“The sign was a joke. The article written about it and the serious justification of it are not a joke. It is hideous sexism for which you appear to be on the wrong side, justifying why it is OK. That is your opinion, that is your choice. The sign was funny. The justification is a mirror of where we are headed.”
“Hmmm.. FORCED on one, choice by the other. Perhaps you don't see the incredibly huge difference between the two. Perhaps that is why we can justify the different levels of responsibility we hand out, yet juxtapose it with wanting the end result to be the same. It defies logic, but through rampant justification, we try to make sense of it. Why not just fix it and expect equal responsibility and accountability out of everyone? If one is forced to be accountable and responsible, and the other can choose to take it or leave it, equality will never exist. But maybe, just maybe, equality not really the end goal of our society.”
“Because we've just switched one group out for another because of their grandparents actions. Equality is about now. It's about the future. You can't gain equality by treating people differently because it feels good to gain vengeance on the offspring of someone who may have done something you didn't like to someone else in the past. That is merely justification to continue the stupidity, by picking a different target group. If we want to see equality then we have to start making it be what we want it to be... not doing on to others what someone's grandparents may have done to someone else. It's really not that difficult of a concept unless you are dead set on pretending that we can in fact divide people into groups and attack them differently, justifying it with a focused view of a part of history. We need to be much more open to the bigger picture and the roadblocks we put in place for our children and grandchildren. Equality is not vengeance... but perhaps that's the job of the next generation. We'll just keep explaining why we continue to cultivate the stupidity.”
“"Yes it does" ? "Even if it doesn't"? Definitely sounds like you are not sure... but I am. I'm not sold on 40 years of political name calling. I AM sold on equality and I think everyone deserves equal respect regardless of what their grandparents did or did not do.
If you are really looking to work with couples, you need to realize that many look at history and see what they want to see in order to tell people today why things aren't equal. Then there are others that look at today and try to make it be what they want it to be regardless of how the past generations messed it up.
You appear to see what you want to see. Try to step it up and look at today and the future and rather than justifying more rhetoric, take the step to make it be what it should be. We both know the article that went along with the picture is not what we want for the future. To openly mock someone because of their race, gender or religion (or even sexual orientation) should not be touted as just deserved. It should be sent immediately to the same place of shame that it took generations to do for African Americans, Jewish people and women. We don't just pick a new target and say it is OK because of their ancestors...”
“Now the responsibility that came with that "property" is still in existence whereas thankfully the times have changed for women. Now we either need to hold women to the same responsibility level and have them register for the draft, dump abortion, get rid of safe haven and adoption and put limits on alimony... or give men the right to choose to be a parent by dropping a child off at a safe haven, dumping the draft, and give them the children and half of her income until he marries another woman who can take care of him. NOTHING exists in a sociopolitical vacuum.
We can choose to only look at half the problem based on yesterday, or we can view today and the future and make it what we want it to be...”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 26, 2014 at 08:40:36
“"NOTHING exists in a sociopolitical vacuum."
Thank you. :)
That's why jokes made by women about men aren't treated the same as jokes made by men about women.
“But it doesn't exist anymore for women. It still exists that men are held responsible by society to take care of women. Otherwise women would be registering for the draft, alimony until they get remarried wouldn't exist and domestic violence issues would be genderless. I have a daughter whom I have taught to take on responsibility that society does not require. I have a son who I have taught to take on responsibility... but for him it is just words. Legally, he is required to do so.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 26, 2014 at 08:39:55
“"But it doesn't exist anymore for women."
1. Yes, it does. That's why it's called a trend, not a blip.
2. Even if it doesn't, it's part of the historical context within which a joke is made.
“It is possible you overlooked the fact that choice is hers. She has a choice be it abortion, safe haven or adoption. He has no choice than the night of conception. If were equal responsibility, this would not be the case. Don't get me wrong... I understand. Society deems men responsible and I have no issue with that. But if we are to get to equality, then shouldn't responsibility and accountability be equal?”
“Opinions are not facts. Facts are facts. We can choose to do things today based on what people did yesterday or we can look at today and make it the way it should be instead of trying to justify the wrong of today by pointing to the wrong of yesterday.
But even today we dish out alimony until she gets married again, or in other words, until another man steps in to be responsible. It's not about history. It's about today. Do we want equality or do we want to to continue the ways of the 1960s, pretending that things are still the same?
We can either see yesterday as way to justify idiocy today, or we can see it as something that shouldn't be repeated... by anyone. Rest assured, the confusion is not mine. It is that of those who try to justify the wrongs of today. The signe was a joke... the article giving real credence to it and the responses of those that justify it are the issues that will prevent society from ever understanding how to learn from history. It is bent on grouping people together by skin color, gender or religion, and fighting against all others. If we were to see human instead of gender, color, or belief, maybe, just maybe we have a chance. I give it 10%. It's too fun to pick a side and play games apparently.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 26, 2014 at 08:41:38
“"Opinions are not facts."
Right, which is why it's unwise to present opinions as facts.
Fortunately, no one else seems to take jokes so seriously...”
“Women are not "held" responsible. They have choice at every step along the way... abortion, safe haven, adoption. Men are held responsible on the night of conception. Period. Fine. But don't pretend like women are "left" holding the baby. It is a choice for women every... single... step. I like that for my daughter. Now if we can look at equality in parenting, we'd have a pretty intelligent society. Instead,we get people saying women are left holding a bag that they, themselves choose to hold. You don't even want responsibility for that? I don't blame you... it's what we've been spoon fed for 40 years.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 26, 2014 at 08:41:02
“When they're left holding the baby, they are.
You call it 'choice'. We parents call it 'being responsible'.”
“"having your reproductive rights abrogated by the Government, "
Men are still held responsible the night of conception. Women, not so much. Even after a child is born, you have safe haven or even adoption. Zero responsibility or accountability for any action if it is not accepted by a woman. A man, 100% responsibility and accountability the night of conception. Period.
Aware of history? Read up. Apples and oranges? Not as different as you'd like to imagine in order to justify "separate but equal" mentality.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 24, 2014 at 18:42:10
“As far back as Beowulf, women were described as property, belonging either to the father or to the husband. In fact, every other woman in Beowulf is married off at some point in an effort to strengthen the tribe (or whatever). This trend is represented in the works of Chaucer, Shakespeare, and even the Bronte sisters, although by that time, it's not so much overt ownership as covert control.
The same trend does not exist for men.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 24, 2014 at 18:41:57
“You say women aren't held responsible; yet women are 60-70% of the caregivers (source: American Caregivers Association, 2011). When it comes to childrearing, women contribute 50% more of their time, compared to men (ibid.). So, it is women, not men, who are left figuratively and literally holding the b4by.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 24, 2014 at 18:03:21
“Presenting opinions as if they were facts isn't an effective way to prove a point. It's the mere restating of an existing opinion.
You say men are held responsible whereas women are not. Women make up at least 59% of primary caregivers (Family Caregiver Alliance, 2001). While men also provide assistance, female caregivers may spend as much as 50 percent more time providing care than male caregivers (ibid.). The statistics suggest that women, not men, are still left figuratively and literally holding the baby. Perhaps more research is needed.
For over a thousand years of documented history, women were thought of as property, owned first by their fathers, and then their husbands. The evidence is plentiful: everywhere from Shakespeare's plays to the magna carta. In Beowulf, every other female character is married off to better secure their father's standings.
So, as you can see, jokes do not occur in a sociopolitical vacuum. That's why we treat jokes about men in one way and jokes about women in another way. Please note that, no matter how badly you want me to say it, I never actually said it was morally right or sensible to treat the two groups differently. I merely explained to you why we do it.
I hope this helps clear up any confusion that you may have.”
“Stand by the graves of the 100 baby boys and let them know you feel they are spineless whiners.
Empathy for others is a core concept of understanding issues. I would never approve of cutting genitals of females, but it is not about an agenda for me. I would express it as I would never approve of cutting the genitals of any baby unless it were medically necessary. But that's just me perhaps.
If our country believes only women have a right to their own bodies, then we will have to continue to live in sexism until the next generation can hopefully rid themselves of the absolute desire to scream about a concept for one, while completely justifying it for another. Fascinating really that people have the ability to do it and even convince themselves it makes sense.
For me, you are either for or against an issue regardless of gender. I can't believe any woman being on the other side. Isn't that what choice was really all about? Or was the fight only for females, and males should continue to have their bodies subjected to the will of another? I guess that really depends on whether equality or privilege is the primary goal. The sign was funny. The justification and further expansion of the story and your comments only go to prove that sexism is truly alive and justified in our society, even if it means to go as far as killing of few of those pesky male babies.”
“There is not enough room in in this forum to fully explore the extreme simplification of issues you point to.
- Some men and women are identical in certain aspects. To wave a wand across the spectrum and say men and women are not alike is too broad of stroke for me. We are all human with the same basic needs, hopes and dreams.
- Men and women do not receive the same treatment in any aspect. This stems mostly from the standpoint of responsibility and accountability. My statement is that if we hold everyone equally responsible and accountable, or those that take on the role of being responsible, even if the laws only require it of the other half of the population, they will be seen and treated as equals.
- Nothing exists in a sociopolitical vacuum
Just because you find it funny, does not make it right.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 24, 2014 at 18:34:23
“Since it is a joke, it doesn't have to be 'right'. ;) It merely has to present an ironic juxtaposition. The notice did just that. The rest of us are able to take a joke.”
“No, not a jokey hardware sign, but what the story was about and how it is defended.
Oddly you bring up elsewhere in the world female children are mutilated with bits of broken glass... Are you aware that in our own country, male children are mutilated with bits of hardened steel? 100 baby boys die in this country each year due to complications of a cosmetic surgery. It is outlawed in this country to even put a pin prick in the prepuce of a female (which it should be), but yet perfectly OK to completely remove it from a male, killing 100 of them each year. So is that the same line of subjugation you were drawing, or does cutting into someone elses body change when the gender changes?
Wasn't the theory, my body, my choice? Why do we not allow male children in THIS country to make a choice for their own bodies? Mostly because we don't care. One woman hit is too many (which I agree with), yet 100 boys slaughtered because we want to have a right to sculpt THEIR genitals is merely acceptable losses.
It is societal subjugation. It happens to men and women for different reasons. But it is not just men dominating women... it is an entire society accepting and enforcing stupidity. So we need to open our eyes to the bigger picture rather than just a small example of a sign.”
Parker95 on Jun 8, 2014 at 04:23:10
“Are you seriously comparing male circumcision with female genital mutilation? Your attempts to claim that men are somehow being oppressed and subjugated to the same extent as women just looks like spineless whining.”
“Ha! That would be a historian out of a job, wouldn't it?
The long and short of it is that we justify wrongdoing today based on a view of wrongdoing of yesterday. Whether it is to the extent that politics and the media would like us to believe, that's another story. I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of women that were happy they didn't need to die to defend the country in WWII. I'm sure there were 10s of thousands of women that were happy they didn't go to Vietnam. I'm sure the life expectancy being higher in those that stay at home wasn't such a bad thing either. But in the same light, I'm sure there were women that really wanted to go to work and support their family, and for those who did not have that opportunity, I have empathy. We are supposed to learn from history. For those today that show no respect to their ancestors and use that empathy to hide behind when doing exactly the thing to someone else (justifying their racism, sexism, bigotry) is sickening. That is not historical. That is using history to gain privilege (or a societal OK) to do thing others would and should be held responsible for.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 9, 2014 at 13:50:15
“If you say so. I notice that you don't disagree with me when I point out:-
- men and women aren't alike
- men and women, historically speaking, have not receive the same treatment
- jokes don't exist in a sociopolitical vacuum
- neither do we
Just because you don't find it funny, doesn't make it wrong.”
“The sign was a joke, the article took it a step further. I believe men and women are treated different, but it is not about historical reasons. It is about current reasons. We don't seem to understand that if we want an equal society, the very basis of it is holding everyone to the same responsibility and accountability. We don't.
Even from high school it is an incredibly powerful statement from our society that our young men and women don't stand side by side in high school registering for the draft. Maybe we should get rid of it, but as it stands, we tell every single young man, YOU are responsible for protecting women, YOU are responsible for protecting the country. Now try to get them involved in an equality conversation... sure, it sounds good.
We must hold everyone equally accountable NOW if we are to see any movement going forward. There are just too many examples of how we keep reliving the same issues over and over. The sooner we see things like this and talk about them, and really understand the underlying issues, the sooner we can eradicate the dual standards of responsibility and accountability that destroy the very foundation of equality. But no one seems to WANT responsibility, or understand how it plays into the big picture, they only want the good things that come with it. If we start with accountability, eliminating justification, we're getting somewhere.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 6, 2014 at 12:52:48
“"I believe men and women are treated different, but it is not about historical reasons."
“Three decades ago? As of a decade ago, I know from personal experience and through the research I did while I was going through it. Even today, there are few states that assume equal parenting, and as long as we have 60 year old judges, we'll continue to have the same results as they seem to still think it is the 1960s. Even in as far as most states alimony laws allow alimony for a woman until another man steps in to marry her. Although it is not a law it must happen, it is left up to judges and they error on the side of 1960. It is why I would love to see 100 cases, gender-blind go before a court and see how different it would be if the personal influence and gender bias were removed and only the interest of the children were considered. I think it would be a shocking study. We still see 85-90% of primary care given to the mother with fathers given parenting time (visitation is slowly giving way).
Iif the father doesn't take the time he is a deadbeat dad, if he makes the most of his time he is a Disneyland dad. Society allows courts to remove his children through no fault of his own and then politics condemns him for not spending the time. It's a catch 22 that is continued by attorneys and courts, and only the few that really care about the children end up with your result.”
“If you truly are studying to become a Marriage and Family Therapist, I implore you to think past the male dominance theory we have been spoon fed for the past 40 years. It is a societal issue, not a gender issue.
In direct response to your question, nothing exists in a sociopolitical vacuum, so you can use that concept in any argument you wanted.
Society has forced men to be responsible for the well-being a family since the beginning of time. Society has forced women to be responsible for the children since the beginning of time. It worked because men were stronger and more capable to handle the danger of hunting or protecting the tribe. But women had a role as well, to care for the next generation. No one told women they couldn't go out and hunt, but everyone in society accepted that they protected the women and that the men were to risk their lives to do so. Everyone, men and women accepted this dynamic.
All through history we have examples of women bucking the trend and picking up a weapon to hunt or defend her "tribe." Queens who put many men and women to their deaths in "defense" of their society, but the roles didn't change.
So it is wrong to frame it as a male dominated society... It is a society dominated society. The disconnect is that we forget that the very basis of equality is responsibility. I expect one to act responsibly, regardless of gender.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 5, 2014 at 18:03:58
“There's really no need to implore me. :) You and I are on the same side.
You've misunderstood me. You seem to think that I'm arguing that women be treated one way while men are treated another. I'm not. I'm saying women ARE treated one way while men are treated another.
That's why I said, "Jokes do not occur in a sociopolitical vacuum."
That's why Society views jokes by men about women in one way and jokes by women about men in another way.
Men are treated one way; women, another. It is for historical reasons, not because someone sat down and said, "Hey, this'll be fun."”
“"One of the most destructive human pastimes is playing the blame game. It has been responsible for mass casualties of war, regrettable acts of road rage, and on a broad interpersonal level (social, familial and work-related), a considerable amount of human frustration and unhappiness. The blame game consists of blaming another person for an event or state of affairs thought to be undesirable, and persisting in it instead of proactively making changes that ameliorate the situation. The drive shaft of this game is a series of four irrational beliefs:
If something has gone wrong (or is not the way it should be), then someone other than myself must be identified and blamed for causing the situation.
This person/s’ malfeasance diminishes the respect he/she deserves as a person.
So, it is permissible (and only fitting) to treat this person/s in ways he/she deserves to be treated such as ignoring, name-calling, and in extreme cases, physical assault.
I must not accept any significant degree of responsibility for the situation inasmuch as to do so would be to admit that I am myself also diminished as a person, and therefore deserving of the same disapprobation and negative treatment."
"So, it is permissible (and only fitting) to treat this person/s in ways he/she deserves to be treated such as ignoring, name-calling, and in extreme cases, physical assault."
I do not empathize with that person. I empathize with Rosa Parks, MLK, Jewish people in WWII.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 4, 2014 at 19:09:19
“As someone who is studying to become a Marriage and Family Therapist, I appreciate the article. Thank you. :) I'll save it in my archives.
Now, as you may recall, the conversation went like this:-
Jackson: "Ah, yes, ha ha, thats real funny. Now lets flip it around and see how many laughs you get and how much outrage is generated. Now thats funny, because its sad."
Hugo: "Men haven't been oppressed by women, historically and culturally speaking. Remember, jokes don't occur in a sociopolitical vacuum."
“"However, even if it wasn't I've always believed in co-parenting."
I am happy to hear that. Unfortunately not many share your view. Until shared parenting is the norm (currently not in almost every state), almost 90% of single parenting will be handed to the mother in court, with no extenuating factors such as alcoholism or addiction. As you say, "No, it is not what I choose, it's what is written in the divorce decree," was you stepping up to the plate and usurping the standard dissolution. Instead of laws, we have personal preference of the mother determining the outcomes. If all were like you, society would have no problem... unfortunately, during the proceedings, attorneys drive stakes between the participants making them aggressive towards each other, with many, many opting to hurt the other with the children... and in almost 90% of the cases it is the mother's attorney opting to hurt the father for his/her own financial gain, leaving behind a broken family and a broke family. I would vote to have you draw up the guidelines for them as I can greatly appreciate you stance on the interest of the children.”
kabegg on Jun 5, 2014 at 01:06:15
“Thank you for your vote of confidence. Divorce is an ugly thing that tends to bring out the worst in people, and I understand that, having two divorces under my belt. I cannot agree, however, with the stereotype that women's attorneys are the ones that hurt men by using the children. Three decades ago, I would agree. However, now courts would rather have an amicable split that takes into consideration both parents ability to parent, their living situations, financial aspects, and last but certainly not least both parents being present in their children's lives.
As I've said before it takes two people to make a child and two (or more) to take that child to adulthood. Perhaps, at 18 years old I was more of an adult than most.”
“So you missed the concept of the story written about the picture then? It is something we wouldn't do to other groups, no? I'm not a sexist, I expect others to understand that basic thought and act appropriately. I'm not a racist. I expect others to understand that basic thought and act appropriately. I'm not a bigot. I expect others to understand that basic thought and act appropriately. When people don't do this and justify the humor in subjugation for any group, it makes my stomach turn, as it should a majority of a society that believes all people are created equal. You can say it doesn't because [insert justification here], but it all boils down to looking down the glasses at someone else. Ha! Humor, right?”
Parker95 on Jun 7, 2014 at 05:29:44
“I agree with your point that trying to pass off grossly offensive comments as humour is wrong. But your claim that men are somehow being subjugated by a jokey sign in a hardware store is simply hysterical. Elsewhere in the world female children are mutilated with bits of broken glass - that is subjugation.”
“You don't have an argument. You have justification. Sounds good to you, silly to me. All our society ever does is justify why equality will never exist. It doesn't matter which group, when or how. We'll come up with some justification for why it is OK for one and not another. That is my point.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 3, 2014 at 21:31:55
“I'm confused. Do you think I'm implying that inequality is OK?
I'm not. :)
I'm explaining to you, why other people think it's OK sometimes and not OK other times.
I didn't try to justify their point of view. I tried to make you empathize with their point of view.
Empathy is important. Without it, we are sociopaths.”
“Fun to use big words in an argument, but it is not fallacious. It is what the argument is. We think it is OK for someone to do something to someone else, because of events that happened to two other people. So your theory that someone who looked like someone else is guilty of what the other person did. Maybe an easier term would be Straw Man for you. The conclusion you draw on people of today, who have not been party to the past is merely a quick shell game. But it sells... rampantly.”
Hugo Rabson on Jun 3, 2014 at 18:13:41
“You took "Jokes don't occur in a sociopolitical vacuum" and took it to mean "It's OK for a woman in 2014 to be mean because of something someone did in 1950."
That's what 'reducto ad absurdum' is. It is the simplification of an idea to the point of absurdity.
You didn't make an argument. You oversimplified mine, then tried to criticize the result.
No one said, "Someone who looked like someone else is guilty of what the other person did." Well, you said it, but I didn't.
I said, "Our language reflects our assumptions about who should be in charge." I notice that you don't dispute that.
I also said, "As jokes don't occur in a sociopolitical vacuum, a joke about one group isn't the same as a joke about another group." I notice you don't dispute that either.
Finally, I said, "The idea, 'Let's flip it around,' looks rather silly as a consequence." So far, you've not explained why you disagree with this. In fact, it sounds as if you agree with me.”
“Oh, so if a particular group has been a "victim", then it is ok for their grandchildren to do it to others? You mix victim doing it to their oppressor with the non-victims of today, doing it to an innocent non-oppressor solely because they looked like the person who oppressed their grand parents. So I cannot agree with you...it is NOT totally different. In fact, it is TOTALLY the same. It is the way our society continues the stupidity, by justifying what they do to innocent people because someone who looked like them did it to their grandparents. Neither of the two are current victim or oppressor, but our hideous justification will only make it linger. If one is hanging onto revenge for something that happened to someone else in the past, and inflicting it on innocent people of today, your justification might make sense to them. Justification is ALWAYS how you get away with being evil to someone who has done no wrong. But if you phrase it just right, you might be able to get away with it. Who cares about the future society and moving to a peaceful place. What we need is to keep it going, and going, and going. That is the only way to make peace. /sarc”
Parker95 on Jun 3, 2014 at 19:27:26
“You REALLY need to calm down! You are obviously struggling with some really serious issues around this subject!”