Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by chelsea2, Mar 4, 2020.
The misogyny on this forum is getting really tedious.
Agreed. To be fair some of it's thoughtless and people can be thoughtless about all sorts of things, and people can have different perspectives on things. In the case of a minority of posters it's absolutely calculated and deliberate and I feel justified in having an issue with that.
what are these ‘toxic female’ archetypes? Please provide some examples.
That's why we should all standby Priti.
Why? What is wrong with expecting her to undergo a rigorous independent investigation as should any public figure holding office, irrespective of gender?
Let all here be in no doubt - you are determined not to consider that Patel may be guilty of bullying and harrassment.
(Note my use of 'may'.)
You disagree that stereotypes are stigmatising?
I did reply. Your posts are misandrist.
That’s not what I said, but I do understand how your prejudice would insist you frame my comment like that.
What I suggested was that different trait preferences in males and females provide different opportunities for abuses of power.
In which case you should not have any difficulty presenting one single example.
No. You shouldn’t support her simply because you believe not to do so is misogyny.
I don’t support anyone based solely on their gender, just as I don’t condemn anyone based on their gender. Claims need to be investigated, so that wrongdoing, whether that’s from Patel or from those accusing her, is brought to light.
While I have no sympathies for her political leanings at all, it is certainly possible that misogyny has played a part in the accusations, and if that is the case I sincerely hope it’s addressed in the outcome of the investigation.
Actually I am, and I have agreed with those who say so. What I find incredible is the vitriol shown towards this MP - presumably either because she is a woman, successful for her age, a Tory, or Indian. Possibly all four. That she might be responsible for bullying counts for little, since this vitriol was already bubbling away before such news.
“Invoking “Toxic Femininity” (TF for short, a worst-case female ideal type) in a 21st-century discussion is not likely to be well received. Toxic Femininity archetypes, however, are also universal. When psychoanalysis still dominated the psychological science scene, a slew of children's personality traits from autism to introversion were routinely blamed on a spectrum of feminine bad-mother types, from hysterical, castrating harpies to “refrigerator mothers.”
Many of my female professor friends still report that their male students are culturally ill-prepared to respect female pedagogicalauthority. Most men and boys still perceive women leaders through a binary archetypical lens; one can either be the “sexy girlfriend” or the “bitchy mother.” In some cases, older, sexy girlfriend types can gravitate to the "nurturing mother" type. Many boys don't know how to interact with and perceive women outside of these templates. These templates exist in boys' minds, but rarely in the women themselves. These are poorly raised boys, or boys raised with bad stories. More to the point, these are boys raised with very confusing, nonsensical stories about sex and gender. These are boys raised with impoverished minds”
If you want examples you really should do the research yourself, rather than wanting others to do your legwork.
Read what I said instead of trying to bait me. I disagree with the way you seem to think that stereotypes are used against men.
Please provide evidence of how?
The assumption that a female ‘trait’ is to seek out power is not one I necessarily agree with, and that this gives men who like attractive women the ‘opportunities’ to abuse their power I think is not giving men credit they deserve for their ability to govern their own actions.
And I’m not at all sure how your assertion that women are drawn to powerful men would translate into them being drawn to relationships with minors that they are supposed to have authority over.
this idea of ‘toxic femininity’ differs from toxic masculinity in that these traits are already deemed negative. Just looked at how you’ve described them. Bad-mother types, hysterical, castrating harpies, who were to be blamed for their child’s problems.
In contrast, the traits associated with toxic masculinity are ones which were traditionally seen as the ideal, and deviation from them was a bad thing. Hence the idea that crying or showing emotional is weak or girly, lack of physical prowess made you less of a man (‘you throw like a girl’ etc) and (hetero)sexual promiscuity got you labelled a stud. These are damagingly narrow ideals to use as a shorthand for ‘real men’, especially for men who do not wish to, or cannot, fit into them.
I’m not sure how you see men unable to accept women’s authority as being a ‘toxic femininity’ problem. Women are not promoting the idea that ‘real women’ must be either ‘sexy girlfriends’ or ‘bitchy mothers’ or later ‘nurturing mothers’. Those templates are imposed on women by the masculine ideal that men should be the head of the household, they should hold the power and the only place for women is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Those negative descriptors are used by those who don’t see women as people in their own right, but only in terms of their relationship to the men in their lives.
That’s why these ideals exist in men’s heads, but not in women’s. They’re poorly raised by a society who feeds them bad stories based on narrow ideals and stereotypes of what being a man entails and how women fit into their world. What you’re describing is the effects of toxic masculinity.
That is your presumption.
Yet you assert - as if you have proof:
How can you possibly know any of this?
You can't get inside people's heads.
Anyone who has behaved as Patel is alleged to have behaved would be equally guilty of bullying and harrassment, irrespective of position, gender or ethnicity, and would be criticised in the same way.
I don't get why you feel the need to drag her position, sex or race into the debate as if it is the most important consideration, when it's not relevant.
Since @alex_teccy disagrees with stereotypes he might want to ask why @Kandahar is still waiting for "ladies to return from the bingo" to support his view of Johnson on a different thread.
Well said. The allegations need to be robustly investigated. Her gender, ethnicity and politics are irrelevant. And yes, I disliked her and her statement prior to this, as I have every right to do . Being a woman or indian was irrelevant but I think that being a Tory was relevant to her expressed opinions.
I did read it. You just said, “I’m entitled to my opinions and your entitled to yours”
There’s nothing to discuss there.
You didn’t explain why you disagreed with anything I said or provide any reasons. Again, where’s the argument?
It’s not an assumption, it’s based in many of psychological studies across multiple cultures and time frames. Social status is a great niversal cue to resource control ie better food, territory, access to health care etc.
There are more but this stuff is hard Without a laptop
In short, there are differences in mate selection criteria between males and females, and theses result in different exploitation in hierarchies. What’s so controversial?
NoseyMatronType said: ↑
"She’s a nasty piece of work and as thick as pigsh.it.
End of." #65
No, I take it back. What we see here is calm, ubiased, racial/gender-free reasoned debate.
NB...other tasitier posts earlier on have been removed by moderators, as has the one above which remains in a quoted post by Mr Canary.
And it's been deleted so why are you quoting it?