as a child needing my "protection".

Oh, and she'd probably kick you in the balls for good measure.

Loknar
28th July 2005, 04:26
OK

I'm wrong you are right. I will not protect my family, I will get away and save my self because if I attempt to protect my wife I am a sexist pig.

LSD
28th July 2005, 04:35
Are you phsyically incapable of comphrension?

It's not wrong to protect your wife, its wrong to see men as "natural protectors". You should, of course, try and protect your wife, but she should try and protect you as well.

You are not treating her as equal if you see it as your "natural duty" to "take care" of her.

Loknar
29th July 2005, 20:56
Equal means being exactly the same. Are men and women , physically, emotionally exactly the same?


NO

I think you are trying to say I should not automatically assume my role as the guardian because I would otherwise see my self as superior. (btw, I do not think men or women are more superior than the other).

And if I allowed my wife to protect me and the kids while I got away I wouldn’t be able to live with my self.

And frankly, I think you guys want this as an excuse not to, if necessary, die for your family.

Elect Marx
29th July 2005, 22:18
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:56 PM
And frankly, I think you guys want this as an excuse not to, if necessary, die for your family.
Why do you think that exactly?

Let me say this again (maybe you will pay attention):

Dying never saved anyone; it is what you do when you where alive that helps people.

Romanticizing death is pure stupidity; go ahead and kill yourself; I’m sure your family will be proud.

So you think everyone that disagrees with you is a coward? How convenient, a self reinforcing delusion :rolleyes:

LSD
29th July 2005, 22:36
Equal means being exactly the same.

No it doesn't. It means having the same rights and responsibilites.

Men and women are of course "different", that's why we have the worlds "men" and "women". But neither men nor women have greater rights or responsibilites by virtue of their sex.

"Men" do not have any "duty" that women do not have!


I think you are trying to say I should not automatically assume my role as the guardian because I would otherwise see my self as superio

In part, yes.

But this isn't about "you". It's about your perception of men in general. I have no problem with you saying that you want to protect your family, that's a noble and rational desire. I have a problem with you saying that "men" are women's "protectors". That implies gender based responsibilites, and it imparts greater power to men by virtue of their having a penis.

And that's sexist.


And if I allowed my wife to protect me and the kids while I got away I wouldn’t be able to live with my self.

But you think that she could live with herself if she did the same?

Why?

Why do assume that women, as a sex, are more able to deal with "survivors guilt" then men?


And frankly, I think you guys want this as an excuse not to, if necessary, die for your family.

And frankly I think that your stretching an already inane hypothetical to the extremes of ludicrousness.

"die for your family"?

WTF?

How many of us will ever be in a situation in which we are actually obligated to "die for our family"?

And, by the way, if your sole response to us "guys" is that we are cowards for wanting equal rights for women, what is your response to the women in this thread?

Are they just "especially brave"? :lol:

Or do they maybe recognize the fact that once you say that a segment of the population needs someone to "protect them", you implicitly disempower and weaken them.

Maybe they recognize this "bravado" of yours for what it is: blatant macho sexism.