Where Males stand in this forum

Post Reply New Topic

Wow, um... I mean, the way you describe it, it sounds like men are just filthy creatures jumping out of bushes and grabbing you in the produce section of the supermarket.

As for the men who look, so what? Don't you look at things/people you find attractive? Unless they're being a**holes about it, what's the problem? I have AS, I don't like being stared at by anyone, but I realize people have the right to look and it doesn't make them a monster if they find something about me attractive. Guys checking you out doesn't mean they're perverted, it means they find you attractive. Personally, I feel bad for guys being made to feel like pigs for looking at an attractive woman. Would you prefer they looked at you and grimaced?

Whatever. My current realization is that you and I are so polarized on this topic that we probably ought to drop in. I'm moving along.

that seems fair...

The text under the Men's forum always amused me.

In looking at the comments here, I am inclined to wax analytical. And yes I am MALE!

It is observable that men are visually inquisitive.
It is also observable that women are inclined to be secretive.
It is part of the way our brains are hard wired, and aspies better than most should understand the issue of having something hardwired into their brain.

Ok, now for a little analysis. Many of women's issues are actually issues of those who lack power. For instance:
--Women are generally smaller and of lower physical strength, that is a power issue.
--Women are naturally less aggressive, that is a power issue.
--Child rearing inclinations (generally hard wired) are a diversion which can limit their options, that is a power issue.
--etc.

Secrecy is the equalizer for those who lack power. Privacy is a form of secrecy. For example"
--Secrecy is used by small political or social movements against the established powers.
--Small animals make dens in rocks or heavy cover to avoid predators


On the other hand exploiting the other side's characteristics can be a source of power. For example:
--When they want to, women know that they can influence men by appealing to their natural visual attraction assets.

Our social norms in civilized society are often to balance powers in order to achieve a smooth running society.
Men should constrain their natural inclinations toward women so that they can interact on equal footing as persons.
Women should not flaunt their natural assets (more by their demenor than their appearance) lest they trigger a response that they do not want. For instance wearing a T-shirt with a message written across the breasts will attract attention there (If you don't intend me to look there, don't write it there).
Oh yes, lets not forget that aspies are notoriously bad at social norms!

So then; touching, ogling, whistling, pinching, making comments about body parts, violate social norms of polite company (and we do want people to be poite don't we?).
Likewise: skimpy clothing, flaunting, provocative looks, are disruptive, (but not so likely to be rejected to by those at whom they are directed).

WrongPlanet.net has "The Haven" and forums for those struggling with depression, or teens struggling with adolescent adjustment as aspies. These are for those who are vulnerable and need understanding, and support.
In the same manner, Women can find themselves vulnerable (i.e. in a situation of being at a "power disadvantage") and need a place that can provide understanding and support. A women's forum can supply that.

Do men need a similar forum? Probably: but having a different communication style (generally a brain hard wiring thing), they would not likely make much use of one that was structured like a typical Woman's forum.

Should Men post on a Women's forum? Thoughtful posts by men could be quite useful, because a woman's post could evoke a response from a man that would have an insight that most women woujld miss. But the presence of men breaks down the protective shield of secrecy/privacy.

Ok, I'll stop now!

Why? That was a very good post.

I 100% agree with that.



That's why there are private forums on the internet dedicated to womens intrests, where only women join/belong. Since the topic of this site is AS/PDD and there is a large male population here, it seems inappropriate to say men are forbidden from posting to any thread. Having a section for women's issues is not the problem...it's a good way for guys to avoid topics of conversation (hormones, periods, etc.) they might not be interested in sifting through in the other forums. It's also a good way for women to find out ansers to female-related questions (i.e. "Does your period make your AS symptoms worse?"). But deliberate exclusion is something else altogether.

Like you noted above, a guy might have really good insight on a matter than one of the women never considered. And I further suspect that this "males can't post" thing probably hits a nerve with some guys because exclusion is often a problem AS men (and women too) have faced waaaay more than enough in their lives.

And the fact of the matter is, it's a public forum. If the issue is about secrecy and privacy, this is the wrong place to get it. It's control being sought here, not privacy. If privacy were the primary concern for the women posting, they shouldn't be posting here in the first place. They know men can read the posts, they just want to deny them the right to reply to it. That's neither secrecy nor privacy, it's controlling and sexist. Perhaps it gives women a sense of power and control to say a guy cannot post to her thread, but that's just reversing the problem women claim to have with men.

I think your response was quite good, one of the best on the thread.

As a female aspie, i have no problem with most of the discussions being entered by our males out there.
I agree to the privacy thingy, but i also know that a lot of men do not really understand that which is woman, and this is an outlet to get opinions, views, and many other things that they may not naturally have an opportunity to do. ha ha....run on sentence!
Ladies, we have to help our aspie guys out sometimes... Not all guys are going to be outwardly lewd to women. Its usually when they are in the company of other men that this happens anyways. If our fellow aspie mens need some info or guidance into courting or communicating with the fairer sex, then lets help them be their best.

Really? I thought it was asinine. We shouldn't confuse cultural expectations of gender roles with natural inclinations, and that post was littered with such mistakes.

I think some of the women here want to be treated fragile and protected...yet they're the same ones who become angry about generalizations and stereotypes. I think it's difficult to know how to raise a question or point in this forum without getting pouced on. What may sound asnine to some sounds like vindication to others (not me but...others).

Really ???
I admit that when I started citing "social norms" that I must be coming from some sort of cultural base, but I believe that to be a broad multicultural base spread across civilized societies. Also I would assume that by citing "social norms" most readers would recognize that I was not attempting to promote a cultural hegemony but set forth a broad based example. I suppose that there might be a culture that approved of "touching, ogling, whistling, pinching, making comments about body parts" but after all I did say "Our social norms in civilized society"

So without starting a Flame War, I would be curious to know at least a few of the cultural vs gender mistakes that you think littered the post and rendered it asinine. I suspect that cultural or subcultural viewpoint is mucking up the communication attempt here.

As would I. What's truly asinine is attacking a post without providing any real claims as to why.

It is one thing to say there are mistakes. Anyone can sit here and claim that someone else's post has a mistake. It is another to take the time to point out what one believes those mistakes to be. Who knows, you might convince others that your position is more valid. A lot better chance if you support it than if you don't.

Quod gratis aserritur, gratis negatur
{What is asserted without proof may likewise be denied without proof}

Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum viditur
{Anything said in Latin seems profound}

Which is an interesting point to make, given that your post didn't actually have any proof, just assertions without any evidence to back them up, either. Unfortunately, I'm really too short of time to dig up any real evidence for any of the points I'll make, either. Thus are the perils of posting from work, and having a busy home life.

You seem to be mixing up cultural with inherent brain hardwiring, here, because earlier, you said:

So which is it, cultural or hardwiring?
I also don't buy your line that "women are inclined to be secretive," it's a pretty broad brushed generalisation to make, and it has to be assumed that you're comparing to men. But find the right topic, and men will keep stum, too. I don't believe there's any significant difference.

Take the first as a given, the second very arguable. Ask Elizabeth I, look at the increasing numbers of girls getting involved in gangs (or forming their own) in the UK, there have certainly been cultural pressures, but I don't believe that if you took those away, there would necessarily be a significant difference between the two.
Child rearing inclinations we can really get into. Definitely not hardwired, at least to the degree I think you'd say. Look at the Victorian upper class, look at wetnursing, or look at some of the few matriarchal societies in the world. There's notably one in China where families live in matriarchal communes, and childcare is shared irrespective of sex. This is nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to believe.

Mmaestro,
Thank you for taking the time for a response.

The items that I referred to that you took as cultrual manifestations rather than innate characteristics of the genders are I believe for the most part observable and cross cultural, To what extent it is useful they may also be observed cross species as the more common patterns in mammalians. There are always variations; particularly in insular groups. and in populations under stress.

When I said that:

I believe that the visual nature of males is well documented.
When I said
This is a hypothesis that can be tested by any who wish, but I believe that simple reflection on past experience will bear this out for most.
The conclusion that I draw is based on the observable overwhelming prevalance of this across cultures. If one reads anthropological treatises, female dominated societies are interesting due to their relative rarity and usually insular nature. In the long run they seem not to survive the competition between societies very well as male dominated societies seem to produce better soldiers and war machines.

When you say you have a good question and the answer is that culture will generally reflect the hardwiring and given the flexibility of the human mind and whatever pressures may bear on the culture variances will occur between cultures. There is also the possibility of mutation of the hardwiring which is subject to natural selection, and as long as mankind suffers the scourge of war, we can expect that to be a natural selection factor. I believe that observance of the general population of the world will bear out that patriarchal cultures are dominant. Observation across mammalian species seems to bear out that male dominance is the standard and female dominance is the abberation. Civilization (as opposed to militarization) is is a leveler between the genders but it has not yet completely leveled the playing field.

You say Indeed it is, and I intended it to be such; but it I believe it holds very well for the cultures that are likely to have people posting here. And I believe it is true because of the power issue noted.

As for secretivness applying to men, the point I was making was that this is a technique that applies to all that are at a power disadvantage. My point being that women are generally at a power disadvantage in our society.

Your example of Elizabeth I as a woman who had power is an insular case of one who happened to fall into a niche in the established society that conferred that power upon her and who rose to the opportunity, but if you look at all the women of her time and her country, she rather sticks out as an aberration.

Your example of girls getting involved in gangs, I am not all that familiar with your country's problem with girls in gangs but in my country, the girls are essentially adjuncts to the male gang members and all girl gangs are small and rare if you can find them at all. Their membership in gangs at all arises from the stress that their sector of society is under, which is both a socioeconomic sector and also an age group. I would suggest looking at where those same girls are when they are about 10 years older and see if they have not moved back closer to the norm.

You say Absent abnormal societal pressures I observe that women more consistently and more strongly bond with their children. The ferocity with which women act when they believe their child threatened would do a mother bear proud! Anyone who has had a chance to observe new mothers in a maternity ward, would I believe have no problem supporting my assertion here. It is driven powefully by hormonal issues at the time of childbirth as well as what is surely hardwiring of the brain. I believe the medical literature will support me on this one. Society is aghast at cases where the reverse it true because they are substantially rare.

I stand behind my assertions because I believe they are observable and for the most part born out by common experience. However I would like to say again that I appreciate the dialog of your most recent post.

I think there should be a *Men's Discussion* forum where women are treated accordingly as men are here.

AND........................................................

I Believe in p**** POWER!