I think that's a trap.....

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Sparta Prague duo to train with women after saying they 'belong at the stove'

Two Sparta Prague players have been ordered to train with Sparta's women's team after telling a female assistant referee "women belong at the stove”.

Goalkeeper Tomas Koubek and midfielder Lukas Vacha apologised for insulting Lucie Ratajova, who was one of the officials during Sparta's 3-3 draw with Brno on Sunday.

Koubek, speaking after the match, said women "belong at the stove" and "should not officiate men's football."

Sparta's director general Adam Kotalik said: "The players will spend several days with the club's female side so that they can be made aware that women have plenty of worth outside the kitchen."

Story

wow it made news .. anyway, there is more to this story or context - the match itself, club(s) in question, history of female referees in league, history of whole country - but I will not bother with details/interpretations. Let me just say that over here society is not as progressive as lets say in Norway and when I say society it means women included. All in all not a good example for OP imo.

Is there innate need ..? How do we figure? Its not like we can see it in DNA under microscope or is it? Perhaps male aggression is innate, male need to display certain kind of behaviour in given environment but innate need to have own space? I dunno. Moving on, I am basically in agreement with opinion of Rachel Bronwyn, and others like her.

Scarlett wrote:Ooooh, would that be the upper echelons of "mansplaining"?

Is there a safe way for a man to answer this question?

tuco wrote:

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Sparta Prague duo to train with women after saying they 'belong at the stove'

Two Sparta Prague players have been ordered to train with Sparta's women's team after telling a female assistant referee "women belong at the stove”.

Goalkeeper Tomas Koubek and midfielder Lukas Vacha apologised for insulting Lucie Ratajova, who was one of the officials during Sparta's 3-3 draw with Brno on Sunday.

Koubek, speaking after the match, said women "belong at the stove" and "should not officiate men's football."

Sparta's director general Adam Kotalik said: "The players will spend several days with the club's female side so that they can be made aware that women have plenty of worth outside the kitchen."

Story

wow it made news .. anyway, there is more to this story or context - the match itself, club(s) in question, history of female referees in league, history of whole country - but I will not bother with details/interpretations. Let me just say that over here society is not as progressive as lets say in Norway and when I say society it means women included. All in all not a good example for OP imo.

Is there innate need ..? How do we figure? Its not like we can see it in DNA under microscope or is it? Perhaps male aggression is innate, male need to display certain kind of behaviour in given environment but innate need to have own space? I dunno. Moving on, I am basically in agreement with opinion of Rachel Bronwyn, and others like her.

I was involved with a local club and the overwhelming majority of people there were very dismissive of women's football and the only reason they had a team was because because of the F.A. Charter Standard they wanted to meet.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I dearly wish all men were you.

Then I would be the most biologically successful, and launch a noble generation of Asperger babies.

ETA: Except that I'm no longer fertile. So.... extinction. As an environmentalist, I'm still in favor of this outcome.

Me too, man, me too.

My father called last weekend to let me know, amongst other things, that he'd like a grandchild and I just did an, "Ew." The dude put all his wealth into an environmental trust. How can he encourage his children to reproduce?

He will, instead, adopt a little black baby.

Yup, that could work. btw having one kid is bellow requirement for sustainable growth as for example China learned recently. Also babies like other babies, to interact with.

It would probably be wiser and more logical to put wealth into foreign aid to underdeveloped parts of the world but environment is alright and can probably be managed easier than foreign aid. How can he? Because he is human.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Scarlett wrote:Ooooh, would that be the upper echelons of "mansplaining"?

Is there a safe way for a man to answer this question?

Try it, I'll let you know after

Scarlett wrote:
Try it, I'll let you know after

Very well. Before we begin, would you prefer that I loom over you and give you a shoulder rub while answering your question, or would you rather sit on my lap?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Scarlett wrote:
Try it, I'll let you know after

Very well. Before we begin, would you prefer that I loom over you and give you a shoulder rub while answering your question, or would you rather sit on my lap?

I think the answer to the question in the OP is; because they've met my mother.

I've heard that Irish women can be rather formidable. But nothing in comparison to Scottish women.

For example Sheena Easton

Men are not threatened by women. Period.

I have never met a man who is.

I cannot imagine what the experience of feeling threatened by a woman would be like.

This phenomenon does not exist.

pelfdaddy wrote:Men are not threatened by women. Period.

I have never met a man who is.

I cannot imagine what the experience of feeling threatened by a woman would be like.

This phenomenon does not exist.

I'm going to award this the prize for stupidest shit I read on the internet today.

Entire societies and world views exist that subjugate women.

Why?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I deeply respect The_Metatron, and will not respond to his insult in kind. Nor am I being deliberately provocative. I simply read the opening post and thought "The answer to 'why' men are threatened by women is...they aren't".

The "Entire societies and world views that subjugate women" certainly exist, and I detest them. These conditions come about through culture, religion, biology and tradition. But that is only stating the obvious.

These conditions do not persist because men are threatened by women.

pelfdaddy wrote:I deeply respect The_Metatron, and will not respond to his insult in kind. Nor am I being deliberately provocative. I simply read the opening post and thought "The answer to 'why' men are threatened by women is...they aren't".

The "Entire societies and world views that subjugate women" certainly exist, and I detest them. These conditions come about through culture, religion, biology and tradition. But that is only stating the obvious.

These conditions do not persist because men are threatened by women.

Then, why?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's a fun question to think about really. When religion and tradition have created a primitive patriarchal system, where women are abused, treated as property, and are held to be mere vessels of male shame and pride, men think of their way of life as "The way things are supposed to be".

In such a case, suppose there were women who protested against their status, and the "powers that be" were to have a change of heart, become more enlightened, and move toward equality. The general male population would perceive an attack on their faith, and that threat would be coming from the men in power who are compromising cherished tradition.

But the OP is not even talking about primitive cultures. The question seems to be along the lines of, why do modern men in our own relatively advanced culture perceive women to be a threat? Thousands of paragraphs could be spent in the exploration of "why" men sometimes resist what women would think of as an even playing field, but I just don't think that "threat" is a part of it. An inability to list many other sources of the problem having nothing to do with a perceived threat seems to be a result of not trying very hard.

So how do you account for behaviour like deliberately attacking women's football purely on the grounds that it's played by women?

pelfdaddy wrote:It's a fun question to think about really............................

[snip the bit about the perceived 'threat' coming from the men 'in power', because they are traditionally the ones who seem to feel the most threatened ]

But the OP is not even talking about primitive cultures. The question seems to be along the lines of, why do modern men in our own relatively advanced culture perceive women to be a threat? Thousands of paragraphs could be spent in the exploration of "why" men sometimes resist what women would think of as an even playing field, but I just don't think that "threat" is a part of it.

Oooh, I for one would like to see some of these paragraphs, the ones which demonstrate a total lack any kind of perceived 'threat' as a reason for such resistance. Should make for really interesting, and possibly enlightening, reading.

pelfdaddy wrote:
An inability to list many other sources of the problem having nothing to do with a perceived threat seems to be a result of not trying very hard.

You write as though it wouldn't be hard for you though, so off you go.

pelfdaddy wrote:Men are not threatened by women. Period.

I have never met a man who is.

I cannot imagine what the experience of feeling threatened by a woman would be like.

This phenomenon does not exist.

And this is basically the definition of an argument from personal incredulity.