I never "assumed" women and men *must* to flirt in the way that they do in our heteronormative society, or that this is the only possible successful route. I'm simply narrating the flirting norms of the society we live in and attempting to explain how this reflects feminist theory. You are too desperate to accuse me of making a blanket statement to see that.
I deliberately use sophisticated language to avoid making that sort of blanket statement. *Anything* I say could be made sexist if you decide to pretend I said "this is the only way" when I didn't. Anything I say could be made sexist if you decide to pretend I wasn't talking about heteronormativity when I clearly said I was. This isn't backing down from anything I previous said; if you actually read what I said, you'd know that I never was making any blanket statements.
I get that you're eager to dismiss me as a stereotypical man-hating, sexist feminist. But you can't, because I'm not. If you quit putting all your energy into your pointless quest of catching me out and actually listen to what I say, you might find that I'm actually not so bad.
So you are assuming it is the "norm" for women to act submissive and meek to gain male attraction? That it is the norm that men are attracted to such women, women that they can dominate over? So, what you are saying is that women think this is the primary way to attract men given it is the "norm" of how they attract men? I disagree.
You stated: "Heteronormative flirting gives women the task of balancing displays of the kind of feminine appeal that is traditionally attractive (i.e. submissive, meek sexuality) with showing enough proactivity to draw male attention."
You say we live in a heteronormative society and in the quote claim this is how we flirt with one another as a norm, i.e. women being submissive and meek to flirt because it is traditionally feminine, and why would anybody gravitate towards a certain method of attracting? Because it works best with the thing you are trying to attract, in this case men, so it is implying it is the norm for men to primarily be attracted to submissive and meek women because that is how women flirt in the "norm" to attract men, by giving them what they desire.
I agree I jumped the gun in saying that you think "all" women act this way, I should of stated that you think most women act this way.
Ah, here we go. The victim routine. Let me start off by saying you don't get to assume my beliefs. Get that in your head first.
Do I think you are a man hater? No.
Do I think you are a sexist? In some senses, but not in general.
Do I think you are a feminist? Yes, I am sure you stated you were before.
"But you can't, because I'm not". Hence why I didn't say you were and you are assuming I think so. This whole part is you trying to change the subject and make it about you so's to dismiss what I say as just another attack on you, which if you keep on doing then I see no point in talking to you. I do not like you, Dom. I am sure you dislike me, too but how we view eachother is irrelevant. I have not attacked your character here other than this last paragraph and I use the term attacked loosely. I am focusing on what is said rather than who you are. Give the same respect.
Is it normal that I think guys and girls should be treated equal?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I never "assumed" women and men *must* to flirt in the way that they do in our heteronormative society, or that this is the only possible successful route. I'm simply narrating the flirting norms of the society we live in and attempting to explain how this reflects feminist theory. You are too desperate to accuse me of making a blanket statement to see that.
I deliberately use sophisticated language to avoid making that sort of blanket statement. *Anything* I say could be made sexist if you decide to pretend I said "this is the only way" when I didn't. Anything I say could be made sexist if you decide to pretend I wasn't talking about heteronormativity when I clearly said I was. This isn't backing down from anything I previous said; if you actually read what I said, you'd know that I never was making any blanket statements.
I get that you're eager to dismiss me as a stereotypical man-hating, sexist feminist. But you can't, because I'm not. If you quit putting all your energy into your pointless quest of catching me out and actually listen to what I say, you might find that I'm actually not so bad.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So you are assuming it is the "norm" for women to act submissive and meek to gain male attraction? That it is the norm that men are attracted to such women, women that they can dominate over? So, what you are saying is that women think this is the primary way to attract men given it is the "norm" of how they attract men? I disagree.
You stated: "Heteronormative flirting gives women the task of balancing displays of the kind of feminine appeal that is traditionally attractive (i.e. submissive, meek sexuality) with showing enough proactivity to draw male attention."
You say we live in a heteronormative society and in the quote claim this is how we flirt with one another as a norm, i.e. women being submissive and meek to flirt because it is traditionally feminine, and why would anybody gravitate towards a certain method of attracting? Because it works best with the thing you are trying to attract, in this case men, so it is implying it is the norm for men to primarily be attracted to submissive and meek women because that is how women flirt in the "norm" to attract men, by giving them what they desire.
I agree I jumped the gun in saying that you think "all" women act this way, I should of stated that you think most women act this way.
Ah, here we go. The victim routine. Let me start off by saying you don't get to assume my beliefs. Get that in your head first.
Do I think you are a man hater? No.
Do I think you are a sexist? In some senses, but not in general.
Do I think you are a feminist? Yes, I am sure you stated you were before.
"But you can't, because I'm not". Hence why I didn't say you were and you are assuming I think so. This whole part is you trying to change the subject and make it about you so's to dismiss what I say as just another attack on you, which if you keep on doing then I see no point in talking to you. I do not like you, Dom. I am sure you dislike me, too but how we view eachother is irrelevant. I have not attacked your character here other than this last paragraph and I use the term attacked loosely. I am focusing on what is said rather than who you are. Give the same respect.