Men Are The Expendable Gender

[Starkers]

the notion that a drunk woman cannot give consent but a drunk man is not afforded the same defence..

There's a lot I could take issue with but this one had my crap-o-meter redlining. A drunk woman on her own is a danger to nobody but herself.

Oh come on. I realise what you're saying, but now my crap-o-meter is going. There are female drunk drivers as well as male, drunk women who attack others when out on the tiles etc etc.

I'm not suggesting that a woman who gets drunk forfiets the right to say no or anything like that, but if two people get drunk, go back to his/her place and have sex then why is it ok for her to wake up the next morning and feel taken advantage of but not him?

 

[Hermiod]

Wow! You realise not every marriage ends in divorce right, not every man who socialises with women ends up accused of something, not every divorce ends in the man being destitute and denied access to his children, and that women get more leave after birth because, like, they're the ones who went through the process of giving birth? (besides I though the UK was moving towards shared maternity leave now?)

You misunderstand my point. I am unlikely to be affected by these things but I still care about them.

Men and women should get equal parental leave because it benefits the father as he gets to spend more time with his child and it benefits women because it won't be considered a risk hiring them in the first place.

The flipside of course is that women are more likely to suffer domestic abuse,

Women are more likely to report domestic abuse.

I think I had a pretty even split of male/female teachers at primary school, and funnily enough various people tried to encourage me to go into primary teaching after university--quite mercenarily, I'm paraphrasing but friends in the profession pointed out that 90% of primary teachers were female, but 90% of headteachers were male...

There have been all sorts of reports showing that many primary school children will never have a male teacher. Great pushes are made to get women in to typically male dominated fields yet no such effort is made to get men in to teaching.

In addition, boys respond better to male authority figures. They behave better in class and they do better academically.

 

[Deckerd]

the notion that a drunk woman cannot give consent but a drunk man is not afforded the same defence..

There's a lot I could take issue with but this one had my crap-o-meter redlining. A drunk woman on her own is a danger to nobody but herself.

Oh come on. I realise what you're saying, but now my crap-o-meter is going. There are female drunk drivers as well as male, drunk women who attack others when out on the tiles etc etc.

You mentioned one specific only - consent. This post is you bringing irrelevancies to cover that up.

 

[Hermiod]

You mentioned one specific only - consent. This post is you bringing irrelevancies to cover that up.

Regardless, there is a general assumption of automatic consent that is applied to men but not women.

Men are assumed to have given consent until they definitively say no. Women are assumed not to have given consent until they definitively say yes - and even then that woman's condition is tested to ensure that she was capable of making such a decision.

 

[Starkers]

There's a lot I could take issue with but this one had my crap-o-meter redlining. A drunk woman on her own is a danger to nobody but herself.

Oh come on. I realise what you're saying, but now my crap-o-meter is going. There are female drunk drivers as well as male, drunk women who attack others when out on the tiles etc etc.

You mentioned one specific only - consent. This post is you bringing irrelevancies to cover that up.

Sorry but you're the one who broadened it to say a drunk woman on her own is no threat to anyone but herself. You didn't say no danger to anyone but herself within the concept of consent (but even then you don't imagine it's possible for a woman to get a reaction out of a guy who's not that interested? Sadly we men do have a more simplistic reproductive system than ladies, though obviously this would be classed as sexual assault rather than rape.

I wholeheartedly believe in a woman's right to say no. I don't believe how a woman dresses has any bearing on rape, and I think that it doesn't matter when a woman says no, be it before or during the act, any man who uses the "I was caught up in the moment" excuse is a liar, because I don't care how turned on you are if the woman says stop you stop.

I'm also not suggesting that a man who has sex with a woman who's practically or actually unconcious isn't a rapist.

What I am saying is this. I imagine the majority of us have done things whilst under the influence that we regret. I dislike the notion that a woman can cry foul the next morning after thinking what did I do last night but a man can't. I'm just suggesting there is a modicum of grey in some circumstances where two inebriated people mutually decide to have sex which would seem concentual until the cold light of day where one of them changes their mind.

 

[DevilEyes]

I understand your argument, especially the "women and children first" thing does sound rather outdated. In this day and age it shouldn't be relevant, but I'm unsure if it would or would not be spoken today if a ship sunk with insufficient life boats for the passengers.

But from another point of view, I can understand the utilitarian use of it. That if on average, men are stronger built, then they are on average more resilient.

I thought it was the opposite, that the survival rate in conditions such as low temperature, lack of food etc. are higher for women due to things like slower metabolism (and therefore needing less food) and female body conserving heat better than male?

Also, lifeboats can only float a fixed weight, and given that women and children on average weigh less than men, you could probably save 10-20% more lives by giving priority to women and children.

Then it would also make sense to deny any overweight or very tall people entry to the lifeboats.

The "women and children first" concept is a thing of the past when women were considered weak and helpless and on par with children when it comes to the role in society. I find it very offensive, an adult being treated as a child due to their gender, and I roll my eyes when I still see it sometimes on SF shows set in the future (and oh, yes, it's happened).

As for the issue from the OP, same thing - it's a residue of sexist stereotypes that are hurtful and offensive to both genders. Women are not seen as more "valuable", there are seen as these weak helpless little creatures that need to be protected because they can't take care of themselves, and men are seen as natural soldiers and warriors - and, by extension, canon fodder. Unless there are the ones giving orders.

As for Women in Refrigerators trope, it's a result of the same old cliche: women are granted a similar status to children or pets - they're those weak little passive helpless creatures that aren't expected to do make a difference acting on their own, their role is to be hurt and killed so it would provoke anger and pain in male characters (usually their boyfriends, husbands, brothers, fathers), just like killing a favorite pet would. They don't matter for who they are, they just matter because of the effect will have on men.

 

[Deckerd]

Sorry but you're the one who broadened it to say a drunk woman on her own is no threat to anyone but herself. You didn't say no danger to anyone but herself within the concept of consent (but even then you don't imagine it's possible for a woman to get a reaction out of a guy who's not that interested?

No I was responding to the question of consent alone. I would have thought that was obvious from the context I quoted. Then you introduced other scenarios not pertinent to this one point. The 'reaction out of a guy who's not that interested?' - even you don't believe he is under any threat. Beer goggles cause a lot of morning anguish but that's another story.

 

[Starkers]

Wow! You realise not every marriage ends in divorce right, not every man who socialises with women ends up accused of something, not every divorce ends in the man being destitute and denied access to his children, and that women get more leave after birth because, like, they're the ones who went through the process of giving birth? (besides I though the UK was moving towards shared maternity leave now?)

You misunderstand my point. I am unlikely to be affected by these things but I still care about them.

Men and women should get equal parental leave because it benefits the father as he gets to spend more time with his child and it benefits women because it won't be considered a risk hiring them in the first place.

Yes but this still neglects the biology of the situation in that the woman will be the one to give birth, and be the one best equipted to look after the child in the immediate days and weeks after birth, especially if they're breast feeding. It also neglects the fact that it is still the norm (but not always) for the man to have the better/higher paid job. It also negects the truth that an awful lot of men wouldn't want to stay at home and look after the baby anyway! Paternity leave should be more than it is, but equal amounts isn't needed or wanted imo.

The flipside of course is that women are more likely to suffer domestic abuse,

Women are more likely to report domestic abuse.[/quote]

Please tell me you don't honestly believe that men are as likely to suffer domestic abuse as women? Clearly men do suffer domestic abuse, and the figures must be higher than reported (the same as for rape) but the numbers for women will always be higher.

I think I had a pretty even split of male/female teachers at primary school, and funnily enough various people tried to encourage me to go into primary teaching after university--quite mercenarily, I'm paraphrasing but friends in the profession pointed out that 90% of primary teachers were female, but 90% of headteachers were male...

There have been all sorts of reports showing that many primary school children will never have a male teacher. Great pushes are made to get women in to typically male dominated fields yet no such effort is made to get men in to teaching.

In addition, boys respond better to male authority figures. They behave better in class and they do better academically.[/QUOTE]

Ideally boys should have a male authority figure in their father. Unfortunately a lot of men don't seem to feel this applies to them. You're right though, boys do respond better to male authority figures, ideally there should be a balance of teachers. The question is (and I don't honestly know the answer) are there more female teachers in primary school because of positive action to encourage this, or because men are just far less likely to want to go into that as a career?

 

[Hermiod]

Yes but this still neglects the biology of the situation in that the woman will be the one to give birth, and be the one best equipted to look after the child in the immediate days and weeks after birth, especially if they're breast feeding. It also neglects the fact that it is still the norm (but not always) for the man to have the better/higher paid job. It also negects the truth that an awful lot of men wouldn't want to stay at home and look after the baby anyway! Paternity leave should be more than it is, but equal amounts isn't needed or wanted imo.

Plenty of women do! Employers consider hiring women, especially married women, a risk because they can get pregnant, go on maternity leave and that costs the company money. As a result, male employees are preferred. That balance can be readdressed by giving men the same time off with the added benefit that men get more time with their children. Babies need to bond with their fathers too.

Give them the choice to stay, that is all I ask for.

Please tell me you don't honestly believe that men are as likely to suffer domestic abuse as women? Clearly men do suffer domestic abuse, and the figures must be higher than reported (the same as for rape) but the numbers for women will always be higher.

First off, rape and domestic violence are different things. I don't believe the number is as high, but I do believe that it is drastically under-reported and that verbal and mental abuse should be taken in to account. Just because someone doesn't have a black eye that doesn't mean they're not being abused.

Ideally boys should have a male authority figure in their father. Unfortunately a lot of men don't seem to feel this applies to them. You're right though, boys do respond better to male authority figures, ideally there should be a balance of teachers. The question is (and I don't honestly know the answer) are there more female teachers in primary school because of positive action to encourage this, or because men are just far less likely to want to go into that as a career?

The men that do go in to teaching as a career often feel the same way as women who work in male dominated areas. The atmosphere is unintentionally hostile to them so they leave.

 

[Starkers]

Sorry but you're the one who broadened it to say a drunk woman on her own is no threat to anyone but herself. You didn't say no danger to anyone but herself within the concept of consent (but even then you don't imagine it's possible for a woman to get a reaction out of a guy who's not that interested?

No I was responding to the question of consent alone. I would have thought that was obvious from the context I quoted. Then you introduced other scenarios not pertinent to this one point. The 'reaction out of a guy who's not that interested?' - even you don't believe he is under any threat. Beer goggles cause a lot of morning anguish but that's another story.

Threat, probably not no. Though I'd imagine it wouldn't neccesarily be a pleasant memory.

You mention beer goggles though, and my point is simply this. There has to be some kind of nebulous line of demarcation between a case of beer goggles and something more serious surely? In fact this goes both ways.

 

[Deckerd]

Sorry but you're the one who broadened it to say a drunk woman on her own is no threat to anyone but herself. You didn't say no danger to anyone but herself within the concept of consent (but even then you don't imagine it's possible for a woman to get a reaction out of a guy who's not that interested?

No I was responding to the question of consent alone. I would have thought that was obvious from the context I quoted. Then you introduced other scenarios not pertinent to this one point. The 'reaction out of a guy who's not that interested?' - even you don't believe he is under any threat. Beer goggles cause a lot of morning anguish but that's another story.

Threat, probably not no. Though I'd imagine it wouldn't neccesarily be a pleasant memory.

You mention beer goggles though, and my point is simply this. There has to be some kind of nebulous line of demarcation between a case of beer goggles and something more serious surely? In fact this goes both ways.

No it doesn't because a drunk woman on her own is no danger to anyone but herself.

 

[Kemaiku]

How come I *immediately* knew this thread was started by Hermiod before clicking on it?

 

[Pingfah]

Because it says Hermiod under the thread title?

 

[DevilEyes]

No I was responding to the question of consent alone. I would have thought that was obvious from the context I quoted. Then you introduced other scenarios not pertinent to this one point. The 'reaction out of a guy who's not that interested?' - even you don't believe he is under any threat. Beer goggles cause a lot of morning anguish but that's another story.

Threat, probably not no. Though I'd imagine it wouldn't neccesarily be a pleasant memory.

You mention beer goggles though, and my point is simply this. There has to be some kind of nebulous line of demarcation between a case of beer goggles and something more serious surely? In fact this goes both ways.

No it doesn't because a drunk woman on her own is no danger to anyone but herself.

What does that mean? Of course, she's no danger to anyone but herself if she is not driving a vehicle, and she is all alone so there is nobody around she could hurt. But the same applies to a drunk man.

 

[DevilEyes]

That's my point! She wasn't expendable,

Yes, yes she was.

She was a refrigerator girl too. So it's alive and well. So I don't see why you'd say otherwise.

See the part where Batman chooses to save her and not Dent. To the film's hero, Dent is expendable, Dawes is not. The fact that he is tricked and fails is irrelevant.

It may have something to do with the fact that Batman is in love with Dawes, and not with Dent. Duh.

If you had exactly the same plot with gender reversed, say, if Wonder Woman chose to save a guy she was in love with rather than his fiancee, would you be making the point that "women are expendable"?

 

[DevilEyes]

^You think wrong.

I may have mistaken you with someone else. In that case, I apologize.

I don't know the history here, so excuse my commenting, but this annoys me. So, "obsession" over the way in which men and boys are casually victimized in their thousands while society shrugs must mean that someone has problems with women? Typical. No, the problem is with how we treat our sons, how we raise them, how we encourage them and others to view them and their worth. Believe me, when you identify with these men and boys and actually have issues with how humanity treats them, you'll be angry. You'll be "obsessive". But the point is- and this is in part the OPs point, too, I think- that everyone else will sneer at you and become hostile because you dared to try and buck the status quo by reclassifying these expendable men and boys as "worthy victims". People just don't want to hear, because there is traditionally no capital in championing the needs of lower-status men and boys. They are, after all, expendable.

I understand your point, Nasat. In a way, I agree. But I also think that your righteous passion is misplaced. Violence, conflict, aggression, they are all part of the human experience. They may not be pretty, but they are necessary. I would say as necessary as love, comfort and companionship. We are creatures of duality, thriving on the eternal struggle between those two extreme: we cannot exist without one of them. For better or worse, young males are better equipped to deal with violence and aggression: they are biologically built for that. You could as well lament that women are the ones subjected to the pains and risks of pregnancy and child-birth.

Would you say that it's very wrong and disturbing to force a young woman to get pregnant and have children against her will, in order to fulfill her "biological imperative"?

And is it wrong and disturbing to force young men (as young as 18, or even less) to fight and kill people, with a high possibility of getting wounded or killed?

 

[Deckerd]

What does that mean? Of course, she's no danger to anyone but herself if she is not driving a vehicle, and she is all alone so there is nobody around she could hurt. But the same applies to a drunk man.

It means she can't hurt anyone by raping them. What is it about this that you won't accept? It means if you put a drunk man in the equation HE can be a danger to her but she can't be a danger to him. That's why there is an imbalance in the burden of consent.

btw if you multiquote it doesn't look like you're spamming

Sorry ignore the hard to accept comment, I thought you were someone else.

 

[Hermiod]

How come I *immediately* knew this thread was started by Hermiod before clicking on it?

Because I started it with the intention of having a friendly grown up conversation, which is what it has been so far.

It may have something to do with the fact that Batman is in love with Dawes, and not with Dent. Duh.

If you had exactly the same plot with gender reversed, say, if Wonder Woman chose to save a guy she was in love with rather than his fiancee, would you be making the point that "women are expendable"?

No, because as I've said, The Dark Knight is one movie.

I would be interested to see Wonder Woman put in such a situation. First off, she's a soldier. More so than her chums Clark and Bruce, she's the one most likely to do what needs to be done rather than what benefits her. There's a guy with a snapped neck that'll testify to that.

Second, I would love to see Wonder Woman care about a man enough and not be so far above her own sexuality to make such a choice.

Someone might enlighten me on this one - has she ever actually slept with Steve Trevor ? Or anyone for that matter ?

And yes, I'd be perfectly willing to admit that it's more than a little sexist that DC's most important female character seems to be denied the kind of healthy sex life that the happily married Superman (to a gorgeous, intelligent woman) and the billionaire playboy Batman seem to have.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Lower status and "excess" males are not needed, and so the "greater good" will come at their expense every time. I mean, I was reading just today about a whole load of 15 year old boys who were casually executed as part of some African militia's war- go into a village, find all the teenage boys and kill them.

You're forgetting the bit where the African militia rape all the women in the village and take all the 15 year old girls (actually probably much younger girls) to be sex slaves.

I'm not forgetting anything. Part of the whole point- and you might not agree with this but I stand by it- is that the women and girl's experiences will probably be made a big issue in Western society whereas the maltreatment of men and boys will almost certainly be overall ignored or dismissed; because there is capital in caring for and highlighting the plight of females and there is not for males, particularly young ones, and this is largely for the very reason that they are expendable. Women and girls are valuable- whether they are respected or not, seen as anything more than baby-making machines or not, is besides the point- their being killed or raped or maimed is considered a big problem. You don't have to be "chivalrous" to value women, nor do you necessarily have to respect them much. On the other hand, boys dying is shrugged off- it's not an issue, because it's accepted. That's what they do, right? It's what they're for, just as women are- perhaps- for making babies and thus are needed alive and healthy. Now, in my interpretation the men and boys are far more likely to suffer to a higher degree than the women or girls- I would say history bears that out if you actually take a truthful perspective; maybe someone else sees it differently. But either way the women's suffering is promoted and made a deal of (quite rightly of course) whereas the men and boys' isn't (and it should be).

 

[Thestral]

Oy, things are so thick in here and the misinterpretations so vast that I don't know where to begin without getting accusations of misandry. So I won't. Comic book stuff I can deal with though.

It means she can't hurt anyone by raping them. What is it about this that you won't accept? It means if you put a drunk man in the equation HE can be a danger to her but she can't be a danger to him. That's why there is an imbalance in the burden of consent.

What? How does that make any sense, and what does it even mean, "she can't hurt anyone by raping them"?

Someone might enlighten me on this one - has she ever actually slept with Steve Trevor ? Or anyone for that matter ?

And yes, I'd be perfectly willing to admit that it's more than a little sexist that DC's most important female character seems to be denied the kind of healthy sex life that the happily married Superman (to a gorgeous, intelligent woman) and the billionaire playboy Batman seem to have.

Wonder Woman (Hippolyta, not Diana) has slept with Ted Grant for sure. Kingdom Come has Wonder Woman and Supes married at the end, and her pregnant. Steve Trevor's history is such a mess, not unlike Diana's. But the post-Crisis relaunch featured him as significantly older and involved with Etta Candy; anything pre-Crisis, who knows?

The thing about Bruce is I don't know if "healthy sex life" can describe him. Considering he's married to Gotham City, anything else is a dalliance at best.