to think that there is NEVER an acceptable reason to call a 32 year old woman a "young girl?"

[Hullygully]

No I'm not.

I couldn't care less what emotive flannel is flung about.

IT. IS.NOT.ACCEPTABLE.

The end.

One of the ways that women have been traditionally "kept down" is by infantilizing. The whole "don"t bother your pretty little head" thing.

And women being referred to and referring to themselves in childish terms reinforces and perpetuates this. It's not if our hard won equality is deeply enough entrenched for us to relax about it. It would be a shame if woman's insistence on being called a girl gave power to the elbows of those who would like us back in the kitchen.
"

Seeker, women infantilize themselves, I've seen this over and over. They do it because to be seen as a vulnerable child yields rewards for them. And I don't knock them for it, whatever works for them. It has no effect on my life or relationships.

Ultimately, we choose how we are treated within relationships. Even if society turned on its head tomorrow, and 90% of women became surrendered wives, I would say 'Bollocks to that', wouldn't you? Wouldn't anybody who didn't want that? I don't get your fears in all honesty.

And you also have to remember that some women like to be in the kitchen, up to them really isn't it.

But what came first ? Did women really set out to act like that to gain rewards or were they given rewards to get them to act like that ? It's a bit like saying that a hostage who appeases her captors chooses to act like that when really, they have to act like that in order not to suffer the consequences. You don't blame the hostage as the alternative will possibly result in harm. But nor do we think that they really have free choice.

I understand that seems like splitting hairs.

People have read The Handmaid's Tale, haven't they?

I would say both Blistory, in all honesty.

I haven't read the Handmaid's Tale, but I know the synopsis. I've had 'handmaiden' levelled at me as an insult a few times.

You haven't really commented on my post seeker, but it's fine if you don't want to.

They do indeed Sigmund, and it's really sad. It's because it's much easier to adapt oneself to the prevailing norms than challenge them and be an authentic human being, isn't it?

Blistory Look at the threads on here about toxic mothers and mothers in law. Their experiences are dismissed, their opinions trivialised, their views regarded as old fashioned and irrelevant. And of course you'll be able to point to examples where that doesn't happen but in general, it does.

On the balance of probabilities, I find it incredibly unlikely you meant this the way I initially read it, but I would still like to discuss it. I imagine that if someone posted something along the lines of "MN demonstrates society's suspicion of men with threads about abusive men..." that you would share my outrage.

Because even if there was/is occasionally/[time adverb of your choice here] a thread where the ire towards the male concerned was/is unjustified, MN should be a safe place for women to discuss whether they've ended up in an abusive relationship.

Women with abusive parents also deserve that.

I personally don't see MN as a safe space, but many do, whether they are presently in an abusive marriage, or a contributor to a Stately Homes thread. As I said before, I now consider it unlikely that you were referring to the Stately Homes threads or similar, but yesterday I did think you were.

So could someone else, and they could either be put off asking for help, or think that you were diminishing their own previous thread. Either way, I think that's a bad thing.

On present discussion, I think that a society where 90% of women had chosen to be surrendered wives would be a nightmare for the remaining ten per cent. In our present day society, it's not men who make threads on MN about women not shaving their legs or armhair. I have never had a male friend castigate me to my face for being disgusting or complain to me about another acquaintance, not knowing that I also don't spend my money on razors.

I'd never dream of criticising a woman for what she does with her body hair, because it's her body. I only get the same respect back from other feminists.

*other self-acknowledged feminists. The majority of women in the privileged West believe they have the right to vote, equal pay, and the right to own property. Which sounds pretty feminist to me.

The thing is Hully, it's really sad as far as you're concerned. I might even agree with you, but the thing is, it's their choice.

What is the definition of an authentic human being? I would have said it's someone who has been free to make their own considered choice.

I would say that if you are fitting yourself into the mould deemed desirable and acceptable by men - then you are not authentic. You are choosing (yes) but you are not being true to yourself as an authentic human being. You are making yourself what is wanted by men in order to be accepted

Ok, and I'm not being flippant here Hully, really I'm not, but what is wrong with wanting to be deemed desirable by men?

I can see that if you NEED to be deemed desirable, if it drives you and consumes you, then you may well have major confidence issues. But if you like to be deemed desirable, is that really unacceptable?

Pairing up is the driving force of human society, without it we'd be done. And again, it's fine if you choose not to, because (currently) there are plenty of people who will. Isn't desirability necessary to a certain extent?

I find it far easier to be accepted by men than women. Women judge me in a way that no man (that I'm aware of) has.

"I would say both Blistory, in all honesty.

I haven't read the Handmaid's Tale, but I know the synopsis. I've had 'handmaiden' levelled at me as an insult a few times.

You haven't really commented on my post seeker, but it's fine if you don't want to."

I have, actually- but I sort of pre- answered it! This is what I said-

"One of the ways that women have been traditionally "kept down" is by infantilizing. The whole "don"t bother your pretty little head" thing.

And women being referred to and referring to themselves in childish terms reinforces and perpetuates this. It's not if our hard won equality is deeply enough entrenched for us to relax about it. It would be a shame if woman's insistence on being called a girl gave power to the elbows of those who would like us back in the kitchen."

And of course some women like being in the kitchen. And they have a perfect right to choose to be. But we're not talking about choosing here. Women's rights are being eroded all over the world. We would be naive if we though it couldn't happen here.

I don't mean being desired per se, we all (men too) like to be desired! I mean fitting oneself into the mould-that-means-woman according to men, which means society at the moment.

Do you ever hear a man called:

strident (a woman with opinions)
gossip (a woman who chats)
ball-breaker (a woman with opinions)
chatterbox (a woman who speaks more than women should - I'm sure you know that studies that measure conversational input show that when a woman speaks more than around 30% of th econversation, she is deemed as dominating)

etc

If women try to claim their fair share of space and time on earth, they are put down in such ways.

Perhaps men don't judge you because you fit their idea of woman?

Perhaps women judge you because you arepresenting as a man's woman, and those women compete and judge?

^ That isn't meant to be rude - just an idea.

Not ignoring you seeker and hully, I have to do RL stuff for a bit. Will reply later...

cool beanz

'And of course some women like being in the kitchen. And they have a perfect right to choose to be. But we're not talking about choosing here. Women's rights are being eroded all over the world. We would be naive if we though it couldn't happen here.'

I think it would be extremely unlikely to happen here seeker (although not impossible), if it did, there would be bigger forces at play than the ones you describe, we'd be talking about a huge cultural shift.

'Do you ever hear a man called:

strident (a woman with opinions)
gossip (a woman who chats)
ball-breaker (a woman with opinions)
chatterbox (a woman who speaks more than women should - I'm sure you know that studies that measure conversational input show that when a woman speaks more than around 30% of th econversation, she is deemed as dominating)'

I've heard a man called a gossip, but that's an irrelevance here. Yes, these words are used to describe women, but there are far worse descriptions flying about! A lot depends on the usage too, is it used humorously? affectionately? as a put down? So context is important.

If you're saying that men don't have the same kind of descriptions, then maybe, I can't think of any offhand. I agree that what you are saying does exist, but to be described this way in order to close down the amount of airtime I have, well they could try!

'Perhaps men don't judge you because you fit their idea of woman?'

I'm reasonably attractive, that's probably what they like! Other than that, I'm just, I dunno, socially inept.

'Perhaps women judge you because you arepresenting as a man's woman, and those women compete and judge?'

As I said above, I'm pretty socially inept and find it difficult to mix. I find women difficult, I always offend them somehow, but over really stupid things. Men are less easily offended. I've given up trying to work out how people tick, I can't work it out.

oh bless you