I think CMC, brider and Paul have the issue pretty clear. Taking the gender out of it - If a person behaves/says something you find stupid(insert adjective), then you find that behaviour/train of thought to be stupid(or whatever). Some will go even further and make character assumptions based on that one interaction.
I think where the problem lies in regard to women using the “You’re threatened by me being a strong woman” argument and the man insisting he’s not threatened, he just dislikes what she has to say. Brider’s right. There is no way to prove male or female correct in this situation.
Why do women use it? Because by and large, it’s true. I could cite example after example ad nauseum of times when I have said “X” and been attacked/ridiculed only to have a man say the exact same thing and have him be applauded - both in work situations and social ones. I could cite example after example ad nauseum of times when I have behaved in “X” way and been attacked/ridiculed only to see men do the exact same thing and have no one think twice of it.
Why is this so? Is it because what I said or did was wrong/bad/stupid/whatever? No. Because if it was, then the guy should have been ripped apart too - AND HE WASN’T. So what am I to make of that? Am I to accept this double standard? Fuck no. Was I attacked because I don’t often conform to what society says a “nice, moral, demure” girl should do or say? Well, that would make sense, now wouldn’t it. What other conclusion is there to come to beside that because I AM a strong woman and KNOW my own mind and ACT accordingly, society be damned, that the reaction I get is because people are threatened by a strong woman?
It’d be such a welcome change to have someone attack me for something and then see them be consistant and attack a man for the same goddamn thing.
Someone brought up Maureen’s article. Well, you know, TC and Chris have had their share of “flamers” over some of the topics they’ve written about. Most recent was Chris’ thing about defending your home or whatever that some yahoos twisted into a statement on the Iraq deal. Even so, I don’t recall seeing so many PERSONAL character assasinations in that thread. Did they bash him on any personal level? Nope, don’t recall that happening. Arguing over ideology, yes. But personal stuff? Feel free to quote it and refresh my memory (which may be failing since I’m plagued by estrogen). Oh yeah, remind me also, was it just one or two threads or did four or five people springboard off into their own tangents on how bad a person he is? And did his name/article get injected demeaningly into around half of the other threads (in one form or fashion) regardless of topic? I don’t recall that happening either. I think it was one (maybe two) threads and I think they pretty much stuck to the issues.
Why bring this up for comparison? Because if people were not threatened by Maureen being a strong woman and stating in plain English what so many of us have experienced on one level or another - why the fuck did she get so many PERSONAL attacks? Don’t try to blame it on her writing style making her out to be this or that. Writing style is precisely that - STYLE. To their credit, there were a handful of posts on those threads that were relatively objective and did address things such as relevancy and content without degrading into a personal attack. But why were there only a handful of these posts compared to the hundered plus that were personal?
I didn’t gather even 1/100 of the negative context/connotations that a lot of people here on the board did. Why not? Because I dig a strong, vocal woman. Men have said the same fucking things about sex for eons and no one’s gotten up in arms over that. Why get all riled up over this? Why make it personal if not because it hit them in a very personal way? And how more personal can it get than to threaten someone’s ego?