Animavore wrote:As a guy who has been left shaking and stuttering by highly attractive women on some occasions, I can tell you that men can be threatened by women.

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.

pelfdaddy wrote:Maybe I just see this whole "men threatened by women" notion as a cultural meme left over from the seventies.

The point of this exemplum seems to have been to warn men of the threatening power of women. If even the wise and most learned Aristotle could be reduced to a rude animal by lust and the wiles of a woman, how much more would lesser men suffer. Initially the story probably reinforced other exempla that illustrated similar ideas, e.g., Adam and Eve, Samson and Delilah.

pelfdaddy wrote:
In the many problematic areas that include male and female interaction, can no one think of alternatives to the received liberal wisdom that women constitute a threat? Really?

Doubtdispelled wrote:

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:I hope I am not perceived as negligent for tossing a grenade and diving for cover. I am at work right now, and cannot quickly respond to multiple comments. I do wish to address a couple of things, though:

I am not arguing from incredulity. I said I thought the premise was simply mistaken, and then added the comment that I have no idea what feeling threatened by a woman would be like. I just do not see it as a real thing.

And I did not say that the concept was invented in the seventies, only that it seems to have been repeated since that time, so often that it has become scripture for many. By scripture, I mean: receive liberal wisdom.

In the many problematic areas that include male and female interaction, can no one think of alternatives to the received liberal wisdom that women constitute a threat? Really?

Men are more violent when there are more women around

More men inevitably means more testosterone-fuelled violence, right? Wrong, according to a comprehensive analysis exploring how a surplus of men or women affect crime rates across the US.

In areas where men outnumber women, there were lower rates of murders and assaults as well as fewer sex-related crimes, such as rapes, sex offences and prostitution. Conversely, higher rates of these crimes occurred in areas where there were more women than men.
...
According to Schacht, when women are in short supply, men must be more dutiful to win and retain a partner. With an abundance of women, men are spoilt for choice and adopt more promiscuous behaviour that brings them into conflict with other men, and more likely to commit sex-related offences.

“When women are rare they become a valued resource and this gives them more bargaining power over what they expect from a relationship,” says Schacht. “But when women are abundant, men become less committed to single partners and more interested in pursuing multiple relationships,” he says. “This brings men into conflict with each other in response to their more uncommitted, promiscuous mating orientation.”

The upshot, says Schacht, is that men alter their behaviour to suit conditions of “supply and demand”. “In some situations they will be much better behaved, and in others they will be much more prone to nasty behaviour,” he says.

I'm With Stupid wrote:So how do you account for behaviour like deliberately attacking women's football purely on the grounds that it's played by women?

This is just two days after I read the comments on a story about women's football, with a large number of people angry that it's even being covered as a news story (bear in mind it was the game that won them the league, not just some random game).

pelfdaddy wrote:Fallible (and others...)

I agree that proving my assertion is entirely my problem. I just have to hope that the inability to do so quickly and in brief, with no delays due to other commitments, will not be pounced upon as owing to "maybe you got nuthin' ". What would you call that? Argument from Hurry-up-and-Post?

laklak wrote:

tuco wrote:
I dunno .. idiocy? Idiots are everywhere.

And more of them then ever before, if my observations are accurate. We're swimming in a sea of idiocy, hammered repeatedly by veritable tsunamis of idiots. Idiots to the left of us, idiots to the right of us, idiots in front of us blithered and blundered.

laklak wrote:Into the Valley of Trump rode The 60,000,000.