Is "boys will be boys" an OK concept??

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

alj said: "Years ago you said something similar when I took issue with your sexual comments on a WIP thread, culminating with your remarks about the probable condition of my panties when I was aroused.  (Which you then promptly CC'ed and started accusing me of frigidity for telling you it was inappropriate,  CC'ing those comments later as well.)  There are members here now who were here then.  I'm guessing they remember.  It is definitely something I'm not likely to forget."



I remember that. I think I said something about you were acting like your underwear was stuck up your butt, or something to that nature. It had nothing to do with you as a person, it had to do with the story you were writing: DANIELS DEAUGHTER. I gave you a suggestion to help make the characters more real. For some stupid reason you were offended?  I figured it was just because you had no idea what normal sex was about between a man and a women...I still think that. And yes, I do believe you don't trust men. It's not that I dislike you, I think you are a nice person. If I was marooned on an island with you, and my two options were to say on the Island, or swim one hundred miles through shark infested waters...what do you think i would do? Wrong. I would stay on the Island. lol.

You remember incorrectly.  The discussion re Daniel's Daughter is still there.  In it, I reference the disucssion re Redstone's Valley which you deleted.  I was being gracious to you, even though you were suggesting I include some sexually explicit descriptions, and tried to explain that Maria, living in a protected society, would not have been "enlightend."  At which point you asked me if I had never had "wet panties" before I was "enlightened."  I told you that you were overstepping a boundary.  You replied that I was obviously frigid.

This is as good a definition I can come up with of the term "sexual harrassment."  You clearly do not have a clue as to how to behave around women, and while the things you have said to me were probably the most explicit and out of line, you frequently make innuendos and say things to and about women that are not only inappropriate, but probably  illegal.

Abe F. March wrote:

Domenic, your remark has merit. 
My wife went through a very rough time when she came to the States.  She was 6 years old during the war, witnessing much and enduring hardships.  When she came to the States, it was not just a cultural change, but she was treated as the enemy.  Remarks made about her being German hurt.  She didn’t tell me about it until years later.  There was also a problem with our family and the church that tried to convert her that made her life miserable.  She was told that I could divorce her since she was an “unbeliever”.  That is when we moved.  I took a job in Chicago with IBM.  We never looked back.  We moved 39 times since we were married.  Each move required adjustment.  It was a learning experience not just within the USA, but also in other countries.  Fitting in required understanding of the culture and mentality of the people.  If I had married a local girl, I most likely would have settled in my hometown area and never experienced the world.  We would never have experienced “The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat”.
My wife is one of the most intelligent people I know.  That is a story in itself.  I had to resort to the dictionary to find the right term to describe my wife.  The word “Intelligent” combines the terms: “Smart” and “Clever” that also includes experience.
We had our problems to be sure, but worked them out.  Fifty-three years of marriage attests to that.  Is she perfect in my eyes?  No, but then I’m sure she feels the same about me.  We agree more often than not and that I believe is the result of experiencing much together.  There is no such thing as “This is woman’s work or man’s work”.  If something needs done, whoever is available does it.    There are many examples I could give, but don’t want to bore you.  Honesty is her biggest weakness.  Learning is her strength.  She questions everything. 
She is not on any forum and doesn’t like to use the PC.  If she were on a forum such as this, I don’t think her remarks would set well with most.  She tells it like she sees it.

Abe, 53 years together. As you know, here in the States that is a hall mark. I understand how your wife was treated here being German. I'm Italian, and during WW2 I was the enemy at school. My father came here as a young child, and believed he was American. The Government arrested him with many other Italian men. They released my father after he became a citizen, and he had to go into the service, and did two of his brothers. Sometimes this is a strange country.
aybe you should write the story about your wife, and her family.

9/12
              Abe..

                     I applaud you wife , she sounds like someone I would love to know. I too in
my younger years had seen discrimination when someone where I worked somehow found out
my background was German, they made my life hell, so I went to the head boss and I told him
about the woman who worked across the way from me ( It was an office) his smart ass answer
to me was you have to understand what Hitler did. I came back with what she and you don't
seem to understand is my family came to the USA in 1864 from Germany, my people had nothing
to do with what Hitler did and another thing my grandfather was considered a black German which
means he had dark hair and dark eyes , they would have killed him and me if I were around then
I would have been killed for having a big mouth, I stayed another two months and left....

                                                          Cheers...Joe

alj wrote:

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

alj said: "Years ago you said something similar when I took issue with your sexual comments on a WIP thread, culminating with your remarks about the probable condition of my panties when I was aroused.  (Which you then promptly CC'ed and started accusing me of frigidity for telling you it was inappropriate,  CC'ing those comments later as well.)  There are members here now who were here then.  I'm guessing they remember.  It is definitely something I'm not likely to forget."



I remember that. I think I said something about you were acting like your underwear was stuck up your butt, or something to that nature. It had nothing to do with you as a person, it had to do with the story you were writing: DANIELS DEAUGHTER. I gave you a suggestion to help make the characters more real. For some stupid reason you were offended?  I figured it was just because you had no idea what normal sex was about between a man and a women...I still think that. And yes, I do believe you don't trust men. It's not that I dislike you, I think you are a nice person. If I was marooned on an island with you, and my two options were to say on the Island, or swim one hundred miles through shark infested waters...what do you think i would do? Wrong. I would stay on the Island. lol.

You remember incorrectly.  The discussion re Daniel's Daughter is still there.  In it, I reference the disucssion re Redstone's Valley which you deleted.  I was being gracious to you, even though you were suggesting I include some sexually explicit descriptions, and tried to explain that Maria, living in a protected society, would not have been "enlightend."  At which point you asked me if I had never had "wet panties" before I was "enlightened."  I told you that you were overstepping a boundary.  You replied that I was obviously frigid.

This is as good a definition I can come up with of the term "sexual harrassment."  You clearly do not have a clue as to how to behave around women, and while the things you have said to me were probably the most explicit and out of line, you frequently make innuendos and say things to and about women that are not only inappropriate, but probably  illegal.

You have some strange idea that people 100=200 years ago never had sex. Your story reads like a Hollywood movie from the 1940's, were they couldn't even say one bad word. You use, "enlightend" for the word sex. As to, "Wet Panties," that was used to try to get you to put real life feelings into your story...you take my suggestions ABOUT YOUR STUPID STORY AS SEXUAL HARRASSMENT."  That is why you can't write feelings into your characters...because your feelings are all screwed up. And if you think my comments on that stupid post are against the law...REPORT IT TO THE POLICE, and YES, I WOULD SWIM OF THE ISLAND.

The topic of this thread was Is "boys will be boys" an OK concept?  It is my opinion that the concept is not OK and perpetuates a culture among some men, definitely not all, that women are less human and therefore abuse is OK.  Fortunately, there are men like Vice President Biden and others who speak up regarding changes that are necessary to stop this abuse.  That's what it takes. It takes men choosing to change their culture and not tolerate boys of any age harming another human being.

Thanks for bring us back on topic.  It's much like having a conversation that goes into many directions. 
As for the topic, I think I made myself clear about it.  I think that boys and girls will be what parents allow them to be.  It begins in the home followed by the school.  A parenting school would be a wise move.  Some parents just don't know how to raise children and what to do when children disobey.

Abe F. March wrote:

Thanks for bring us back on topic.  It's much like having a conversation that goes into many directions. 
As for the topic, I think I made myself clear about it.  I think that boys and girls will be what parents allow them to be.  It begins in the home followed by the school.  A parenting school would be a wise move.  Some parents just don't know how to raise children and what to do when children disobey.

And as the originator of the thread, author of the OP, I agree with DK's perspective on the intent of the thread.

Of course, parenting is an important part.  So are the attitudes of the society and culture, and even here in the US, the prevailing culture accepts the concept and does not correct the boys who are overly aggressive, especially in their demeaning behavior towards girls, verbally and too often physically.  Boys will be boys, but girls who defend themselves and set limits are emasculating bi***es who hate the boys who are just being boys.  

As long as that is the underlying message, parenting schols will only perpetuate the abuse.  And accepting, even approving, the comments of a verbal abuser is, in itself, a form of abuse.

And not all boys are destructive, and those who are not generally grow up into enlightend (pun intended) men who appreciate the intellect of the women in their lives, and that is far more erotic than including overtly sexual narration in a historical genre story where it is clearly out of place.

Abe F. March wrote:

Thanks for bring us back on topic.  It's much like having a conversation that goes into many directions. 
As for the topic, I think I made myself clear about it.  I think that boys and girls will be what parents allow them to be.  It begins in the home followed by the school.  A parenting school would be a wise move.  Some parents just don't know how to raise children and what to do when children disobey.

Most of us on this forum were raised in the same generation. A generation looked back on as, "The good old days." The present generation is very different, as will be the next, and again, the next. The few bad people always over shadow the many good. Here is a truth; Each generation will be looked upon by the following, as the good old days.

This blown out of proportion, men abusing women issue, is akin to the people of Ferguson MO. Here is a truth you can take to the bank; There have always been people who abuse others. The key here is to learn about a person before you get into a relationship with them. Most people do not do this, they don’t know how.  If you get attached to an abuser, understand that abuser was who he/she was before you jumped into the fire. Did you take the needed time to see the other person in good, and bad situations?  Did you look at their family, and friends?  What I see is some women jump into a relationship, and when the truth of the abuser comes to light, they start screaming how bad men are, and something has to be done to stop these men. You can’t round up all the sickies. Women have to stop letting the need for a man blind them. If women were to take the time to learn about a man they are attracted to…and this takes time, the sick abusers will have less victims.  It’s like not getting in a car with a stranger at 2:00 AM.  Educate women about how to enter, or not enter a relationship, and most of the abuse will never happen.
Before one fly's an airplane, the check it out. Looking at all the control surfaces, etc. If they don't, and the wings fall off in flight...it's called pilot error...not airplane error.
If you jump into a relationship with an abuser...don't blame it on the abuser...he/she is a sick person. Those who jump in bed with such, are stupid.

Another bit of cross posting. 

 Once again, if there is societal approval of abuse, regardless of laws, then the abusers will only get a slap on the wrist, and send the victims back to the perps.

Think Nicole Brown Simpson.

Just sayin'

alj wrote:

Another bit of cross posting. 

 Once again, if there is societal approval of abuse, regardless of laws, then the abusers will only get a slap on the wrist, and send the victims back to the perps.

Think Nicole Brown Simpson.

Just sayin'

Most women never figure out why a judge puts most of the blame on the women...
Nicole brown Simpson  jumped into bed with an abuser before she checked him out. If she had, she, and her friend would be alive today. OJ is a sick person...not crazy...sick.
Can you put blame on a person who is sick? The law can't arrest people before they do something bad...that means each of us has to know what the other person is before we enter into a relationship with them. There are always red flags. A sick person can act normal...but they can't maintain that. Given time their true self will come out. Women have to start learning to take responsibility for the relationships they get into. This is not a perfect world. You have to live within the nature of its people. You can sit in your little dark room, and hold the theory, "Love will cure the world." This is a sick world. People need to protect their self. Those who do not, get into a world of trouble. This has never been a safe world.

Ah, yes.  She asked for it.

Rest my case, again.

alj wrote:

Ah, yes.  She asked for it.

Rest my case, again.

alj,
you are a person who will never learn...sit back, and put your faults onto the men you have had in your life...you are a red flag. Every judge in thee country has to deal with people like you everyday...your kind just don't get it, and most of your postings prove that out.

Again, I rest my case.

Re-read your own posts, Pappalardo, at least the ones you haven't deleted to protect yourself,and ask yourself, who is proving out whom.

alj wrote:

Again, I rest my case.

Re-read your own posts, Pappalardo, at least the ones you haven't deleted to protect yourself,and ask yourself, who is proving out whom.

You need to grow up.

You're running out of over-used retorts, Pappalardo.

To borrow one of them, I'm done with you.

alj wrote:

You're running out of over-used retorts, Pappalardo.

To borrow one of them, I'm done with you.

Promises, promises…I hope you keep this one. (Again.)

Women do take responsibility for their relationships.  That's why they end up dead when the abuser's pattern becomes violent.  Women don't tell.  They don't seek help.  Even when beaten nearly to death they lie to protect the abuser.  It's very similar to child abuse.  A child will protect the abusing parent as it's what they know.  However, the psychology of these matters is complex and not something easily shared in a forum of lay people.  It's difficult enough for those who are trained.

As responsible citizens, however, we can speak for those who don't speak for themselves and not condone reprehensible words and behaviors that demean women.  It is that reduction to less than human that provides the fertile environment to escalate abuse. 

"Normal" is a matter of degree.  Some societies condone the abuse of women and encourage it.  Fortunately, the United States has evolved to the point where women are entitled to respect.  Some people are not fully evolved.

Codependent women. This is when a women stays with a bad man. The following list has to be a part of who she is before she meets the wrong guy.

According to Codependents Anonymous World Fellowship, the following are

six of a long list of characteristics of codependency:

She has difficulty identifying what she is feeling
She has difficulty making decisions
She harshly judges everything she thinks, says, or does – as never “good enough”
She does not perceive herself as a lovable or worthwhile person
She puts aside her own interests and hobbies in order to do what others want
She compromises her own values and integrity to avoid rejection, or others’ anger

Some years ago, I came across a book called Women's Ways of Knowing, by Mary Field Belenky and several other knowing women.

In this particular instance, 
Wikipedia has an excellent brief summary, so I won't need to go into a history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Ways_of_Knowing

Quote :

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) examined the epistemology, or "ways of knowing", of a diverse group of women, with a focus on identity and intellectual development across a broad range of contexts including but not limited to the formal educational system. While conceptually grounded originally in the work of William G. Perry (1970) in cognitive (or intellectual) development and Carol Gilligan (1982) in moral/personal development in women, the authors discovered that existing developmental theories at the time did not address some issues and experiences that were common and significant in the lives and cognitive development of women (Love and Guthrie 1999). While the developmental positions described in "Women's Ways of Knowing" overlap to a large degree with Perry's cognitive developmental scheme, the authors describe additional knowledge perspectives not observed in Perry's study (Perry 1970) and report gender-related influences on cognitive development in women.

The first stage described by Belenky, et al was that of Silence

Quote :

... describes women who felt disconnected from knowledge, the sources of knowledge and their relationship to knowledge (West 2004, Love and Guthrie 1999, Belenky et al. 1986). This knowledge perspective, while relatively rare in the women studied and not a necessary precursor to other positions, was absent in Perry's scheme (1970) and not represented in other cognitive developmental theories of the time (West 2004). Women describing this position were notable for their extreme sense of isolation and fear of authorities, their fragile sense of self, and feelings of being "deaf and dumb", i.e., having no independent voice. Women in this knowledge position were often young, of limited education, socioeconomically poor, and very often had experienced a history of abuse. These women viewed themselves as being incapable of knowing or thinking, appeared to conduct little or no internal dialogue and generally felt no sense of connection with others. Their "acts of knowing" involved only specific actions and behaviors occurring in the present (Love and Guthrie 1999). Notably, amongst these women, words were viewed as weapons used to inflict harm, to isolate and to diminish others (Belenky et al. 1986). Authorities of knowledge were viewed as all-powerful and experiences with authority were overwhelmingly negative for these women. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule emphasize that women who are characterized by the position of silence were overwhelmingly raised "in profound isolation under the most demeaning circumstances" and that their feelings of being "deaf and dumb" originate in a profound lack of confidence in their own "meaning-making and meaning-sharing abilities", rather than a lack of intellectual endowment.

This description provides an explanation for the behavior of abuse victims, who feel too helpless to fight back or leave a relationship.  The phrase, "words are weapons" shows how they view language.  In their experience, words are used by men who control their lives as verbal violence.  As this is often their only experience, they grow up expecting such words, and take the blame when they are abused.

Quote :

Received knowledge describes the epistemological position in which women in the study perceived knowledge as a set of absolute truths received from infallible authorities. The process of learning, as understood by received knowers, involves receiving and repeating the knowledge and words of authorities. In this sense words are no longer viewed as weapons, and are seen as critical to the learning process, but the origin and meaning of words and knowledge remain external (Love and Guthrie 1999). Women characterizing this position lacked confidence in their own ability to speak and generally defined themselves externally, usually in relation to social norms, gender roles and expectations of others, i.e., cultural ideals of women as set forth by external authorities. Received knowers tended to find disagreement, paradox or ambiguity intolerable (Love and Guthrie 1999) since these violated the black-and-white absolutist nature of knowledge. The authors note that in their study received knowers generally had little experience with female role models in authority positions and often emphasized selflessness and care of others as their primary role in life. However, Love and Guthrie (1999) emphasize Belenky et al.'s finding that the experience of giving birth provided an important stimulus in moving women from a position of silence to a position of received knowledge

I have often noticed over time that having children and becoming mothers has led silent women into this next stage.  They still do not trust their own wisdom, and often look to outside experts for help in being "good mothers,"  but it provides that initial step toward having a voice.

Quote :

Subjective knowledge is characterized by the recognition of the self as an authority. Subjective knowers rely on their own subjective thoughts, feelings and experiences for knowledge and truth - the "infallible gut" as Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule refer to it. Women with this perspective at some point experienced the development of a "protesting inner voice" (Love and Guthrie 1999), which allowed them to make their own claims to truth and knowledge. Along with the nascent discovery of the inner voice, subjective knowers showed a general distrust of analysis and logical reasoning (Love and Guthrie 1999) and did not see value in considering the weight of evidence in evaluating knowledge. Instead, they considered knowledge and truth to be inherently personal and subjective, to be experienced rather than intellectualized. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule state that subjective knowers often block out conflicting opinions of others, but may seek the support and affirmation of those in agreement. The authors note that half of the women in their study occupied this position, but that they were spread across the full range of ages. Like women characterizing the first two positions, pervasive sexual harassment and abuse was evident in the personal histories of subjective knowers, but unlike the first two positions, these women generally felt optimism and positivity towards the future . Love and Guthrie (1999) emphasize that the transition to subjective knowledge was most often driven by positive changes in the personal lives of women (a shift to equitable, mutually-respectful in particular), rather than experiences within the educational system.

Thomas Harris, in I'm OK; you're OK,  pointed out that the progression often involved a stage where individuals decided, "I may not be OK, but neither are you," and began to trust their own perceptions.  Often, it is a necessary step in learning.
This stage was recognized in Perry's study of the ways men learn:

Quote :

  
 Subjective knowledge is similar to Perry's multiplicity, in that both emphasize personal intuition and truth. However, Perry identified the typical age of the transition to multiplicity as early adolescence, while the women in the above study exhibited this transition over the whole spectrum of ages studied. Love and Guthrie (1999) also emphasize that, while this transition is relatively smooth for many of Perry's men, rejection of the past, sometimes including geographic relocation, was critical to this transition in many women 

Eventually, as long as the learning process is not halted, both women and men move on In their levels of learning and critical thinking.  They come to a point of recognition of the concept of relativatity, and the realization that what is true and real to some groups and/or individuals, is not necessarily true for others.  At this stage, they move from either/or thinking into both/and, and can accept the fact that their own perspectives are often limited.  Belenky's study went farther than Perry's at this point, in seeing that what Perry called relativisim could be explored, not only through logic, but analogy as well, which gave the learners a broader perspective for drawing viable conclusions:

Quote :

procedural knowledge reflects the recognition that multiple sources of knowledge exist, and that procedures are necessary for evaluating the relative merit of these sources. Procedural knowers focus on methods and techniques for evaluating the accuracy of external truth and the relative worth of authority. The transition to procedural knowledge was experienced by many women in the study as a regression or crisis of confidence initially, as the inner voice of subjective knowing became critical both of external authorities and internal subjective knowledge (Love and Guthrie 1999). However, what followed was the recognition that insights and information outside of personal experience could have bearing on knowledge. Procedural knowers sought to understand authorities, focusing on reasoned reflection rather than absolutism (Love and Guthrie 1999) and the use of context-specific procedures to evaluate information that could be interpreted in multiple ways (West 2004). Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule describe two alternative modes of procedural knowledge: separate knowing and connected knowing. Separate knowers tend to be adversarial and focused on critical analysis that excludes personal feelings and beliefs. Academic environments often favored this form of procedural knowledge. Connected knowers on the other hand seek to understand others' ideas and points of view, emphasizing the relevance of context in the development of knowledge and the fundamental value of experience. Most procedural knowers in this study were economically privileged, Caucasian, young college students or graduates.

Eventually, if individuals stay involved in the learning process, they reach a stage referred to by Perry as "commitment."  The term used by Belenky is "constructed knowing," which comes closer to the realization in post-modern thinking that reality is "constructed," and different for each individual depending on the perspectives developed in their own life experience.


I've talked about that before.


What is significant here is that women who are exposed to childhood and spousal abuse are more often "silenced," and have no voice, so that they are forced to depend on the men - father an husbands - who control them.  Finding the means to break away and trust themselves is often hard-earned and hard-won, and society's tendency to suppress them is still a major problem.


But that is part of the paradigm shift, and many men who have relied on society to approve and back up their abusive control is diminishing, and along with it, their sense of power.  We are seeing many instances of them fighting back, and as in the case of Ray Rice, being reduced to the "need" to become physically violent.

The codependency list does not conflict with the boiled frog theory.  She is groomed to think that way, demeaned and dehumanized until some or all of those statements may, indeed, describe her.  That does not give the abuser the right to  escalate verbal and emotional abuse to violence.  That does not make the victim "guilty."

"Codependency" is also a term that those who wish to label victims with something less than flattering latch onto as an explanation for abuse.  Abuse is abuse.  Violence against another person is assault and punishable by law.

dkchristi,
 i am not defending abuse in any form. I am 100% against it. It takes two to make a war. In a relationship, good, or bad...it also takes two. There can be no good, or bad relationship unless two people take part in it. The abuser  has mental, and, or social problems. The victim who allows their self to enter into, or remain in a relationship that is abusive, also has mental, and, or social problems. Both parties have these problems before they engage in such a relationship.
It is true to say, women are care givers. Thus a women may feel, as the relationship is in development, that love, or how they treat the male will make him a better person.  An abuser will all most always maintain a good guy front early into a relationship. But here is a known fact. Anybody with mental, and, or social problems can not maintain this false front beyond a limited time. That is why before getting to deep, enough time must given to see the real person. Those who break that rule become a part of the problem.
This is why a judge will always want to know… “How long have you known this person?”
Most people marry within the first six months to a year. Would it not be better to wait three, or more years ? I’m sure most abusers can not hold a good guy front that long.
If a person wants to avoid being a victim, they must take responsibility for how they enter into a relationship.  Most people spend more time when buying a car, than they do getting married. The divorce rate is about 70% in America…does that not ring a big bell?

alj wrote:

You're running out of over-used retorts, Pappalardo.

To borrow one of them, I'm done with you.

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

Promises, promises…I hope you keep this one. (Again.)

Speaking of keeping promises, I seem to recall one of yours:

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

I have said all that is required of me. I leave you, and your friends to dance around your Golden calf.
I kick the dust from my feet, and ban myself form your forum.

Don Stephens wrote:

alj wrote:

You're running out of over-used retorts, Pappalardo.

To borrow one of them, I'm done with you.

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

Promises, promises…I hope you keep this one. (Again.)

Speaking of keeping promises, I seem to recall one of yours:

Domenic Pappalardo wrote:

I have said all that is required of me. I leave you, and your friends to dance around your Golden calf.
I kick the dust from my feet, and ban myself form your forum.

What i say I say up front, I read the comment you made about me AFTER I LEFT. That makes you the little back staber you are. I have three fingers for you
El Don...read between the lines.

9/12

                   Isn't it interesting not one person has mentioned Male abuse? It happens,
                   I know of two guys who lived together in Nebraska and the one guy used
                   to beat the hell out of the other guy, then beg forgivness and give him a
                   new car or a rolex watch..To me that was sick and I told him so. They
                   were together for 19 yrs. We'll guess God works in strange ways the one
                   who did the beating got sick, got a stap infection and died...But abuse 
                   happens to everyone....

                                                               Cheers..Joe

When I saw the video of the knock-out punch, I said to my wife:  "I wonder what she did or said that caused him to do that?"  She said:  "There is no excuse for him to hit his wife." 
"I realize that, but something caused him to lash out.  That's my question.  I can't believe that anyone would just hit someone without a reason."

I'm still wondering what caused him to lash out.  I'm not condoning what he did, but I refuse to believe that he hit her for no reason.