Society's double standard when it comes to girls and boys.

[Roberts]

I really don't think being a "nice guy" makes you spineless.

In the context of what I said, it really does.

being shy and nice generally boils down to avoiding confrontation, people pleasing, and minimal risk taking.

That was my definition, yours is likely different.

I strive to be a person that is assertive, confrontational when required, a person that can take calculated risks, and not shy away from a situation simply because I feel afraid. I try to make choices based on upon what is right and good, not on what is simply pleasing, agreeable, or the accepted norm.

In my definition, a 'nice guy' does not do those things. That is what I'm getting at.

[Nate]

Personally I really find the whole macho, agressive, dominant alpha male bit highly annoying.

Do you have a bank account or something where I can forward the massive quantity of internets I wish to award you for this statement?

In the context of what I said, it really does.

I fail to see how trying to be pleasant to everyone, being safe, and trying to prevent dangerous or unwelcome situations from occurring equates to being "spineless."

[Cloud500]

In my definition, a 'nice guy' does not do those things. That is what I'm getting at.

I don't understand why trying to get along with everyone is a bad thing. If I can avoid an argument with someone, I will; there's no sense in starting something if it can be handled without confrontation.

[Yamamaya]

It isn't a double standard, but it certainly qualifies as prejudice. They are judging my driving nature to be aggressive without even meeting me. You shouldn't be able to say, "your male you pay more, hello female we like you come over here for the discount rate". When you start driving, there should be a flat rate for everyone - if you get caught driving aggressively, whether you're male or female, your rates should go up the same (and the weight of other future statistical aggressive drivers should fall on their end of the bill... if you want to drive aggressively you can pay through the nose in insurance. Nobody wants you on the road anyways). It would be just as wrong to judge people on the basis of their skin color by bringing up statistic about people being, black, white, asian or latino.You can't choose your skin color and you can't choose your gender, and making assumptions about the personality of a person on the

basis of those qualities is wrong.

Girls are just as capable of being aggressive drivers as males...

Also according to Robert, we should go around punching people in the face we disagree with and diving out of planes. *disclaimer: Obvious exaggertion is obvious*

Being a yes man is bad. It can make you easily manipulated. However, avoding confrontations is a postive trait if possible. The only time Jesus was confrontational was when it was something truly necessary or among people who considered themself better than everyone else.

[Roberts]

However, avoding confrontations is a postive trait.

It seems you're all getting caught up on this part.

I'm talking about when you avoid confronting a person or situation even though it is necessary to do so to resolve it.

I'm not condoning wholesale violence.

I don't understand why trying to get along with everyone is a bad thing

I'm talking about being someone that will constantly agree to things they don't really want to out of fear of disappointing someone, or fearing the potential disagreement or confrontation that may occur from saying no.

Personally I really find the whole macho, agressive, dominant alpha male bit highly annoying.

So do I.

[Nate]

It seems you're all getting caught up on this part.

I wasn't! I was taking issue with the whole thing. :p

I'm talking about when you avoid confronting a person or situation even though it is necessary to do so to resolve it.

I agree, that's a bad thing. Definitely. However that is not the same as "avoids conflict." Now that you have specified, I do agree that this is a negative quality. However, "avoiding conflict" by itself with no other qualifiers is not a negative quality as far as I'm concerned.

Likewise, I'm sure you mean something more complex and nuanced than simply "people pleaser" and "minimal risk taker." However, again, those phrases by themselves with no other context or explanation are not negative qualities. In fact I consider them extremely positive qualities. But taken to an extreme (trying to please EVERYONE when doing so is unfeasible or against the rules for example) is definitely a bad thing.

So I do agree with you, I just wasn't understanding you clearly I guess.

[Roberts]

Yeah, everything you said was spot on. Certain phrases are going to be interpreted differently depending on the person, their upbringing, and their locale -- I'll keep that in mind and try to be more specific in future.

[Dante]

It really is less about being a bad boy and more about being an assertive masculine man. The biblical role of a husband is to be a leader -- being shy and nice generally boils down to avoiding confrontation, people pleasing, and minimal risk taking.

They refuse to recognize the shy nice guy because being a spineless yes man is not an attractive quality.

Hey look! An exact form of the male sexism I was referring to. Thank you for providing me with an awesome example like that, I couldn't have faked something like that if I tried! If I'd of said that, people would have thought I was being extreme and unrealistic.

Well, my own religious belief system doesn't have anything like that (a "biblical man" or "biblical woman") and I for one personally am glad. I don't know what you're talking about though, because I've honestly never had a single problem with the ladies. They're far more intelligent then you give them credit for in that post and can judge a human being off of more then a few simple variables.

But really, I have a bit of problem with what you've said in here and I'm going to try and say it as respectfully and kindly as I can here. I don't appreciate that you are calling "shy nice guys" "a spineless yes man", while insinuating that who they are as people is unbiblical for not matching your personal stringent gender philosophy. For that matter, I really wasn't too fond of this statement as a reply to Nate:

That really doesn't surprise me.

Because really, it kind of came off like you wanted to be blatantly disrespect Nate and that's not cool - in fact, that's outright unacceptable behavior. He was extremely respectful and kind back to you, but frankly someone needs to say that if those posts you made Roberts meant what they sounded like - that wasn't appropriate and it won't stand here. We have a lot of awesome nice guys, we have awesome shy guys and we have awesome guys that are both. Likewise, we have awesome women that have those characteristics as well.

Sorry, but this is an anime forum, and if you have a stringent view as to what a human should or should not be, then I think you're either about to undergo a major re-evaluation of your values or your going to have a really difficult time here.

So if that post meant something different then how you wrote it, then an edit tag would be appropriate to make sure you don't hurt people on here - one on each of them explaining what you REALLY meant so they don't get the wrong idea. But if you said what I think you said, then you really should take a good long walk to think about what you just did - and re-evaluate how you treat other human beings. And frankly, when you mean it, I really think you owe it to those people to write them an apology for that.

But no, this site appreciates, values and respects every person's personality and nature. If you've taken the time and effort to try and better yourself to match the image you have of Jesus Christ, to match the person you think God wants you to be, then you're effort and outcome are deeply honorable. Independent of any of that however, every person is valued here, independent of their personality. If you are a person that is

assertive, confrontational when required, a person that can take calculated risks, and not shy away from a situation simply because I feel afraid. I try to make choices based on upon what is right and good, not on what is simply pleasing, agreeable, or the accepted norm.

you too can be valued for simply being you - but that doesn't mean you can bash other people's personalities because they differ from yours. Every personality and person is valued by God for who they are, as they are. So frankly, while your philosophy and person has it's time and season under heaven, so do they. So don't even think of insulting them - because it may stand un-noted elsewhere, but it won't stand here.

[Maledicte]

I'm not a big fan of the "Biblical man/woman" position either. Mostly because it's used to justify traditional gender roles (He-Manly Manly Man and She-Pretty Submissive Woman) when a cursory reading of the Bible upturns these ideas.

Examples of "Biblical men":

Full of themselves (Samson)
Not taking responsibility for their own shortcomings (Adam)
Running away from God (Elijah)
Lustful and malicious (David)
Murderous (Paul)
Generally God's whinger (Moses)
Cautious and tentative (Gideon)
Gentle and meek (Jesus)

Examples of "Biblical" women:

Shrewd in business (Proverbs 31 woman, Lydia)
Judge and military leader (Deborah)
Concubines and whores (Hagar, Rahab)
Sleeping with their own fathers (Lot's daughters, Tamar - Judah's daughter-in-law)
Unmarried disciples (Mary and Martha)
Lying to authorities (Shiphrah and Puah, Rahab again)

So yeah. Kinda flies in the face of what churches teach today about gender roles don't it.

[Nate]

I was going to take issue with the whole "husband is the leader" thing but I had no desire to debate gender roles and sexism in the Bible so I just left it alone. I will however say that I do disagree with the "husband as the head of the household/leader" thing. I believe marriage is a partnership.

[Maledicte]

Girls are not innocent victims! In fact, they're often the cause of the problem. Sheesh, we live in such a pathetic society which is too concerned about sexism.

This is dangerous thinking.

[Roberts]

Two things I'd like to say to finish off my presence in this thread.

1. Nate and I already established that I conveyed my meaning poorly. Where I come from, the terms and phrases I used are well established in meaning, and I was portraying a person that is weak willed and fear driven to an extreme. I was promoting courage, truth, love, and assertiveness in response to that.

2. I responded to Nate earlier in the thread with "That really doesn't surprise me." I did so under the pretense that he fully understood what I was saying and was simply trolling (by implying that inherently negative qualities are not negative). I apologize for my response Nate, it was uncalled for.


It is fairly clear to me that I am going to have to word things differently on this forum from now on if I am to present myself as I actually am. Culture differences have been a bigger barrier here than I thought they would be -- I seem to continually come across as some kind of selfish chest-pounding jerk, which is not at all who I am.

I apologize if I offended anyone.

[Yuki-Anne]

Culture differences have been a bigger barrier here than I thought they would be

Wait, where are you from, if you don't mind my asking? My curiosity is piqued.

While we're on the subject, I've been rethinking gender roles a lot lately. By lately I mean the past my entire adult life.

My ex-boyfriend once mentioned that the Methodist church across town had a female preacher and asked me what I thought about it. I shrugged and said I didn't think one way or the other about it. He then said, "Well, what does the Bible say?" and told me I NEEDED to have an opinion. He also told me I was boring for liking vanilla ice cream above all other flavors, so obviously he was kind of a jerk.

I now serve in a church where all of the staff members are women. And you know what? I'm cool with it. Because God is working through us, and it's totally precedented for God to call women to lead. I think there are fundamental differences between the way a man leads and the way a woman leads, but then there are fundamental differences between the way an introvert leads and the way an extrovert leads. I don't think one is superior to the other, and especially in cases where godly men are sparse, and godly men called to ministry are even sparser, it would be completely ridiculous to reject a godly woman who felt called to lead just because she had girl parts.

About the "Biblical" man/woman (this isn't directed at Roberts or anything; I think you've taken enough of a beating, sir. This is just my two cents): it's not fair to take this list of amoral personality traits to a human being and say, "You don't measure up, pretty sure you're not the man/woman God intends for you to be." It's beyond unfair, actually; it's arrogant and incredibly hurtful. Some people are bold. Some people are reserved. Personally, I am intimidated by the bold, and enjoy the company of the reserved.

[ShiroiHikari]

Our culture is a confusing place. Oh, you gotta be aggressive to make it in life! ESPECIALLY if you're male! Oh but don't be TOO aggressive. In fact we're going to make you sit through public school for the first 18 years of your life, a place in which aggressive behavior is not tolerated!

There's a time to be aggressive, and a time to be passive. There's a time to please people, and a time to tell people "no". There's a time for confrontation, and a time to just let things go.

I personally think that introverts are treated pretty unfairly in our culture. Introverts are weak! No, they're just different. They're not better than extroverts, and extroverts aren't better than introverts. Each has different strengths and weaknesses.

[Wallachia]

Somewhat but not entirely related to the topic at hand: It generally ticks me off when women complain about men having so many unrealistic expectations and fantasies about them that are presented by various women in both movies and video games, when they themselves see unrealistic and handsome men in nearly all forms of media.
EDIT: Removed.

[Nate]

Ha ha ha...what? No, seriously, what?

Show me ANY game where males are treated as half the sex objects that females are. I don't recall Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball: Male Edition, do you? Ever seen any thing like GalGun but with men instead of women? Come to think of it, I have yet to see any h-games where you can interact with a virtual male like the ones where you interact with virtual females.

The rest of the thing you wrote is without any merit whatsoever and actually kind of makes me seethe with rage so I'll shut up before I start making un-Christian comments.

[Wallachia]

Well, I'm sorry about that, Nate.

I still believe it's a fact that alot of women have unrealistically high expectations for men just like we do for them. Only we complain less than they do about the other's tastes being affected by the media.

[Nate]

Wow, you classify being upset and hurt by being marginalized and treated as objects as "complaining."

That's not misogynist at all.

[Wallachia]

I believe it's rather hard to convey emotion over text. I was apologizing for the fact that it upset you so, and in the hope we could get along easily without what I wrote hindering any future conversations on the forums. I wasn't going to state that outright since you could already realize that as well.

[Maledicte]

Men = primarily depicted as persons with sexual agency in media
Women = primarily depicted as objects of sexual desire in media
Men = criticizing real women for not living up to male ideals is the cultural norm (e.g. "Dude, she's totally not that hot")
Women = criticizing real men for not living up to female ideals is "complaining."
Men = ignoring women they consider not the ideal in favor of hitting on the hot chick is acceptable and seen as "going for it" (conversely, going after the least standardly attractive girl in a group is "taking one for the team")
Women = ignoring men they consider not ideal in favor of going out with a hot guy is seen as being picky and shallow.

[Yamamaya]

Men = primarily depicted as persons with sexual agency in media
Women = primarily depicted as objects of sexual desire in media
Men = criticizing real women for not living up to male ideals is the cultural norm (e.g. "Dude, she's totally not that hot")
Women = criticizing real men for not living up to female ideals is "complaining."
Men = ignoring women they consider not the ideal in favor of hitting on the hot chick is acceptable and seen as "going for it" (conversely, going after the least standardly attractive girl in a group is "taking one for the team")
Women = ignoring men they consider not ideal in favor of going out with a hot guy is seen as being picky and shallow.

In all fairness, at times movies will show how the less attractive girl was really the better person all along and the guy will choose her instead of the "hot one." This seems to be limited to teeny bopper movies though. It is also important to mention that media does define an ideal man of sorts.

I agree with the rest of your post.

[Yuki-Anne]

Men = ignoring women they consider not the ideal in favor of hitting on the hot chick is acceptable and seen as "going for it" (conversely, going after the least standardly attractive girl in a group is "taking one for the team")

Not to mention the hurtful term "grenade" for the "ugly" girl in a group of "hot" girls. There is no equivalent term for males.

See, I could understand if the complaint was, "Guys expect girls to be bombshells, but conversely, girls expect guys to be successful, assertive, or rich."

While it's true that girls can have some unrealistic physical expectations as well, there is nowhere near the same level of objectification. Watch tv and take a count of how many throwaway characters are introduced just for sex with a main character and/or titillating visuals. I think you'll find that the majority are female.

Also, I challenge you to pay attention to your media. How many female characters are there in comparison with males? Do the females speak to each other? And if they do, do they talk about something other than the male characters? I never paid much attention until I read an angry feminist blog about this. I didn't give it much stock, but I started paying attention just for kicks, and to my distress, I found it to be true; the majority of female characters have no purpose except to further the aims of the male characters. There are exceptions, but they are disturbingly few.

[Nate]

I was apologizing for the fact that it upset you so

While I appreciate that, I would much rather you apologize for the content of the piece, rather than just that it upset me.

Likewise, I'm not mad at you specifically, so I hope I'm not coming across that way. I was just upset at the content of the writing. I'm not even going to contradict some of the points you made, because they are true. It is true, for example, that men are sexualized/idealized just as women are. However the point is that they are not sexualized/idealized as often, or to the same degree.

Further, women are often expected to be attractive, and you actually subtly reinforced this in your paper. Women are constantly criticized for their appearance even if it has nothing to do with what they are doing at the moment. For an example, see how often women are criticized for their appearance. Ever seen those "best and worst dressed" lists? How many men are in that list? Why aren't they? How often are, say, Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin criticized for what they wear? Why aren't Obama and McCain criticized for the suits that they wear too?

Like I said, women are expected to be "pretty." Men usually aren't, or at least, not to the same degree or in the same way or as often. I'm sure maybe somewhere there's a website that had a rundown on why McCain and Obama had terrible suits on and why they were bad but it certainly wasn't as big as what dress Michelle Obama was wearing and why it was good/bad.

Oh and I see a couple of other people posted before I finished this. Glad I checked!

at times movies will show how the less attractive girl was really the better person all along and the guy will choose her instead of the "hot one."

I disagree with this, because the "less attractive girl" in Hollywood movies isn't really unattractive. They take an attractive woman and do things like put less makeup on her, give her glasses and an unflattering hairstyle and say "She's unattractive, what man would want her?" and then the "makeover scene" comes along where the girl removes her glasses and sees a hairstylist and puts on makeup and WHOA HOLY CRAP SO BEAUTIFUL!

I can't think of very many Hollywood movies or TV shows where a female who's actually very plain or even unattractive is used as a love interest. It's always fake Hollywood "unattractiveness." In fact there's even a trope for it:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodHomely

Producer: What were you thinking?
Casting: Well, you said you wanted gritty. In other words, ugly.
Producer: I wanted Mary Ann on Gilligan's Island ugly, not Cornelius on Planet of the Apes ugly. TV-ugly, not ... ugly-ugly.

[Yuki-Anne]

It's true. Hollywood homely is still really hot. :/

[Cognitive Gear]

Eh, I guess I will jump in.

Women are objectified, and it sucks. They are objectified based on appearance. On the other hand, men are objectified for their wealth, power, or fame. Just as appearance isn't what makes a good woman, power isn't what makes a good man.

Actually, there are some pretty understandable reasons that our society does these things. Traditional gender roles have forced men to approach women and lead the relationship forward. If you have to approach a woman, it's going to be one that you are attracted to. On the other side, women have had to be selective in who they chose to take care of them, financially. As a result, our society has adopted these habits, and haven't quite gotten around to getting rid of them. I do believe that as traditional gender roles continue to decline, so will the objectifications. It'll take some extra time, since there is money to be made through it.

I think it is important to remember that it was only 50 years ago that people really started to question gender roles. All of our grandparents grew up with these gender roles firmly in place. Most of our parents grew up when they were first challenged. So it's not surprising that they still exist and are promoted.


Anyways, related to the objectification of women, and men approaching them,this blog post is pretty interesting. It shows that, at least when it comes to dating and being approached, beauty isn't valued exactly as we think it is.

I'd also like to note that no one should expect men or women to ever decide to be open to relationships with people they don't find attractive. It may be shallow, but I honestly do think that being attracted to your significant other is not something that can be simply ignored, and is something that is important. It just isn't the only important thing as it is in objectification.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Yes, women are often objectified in the media but on the otherhand men are almost always made to look like idiots or sexist bigots. There's not a whole lot of good role-models for boys and young men.

[Furen]

There's not a whole lot of good role-models for boys and young men.

And you think girls have better role models (minus parent figures, that doesn't really do much, boys have them too, except when they play the dad up in a bad way) I mean look at what they have from television (not even needed to add examples, it's all there in plain sight, turn it on a random channel for sitcoms or drama, and there you go.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Yes, yes, I do. More children and teens have a mum, few have dads nowadays (and I'd argue that parents have huge roles in the life of their children). Also, there are lots of independent, highly-intelligent, assertive women in the media to counterbalance all the sexual objectivication crap. But guys don't really have anything much to balance it out.

[Nate]

few have dads nowadays

Citation needed.

Especially since various sites state that the overwhelming majority of families are two parent households. Single parent families ARE becoming much more common than they used to be, but two parent households significantly outnumber them. In the US at least. Dunno about how Australia looks. :p

there are lots of independent, highly-intelligent, assertive women in the media to counterbalance all the sexual objectivication crap

No, because those independent, highly-intelligent, and assertive women also get objectified, so it doesn't "counterbalance" at all. In fact the assertive women are usually the first to get savagely attacked by people, assertive women usually get classified as "b****es" or have their sexuality questioned (because they're "acting like a man"). Assertive men usually get classified as "go-getters."

But guys don't really have anything much to balance it out.

I will admit this is true though. But I'm past the age where I look to TV or movies for role models, so I guess I haven't really noticed it nor do I think it's much of a problem. *shrug*

[Rusty Claymore]

Objectification is to make someone an object, right?
So what effect does all this have on PVC moddelers?