Sexism

[Obscure_Trash]

To be honest I never believe women who say they dress a certain way or enhance their appearance 'for themselves'. Isn't that kind of sad that a woman has to alter her natural appearance or wear something uncomfortable/unpractical just to please herself?

 

If everyone in the world died except for one trendy woman, I really doubt she would still want plastic surgery, continue to spend an hour on her hair every day, wear make-up, heels, and diet to keep her size 2 figure. She'd likely wear whatever was most comfortable based on the weather and leave everything else up to nature.

Just wanted to comment on this note. In general, among the majority of people I know, here's what I've observed:

Let's call 'less modest' things like today's low cut fashion trends and 'more modest' things like regular t-shirts, jeans, sweatpants, etc.

-People who wear more modest clothing are ashamed of their body and are trying to hide it or they have been abused or raped in the past and are uncomfortable being any kind of exposed

-People who wear less modest clothes either hate their body and are trying to make themselves look good or are very comfortable with who they are, like their body, and enjoy wearing the clothes (they look good, they can show others they look good, whatever)

 

So people who are wearing less modest clothes are either comfortable or uncomfortable in them, about even from the people I know, whereas the majority of people I know in modest clothes are uncomfortable with their body.

 

I find it's often surprisingly difficult to dress 'differently', simply because of the lack of availability of alternative styles of womens' clothing in shops.

 

Also, this. Me only buying Wal-Mart shirts and wearing pants and shorts mostly from the men's section won't do anything to change what they put in the girl's section. Unless all girls just completely stopped shopping in women's sections or went to plus-sized sections (which tend to have more boring clothes because obviously plus-size women can't like more fancy clothes or be comfortable with their body and no one would want to see that), the selection in stores isn't really going to change. =|

 

(I hate girl shorts. They're like underwear with fake pockets. >.> )

 

W/regards the clothes discussion... I guess what I'm asking is more why you feel you look good in them in the first place. I'm completely down with the idea of wearing things because you like the way you look in them - it's just the why of liking the way you look in clothes designed to be objectifying I can't quite get.

 

Why, why does anybody like something? Personal taste, really.

 

Well yeah. That does make some sense. The only probelm is I was under the impression that the fashion industry, and thus current fashion trends, are seen as examples of objectification. So I find it hard to see how currently fashionable clothing doesn't fall into the same category...

 

As for objectifying, I more have problems with the way ads tend to be done and the lack of choice in female departments. If ads were done in a different light to be more respectful of women, the clothes wouldn't seem like they were meant to objectify. I.e. I find it's more attitude than objects.

 

Although I would point out here that erections aren't exactly controlable things. Just ask any teenage guy wether or not the always *want* their body to react the way it does and (if they'll actually answer the question at all) I'll bet they tell you they don't. I admit there is the choice of *acting* on it or not (not being the right choice there!), but I wouldn't say having the reaction in the first place can be considered a matter of 'fault' as it's not something that can be controlled.

 

Note - this is not an excuse for *acting* upon the initial reaction. An erection does not completely wipe out one's reasoning capabilities. But, well, men actualy *can't* help getting them.

 

I can't speak for everyone, but I'm certainly not advocating for some dystopian-like world which would control something like this. You hit the nail on the head yourself. It's the choice of acting on that which matters and maybe also how you handle it. :3

Edited March 29, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Sadako]

Why, why does anybody like something? Personal taste, really.

Quoted for ultimate truth. This is pretty much what I was trying to say with all those long-winded paragraphs up there. If some men think certain clothes look good, it should be obvious that some women will think those same clothes look good too. We're all humans and we all have pretty similar brains really, and besides that many of us have been steeped in exactly the same culture all our lives. Whatever kind of weirdo clothes you can think up, there's a girl out there who will see it and go 'Ooo! I want to wear that!'

[Kelkelen]

Quoted for ultimate truth. This is pretty much what I was trying to say with all those long-winded paragraphs up there. If some men think certain clothes look good, it should be obvious that some women will think those same clothes look good too. We're all humans and we all have pretty similar brains really, and besides that many of us have been steeped in exactly the same culture all our lives. Whatever kind of weirdo clothes you can think up, there's a girl out there who will see it and go 'Ooo! I want to wear that!'

Yup. Yup. Yup.

 

Also, I agree w/ Socky that more of the objectification happens in the way clothing is advertised, in video and posters and such, than in the articles of clothing themselves (well, aside from things like short-shorts with rather degrading words printed on the butt-cheeks and the like).

 

Speaking *SOLELY* for myself... I like to wear a lot of things because they remind me other things -- other time periods, fictional characters, a painting or photo I saw one time and liked, a person whom I admire, etc. etc. etc. And, as a writer and artist, I like having the freedom to "play" with my clothing. So, for example, some shoes I like are: hiking boots (LOVE my hiking boots!), black leather ankle boots, knee-high go-go boots with a high heel, pirate-y or cavalry boots with a low heel, flat mary-janes, comfy sneakers, leather sandals, flip-flops, and strappy dress shoes. Some are comfortable, some are practical, and some are neither. But I like all of them at different times and for different reasons.

 

Some styles are sexier than others. Still doesn't mean I feel like an object; sometimes, I just like feeling sexy and/or attractive. It's only being *treated* as an object that makes me feel like one!

[Rosedamai]

We're all humans and we all have pretty similar brains really, and besides that many of us have been steeped in exactly the same culture all our lives. Whatever kind of weirdo clothes you can think up, there's a girl out there who will see it and go 'Ooo! I want to wear that!'

 

Really agree with this. I wear stockings with patterns and love lacy lingerie. Is it because I think they're sexy? No. Mostly I'm attracted to patterns (I'm a pol-sci student but I do design work as a hobby) so I think that they're pretty rather than revealing like some people do.

 

Some styles are sexier than others. Still doesn't mean I feel like an object; sometimes, I just like feeling sexy and/or attractive. It's only being *treated* as an object that makes me feel like one!

 

Agreed. I remember being very angry in kindergarten because there was this old guy who kept referring to me as a "doll." It's probably because I was cute-hell, all kindergarteners look cute-but it made me upset because he literally treated me like one, i.e. not listening to what I wanted to do, showing me off to the others, doing stuff that I could do by myself, etc (he's a family friend-and I think he was just not used to young girls, he's a bachelor). Eventually I threw a tantrum. The "doll" allusions stopped there.

 

I felt more objectified in that moment than whatever I'm doing when I'm wearing short mini skirts. I wear them because I feel like it. And sometimes, there are people who comment on your clothes if you wear baggy/gender-neutral clothes. "Oooh you'd look so much better if you wore this!" "You should put on some make-up!" So to shut them up, I oblige(not the makeup though. I hate cosmetics for now).

 

Hope this made sense to you

[Alpha1]

OK, good. Now I know you know what those words mean. Let's go back to where you were trying to substitute "extremely feminine" and "extremely masculine" for "over-sexualized". You care to explain why you think extremely feminine = broken spine, breasts and butt pointing roughly in the same direction?

Curvature is a feminine characteristic that sometimes can bring out a "monkey butt". Breasts are a feminine characteristic. What seals the deal is other feminine traits. I’d like to point out that I wasn’t substituting this for only sexually suggestive poses or whatever you want to cherry-pick. Honestly, I was never even aware of this whole “butt and breasts simultaneously” critique until some feminists were bringing it up. Men are inherently attracted to extremely feminine traits. So what do you do? Are you expecting some kind of nirvana where women are in Puritan garbs, attractive women aren’t in the mass media anymore, and products targeted towards fat people are gone?

 

 

Personally, I think it'd desensitize it. If people are only seeing breasts in a naughty way, then they'll associate them with naughty things.

 

Europe celebrates breasts.

 

If it bugs you so much, why do you have to keep posting in a thread where women are pointing out just how much sexism affects them ?

 

Dear Muslima,

 

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

 

 

Can you guess who wrote that?

 

Especially when we have TV telling us that the best an incredibly gorgeous girl can get is an overweight guy with poor intelligence and fidelity issues.

 

Giggitty giggitty goo!

 

 

No one here is "surprised" at the existence of sexism. Far from it. They are, however, *against* it, as it is wrong. As is texting while driving. Are you suggesting people should just accept thoughtless and dangerous practices without question?

 

But people act surprised that it’s not dealt with. If you don’t advocate regulation at least like some feminists have written about, it’s like complaining about politics but never voting. Why do you think it’ll change? That’s like expecting abstinence to work. Not to mention leaving out the big elephant in the room: pron. Much of this “raunch culture” is due to the sexual revolution in the late 60’s. Some feminists think it blew up in their face, and make a deal out of it. Others see it as empowering women.

 

Which means that maybe they *aren't* selecting their partners based on financial earnings, but that they are selecting their partners from a circle of peers. Or perhaps it means that women are more likely to meet a partner in the workplace because they might have less free time outside of it than a man does, as in the case of divorced women raising children. Or perhaps it means that women prefer to date people with a similar level of ambition or similar job interests. There's really not sufficient proof to say that people choose their partners based on income, when you consider all the factors.

 

Fuzzbucket said the word, "never". I said ylangylang was probably overstating the money portion. Read the posts again.

 

I acknowledge that there are other reasons why they matched up. For example, this compares well with inner-city areas vs. affluent suburban areas. In the 60’s, you would see more blue collar people living near lawyers. Nowadays with the college premium, you see less of this. It’s like segregation.

 

That's a broad statement. Anyone I've ever met acknowledges that you have to be attracted to a potential partner, or it's not going to work out in the long run. However, there's a difference between accepting that all people have their own standards of attractiveness, where not all members of the opposite sex will meet those standards, and accepting that the media shapes our perception of what is normal and tries to market certain forms of "beauty" to us, very successfully -- and is constantly promoting an impossible and unhealthy and overly-sexualized form of "beauty" for women, while not for men. There's nothing wrong with "attractiveness;" the problem is when society creates a very narrow and harmful definition of it, and "sells" that image to the public at large.

 

Nines tend to pair up with people around the level of attractiveness. 8’s with 8’s. Etc. This suggests that attractiveness is more of a factor than people admit. It makes little sense to suggest that ugly people don’t like attractive people as much an attractive person does.

This wouldn’t be unusual. Polls on behavior are notoriously inaccurate. For instance, polls indicate 42% of Americans are churchgoing, but sociologists argue that it’s really about half of that figure.

 

...what? Are you unfamiliar with Weight Watchers? That's not a cereal aimed at making little girls grow "a figure," it's aimed at adult women who are trying to lose weight while still loving their curvy, full adult bodies. IMO, your images don't seem to convey what you want them to very often.

 

Think again. If I thought this, why would I be asking ylangylang about it if it had occurred in the U.S.? I was only suggesting that it wouldn’t be hard to believe if it was being extended to children in a place that was more sexist.

 

The criteria for what? For eating disorders? Just because more women than men suffer from eating disorders, doesn't mean men *don't,* period! Clearly, even ten-to-one means that there are plenty of men struggling with the issue.

 

I said women are affected by it more than men. Nowhere did I say men aren’t affected by it at all. The point was that it wasn’t surprising to see this trend. In some countries, like Iran, women have comparable rates to more westernized nations.

 

You give no context for this. What kind of "study" was it? How many women were being asked? What demographic were they? Who were the other options? Did they actually speak with the men in person? How attractive in general were the men, height aside? This sounds like a ridiculous faux-news story, the sort that is often handed to female reporters in lieu of real news, for them to report on during the hours that women most often watch television (not that women even necessarily desire these "reports!").

 

It’s not Foxnews. It’s liberal ABCnews. Happy? This isn’t ridiculous. Many women won’t date at a certain height, especially at 5 feet tall. They wouldn’t have done this if there was no truth to it.

 

Men think women can be cute and sexy at both extremes. Women are pickier about height. Who’s sexualizing, again? ; )

 

...didn't you just say that women do this, and not men? I will take this as you conceding the point that men are "gold-diggers" just as often as women, then.

 

That term is mainly used to describe women who get into a relationship for material benefits.

 

Do you have any proof that the sexes are equal on this matter? You show your bias by making generalizations that favor women, but try to equalize them if they’re in favor of men.

 

I haven't seen anyone here "doing the exact same thing." No one is saying "ALL men do X like Y all the time and it's so pathetic/annoying/unfair!"

 

No one has used “all men do X”, but they keep generalizing about what men do when they’re opening doors, their thoughts on women (i.e. sexual objects), perceived oppression by men, etc.

 

“You hit like a girl” or another variation of it is a generalization. It’s not the same as, “All girls are weaker than boys”.

 

I don't make assumptions about Men, as a sex/gender, on a whole. I do realize that not all men think and act with one hive mind; which is more than I can say for how you seem to perceive women.

 

I’ve said they’re generalizations, so they’re not applicable to everyone. I hold generalizations about women to the same standard as generalizations about men.

 

Oh, and NO ONE is talking about banning anything. I am fervently, deeply anti-censorship. What we *are* talking about is trends in media that society seems woefully poor at breaking out of. Just because people *can* draw/write/say/advertise whatever the heck they want, doesn't mean it has value, nor that I have to like it.

 

Whoa there, buddy. Who is talking about banning anything? Why, that would be you and only you.

 

“Acting as if they should be banned”

 

Attractive =/= desiring to be with someone

We are saying that, in general, people will agree that men age "like a fine wine" - they get more handsome with age. Whereas women are not thought of in the same way.

I'm not sure what anybody hitting on anybody else has to do anything with this.

 

There's a difference between finding someone aesthetically attractive, and being annoyed when someone makes unwanted advances and is very, very bad at taking 'no' for an answer. When people think of George Clooney as attractive, they aren't imagining him drunkenly ogling their breasts and pushing them repeatedly, despite refusals, to tell him their age and if they have a boyfriend. The "grossness" issue isn't about age, it's about behavior and assumptions.

 

Why did you assume they all were men who kept going after being told no?

 

@ Socks “Attractive” can be misleading, since it’s common that there’s a physical component. The article you posted was mentioning physical attractiveness, women having children later in life, and the financial security that older men give them.

 

Now I know what you’re referring to. Men age like wine, and women age like milk…. The short explanation: women aren’t as attractive when they age, and men get more and more money as they get older.

 

What are you talking about? This article IS about the U.S. And 28% to 50% differences in pay between men and women performing the same jobs is decidedly unfair. I have no idea how you can think otherwise.

 

Read your article again.

 

“Wilde believes the union's salary survey is misleading because it implies that women earn below standard pay, when in fact they all earn above the minimum union negotiating wage.

 

Nevertheless, according to the union, at KLOS, opportunities for on-air female talent remain bleak. Female deejays on average earn 24%--less than one-fourth--of the salaries of their male colleagues. In addition, KLOS' listeners will hear only one female voice out of nine deejays throughout the week.

 

KLOS' general manager, Bill Sommers, said the union's statistics are sloppy because the average percentages are skewed by a few highly paid on-air stars, like the hosts of his station's morning "Mark and Brian Show," who have been in the market for 15 years.

 

"Doesn't that throw the percentage out? I don't think these figures are the best barometer," Sommers said. "Like everything else, it takes time to come through the ranks. The pay is commensurate to the position, whether it's a male or a female."

 

There are probably more variables not being accounted for in the article.

I’ve posted before on this using .gov sources and articles in the news. The pay gap is much smaller than what the media reports.

 

You did mention that he was an ideal of beauty that catered to what women wanted, as opposed to beefcake men in comics, who are more of an idea of what men admire or aspire to than anything actually appealing to women. But if he's not really being marketed to women, but to girls younger than he is, then it hardly supports your point.

 

No, I merely used him as an example of a pretty boy. Do you think pretty boys end up aging into ugly ducklings? They don’t. The initial point was that men seem to have a broader range in physical attractiveness to women than women do to men.

It isn't always about sexism. Sexism is always about sexism. Individual people can certainly find whomever they want attractive, at whatever age appeals to them. But when society, advertising, films, television, books, comics, toys, and companies all band together to define "attractiveness" as one hyper-sexualized image of the ideal woman, it's no longer about when men 'in general' believe women 'in general' to "peak in attractiveness." It's about creating an unrealistic standard that society actually comes to expect, due to being spoon-fed this standard as normal at every turn.

 

And your solution?

 

What seems to happen is that men (for it is usually men) can't seem to take the thought of sex out of their everyday lives unless everyone has no clothes on at all. I don't know what can be done about that.

 

Why do you act like a nudist society would be a utopia where no one thinks of sex or harasses anyone?

 

I just like feeling sexy and/or attractive. It's only being *treated* as an object that makes me feel like one!

 

 

Also, I agree w/ Socky that more of the objectification happens in the way clothing is advertised, in video and posters and such, than in the articles of clothing themselves (well, aside from things like short-shorts with rather degrading words printed on the butt-cheeks and the like).

 

If you think you feel sexy and attractive in the clothing, why wouldn't men? You think they'll want to see a hijab?

[Kelkelen]

Your posts are getting more and more convoluted. I don't believe I'll be replying after this time -- it's too difficult to have a direct conversation because you repeatedly claim to have meant something different than what you stated previously in almost every instance. Furthermore, it seems like you think every woman in this thread is silly for being bothered by anything short of violent physical abuse, and you constantly belittle the people here for discussing their own problems or experiences. I'm not sure what type of conversation you're actually hoping to have. You don't seem to agree with anyone about anything, and to change your mind if you ever DO agree with someone, so that you won't, any more. I get the feeling that you're just hoping to annoy people by posting a string of mockeries and stupid memes; I don't see any real desire for *communication* or *empathy* or *understanding* or *problem-solving* in there, anywhere.

 

So what do you do? Are you expecting some kind of nirvana where women are in Puritan garbs, attractive women aren’t in the mass media anymore, and products targeted towards fat people are gone?

 

Actually, I think several people made it clear that they would simply like to see women in ads, comics, movies, etc. with a wide range of natural body types and poses, and also portrayed as free individuals rather than as a sort of 'product' or 'reward' for men. Looking attractive is fine, but twisted 180 degrees at the waist, with a stripper costume, a wasp waist, spherical butt-cheeks, and boobs bigger than their head? Or a harem of scantily-clad women panting and stroking some guy because he used the right aftershave? That's what people are taking issue with. Women no longer even looking or acting like individual human beings, in an effort to appeal to male sexual urges alone.

 

Dear Muslima,

 

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

 

 

Can you guess who wrote that?

 

100% not funny.

 

You're suggesting that because people are discussing more minor or subtle issues at the moment, they don't *care* about these massive injustices? Far from it. But it's unfair to suggest, "there are worse problems in the world, so shut up unless your problems are big enough." The idea that women's sexuality is something to be owned, bought, and sold by men is an idea that permeates American culture, and it *does* affect men and women in many ways, even if they aren't easily visible ones.

But people act surprised that it’s not dealt with.

 

I don't think they're acting surprised. It seems to me that people are just discussing what's out there, and what's being done about it, and what we can possibly do, ourselves. No one's coming here just to post "I was amazed that a strange man tried to feel me up in an elevator!" Sadly, I wasn't amazed. I have to accept the fact that, every few days, strange men will attempt to touch me sexually or make sexually-loaded comments towards me. I'm not at all surprised. But I DO like to talk with other people about their experiences, and about how to approach this type of issue in the future. Sure, those men aren't beating me. But it still affects my quality of life, and it still creates a cultural atmosphere in which sexual abuse is rampant because the mentality is accepted in little ways, every day.

 

It’s not Foxnews. It’s liberal ABCnews. Happy? This isn’t ridiculous. Many women won’t date at a certain height, especially at 5 feet tall. They wouldn’t have done this if there was no truth to it.

 

Men think women can be cute and sexy at both extremes. Women are pickier about height. Who’s sexualizing, again? ; )

 

That didn't answer any of my questions, only confirmed my perceptions. So it was a random news report -- what was the demographic being interviewed? How many people, what ages, where were they found, did they volunteer to be part of the report, why was the report launched to begin with, etc. etc. One random fluff filler news report is *not* something I look to for statistical accuracy.

 

Plus, I think you're confused about the definition of "sexualizing."

 

No one has used “all men do X”, but they keep generalizing about what men do when they’re opening doors, their thoughts on women (i.e. sexual objects), perceived oppression by men, etc.

 

I think people in this thread have been very careful to talk about either their own personal experiences, or else say things like "men often do this around me" -- I didn't get the sense that they were saying "all men" in any circumstance. If it helps to hear it again, no, I don't believe *all men* are like anything. But there do exist certain societal expectations and norms for men and for women, as well; many of which have a negative effect.

 

“You hit like a girl” or another variation of it is a generalization. It’s not the same as, “All girls are weaker than boys”.

 

...Except that it more or less is? I suppose it suggests "MOST girls are weaker and less coordinated/effective than boys," even if it's not meant to suggest ALL.

 

Why did you assume they all were men who kept going after being told no?

 

Because you specifically said so.

 

There are probably more variables not being accounted for in the article.

I’ve posted before on this using .gov sources and articles in the news. The pay gap is much smaller than what the media reports.

 

No comment on the article, except for you to read it again yourself. Sure, the women are making above the union minimum. That doesn't mean they *don't* deserve to make the same pay for the same hours at the same rank as their male counterparts. And the study DID conclusively show that that was the case, even though there are a few outliers as to the most highly-paid men in the business. And it's not about a nationwide pay gap, but a pay gap in a specific career in a specific city, so I'm not sure how your other sources would apply to it.

 

No, I merely used him as an example of a pretty boy. Do you think pretty boys end up aging into ugly ducklings? They don’t. The initial point was that men seem to have a broader range in physical attractiveness to women than women do to men.

 

Which really only *supports* the idea that the media is tailoring the image of women so that there is a very limited range of what constitutes the "ideal woman." And you originally brought it up to suggest that the media catered to what women wanted as much as to what men wanted -- except that Justin Bieber is geared at young teens and not at adult women, and he isn't sexualized to nearly the extent as women in ads and comics.

 

 

No. Just no.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Kelkelen

[Rosedamai]

Okay, some of my take on this: I also am very tired by Alpha's posts, because you put words in my mouth, and that's something that I don't particularly like, and you've forgotten the principle that in a debate, you have to be respectful of others. I don't think posting inane memes fall into that category.

 

Are you expecting some kind of nirvana where women are in Puritan garbs, attractive women aren’t in the mass media anymore, and products targeted towards fat people are gone?

 

No, but when it targets small children (see above for padded bikinis for youngsters, which are way more prevalent than you think) and projects a very homogenized ideal of beauty, that I find problems with. Example:

 

Women and men look exactly the same after the surgery, which means that they're being conformed into a homogenized version of what beauty is. I can come up with many more examples of this, but I digress.

 

dear Muslima,

 

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

 

1. That's a very condescending view towards Islamic culture in general

 

2. I think I said this before: What happens in the U.S affects other countries around the world, either through the media or through policymakers who hold up America as the supreme goal. Not to mention cultural exchange through the internet, which is way more fluid than ever before (same reason why I don't like Japanese anime culture, but again, I digress) so how women are portrayed in the U.S does affect other countries, to a larger extent than other cultures

 

3. Just because they're suffering a "lighter" form of sexism-not that I think you can measure sexism-does not mean they can't complain about it. For example, let's say you talked to African Americans in the U.S and said, hey, why are you complaining? In South Africa they had the Apartheid. Now you guys shut up. Or if you talked to homosexuals in the U.S and said, you can get stoned in Middle Eastern countries, so stop complaining.

 

Doesn't work, does it?

 

ylangylang was probably overstating the money portion

 

Oh lord...you really don't have a clue about what happens in Asian culture in regards to marriage, do you?

 

I was only suggesting that it wouldn’t be hard to believe if it was being extended to children in a place that was more sexist.

 

http://www.thebatt.com/2.8482/abercrombie-...-kids-1.1212839

 

LOL

 

If you think you feel sexy and attractive in the clothing, why wouldn't men?

 

That doesn't give them the right to ogle/comment on/touch my body. In that case I feel objectified. Attractive=/=sex object.

Edited April 1, 2012 by ylangylang

[Princess Artemis]

Honestly, I was never even aware of this whole “butt and breasts simultaneously” critique until some feminists were bringing it up.

 

After how many posts belaboring the point and arguing over it, you are only now admitting you have no clue what you're talking about? Maybe you should have listened then instead of just jumping straight into argue-mode. One thing I'd suggest you do is stop thinking broken spine + breasts and butt pointing in same direction = very feminine. I really do not think so little of the average man that he really is attracted to women with such clearly deadly physiques. Maybe necrophiles would be attracted to women with spines snapped in half and bending at right angles...

 

Can you guess who wrote that?

 

Don't have to. Richard Dawkins got so much well-deserved flack for being an unthinking dillweed on that point. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...male-privilege/ (Anyone who wishes to actually read this and follow through with the links and the whole story, the comments in several of the involved blogs, including PZ's and Skepchick's, are absolutely depressing and I suggest having an antidote at hand.)

Edited April 1, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Kelkelen]

Don't have to.  Richard Dawkins got so much well-deserved flack for being an unthinking dillweed on that point.  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...male-privilege/  (Anyone who wishes to actually read this and follow through with the links and the whole story, the comments in several of the involved blogs, including PZ's and Skepchick's, are absolutely depressing and I suggest having an antidote at hand.)

Whoa.

 

To be clear, my comment about elevators in my post above was *not* in regards to this Richard Dawkins thing, which I didn't know about until just now.

 

It was actually about my own experience of being stuck on the elevator with a pervy guy who lives in my building, who stood too close to me and then struck up a conversation (which I felt obliged to engage in, because I had no idea if ignoring him would anger him, and we were standing six inches apart), then he started caressing my bare arm. Yes, I was able to get off the elevator at my floor, but it was difficult in the moment (especially having no idea who he was, if he was stable, ever violent, etc.) to think if I could say anything angry or get off of the elevator early, knowing I'd probably run into him every couple of days for as long as I live here. And even though I got home just fine, I couldn't very well undo the fact that he'd touched me and made me feel very uncomfortable and unhappy and, well, objectified.

 

But I guess, according to Dawkins, and a few posters on this thread, it's so minor an issue that it's foolish for me to even bring it up. >_< I do NOT want to be touched by strange men in elevators, okay!? Ugh.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Kelkelen

[KageSora]

Y'know, that whole incident really just saddens me.

 

If you want to ask a woman out to coffee, suggest finding a time to meet up at a public place for coffee and talking, don't ask her back to your place. It may not be intended, but the idea that the woman is more likely to get if you ask her to your place is "Also, I'm hoping we can have sex."

 

If you DO intend that... Try to remember that not all women are happy to have sex with total strangers--not even those they find attractive! Just because YOU would like sex with an attractive female that you find sexually appealing does NOT mean that she will have such an interest in you--and by putting her in such a situation where you have that unspoken implication makes her INCREDIBLY uncomfortable.

 

This is part of the problem here in America (I won't pretend to be able to speak for those in other parts of the world, as I'm hardly an expert on my own country's culture much less on the cultures of other places!). Because we teach that women should try not to be raped instead of teaching men not to rape, we females have to take extremes to attempt to prevent a misunderstanding that will lead to a guy saying "Hey, I totally thought she meant she wanted to when she agreed to come over to my place" or "She led me on, how is it my fault?" and then society saying "Well, you shouldn't have let him think you were interested--it's your own fault, really."

 

So, we have to compensate for that part of what society says. For me, that's one of the reasons why I tend to not take words at face value--society has trained me to be looking for the double meaning, so I can avoid being in a potentially uncomfortable or compromising situation where the other party thinks I'm more interested than I actually am--especially since, when females correct that mistake, they STILL get the "Hey, you were leading him on! You should have just said that in the first place!" BS from society.

[Princess Artemis]

With the added bonus of, "She shouldn't be allowed to say it's creepy because X IS WORSE."

 

You can't say you're hungry because STARVING CHILDREN IN AFRICA. What, you are a starving child in Africa? You can't say you're hungry because MILLIONS OF STARVING ORPHAN NUCLEAR WAR REFUGEES WITH ONLY ONE LIMB. I mean, WTF? This kind of irrational thinking is what gets suicidal people thinking they aren't worth helping. It is absolutely diseased, and apparently even people who pride themselves on their rationality aren't immune.

 

That whole incident was blown out of proportion though. It stuns me how many people could fail to understand how creepy it is to follow a woman into an elevator from a bar after she said she was going to bed and then hit on her once the doors closed. The guy's intentions could have been pure as the driven snow and it would still be creepy because he utterly failed to show her any respect at all.

 

Guys, want to show respect and not be seen as a creep? Don't corner women in order to talk to them!

[KageSora]

With the added bonus of, "She shouldn't be allowed to say it's creepy because X IS WORSE."

 

You can't say you're hungry because STARVING CHILDREN IN AFRICA. What, you are a starving child in Africa? You can't say you're hungry because MILLIONS OF STARVING ORPHAN NUCLEAR WAR REFUGEES WITH ONLY ONE LIMB. I mean, WTF? This kind of irrational thinking is what gets suicidal people thinking they aren't worth helping. It is absolutely diseased, and apparently even people who pride themselves on their rationality aren't immune.

 

That whole incident was blown out of proportion though. It stuns me how many people could fail to understand how creepy it is to follow a woman into an elevator from a bar after she said she was going to bed and then hit on her once the doors closed. The guy's intentions could have been pure as the driven snow and it would still be creepy because he utterly failed to show her any respect at all.

 

Guys, want to show respect and not be seen as a creep? Don't corner women in order to talk to them!

Oh, I could go on a HUGE rant that would probably hit the character limit for posts several times over about just how ed up that line of thinking is. Yeah, it can be helpful if you're talking to yourself like "Hey, don't sweat X, Y is worse, you can do this!" But NEVER, EVER try to use "X is nothing compared to Y" to invalidate a problem somebody has, no matter what it is... But that'd be off-topic to rant on that... >_>

 

 

And exactly! If he wanted to talk to her, he should have spoken to her in the hallway, and asked if there was a chance they could meet up for coffee some other time--asking her back to the room just... No. Just no. And especially not in an enclosed space.

 

"Oh, but you could escape the elevator!" Not if he's blocking your way to the buttons, or if he's armed. You just never know--and this isn't just against guys as if saying "guys are dangerous rapist creeps", the same could be true of a female. You never know if people are going to do something crazy like that. I'd be wary no matter who it was. It doesn't matter that it was a guy. If the roles had been reversed, it still would be iffy (doesn't matter if a guy says "hey, I'd love that! It wouldn't be creepy!" it's still not appropriate).

[Kelkelen]

And exactly! If he wanted to talk to her, he should have spoken to her in the hallway, and asked if there was a chance they could meet up for coffee some other time--asking her back to the room just... No. Just no. And especially not in an enclosed space.

Right. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this idea -- basically, it's just "don't manipulate." If anyone needs a simple list of how to approach asking someone out...

 

1. Don't corner them. Give them the freedom to decline gracefully, with no fear of possible consequences. This means no asking them out in an elevator, no blocking them in a stairwell, no leaning on the wall so they can't walk past you in a corridor, etc. The conversation should be taking place in a free environment.

 

2. Ask them to neutral ground. This means, ask them to meet you in a public place for your first date; somewhere they *know* there will be other people around, somewhere they could easily get up from and leave if they needed to. Coffee at that little shop down the street? Sure. Coffee in your hotel room? No. In general, do NOT "ask people out" to your home; you will come off as a creeper. If, however, all you want really is sexy times at your home, just make sure you do the asking in a free environment, as mentioned above. And don't be asking someone who's already expressed that they aren't interested.

 

3. Don't pressure. Don't pester, don't repeat yourself, for goodness' sake, don't COAX. Whether or not you mean it, the unspoken threat is felt when you refuse to take "no" for an answer. If you ask for my number, and I tell you I won't give it, don't keep asking! "Oh, come on... please?" and "why not?" aren't going to get you anywhere -- except if I'm afraid of making you angry. Doesn't mean I'll answer your calls when they come in.

 

4. Allow them time to decide. Don't ask them to go out with you that very moment, or as soon as they get off of work (or to come to your room when the elevator stops!). Make a suggestion of getting together on another day, see how they feel about it, and give them a way to contact you when they know, if it's not a 'no' up front.

 

5. Allow them the upper hand! Instead of asking for their number, how about just giving them yours? If they're interested, they'll call you -- if not, they won't. No sense of threat or pressure; it's on their timetable, with the suggestion that they can choose, or at least suggest, the time and location. Nothing feels more uneven to me than when someone wants my number, wants to know when I'm free, but won't offer me the same in return.

 

...seriously, all this just feels like common sense to me! If you wanted to, for example, borrow money from a stranger, you wouldn't wait until you were alone with them in an elevator and then ask without warning if you could have fifty dollars before the elevator stopped at your floor -- so why do sexual advances often have so much *less* respect involved?

[Fuzzbucket]

Whoa. 

 

To be clear, my comment about elevators in my post above was *not* in regards to this Richard Dawkins thing, which I didn't know about until just now. 

<snip>

But I guess, according to Dawkins, and a few posters on this thread, it's so minor an issue that it's foolish for me to even bring it up.  >_<  I do NOT want to be touched by strange men in elevators, okay!?  Ugh.

I had no idea Richard Dawkins had said that kind of crap. HOWEVER it does not surprise me,. I am probably the only person here who actually met him when he was still in short trousers, and whose daughter was very badly treated by him when she was at university (academically, not gropily - and not in the matter of grades, simply being REALLY unpleasant when she pointed out an actual mistake in his book and asked if she had misunderstood it - as a student, she needed to know... just in case anyone was thinking it was a sexist thing - no, it was just unprofessional in a tutor, and in no way helped anyone academically - though she saved a lot of time by not going to any more of his lectures )

 

He was a thoroughly nasty little boy when he was in junior school and he lived up to that promise when he grew up. Disregard him - it is what he deserves.

Edited April 1, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[Obscure_Trash]

A Look at the Debate Over the Violence Against Women Act: http://www.glamour.com/inspired/blogs/the-...n-in-orbit.html

 

That scares me so much I don't even know what to do.

[Kelkelen]

A Look at the Debate Over the Violence Against Women Act: http://www.glamour.com/inspired/blogs/the-...n-in-orbit.html

 

That scares me so much I don't even know what to do.

Oh my. How could they even for half a second *consider* rescinding that legislation?!? What on earth is the logic of it -- "we don't want to occasionally help illegal immigrants or lesbians who are being violently beaten, so let's remove an assistance framework for 1/4 of all the women in our nation?"

 

...that's wrong on so many levels.

 

Republicans have argued that they are not opposed to the Violence Against Women Act as it was passed before, but they don't like new provisions that would extend greater protections to undocumented immigrants, gays and transgender individuals and would grant more authority to tribal prosecutors.

 

"I think it's things that have never been in the Violence Against Women Act, because if we had just a straight reauthorization, it would pass 100 percent," said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

Noting that the cost of the legislation had been cut by more than $100 million, Feinstein said she'll be interested in seeing which parts the GOP tries to strike.

 

"We'll see if this is part of an effort to essentially reduce services to women, whether it's because the bill adds same-sex people, whether it's because the bill affords the services to people who are here in undocumented status," she said.

 

^ from this article --> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/v..._n_1348711.html

[Rosedamai]

I guess illegal/non-straight women don't count and can get beaten up to death, eh?

/sarcasm

[elderberrysyrup]

I guess illegal/non-straight women don't count and can get beaten up to death, eh?

/sarcasm

You see, women who aren't white deserve their beatings, and women who are gay aren't real women.

 

/sarcasm

[Rosedamai]

You see, women who aren't white deserve their beatings, and women who are gay aren't real women.

 

/sarcasm

Besides, it's a part of their culture, right? We all know that men who aren't white beat up their wives because they're culturally told to! So how can we expect anything more from them? And honestly, if you're gay and your woman partner beats you up, you should be able to defend yourself-after all, she's just a girl. She can't be that good a fighter!

 

/sarcasm

[WereJace]

Let's not forget the bit they want to add about reservation police being able to arrest non-tribe members who are abusing First Nations women. God forbid a white person actually stand trial for beating their 'indian wife'!

[Red Dragonette]

Republicans have argued that they are not opposed to the Violence Against Women Act as it was passed before, but they don't like new provisions that would extend greater protections to undocumented immigrants, gays and transgender individuals and would grant more authority to tribal prosecutors.

 

"I think it's things that have never been in the Violence Against Women Act, because if we had just a straight reauthorization, it would pass 100 percent," said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

Noting that the cost of the legislation had been cut by more than $100 million, Feinstein said she'll be interested in seeing which parts the GOP tries to strike.

 

"We'll see if this is part of an effort to essentially reduce services to women, whether it's because the bill adds same-sex people, whether it's because the bill affords the services to people who are here in undocumented status," she said.

 

I got something to say to that: WTF?! D:<

 

So they're trying to exclude illegal immigrants, lesbians and transgenders?! COME ON!!! That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. They're humans just like them for crying out loud! Just how screwed up can some people be?

 

Sorry for the rant people, I got emotional there. I hope I didn't make myself look like a jerk.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Red Dragonette

[Kelkelen]

Sorry for the rant people, I got emotional there. I hope I didn't make myself look like a jerk.

Not at all! The people who want to overturn this legislation are the jerks, for saying that it's totally FINE if illegal immigrants and gender-queers get brutally beaten and have no recourse! I mean... I mean... AAAAAUGH!

[KageSora]

So they're trying to exclude illegal immigrants, lesbians and transgenders?! COME ON!!! That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. They're humans just like them for crying out loud!

Yes, they're human.

 

But they're CLEARLY not REAL women--especially those lesbians and those transgenders! And if they're illegal they don't count.

 

 

Ugh. Seriously, moving to Canada is getting more and more appealing every day... At least I could do something helpful there. >_>

[Princess Artemis]

Is it not possible to add new stuff in separate legislation, instead of adding it onto something that is already universally accepted? It's important to advance, but I am uncertain why it is important to also risk the entire front in order to advance a flank.

 

The people who want to overturn it are jerks; the people who are risking it all instead of keeping one fortification and making more, stronger outposts are insidiously stupid. Or worse--they are playing politics.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[elderberrysyrup]

You know, being a female in america sucks as a first world county. Compare to the other 1st world countries.