• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Training men and boys to honor women in the age of #MeToo

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
I encourage everyone to read the following article as it is interesting in the discussion concerning the education of men and boys on the treatment of women:

Training men and boys to honor women in the age of #MeToo - CNN

I get the article as it discusses the social issues concerning masculinity and the gender-based stereotypes that follow. The principle values concerning "manhood" often entails certain social ideas indirectly relating to conservative Christian values, which presents itself with gender-based prejudices of men and women. I get it when we discuss sexism which we ought to alleviate young boys who learn these values, and that we need to teach our young not to be prejudice based on gender, and we need to alleviate ourselves from these social paradigms and expand the idea of "manhood" to make it more fluid and inclusive. I get it that when it comes to social abuses against women, men need to step up and check other men and say that it is wrong and that sexism is wrong. I get it that as a man if I ever become a parent to a son, I need to teach him how to be respectful to young girls and women and that they too are equal in terms of simply being human and deserve to have the same social rights and respect as he does. I also get that based on the article, men set the tone at home and outside at home and it is not just fathers but grand-fathers and great grandfathers.

I get it.....

The critique I have regarding this idea is not necessarily the idea itself, but the implicit labels it brings upon men and boys as if from the outset we are the culprits of these gender-based discriminatory practices. As an egalitarian, I think instead of making this a teachable moment specifically for men and boys I think these are teachable moments for both men and women, boys, and girls. I think a healthy dose of respect for human dignity and social justice is a task that all of us who exist now is the obligation we must all take upon ourselves. Because men, as well as women, are obligated to commence is social respect for each other and the fight against gender based discriminatory practices is not obligatory for men but for all of us.
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I encourage everyone to read the following article as it is interesting in the discussion concerning the education of men and boys on the treatment of women:

Training men and boys to honor women in the age of #MeToo - CNN

I get the article as it discusses the social issues concerning masculinity and the gender-based stereotypes that follow. The principle values concerning "manhood" often entails certain social ideas indirectly relating to conservative Christian values, which presents itself with gender-based prejudices of men and women. I get it when we discuss sexism which we ought to alleviate young boys who learn these values, and that we need to teach our young not to be prejudice based on gender, and we need to alleviate ourselves from these social paradigms and expand the idea of "manhood" to make it more fluid and inclusive. I get it that when it comes to social abuses against women, men need to step up and check other men and say that it is wrong and that sexism is wrong. I get it that as a man if I ever become a parent to a son, I need to teach him how to be respectful to young girls and women and that they too are equal in terms of simply being human and deserve to have the same social rights and respect as he does. I also get that based on the article, men set the tone at home and outside at home and it is not just fathers but grand-fathers and great grandfathers.

I get it.....

The critique I have regarding this idea is not necessarily the idea itself, but the implicit labels it brings upon men and boys as if from the outset we are the culprits of these gender-based discriminatory practices. As an egalitarian, I think instead of making this a teachable moment specifically for men and boys I think these are teachable moments for both men and women, boys, and girls. I think a healthy dose of respect for human dignity and social justice is a task that all of us who exist now is the obligation we must all take upon ourselves. Because men, as well as women, are obligated to commence is social respect for each other and the fight against gender based discriminatory practices is not obligatory for men but for all of us.

predators come in all types of guises.

How Often Do Women Rape Men? - The Atlantic
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Sure, teach girls and women to respect boys and men. But while you're at it, be sure to teach boys and men to respect girls and women. In business, if you want to cut costs, you start with your biggest single expense. You don't start with you second or third or fourth largest expense -- you start with your first and make your first cuts there.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It seems women are just as dishonorable and disrespectful themselves as men. I think it's a good thing to have a general respect for everybody, but I'm not going to treat every woman I meet like a wallflower or sweet or delicate that's undeserving of mutual respect or honor.

Those designations are earned.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I encourage everyone to read the following article as it is interesting in the discussion concerning the education of men and boys on the treatment of women:

Training men and boys to honor women in the age of #MeToo - CNN

I get the article as it discusses the social issues concerning masculinity and the gender-based stereotypes that follow. The principle values concerning "manhood" often entails certain social ideas indirectly relating to conservative Christian values, which presents itself with gender-based prejudices of men and women. I get it when we discuss sexism which we ought to alleviate young boys who learn these values, and that we need to teach our young not to be prejudice based on gender, and we need to alleviate ourselves from these social paradigms and expand the idea of "manhood" to make it more fluid and inclusive. I get it that when it comes to social abuses against women, men need to step up and check other men and say that it is wrong and that sexism is wrong. I get it that as a man if I ever become a parent to a son, I need to teach him how to be respectful to young girls and women and that they too are equal in terms of simply being human and deserve to have the same social rights and respect as he does. I also get that based on the article, men set the tone at home and outside at home and it is not just fathers but grand-fathers and great grandfathers.

I get it.....

The critique I have regarding this idea is not necessarily the idea itself, but the implicit labels it brings upon men and boys as if from the outset we are the culprits of these gender-based discriminatory practices. As an egalitarian, I think instead of making this a teachable moment specifically for men and boys I think these are teachable moments for both men and women, boys, and girls. I think a healthy dose of respect for human dignity and social justice is a task that all of us who exist now is the obligation we must all take upon ourselves. Because men, as well as women, are obligated to commence is social respect for each other and the fight against gender based discriminatory practices is not obligatory for men but for all of us.

One thing I noticed in the article was this part:

"Many men haven't felt this is their problem because they don't see themselves as the bad guy," said Ted Bunch, who co-founded A Call to Men, a men's violence prevention and socialization organization. "But what they don't understand is that even though most of us are not abusive, we are silent. And that makes us a bad guy."

I don't think the problem is that men are silent, but that there are too many mixed messages out there. If there are people who think that men and boys should be "trained" to honor women, then such training would have to be consistent with the current mores and values of the popular culture.

In the context of #metoo, we're talking about men who held a position of power and esteem who abused that power to get their rocks off. This seems to be a major part of the problem, that certain people reach a certain status where they become "big shots" and "untouchable" and seen as "irreproachable." So, they reach a position where they feel as if they can do whatever they want and get away with it - and oftentimes, they do.

The problem with the idea of "training men" is that most men already get that kind of training, but most of them will never reach the level of "big shot." Moreover, most men won't have the faintest clue as to how these big shots actually are behind closed doors. The only witnesses to the particular crimes they're committing are women, and if they don't speak up, men are powerless to do anything.

I, of course, will tell them that most of these big shots are scum anyway, but they won't believe me. They'd probably think that I'm just some sort of radical.

Some people actually idolize these big shots, particularly if they're Hollywood producers or of similar celebrity status.

Maybe people should be trained on how to properly view and perceive these so-called celebrities, big shots, and other supposed "movers and shakers" in society. That's actually more needed, and it would solve a multitude of problems in this society.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
How about all humans respecting all others.
Gender related issues can be addressed for each type.
(I'll add great apes, dolphins, whales, elephants & corvids later).
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
This is an interview with a young woman (Saxon Mullins) who at 18 entered legal adulthood and decided with a friend to test out her newfound freedom by going to one of the most immoral places in Sydney Australia and getting herself drunk and then experiencing the results....anal rape in a dark alleyway by someone she didn't know, and who assumed that a drunken woman was an easy target.

Saxon Mullins speaks to Four Corners

If you can watch this interview, the most important question in my mind and now in the minds of lawmakers is what constitutes "consent" both in the mind of the woman and in the man's interpretation of her actions?

When I heard a Muslim Imam interviewed some years ago, regarding the rape of women by Muslim men, he said something that actually made sense.....words to the effect of...."if you don't want the dog to eat, don't offer him meat."

When a female turns up at a place known as a pickup joint, dressed like a hooker, and is clearly drunk, how on earth can you blame an equally drunk male not to assume that she is there for the same reason he is?

The "#MeToo" campaign is important and way overdue in the entertainment industry....it goes way back to "the casting couch", known about for decades and yet only now is it coming out as immoral.....wasn't it always immoral?

We have lost our way when it comes to standards of morality. How much better is it to stay away from trouble than to court it and then have to live a lifetime of regret? I am wondering if Saxon Mullins, if given her time over, would have chosen to stay home that evening.....? This experience has ruined her life....but did she invite this on herself?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The "#MeToo" campaign is important and way overdue in the entertainment industry....it goes way back to "the casting couch", known about for decades and yet only now is it coming out as immoral.....wasn't it always immoral?

I think that anyone has been knowing since the 60s that sleeping with the producer is the procedure.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
And this magnificent zoological example clearly explains the difference between the civilized world and the animal world

If you look carefully at the Imam's suggestion, he is equally blaming the men as being the dogs, unable to control their urges, as he is the women who dress in a provocative way. Both are at fault.

The sexualizing of women is done with the intent to attract male attention.....once that attention is achieved, a male is suppose to be able to turn his arousal on and off like a faucet. I think we all know how strong this drive is in males of every species. So IMO there should be more of a responsibility placed on the way females present themselves. If you dress like a hooker, how can you complain if men want to treat you like one? :shrug:

In the animal kingdom, a male is alerted to a female by the hormones emitted at the time of ovulation. A female will only consent to mate if there is a pregnancy in the offing. She will repel males until such times as that is achievable.

That is not generally the case with humans. Because we are not like animals, our sexual urges were to be satisfied within a marriage arrangement.....which was a committed relationship that was designed to raise a family with one set of parents and children who were equally related to their siblings. Blended families have become the norm now and they don't always work out. Step parenting can become a nightmare.

"Commitment" is now almost unheard of with regard to marriage.....and "till death do us part" has lost all meaning.
I don't believe that it has made the world a happier place.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The critique I have regarding this idea is not necessarily the idea itself, but the implicit labels it brings upon men and boys as if from the outset we are the culprits of these gender-based discriminatory practices. As an egalitarian, I think instead of making this a teachable moment specifically for men and boys I think these are teachable moments for both men and women, boys, and girls. I think a healthy dose of respect for human dignity and social justice is a task that all of us who exist now is the obligation we must all take upon ourselves. Because men, as well as women, are obligated to commence is social respect for each other and the fight against gender based discriminatory practices i s not obligatory for men but for all of us.

I think there are some double standards...especially when the victim is a teenager.
Nobody is bothered by the fact that Macron is married to his high school teacher ..whom he met at 15 years old.
A male politician would have been crucified, if he had married his female student.
 
Last edited:

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
This is an interview with a young woman (Saxon Mullins) who at 18 entered legal adulthood and decided with a friend to test out her newfound freedom by going to one of the most immoral places in Sydney Australia and getting herself drunk and then experiencing the results....anal rape in a dark alleyway by someone she didn't know, and who assumed that a drunken woman was an easy target.

Saxon Mullins speaks to Four Corners

If you can watch this interview, the most important question in my mind and now in the minds of lawmakers is what constitutes "consent" both in the mind of the woman and in the man's interpretation of her actions?

When I heard a Muslim Imam interviewed some years ago, regarding the rape of women by Muslim men, he said something that actually made sense.....words to the effect of...."if you don't want the dog to eat, don't offer him meat."

When a female turns up at a place known as a pickup joint, dressed like a hooker, and is clearly drunk, how on earth can you blame an equally drunk male not to assume that she is there for the same reason he is?

The "#MeToo" campaign is important and way overdue in the entertainment industry....it goes way back to "the casting couch", known about for decades and yet only now is it coming out as immoral.....wasn't it always immoral?

We have lost our way when it comes to standards of morality. How much better is it to stay away from trouble than to court it and then have to live a lifetime of regret? I am wondering if Saxon Mullins, if given her time over, would have chosen to stay home that evening.....? This experience has ruined her life....but did she invite this on herself?

If you look carefully at the Imam's suggestion, he is equally blaming the men as being the dogs, unable to control their urges, as he is the women who dress in a provocative way. Both are at fault.

The sexualizing of women is done with the intent to attract male attention.....once that attention is achieved, a male is suppose to be able to turn his arousal on and off like a faucet. I think we all know how strong this drive is in males of every species. So IMO there should be more of a responsibility placed on the way females present themselves. If you dress like a hooker, how can you complain if men want to treat you like one? :shrug:

In the animal kingdom, a male is alerted to a female by the hormones emitted at the time of ovulation. A female will only consent to mate if there is a pregnancy in the offing. She will repel males until such times as that is achievable.

That is not generally the case with humans. Because we are not like animals, our sexual urges were to be satisfied within a marriage arrangement.....which was a committed relationship that was designed to raise a family with one set of parents and children who were equally related to their siblings. Blended families have become the norm now and they don't always work out. Step parenting can become a nightmare.

"Commitment" is now almost unheard of with regard to marriage.....and "till death do us part" has lost all meaning.
I don't believe that it has made the world a happier place.

Nice religion you have there. I can tell it's making your beliefs more benevolent and moral, as I have most typically come to expect from the dogma of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion.

On the bright side, I heard there were only about 144,000 people who would believe things like the above faithfully enough to make it to Heaven.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Nice religion you have there. I can tell it's making your beliefs more benevolent and moral, as I have most typically come to expect from the dogma of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion.

On the bright side, I heard there were only about 144,000 people who would believe things like the above faithfully enough to make it to Heaven.
I'm not a fan of JWs organization or the victim blaming going on with D's viewpoint, but I will say that JWs in general don't expect to go to heaven. They want to remain on Earth and restore it to Eden like conditions post apocalpse.

The 144,000 don't get there by extra faith, but I'm not aware of any known criterium. Did notice most were old white guys though. There is definitely a 'women are below men and all should adhere to gender norms' air in all the congregations and literature I've viewed. One of the plethora of reasons I left.

Of course, there are JW outside that normative thinking. (#notallJW) but they tend to be outside the governing body.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
When a female turns up at a place known as a pickup joint, dressed like a hooker, and is clearly drunk, how on earth can you blame an equally drunk male not to assume that she is there for the same reason he is?

You have a low opinion of men, whether you confess to it or not. Yeah, we're all animals who flush our morals down the drain the moment we see a bare belly or short skirt -- and none of us ever drink responsibly either. That's just asking too much of a man.

Thanks a lot.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Nice religion you have there. I can tell it's making your beliefs more benevolent and moral, as I have most typically come to expect from the dogma of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion.

To my way of thinking DS, there is something called responsibility....I can place that responsibility where I believe it lies. The "dogma" of Jehovah's Witnesses is the dogma espoused by Jesus Christ. Do you wish to argue with him?

You state no religion so I am guessing that you espouse atheist beliefs about morality? People are welcome to support whatever belief system that they choose...but as a Christian, I adhere to the standards laid down for Christ's followers in the Bible.

In Matthew 5: 27-28....Jesus said to those who adhered to the law...“You heard that it was said: ‘You must not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This is about what precipitates an action....how the result stems from a chain reaction. Its not the "looking" so much as the "keep looking" that is the first step to a bad result.

The apostle Paul likewise said..."Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of those things the wrath of God is coming. 7 That is how you too used to conduct yourselves in your former way of life. 8 But now you must put them all away from you: wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene talk out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another. Strip off the old personality with its practices, 10 and clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it".

Now, as one who adheres to the teachings of the Bible....(not just the dogma of any church) if the Bible says that something is immoral, then I will take that to mean it reflects God's thoughts on the matter. His standards don't change just because ours do. He does not endorse either one extreme or the other. The world has no moral standards anymore and I don't think its a better place because of that....do you?

1 Timothy 2:9-10.... "Likewise, the women should adorn themselves in appropriate dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive clothing, 10 but in the way that is proper for women professing devotion to God, namely, through good works."

So, to me that means that the way we dress tells people a lot about who we are and what standards we represent. Dressing with modesty will not usually attract unwanted attention. It doesn't give men mixed messages about what a woman is 'advertising'. You will notice that dressing to give the impression of wealth is not desirable either. Women professing to worship God do not want to give the wrong impression.

On the bright side, I heard there were only about 144,000 people who would believe things like the above faithfully enough to make it to Heaven.

Since it was not God's intention to take any human to heaven in the beginning, we believe that the majority of humankind will live forever right here on earth in paradise conditions, where God put us in the first place. The only reason he chose a limited number to go to heaven was to rule with Christ in a kingdom that will bring redeemed humans back into a good relationship with their Creator, which was lost when Adam chose to rebel.

God chooses the members of that heavenly government, not us. (Revelation 14:2-4) So the number saved could be in the millions....

Do you really know anything about our beliefs? So many people make judgments without knowing very much about us at all except for what our opposers say about us. Jesus and his disciples experienced the same problem. (John 15:18-21)

Here are some links if you want to know.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/...ministry/jehovahs-witnesses-who-are-we-intro/

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-gods-kingdom-will-do/

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-study/gods-promises-for-humans/
 
Top