DenverDon

[Link]

Granted there are real and measurable difference between men and woman that go beyond simple anatomy. However, even the most sex positive resources cultivate stereotypical gender differences. Take Scarleteen for example. Yes, the site that ADT refers minors to. The last time I checked (and it's been awhile) there was a section on pornography for the boys. There was nary a mention on the subject for the girls. A boy reading this would interpret it as being normal for him to seek out porn. A girl who saw this inclusion in the boys section but not the girls may think that it's not normal for girls to have an interest in porn.

Edited by - RobHammer on 2/23/2004 5:30:27 PM

[Link]

I will definitely post the response if I receive one. It's a nonprofit organization, and I'd prefer to allow time for a reply before I reveal their name.

Still, it's extremely upsetting that the generation of women directly behind me continue to be subjected to this double standard. (The brochures are clearly aimed at a college audience.) We should be beyond this in the 21st century.

People ask me why I call myself a feminist, and this is why.

[Link]

Maybe the implication isn't that women should be more interested in normalcy than men but that they are and the pamphlet simply reflects that?

My personal view, as far as it goes given that I've seen neither pamphlet, is that comparing the two is rather unfair. I can see that some of your issues on the womens pamphlet seem reasonable concerns but they must stand and fall on their own; I don't see how you can compare two pamphlets when they are aimed for two different groups of people. It just sounds to me like two people have written two pamphlets on what their experience tells them are the issues of their target audience. Different writers, different audiences, different slants.

SNP.
(who would call himself a feminist if gender equality went by a more gender neutral term )

[Link]

Edited by - YogaGrrl on 2/23/2004 8:07:13 PM

[Link]

What I can tell you from personal experience is this. I have a "normal" female body yet have been very interested in the mechanics of sex (and all its other delicious aspects) from a very young age. I understood the meanings of the terms "sperm" and "egg" when I was just five years old (thanks to parents who were not shy about answering my bold questions in an age-appropriate way). But learning how to make my orgasms happen consistently during partnered sex took over ten years of practice (starting at age 21, when I was in college). Helpful information was hard to find. A lot of what I read were smarmy platitudes to "relax and enjoy the process" and "it's not the destination, it's the journey." There's nothing wrong with sensuality, but this very feminine, essentially passive approach ultimately didn't help me achieve orgasms. What helped was when I finally had the guts to take a more masculine approach, get myself a big mechanical aid (vibrator) for my "parts" and to watch examples of sexually self-assertive people in porn. I also needed to contract my muscles more and take a physically active approach to get off. No one told me that. Instead I was lying back and practicing deep breathing.

I'm angry that it took so long, and that I allowed myself to be distracted for several years by a double standard of "gender appropriate" behavior/interests for women vs. men. I feel stupid, and there are few things in this world I hate as much as feeling stupid.

Edited by - YogaGrrl on 2/23/2004 8:11:36 PM

[Link]

I don't know if you can see the dilemma for me here? On the one hand I can see your point with regard to the word 'normal' but on the other hand the very fact you actually set about counting the instances with which it occurs sets a little bell ringing somewhere in my head. You see what I'm thinking is that if I'd written the male booklet and you the female then the male booklet would have no doubt used the word normal like confetti and the female booklet would have had not one mention of normality. The question is then whether anyone would have even noticed? I suspect not. The thrust of my argument is that, like subliminal messages in records played backwards, if you look hard enough you will always find these discrepancies which can then be interpreted however you choose.

It has just occured to me but how about this for a suggestion. I'm just trying to think in my head of all the general sex related problems men talk about as opposed to women and I'm thinking that the guys list is somewhat dwarfed in scope and depth here. Even my local hospital has a womens health centre and a breast care centre on top of the general sexual health centre for men and women. Could it be that to produce two similar sized booklets you really have to pad out the male booklet a bit or make some pretty drastic decisions about which bits to leave out the female one?

I do agree with you with regard to the female sexual enjoyment aspect though. As you describe the booklet it does seem as if female sexuality is painted as more trouble than it is all worth which is certainly unduly negative, I agree. It seems as if the scope of these booklets is too great trying to incorporate sexual disfunctions/problems as well as describing the mechanics and responses to sexual activity all in one easily digestible chunk.

SNP.

Edited by - Sir Noel Plum on 2/24/2004 11:50:28 AM

[Link]

The separate health centers for women is a whole topic in itself that I could say a lot about, but I don't want to go there at the moment.

I do give this organization credit for at least trying. When I graduated from college (1991), these brochures weren't even available--they hadn't been written yet. The good news is that they do address real concerns with accurate information. It's just the contrast in tone that I found upsetting. I probably wouldn't have even noticed if I'd read only one or the other. In quick succession, though, the experience was certainly disconcerting.

These publications have (perhaps a little unfairly) caught the brunt of my ire toward a pattern that I'm also observing in society at large. I don't know how to address society at large; that's too big a problem to take on all at once. But I can make my feelings known about this one specific thing, so that's what I've done.

The situation is complicated by the fact that my self-perception is not wholly female, which is something I've always felt but only recently articulated. So you're correct that I'm really keyed into looking at gender differences and their implications right now. My reaction to the brochures might not even be "typical" (I much prefer that word to "normal") for a woman. But that's maybe not such a bad thing. I believe it's a worthwhile endeavor to attempt to deconstruct these gender differences and discover if they're really as fundamental as they're sometimes made out to be. If they aren't, maybe we can all feel freer to enjoy life in our own individual ways, whoever we are.

[Link]

Mrs. R. told us not to do anything, but that if anything happened, it was our fault. We met up with the boys afterward to see what they had learned. Mr. R. told them not to do anything, but it was natural for boys to want to, and that if anything happened, it was the girl's fault. [presumably we were such little temptresses].

In fifth grade we were taught that menstruation was something we had to endure (yadda yadda). I later came to view my period as just a monthly cleansing.

There's no reason for this sort of teaching. No reason to believe it has changed that much, based on the brochures that are still being printed.

If you think it's different here and now, look at how men's sexual desires are taken for granted on this board, whereas women's desires make them sluts and whores.

They could have separate Men's Health Centers for testicular caner and prostate problems and erection difficulties. If they don't, it's because men are considered to be normal and standard, and women's issues are seen as some kind of outside-the-norm deal.

[Link]

SNP.

[Link]

SNP.

Secondly, the kind of argument which goes 'you can't possibly express a valid opinion because you're a man; not disabled; never had a baby; never shot someone at close range; never had to wear a burka etc etc always seems more a reason not to bother discussing anything in the first place than a genuine argument.

SNP.

[Link]

Men suffer a many times greater incidence than women of:
being killed or maimed in accidents at work,
committing suicide,
being killed in a war (often after enforced "conscription", a fancy word for slavery),
being murdered,
being imprisoned,
receiving a death sentence.

Men outnumber women by 10 to 1 or more in the vast majority of dangerous and unpleasant jobs.

And to top it all, the health system is quite content to let men die on average about five years earlier than women.

In short, men are the disposable sex.

Will we do anything about it? Probably not. In fact I will probably get responses of the "shut up your whining" variety from MEN after I post this.

[Link]

The only thing that I feel really strongly about is the way that men here in the UK are treated as second-class parents following a divorce and that if so minded a mother can easily stop her estranged husband seeing his children for several years. This is a subject so twisted and unfair it winds me up even talking about it and is by far the biggest and most brutal form of state sponsored injustice in the UK today.

Here is an interesting article for anyone interested in this subject. It is written by Bob Geldof who campaigns on this subject (although Bob was a lot luckier than many fathers).timesonline

For anyone who can't be bothered to read it, here is an interesting quote:
As I entered court on my first day someone leant over who felt he was doing me a favour. “Whatever you do,” he said, “for Chrissakes never say you love your children.”
Bewildered, I asked: “Why not?”
“The court thinks you’re being unhealthily extreme if, being a man, you express your love for a child.”

SNP
(PS: sorry sorry sorry for dragging this so far o/t)

[Link]

I recently heard a lobbyist, interviewed on a local radio station, describe a technique that he said lawyers call "The Silver Bullet" because it has a perfect success rate in getting custody of children assigned to the woman in Australia.

What is required is that the woman must make a false accusation of child sexual abuse against her ex husband shortly before the custody hearing. The witch hunt machinery springs into action, restraining orders fly, and the man arrives at court branded as a child abuser before the hearing even starts.

He spends the next few months proving his innocence, while trying to avoid being jailed, sacked or lynched. At the end of all that he tries for another custody hearing. Guess what? The children have been living with their mother for six months, so it would be disruptive to them and not in their best interests to make a change now. Score one more for the silver bullet.

My apologies also if this has diverged too far from the original thread. I completely agree with YogaGrrls original comments about the health leaflets.

Edited by - licker on 2/28/2004 5:28:41 PM

[Link]

The majority of women dutifully go to the doctor to get probed on a routine basis whereas most men will only go to the doctor if death is imminent (e.g. arm torn off whilst operating heavy machinery).

The medical community knows where their bread is buttered.

[Link]

SNP.

[Link]

But, if women weren't so inclined to seek treatment, even in the UK, there would be a scarcity of treatment delivered.

That is, unless you men in the UK go to the doc as often as the ladies. Here in the States it isn't even close. Again, the medical folk are catering to their target audience.

What pisses you off SNP? I hope not the fact that I do have two arms (I'd rather prefer to keep them, too). Or is it the fact that I, like most fellows, am either too cheap, too foolish, or presume myself too tough to require a doctor's attention. Or maybe just the fact that I'm trying not to sound like an old curmudgeon. Well, her comes the old curmudgeon...

In my opinion, we as a society are becoming rather soft. I cringe at the notion that most of our ills can be cured with a simple pill. Why can't we just have our headache, grit our teeth and move on? Television commercials make me wince. Folks taking pills for simple headaches, a back twinge, feeling a little sad, getting nervous in front of groups of people… But then again, I also pierced my foot to the bone by stepping on some lumber with a large and dirty nail sticking out of it and, when it was suggested that I visit the local M.D., stated simply that if I can't open my mouth in the morning, I'd consider it. Honestly, pain doesn’t scare me one tenth as much as those darn out-of-control health care costs.

[Link]

Edited by - grendel on 3/1/2004 8:52:44 AM

[Link]

You know what sends health care costs spiraling? When people don't go to the doctor for regular check-ups and inexpensive tests that would diagnose potentially serious problems before they become life-threatening issues.

You and your boo-boo foot are a terrific example. So you didn't go to the urgent care and spend a couple hundred dollars having it cleaned, getting a shot, and making sure no bones were fractured. Good for you. IF you ended up having tetanus, an infection, splintered bones or other complications it would have ended up costing thousands, possibly even meaning death for you (which will cost your family thousands, since the average funeral today is over 6,000$).
Prophylactics cost less than treatments. (or in the contraceptive sense, far less than pregnancy and child rearing)

[Link]

I feel much better for having vented here, though.

[Link]

I wasn’t thinking in terms of looking so far back in human history. I think we need only look at the past 50 years to see a tremendous difference in our tolerance for minor inconvenience. Yes, our pills certainly do work better now. However I feel that we are encouraged to become more and more dependent upon them rather than taking personal responsibility and just dealing with it.

Commercials bombard us with the notion that any discomfort is abnormal and can be cured pharmaceutically or via the assistance of the friendly neighborhood M.D. Certainly, we need doctors and medicine, and I would never discourage anyone from seeking treatment for any reason if they feel they need it.

But, people continue to get fatter and fatter and attempt to rely on pills or “stomach-stapling” surgery to attempt to lose weight (the easy answer) rather than buckling down and making a life-style change. Yes, I know there are folks with medical conditions that legitimately need these products and procedures, but that is doubtless a small percentage.

As for health care costs, I do disagree. If you mean simply that by going and getting my wound checked out I could have avoided a more expensive prognosis in the future, then yes, you’re very correct. If, however, you’re suggesting that by dutifully going to the doctor the medical community will suddenly and graciously drop the price of various services I think not. Largely it is simple greed, insurance companies, and the legal community driving the spiraling cost of healthcare.

The example I cited above is extreme and foolish. I would never, ever, recommend that anyone avoid treatment when injured. For those of us that do, we’ll ultimately answer to natural selection.

[Link]