# Treating women like human beings, not things!



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

> If you’re not one of “those guys,” and you really do want to treat women like human beings, go ahead and internalize these simple truths:
> 
> 1) She is more than just her physical appearance.
> 
> ...


The one basic thing men still don't seem to understand about women

Have a read; have a discussion.

Enjoy!


----------



## Hollow Man (Aug 12, 2011)

It's too hard for me to say anything about this in general, but I agree with the parts that the OPer quoted at least. I know some men who speak about women in dehumanizing ways, and I know women who can do the same to themselves by thinking too much or paying too much mind to certain aspects. Men definitely are responsible as well too for sure. I don't fully understand the articles specifically about the men who hate women or blame them. I don't really want to because I know they're kind of dumb anyways, and I am skeptical of a lot of things on social media, just the way it's presently in a provocative way to get people all emotional and defensive (for me personally it does a lot more harm than good). Though, there's definitely good media things out there.

I believe in honesty and authenicity above many things, and it takes a lot to create these values and it's by living an active lifestyle that respects other people and tries to understand what matters. Investing in caring about each other and figuring things out. How people go through this will vary wildly, but I think it's definitely good to understand that women are actually quite pressured significantly to present themselves in a beautiful way, and it's good to be conscious of that. Give them some space and don't let that their beauty is the sole reason you want to approach them. 

Again, yeah, I can't say things absolutely, and I don't know how to say these things exactly, but it's my opinion on this present orientation of male/female relations. Haha....


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

Ultimately you just want to be clear and only make justified assumptions, as with an impersonal practice. I don't see a problem with viewing people as 'things' in proper context; a sum of their parts, this is quite justified. Reminding people of people being human is an empty truism; at worst it manifests in a lot of bile from others who merely *imagine* the worst case motives through psychological posturing (and projection), leading into an idiotic moral crusade.


----------



## Andromeda31 (Jul 21, 2014)

My mother instilled most of her values/morals in me and even though I'm capable of independent thought many of the values/morals she taught me I still hold to this day. I don't need an idealogue with a liberal arts degree to teach me that women are people. 

Those who do treat women badly are plainly bad people and an online article won't do much to change that.


----------



## EternalFrost (Jan 12, 2013)

You would think what is pointed out in this article is common sense but many people don't seem to get it. It's hard for it to be common sense in societies that constantly devalue women in all forms of media. The subconscious is a lot harder to change and that's what the media affects most.


----------



## Pyogenes (Feb 12, 2014)

The implicit assumption here is that women don't view men as things too. Women date men just for the money and status all the time. I suppose because men view women as sexual things, that's somehow worse than women viewing men as status things?

People shouldn't use each other, regardless of the gender dynamic.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Considering the loving attention we often give them, I'd choose to be treated as an expensive gaming pc battlestation. If humanity ran out of common sense for good, at least I get dibs on the best object.


----------



## stormgirl (May 21, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> The one basic thing men still don't seem to understand about women
> 
> Have a read; have a discussion.
> 
> Enjoy!



I agree with all these points…but really, who wouldn’t? All human beings deserve to be treated like human beings. The author of the article brings up some valid points. Rape remains an ongoing issue no doubt, as does violence…but I felt the article goes into the same dangerous territory I see so many feminist articles going to, which is lumping all men into the category of potential abuser.

Robyn Urback: Feminists reinforce their worst stereotypes by making a scandal of Rosetta scientist’s ‘sexist’ shirt | National Post

The link is to an article on the physicist who worked on the Rosetta mission. There was an uproar over his shirt…yes…his shirt! Feminists felt it was sexist because it portrayed scantily clad women on it, so this male scientist was turned into a pariah due to his fashion choices of all things.

A little balance is needed I think!


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> The one basic thing men still don't seem to understand about women
> Have a read; have a discussion.
> Enjoy!


the only issue I take is with #3. in a relationship, it is the responsibility of both parties to make a reasonable effort to fulfill their partner's emotional and sexual needs, period.
Edit: of course, my point has nothing to do with gender.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> the only issue I take is with #3. in a relationship, it is the responsibility of both parties to make a reasonable effort to fulfill their partner's emotional and sexual needs, period.
> Edit: of course, my point has nothing to do with gender.


I both agree and disagree. My ex was a very unhappy person and liked to blame his unhappiness on me. At the beginning of the relationship, his happiness was contingent upon me fulfilling his every desire; when I started to put my foot down and have a spine, he began to blame me for his unhappiness. The thing is, I shouldn't have had to provide his happiness for him and his emotional fulfillment for him. That's contingent upon the individual; not upon their partner. That isn't to say you shouldn't fulfill some of your partner's needs, though.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> I both agree and disagree. My ex was a very unhappy person and liked to blame his unhappiness on me. At the beginning of the relationship, his happiness was contingent upon me fulfilling his every desire; when I started to put my foot down and have a spine, he began to blame me for his unhappiness. The thing is, I shouldn't have had to provide his happiness for him and his emotional fulfillment for him. That's contingent upon the individual; not upon their partner. That isn't to say you shouldn't fulfill some of your partner's needs, though.


I don't think we disagree. "reasonable effort" was in there for this very reason.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I don't think we disagree. "reasonable effort" was in there for this very reason.


That's true, but some people view their abusive expectations as the measure of reasonable effort!


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> That's true, but some people view their abusive expectations as the measure of reasonable effort!


*writes up a short response before realizing midway through that your were mocking them* :tongue:

the real issue is spotting such people, as they're typically manipulative fuckers


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

stormgirl said:


> I agree with all these points…but really, who wouldn’t? All human beings deserve to be treated like human beings. The author of the article brings up some valid points. Rape remains an ongoing issue no doubt, as does violence…but I felt the article goes into the same dangerous territory I see so many feminist articles going to, which is lumping all men into the category of potential abuser.
> 
> Robyn Urback: Feminists reinforce their worst stereotypes by making a scandal of Rosetta scientist’s ‘sexist’ shirt | National Post
> 
> ...


If you actually read the full article, you'll understand that the author is not doing that. I also don't understand the relevance of the physicist's shirt to this thread. Thank you for your contributions, though.


----------



## stormgirl (May 21, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> If you actually read the full article, you'll understand that the author is not doing that. I also don't understand the relevance of the physicist's shirt to this thread. Thank you for your contributions, though.


To point out that it's becoming increasingly difficult to take feminists seriously when they choose to focus on such trivial matters!


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

women could take this advice and apply it to their treatment of men too..

1) they often objectify men. they often give more of a chance to a man they feel is physically attractive. less attractive men aren't given as much a shake. whether it's because he looks good, carries himself a certain way, is dressed well, is tall...a man with "it" gets a pass whereas a man without "it" is looked down upon. even hated, vilified. openly...for example..

https://twitter.com/heightismxposed

women, we do pay attention, you know..
2) men are supposedly "simple", less emotionally complex, or that is common rhetoric.
3) women expect men to provide for them, fulfill them, or maybe rather than expect...they appreciate it when they do. women are attracted to a man who can fulfill their social (financial) wants.
4) women don't like it when you leave them, especially after a time of being with them. they grow attached then hate when you select against them. other women, if you opt against them, get offended that you may have standards and expectation that they don't meet.
5) women think of their time as more valuable to them when compared to your time, which is less valuable to them. frequently women will play games, blow you off, not have the courtesy to message back, or will make plans just to cancel last minute. this, however, i agree with because women are on a time scale that men don't really have to deal with. a woman at 33, for example, is severely limited in her biology with regard to how many viable offspring she can produce...whereas a man at 33 is just hitting his prime. their time is more valuable at certain stages of their life.

hypocrisy.

but i ain't mad at it...

men suck too. people in general just suck lol


----------



## Pearl Parker (Sep 2, 2014)

Why is everything always about women? I'm a woman myself but I'm sick and tired of them going on and on about all their misfortunes and struggles like they're the only ones. Someone should write an article on understanding men. But of course, no one would take it seriously since they're not as ''complex''. Maybe I'm being too cynical but I'm just over the whole 'Men don't understand me/they don't get it' thing.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@koalaroo
just skimmed the actual article. my main issue with it was not the content, but it's claiming that the _majority_ of men treat women like objects, which is ridiculous for anyone living in the developed world.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

I still fail to understand the whole "object" point.

You remain a human being, although, it is I who makes the choice about what I value about you.

If I seek nothing but sexual pleasure from a woman, what is "wrong" about that?

Is lust considered "wrong"? 
Is the lack of envy for an emotional relationship, considered "wrong"?


----------



## Amaryllis (Mar 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> If I seek nothing but sexual pleasure from a woman, what is "wrong" about that?
> Is lust considered "wrong"?
> Is the lack of envy for an emotional relationship, considered "wrong"?


No as long as you are honest about it. If you explain what you want without falsely leading her on, that it's just sex and nothing else, then she is informed about what exactly you are expecting from her and if she agrees then you can both have your fun. However, the fact that your relationship is purely sexual doesn't mean that you have the right to treat her like a blow up doll, she is still a human being and deserves basic human respect.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Amaryllis said:


> No as long as you are honest about it. If you explain what you want without falsely leading her on, that it's just sex and nothing else, then she is informed about what exactly you are expecting from her and if she agrees then you can both have your fun. However, the fact that your relationship is purely sexual doesn't mean that you have the right to treat her like a blow up doll, she is still a human being and deserves basic human respect.


"treat her like", that is relative to a person's interpretation.

Children often treat their dolls like actual friends, would that be "humanification"? (animism)


"basic human respect."

Are you implying that lust/sexual desire is not "basic human respect"?


If a man would be in a relationship with a woman, but he does not envy her sexually, would that also be considered as disrespectful?


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Pyogenes said:


> The implicit assumption here is that women don't view men as things too. Women date men just for the money and status all the time. I suppose because men view women as sexual things, that's somehow worse than women viewing men as status things?
> 
> People shouldn't use each other, regardless of the gender dynamic.



Amen....


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Pyogenes said:


> The implicit assumption here is that women don't view men as things too. Women date men just for the money and status all the time. I suppose because men view women as sexual things, that's somehow worse than women viewing men as status things?
> 
> People shouldn't use each other, regardless of the gender dynamic.


I would say it's the same problematic culture that promotes relying on men financially that also promotes women as subservant sex objects. With a history in which women working was limited and inhibited, there was a point in time that a woman's stability was through her male suitor and the whole gold digging thing was a standard actively encouraged. 
Though I would wonder what associated harm comes to men on this basis because there has been a great deal of study towards how it harms women psychologically to be objectified and how such a culture often makes fertile ground for which violence against women is common place more so than many people choose to acknowledge.

So if there is indeed to be a game of who has it worse, I would say women considering I believe the culture of objectification is heavily linked to toxic aspects of masculinity/hyper masculinity that results in much harm to women and is a great cost to any society as well as the women directly impacted by it.
Not that men's harm isn't unimportant but I find many of the problems men complain on a gendered basis always come from a more culturally direct harm to women, that the two are inherently linked.

But such a game is problematic, rather be inclusive and acknowledge that both of these problems are born out of an archaic culture that is to be done away with since I know many men feel opposed and left out. Especially us white men who are both idolized and demonized leading to much resistance and resentment in the demographic. Challenging that culture and putting supports for that actually improve women's career opportunities would help deal with this problem, supporting women to be financially independent means less stress on men to provide for them, less power disparity to make it easier to abuse and hopefully more of a push for workers rights with better policies around maternity/paternity live.

EDIT: For anyone interesting at looking at Objectification, there is a readily accessible paper by Philosopher Martha Nussbaum.
http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/mprg/nussbaumO.pdf
This doesn't discuss the real world consequences of objectification but provides a own definition and discussion of several texts to explore sexual objectification contextually.


----------



## EternalFrost (Jan 12, 2013)

Aaaand Wellsy dishes a smackdown.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

I hate these kinds of things.

"I'm going to focus entirely on me! You can focus entirely on yourself. Just don't get in the way of me focusing on me."

Men, place her ahead of yourself.

Woman, place him ahead yourself.

You can't neglect any of those. Men can't treat you "equally," just woman can't treat men "equally." There's no love in that. Treat them better than equally--but the same HAS to go for the other person, or else it isn't going to work.

And that is why relationships constantly fail. This generation is very egoistic. 

"Your social problems aren't her problems." Such a disgusting statement. Such a self-interested statement. Such an equal statement.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Boo-hoo, the feminazees are twyna oppwess men. God, I hate you all.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> The one basic thing men still don't seem to understand about women
> 
> Have a read; have a discussion.
> 
> Enjoy!


I think the title of this thread is insulting, stereotyping, bigoted, and the very definition of misandry.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

The one basic thing men still don't seem to understand about women

Seemed like a lot of things.

I kept scrolling for The One and gave up. I was pretty excited too.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> I think the title of this thread is insulting, stereotyping, bigoted, and the very definition of misandry.


Can you explain instead of making bald assertions so that I can deconstruct your arguments? 

What exactly is misandrist about saying that women should be treated like human beings, and not things?


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_koalaroo_
> just skimmed the actual article. my main issue with it was not the content, but it's claiming that the _majority_ of men treat women like objects, which is ridiculous for anyone living in the developed world.


The reasoning goes:

men are generally stronger
they are generally hornier/sexually motivated
Therefore more are likely to treat women like objects. 
Since they're stronger, and aggressive in general, they're likely to abuse women more.
Media is likely to treat women as objects too since they're led by male manipulators.
Society is likely to treat women as objects because it serves those constantly horny, pissed off men in charge.
Men do not know right from wrong because society blurs what's right/wrong


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Emerald Legend said:


> The reasoning goes:
> 
> men are generally stronger
> they are generally hornier
> ...


That's not the reasoning or even what is at all posited in the article.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I treat women and men the same. Independent entities from myself. I see nothing in them for me nor anyone else.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

stormgirl said:


> To point out that it's becoming increasingly difficult to take feminists seriously when they choose to focus on such trivial matters!


Your post was a non sequitur, but again, thank you for participating.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> Can you explain instead of making bald assertions so that I can deconstruct your arguments?
> 
> What exactly is misandrist about saying that women should be treated like human beings, and not things?


Generally do people treat each other like human beings?

If I were to say "women should treat men like human beings, not wallets" could you find that offensive?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> Generally do people treat each other like human beings?
> 
> If I were to say "women should treat men like human beings, not wallets" could you find that offensive?


Not really, although I'd think it was a false generalization. If you read it, the article is technically about a subset of guys, not the population as a whole. TBH, though, as a woman I get objectified by both men AND women on a daily basis, but more so by men who think that because they say hello to me or send me a message on facebook/OKCupid/Tinder/wherever that I owe them a response. Explain to me why I should be subject to verbal abuse and harassment because I do not engage a man in conversation? I'm not an object that's meant for these type of guys' pleasure.


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> That's not the reasoning or even what is at all posited in the article.


Well, I was responding to som's comment, especially the 'why' an article might accuse majority of men treating women like objects. The delusional beliefs the writer might have no matter how cleverly they're being veiled.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> Not really, although I'd think it was a false generalization. If you read it, the article is technically about a subset of guys, not the population as a whole. TBH, though, as a woman I get objectified by both men AND women on a daily basis, but more so by men who think that because they say hello to me or send me a message on facebook/OKCupid/Tinder/wherever that I owe them a response. Explain to me why I should be subject to verbal abuse and harassment because I do not engage a man in conversation? I'm not an object that's meant for these type of guys' pleasure.


take it up with them. 

generalizing it out like you are doing in this thread causes more of an us vs them mentality. 

I am not buying into your victimhood. 

Deal with them. Don't blame me. 

Your thread, your trolling, your misandry is offensive to me.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> take it up with them.
> 
> generalizing it out like you are doing in this thread causes more of an us vs them mentality.
> 
> ...


I haven't generalized anything; the article in the OP just had some interesting food for thought, particularly the bullet points that I listed in the OP. I realize that you and I don't get along, but there's no reason to come crashing into this thread like a bull in a China shop making ridiculous accusations. 

FWIW, I put the misogynists I deal with online on ignore and report them if possible. The thing is, though, why should I have to encounter this kind of misbehavior in the first place?


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> take it up with them.
> 
> generalizing it out like you are doing in this thread causes more of an *us vs them mentality*.
> 
> ...


I think the irony here is that you partake in what you've criticized. 
1. The Us Vs Them mentality
- You have taken offense presumably because you're a man and this topic is directed towards men, but what men? The men who do whats cited in the article, you've over generalized that because they use the word man and you're a man that they are out to insult every man as opposed to the subset who actually meet the description.
There is no Us Vs Them as much as you've created the Man Vs Woman in your own mind rather than one of criticizing those who would exhibit the points of the article.

2. Victim hood
- Being the victim of something isn't a mentality of victim hood, this word is often used in a dismissive manner that from my understanding summarizes that what's happened to someone is over blown, that they're over reacting. But the one who is engaging in victim hood mentality here is you because you've overblown the article to include all men by what I assume is a group belonging mentality.

I don't think this thread is trolling but has touched on the larger topic of objectification and dehumanization that is culturally promoted without many even recognizing the implications of it. 
You have the right to be offended but I'm not sure whether your offense is entirely reasonable.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> I haven't generalized anything; the article in the OP just had some interesting food for thought, particularly the bullet points that I listed in the OP. I realize that you and I don't get along, but there's no reason to come crashing into this thread like a bull in a China shop making ridiculous accusations.
> 
> FWIW, I put the misogynists I deal with online on ignore and report them if possible. The thing is, though, why should I have to put up with this kind of misbehavior?


I am addressing your thread, the TITLE of your thread, and your posts. I am not making accusations; I am sharing my opinion. If you don't want my opinion, say so, and I'll quit posting to this thread.

I found the above mentioned things offensive, and I am discussing these things with you in a civil and calm manner.

I do not remember having discussions with you in the past, so rest assured there is nothing personal on my part here about previous discussions we had?????

Again, I believe posts like this serve to cause people to quit listening to each other. I recognize you don't like misogyny from this thread, and I am letting you know I do not like misandry, and I consider your thread offensive.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

EternalFrost said:


> I think to point out NotAllMen thing in discussions about a negative behavior mostly perpetrated by men , does not only trivialize and derail a topic but it insults the intelligence of people discussing. I feel like it is very obvious that of course not all men are X. *But the people who partake in such a behavior are vastly men. Example: Not all men are misogynistic, but most misogynists are men.*


Actual DERAILING, would be to post about some unrelated trivial issue in a blatant attempt to redirect the topic; which is not at all what I'm doing. I take this issue extremely seriously which is WHY I want authors like the one linked, to voice the exact same arguments _sans_ the anti-male hostility; so that MEN - the assumed target audience, will be far more likely to respond the way the author presumedly would like. 

I couldn't DISAGREE with you more. I am doing the precise OPPOSITE of "trivializing and derailing" this topic. Have you bothered to read the dissenting opinions? Well, I'd be absolutely fascinated to know what effect of clarifying SOME men over ALL men would impact on those responses.

I'm very sorry that you fail to understand how the hostility and anti-male bias of the author, clearly hurts and otherwise detracts from the author's otherwise noble goal of educating people on this issue.

Your response shows me, that you clearly do not realize how severely male gender shaming and unfairly tarring all men with the same brush; hurts rather then helps resolve this issue. Do you sincerely believe that condemning men as a gender - which is what the author - NOT The OP - is unwittingly doing - at least to some extent - is NOT trivializing and devaluing this issue?

And what about my other very salient point about - here's a novel concept - (actually PRAISING men who treat women well) SHOWING examples of men treating women like human beings - in addition to contrast the already stated negatives?



EternalFrost said:


> It is a figure of speech and no one ever takes it literally. Unless you feel the need to point out the obvious


That's news to me; so according to your "logic" no men ought to feel even the least bit slighted and offended by this? I know if the situation were reversed and I read an article out rightly condemning women for obnoxious behaviour attributed to only to some; I sure as hell would be.

FWIW, some misogynists are women and some misandrists are also men. Bigotry is not only he prerogative of any specific group.


Apologies, if you found my reply too unintelligent or insulting. 

:laughing:


----------



## FakeLefty (Aug 19, 2013)

I haven't read the article yet, but I think the big, broad issue is that humanity is obsessed with categorizing each other. Instead of viewing people as people, we categorize them into Conservatives, Liberals, Asians, whites, blacks, etc. and in the end we forget that underneath the arbitrary differences, we are all part of the same species. And instead of treating others equally we end up treating others in a way that is a hindrance to them. Yes, the whole objectification of women is a prominent issue, but I think that we also need to stop forgetting that we are all part of the same species. That we are all human beings.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

EternalFrost said:


> I think to point out NotAllMen thing in discussions about a negative behavior mostly perpetrated by men , does not only trivialize and derail a topic but it insults the intelligence of people discussing. I feel like it is very obvious that of course not all men are X. But the people who partake in such a behavior are vastly men. Example: Not all men are misogynistic, but most misogynists are men.
> 
> It is a figure of speech and no one ever takes it literally. Unless you feel the need to point out the obvious


Her writing has tones of bitterness and hostility. Parts of it come across as if shes just using the article to vent. She's addressing the way men view woman, her main audience here should be men, right? Her style of writing is definitely not the most effective way to reach men. This article has some good and thought provoking points. Although I almost didn't give the article a full read because I was put off by the tone of her article. Also she is basically just describing an problem here, without offering solutions. Showing ways that guys actually do treat women with respect and as people would definitely lead to more discussion about ways to address the things she's so frustrated about.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Chesire Tower said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've only skimmed the article but could you point out the examples within it that you believe suggest a anti-male bias as opposed to criticism/examples of only men who meet the description?
I would ask anyone to provide the examples so I can better understand one's perspective.

Because it seems clear enough to me they made point to use examples of men (subset who happen to be men) rather than talk about men as a whole and then added "If you’re not one of “*those guys*,” and you really do want to treat women like human beings, go ahead and internalize these simple truths:" to launch of their opinion of how to better respect women.
"Those guys" being the men who happen to be apart of those described prior, not all men do this so listen up all men. 

I agree it would've been more persuasive with explicitness in this regard like academic papers which take note of why they have taken a gendered stance, typically because with gendered issues it means one does that thing more so than the other.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Wellsy said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



* *




Just FYI, you may have responded to my post before I finished editing it.



Don't get me wrong, I do consider it to be an excellent article over all but my point still stands. Examples? Gladly:



> The one basic thing *men* still don't seem to understand about women


The title for one; why does the author assume that men as a group rather than specific men don't understand this?



> If you’re *not* one of “those guys,”





> not *all* men do this


MY point exactly; check and mate! ^_^

As soon as I were to read, "if you're *not* one of those women/feminist/liberals/treehuggers/ etc./etc."; or if you're one of the GOOD ______ , I tune out. 

Had she correctly titled the article as SOME men; this clarification would have been redundant as ONLY men with misogynist and sexist attitudes could possibly infer that she was referring to them.

More examples of unfortunate hostility seeping through include:



> Josh Barrie moaned in the Daily Telegraph that all these modern distinctions are *simply too confusing for his classic Don Draper man-brain*:





> *The brain trust* over at A Voice for Men accused me of being on a “quest to kill social interaction forever,”


Now, it goes without saying that I am not disagreeing with her obvious frustration at having her position so annoyingly misunderstood but her sarcasm puts some people off - particularly the people she most wants to influence: supposedly, MEN.

I wish to make it crystal clear that I agree with her main point and wholeheartedly support her arguments but by merely a slight title change and minus the insulting comments, her article would have been made that much stronger. This does not take away a damn thing from her otherwise excellent arguments and that is WHY I feel so passionately about these and other extremely important issues involving male/female relations in society. As male-positive feminist Emma Watson understands; you need men to be part of the solution and you accomplish this by highlighting the right way to treat women; NOT ONLY focusing on the bad. She could have for example, given a positive and helpful example of how a man who respected women's boundaries and/or viewed them as human beings would act in a comparable situation. 

There are a great many men who are doing amazing things to further the cause of women's equality and I very rarely see any articles praising or rewarding them for their efforts. Rather, they are pretty much ignored because it is considered to be "expected"; so only focus on the assholes and neglect the men who are doing their damnedest to change things - like you for example.

*bats eyelashes at Wellsy* :kitteh:




Sporadic Aura said:


> Her writing has tones of bitterness and hostility. Parts of it come across as if shes just using the article to vent. She's addressing the way men view woman, her main audience here should be men, right? Her style of writing is definitely not the most effective way to reach men. This article has some good and thought provoking points. Although I almost didn't give the article a full read because I was put off by the tone of her article. Also she is basically just describing an problem here, without offering solutions. Showing ways that guys actually do treat women with respect and as people would definitely lead to more discussion about ways to address the things she's so frustrated about.


I just wanted to requote this, because even if this isn't the reaction that the author is going for; how useful is unnecessarily alienating your target audience - and if it isn't men, then wtf's the point of the whole thing?

I wish that more feminists would take a tip from Emma Watson and realize that a compassionate and inclusive attitude, will get you far better results than an unnecessarily dismissive one.


----------



## EternalFrost (Jan 12, 2013)

Chesire Tower said:


> I couldn't DISAGREE with you more. I am doing the precise OPPOSITE of "trivializing and derailing" this topic. Have you bothered to read the dissenting opinions? Well, I'd be absolutely fascinated to know what effect of clarifying SOME men over ALL men would impact on those responses.
> 
> I'm very sorry that you fail to understand how the hostility and anti-male bias of the author, clearly hurts and otherwise detracts from the author's otherwise noble goal of educating people on this issue.
> 
> ...


So you are advising the author to be more politically correct is what you're saying? Alright. Fair point CattyCat. 
However, considering that most people use this argument to derail rather than to advise, it wont be going on my list of valid points. 

Just as "Men" can be interpreted as a damaging generalization, so can "not all men". I think when used as a criticism of going about a discussion its fine, but as an avoidance to a discussion, it can be just as damaging. I feel like the arguments you have about the political correctness are the same augments I could have about that particular argument of "not all men". People misunderstand and misuse them. I don't see how things get any better that way either. 

I also don't feel like the anti male attitude that you say the author has is as harsh as you make it our to be. 

As for the point that I missed, I don't exactly see what that will do. I'm sure there are guys in almost everyone's life who treat women as though they are people. Why does this have to be shown?Purpose? Would it not be odd to praise men for basic humanity as though they had none in the first place and must be rewarded? Odd I tell ya. 

Maybe its just because I can understand why people use generalized terms and can see past the political incorrectness. I have seen topics condemning women before, and I have never thought to myself " Well not all women are like this, you shoud say SOME women" Instead it went more like " Well some women ARE like this, lets examine why".

Also the oppressor/oppressed adds an entirely new level of understanding needed to examine how damaging something would really be to a group. Why do white people___Why do straight people ___Why do men__
has a totally different feel than: Why do black people___Why do homosexual people__Why do women___

People who feel offended by a titles because " NOT ALL GUYS DO THIS" and really don't care about the discussion is totally different from someone who agrees/ wants to discuss but wants the author of X to send the clearest message they can because its an important one.



Chesire Tower said:


> FWIW, some misogynists are women and some misandrists are also men. Bigotry is not only he prerogative of any specific group.
> 
> Apologies, if you found my reply too unintelligent or insulting.
> 
> :laughing:


BrUh
*but most misogynists are men.

*I even said MOST. : [ How could you have missed it
It was slightly insulting. I try not to do ad hominem but I slip up too sometimes too

PS. I apologize for pulling the trigger in my first post. I haven't seen your point used as a positive until now.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Chesire Tower said:


> Don't get me wrong, I do consider it to be an excellent article over all but my point still stands. Examples? Gladly:
> 
> The title for one; why does the author assume that men as a group rather than specific men don't understand this?


Then I can agree, those examples are clearly fucked XD
Such bitterness undermines inclusiveness and does more harm than good.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed it's good to focus on the good because people get all twisted up in criticism and find it always to be inherently negative and take criticism personally unfortunately.
I do agree it's good to give constructive feedback which is often here's the problem and here's how to improve but I would imagine the author believes their points at the end are (as quoted in the OP) the examples of the 'how to improve part'.

I don't know if there's too much to explore with the subject directly as it's more telling and not exactly one that divides people I'd imagine unless one wanted to defend viewing women opposite to the several points.
I think I was kind of hoping this would springboard onto objectification because to me that's what it's really touching on to dissect examples of it, cite research that has the negative consequences of it.

I have yet to come to a conclusion on objectification as I find I have many questions left even after that Martha Nussbaum point. because in it sex tends to be seen as always as inherently objectification, using one another's body as an object for pleasure. I think the issue I took is that objectification reduces one to an object and even in intercourse one doesn't deny autonomy or subjectiveness and other parts.
Like you could restrain someone but everything is to be done with communication of consent, there's always to be a feedback for any sudden changes.
Though it seems to me one could by Nussbaums definition qualify anything as objectification by meeting one of the several requirements of the her definition. 
My understanding then is that objectification isn't inherently bad only when done without one's consent and then this has larger implications on a societal level in which culture and structure of society influence what roles one is nurtured into. But then there must even be a line for consent to, I'm perhaps curious as to where the line for consent in BDSM lies. Because some of that can get pretty extreme but of course the general rule is as long as they consent to it is fine and it is dangerous waters to travel considering many pass moral judgement too easily. 
I'm just rambling now.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

This thread title leaves me confused along with OP's content.

I'd suggest "Treating human beings like human beings, not things!" 

As the OP's content is gender exchangeable it implies that these are universally applicable statements.

:mellow:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

EternalFrost said:


> So you are advising the author to be more politically correct is what you're saying? Alright. Fair point CattyCat. . . .]
> 
> [ . . . It was slightly insulting. I try not to do ad hominem but I slip up too sometimes too
> 
> PS. I apologize for pulling the trigger in my first post. I haven't seen your point used as a positive until now.


I will interpret you referring to me as "Cattycat" as either a commentary on my avatar/sigline or as a compliment? XD

I accept your apology; I for one am sick and tired of all of this unnecessary divisiveness and think that being more "politically correct" as you call it - I prefer to call it: NOT preaching to the choir but you say tomato, I say . . . 



Erbse said:


> This thread title leaves me confused along with OP's content.
> 
> I'd suggest "Treating human beings like human beings, not things!"
> 
> ...


While I definitely agree with this; to be fair to the OP, SHE isn't responsible for the article's title which is why I took pains to distinguish the OP's intent and how it clearly differentiated from the author's. While I did witness anti-male bias from the article, I did not from the OP.


*Using the brand spanking new - not-as-yet-installed HUG button on @Wellsy.* <3


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

EternalFrost said:


> People who feel offended by a titles because " NOT ALL GUYS DO THIS" and really don't care about the discussion is totally different from someone who agrees/ wants to discuss but wants the author of X to send the clearest message they can because its an important one.


The point is if the author doesn't use ambiguous language to begin with than the 'NOT ALL GUYS DO THIS' people won't be able to get offended or attack the article because the article will be unquestionably clear in its message. Which really should be the goal if its trying to start the most honest dialogue.


----------



## EternalFrost (Jan 12, 2013)

Chesire Tower said:


> I will interpret you referring to me as "Cattycat" as either a commentary on my avatar/sigline or as a compliment? XD
> 
> I accept your apology; I for one am sick and tired of all of this unnecessary divisiveness and think that being more "politically correct" as you call it - I prefer to call it: NOT preaching to the choir but I say tomato, I say . . .


 Yes your Avatar and siggy have much cat. I like cats. lol jk I LOVE CATS 

I just figure political incorrectness/choir preaching won't go away so I just deal accordingly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## EternalFrost (Jan 12, 2013)

Sporadic Aura said:


> The point is if the author doesn't use ambiguous language to begin with than the 'NOT ALL GUYS DO THIS' people won't be able to get offended or attack the article because the article will be unquestionably clear in its message. Which really should be the goal if its trying to start the most honest dialogue.


Its a valid criticism but not one that has any realistic solutions. Hence why learning to see past the political incorrectness yourself is more reasonable than telling everyone else to be politically correct. no?

Oops I meant to make this one post...o_o sorry for dubbleing


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

EternalFrost said:


> Its a valid criticism but not one that has any realistic solutions. Hence why learning to see past the political incorrectness yourself is more reasonable than telling everyone else to be politically correct. no?
> Oops I meant to make this one post...o_o sorry for dubbleing


the specific issue itself is not a big deal. it's more
1) the fact that this particular issue is considered acceptable. ie, it's not that everyone or (even most people) view all men as objectifying, rapist barbarians, but it's still permissible to view them as such)
2) the blatant hypocrisy that if anything even remotely similar to this was said about a woman, people would be up in arms. 

one should always be able to point out double standards in an intelligent discussion.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

EternalFrost said:


> Its a valid criticism but not one that has any realistic solutions. Hence why learning to see past the political incorrectness yourself is more reasonable than telling everyone else to be politically correct. no?
> 
> Oops I meant to make this one post...o_o sorry for dubbleing


Why isn't a realistic solution to try to not use ambiguous language whenever possible? 

I agree with you that you should try to figure out what the authors real message is instead of getting hung up on political correctness. But sometimes things with undertones of bitterness and hostility (which I picked up on in this article) are just unpleasant to read and it makes it harder to read the whole article through and actually think about the points its trying to get across.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

People treat each other as things all the time in all kinds of situations.
Then some women say that this is an issue about men.
The issue is that in a society where people are a dime a dozen,
it will be easy to treat people as expendable.

Why are people a dime a dozen?
Cause there are too many people, plain and simple.
If I chose to leave someone behind I can and will find thousands upon thousand
around every corner.
This lends itself to objectification of others on many levels.
Men gets bashed a lot for objectifying the female body.
The problem is that since there are a lot of female bodies around,
there is virtually nothing stoping a man from getting a new body when he wants.
In a small tribe you need to relate to everyone around you as subjects.
In a huge metropol it is hard to see why anyone would put aside the luxury of objectifying people.
If you try to treat everyone as a subject you will just find yourself overwhelmed.
Trying to force your subjective inner world upon others by accusing them of objectification
is actually a very narcisistic thing to do if you think about it.
Why oh why do your little inner world have a claim on my attentionspan?
The answer is you don't have that claim.

However
To recognize and aknowledge someones inner world is a great gift to give someone.
It is however a gift, a gift shouldn't be demanded but given.
A gift given under duress is no longer a gift but tribute.

Feminists who try to shame men for objectification are actually demanding tribute.
They are demanding that men aknowledge their subjectivity or else they will put you under duress.
That however is not the way things work.
If you want someone to give you a gift, you must deserve it in that persons eyes.


----------



## JackSparroww (Dec 10, 2010)

I know no woman, but I know a lot of rocks.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

hornet said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lolwut?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Chesire Tower said:


> Lolwut?


Instead of riddicule you will have to deal with the statements made.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

hornet said:


> Instead of riddicule you will have to deal with the statements made.





hornet said:


> Feminists who try to shame men for objectification are actually demanding tribute.
> They are demanding that men aknowledge their subjectivity or else they will put you under duress.
> That however is not the way things work.
> *If you want someone to give you a gift, you must deserve it in that persons eyes*.


Okay, I'll play; so I'm not misinterpreting what you're saying:

Are you seriously suggesting that women should have to earn the right to not have their boundaries violated? - which is - in case you missed it - the actual topic of this thread.

Again apologies, if that's isn't what you meant to say.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Chesire Tower said:


> Okay, I'll play; so I'm not misinterpreting what you're saying:
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that women should have to earn the right to not have their boundaries violated? - which is - in case you missed it - the actual topic of this thread.
> 
> Again apologies, if that's isn't what you meant to say.


No.
I had forgotten what the OP said.
I can see why you would have misunderstood it.
Whatever.
It is time to stop multitasking.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

l guess the article for me touched on something relevant but a little different from the thread title. IDK, the thread title certain explores one aspect of the issue but probably wouldn't have been my main takeaway if l'd jut read the article without seeing the thread at all.


There's still a slippery boundary issue that gets brushed off a lot and woman are often laughed at for being 'reactive' to.

l haven't experienced it with men who actually matter to me or close friends, but it's one way in which male acquaintances or even service people think they can kind of barter with and test for leeway if you will instead of just showing due respect upfront (this is granted after it has been decided that the woman in question won't fall for anything stupid IME).

Oh, thanks. Now that l've passed the test, l'd totally like to be your friend because l'm a 'cool girl'. 

Not-l'm pretty much going to shun you for ever hazing me in the first place.

l've just completely shut down to it.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> I haven't generalized anything; the article in the OP just had some interesting food for thought, particularly the bullet points that I listed in the OP. I realize that you and I don't get along, but there's no reason to come crashing into this thread like a bull in a China shop making ridiculous accusations.
> 
> FWIW, I put the misogynists I deal with online on ignore and report them if possible. The thing is, though, *why should I have to encounter this kind of misbehavior in the first place?*


Because you are living in a free world. Just by being alive, and being human, this will always be the case. Men and women's brains are wired differently, on top of the fact that there are billions of people with differing views, perception, realities, that you will never get rid of any one line of thinking. Throw in the internet and you have a masquerade, for people to openly voice their opinions, no matter how socially unacceptable they are, or people who just want to get a rise out of others to help quell their own insecurities. 

As such, I think trying to abolish sexism is a fruitless labor that will only waste your time, though it may help you let your frustrations out. Neither you, nor I, will be able to change the thought patterns and views of billions of people, who are already hardwired for certain proclivities by nature. Just look at the animal kingdom as a whole.


That is why I think these types of threads, while amusing, are typically nothing but a way for people of a certain mindset to vent their frustrations at those with a differing set of thoughts, beliefs, and opinions... But then again, isn't that really what an internet forum is all about...



I would also like to point out that the more "free" women feel to flaunt their bodies, which again, flips a switch that men are hardwired for, reproduction, the worse it will be. There is a reason that sex sells and marketing campaigns typically use it. I especially love the women who wear as little as possible, or provocative clothing in general, but then whine or throw a fit that they are being objectified by the opposite sex for it. Oh, you want to show your a$$ with a mini mini skirt, and let your chest hang out, but are somehow offended by compliments or cat calls, when that was your sub conscience reason for doing it in the first place...

Grinds my gears.


----------



## Amaryllis (Mar 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> "treat her like", that is relative to a person's interpretation.


Yes but I'm sure you can figure out by yourself how to be nice to someone.



Eska said:


> Children often treat their dolls like actual friends, would that be "humanification"? (animism)


We aren't kids anymore, children have a specific and different behaviour compared to adults because they haven't integrated certain notions yet. For example a very young child will not understand that it is selfish to demand full attention from his mother if she is very tired and ill. But as adults, we (except sociopaths and the like) know that we shouldn't treat people like dolls, even if we like them regardless.



Eska said:


> "basic human respect."
> 
> Are you implying that lust/sexual desire is not "basic human respect"?


No of course not, I use to lust after my ex boyfriend a lot, but I also loved him and respected him. You can lust after someone and still see them as a whole human being. There's nothing wrong about being sexually attracted to someone, whether you love them or not. But you cannot _*only*_ see them as a sexual object existing to fulfill your desires and nothing else, you have to acknowledge the fact that she/he is also a human being with feelings and an identity and that you can't treat her/him like crap.




Eska said:


> If a man would be in a relationship with a woman, but he does not envy her sexually, would that also be considered as disrespectful?


Well no, some people are asexual and love their partner without wanting to have sex with them, it's not disrespectful it's just the way they are, they can't help it. As long as the two partners are okay with this kind of relationship I don't see how it would be problematic.

Maybe you didn't meant asexuals but just someone not attracted to his partner in particular. Well he can't really help it either. That's the people involved in the relationship's business. But again, the conditions I mentionned above must be respected.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Amaryllis said:


> Yes but I'm sure you can figure out by yourself how to be nice to someone.


Are you implying that profiting off a person for sexual pleasure is not "nice"?

Why? If respect is maintained between both individuals, I don't see why it would not be nice to act on lust/sexual desires alone.

If I fulfill her emotional/relationship needs, but I still prioritize sexual pleasure, where is the issue?




> We aren't kids anymore, children have a specific and different behaviour compared to adults because they haven't integrated certain notions yet. For example a very young child will not understand that it is selfish to demand full attention from his mother if she is very tired and ill. But as adults, we (except sociopaths and the like) know that we shouldn't treat people like dolls, even if we like them regardless.
> 
> No of course not, I use to lust after my ex boyfriend a lot, but I also loved him and respected him. You can lust after someone and still see them as a whole human being. There's nothing wrong about being sexually attracted to someone, whether you love them or not.


I still fail to understand how you can interpret it as "treating people like dolls".

You've said it yourself, you can lust after someone and still see them as a whole human being.

Why is it implied that if you're only after sexual pleasure, you fail to see them as human beings?

Sexuality is part of being a human being.



> But you cannot _*only*_ see them as a sexual object existing to fulfill your desires and nothing else, you have to acknowledge the fact that she/he is also a human being with feelings and an identity and that you can't treat her/him like crap.


If I meet a woman.

I recognize her beauty and I lust her, although, I am not interested in having an emotional relationship at this moment.

Unless I plan to rape her, I would have to first recognize that she is a human being with emotions, then, plan out to manipulate these said emotions in order to fulfill my sexual desire. 

The fact that I consider an approach based on standard human interaction would imply that I also recognize this person has feelings (unless, hypothetically, it's a robot.).

I can very well perceive her as a person that I envy to fulfill my sexual desires with, without being oblivious to the presence of her feelings and identity.



> Well no, some people are asexual and love their partner without wanting to have sex with them, it's not disrespectful it's just the way they are, they can't help it. As long as the two partners are okay with this kind of relationship I don't see how it would be problematic.
> 
> Maybe you didn't meant asexuals but just someone not attracted to his partner in particular. Well he can't really help it either. That's the people involved in the relationship's business. But again, the conditions I mentionned above must be respected.


"He can't really help it either."

Why is lust alone, not perceived in that way?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. But I like that it exists, anyway.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

emberfly said:


> I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. But I like that it exists, anyway.


Open ended discussion so long as emotionally labile individuals aren't accusing me of trolling and misandry for even posting it. :wink:


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I think that the article is interesting and brings up a lot of good points for people to discuss.

Some of the men who have pointed out issues with the article's tone need to acknowledge that the author might have seemed "bitter" due to some pretty gross and extreme examples of sexism that she saw. Clicking through to some of the links might help you realize exactly why she was so offended. When someone is personally offended by a variety of things that they see, it might make them word their points a little less perfectly than they "should." What some men may not understand is that it easy for a man to say that a woman is bitter or too sensitive to disregard a legitimate point she is making. I have been called some variation of "too sensitive" at various points (by men and women) because I was upset about some issue and could not pretend to be happy about it. For example, the fact that my employers thought I was odd in a negative way and were likely to fire me upset me and reminded me of my personal history due to mental illness due to the way I was framed as "odd." I think that the reason I was upset was understandable on this particular occasion, but the reaction that I gave made my male field supervisor uncomfortable. He treated me like I was some weirdo for recognizing that people disliked me enough to fire me and acting "upset" about that fact. Some guys can be just as "emotional" when they are offended, but it is often taken more seriously by people because yelling and getting angry is considered "macho" and seems more legitimate to some people than a woman crying for whatever reason. So I think that calling a woman "bitter" due to sexism is unfair and unreasonable. Any woman might be "bitter" if they see blatant sexism, because many people are "bitter" about blatantly offensive things.

I don't think anyone in this thread ever attempted to argue that it is okay to assume that all men are sexist or to treat men unfairly just because they're men. I don't think that the author of the article attempted to argue that point either. I personally don't assume that a guy is sexist unless he appears to be acting on some kind of sexist reasoning or treating men and women in obviously different ways. If a guy regularly holds open doors for people (especially for those who appear to have their hands occupied), I'm likely to just think that he's a decent human being. I frequently open doors for people and don't really consider if they are male or female when I do it. If a guy does this only for women (including those who don't need it for any apparent reason), I don't assume that he's trying to be a jerk. It might be something he was taught to do to be more respectful to women that he hasn't examined very deeply. But I don't feel it's very "chivalrous" if a guy acts like I can't open a door by myself because I'm a woman and that makes me unable to do something basic without needing some kind of "chivalry."

I think a similar issue might exist with some guy who complains about being put in a friend zone, rejected by women frequently, or some guy who tries to get services from Pick Up Artists. These people might think of themselves as good people with good intentions, but their behavior can seem offensive when it is understood from a woman's point of view. A guy who has been rejected by someone he tried to befriend should recognize that the woman may not have intentionally hurt his feelings (particularly if he never bothered to ask her out). Also, she might still see you as a worthwhile friend if she doesn't want to date you for whatever reason. Frankly, I find it creepy if you're my friend but you act as if you expect me to have sex with you. It makes me feel that you do not value my friendship and think that you only really care about having sex with me. It is offensive to assume that a woman is shallow or a bad person because she chose to date someone who is more wealthy than you are or more physically attractive than you are. It's making a lot of offensive assumptions about her as a person based on who she decided to date. A guy who tries to go to a Pick Up Artist is clearly struggling with some ability to engage in interactions with the opposite sex. But many women find a lot of the tactics Pick Up Artists use to be creepy and are offended by the notion that some "tactic" can magically help you "pick up" a woman. Women are idiosyncratic enough to where some kind of conversational approach that might be effective in talking to one woman and potentially engaging her interest could be ineffective with a different woman. I personally dislike any interactions that come across as someone being interested in just having sex with me because I don't personally want to engage in casual sex. Even if I enjoy a conversation with a man and think he's an interesting person, it doesn't mean that I would like to necessarily date him. This may have something to do with my own individual preferences for who I would want to date or it may be that I'm just not interested in dating someone or looking for someone to date at that particular time. The particular reasons I do or don't want to date someone are extremely subjective and personal, and I do find that any attempt by a man to assume what might help him "get me" rude and condescending. Any guy who complains about me not giving him a "fair chance" makes the assumption that he "deserves" a fair chance to date me, which I do find offensive.

In reference to the above paragraph, I do think that it's good for people who lack self-confidence when talking to the opposite sex to try to improve their self-confidence. If you feel that you lack certain social skills, it can be a good thing to get some expert help from someone who is qualified to help people develop better social skills. I'm not always very good at having social finesse myself, so I can understand why someone might want to come across better to people. Guys should understand that people like Pick Up Artists are not qualified in any professional sense to help you with your social skills and might honestly make you worse at talking to women. You may have been socially awkward before, but if you use a technique that many women might see as "creepy" or recognize as a "pick up attempt" that will keep a lot of women from wanting to talk to you or date you. I get that romantic rejection can suck, but it is unfair to make crappy assumptions about why any person decides to reject you or act as if you somehow deserve to have a relationship with person. A person who does this (male or female) is acting in a fundamentally crappy way that doesn't seem to treat people like human beings.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I'd also like to talk about that heightism link that someone posted. I found a lot of the comments about short men horrifyingly offensive as a person who is fairly short myself. Telling someone that they should just go kill themselves because of their height is NEVER okay. I do think that short guys, in general, might be rejected more often because a lot of women might find taller men more physically attractive. Some women might say that they feel awkward if they date someone who is shorter than she is, but other women might not feel that way. I've seen some celebrity couples where the man is shorter than the woman, so short guys shouldn't have a reason to expect that any particular tall woman will necessarily reject him. If he's been harshly rejected and it seems to be based on height, I can see why he might not want to approach a taller woman. I don't think that it's a good idea to deliberately make someone feel bad when they are treating you in a reasonable way. Telling someone that they should "kill themselves" because you wouldn't want to date them is extremely shitty behavior. As a short woman, I have often felt that people condescended to me or treated me as if I'm somehow this "cute little thing" just because I'm really short (4'11"). It can be very physically inconvenient at times to be as short as I am, and sometimes people might joke about how I have to get around situations because I am so short. I don't usually mind it too much unless they seem to see the fact that I'm short as some kind of insurmountable handicap or some personal failing. I did have a cooperating teacher use the way that I had to get around a problem my height caused (standing on a chair so I could write on the board) as some kind of example on how kids should handle mistakes or failing at something. She mentioned her "shortness" and said that she could use high heels to solve her problem. It really hurt me that she would make fun of me for the awkward way that I had to write near the top of the board. She claimed to understand what it was like to "be short," but she was not as short as I was. It bothered me so much to hear something that I have no control over treated like something I somehow "did wrong." I occasionally joke about my height because it's obvious and it helps me move past my own discomfort with it, but it's not okay for someone else to make fun of me because of it. I think short guys might get more crap than I do for being a short woman because being short can be seen as less socially acceptable for a man. Anyone of any gender who treats you offensively and says you need to go kill yourself because of your height is acting like an incredibly awful person.

For what it's worth, if a guy tried to approach me and I found him physically unattractive for some reason, I would reject him in a clear yet polite way. I wouldn't really bring up the specific reason I'm rejecting him because I don't think it's always necessary to point out "flaws" about people. I don't think it's alright to treat someone like a monster for trying to talk to you (in a non-creepy way) just because you aren't interested in them. Also, I don't feel offended by a man approaching me and possibly wanting to date me (no matter what he looks like) unless he exhibits behavior that seems creepy or like an attempt at manipulation.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Ah, objectification theory. The simple demonization of straight male sexuality.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Ah, objectification theory. The simple demonization of straight male sexuality.


The article is not the demonization of the straight male sexuality. Nice try though, and thanks for participating.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

While I'm still thinking about the issue of heightism, I think the reason that short men might have to deal with more offensive height-based judgment than short women can be due to entrenched sexism in society. Women might be expected to be somehow weaker or lesser than a man due to engrained societal sexism, and weakness can be associated (stupidly and offensively) with being short. Therefore it may be considered more acceptable for a woman to be short even though this social acceptability is based on incredibly offensive reasoning. A man might feel more prejudice based on his height because by failing to seem "strong" and "manly" by being tall enough, he isn't conforming to societal gender expectations (which I consider stupid and awful).

I do think that short men are impacted worse than I am by heightism, but heightism can still happen to me. Taller women can be impacted by heightism if someone judges them for looking like "an Amazon" because their height contradicts what people expect them to look like as a woman (due to sexism). When heightism based on being short happens to me, it could look a lot different than when it happens to a man. Heightism can intersect with sexism to create different experiences for short men and short women. A short man can be rejected more often romantically than I would be, but I might not be taken as seriously at work because even a short guy is still taken more seriously than a woman (especially one who is also very short). All heightism (not just feeling someone is less physically attractive to you for this reason, but also casting a condemning judgment on this basis) is offensive to me as a short person. I think that someone like me who still falls within the range of average height obviously experiences a lot less height-based garbage than someone who is actually a little person or who has some kind of medical dwarfism. I do care a lot about sexism, and I don't think that a woman should ever be judged for not finding a guy physically attractive enough to date for his height or any other reason. But treating a short man worse than you would treat another person in a similar situation is deeply offensive to me.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> The article is not the demonization of the straight male sexuality. Nice try though, and thanks for participating.


Well in that case, thanks for not being condescending.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Well in that case, thanks for not being condescending.


Let me reiterate: the article does not demonize straight male sexuality. It points out improper ways of relating to women (or people in general). Reread the five bullet points from the OP and you'll understand that it has nothing to do with "demonizing" straight male sexuality.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Alright, I bit the bullet and read the article and -- as expected -- I disagree with the vast majority of it. 

Especially in the context of the utterly gynocentric culture that we live in, I find feminazi social justice warriors absolutely abhorrent.

I'm so glad that common sense is starting to prevail, and the general public is now largely antifeminst. And #Gamergate is still going strong! ^^


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Alright, I bit the bullet and read the article and -- as expected -- I disagree with the vast majority of it.
> 
> Especially in the context of the utterly gynocentric culture that we live in, I find feminazi social justice warriors absolutely abhorrent.


Can you explain a) how we live in a gynocentric culture (we do not -- we live in a patriarchy) and b) why you're using dismissive language to categorize an article you disagree with? (Although this kind of dismissive language is prevalent in patriarchy to diminish women's contributions or, in general, women's experiences.)


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> Can you explain how a) we live in a gynocentric culture (we do not -- we live in a patriarchy) and b) why you're using dismissive language to categorize an article you disagree with (although this kind of dismissive language is prevalent in patriarchy to diminish women's contributions)?


The blatant circular logic which you've just used shows that arguing with you would be profoundly unproductive. Those who aren't already infected by the slimy tentacles of feminist ideology are welcome to ask me for my opinion in a PM.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> The blatant circular logic which you've just used shows that arguing with you would be profoundly unproductive. Those who aren't already infected by the slimy tentacles of feminist ideology are welcome to ask me for my opinion in a PM.


Infected with the "slimy tentacles of feminist ideology"? 

There was no blatant circular logic within my post.

You've made assertions without proving them, so if you would please prove them that would be excellent. Otherwise, thank you for your participation even though it proved to be nothing but baseless assertions.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Maybe you should try explaining how you find the article or the points @koalaroo is making objectionable instead of just giving it some label like being a "feminazi." I don't think it's usually fair to compare people to Nazis unless they are actually killing millions of people. I'm not Jewish or a member of any group that could have been killed by Nazis, but I do find the comparison between the kind of feminism @koalaroo has demonstrated on this thread (which involves the notion that women should be treated like equal human beings) and Nazism incredibly offensive and stupid. You might want to actually attempt to argue your points instead of name calling someone (in an incredibly offensive manner) if you wish to get a point across.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> I'm so glad that common sense is starting to prevail, and the general public is now largely antifeminst. And #Gamergate is still going strong! ^^


Oh, I get it. You're disparaging women and feminism because you're fairly misogynistic.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Let me reiterate: the article does not demonize straight male sexuality. It points out *improper* ways of relating to women (or people in general). Reread the five bullet points from the OP and you'll understand that it has nothing to do with "demonizing" straight male sexuality.


*different


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

accidental double post


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> *different


Explain why something being different might make it more or less improper?


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Explain why something being different might make it more or less improper?


If by "improper", you meant to quote the author's perception, then yes, you might have been accurate.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm sorry, but this back and forth exchange right now between koalaroo and ziggurat is fairly hilarious. I'm thoroughly entertained.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@Ziggurat -- I'll get back to you when quotes are working for me again.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> If by "improper", you meant to quote the author's perception, then yes, you might have been accurate.


That's actually not what I'm meaning at all. The author points out what are essentially improper ways to treat someone (objectifying them.) Why bold "improper" and respond with correcting it with the word "different"?


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> @Ziggurat -- I'll get back to you when quotes are working for me again.


Take your time, my love.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> That's actually not what I'm meaning at all. The author points out what are essentially improper ways to treat someone (objectifying them.) Why bold "improper" and respond with correcting it with the word "different"?


"the article does not demonize straight male sexuality. It points out improper ways of relating to women (or people in general)."

Unless your point was not to give a neutral description of the author's points, stating that it is "improper" without citing that it is according to the author or without citing that it is your personal opinion, would make your description biased.

I initially thought you were giving an objective/neutral description of the article.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@_Ziggurat_ -- It's still not letting me quote your post for some reason, so I'll do this in mentions/quotations instead.

You wrote the following:



> Well played, professional victim! Equating feminism with women is a classic ploy. Those among us with intelligence aren't fooled, however.


I am not a professional victim and I am not playing a victim. I am not equating both feminism and women, but not infrequently, people who disparage feminist ideology have inherent misogynistic beliefs. There is also no reason to insult my intelligence because I've called you out on misbehavior. Why you would bring in #gamergate without being a misogynist, I can't fathom, because the whole "gamergate" fiasco has gone past debating feminism and into disparaging women (look, for instance, at what Felicia Day went through for even commenting on it.) There's also no reason to insult my intelligence when you are the one who cannot in good faith back up your own assertions without throwing out _ad populum_ bile about "feminazis" and "social justice warriors" because you disagree with something but cannot actually form an opinion upon it and build an argument around it. If you could do that without slinging your hateful rhetoric about, I might be more than willing to investigate your opinion on the piece.

So you disagree with the piece? Cool! Intelligent people disagree reasonably and without slinging about insults, or using ad populum logical fallacies. I'm still waiting for more intelligent disagreements with the article that I linked in the OP. Rise up to the occasion and eviscerate the article if you want!


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> Oh, I get it. You're disparaging women and feminism because you're fairly misogynistic.


Please quote me when I said that I hate women.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Please quote me when I said that I hate women.


Your actions speak louder than your words. Using the #gamergate hashtag makes me suspicious of your motives. Using the term "feminazi" makes me suspicious of your motives. Misogyny goes past an overt "hatred" of women into an internalized attitude or ideology towards women. It's often "subconscious." You seem to disagree with the five tenets or bulletpoints I quoted from the article in the OP, based on your comment that they disparage straight male sexuality. Can you expand upon how you see these five points as being an attack on straight male sexuality?


----------



## EternalFrost (Jan 12, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> the specific issue itself is not a big deal. it's more
> 1) the fact that this particular issue is considered acceptable. ie, it's not that everyone or (even most people) view all men as objectifying, rapist barbarians, but it's still permissible to view them as such)
> 2) the blatant hypocrisy that if anything even remotely similar to this was said about a woman, people would be up in arms.
> 
> one should always be able to point out double standards in an intelligent discussion.


I don't disagree and I am not saying people shouldn't point those things out. It's just that I don't see what you stated is a reasonable problem because some women have valid reasons to fear men excessively. Men don't have those same reasons because they are typically the beneficiary. Does being oppressed make it okay for women to say really over generalized things? No it doesn't. However, it bring an understanding as to why it exists then we come full circle back to the issue of oppression. 
No oppression > No passes for select women hating men> No double standard. If there is any other way society would over come the double standard, I would like to know. 




Sporadic Aura said:


> Why isn't a realistic solution to try to not use ambiguous language whenever possible?
> 
> I agree with you that you should try to figure out what the authors real message is instead of getting hung up on political correctness. But sometimes things with undertones of bitterness and hostility (which I picked up on in this article) are just unpleasant to read and it makes it harder to read the whole article through and actually think about the points its trying to get across.


I agree with this too. I suppose I just don't find it as big a deal because I can filter most of the hostility. Maybe if I shifted my view to care more about the average reader, I would feel different lol. Yes, the author was venting more than they should have been if they wanted to get their point across to readers


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> Your actions speak louder than your words. Using the #gamergate hashtag makes me suspicious of your motives. Using the term "feminazi" makes me suspicious of your motives. Misogyny goes past an overt "hatred" of women into an internalized attitude or ideology towards women. It's often "subconscious."


When disagreement with your ideology automatically equates to misogyny, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. 

#Gamergate is a dialogue about journalistic ethics in gaming. It's not sexist.



koalaroo said:


> You seem to disagree with the five tenets or bulletpoints I quoted from the article in the OP, based on your comment that they disparage straight male sexuality. Can you expand upon how you see these five points as being an attack on straight male sexuality?





> 1) She is more than just her physical appearance.
> 2) She has a complex inner life.
> 3) Your fulfillment is not her responsibility and your social difficulties are not her problem.
> 4) She is not obligated to get romantically involved with you, and she is definitely not obligated to stay with you.
> 5) Her time is as valuable as yours, and it’s her right to choose how she uses it.


These are extremely obvious, and contrary to what you and the author of the article implies, it would be quite difficult to find people who disagree with them. These aren't an attack on male sexuality. Much of the rest of the article is, however.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> These are extremely obvious, and contrary to what you and the author of the article implies, it would be quite difficult to find people who disagree with them. These aren't an attack on male sexuality. Much of the rest of the article is, however.


Explain with quotes from the article (and not taken out of context) how she's making an assault upon straight male sexuality. (For what it's worth, you made the point about about the demonization of male sexuality before you made a post about finally having read the article.)


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> When disagreement with your ideology automatically equates to misogyny, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
> 
> #Gamergate is a dialogue about journalistic ethics in gaming. It's not sexist.


#Gamergate has gone well past "dialogue about journalistic ethics in gaming" down the rabbit hole into overt sexism at this point, by the way (and it headed that way EARLY on). I'd be careful associating with it!


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Ziggurat said:


> *These are extremely obvious,* and contrary to what you and the author of the article implies, *it would be quite difficult to find people who disagree with them.*


Agreed.

I fail to see the relevance of these points.

They are as obvious as stating that functional human beings have brains.

It would be fallacious to disagree with point n.1, 2 and 4. 

Point 3 and 5 are somewhat ambiguous in terms of how they're interpreted.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> I am not equating both feminism and women, but not infrequently,* people who disparage feminist ideology have inherent misogynistic beliefs. *


...... Interesting.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> Explain with quotes from the article (and not taken out of context) how she's making an assault upon straight male sexuality. (For what it's worth, you made the point about about the demonization of male sexuality before you made a post about finally having read the article.)


You're correct that I called it the demonization of male sexuality before I read the article. I knew by the title that it was going to be about the objectification of women, which is a feminist talking point which has been refuted ad nauseam. And that was a correct assumption.

Here's a great video on the subject, since you're apparently so eager to hear an opposing point of view:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

EternalFrost said:


> I don't disagree and I am not saying people shouldn't point those things out. *It's just that I don't see what you stated is a reasonable problem* because some women have valid reasons to fear men excessively. Men don't have those same reasons because they are typically the beneficiary. *Does being oppressed make it okay for women to say really over generalized things? No it doesn't.*


you contradicted yourself. you were right the second time. it's not alright, so I'm pointing it out



> However, it bring an understanding as to why it exists then we come full circle back to the issue of oppression.
> No oppression > No passes for select women hating men> No double standard. If there is any other way society would over come the double standard, I would like to know.


this is, once again, a double standard. when men stereotype women, societies views them as dangerous, misogynistic pigs. when women stereotype men, it's not "good", but they deserve sympathy because they are victims....I call bullshit.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> You're correct that I called it the demonization of male sexuality before I read the article. I knew by the title that it was going to be about the objectification of women, which is a feminist talking point which has been refuted ad nauseam. And that was a correct assumption.


I'll watch the video when I get home from work, but I haven't read or heard of any scholarly work that has successfully and meaningfully refuted the objectification of women that is talked about and demonstrated in feminist academic literature.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> I'll watch the video when I get home from work, but I haven't read or heard of any scholarly work that has successfully and meaningfully refuted the objectification of women that is talked about and demonstrated in feminist literature.


I'm not arguing that women aren't objectified. I'm arguing that objectification isn't an inherently bad thing. Everyone is objectified on a daily basis.


----------



## EternalFrost (Jan 12, 2013)

Ziggurat said:


>



Its a lot more than just commercials


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

EternalFrost said:


> Its a lot more than just commercials. . . (vid)


No need to quote the original video. That takes up space.

A Quick Refutation:


----------



## EternalFrost (Jan 12, 2013)

Ziggurat said:


> No need to quote the original video. That takes up space.
> 
> A Quick Refutation:


Ooops lol. 

Yeah no. Lets head back into discussion. 
I'm guessing you are sticking with your original video that says men are objectified too, yet people don't care about that part. Once again, ignoring the why and jumping on the double standard wagon. 

If men are as objectified as women ( which they are not full stop) I would expect to see men rallying against companies and starting movements to get this sexualized viewpoint of men out of society. But I don't and you don't either and we know its because this affects women much much more than it does men. Men are taught that wanting to be the object of desire is good. How lucky for women to have men falling at their feet and ready to have sex with them. No that is not lucky. Men do not realize that unlike for boys, sex is not something that is seen as a positive when it is associated with women. Women are shamed for their sexuality in a society that constantly sexualizes them with one hand and ostracizes them with the other. Men don't experience the latter. This is why women are upset at the objectification of women and why men could care less about the objectification of men. Not to mention as Laci said, even when you ARE objectified, in society, people still view men as whole people while they view women as less than. 

You can't just skim the surface and ignore the state of society. The only time men care about their " objectification" or other forms of sexism against them is when arguing with a feminist. Out side of that they don't care because it doesn't even affect them negatively.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> I'm not arguing that women aren't objectified. I'm arguing that objectification isn't an inherently bad thing. Everyone is objectified on a daily basis.


Objectification is a bad thing, sorry. People should be treated as individuals with valid viewpoints, thoughts, feelings, frames of reference and different spin on reality with the capacity to say "no" or "no, that makes me uncomfortable" unapologetically.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> Objectification is a bad thing, sorry. People should be treated as individuals with valid viewpoints, thoughts, feelings, frames of reference and different spin on reality with the capacity to say "no" or "no, that makes me uncomfortable" unapologetically.


^


koalaroo said:


> . . . You've made assertions without proving them, so if you would please prove them that would be excellent. Otherwise, thank you for your participation even though it proved to be nothing but baseless assertions. . .


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@_Ziggurat_ -- To objectify someone inherently dehumanizes them. It makes them an object or thing rather than a person or human being capable of thought, feeling and agency. In doing this, it is easier to dismiss their human qualities and dismiss their importance as individuals. When you objectify or dehumanize someone, you dismiss their experiences as inconsequential and less important than your own. That is wrong.


----------



## QueenofEagles (Sep 19, 2011)

Let me just say that objectification of people on a day to day basis is so common that on any given day, this poster applies...








Just because I talk to men with kindness and [what I think of as] human decency, despite their looks or position. Even the guy that I'm dating didn't understand why I would even consider dating him since he has not attained a higher social status. All this, because of my attractiveness (physical and charm) despite the fact that I technically make less money than he does and have no real career.

I am keenly aware of being objectified by other women. The bleached blonde, middle-aged, thin, career woman who spent 25 years attaining her position is not about to hire me. Why? Why shouldn't I be tortured like she was? Just because I have an education? (Intelligence, enthusiasm, and good looks to boot!) Hell no!

Discrimination in the good and bad sense is part of daily life. It yields its perks and also its limitations. So, I try to enjoy and maximize the perks of being woman at this point in history as much as possible and minimize the limitations. Each person has their own cross to bear. 

The best we can do is eliminate some of the false images from our daily lives and live differently. I resist the pressure to feel valued based on my economic status and physical appearance. But, I can't stop the way that people treat me. I like this quote:


> Although ISTPs are most often skilled which gives them a confident attitude, it is important to separate that from the perceived aloofness so that you can talk to them without feeling unnecessary pressure. The ISTP perceives themselves as being "blank" in expression, and it is upon this blank canvas that many people tend to paint their insecurities.


And, as much as men (especially INTJs) worry about their own objectification, they in the same turn ascribe to those ideas by which they are objectified. It's quite silly really. As I once pointed out to an ex, "you work so hard to make money so that you can attract the highest quality mate, yet you HATE when someone is attracted to it." 

(please no posts about generalizations, blah, blah, blah... everybody gets it, ok?)


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> Let me reiterate: the article does not demonize straight male sexuality. It points out improper ways of relating to women (or people in general). Reread the five bullet points from the OP and you'll understand that it has nothing to do with "demonizing" straight male sexuality.


And what are the proper ways of relating to women? Not seeing them as a conquest?


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> @_Ziggurat_ -- To objectify someone inherently dehumanizes them. It makes them an object or thing rather than a person or human being capable of thought, feeling and agency. In doing this, it is easier to dismiss their human qualities and dismiss their importance as individuals. When you objectify or dehumanize someone, you dismiss their experiences as inconsequential and less important than your own. That is wrong.


I'm going to humour you by using your own implied definition of objectification.

Just like I noted that most people would not disagree with your incontrovertible 5 points, I don't believe that women are dehumanized and dismissed on a societal basis. On the contrary, I believe that we live in a gynocentric culture in which the concerns and experiences of women are centered at the heart of discourse.

Whenever attractive women are used in advertising, etc., people scream "objectification!". As if making comparisons between the desirability of a woman and a product degrades women in general. As if we can only see such women as sexual objects and not as people. Nonsense. Men aren't attracted to objects. We're attracted to women in all of their human-ness and their complexity. Yelling "objectification" is therefore the demonization of straight male sexuality.



SeedofDavid said:


> Even though it's such a big part of life, it still feels bad. On a semi-regular basis, I find myself telling people - I'm a human being.


Who in their right mind would deny that!?


----------



## QueenofEagles (Sep 19, 2011)

Even though it's such a big part of life, it still feels bad. On a semi-regular basis, I find myself telling people - I'm a human being.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Emerald Legend said:


> And what is the proper ways of relating to women? Not making them a conquest?


I'm more concerned with what is improper than what is necessarily proper. I guess I see these things as kind of a Venn diagram, but I'm more concerned about what's in the "definite don't" than in what is in the "gray area" or the "perfectly fine" area.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@_Ziggurat_ -- I'm objectified on a daily basis by both men and women. When I was on dating sites, men typically viewed me as a "thing" to salve some sort of pain or deficiency that they have. I also got more than one message from guys telling me that I should wrap my lips around their cock. I got some really bizarre, angry responses when I would politely tell any of these men that I'm sorry, I'm not interested in them (basically, I was an object that was not acting as expected by them -- they didn't expect that I might have wishes of my own). Lately, in my work place, I'm being objectified by the secretary. If she comments on my dress being too sexual for the workplace one more time, I'm going to file a sexual harassment complaint against her. It's not too sexual; I'm literally covered from my collarbones to my knees to my toes in every outfit that she complains about.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> @_Ziggurat_ -- I'm objectified on a daily basis by both men and women. When I was on dating sites, men typically viewed me as a "thing" to salve some sort of pain or deficiency that they have.


If you mean that men crave companionship, love, intimacy, and closeness, then I suppose that you might salve a deficiency that they have, wouldn't you?! I don't see anything wrong with that at all!


koalaroo said:


> I also got more than one message from guys telling me that I should wrap my lips around their cock.


Nothing wrong about that. One might even applaud their honest, direct approach. 


koalaroo said:


> I got some really bizarre, angry responses when I would politely tell any of these men that I'm sorry, I'm not interested in them (basically, I was an object that was not acting as expected by them -- they didn't expect that I might have wishes of my own).


An amusing and no doubt ridiculous interpretation. People tend to have strong emotions after being rejected.


koalaroo said:


> Lately, in my work place, I'm being objectified by the secretary. If she comments on my dress being too sexual for the workplace one more time, I'm going to file a sexual harassment complaint against her. It's not too sexual; I'm literally covered from my collarbones to my knees to my toes in every outfit that she complains about.


Then she's an idiot. Society isn't to blame.


----------



## Vandrer (Jun 26, 2014)

I would love for the discussion on sexism to change nature, like some neutral people are trying to do with the gamergate thing. Rather than punching at mostly non-existent straw-men like this article, find some knowledgeable people and quantifiable data to figure out what the problems really are. Then through discussion we can try to solve the actual problems rather than the problems of whoever yells the loudest.

About the straw-manning of this article, it seems to assume that many males do not agree with such rules, which are probably just meant to represent basic human decency. Though it doesn't directly state it. Attacking a possibly small portion of males rather than trying to locate the actual problems. I see this happening in almost any field of discussion, politics, religion, wars, and so on. Sort of sad to see the idiocracy prevail.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Ravn said:


> I would love for the discussion on sexism to change nature, like some neutral people are trying to do with the gamergate thing. Rather than punching at mostly non-existent straw-men like this article, find some knowledgeable people and quantifiable data to figure out what the problems really are. Then through discussion we can try to solve the actual problems rather than the problems of whoever yells the loudest.
> 
> About the straw-manning of this article, it seems to assume that many males do not agree with such rules, which are probably just meant to represent basic human decency. Though it doesn't directly state it. Attacking a possibly small portion of males rather than trying to locate the actual problems. I see this happening in almost any field of discussion, politics, religion, wars, and so on. Sort of sad to see the idiocracy prevail.


Yes, I wish that gender egalitarianism and cold hard facts would prevail, but I doubt that this will ever be the case. Society will always care about women far more than men.

Not to say that women don't have any issues whatsoever anymore, of course. Even though Western women are the most privileged demographic in human history, there's still a few odds and ends to take care of.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Not to say that women don't have any issues whatsoever anymore, of course. Even though Western women are the most privileged demographic in human history, there's still a few odds and ends to take care of.


I can't even right now. That's pretty much a baldfaced lie.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Objectification is a bad thing, sorry. People should be treated as individuals with valid viewpoints, thoughts, feelings, frames of reference and different spin on reality with the capacity to say "no" or "no, that makes me uncomfortable" unapologetically.


How does prioritizing a sexual feature, dehumanizing someone?

Are you aware that sexual attraction is part of being human? It is a human characteristic.

I'm starting to think that the topic of objectification is irrational and/or based on delusion.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> How does prioritizing a sexual feature, dehumanizing someone?
> 
> Are you aware that sexual attraction is part of being human?
> 
> I'm starting to think that the topic of objectification is irrational and/or based on delusion.


Because we are not our bodies (intellect, character and personality are attached to it, you know.)


----------



## Amaryllis (Mar 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> Are you implying that profiting off a person for sexual pleasure is not "nice"?


If you lie to her or mislead her to get into her pants, yes it's not "nice". If you are honest about what you really want from her and that she agrees with it, then it's fine.



Eska said:


> Why? *If respect is maintained between both individuals, I don't see why it would not be nice to act on lust/sexual desires alone*.


That's exactly what I said/meant in my previous post.



Eska said:


> If I fulfill her emotional/relationship needs, but I still prioritize sexual pleasure, where is the issue?


There's none, just don't lie to her, don't make her hope for something you won't give her.





Eska said:


> I still fail to understand how you can interpret it as "treating people like dolls".
> 
> You've said it yourself, you can lust after someone and still see them as a whole human being.
> 
> Why is it implied that if you're only after sexual pleasure, you fail to see them as human beings?


I never implied that "_if you're only after sexual pleasure, you fail to see them as human beings_." You just have to treat the person with respect. I use the doll comparison because I've seen some people just lie and manipulate others to get into their pants and treat them like garbage when they got what they wanted, like they weren't even human. Basically, don't be a douchebag. That's it. Don't insult/shame/publically make fun of someone you had sex with when they haven't done anything to deserve such a cruel behaviour. You'd think this would be common human decency, but not everyone has it apparently.



Eska said:


> Sexuality is part of being a human being.


Couldn't agree more.




Eska said:


> If I meet a woman.
> 
> I recognize her beauty and I lust her, although, I am not interested in having an emotional relationship at this moment.
> 
> ...


"Manipulate" is not a word to be used lightly. Do you consider seduction a form of manipulation? Or by manipulation do you mean lying/leading her on?

Anyway as I've said before: Honesty and Respect please. And perhaps minimum kindness too. Then you can have fun as much as you like.




Eska said:


> "He can't really help it either."
> 
> Why is lust alone, not perceived in that way?


Did I ever say lust itself was bad or could be helped/prevented?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Because we are not our bodies (intellect, character and personality are attached to it, you know.)


Does that imply that you are somehow entitled to be attractive on every level? 

Anyone who does not find every aspect of you attractive, is "wrong"?

This is getting very close to how the fat acceptance movement reacts.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Amaryllis said:


> If you lie to her or mislead her to get into her pants, yes it's not "nice". If you are honest about what you really want from her and that she agrees with it, then it's fine.


Why is it implied that I'm lying to her?



> That's exactly what I said/meant in my previous post.


Well then, where is the issue?

Are you implying that someone has to be mean and aggressive when they're "objectifying"? 

I can respect the individual without being attracted to any other features than her body.



> There's none, just don't lie to her, don't make her hope for something you won't give her.


It's her interpretation, I'm not forcing it on her, nor did I ever claim the contrary.



> I never implied that "_if you're only after sexual pleasure, you fail to see them as human beings_." You just have to treat the person with respect. I use the doll comparison because I've seen some people just lie and manipulate others to get into their pants and treat them like garbage when they got what they wanted, like they weren't even human. Basically, don't be a douchebag. That's it. Don't insult/shame/publically make fun of someone you had sex with when they haven't done anything to deserve such a cruel behaviour. You'd think this would be common human decency, but not everyone has it apparently.


So, all along you were implying that there was an aggressive behavior that came with objectification?

I've never claimed or alluded to any "douchebag" attitude in my posts, I've clearly stated that you can respect and objectify at the same time. "Objectification" is not disrespectful.



> "Manipulate" is not a word to be used lightly. Do you consider seduction a form of manipulation? Or by manipulation do you mean lying/leading her on?
> 
> Anyway as I've said before: Honesty and Respect please. And perhaps minimum kindness too. Then you can have fun as much as you like.


Manipulation is basically playing with variables in order to attain a goal.

Seduction is manipulation, yes.



> Did I ever say lust itself was bad or could be helped/prevented?


I asked you the question, because that's what you seemed to imply.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> Does that imply that you are somehow entitled to be attractive on every level?
> 
> Anyone who does not find every aspect of you attractive, is "wrong"?
> 
> This is getting very close to the fat acceptance movement.


That's not what I'm saying at all, actually. There's not even a logical course to get from my statements to claiming that I feel entitled to acceptance on all levels, or even fat acceptance.

I'm saying that the parts make the whole. I prefer to be considered as a unified entity -- the physical, intellectual, emotional and moral parts -- wrapped into one. Most people don't like being classified based on their physical appearances alone (you're ignoring a lot of the rest of another person's wholeness as a human being). My physical appearances and my sexual side are only one part of me; I don't want to be with someone who wants me only for those reasons. Taking me or accepting me only as a part of the whole dehumanizes me. That's why I'm glad to be with someone who cherishes not only my physical appearances, but also my intellectual and moral sides -- he also seems to deal with the emotional part of me (I have a mental illness) with great aplomb.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

OH I'm going to go off on one in a second , you vile sausages !!!. -__-

==================================================================-
_If you’re not one of “those guys,” and you really do want to treat women like human beings, go ahead and internalize these simple truths:

1) She is more than just her physical appearance.

2) She has a complex inner life.

3) Your fulfillment is not her responsibility and your social difficulties are not her problem.

4) She is not obligated to get romantically involved with you, and she is definitely not obligated to stay with you.

5) Her time is as valuable as yours, and it’s her right to choose how she uses it.

There are no “but”s when it comes to women’s humanity. Not “but” you’re lonely, not “but” you’re horny, not “but” you’re nice, not “but” that’s how your grandparents met, not “but” she was naked in your bed. Women are people, and women just get to exist and set boundaries and say no. Always. Any time. Just like you.
_===========================================================================


What the hell is wrong with your minds?.... if you like this much drama go make a soap opera an 40million people watch it!... fuck sake.


Sex is overlapping diversity please reframe from treating it as a piece of shit thanks.


Please stop spamming this thread like drama hounds -__-.


You fork fucking , spanner wrenching porcelain plates


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> That's not what I'm saying at all, actually. There's not even a logical course to get from my statements to claiming that I feel entitled to acceptance on all levels, or even fat acceptance.
> 
> I'm saying that the parts make the whole. I prefer to be considered as a unified entity -- the physical, intellectual, emotional and moral parts -- wrapped into one. Most people don't like being classified based on their physical appearances alone (you're ignoring a lot of the rest of another person's wholeness as a human being). My physical appearances and my sexual side are only one part of me; I don't want to be with someone who wants me only for those reasons. Taking me or accepting me only as a part of the whole dehumanizes me. That's why I'm glad to be with someone who cherishes not only my physical appearances, but also my intellectual and moral sides -- he also seems to deal with the emotional part of me (I have a mental illness) with great aplomb.


Yes, the parts make you "the whole", but why am I "wrong" to pick one of these "parts" and emphasis it's value? (I doubt that it's a fully conscious decision.)


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> Yes, the parts make you "the whole", but why am I "wrong" to pick one of these "parts" and emphasis it's value? (I doubt that it's a fully conscious decision.)


Because you're diminishing someone to their components and not looking at them holistically. That's objectifying and dehumanizing. The physical appearance is the least "human" thing about us.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Because you're diminishing someone to their components and not looking at them holistically.


I'm not diminishing, I'm highlighting.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> I'm not diminishing, I'm highlighting.


You actually are diminishing a person's humanity if for the most part you're ignoring the other components in favor of emphasizing one of them.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

Seriously if you don't like sex make it clear but don't force others out....


If you do , your a disgusting vile pig sorry to be blunt.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

xXxRosexXx said:


> Seriously if you don't like sex make it clear but don't force others out....
> 
> 
> If you do , your a disgusting vile pig sorry to be blunt.


How is this even relevant to the thread?


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

Meh.... *smashes face*


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> You actually are diminishing a person's humanity if for the most part you're ignoring the other components in favor of emphasizing one of them.


No, I'm not.

I am clearly aware that the person is a human being and that there are no levels of humanity, you are either human or not, you are part of a species, it goes no further than that. 

Thus, people who are asexual are just as "wrong" as people who objectify?

If you enter a casino and you're interested and play only one of the available machines, does that mean you've disrespected the casino(owner/etc.) for not being interested by everything it offers you? (The analogy might be off to some extent, but the point I'm getting at is obvious.)


----------



## Amaryllis (Mar 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> Why is it implied that I'm lying to her?


Not implying anything, just stating a fact. I was not referring to you in particular.





Eska said:


> Well then, where is the issue?


Funny, that's what I've been wondering as well.



Eska said:


> Are you implying that someone has to be mean and aggressive when they're "objectifying"?


I'm sure that's not the only way, I was just giving an example. I never have one night stands so I never did experience this kind of one night stand gone bad.



Eska said:


> I can respect the individual without being attracted to any other features than her body.


Where did I say the contrary?




Eska said:


> It's her interpretation, I'm not forcing it on her, nor did I ever claim the contrary.


This behaviour can be kind of hypocritical, "she didn't ask so I didn't say anything". But anyway if she asks "What do you expect from me and our sexual encounter?" You have to be honest.





Eska said:


> So, all along you were implying that there was an aggressive behavior that came with objectification?


Seriously dude, stop searching implications in every word I write, you are really overthinking something that is really simple.



Eska said:


> I've never claimed or alluded to any "douchebag" attitude in my posts, I've clearly stated that you can respect and objectify at the same time. "Objectification" is not disrespectful.


I don't really know and I'm not really sure about this because I never objectify people I date. I'd be speaking about something I don't have any knowledge in at all.




Eska said:


> Manipulation is basically playing with variables in order to attain a goal.
> 
> Seduction is manipulation, yes.


So they are different kinds of manipulations then, if you chose to see it as such. One must therefore learn to make the difference between the acceptable and unacceptable kinds. (But if we start debating about that we'll never stop, that's a discussion for another thread.)





Eska said:


> I asked you the question, because that's what you seemed to imply.


See my answer above concerning my apparent implications.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@Eska -- That analogy doesn't work, at all.

And yes, by focusing on someone's physical assets to the point of diminishing the other aspects of their humanity, you are in fact treating them as an object and therefore not really human.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

xXxRosexXx said:


> Meh.... *smashes face*


Just to make it clear, I love sex. I'm an incredibly sexual person. In fact, I have marathon sex with my boyfriend pretty regularly. It's orgasmic and fantastic, but enjoying sex is neither here nor there in this thread. That isn't what this thread is about; I think you've missed the point.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

koalaroo said:


> @Eska -- That analogy doesn't work, at all.
> 
> And yes, by focusing on someone's physical assets to the point of diminishing the other aspects of their humanity, you are in fact treating them as an object and therefore not really human.


Do you believe one night stands are objectification?

Do you believe they are bad/wrong ect..?


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

Woman are anatomically featured positives - woman get more attention
Men are anatomically featured negatives - men get wonky attention 

But there is one thing for certain no matter how you look at it your both the same just slightly altered differences "really".

Objectifying is just an easier way to discuss it doesn't prominently treat others with disrespect and some people even like it "I bet".

Some people are lazy and careless I admit but that doesn't mean it's variably totally bad.

I'm just confused about the hole argument it's like drama hounds are making enough decent aggravation to annoy others.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Amaryllis said:


> This behaviour can be kind of hypocritical, "she didn't ask so I didn't say anything". But anyway in the possibility of her asking you "What do you expect from me and our sexual encounter?" You have to be honest.


What seems to be implied is that objectifying completely dismisses the other aspects.

As I've said, I can prioritize sexual features, therefore, there is, to some extent, an amount of interest in the other aspects.



> I don't really know and I'm not really sure about this because I never objectify people I date. I'd be speaking about something I don't have any knowledge in at all.


I see.

Objectification would be the opposite of asexuality, wouldn't it?

If asexuality is not disrespectful, why is the opposite disrespectful?

I believe it is caused by how taboo sexuality is.

Finding anything remotely sexual about a woman seems to be "wrong".



> So they are different kinds of manipulations then, if you chose to see it as such. One must therefore learn to make the difference between the acceptable and unacceptable kinds. (But if we start debating about that we'll never stop, that's a discussion for another thread.)


Indeed.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Do you believe one night stands are objectification?
> 
> Do you believe they are bad/wrong ect..?


I believe that a one night stand is mutual objectification, yes. I don't necessarily find it wrong so long as both parties understand that that's all it is -- something that's understood beforehand and consented upon. However, when you're looking for a long-term relationship (and that's the point of reference I've been working from the whole time), objectification is a bad thing. It will end up leaving both parties disappointed and unfulfilled, and very likely, the person who was objectified will end up hurt. It creates an imbalance in a relationship that's difficult to right.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Guys never treated me as a thing because I always one of the boys. Don't know what it feels like, gladly.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

xXxRosexXx said:


> Woman are anatomically featured positives - woman get more attention
> Men are anatomically featured negatives - men get wonky attention
> 
> But there is one thing for certain no matter how you look at it your both the same just slightly altered differences "really".
> ...


I would suggest that you do one of two things:

1.) Simply reread the five tenets posted in the quoted portion of the OP.
2.) Read the article posted in the OP to get a broader understanding of the topic, which includes the five tenets posted in the OP.

I think you do not understand the purpose of this thread.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

Why do that , my reply before was already variably accurate just not so prominent .


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> @Eska -- That analogy doesn't work, at all.
> 
> And yes, by focusing on someone's physical assets to the point of diminishing the other aspects of their humanity, you are in fact treating them as an object and therefore not really human.


I expected the analogy to be refuted, although, why does it not work at all?

I am not diminishing, I am simply prioritizing.

Although, would you agree or disagree that this correlates with the "cup half full/empty" analogy? 

My intentions/"instinct" is not to diminish, it is to highlight.

Hypothetically,

If I were to distribute points on the aspects.

"Standard/respectful/etc."
Emotions: 10
Intellect: 10
Sexual: 10

Objectifying
Emotions: 10
Intellect: 10
Sexual: 20

Would you consider that to be diminishing?

Although, regardless, I would see it as "lack of interest" rather than "diminishing". 

___

Disregard the hypothetical standards above.

Edit*:Wait, diminishing? That would imply that there is an objective level for each aspect, as if you were entitled to "X" amount of respect for each aspect.

Edit2*: I have a new thought to elaborate on. "Diminishing"
I'll back to you on that later.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

xXxRosexXx said:


> OH I'm going to go off on one in a second , you vile sausages !!!. -__-
> 
> ==================================================================-
> _If you’re not one of “those guys,” and you really do want to treat women like human beings, go ahead and internalize these simple truths:
> ...


Yes. What the fuck is wrong with a woman who wants to complain about going to a club or a con or a bar and men thinking men can grope her? Or when boyfriends want to force them into sex? How dare they complain about these important issues!


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

Smoking , Drinking and Drugs and bad music with idiotic tendency personality's , mental health issues , environmental problems are some the culprits.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Ziggurat said:


> Ah, objectification theory. The simple demonization of straight male sexuality.


I think there is "objectification" when you feel sexually attracted to another human being and you think about it, maybe comment a little bit and when you feel entitled to touch the person you're attracted to even though you don't know them or they're not comfortable with it.

This thread is more about the touching and forced sex than the thoughts both men and women have about having sex with other people and about hot people. I think there is a line between both.


----------



## Amaryllis (Mar 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> What seems to be implied is that objectifying completely dismisses the other aspects.


I don't think it does? As I said I don't really know much about the subject, but let's say if someone tells someone else: "I don't like anything about your personality, but I think you are extremely hot so I would like our relationship to be only about sex and nothing else." and that the other person doesn't care and just wants the sexual pleasure as well, then I don't see anything wrong with that.



Eska said:


> As I've said, I can prioritize sexual features, therefore, there is, to some extent, an amount of interest in the other aspects.


It's up to you really.




Eska said:


> I see.
> 
> Objectification would be the opposite of asexuality, wouldn't it?
> 
> If asexuality is not disrespectful, why is the opposite disrespectful?


I don't think this analogy is very fitting. You can't justify something by saying its contrary is acceptable



Eska said:


> I believe it is caused by how taboo sexuality is.
> 
> Finding anything remotely sexual about a woman seems to be "wrong".


Yes, fear and reject of sexuality have never done much good. But remenber that there are many ways of behaving when you are lusting after someone. Some are acceptable, some aren't.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

xXxRosexXx said:


> Smoking , Drinking and Drugs and bad music with idiotic tendency personality's , mental health issues , environmental problems are some the culprits.


For women complaining? Well, I don't smoke, I can't drink and my favourite musician is a fairy unknown guy called Trevor Something who does some lovely sexual and sensual 80s sounding music. He has a lovey cover of Enjoy the Silence. I also pretty much life in the countryside.

I hope I have debunked your generalization. I'm sure many lovely ladies of this thread will tell you the same as I.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

xXxRosexXx said:


> Smoking , Drinking and Drugs and bad music with idiotic tendency personality's , mental health issues , environmental problems are some the culprits.


I hate to say this, and I'm not meaning this as a personal attack, but your posts come across as incoherent rambling. I see nothing really, hmm, cohesive. I can't understand what point you're even trying to make, or if the point(s) are even relevant to the topic at hand.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Aya Saves the World said:


> I think there is "objectification" when you feel sexually attracted to another human being and you think about it, maybe comment a little bit and when you feel entitled to touch the person you're attracted to even though you don't know them or they're not comfortable with it.


That's the first time I've ever heard that definition for it. That's completely different from the objectification which mainstream feminism describes.

Regardless, the phenomenon that you're describing is not even close to a common thing in our society.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Amaryllis said:


> I don't think this analogy is very fitting. *You can't justify something by saying its contrary is acceptable*


Of course.
"Why is murder "wrong" if not murdering is not "wrong"." would be an example.

Although, in the given context, I believe that it fits.

They're not exactly opposites.

They both exploit the same tactic, they ""diminish"" a human aspect of someone.

Thus, the question would be, why is one aspect acceptable to be "diminished", while the other isn't? 

Do you see what I'm getting at? 

One ""diminishes"" sexuality.

The other ""diminishes"" intellect.

(Do not take what I'm about to say literally, it is a very vague and not well worded thought that I still have to process.)
I think we are trying to separate ourselves from instinct-behavior and by doing so, we are suppressing sexuality.



> Yes, fear and reject if sexuality has never done much good. But remenber that there are many ways of behaving when you are lusting after someone. Some are acceptable, some aren't.


Indeed.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> I hate to say this, and I'm not meaning this as a personal attack, but your posts come across as incoherent rambling. I see nothing really, hmm, cohesive. I can't understand what point you're even trying to make, or if the point(s) are even relevant to the topic at hand.


Agreed! It's just random babbling.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

koalaroo said:


> I believe that a one night stand is mutual objectification, yes. I don't necessarily find it wrong so long as both parties understand that that's all it is -- something that's understood beforehand and consented upon. However, when you're looking for a long-term relationship (and that's the point of reference I've been working from the whole time), objectification is a bad thing. It will end up leaving both parties disappointed and unfulfilled, and very likely, the person who was objectified will end up hurt. It creates an imbalance in a relationship that's difficult to right.


Well my main point by bringing that up was to show how objectification isn't universally bad. I misinterpreted your stance, I thought you believed it was. Didn't realize you were only talking about long term relationships (because the article in the OP isn't only talking about long term relationships).


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Ziggurat said:


> That's the first time I've ever heard that definition for it. That's completely different from the objectification which mainstream feminism describes.
> 
> Regardless, the phenomenon that you're describing is not even close to a common thing in our society.


That's probably because I'm not a modern feminist. Well, I'm using a No More Heroes avatar I could never be such a thing.

It depends on where you lurk. It's quite common in clubs and bars. Cosplayers complain about it as well.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Aya Saves the World said:


> That's probably because I'm not a modern feminist. Well, I'm using a No More Heroes avatar I could never be such a thing.
> 
> It depends on where you lurk. It's quite common in clubs and bars. Cosplayers complain about it as well.


I guess it was a little ambiguous. People being touched when they have made it clear that they don't want to be isn't a common problem.

But people touching people that they're attracted to is totally normal. It's not that they feel "entitled" to do so. It's just a normal aspect of flirting. There's nothing wrong with it until the person objects.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Agreed! It's just random babbling.


As long as it's not just me who's totally confused by what he's saying!


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Ziggurat said:


> I guess it was a little ambiguous. People being touched when they have made it clear that they don't want to be isn't a common problem.


Like I said, it depends on where you lurk.



> But people touching people that they're attracted to is totally normal. It's not that they feel "entitled" to do so. It's just a normal aspect of flirting. There's nothing wrong with it until the person objects.


I know that and I wasn't speaking about that. Some people aren't comfortable with that and people don't respect that. It is a problem more common than what you think, but it isn't common in all places and for all people. I, personally, haven't been a particular victim of sexual touch without my consent for years (when I did I was a child and it was other children being curious, they were all punished and explained why they shouldn't do it), but I had an ex-boyfriend trying to force me into having sex by all means possible. And his friends thought it was okay because I'm his girlfriend so apparently it's my duty to have sex whenever he wants even if I'm not ready for it. They almost made me feel like I was the only one wrong because nobody could understand or support my view.

"But, Aya, he didn't have it for years, you're his girl, now. It's your duty. Just do it. You'll like it."

No. I'll do it when I want to, not when men want me to.

I'm not a feminist or anything close to it, but in my understanding women should have a word in what they want to do with their bodies and when. They should be asked, not peer pressured into it.

I know this is not exactly objectification, but it goes hand in hand with @koalaroo said in the OP.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Aya Saves the World said:


> . . . I had an ex-boyfriend trying to force me into having sex by all means possible. And his friends thought it was okay because I'm his girlfriend so apparently it's my duty to have sex whenever he wants even if I'm not ready for it. They almost made me feel like I was the only one wrong because nobody could understand or support my view.
> 
> "But, Aya, he didn't have it for years, you're his girl, now. It's your duty. Just do it. You'll like it."
> 
> No. I'll do it when I want to, not when men want me to. I'm not a feminist or anything close to it, but in my understanding women should have a word in what they want to do with their bodies and when.


Few would dispute this.



Aya Saves the World said:


> They should be asked, not peer pressured into it.


There's nothing wrong with peer pressure. Adults don't need to do anything they don't want to do. Just say no.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Ziggurat said:


> There's nothing wrong with peer pressure. Adults don't need to do anything they don't want to do. Just say no.


I don't like it. It lead me to do stupid shit because I wanted to despairly be accepted by others.

The problem is, no isn't enough. No isn't always enough. My ex would still hold me after I said no, he would still not understand it. He wanted all the attention, so no wasn't an option. For some people who want everything no isn't an option. People aren't told no as often as they should, so they lash out in anger towards others in many ways when they're told no.

My ex told me he thought about killing himself after he scared me by putting himself on top of myself while I was asleep. I told him no and he tried to emotionally blackmail. Don't worry, it's not just men, women do this too. My ex-girlfriend constantly did this, to the point she was insulting people I cared about. No wasn't an option for her either.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Yes, it's considered inappropriate across most cultures to ogle other people. In some cultures it's considered rude. In others it's considered a slight against family honor.
> 
> I don't assess everyone that passes me by based on their physical attributes.


I see.

How do you not assess them based on their physical attributes? What other attributes can be assessed within a ~3 seconds time frame of passing by?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> I see.
> 
> How do you not assess them based on their physical attributes? What other attributes can be assessed within a ~3 seconds time frame of passing by?


To be honest, unless someone engages me in conversation, I rarely notice anything about them outside of assessing whether or not they're a potential threat. I might notice if their gait is different or if they're morbidly obese. It's a non-issue for me. If someone engages me in conversation, then I start to notice their physical attributes and accouterments. I mostly notice weight, style of dress and accessories, eye color and teeth whiteness. I don't typically pass judgments on these things, either, in terms of whether or not I find the person attractive.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> To be honest, unless someone engages me in conversation, I rarely notice anything about them outside of assessing whether or not they're a potential threat. I might notice if their gait is different or if they're morbidly obese. It's a non-issue for me. If someone engages me in conversation, then I start to notice their physical attributes and accouterments. I mostly notice weight, style of dress and accessories, eye color and teeth whiteness. I don't typically pass judgments on these things, either, in terms of whether or not I find the person attractive.


So, you have somehow found a way to turn off the natural response to seeing another person, which is to assess their relative attractiveness? Hmmm.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> To be honest, unless someone engages me in conversation, I rarely notice anything about them outside of assessing whether or not they're a potential threat. I might notice if their gait is different or if they're morbidly obese. It's a non-issue for me. If someone engages me in conversation, then I start to notice their physical attributes and accouterments. I mostly notice weight, style of dress and accessories, eye color and teeth whiteness. *I don't typically pass judgments on these things, either, in terms of whether or not I find the person attractive.*


Are you saying that physical attributes do not influence the attractiveness you may experience towards a person?



Apolo said:


> So, you have somehow found a way to turn off the natural response to seeing another person, which is to assess their relative attractiveness? Hmmm.


This is what I find very odd.

I suspect a lie or delusion, although, it may be a case I've never heard about before.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Apolo said:


> So, you have somehow found a way to turn off the natural response to seeing another person, which is to assess their relative attractiveness? Hmmm.


I don't think it's a natural response to assess attractiveness first. I think the most natural response when seeing unfamiliar people is to assess whether or not they're a threat, and that's what I do first. Do they look physically threatening? Do they look agitated? Do they behave suspiciously?

(Maybe this is a female thing, I don't know.)


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> I don't think it's a natural response to assess attractiveness first. I think the most natural response when seeing unfamiliar people is to assess whether or not they're a threat, and that's what I do first. Do they look physically threatening? Do they look agitated? Do they behave suspiciously?
> 
> (Maybe this is a female thing, I don't know.)


Fascinating.

I would not be surprised if it is a female tendency, it would make sense.

What about other females? Do you have the same assessment, or do you assess their beauty? (jealousy/comparison/competition)


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I think that it can be wrong to ogle a woman if she's just in the business of going about her life. When I'm buying groceries, I wouldn't normally expect to be stared at in some kind of sexual manner. It can end up making me feel creeped out when I have no reason to expect that this kind of thing might happen. You can't always tell how an individual woman might feel about being stared at in a sexual manner because I do think some women are more creeped out by this kind of thing than others. I think that it's usually better to talk to a woman for a bit and at least engage her in some casual conversation to help her feel more comfortable around you, even if you do desire some kind of casual hookup (consensual, with intentions clearly understood on both sides). I'd personally feel uncomfortable at some random guy leering at me even in contexts where I might expect that thing to happen more often (a night club or something). Sometimes, I might go out to some kind of bar or night club to enjoy hanging out with my friends and not looking for potential hookup opportunities. If a guy is just staring at me in a sexual way without even attempting to talk to me, it makes me think that he thinks it's okay to just stare at me like I'm just some sexual object there for his viewing pleasure. I don't think most guys would feel comfortable about this sort of thing happening to them as frequently as it can happen to some women, but I may be wrong about that. In real life, I usually don't notice when someone might be "checking me out" in a creepy or a non-creepy way. (Personally, I find it creepy if a guy seems to be staring at a specific body part for a long time or if he has some weird expression on his face instead of a pleasant smile that he might have in other contexts.) I've had people point it out to me before sometimes, and I get confused because I didn't even notice I was getting "checked out." I might feel a lot more creeped out than I typically do if I didn't happen to be incredibly oblivious to this sort of thing most of the time.

I'm sorry that the stupid incident happened to you @koalaroo. I think that the husband was being a dumbass who wasn't very respectful of his wife. If I was in a relationship with someone, I would hope he would have enough respect for my feelings to avoid obviously ogling other women right in front of me. I think that the wife is wrong too because she decided to blame you for her husband's stupid behavior. I hate when women tear each other down because of jealousy issues; I think that it limits our ability to work together to fight issues like sexism. My sister has faced unfair jealousy issues from other women frequently in her life, and it can really suck for her sometimes. I don't know if I'm all that attractive, but I would never treat some woman badly because I'm insecure or my husband is being a jackass. I would tend to get a lot more pissed off at the person who is deliberately disrespecting my relationship with him right in front of my face instead of some stranger who has no reason to be involved in my relationship problems.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> Are you saying that physical attributes do not influence the attractiveness you may experience towards a person?


No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that I don't typically judge based on the superficial presentation a person makes. Again, as with my response to Apolo, I do risk/threat assessment first before anything else. To be honest, though, while I am a straight female, I don't find the majority of men to be physically appealing, and I'm much more likely to notice someone's accessories than whether or not their face is attractive. To be honest, also, most people fit into two categories for me if I do assess on physical appearances: "neutral" or "unattractive."



> This is what I find very odd.
> 
> I suspect a lie or delusion, although, it may be a case I've never heard about before.


It's neither a lie nor a delusion. Just because you don't experience it or understand it doesn't mean it's not my reality or someone else's reality as well. I just asked my sister about this topic; she says she does the same thing as well (risk assessment versus attractiveness assessment.)


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> Fascinating.
> 
> I would not be surprised if it is a female tendency, it would make sense.
> 
> What about other females? Do you have the same assessment, or do you assess their beauty? (jealousy/comparison/competition)


I'm actually more likely to notice a woman's clothing and accessories than I am whether or not she's beautiful unless she's absolutely stunning. Like I said in a previous post, for me most people fit into two categories: "neutral" or "unattractive."


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> I think that it can be wrong to ogle a woman if she's just in the business of going about her life. When I'm buying groceries, *I wouldn't normally expect to be stared at in some kind of sexual manner.*


For what other reasons could you be stared at for in that manner? 

You could have something on your shirt, you could be dressed in an odd fashion, you could be recognized or mistaken for someone, etc.

Although, I believe that it is highly likely that if you're being stared at, it is for sexual evaluation.



> It can end up making me feel creeped out when I have no reason to expect that this kind of thing might happen. You can't always tell how an individual woman might feel about being stared at in a sexual manner because I do think some women are more creeped out by this kind of thing than others. I think that it's usually better to talk to a woman for a bit and at least engage her in some casual conversation to help her feel more comfortable around you, even if you do desire some kind of casual hookup (consensual, with intentions clearly understood on both sides).


Well, to engage in the conversation, you would need to assess her physically in order to judge her worthy or not.



> I'd personally feel uncomfortable at some random guy leering at me even in contexts where I might expect that thing to happen more often (a night club or something). Sometimes, I might go out to some kind of bar or night club to enjoy hanging out with my friends and not looking for potential hookup opportunities. If a guy is just staring at me in a sexual way without attempting to talk to me, it makes me think that he thinks it's okay to just stare at me like I'm just some sexual object there for his viewing pleasure. I don't think most guys would feel comfortable about this sort of thing happening to them as frequently as it can happen to some women, but I may be wrong about that. In real life, I usually don't notice when someone might be "checking me out" in a creepy or a non-creepy way. I've had people point it out to me before sometimes, and I get confused because I didn't even notice I was getting "checked out." I might feel a lot more creeped out than I typically do if I didn't happen to be incredibly oblivious to this sort of thing most of the time.


Are you creeped out because you think they might be potentially harmful? Is it an uncertainty that triggers your uneasiness, or is it really the thought of being assessed physically?

If a 10/10 male model was staring at you, vs a 2/10 unattractive male (relative to your standards), would you feel "creeped out" by the 10/10 male model or would you see it as flirting?

I doubt that you'd interpret it the same way if it were an attractive male (status/looks/etc.) vs a homeless man on the side of the street.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> For what other reasons could you be stared at for in that manner?
> 
> You could have something on your shirt, you could be dressed in an odd fashion, you could be recognized or mistaken for someone, etc.
> 
> Although, I believe that it is highly likely that if you're being stared at, it is for sexual evaluation.


Like I mentioned in an earlier post, people have different expressions for the emotions they experience. Desire is an emotion, and from the age of about twelve or thirteen I became quite familiar with what a desirous expression on a grown man's face looked like. Sometimes it's a relatively innocuous expression; other people who have a desirous expression on their face also have a predatory expression on their face.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Because I'm so short (4'11"), I might typically notice a person's height first unless they're wearing something unusual or behaving in some unexpected way. I think that this could be a potential threat assessment; it might be an engrained biological response for me to notice if someone is around my height, somewhat taller than me, or much taller than me. Obviously people who are much taller than me can present a greater physical threat than people who are around my height. I am terrible at estimating height because most people (male and female) seem so much taller than me most of the time. I would tend to notice extremes of height more than people who are more "average" in height (sometimes I joke that I'm the average one and everyone else is just super tall). If someone is actually shorter than me, I do tend to notice it because it's not a very common occurrence for me.

At this particular point in my life, I'm not looking for a romantic or sexual relationship with anyone. I don't really notice if someone's attractive as easily or quickly as I might when I actually hope to meet someone attractive to potentially date.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that I don't typically judge based on the superficial presentation a person makes. Again, as with my response to Apolo, I do risk/threat assessment first before anything else. To be honest, though, while I am a straight female, I don't find the majority of men to be physically appealing, and I'm much more likely to notice someone's accessories than whether or not their face is attractive. To be honest, also, most people fit into two categories for me if I do assess on physical appearances: "neutral" or "unattractive."


I know that men and women generally don't assess the opposite sex's appearance in the same fashion.

I believe that women are more likely to look at a man's accessories/clothes (which determines wealth/status), while a man is more likely to look at a woman's body.



> It's neither a lie nor a delusion. Just because you don't experience it or understand it doesn't mean it's not my reality or someone else's reality as well. I just asked my sister about this topic; she says she does the same thing as well (risk assessment versus attractiveness assessment.)


Hence why I've clearly stated that it may be a case that I've never heard about before.



koalaroo said:


> I'm actually more likely to notice a woman's clothing and accessories than I am whether or not she's beautiful unless she's absolutely stunning. Like I said in a previous post, for me most people fit into two categories: "neutral" or "unattractive."


I see.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that I don't typically judge based on the superficial presentation a person makes. Again, as with my response to Apolo, I do risk/threat assessment first before anything else. To be honest, though, while I am a straight female, I don't find the majority of men to be physically appealing, and I'm much more likely to notice someone's accessories than whether or not their face is attractive. To be honest, also, most people fit into two categories for me if I do assess on physical appearances: "neutral" or "unattractive."
> 
> 
> 
> It's neither a lie nor a delusion. Just because you don't experience it or understand it doesn't mean it's not my reality or someone else's reality as well. I just asked my sister about this topic; she says she does the same thing as well (risk assessment versus attractiveness assessment.)


Scientifically, it is proven that most, if not all people assess others almost instantly, and base their impressions as such....

"Forget whatever figure you may have heard. Not to intimidate you, if you happen to be preparing for a job or grad school interview, or a blind date, but new research shows that you may need to have your act together in the blink of an eye.


A series of experiments by Princeton psychologists Janine Willis and Alexander Todorov reveal that all it takes is a tenth of a second to form an impression of a stranger from their face, and that longer exposures don’t significantly alter those impressions (although they might boost your confidence in your judgments). Their research is presented in their article “First Impressions,” in the July issue of Psychological Science.


Like it or not, judgments based on facial appearance play a powerful role in how we treat others, and how we get treated. Psychologists have long known that attractive people get better outcomes in practically all walks of life. People with “mature” faces receive more severe judicial outcomes than “baby-faced” people. And having a face that looks competent (as opposed to trustworthy or likeable) may matter a lot in whether a person gets elected to public office."

How Many Seconds to a First Impression?




koalaroo said:


> Like I mentioned in an earlier post, people have different expressions for the emotions they experience. Desire is an emotion, and from the age of about twelve or thirteen I became quite familiar with what a desirous expression on a grown man's face looked like. Sometimes it's a relatively innocuous expression; other people who have a desirous expression on their face also have a predatory expression on their face.


I would wager that you subconsciously do, as is human nature, but just don't pay attention to it unless they are striking.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> I don't think it's a natural response to assess attractiveness first. I think the most natural response when seeing unfamiliar people is to assess whether or not they're a threat, and that's what I do first. Do they look physically threatening? Do they look agitated? Do they behave suspiciously?
> 
> (Maybe this is a female thing, I don't know.)


No, not just a female thing.
They've used themselves as a standard to generalize to population because they can't seem to fathom parts of themselves to be anything but the norm :dry:

I think easy to see how the mentality fits quite neatly within a culture that accepts objectification of women as a norm. Of course those who would objectify women would think that it's fine to evaluate every woman in respect to whether they'd fuck them because they aren't evaluated for much else.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

I have to agree with @koalaroo, when I am going about my business, I'm not assessing the relative looks of anyone around me, and more often than not, my thoughts are not really in the present moment. This might be something related to my primary perception function being introverted though.. my only extraverted perception is inferior. :/

I do notice when I am about to run into something though, I maintain at least that much physical awareness.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@Apolo - Unless someone engages me in conversation, I honestly do not typically notice their facial appearances because I try to avoid getting that close to most other people! They go through a risk assessment phase of analysis for me first. I'm also more likely to notice someone's facial expressions than whether or not I think they're "gorgeous" or not. In terms of face, I typically assess both men and women into categories of "neutral" and "unattractive"/"unappealing" unless they're a truly extraordinary specimen of a man or a woman!


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Wellsy said:


> No, not just a female thing.
> They've used themselves as a standard to generalize to population because they can't seem to fathom parts of themselves to be anything but the norm :dry:
> 
> I think easy to see how the mentality fits quite neatly within a culture that accepts objectionable of women as a norm. Of course those who would objectify women would think that it's fine to evaluate every woman in respect to whether they'd fuck them because they aren't evaluated for much else.


I agree that this could be a distinct possibility.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> @Apolo - Unless someone engages me in conversation, I honestly do not typically notice their facial appearances because I try to avoid getting that close to most other people! They go through a risk assessment phase of analysis for me first. I'm also more likely to notice someone's facial expressions than whether or not I think they're "gorgeous" or not. In terms of face, I typically assess both men and women into categories of "neutral" and "unattractive"/"unappealing" unless they're a truly extraordinary specimen of a man or a woman!


Their attractiveness would be part of that risk assessment, whether you realize it or not. The less attractive, the riskier, the more attractive, the less risky. I am not saying you consciously do it, but it is happening.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Apolo said:


> Scientifically, it is proven that most, if not all people assess others almost instantly, and base their impressions as such....
> 
> "Forget whatever figure you may have heard. Not to intimidate you, if you happen to be preparing for a job or grad school interview, or a blind date, but new research shows that you may need to have your act together in the blink of an eye.
> 
> ...


So all of this would require focusing on the faces of people? That's something I rarely do when just walking around unless I am engaging them somehow. If I am approaching someone, or vice versa, I will focus on them and assess them; consciously, I am focused on their current state of being rather than their attractiveness though (I couldn't tell you if something were happening unconsciously). When I say their state, what I mean is that I try to figure out what sort of mood they are in, whether or not they are pre-occupied, and how they reacted towards my approach (if I am approaching them).

Still, this is all way far off from ogling a  person to just assess their face. o.o I would say that a persons face is definitely a source of measurement for attraction though, there is no denying that.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

@_Eska_


> How did they make it clear that they had sexual intentions?


Body language tells you a lot about the person wants with you. By the way they smile and talk and look at you. Need to read those signs. Of course, someone can paranoid about it, but that mostly happens because you suffered it at a point and that left a negative impression on you or you seen it happen and it left a negative impression.



> On a side note,
> I hope "visual rape" (which I've heard a few times) doesn't become something generally accepted.


I don't like that term. Looks can make you uncomfortable but "visual rape"? That's just silly.



> Is it considered "wrong" to ogle at women?


I argue it depend on the person. As far as I can see most women in this forum are not comfortable with it, but other women like that. However, I don't think we should disregard the ones who are uncomfortable just because some are comfortable.


@_Apolo_


> So, you have somehow found a way to turn off the natural response to seeing another person, which is to assess their relative attractiveness? Hmmm.


Some people are not able to feel sexual attraction or have little of it, it's related to your sex drive. I for, example, cannot feel sexual attraction until I know someone. I don't care if you're attractive, I can see when you're attractive, it just doesn't make any difference to some people who feel to someone who feels like me.
Some people just don't feel that. We should take all that in consideration when talking about natural responses and responses to attractiveness. What is natural to you, might not be to me because we feel different things because of our different responses to attractiveness and sexuality.


@_Eska_


> Are you creeped out because you think they might be potentially harmful? Is it an uncertainty that triggers your uneasiness, or is it really the thought of being assessed physically?


The problem with @_TurtleQueen_'s answer is that will not be the same @_koalaroo_ or mine. It's very experience based. For me, for example, it's something in between, it depends highly on how you do it. I can accept it very well, or be creeped out because you look like you're going to hurt me any time.



> If a 10/10 male model was staring at you, vs a 2/10 unattractive male (relative to your standards), would you feel "creeped out" by the 10/10 male model or would you see it as flirting?


Again, it depends on how he does it, I think.


@_stormgirl_


> I see a lot of bickering and insults being thrown in this thread, but no real solutions!


What would be your suggestion then? I believe it would depend highly on the country and people involved and these should be analyzed carefully before presenting a solution, if there is such a need.


@_Eska_


> Even without revealing attire, the colors/flashiness/size of clothing/brands, I believe, are mostly influenced by validation of attractiveness.


Keywords here are "I believe" and "mostly".
People like listen to nice things, but most people don't like to hear it from random people on the streets with no context whatsoever. I've became rather bitter because I lacked any quite of attention to the point I stopped caring. I smile and say thank you when friends tell me that (because it's the only people I notice), but I don't feel anything any more. I want to look nice for myself, not for others. If I feel nice and comfortable, I'm fine, why should I care about what others tell me about my clothes?
I can ask a second option to my mother, which I do, but that's not asking for validation of my attractiveness, it's my mother, I'm asking if it suits my body because I'm stupid and I don't get women's clothing.
For some women, yes, this happens, but not for all of them. A lot of women want to look nice for themselves.


@_Apolo_


> Let's say I decide to wear a muscle shirt, or heaven forbid I walk down the street without a shirt on... Whether I like it or not, I am going to elicit a response from the opposite sex, or even the same sex... So, if I want to avoid those responses, I should choose my attire accordingly... Same with anything else... If I do not want attention, I drive a white, black, gray corolla... If I want attention, I hop in my Burnt Orange Gallardo. If I were to drive around an obnoxiously colored, exotic sports car, I can't really get upset that it draws attention, without looking like an idiot.


You just discovered gold. I reckon some women would enjoy to walk down a street without hearing a sexual joke that might not be funny. Women are much more silent than men, I would say, but men usually don't scream out saying how someone they're attracted is hot, the ones who do it are dicks. Still, I would say that what makes @_koalaroo_ uncomfortable is not the same as I and I can only try to understand her situation and expose mine.



> How did you come to that conclusion?
> 
> 
> "If you’re not one of “those guys,” and you really do want to treat women like human beings, go ahead and internalize these simple truths:
> ...


Some "nice guys" don't understand this for nicer that they are or claim to be. This isn't for all men and serves as a reminder, despite the wording making seem like you should know it because don't know it. Because some guys don't. I've posted about ex-boyfriend which is a good example about the "nice guy" who wasn't aware of this.


@_Ziggurat_


> Human sexuality doesn't just turn off in grocery stores.


Yes, but it doesn't has to make people uncomfortable now does it? You wouldn't like if it make you uncomfortable now would you?


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Aya Saves the World said:


> Yes, but it doesn't has to make people uncomfortable now does it? You wouldn't like if it make you uncomfortable now would you?


By definition I wouldn't like it if it made me uncomfortable. That doesn't mean that guys should refrain from picking up girls at wherever you personally deem to be inappropriate. People don't have the right to never be made uncomfortable.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

-______________________________-


Confusing Unusual Ramblings - this is exactly why corporate people our so greedy and capitalists.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Ziggurat said:


> By definition I wouldn't like it if it made me uncomfortable. That doesn't mean that guys should refrain from picking up girls at wherever you personally deem to be inappropriate. People don't have the right to never be made uncomfortable.


Not at all, like I said I feel or not feel that way based on how you do it. If you're nice, I'm fine with this. The problem that (I think) is being discussed here is the creeps. People who don't know how to do this or feel entitled to touch you (I really don't like these terms) and such.
I'll also say that is okay if woman does that, though, because women are cool, says tumblr. That annoys me to no end. Nobody should asked without some kind of visual, verbal or body positive response. I touch my friends because I know they let me. If a friend doesn't like it, then I don't. If I say no to some random person who's trying to touch my belly on a con, my no should be respected, not ignored.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

xXxRosexXx said:


> -______________________________-
> 
> 
> Confusing Unusual Ramblings - this is exactly why corporate people our so greedy and capitalists.


Please explain how this post has anything to do with this thread. I would be highly thankful.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

There is a variable bridge through everything.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

xXxRosexXx said:


> There is a variable bridge through everything.


Could you explain what the variable bridge is, please? Maybe it will help this discussion.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Ahahaha, ridiculous. Even "yes" doesn't mean "yes" anymore.
> 
> Well it's difficult to take you seriously even drunkel as I am.
> your response to experiments of confromity is ridiculous, it seems non-sequitor. It doesn't actually address anything I said.
> ...


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Wellsy said:


> . . . your response to experiments of confromity is ridiculous, it seems non-sequitor. It doesn't actually address anything I said.
> 
> To your second part you dont explain anything.. Again not refuting nor addressing anything.


Of course people are vulnerable to all sorts of social manipulation. But that doesn't negate consent.



xXxRosexXx said:


> There is a variable bridge through everything.


Someone ban him already pl0x xD


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Of course people are vulnerable to all sorts of social manipulation. But that doesn't negate consent


I don't think I made that argument.
But to assume that all yes' are consent is a problem considering in many contexts one has been coerced.
Peer pressure has people do many terrible things, in many contexts it often pushes them to do things they don't want to do and instead of holding the people who had pressured them against their will until they broke it sounds like you'd hold the individual accountable as if they are not influence by those other influences. 
On this account I'd disagree with you if your stance that peer pressure isn't coercion against someones consent, because as far as I can see peer pressure is often what the group resorts to when an individual doesn't wish to comply. But rather than take their resistance seriously they ignore it because they don't care for the individual's wants but their own.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Human sexuality doesn't just turn off in grocery stores.


Of course it doesn't, who said that it does? Does that mean that you have the right to go spouting your human sexuality all over others regardless of the circumstances though? If you go around creepily leering at every woman in a grocery store, any proper manager is going to ask you to leave for frightening off their customers.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Sequestrum said:


> Of course it doesn't, who said that it does? Does that mean that you have the right to go spouting your human sexuality all over others regardless of the circumstances though? If you go around creepily leering at every woman in a grocery store, any proper manager is going to ask you to leave for frightening off their customers.


Of course it doesn't, who said that it does?


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Of course it doesn't, who said that it does?


So did you actually have a point then? Or were you just presenting straw man arguments for no reason?


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

There's so much unawareness of the subconscious here.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> By definition I wouldn't like it if it made me uncomfortable. That doesn't mean that guys should refrain from picking up girls at wherever you personally deem to be inappropriate. People don't have the right to never be made uncomfortable.


Even if they did somehow have that right, it's logistically impossible.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Of course it doesn't, who said that it does?


~sigh~ Sorry for my overreaction.

Your original argument to mine definitely does not bear any sort of relevance to what I said though. I never stated nor implied that human sexuality was turned off in my comment.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Sequestrum said:


> ~sigh~ Sorry for my overreaction.
> 
> Your original argument to mine definitely does not bear any sort of relevance to what I said though. I never stated nor implied that human sexuality was turned off in my comment.


I didn't imply that you did.

I was just pointing out that people are sexual regardless of time and place. Even in grocery stores.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Ziggurat said:


> *People don't have the right to never be made uncomfortable*.


/Thread

Seriously, this is the only logical conclusion. Obviously, there is a difference between being uncomfortable and being in harms way.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Aya Saves the World said:


> Again, it depends on how he does it, I think.


Are you sure?

I suppose anyone could do it in such a way that it undoes your subconscious attraction for him, and thus making the act creepy. That's all creepiness is, really - your subconscious saying you aren't attracted, and your conscious feeling uncomfortable that someone you aren't attracted to is suggesting an act that is contrary to what your subconscious (and maybe even conscious) wants. So the act itself is a vessel, and you are projecting!

Also note that what your conscious wants is dually influenced by what your subconscious wants. So consciously you might say "that person is a creep", when it was really your subconscious - you probably have very little evidence as to if someone you don't know, is actually a creep. Then your conscious will then rationalize that creepiness, by identifying as many potentially creepy things about that person as possible, and ignoring anything that isn't creepy, thus a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is why there can be such wildly variant views about if a person is creepy or not - it's not determined by the object, but rather the subject.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> I didn't imply that you did.
> 
> I was just pointing out that people are sexual regardless of time and place. Even in grocery stores.


I made no such implication. My comment was a hypothetical situation in which I determined how I would act and feel in that situation.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Sequestrum said:


> I made no such implication. My comment was a hypothetical situation in which I determined how I would act and feel in that situation.


Misunderstanding resolved. Your original post was slightly ambiguous.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Misunderstanding resolved. Your original post was slightly ambiguous.


It was vague for a reason. So that others could relate to it in their own ways.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> I suppose anyone could do it in such a way that it undoes your subconscious attraction for him, and thus making the act creepy. That's all creepiness is, really - your subconscious saying you aren't attracted, and your conscious feeling uncomfortable that someone you aren't attracted to is suggesting an act that is contrary to what your subconscious (and maybe even conscious) wants. So the act itself is a vessel, and you are projecting!
> 
> Also note that what your conscious wants is dually influenced by what your subconscious wants. So consciously you might say "that person is a creep", when it was really your subconscious - you probably have very little evidence as to if someone you don't know, is actually a creep. Then your conscious will then rationalize that creepiness, by identifying as many potentially creepy things about that person as possible, and ignoring anything that isn't creepy, thus a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is why there can be such wildly variant views about if a person is creepy or not - it's not determined by the object, but rather the subject.


I have been trying to get this point across to them without success, for awhile now... Hopefully the difference in your wording will help.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Are you sure?


Yes, I'm.



> I suppose anyone could do it in such a way that it undoes your subconscious attraction for him, and thus making the act creepy. That's all creepiness is, really - your subconscious saying you aren't attracted, and your conscious feeling uncomfortable that someone you aren't attracted to is suggesting an act that is contrary to what your subconscious (and maybe even conscious) wants. So the act itself is a vessel, and you are projecting!


Isn't creepiness the feeling of wanting to protect yourself from a potential dangerous situation? Guys or girls I might find attractive might be creepy. What he/she says might be scary or the way he/she acts might have a red flag all over it. I never heard what you just said. I thought it was just my mind telling me "get out of here or might lead you to paths you to not want". Again, I'm not the right person to speak about it since I barely notice these things. If a guy thinks I'm attractive I'll probably be oblivious about it because the thought doesn't crosses my mind when I'm out with friends.
The same is not true when a guy flirts with me in a very creepy way. It's one the reasons I don't go out to clubs (besides loud and bad music), the aggressive flirting and the "dancing" with stranger isn't something that makes me comfortable. Women and men alike will say stupid things to get laid in such an environment, it's creepy for me because I don't want the sex. Now, that doesn't mean some people find it charming and we can't simply close clubs and discos because I, which I know I'm a minority, find it creepy.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Ziggurat said:


> Yup, that's exactly the difference between a creep and a hot guy.


Mad?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Sporadic Aura said:


> I'm sorry, but this back and forth exchange right now between koalaroo and ziggurat is fairly hilarious. I'm thoroughly entertained.


My money's on koalaroo for the win.



Ziggurat said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...












Ah! time for my favourite gif; I knew it would come in handy at some point in this thread.

:kitteh:


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Aya Saves the World said:


> Yes, I'm.
> 
> 
> Isn't creepiness the feeling of wanting to protect yourself from a potential dangerous situation? Guys or girls I might find attractive might be creepy. What he/she says might be scary or the way he/she acts might have a red flag all over it. I never heard what you just said. I thought it was just my mind telling me "get out of here or might lead you to paths you to not want". Again, I'm not the right person to speak about it since I barely notice these things. If a guy thinks I'm attractive I'll probably be oblivious about it because the thought doesn't crosses my mind when I'm out with friends.
> The same is not true when a guy flirts with me in a very creepy way. It's one the reasons I don't go out to clubs (besides loud and bad music), the aggressive flirting and the "dancing" with stranger isn't something that makes me comfortable. Women and men alike will say stupid things to get laid in such an environment, it's creepy for me because I don't want the sex. Now, that doesn't mean some people find it charming and we can't simply close clubs and discos because I, which I know I'm a minority, find it creepy.


Danger can also be quite subjective. And also subject to distortions brought about by attraction. This is why people get in terrible relationships with terrible people, who happen to be good looking/ very good at seduction.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Shahada said:


> Mad?


Yeah, it must be because I can't get laid. 
/casm


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Danger can also be quite subjective. And also subject to distortions brought about by attraction. This is why people get in terrible relationships with terrible people, who happen to be good looking/ very good at seduction.


I know that. I can't just get together with really hot guy who tells he wants to fuck me in a bathroom stall. Just no. I might be the minority here, but that spells a lot of types of dangerous to me. And saying no can be equally dangerous.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

I just want to take a moment to let everyone know that even though I don't always agree with everyone here, that I do still like everyone on this thread. I hope that I am not spawning any ill-feelings between the other members.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

So what's the verdict? Women: Human beings or things? 

I got places to be.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

johnnyyukon said:


> So what's the verdict? Women: Human beings or things?
> 
> I got places to be.


How about human things?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

To me, when I get a feeling that someone is "creepy" it's always about feeling unsafe with that person. That's the entire point of that instinct or emotion.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Chesire Tower said:


> Ah! time for my favourite gif; I knew it would come in handy at some point in this thread.
> 
> :kitteh:


I don't even understand what you're trying to convey with that.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Ziggurat said:


> I don't even understand what you're trying to convey with that.


Why am I not at all surprised by this.

:dry:


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Chesire Tower said:


> Why am I not at all surprised by this.
> 
> :dry:


If you're implying that I was in some sort of defeated rage rather than calmly destroying her arguments, then you would be incorrect.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Ziggurat said:


> If you're implying that I was in some sort of defeated rage rather than calmly destroying her arguments, then you would be incorrect.


LOL! Well okay, thanks for telling what I'm not thinking.

I don't have any clue - nor do I frank care what your mood is at the moment but please, make sure to alert me when 
Hell freezes over you ragefully or zenfully "destroy" (or even make a lick of sense of) her argument. I will be waiting.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Ziggurat said:


> If you're implying that I was in some sort of defeated rage rather than calmly destroying her arguments, then you would be incorrect.


I think that is what she was trying to convey, however incorrect it may have been.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Apolo said:


> I think that is what she was trying to convey, however incorrect it may have been.


Ah good, another mind reader; Miss Cleo would be so proud.

You two definitely don't disappoint; please keep up the good work.

LMFAO


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Chesire Tower said:


> LOL! Well okay, thanks for telling what I'm not thinking.


Well you refused to explain the gif so you blatantly invited me to guess what you were thinking! Ridiculous.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> Ah good, another mind reader; Miss Cleo would be so proud.
> 
> You two definitely don't disappoint; please keep up the good work.
> 
> LMFAO


Yes, yes, we are mind readers... Doo-doo-DOO-doo! Doo-doo-DOO-doo!

Or, you made a post, quoting someone, with a gif, and we are merely interpreting it.... 

I guess interpreting a vague post, constitutes mind reading now.....


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Apolo said:


> Yes, yes, we are mind readers... Doo-doo-DOO-doo! Doo-doo-DOO-doo!
> 
> Or, you made a post, quoting someone, with a gif, and we are merely interpreting it....
> 
> I guess interpreting a vague post, constitutes mind reading now.....


Yes, because both of you claimed to know what I'm thinking even when I expressly stated otherwise.
Btw, good move with the rolling eye emote; it's always so much more effective than logical argument.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> Yes, because both of you claimed to know what I'm thinking even when I expressly stated otherwise.
> Btw, good move with the rolling eye emote; it's always so much more effective than logical argument.











LMFAO.... What a fascinating train of thought (or lack of), you must have. You seem to be very good at twisting things around to support your fallacious ideas


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I think my version of the "creepy" look reflects the fact that I don't desire casual sex or hook ups from men at all. If I'm going to interact with a man, I would like to date him and possibly have a relationship with him. A more acceptable way of checking me out indicates that the guy isn't so focused on sex that he couldn't appreciate other qualities about me that aren't as sexualized. It seems more respectful to me to take in my entire appearance rather than zeroing in your focus on my butt or my breasts. A guy who checks me out in a non-creepy way is likely to want the same things that I want.

By the way I have been "checked out" in a grocery store before when I was a teenager. It didn't offend me at all once I actually figured out what was happening (my sister told me what was happening). I looked at the guy (another teenager, so age appropriate), and he was smiling in an inoffensive manner. He seemed to notice that I was looking at him and actually looked me in the eyes instead of looking at some specific body part. He did not appear to be staring at my butt or my boobs intently once I saw him. Since I was a teenage girl, I think my mom and my older sister would have not pointed this out as some kind of positive thing if his look had been clearly predatory or sexual. I believe that they would have been creeped out by anything I have described as creepy when it happens to a teenage girl that they know can be a bit naive about this kind of thing.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Apolo said:


> LMFAO.... What a fascinating train of thought you must have. You seem to be very good at things finding things to support your ideas


FIXED and why thank you. ^_^

Don't bother continuing to quote me, I'm don't wish to derail this thread any further.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> FIXED and why thank you. ^_^
> 
> Don't bother continuing to quote me, I'm don't wish to derail this thread any further.


As I said, twisting things to fit delusions. :wink:


----------



## Pyogenes (Feb 12, 2014)

A couple of points that came up during this discussion:

Why is men looking at you viewed as negative? There are several examples of cultures that have the opposite orientation. In those cultures, if men do not look lustfully towards a beautiful woman, it is rude and insulting. Ask yourself why your response is, "That man is creepy and objectifying me" instead of, "That man thinks I am attractive and confirms my own belief that I am beautiful."

The "I don't judge people or objectify their appearance" idea is post hoc moralizing. That process of objectification is completely unconscious and occurs in your brain long before you actually think the thought. I don't care how perfectly you follow progressive sociological ideology, if I put you in an fMRI and present different images of different types of people to you, your brain will respond accordingly. Afterwards you may be able to rationalize to yourself that you didn't judge or objectify based on race, gender, appearance, etc, but your brain activity tells the real story.

Gender relations are not products of culture, but your reaction to them is. If anything, culture dresses up our animal instinct in an attempt to separate ourselves from nature. These persistent patterns between the sexes can also be observed from old world monkeys to chimps and bonobos. Changing culture will not change 60 million years of primate mating patterns. Don't forget you are a hairless ape.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Pyogenes said:


> A couple of points that came up during this discussion:
> 
> Why is men looking at you viewed as negative? There are several examples of cultures that have the opposite orientation. In those cultures, if men do not look lustfully towards a beautiful woman, it is rude and insulting. Ask yourself why your response is, "That man is creepy and objectifying me" instead of, "That man thinks I am attractive and confirms my own belief that I am beautiful."
> 
> ...












Yes, yes, yes! 

But it won't matter, people can and will dismiss the evidence, and logic completely and utterly, if it disagrees with their argued stance. It is sad. =/


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I don't think that I saw tons of people arguing in this thread that women are somehow immune from finding people physically attractive or ever making quick judgments based on appearance. Some women, including myself, did indicate that physical attractiveness was not the first thing we noticed about a person. 

I personally did not argue that a guy cannot "check me out" if he does so in a certain way that seems more respectful to me and seems to accord more easily with what I could actually desire from a man (a relationship, not just sex). Some guy just looking at my female body parts that tend to be very sexualized does make me feel objectified; it doesn't make me feel "beautiful." I don't need some man's appraisal of me to make me feel beautiful. The kind of subtle checking out from a man can make me pleased that he seems to appreciate my overall beauty, but I don't need a guy to confirm what I do or do not think of myself. If I'm going to feel beautiful or not beautiful, one man's opinion is unlikely to make much of a difference unless I actually know him and have some reason to care about his opinion.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> I don't think that I saw tons of people arguing in this thread that women are somehow immune from finding people physically attractive or ever making quick judgments based on appearance. Some women, including myself, did indicate that physical attractiveness was not the first thing we noticed about a person.
> 
> I personally did not argue that a guy cannot "check me out" if he does so in a certain way that seems more respectful to me and seems to accord more easily with what I could actually desire from a man (a relationship, not just sex). Some guy just looking at my female body parts that tend to be very sexualized does make me feel objectified; it doesn't make me feel "beautiful." I don't need some man's appraisal of me to make me feel beautiful. The kind of subtle checking out from a man can make me pleased that he seems to appreciate my overall beauty, but I don't need a guy to confirm what I do or do not think of myself. If I'm going to feel beautiful or not beautiful, one man's opinion is unlikely to make much of a difference unless I actually know him and have some reason to care about his opinion.


You must have missed a good number of pages then, as that was a focus for a good while.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Eska said:


> I
> * *
> 
> 
> ...


So long as people's boundaries are being respected, it's not; that was the whole point of the original article that it's basically not okay to violate another human being's boundaries.

Flirting: respectful and not clearly unwanted attention
Harassment: aggressive and callous violation of said boundaries.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> So long as people's boundaries are being respected, it's not; that was the whole point of the original article that it's basically not okay to violate another human being's boundaries.
> 
> Flirting: respectful and not clearly unwanted attention
> Harassment: aggressive and callous violation of said boundaries.


I think this goes back to the fact that boundaries are relative, outside of physical assault, and thus vary widely. 
Which then brings us back to the fact that it is not a person's right, to not feel uncomfortable. Sure, the nice thing to do is to try and tiptoe around peoples boundaries, so as not to impede and make them feel uncmfortable... But you can't do that for everyone, without impeding on another persons's boundaries. Some folks just don't think about or pay attention to boundaries, whether out of spite or out of ignorance.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Apolo said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, if a woman, let's say is quietly eating her dinner and minding her own business; is it ok for a guy to continually badger and harass her thoughout her meal - even if she clearly tells him to leave her alone?


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Apolo said:


> I think this goes back to the fact that boundaries are relative, outside of physical assault, and thus vary widely.
> Which then brings us back to the fact that it is not a person's right, to not feel uncomfortable. Sure, the nice thing to do is to try and tiptoe around peoples boundaries, so as not to impede and make them feel uncmfortable... But you can't do that for everyone, without impeding on another persons's boundaries. Some folks just don't think about or pay attention to boundaries, whether out of spite or out of ignorance.


I don't think anyone expects that to be the case 100% of the time. Still, people should put forth a best effort to respect the boundaries of others, and apologize if they do make a mistake. That is all I would personally ask for from anyone else.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

I'd like to say one more very generic thing. It has not been my intention to make anyone feel like their feelings of attraction for women are inherently wrong or bad. I feel very strongly about the boundaries of women being respected though. I would feel just as strongly if we were talking about the boundaries of men too. How people affect each other in negative ways is what I am concerned about. If I know that something I am doing hurts another person, I would try to avoid doing that in the future.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> I don't think anyone expects that to be the case 100% of the time. Still, people should put forth a best effort to respect the boundaries of others, and apologize if they do make a mistake. That is all I would personally ask for from anyone else.


Of course! Maybe it is the ISTP in me, but I understand that that will never happen... We ask people not to drink and drive, so they don't potentially kill someone. We wish chivalry was not dead, or that others would hold the door for us when we have our hands full, etc. But people are people, and people are selfish, so these trends will only worsen, no reason to waste energy on something you can not possibly change. 



Chesire Tower said:


> So, if a woman, let's say is quietly eating her dinner and minding her own business; is it ok for a guy to continually badger and harass her thoughout her meal - even if she clearly tells him to leave her alone?


Of course not, but leaving her alone would merely be a common courtesy on the part of the male... If he were considerate and nice, then he would take the hint or request and go about his way. But honestly, how many people in this day and age of instant/self gratification, where we are taught to be self centered, are people often considerate or courteous? And as we become more and more progressive towards these things, i.e. the decline of our culture and society, the worse it will be, not just in the stated contexts but in all aspects of our daily lives.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Chesire Tower said:


> So, if a woman, let's say is quietly eating her dinner and minding her own business; is it ok for a guy to continually badger and harass her thoughout her meal - even if she clearly tells him to leave her alone?


Ahaha, obviously not. But that's clearly not what we've been referring to.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I think that I find someone staring at me in an extremely sexualized way creepier than a lot of men and perhaps even some women do. I don't want casual sex, so I don't want any guy looking at me in a way that seems to suggest that sex is the only thing he might want from me.

I'm realistic enough to know that people might want to hook up more in some places (bars and night clubs). If I'm at some place where I don't expect this kind of attention at all (like the street harassment video or a grocery store), I find it much more unacceptable to creep some woman out with your sexualized attention. Even a woman who wants casual sex might not expect to get some kind of sexual attention at a grocery store (hint: she's there to buy groceries, probably not hook up with you). I don't tend to go to bars or night clubs at all these days, but let's say that I'm sitting at the bar. If I'm by myself instead of with a group of friends, this might indicate that I'm more open to meeting someone. I recognize that a man might want to check me out to figure out if he wants to talk to me, but I would appreciate if he could do so in a fairly subtle way. It's fine for some man to look appreciatively at me but he doesn't need to stare at me in a very sexual way for some lengthy period of time like five or ten minutes to see if he would like to talk to me. I do feel "creeped out" if I'm getting looked at in that kind of way for an unusually long period of time. Part of me wonders if the guy who stares at me in a way I find objectifying and won't even talk to me after the couple of minutes he might need to make some sort of physical assessment would try to stalk or assault me in some way. Even if he wanted consensual casual sex, he might reasonably decide to talk to me after a couple of minutes! If I'm not interested in talking to a man for whatever reason or if we are clearly interested in different things (him wanting a casual hookup), I'll indicate my answer in a clear and polite way. I expect a man to then leave me alone. The worst part of the street harassment video was not necessarily people calling out things like "you're beautiful." The worst part of that video was the men who continued to bother that woman after she clearly ignored them and that one guy who decided to stalk her. The guys on this thread might not feel as I do about being stared at in a highly sexual way, but would you appreciate getting harassed after you attempt to politely reject someone? I don't think so.

I never meant to argue that it's unacceptable for some man to sexually desire me. I do feel that there are ways to communicate potential interest in a way that makes me (and women like me) feel more comfortable and less "creeped out."

ETA: I wouldn't feel comfortable with having sex with some guy that I just met. If I just meet someone and want things to go further, I would be willing to exchange numbers and arrange some kind of date. I wouldn't want to have sex with some guy until after I've been on several dates with him so that I can feel more comfortable around him. I don't want to feel pressured in any way after a certain number of dates to have sex sooner than I would like. I understand that my preferences are different from a lot of people my age in an era of casual hookups, but I still expect my preferences to be respected.

ETA 2: In part, I think that the reason some women like me might be "creeped out" by guys staring at them in very sexual ways could involve the subconscious threat of potentially being sexually assaulted. Rape does happen a lot more often to women than men (we tend to know this fact), and violent sexual behavior can frequently happen to females in the animal kingdom (including many primates). On some subconscious and instinctual level, some women might feel threatened by a highly sexual look for this reason. As I've also mentioned on this thread before, I'm a very short woman. If some guy decided to hurt me for whatever reason, he could cause a helluva lot of damage. My heightened responses to being "creeped out" could be based in some kind of biological thing; someone actually physically weaker than pretty much all men and most women might need to have a stronger fear response if a potential threat could exist. I don't think that every guy who looks at me with sexual interest is going to rape me, of course. But this subconscious, evolutionary kind of thing might explain why some woman can feel "creeped out" by a guy looking at her in a way that seems inappropriately sexual to her.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Apolo said:


> Of course not, but leaving her alone would merely be a common courtesy on the part of the male... If he were considerate and nice, then he would take the hint or request and go about his way. But honestly, how many people in this day and age of instant/self gratification, where we are taught to be self centered, are people often considerate or courteous? And as we become more and more progressive towards these things, i.e. the decline of our culture and society, the worse it will be, not just in the stated contexts but in all aspects of our daily lives.


I don't agree with the thought that our civilization is becoming worse. I think we are slowly learning to respect one another. People in this day and age are far better off then people were 1000 years ago. The march is slow, and perfection is an illusion on the horizon. The pursuit of perfection is real and tangible and as long as we creep even an inch at a time towards it, it is progress.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Apolo said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The point of the article is that people who view other this way ought to rethink that POV.



Ziggurat said:


> Ahaha, obviously not. But that's clearly not what we've been referring to.


That's what the OP has been referring to throughout this entire thread.


* *




*retrains myself from posting rolling eye emote*


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Chesire Tower said:


> . . .
> That's what the OP has been referring to throughout this entire thread.
> 
> 
> ...


I was replying to you, not the OP:



Chesire Tower said:


> So, if a woman, let's say is quietly eating her dinner and minding her own business; is it ok for a guy to continually badger and harass her thoughout her meal - even if she clearly tells him to leave her alone?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Ravn said:


> @Eska
> 
> * *
> 
> ...


Indeed, I am not disagreeing with what you're saying, or have I alluded to it by mistake?

Yes, stares can be uncomfortable, although, do you believe that measures should be taken in order to stop men from looking at women? 

The evaluation of one's physique is critical to attraction, it would be "oppressing sexuality"(which has been referred to, earlier in this thread) to somehow suppress one of the natural functions generally needed to fulfill our biological role. Would you agree or disagree that a law should be put in place against gazing?

At some point, we might be pressured to raise our hands before addressing a female.

I don't find it reasonable to do so, and I think it could potentially be counter-productive for the development of one's sexuality, over time.



Aya Saves the World said:


> I mostly do not care for attractiveness until I know the person. I'm only attracted to people I know.
> Do notice and look at an ass? Maybe, it's not awfully common and I'll not notice it on my own, other people tell me about it.


You might be correct, although, I highly doubt that you're being honest, or at least, I doubt that you fully understand the science behind attraction, at least, to the extent of being aware that you are making physical assessments without necessarily consciously being aware of it.

Here's a summarized video on how it works, there is much more to take into count than what you descriptively seem to be experiencing.







Mee2 said:


> @Eska
> 
> Do you really expect women to be able to justify their taste in fashion? Can you justify yours? I mean, surely you don't dress exclusively to impress women. Even if you do, can you justify your taste in music, film, literature, art? I sure as hell can't, and I say that as someone with a very strong interest in such things. Or what about men's fashion? In the absence of any sexual attraction, surely you still have preferences - can you justify those?


It is not necessarily to attract the opposite sex, men might often be in competition with each other.

It can manifest itself in hairstyle, accessories (earrings/watches/pendants/etc.), make-up, clothes arrangement (stretching your shirt in a certain fashion, placing it in a certain fashion, etc.).

It serves a purpose, it enhances or covers up flaws to make yourself more attractive in order to "fit in" (which could mean that you have a better chance of "survival" (security/acceptance/etc.))

Make-up enhances specific features on the face that are usually an attraction point, they cover up flaws and enhance certain features in order to accentuate your attractiveness, earrings/watches/pendants (depending on what they are) can demonstrate your views/values/wealth/status, etc. In order to make yourself more attractive to a specific, if not general audience.

Things that you may not even consciously think about, are actively influencing your attraction to someone, and you, at least, subconsciously, adhere to this system of attraction when choosing what you wear.






There might be special cases where people might not fit the theory, although, I highly doubt it.



Aya Saves the World said:


> [...]
> @_Eska_
> 
> Keywords here are "I believe" and "mostly".
> People like listen to nice things, but most people don't like to hear it from random people on the streets with no context whatsoever. I've became rather bitter because I lacked any quite of attention to the point I stopped caring. I smile and say thank you when friends tell me that (because it's the only people I notice), but I don't feel anything any more.


I don't think that people hate everything about random people making comments.

You might filter the behavior, but you will retain the message.

"Was the person obnoxious? Yes. Was the person inconsiderate of the person's feelings? Yes."
"He said that I was attractive? Yes. He complimented my physical assets and I feel good about it? Yes."
"I was attractive enough for him to actually make a compliment out loud? Yes."

Not everything about it taken as an offence.




> I want to look nice for myself, not for others. If I feel nice and comfortable, I'm fine, why should I care about what others tell me about my clothes?
> I can ask a second option to my mother, which I do, but that's not asking for validation of my attractiveness, it's my mother, I'm asking if it suits my body because I'm stupid and I don't get women's clothing.
> For some women, yes, this happens, but not for all of them. A lot of women want to look nice for themselves.


That is what I doubt.
You might be not be consciously aware of it, but ask yourself, why do you feel nice and comfortable in these clothes?

"I want to look nice for myself." seems to be a statement that dismisses the presence of biological influence on your decisions. 

Why don't you wear the same clothes you look nice in, at home? 
Why do you wear them if you can't see them completely on yourself?

It might be a fear of repulsion/exclusion, which will essentially call upon the power of attraction.



Chesire Tower said:


> So long as people's boundaries are being respected, it's not; that was the whole point of the original article that it's basically not okay to violate another human being's boundaries.
> 
> Flirting: respectful and not clearly unwanted attention
> Harassment: aggressive and callous violation of said boundaries.


Lawfully, preventing me to look at you would be a violation of my boundaries.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Apolo said:


> Of course! Maybe it is the ISTP in me, but I understand that that will never happen... We ask people not to drink and drive, so they don't potentially kill someone. We wish chivalry was not dead, or that others would hold the door for us when we have our hands full, etc. But people are people, and people are selfish, so these trends will only worsen, no reason to waste energy on something you can not possibly change.


Chilvary is not dead, it is stronger than ever. I hold doors open for people all the time, male, or female. So do all of my co-workers. My wife does it too, and I've had women hold the door open for me as well. I help people when I can, though to not to my own detriment as much anymore. When someones car stalled out in the middle of the street, I parked mine and helped them push it to a gas station.. I don't know. Goodness can be found if you look for it.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Eska said:


> Lawfully, preventing me to look at you would be a violation of my boundaries.


Well, of course, but what is your opinion of this other post of mine?



Chesire Tower said:


> So, if a woman, let's say is quietly eating her dinner and minding her own business; is it ok for a guy to continually badger and harass her thoughout her meal - even if she clearly tells him to leave her alone?


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> Chilvary is not dead, it is stronger than ever. I hold doors open for people all the time, male, or female. So do all of my co-workers. My wife does it too, and I've had women hold the door open for me as well. I help people when I can, though to not to my own detriment as much anymore. When someones car stalled out in the middle of the street, I parked mine and helped them push it to a gas station.. I don't know. Goodness can be found if you look for it.


I did not mean to imply that it was dead, but in America anyways, if you look at chivalry, as well as peoples consideration and courtesy for others, it has sharply declined over the last 40 years. I see a direct correlation between this and the decline in value placed on family values and our me me me culture, which is perpetuated by the media.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> Well, of course, but what is your opinion of this other post of mine?


Badger or harass?

What form of harassment is taking place?


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Eska said:


> Badger or harass?
> 
> What form of harassment is taking place?


If you talk to me and I don't like it, you are harassing me.... /sarcasm


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Apolo said:


> I did not mean to imply that it was dead, but in America anyways, if you look at chivalry, as well as peoples consideration and courtesy for others, it has sharply declined over the last 40 years. I see a direct correlation between this and the decline in value placed on family values and our me me me culture, which is perpetuated by the media.


That is sad, but I refuse to let that deter me from doing what I can. Feelings can be very contagious, sometimes bringing about change in others starts within us.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Apolo said:


> If you talk to me and I don't like it, you are harassing me.... /sarcasm


That is the issue with that form of harassment, it's ambiguous and resides on the person's experience, thus, unfair treatment is bound to happen.

For instance,

10/10 male model eyeing a woman from across the room at dinner, vs, 2/10 unattractive stereotypical pedophile looking male eyeing a woman from across the room at dinner.

"Oh my god he kept looking at me, do you think I should have talked to him? He's cute."
"Oh my god he kept looking at me, do you think I should have called the cops? He's creepy."


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> That is sad, but I refuse to let that deter me from doing what I can. Feelings can be very contagious, sometimes bringing about change in others starts within us.


I am the same way, and go out of my way any time I can. BUT, that is the exception, not the rule. And it is only getting worse and worse.




Eska said:


> That is the issue with that form of harassment, it's ambiguous and resides on the person's experience, thus, unfair treatment is bound to happen.
> 
> For instance,
> 
> ...


I agree, but every feminist I know in person views it as a legitimate form of harassment and.... abuse....


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Eska said:


> Badger or harass?
> 
> What form of harassment is taking place?


Well, if he is obnoxiously and aggressively persistent - despite my pleas to leave me along; that would constitute some form of badgering. Obviously, in the context presented, the only "legal" option I might have is to complain to the manager. But if someone is persisting with attention that they know - but don't care - is unwanted; they are violating my boundaries and my rights - even if I have no real legal recourse.


* *




*Prays that only Eska responds to this question.*






Apolo said:


> If you talk to me and I don't like it, you are harassing me.... /sarcasm


You know, it's uber annoying the way that you and your buddy keep responding to my posts to other people. Last time, I checked, neither of you is Eska.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Apolo said:


> I am the same way, and go out of my way any time I can. BUT, that is the exception, not the rule. And it is only getting worse and worse.


Things always get worse before they get better. I'm sure this is not our fate.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

@Eska



> You might be correct, although, I highly doubt that you're being honest, or at least, I doubt that you fully understand the science behind attraction, at least, to the extent of being aware that you are making physical assessments without necessarily consciously being aware of it.


Maybe, but I don't notice nor I care. Maybe because I'm not free any more? But it has always been this way. I know a few things I like, but I really don't care? I don't know how to express it. I'm pretty much attracted by people I know and they way they talk and move. I can't be as attracted by a stranger, it actually rare. He/she might be hot and I can see it, yes, but I'm not attracted to him/her.

And I have forgot my first kiss. But thanks for the video.



> I don't think that people hate everything about random people making comments.


I don't, believe me. I've stoned by saying that I don't mind random people making comments, but it depends on how they do it. That's the difference, the words you say and how you say them.



> Not everything about it taken as an offence.


Not everything is taken as an offence. At least not by me. Again, I'm not the morn, I don't know how much you can trust me or what I say as truth.



> That is what I doubt.
> You might be not be consciously aware of it, but ask yourself, why do you feel nice and comfortable in these clothes?


Usually, it's because of the fabric or the way they make be feel warm. I usually wear male clothing so I don't think I'm using clothes that attract males.



> Why don't you wear the same clothes you look nice in, at home?


Because they're not very good to clean the house with and I don't want to ruin them.



> Why do you wear them if you can't see them completely on yourself?


Because it's too cold to be naked?


----------



## Vandrer (Jun 26, 2014)

Eska said:


> Indeed, I am not disagreeing with what you're saying, or have I alluded to it by mistake?
> 
> Yes, stares can be uncomfortable, although, do you believe that measures should be taken in order to stop men from looking at women?
> 
> ...


Huh, it seemed as though you disagreed, possibly just the unclear nature of reading through and giving thoughts on a longer thread.

No, forcing someone not to do something which is perfectly natural to do would be immoral and unethical. We would reach Orwellian conditions. I do not think any person in this thread would support coercion to stop these gazes?



> There might be special cases where people might not fit the theory, although, I highly doubt it.


If you ever start doing higher level statistics, you will learn that there are always outliers, always an observation which doesn't fit the theory. In sociology there is a large amount of variables which could cause such outliers (mental conditions and some types of conditioning)


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> Well, if he is obnoxiously and aggressively persistent - despite my pleas to leave me along; that would constitute some form of badgering. Obviously, in the context presented, the only "legal" option I might have is to complain to the manager. But if someone is persisting with attention that they know - but don't care - is unwanted; they are violating my boundaries and my rights - even if I have no real legal recourse.


Indeed, the persistence of an act (relatively speaking to the severity of it's consequences and the maneuvers available to avoid it), can be perceived and labeled as harassment.

Gazing at someone, IMO, is not enough to be labeled as harassment, because you could simply look away, it is not physically harmful to the victim, and it limits "freedom of sight", I suppose.

Yes, you might feel "watched", but it is such an ambiguous act that it can easily be abused by the "victim".

How many seconds per minute, would you be allowed to look at someone without it being considered harassment?
How many instances are you allowed per hour, would you be allowed to look at someone without it being considered harassment?
Can a teacher claim harassment because a student is gazing at her while she is explaining?

We could end up having these being obligatory in public places;


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> You know, it's uber annoying the way that you and your buddy keep responding to my posts to other people. Last time, I checked, neither of you is Eska.


The funny thing is, I was talking to Eska. And if you don't like other people responding to your posts, maybe you should take it to pm, rather than discussing it publicly on a forum. Took a lot of logic for me to come up with that resolution....


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Aya Saves the World said:


> Because they're not very good to clean the house with and I don't want to ruin them.
> Because it's too cold to be naked?


lol'd pretty hard at this part. >.>

I think it is strange too, because I wear almost the exact thing most days. I dress with an agenda, and that agenda is to not stand out and to not present any detail about myself that anyone could pick up on. I haven't always been like that, but I have been for at least 3 to 4 years now. I dress just practically enough for work, and just casually enough for not being at work. In the end, I have had people think I am in the military based on how I dress. This really amused me, because I don't know of any men in the military with a pony tail. =)

The way one dresses is a method of self expression, and expression is not always sexually oriented -- but it certainly can be. That is how I feel about it.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Sequestrum said:


> lol'd pretty hard at this part. >.>
> 
> I think it is strange too, because I wear almost the exact thing most days. I dress with an agenda, and that agenda is to not stand out and to not present any detail about myself that anyone could pick up on. I haven't always been like that, but I have been for at least 3 to 4 years now. I dress just practically enough for work, and just casually enough for not being at work. In the end, I have had people think I am in the military based on how I dress. This really amused me, because I don't of any men in the military with a pony tail. =)
> 
> The way one dresses is a method of self expression, and expression is not always sexually oriented -- but it certainly can be. That is how I feel about it.


I second this. I wear almost the same everyday or look the same because of long coats and jackets.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Aya Saves the World said:


> @Eska
> 
> Maybe, but I don't notice nor I care. Maybe because I'm not free any more? But it has always been this way. I know a few things I like, but I really don't care? I don't know how to express it. I'm pretty much attracted by people I know and they way they talk and move. I can't be as attracted by a stranger, it actually rare. He/she might be hot and I can see it, yes, but I'm not attracted to him/her.
> 
> And I have forgot my first kiss. But thanks for the video.


I see, although, I find it odd that you seem to be separating "hot" from "attractive", "hot" is a form of attractiveness, physical attraction, which is the topic were originally discussing.



> I don't, believe me. I've stoned by saying that I don't mind random people making comments, but it depends on how they do it. That's the difference, the words you say and how you say them.
> 
> Not everything is taken as an offence. At least not by me. Again, I'm not the morn, I don't know how much you can trust me or what I say as truth.


That is what I find odd, how can a person ignore one of the messages being portrayed? That they are attractive.

The act itself can be considered "rude" and obnoxious, although, I doubt the honesty of those who say that catcalling is completely negative.



> Usually, it's because of the fabric or the way they make be feel warm. I usually wear male clothing so I don't think I'm using clothes that attract males.


It's not necessarily to attract males, it can be to attract or portray a certain feature you wish to display, which is also part of attraction. It can be for competitive purposes as well, which, in the "male world", is often presented with posture. (More power = more attractive.)








> Because they're not very good to clean the house with and I don't want to ruin them.


Ah, fair point.
Although, it can get just as messy outside (more likely to, I'd guess).

Other questions might be, why do you remove your makeup at home (if you do)? Why do you remove your accessories? 
Why are you not as comfortable in the outside world, as you are in the inside world? The pressure of being attractive, perhaps?

I believe it all relates to attraction.



> Because it's too cold to be naked?


Of course, although, why wouldn't you wear something that you find repulsive?

If you were the last human being on earth, would you care as much about what shirt you wear?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Ravn said:


> [...]
> If you ever start doing higher level statistics, you will learn that there are always outliers, always an observation which doesn't fit the theory. In sociology there is a large amount of variables which could cause such outliers (mental conditions and some types of conditioning)


I see, and indeed, that is why I've stated, multiple times, that is why I've said to @Aya Saves the World that she might be corrected about her personal experience, although, I would find it highly unlikely for it to be correct.

There are always possibilities that can counter a theory, indeed.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> Ah, fair point.
> Although, it can get just as messy outside (more likely to, I'd guess).
> 
> Other questions might be, why do you remove your makeup at home (if you do)? Why do you remove your accessories?
> ...


I really believe you are over thinking a lot of this. Why are you so dead set on making everything about looking attractive? Is it really hard to believe that people can dress practically?











Eska said:


> Of course, although, why wouldn't you wear something that you find repulsive?
> 
> If you were the last human being on earth, would you care as much about what shirt you wear?


Why would anyone wear something that they don't like? That question doesn't make sense. ~.~


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> I really believe you are over thinking a lot of this. Why are you so dead set on making everything about looking attractive? Is it really hard to believe that people can dress practically?
> 
> Why would anyone wear something that they don't like? That question doesn't make sense. ~.~


I believe that it is being oversimplified, and even misinterpreted.

I'm not saying that everything is about looking attractive, I'm simply interested by the fundamental reasons behind wearing specific attire.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> I believe that it is being oversimplified, and even misinterpreted.
> 
> I'm not saying that everything is about looking attractive, I'm simply interested by the fundamental reasons behind wearing specific attire.


But the problem with this is that everyone dresses with different goals in mind. Even if you found a person who dressed specifically to look sexy, it wouldn't mean a thing in regards to anyone but that person. :/


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> But the problem with this is that everyone dresses with different goals in mind. Even if you found a person who dressed specifically to look sexy, it wouldn't mean a thing in regards to anyone but that person. :/


The "surface" goal might not appear to be as complex, although, there are connections to be made with biological theories.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> The "surface" goal might not appear to be as complex, although, there are connections to be made with biological theories.


I suppose you might have a point. Though.. "I highly doubt it".. (just kidding)


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> The "surface" goal might not appear to be as complex, although, there are connections to be made with biological theories.


Though I think you'd be better off trying to link it to a culture than biology.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> Though I think you'd be better off trying to link it to a culture than biology.


Culture is an influence, indeed.

Although, I believe that biology, in this case, is a common ground across every culture, although, I might be wrong.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> Culture is an influence, indeed.
> 
> Although, I believe that biology, in this case, is a common ground across every culture, although, I might be wrong.


If that were the case, I would think you would see more clearly defined styles across cultures in regards to men and women. I can't really see that though.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> If that were the case, I would think you would see more clearly defined styles across cultures in regards to men and women. I can't really see that though.


I think that religion is a major influence in that.

Do you mean "styles" as in fashion?


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> I think that religion is a major influence in that.
> 
> Do you mean "styles" as in fashion?


I think I meant styles just in very general terms. Fashion is way too random (in my opinion). As far as religion goes, that does makes sense, but in that case, the determination is really a list of priorities and those priorities are not easily defined. So from what I am seeing so far, biological factors are already a lower priority than religion, and culture. I'm sure that personal preference influences these priorities as well.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Well chivalry as I understand it is putting the needs and wants of women in front of those of men. I'm glad it's dead / dying.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> I think I meant styles just in very general terms. Fashion is way too random (in my opinion). As far as religion goes, that does makes sense, but in that case, the determination is really a list of priorities and those priorities are not easily defined. So from what I am seeing so far, biological factors are already a lower priority than religion, and culture. I'm sure that personal preference influences these priorities as well.


I think that culture is simply a "filter" for the behavior and interpretation itself, although, at the core of it, lies biological concepts/theories.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Well chivalry as I understand it is putting the needs and wants of women in front of those of men. I'm glad it's dead / dying.


To me, it means putting the wants of others (edit: ahead of my own). I don't wish everyone was like this, nor would I criticize one who is not. There are a lot of aspects to society that play together, and having a bit of altruism mixed with pessimism is a good balance.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> I think that culture is simply a "filter" for the behavior and interpretation itself, although, at the core of it, lies biological concepts/theories.


If culture is a filter, then a persons substance surely has various consistencies which allow for greater or lesser amounts of filtration. In that case, it still highlights the varying degrees of ones personal preference.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Sequestrum said:


> To me, it means putting the wants of others (edit: ahead of my own).


That's just altruism, though. Chivalry seems to be directed towards women alone.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> If culture is a filter, then a persons substance surely has various consistencies which allow for greater or lesser amounts of filtration. In that case, it still highlights the varying degrees of ones personal preference.


Indeed, although, it'll originate from a biological concept.

For instance,
"I like this --> Why? --> Why? --> Why? --> Why? --> Sexual reproduction"

To deny the presence of biological influence, is what I find odd.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> Indeed, although, it'll originate from a biological concept.
> 
> For instance,
> "I like this --> Why? --> Why? --> Why? --> Why? --> Sexual reproduction"
> ...


Don't you think that is a tad linear? Perhaps you are looking at this from the wrong angle. Biology certainly plays a factor in the fact that I do not wear a bra, for example.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> Don't you think that is a tad linear? Perhaps you are looking at this from the wrong angle. Biology certainly plays a factor in the fact that I do not wear a bra, for example.


What do you mean by "wrong angle"?


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> That's just altruism, though. Chivalry seems to be directed towards women alone.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry

That is waaaay different than what I thought of it as... women aren't really as pronounced as the church.. o.o


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Sequestrum said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry
> 
> That is waaaay different than what I thought of it as... women aren't really as pronounced as the church.. o.o


The relevant part of that wikipedia article is this:

"During the 20th century, the chivalrous ideal of protecting women came to be seen as a trope of melodrama ("damsel in distress"). The term chivalry retains a certain currency in sociology, in reference to the general tendency of men, and of society in general, to lend more attention offering protection from harm to women than to men, or in noting gender gaps in life expectancy, health, etc., also expressed in media bias giving significantly more attention to female than to male victims (see also missing white woman syndrome).[53]"


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

I wonder why everything has to end up in a Feminists vs Men's rights angle while we could be objectively observing how human beings are supposed to interact with each other, something that often escapes most of us. Why the need to make it 'personal' at all costs?


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

johnnyyukon said:


> So what's the verdict? Women: Human beings or things?
> 
> I got places to be.


Let's compromise, with "human thingiebingies". Sort of like a 3/5ths compromise. #RationalSolutions


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

TurtleQueen said:


> I think my version of the "creepy" look reflects the fact that I don't desire casual sex or hook ups from men at all. If I'm going to interact with a man, I would like to date him and possibly have a relationship with him. A more acceptable way of checking me out indicates that the guy isn't so focused on sex that he couldn't appreciate other qualities about me that aren't as sexualized. It seems more respectful to me to take in my entire appearance rather than zeroing in your focus on my butt or my breasts. A guy who checks me out in a non-creepy way is likely to want the same things that I want.
> 
> By the way I have been "checked out" in a grocery store before when I was a teenager. It didn't offend me at all once I actually figured out what was happening (my sister told me what was happening). I looked at the guy (another teenager, so age appropriate), and he was smiling in an inoffensive manner. He seemed to notice that I was looking at him and actually looked me in the eyes instead of looking at some specific body part. He did not appear to be staring at my butt or my boobs intently once I saw him. Since I was a teenage girl, I think my mom and my older sister would have not pointed this out as some kind of positive thing if his look had been clearly predatory or sexual. I believe that they would have been creeped out by anything I have described as creepy when it happens to a teenage girl that they know can be a bit naive about this kind of thing.


Are you sure that men who "acceptably check you out" are less focused on sex, or is it that they just have less direct ways of reaching what they desire? (or have more patience)

Think about this in terms of cognitive typing. I'd be willing to bet a very large proportion of the ooglers/cat callers have Se in their functional stack, and/or their feeling function at tertiary or inferior. Just a hunch. Point being - people communicate in a way that feels natural to them, even if it doesn't feel natural to you. It doesn't mean that they have different motivations/intentions, as compared to types that communicate in ways that don't make you uncomfortable. Those men might even end up making great mates - you actually just don't know anything about them, except that you don't share a preferred communication style.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Men and women are equal and both deserving of respect. The original post seems a little one sided, little sexist. Because the OP says, "If you’re not one of 'those guys,' and you really do want to treat women like human beings, go ahead and internalize these simple truths". Imagine how that post would sound if instead it was about women, saying even if you're not one of those women, internalize these truths that, say, men are human beings too, not just your lunch money, are not obligated to stay with you, your emotional problems are not their problems, etc, etc. Little sexist, no?


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

@Eska



> I see, although, I find it odd that you seem to be separating "hot" from "attractive", "hot" is a form of attractiveness, physical attraction, which is the topic were originally discussing.


That's very personal I think and might be confusing for others, yes. I see hot as someone who's pleasing to my eyes and attractive as someone who I would like to stay with. I know they're both level of attractiveness, but it also might have something to do with my native language.



> That is what I find odd, how can a person ignore one of the messages being portrayed? That they are attractive.


Some people don't find it comfortable. I usually theorize that's because of bad experience with male(s) or female(s).



> The act itself can be considered "rude" and obnoxious, although, I doubt the honesty of those who say that catcalling is completely negative.


I understand how it is and how it's not, however, for me, I think for me that catcalling would have worked in a positive way reinforcing a positive image about myself. I'm not talking about rude comments, that does no good to no one.



> It's not necessarily to attract males, it can be to attract or portray a certain feature you wish to display, which is also part of attraction. It can be for competitive purposes as well, which, in the "male world", is often presented with posture. (More power = more attractive.)


I already seen that documentary or a similar one before. I understand perfectly what it means, probably because I've spend so much time with guys. Some say I've become with one in some ways. Maybe that's why I'm so strange?



> Ah, fair point.
> Although, it can get just as messy outside (more likely to, I'd guess).


Cleaning products will not ruin my favorite Victorian-like jacket.



> Other questions might be, why do you remove your makeup at home (if you do)?


I don't use make-up. If I do, I forget to remove it because I'm not used to use it and my skin just absorbs it during the night.



> Why do you remove your accessories?


Usually, if I do, (and my usually is rare) I use rings, which usually are heavy. They're not good for drawing either. I use a necklace, but not in the winter because it makes me feel colder. I use rings because I like them and the necklace is a sun, which my fiancée also has.



> Why are you not as comfortable in the outside world, as you are in the inside world? The pressure of being attractive, perhaps?
> 
> I believe it all relates to attraction.


For me I think it's more the pressure of being female at all times. At least looking female.



> Of course, although, why wouldn't you wear something that you find repulsive?


If I have to do, I have to. I usually do stupid combinations because I don't really care/know.



> If you were the last human being on earth, would you care as much about what shirt you wear?


I want to die with my No More Heroes t-shirt so that God knows that Travis is back.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Are you sure that men who "acceptably check you out" are less focused on sex, or is it that they just have less direct ways of reaching what they desire? (or have more patience)
> 
> Think about this in terms of cognitive typing. I'd be willing to bet a very large proportion of the ooglers/cat callers have Se in their functional stack, and/or their feeling function at tertiary or inferior. Just a hunch. Point being - people communicate in a way that feels natural to them, even if it doesn't feel natural to you. It doesn't mean that they have different motivations/intentions, as compared to types that communicate in ways that don't make you uncomfortable. Those men might even end up making great mates - you actually just don't know anything about them, except that you don't share a preferred communication style.


Well, I guess I can't be sure that a guy who seems to check me out in what feels like a more acceptable manner for me is necessarily less focused on immediate sexual gratification. Still, it is a more likely possibility that he could feel this way than some guy who can't seem to stop staring at my boobs. I tend to think that someone who can't seem to stop staring at my boobs (or makes lewd comments about me) is not all that interested in my brain, or my kind nature, or other things that seem far more fundamental to who I am as a person than the physique I have had since I was 12 years old. He might also grow to be interested in things that are more important to me, but highly sexual looks when I first meet someone do make me uncomfortable since I don't want to have sex early in a relationship. I would prefer to have sex later than many other people, so I suspect that I could be incompatible with the kind of man who seems to show signs of desiring casual sex or liking to have sex earlier than I might in a relationship.

I'm not comfortable with labeling myself with a specific type right now, but I have typed as INFP in the past. I do identify with that type closely. I do think that miscommunication could present issues in a relationship, but I am willing to be involved with a guy of any personality type. I just find very obvious sexual attention from the opposite sex extremely uncomfortable when I have just met a man. I find it a lot more uncomfortable if I do not expect it to happen as I go about the normal business of my life (walking on the sidewalk and going to the grocery store are these kinds of examples).

Other women might feel very comfortable with this kind of highly sexual attention from a man. I did indicate that I tended to find it actually creepy once it went far beyond the bounds of what most normal people would seem to do (staring intently at a specific body part for a very long time without actually looking at my face and often including a smirking look on the man's face).

I am allowed to personally find certain kinds of interactions with men uncomfortable and to reject men that behave in ways that make me feel uncomfortable. I'm sure that some women can behave in certain ways that might feel highly uncomfortable to you. I wouldn't tell you that you should "consider" pursuing a relationship (of any kind) with a woman who makes you feel uncomfortable.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

- Deleted -


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

TurtleQueen said:


> Well, I guess I can't be sure that a guy who seems to check me out in what feels like a more acceptable manner for me is necessarily less focused on immediate sexual gratification. Still, it is a more likely possibility that he could feel this way than some guy who can't seem to stop staring at my boobs. I tend to think that someone who can't seem to stop staring at my boobs (or makes lewd comments about me) is not all that interested in my brain, or my kind nature, or other things that seem far more fundamental to who I am as a person than the physique I have had since I was 12 years old. He might also grow to be interested in things that are more important to me, but highly sexual looks when I first meet someone do make me uncomfortable since I don't want to have sex early in a relationship. I would prefer to have sex later than many other people, so I suspect that I could be incompatible with the kind of people who seems to show signs of desiring casual sex or liking to have sex earlier than I might in a relationship.
> 
> I'm not comfortable with labeling myself with a specific type right now, but I have typed as INFP in the past. I do identify with that type closely. I do think that miscommunication could present issues in a relationship, but I am willing to be involved with a guy of any personality type. I just find very obvious sexual attention from the opposite sex extremely uncomfortable when I have just met a man.
> 
> ...


I would never suggest how you should behave, nor do I have that desire. That is none of my business. However, I do have a compulsive need to both seek and share what I see as the objective truth, and identify when others are utilizing subjective logic to make decisions, when objective logic should be recognized.

It's not easy to step back from subjective feelings. It takes alot of conditioning, really.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

conscius said:


> Men and women are equal and both deserving of respect. The original post seems a little one sided, little sexist. Because the OP says, "If you’re not one of 'those guys,' and you really do want to treat women like human beings, go ahead and internalize these simple truths". Imagine how that post would sound if instead it was about women, saying even if you're not one of those women, internalize these truths that, say, men are human beings too, not just your lunch money, are not obligated to stay with you, your emotional problems are not their problems, etc, etc. Little sexist, no?


I think you're being unfair to the OP. @koalaroo quoted from an article that she wanted to discuss. At that point in the article, the author had explained a variety of situations that she considered highly sexist. She gave her points for how men should act to treat women like human beings because she had been frustrated by a variety of sexist things that she saw. I don't think that the OP implied that men were monsters or something. @koalaroo never said that she thought that all men consistently failed to treat women like human beings. She has had a balanced point of view during this entire thread and is willing to agree with men at times. Frankly, a lot of those fake points that you presented are based on sexist stereotypes, so I doubt the legitimacy of your comparison.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Sequestrum said:


> Don't you think that is a tad linear? Perhaps you are looking at this from the wrong angle. Biology certainly plays a factor in the fact that I do not wear a bra, for example.





Eska said:


> What do you mean by "wrong angle"?


Well, you are looking for an angle by which to include the biological influence of men and women and how they dress, correct? Maybe it is as simple as practicalities in the way that our bodies are shaped, such as underwear. Men don't wear bras for biological reasons. Men don't wear skirts (here) for cultural reasons.

Edit: Actually some men do wear skirts here! And there are a lot of self-expression reasons for that too. Punkers, and drag come to mind.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Frenetic Tranquility, I'm not sure if the behavior I labeled as creepy to me personally can be distinguished by personality type. I don't have a problem with a man looking at me. By the time I actually notice this behavior, it is incredibly obvious to me (or someone else has pointed it out to me). It usually goes beyond the boundaries of how men (of many personality types) would think that it was okay to look at some female stranger. I do think that a guy who wants to give a woman a highly sexualized look should consider that many women might feel very uncomfortable about this kind of thing. I do think that context is also important. I would judge a man less harshly for giving me this kind of look in a place where this behavior is more expected (due to the fact that many people specifically go to those places seeking to hook up with someone).

ETA: Thank you for acknowledging that certain things can make me feel uncomfortable and that I don't necessarily need to change my feelings of personal discomfort. I'm glad that you are willing to listen to how I view a situation.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Aya Saves the World said:


> @Eska
> That's very personal I think and might be confusing for others, yes. I see hot as someone who's pleasing to my eyes and attractive as someone who I would like to stay with. I know they're both level of attractiveness, but *it also might have something to do with my native language.*


What do you mean by that?



> I already seen that documentary or a similar one before. I understand perfectly what it means, probably because I've spend so much time with guys. Some say I've become with one in some ways. Maybe that's why I'm so strange?


Interesting.
Initially, was it an eye opening experience or was it expected? Did you initially find it strange?



> I don't use make-up. If I do, I forget to remove it because I'm not used to use it and my skin just absorbs it during the night.


On the days that you've used it, would you actually apply make-up even if you weren't going out? 
Knowing that you'd stay indoors all day, would you still apply make-up?



> Usually, if I do, (and my usually is rare) I use rings, which usually are heavy. They're not good for drawing either. I use a necklace, but not in the winter because it makes me feel colder. *I use rings because I like them* and the necklace is a sun, which my fiancée also has.


Why don't you just admire them from a distance, why do you actually want to wear it? What triggers the need to put it on? 
Portrayal of a certain attractive figure that is ideal to you? Display of a cultural association? Display of wealth?



> For me I think it's more the pressure of being female at all times. At least looking female.


Do you mean the pressure of being attractive? The stereotypical representation of women? The face of beauty?

In a man's case, it would be power (display of wealth/status/size).



> I want to die with my No More Heroes t-shirt so that God knows that Travis is back.


Is this a joke, or do you believe in God and you would honestly wish for that?


----------



## FromTheWorldUp (Aug 30, 2010)

Don't both sexes treat each other as things in some ways? I mean people get into relationships because of something they want out of them. Doesn't that make the other person a means to an end? How often in relationships do arguments arise from one person wanting to change the others behaviors, desires, etc. Isn't this objectifying the other person by trying to shape them into something more in line with what you personally want them to be? I fail to see how objectification is a primarily female problem.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Eska said:


> What do you mean by that?


The sense of attractive and being attractive are two different things in my languages.



> Initially, was it an eye opening experience or was it expected? Did you initially find it strange?


I think it was expected from me since I was around boys at all times, so it was kind natural. I was never pressured to hang out with girls, so I chose boys because I was more free to be myself.



> On the days that you've used it, would you actually apply make-up even if you weren't going out?


For fun if I'm bored.



> Why don't you just admire them from a distance, why do you actually want to wear it?


Because I like rings. They don't really look at all times, but they're cool.



> What triggers the need to put it on?


I just feel like using them.



> Portrayal of a certain attractive figure that is ideal to you? Display of a cultural association? Display of wealth?


I would say that making my fingers look more masculine would be the answer. And probably to show that I like vintage/victorian/geek stuff.



> Do you mean the pressure of being attractive? The stereotypical representation of women? The face of beauty?


More a stereotypical representation of the modern women, not as much as a being attractive. It's because I look kinda of pretty (I guess) and people think it's waste for me to dress like I do and with my age I should know better and dress more feminine and like that I'll never find a husband.



> In a man's case, it would be power (display of wealth/status/size).


I guess I don't have a direct wish to show that, but when I'm with my male friends sometimes I enter in the game. Then again, I'm told I have the power to gather a group around some people and speak for hours while they listen. It's quite common for guys in the gaming community to do that with fighting games or racing games. I do kick ass in some and have come out as victorious. I would say that's a way to show power in a certain community.



> Is this a joke, or do you believe in God and you would honestly wish for that?


It's a joke, but I kinda wish it happened.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

TurtleQueen said:


> I think you're being unfair to the OP. @_koalaroo_ quoted from an article that she wanted to discuss. At that point in the article, the author had explained a variety of situations that she considered highly sexist. She gave her points for how men should act to treat women like human beings because she had been frustrated by a variety of sexist things that she saw. I don't think that the OP implied that men were monsters or something. @_koalaroo_ never said that she thought that all men consistently failed to treat women like human beings. She has had a balanced point of view during this entire thread and is willing to agree with men at times. Frankly, a lot of those fake points that you presented are based on sexist stereotypes, so I doubt the legitimacy of your comparison.



uh, not really. 


an article was linked that at once spoke of how men need to "learn something", and listed extreme events in order to justify the author's emotions to the topic, and then what was specifically posted was something that at first distinguished between the "bad ones" and the "good ones"--making it seem as if this was targeted at only a minority of men--but then completely kills that viewpoint and really underlines the true topic of "men have given me negative feelings, here me vent against all men, _ever_!", by saying that if you were one of the good ones that you should internalize a few "truths"... as if any basically decent human being has not already done so. this is a clear indication of how _she_ views men. 

it actually is offensive. even more offensive is how people respond to the 'offense'... true double standard--amiright? 


in any case: everyone should be treated with respect and understanding. even internet wenchs, with their morally superior, un-examined, yet still completely entitled to, feelings. ("internet wench", here, is not sexist term, regardless of what you may think. i'll have you know that i call many a man, a wench. this is also not referring to any female--_or male_--who has posted thus far)


here's one for the list: 

you are not owed a relationship just because you had access to my genitalia for a world-stopping, amazing 90+ minutes. i am a human being with my own feelings, and i get to choose who i give those to. you don't own me just because we had sex (even if it was _great sex_!). 

my am my own autonomous being, with my own sense of agency. your emotional state is not my problem, nor is it my responsibility. you are my equal, and so will not be treated as if you were a child. 


... the above is _only_ for a blessedly slim, almost non-existent sliver of a minority that barely makes up any percentage of woman-hood, ever.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

FromTheWorldUp said:


> Don't both sexes treat each other as things in some ways?


Not necessarily, I can't recall a single time that my wife has treated me as a thing, or vice versa. We've always been acutely aware of each others humanity.



FromTheWorldUp said:


> I mean people get into relationships because of something they want out of them. Doesn't that make the other person a means to an end?


It's not so simple. Yes, there are things people want out of a relationship, but that doesn't mean the relationship is built around nothing but that simple desire. My wife and I have always enjoyed each others companies, both as friends and lovers. We've known each other since we were 11, and our relationship dynamic _before_ puberty was much different. I mostly teased her and goaded her until she chased me through our neighborhood... a game of cat and mouse that got reversed on me after puberty... >.>



FromTheWorldUp said:


> How often in relationships do arguments arise from one person wanting to change the others behaviors, desires, etc.


A lot, but this also happens with anything else, people are always trying to find fault outside of themselves to protect their ego, it is natural, if not annoying.



FromTheWorldUp said:


> Isn't this objectifying the other person by trying to shape them into something more in line with what you personally want them to be?


No, objectifying someone is to remove them from their humanity. @Wellsy posted a very thorough write-up on it that you should have a look at, anything I might say would pale in comparison.



FromTheWorldUp said:


> I fail to see how objectification is a primarily female problem.


I agree, and I am sure just about everyone else here would agree with that sentiment as well. Still, it does not diminish the point of the original post.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

delete post


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Donovan, I disagree with how you seemed to view the article. The author linked to other articles that described such blatant examples of sexism (and racism) as some comedian tweeting that he sexually fantasized about a black female television host from some sports show being his "slave" while he was "T. Jefferson." I'm not sure why he felt the need to air his demeaning sexual fantasy in a public manner that might make that woman uncomfortable (her name was mentioned in the tweet). In another case, she discussed how a female game developer had unfair accusations thrown at her when men within the gaming community greatly exaggerated some claims made by her ex-boyfriend. According to the author, the allegations against the female game developer had no basis in what her ex-boyfriend actually wrote. Regardless, I wouldn't necessarily trust the words of any ex (male or female) who went on some rant because they were unhappy near the end of a relationship. I suggest clicking on some of those links to understand what offended the author so much. Her "negative feelings" were a legitimate response to sexism that she saw. Her points addressed how men who wish to treat women as equal human beings can do so. Sexism can be engrained in both men and women, and it is a good idea for everyone to work to better our behavior so that we do not treat individuals unfairly. I don't see how it is an attack on any man to point out ways that women would like to be respected as human beings. These points apply as well to men as well as they apply to women.

I actually agree with that additional point that you added to the list as long as you are clear about your intentions with the women with whom you choose to have "amazing sex." Miscommunication could lead to a woman to feel as if you "led her on" into thinking that you wanted an actual relationship of some kind. I think that it's good for people (men and women) to communicate what they expect from any sexual encounter. Clear communication (on both sides) can prevent this kind of issue. If you failed to communicate your precise intentions, the fault may lie on both parties. If you deliberately avoided stating your intentions in order to get some woman into bed, you will have to live with the consequences of your manipulation.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Aya Saves the World said:


> For fun if I'm bored.





> Because I like rings. They don't really look at all times, but they're cool.





> I just feel like using them.


These are the type of answers that I think people oversimplify.

I don't think that anything can be simply "for fun", or simply "because they're cool", or simply because you "feel like using them".

That is only an oversimplified cover of a hormonal/biological response to something.

A cover of the "true nature" of things, basically.



> I would say that making my fingers look more masculine would be the answer. And probably to show that I like vintage/victorian/geek stuff.


I see.
Thus, you are displaying features in order to attract a certain attention to an aspect of yourself.



> More a stereotypical representation of the modern women, not as much as a being attractive. It's because I look kinda of pretty (I guess) and people think it's waste for me to dress like I do and with my age I should know better and dress more feminine and like that I'll never find a husband.


I see, thus, is it the fear of repulsion? The fear of being an outcast?



> I guess I don't have a direct wish to show that, but when I'm with my male friends sometimes I enter in the game. Then again, I'm told I have the power to gather a group around some people and speak for hours while they listen. It's quite common for guys in the gaming community to do that with fighting games or racing games. I do kick ass in some and have come out as victorious. I would say that's a way to show power in a certain community.


Indeed, power is relative to a specific context, I was not referring to physical strength.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

@Eska



> These are the type of answers that I think people oversimplify.
> 
> I don't think that anything can be simply "for fun", or simply "because they're cool", or simply because you "feel like using them".
> 
> That is only an oversimplified cover of a hormonal/biological response to something.


I actually put make up on and do outfits for fun. Because I'm bored with no other objective with that.



> I see.
> Thus, you are displaying features in order to attract a certain attention to an aspect of yourself.


Probably, though I don't mean it. It's just, I like it, it's here.



> I see, thus, is it the fear of repulsion? The fear of being an outcast?


I think it's more a fear of being one of those bitches that has hurt me.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> These are the type of answers that I think people oversimplify.
> 
> I don't think that anything can be simply "for fun", or simply "because they're cool", or simply because you "feel like using them".
> 
> That is only an oversimplified cover of a hormonal/biological response to something.


Yet, that is the reality of a situation sometimes.

When I am at home, I don't grab my legend of zelda shirts to show it off to my wife and kids. I love those shirts because they mean something to me, why oh why oh why can't you accept that? When seeking to find the truth, one should proceed based on the data. What you are doing is trying to prove a conclusion, which is causing you to cherry pick what data you accept.

You didn't respond to my other points either. :/


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Aya Saves the World said:


> @Eska
> 
> I actually put make up on and do outfits for fun. Because I'm bored with no other objective with that.
> 
> ...


I see.



Sequestrum said:


> Yet, that is the reality of a situation sometimes.
> 
> When I am at home, I don't grab my legend of zelda shirts to show it off to my wife and kids. I love those shirts because they mean something to me, why oh why oh why can't you accept that? When seeking to find the truth, one should proceed based on the data. What you are doing is trying to prove a conclusion, which is causing you to cherry pick what data you accept.


I'm not stating anything as a fact and I'm not dismissing any data, in fact, I'm collecting data and acknowledging it without dismissing it, I've said it myself, the case might be truthful, although, I highly doubt it.

Of course, it's relative to the context, if you play a game, it's for personal pleasure, accomplishment in a certain aspect and whatnot, I'm not going to associate it with attraction.



> You didn't respond to my other points either. :/


I missed it, my mistake.




Sequestrum said:


> Well, you are looking for an angle by which to include the biological influence of men and women and how they dress, correct?


Correct.



> Maybe it is as simple as practicalities in the way that our bodies are shaped, such as underwear. Men don't wear bras for biological reasons. Men don't wear skirts (here) for cultural reasons.
> 
> Edit: Actually some men do wear skirts here! And there are a lot of self-expression reasons for that too. Punkers, and drag come to mind.


Biology does not dismiss other aspects, what I'm arguing is that it's not solely because "You like the color of the dress.", I'm saying that that is only the surface.

I've said it myself, biology is but a part of it, and to dismiss it, is what I'm counter-arguing.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> I'm not stating anything as a fact and I'm not dismissing any data, in fact, I'm collecting data and acknowledging it without dismissing it, I've said it myself, the case might be truthful, although, I highly doubt it.


It is hard for me to believe that when you keep trying to lure others into saying very specific things about their preferences.



Eska said:


> Biology does not dismiss other aspects, what I'm arguing is that it's not solely because "You like the color of the dress.", I'm saying that that is only the surface.


I have heard that some people like red because it draws attention. However, there was a time when my wife loved red because of a show that she loved watching. It would be incredibly easy to conflate those two things together, and that is why I said that I don't think that the answer you find will be linear at all, or even applicable in a general sense of things.



Eska said:


> I've said it myself, biology is but a part of it, and to dismiss it, is what I'm counter-arguing.


I'm not dismissing biological factors, but I am disputing what factors are potentially governed by it.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Sequestrum said:


> I have heard that some people like red because it draws attention. However, there was a time when my wife loved red because of a show that she loved watching. It would be incredibly easy to conflate those two things together, and that is why I said that I don't think that the answer you find will be linear at all, or even applicable in a general sense of things.


And correct me if I am wrong but I believe this is what @Ravn was getting at as well, with the outliers talk he mentioned previously.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> I think you're being unfair to the OP. @koalaroo quoted from an article that she wanted to discuss. At that point in the article, the author had explained a variety of situations that she considered highly sexist. She gave her points for how men should act to treat women like human beings because she had been frustrated by a variety of sexist things that she saw. I don't think that the OP implied that men were monsters or something. @koalaroo never said that she thought that all men consistently failed to treat women like human beings. She has had a balanced point of view during this entire thread and is willing to agree with men at times. Frankly, a lot of those fake points that you presented are based on sexist stereotypes, so I doubt the legitimacy of your comparison.


There are several things wrong with this post. One, I quoted OP's post, I don't know why you are responding. Two, I never said the OP is sexist, I said the post content sounds a "little sexist." Three, I have not read 40 pages of this thread, I saw the title, read the first post, responded to it. I am not making a characterization about who OP is or her intentions or agenda. Fourth, your post sounds a little hostile to me which I don't appreciate. In other words, What do you mean "fake points"? There is nothing wrong with the comparison I made and it was valid. Some women DO treat men like a meal ticket. Just as some men DO treat women like an object. Or rather, if you think what I said is "fake", why don't you tell me what it is that you would allow any man to criticize women for, what would pass your legitimacy test (which btw, is sounding a little sexist to me).


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> I have heard that some people like red because it draws attention. However, there was a time when my wife loved red because of a show that she loved watching. It would be incredibly easy to conflate those two things together, and that is why I said that I don't think that the answer you find will be linear at all, or even applicable in a general sense of things.


I sometimes enjoy wearing red because it looks nice with my skin tone and my hair. I like to wear things that look good on me. Generally, bright jewel tones look better on me than very pale clothing. Many people try to wear things that look good on them. Looking good can help a person feel good about themselves. I do think that this feeling of looking good in certain clothes could be connected to certain biological or evolutionary drives for both men and women. These kinds of drives may operate at some subconscious level for almost everyone. I wouldn't know enough about clothing in an evolutionary context to make any specific judgment. Generally, other factors also come into consideration (culture, occasion, personal preferences and sense of style, physical comfort). For me, the idea that my clothes might help me attract a man would only factor into my choices at a fairly subconscious level. I would probably only consciously consider this issue when I seek to attract a specific man whom I have already met.

If a specific person wears a piece of clothing, nobody can know why he or she chose to wear it at a conscious level. Someone might choose to pick their clothing to attract certain people (not always people of the opposite sex), and a different person might prioritize physical comfort as the most important factor in what they decide to wear. Someone might choose most of their clothing based on cultural factors; for example, some Muslim women wear various kinds of clothing to reflect their religious beliefs. A person might choose to wear a piece of clothing that is deliberately not sexy for work on one day and then choose a "sexier" outfit when he or she goes out during the weekend.

Basically, clothing and why people choose to wear specific pieces of clothing are usually pretty complicated. It would be best for everyone to avoid making assumptions about why someone chose to wear a particular item of clothing.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

TurtleQueen said:


> I sometimes enjoy wearing red because it looks nice with my skin tone and my hair. I like to wear things that look good on me. Generally, bright jewel tones look better on me than very pale clothing. Many people try to wear things that look good on them. Looking good can help a person feel good about themselves. I do think that this feeling of looking good in certain clothes could be connected to certain biological or evolutionary drives for both men and women. Generally, other factors also come into consideration (culture, occasion, personal preferences and sense of style, physical comfort). For me, the idea that my clothes might help me attract a man would only factor into my choices at a fairly subconscious level. I would probably only consider this issue when I seek to attract a specific man whom I have already met.
> 
> If a specific person wears a piece of clothing, nobody can know why he or she chose to wear it at a conscious level. Someone might choose to pick their clothing to attract certain people (not always people of the opposite sex), and a different person might prioritize physical comfort as the most important factor in what they decide to wear. Someone might choose most of their clothing based on cultural factors; for example, some Muslim women wear various kinds of clothing to reflect their religious beliefs. A person might choose to wear a piece of clothing that is deliberately not sexy for work on one day and then choose a "sexier" outfit when he or she goes out during the weekend.
> 
> Basically, clothing and why people choose to wear specific pieces of clothing are usually pretty complicated. It would be best for everyone to avoid making assumptions about why someone chose to wear a particular item of clothing.


That's exactly how I perceive it as well. I think the theory behind red being an attention grabbing colour is that it is the colour of blood.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@conscius, I felt that you were unfair to the OP because I think that you misunderstood her intentions for starting this thread. She quoted from an article about sexism that she thought could be worthy of discussion on this board. If you have some issue with how she quoted from that article, you need to address that with her specifically. Based on what she has said since she made her initial post, she doesn't seem to have some kind of unreasonable bias against all men.

I do think that women are often unfairly stereotyped as wanting men for their "lunch money," expecting men to "deal with their emotional problems," or trying to make men feel "obligated" to stay with them. I hope you don't hold any of these stereotypes about women yourself. I do think the points that @koalaroo quoted in the OP are good guidelines for treating a woman (or any other person) respectfully as a human being. They mentioned specific female pronouns because the article @koalaroo quoted was about sexism against women. The points that were quoted did not stereotype men in the same way that your points (in a reverse scenario) would feed into common stereotypes against women. Therefore, your comparison did not seem very equivalent or legitimate to me.

ETA: Just because a woman decides to discuss sexism does not mean that she hates men, disregards unfair things that can happen to men, or is somehow being unfair to men who don't think or act in a sexist way. This kind of assumption is unfair to any feminist woman. I think of myself as a feminist in the sense that I think men and women should be treated equally and do not appreciate sexism against women. I personally acknowledged how short men can get treated badly and explained my thoughts on heightism because I saw evidence of this issue based on a post a man made and thought that it was a topic worthy of discussion.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> @conscius, I felt that you were unfair to the OP because I think that you misunderstood her intentions for starting this thread. She quoted from an article about sexism that she thought could be worthy of discussion on this board. If you have some issue with how she quoted from that article, you need to address that with her specifically. Based on what she has said since she made her initial post, she doesn't seem to have some kind of unreasonable bias against all men.
> 
> I do think that women are often unfairly stereotyped as wanting men for their "lunch money," expecting men to "deal with their emotional problems," or trying to make men feel "obligated" to stay with them. I hope you don't hold any of these stereotypes about women yourself. I do think the points that @koalaroo quoted in the OP are good guidelines for treating a woman (or any other person) respectfully as a human being. They mentioned specific female pronouns because the article @koalaroo quoted was about sexism against women.* The points that were quoted did not stereotype men in the same way that your points (in a reverse scenario) would feed into common stereotypes against women.* Therefore, your comparison did not seem very equivalent or legitimate to me.


Okay. As far as the bolded part, would you share with me some equivalent comparisons that women might make, ones that are comparable and would feed into the common stereotypes against men?


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@conscius, I'm not sure what you feel that the common stereotypes against you are. It could be influenced by many other factors besides the fact that you are male. I do think that men can be stereotyped, but the specific stereotypes can differ widely based on culture, race, and other factors. I try to avoid stereotyping people because I find it offensive. If you feel that people are unfairly stereotyping you as a man, you could try explaining how people are doing that (if you wish to discuss it).


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

I prefer to internalize the following:

1) Human beings are more than their physical appearance, including yourself.

2) Human beings have complex inner lives and complex outer lives, and you will never know the extent if you don't ask.

3) Your fulfillment is not the responsibility of other people and your social difficulties are not someone else's problem. You are welcome to try to get help from other people that you trust, however - just don't demand.

4) No one is obligated to "do" anything with you, including (but not limited to) romantic involvement. In the same way, you are not obligated to do anything with other people.

5) Other peoples' time is as valuable as yours, and it’s their right to choose how they use it. Just as it is your right to choose how you use your time.

6) Prioritize your own needs above others when necessary, or you won't have any life left in you to help people with theirs.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> @conscius, I'm not sure what you feel that the common stereotypes against you are. It could be influenced by many other factors besides the fact that you are male. I do think that men can be stereotyped, but the specific stereotypes can differ widely based on culture, race, and other factors. I try to avoid stereotyping people because I find it offensive. If you feel that people are unfairly stereotyping you as a man, you could try explaining how people are doing that (if you wish to discuss it).


You are not answering the question. When I had made a comparison, you said my points were fake. You implied what the first post presented, were common stereotypes of women by men (men seeing them as objects, with no complex inner life, as responsible for their fulfillment, etc) but that what I presented about how women might stereotype men (e.g. see them as a meal ticket), that was fake. Or perhaps as sexist or more sexist. Which of course was my point. I was, after all, trying to say there was something a little sexist about the post. Or also patronizing maybe? I can't think of the right word.

You seem to try to say one is sexist, but the other is not, that it's legit. However, you are not providing me with examples of what would be a comparable stereotype. I am assuming you are not denying that women stereotype men too. So if it's not the ones I provided, then what is it? If it just depends on the culture and location and all, then why are the stereotypes mentioned in the first post true? Maybe in some cultures it's not true. If it's true everywhere, then why can't you give me similar stereotypes of men?


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@LostFavor, I like the way that you restated those points. The points that the OP originally wished to discuss were about the decent treatment of human beings. I believe she may have wished to specifically talk about the way that these points apply to the issue of sexism, but it is good to recognize that the points fundamentally should not serve to divide men and women. All people should be treated with a certain level of basic decency. I especially like point #6. It is good for people to take care of themselves first (as long as they do not harm anyone else of course).


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> It is hard for me to believe that when you keep trying to lure others into saying very specific things about their preferences.


What do you mean?
Are you implying that I'm plotting something sketchy?



> I have heard that some people like red because it draws attention. However, there was a time when my wife loved red because of a show that she loved watching. It would be incredibly easy to conflate those two things together, and that is why I said that I don't think that the answer you find will be linear at all, or even applicable in a general sense of things.


Although, the question would be, why did she find red to be attractive in that particular show? What did it interpret in that show?
It is far more complex than the simplified explanation given.

Some of it can be buried into the subconscious.



> I'm not dismissing biological factors, but I am disputing what factors are potentially governed by it.


What do you mean?
The factors governed by biological factors?

I think we both agree that biological factors have a significant influence on the matter, and that is my point.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@conscius, I'm not going to stereotype you. Sorry.

At this point, I'm going to let the OP speak for herself. 

In the context of the article that was linked, it made sense for the author to make these points after she had discussed how she had seen men fail to treat women as equal human beings in a variety of ways. I don't think that most men necessarily fail to treat women as equal human beings. I only judge a man as sexist when he fails to treat women as equal human beings or speaks about women in a way that indicates that he doesn't view women as equal human beings.

I'm sorry that I used the word "fake" since that seemed to offend you so badly. If you thought that the reverse points were equivalent to the "slightly sexist" original post, why would you be so offended or surprised that I disregarded points that seem to be sexist? You brought up the issue of women using men as "meal tickets." I feel that somebody should probably avoid marrying a person for financial reasons instead of appreciating their overall value as a human being. That does seem to be a possible form of objectification to me. (I'm not sure how this fits into objectification as defined by Martha Nussbaum. I didn't have time to fully read the article @Wellsy linked on this issue.) I'm not sure that women who are accused of being "gold diggers" are necessarily objectifying their wealthy husbands. They may have a deep emotional connection with their husbands that you cannot understand as a person who is outside the relationship and does not closely know either party. I do think that it is a good idea to avoid judging a relationship from the outside if both parties seem happy (no obvious abuse, for example). On a societal level, women who marry men who happen to be wealthy do to seem to be unfairly judged as "gold diggers" or trying to use their husbands as "meal tickets" when outsiders have no reason to make that kind of assumption of them. I don't think that most women see men as "meal tickets," and I think that you are being offensive if you assume that most women feel this way.

ETA: If a lot of women have treated you unfairly in you life solely because of your gender, I feel bad for you. I do not think that most women assume that a man is going to be sexist against them or fail to follow the points that were mentioned in the OP.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

TurtleQueen said:


> @_LostFavor_, I like the way that you restated those points. The points that the OP originally wished to discuss were about the decent treatment of human beings. I believe she may have wished to specifically talk about the way that these points apply to the issue of sexism, but it is good to recognize that the points fundamentally should not serve to divide men and women. All people should be treated with a certain level of basic decency. I especially like point #6. It is good for people to take care of themselves first (as long as they do not harm anyone else of course).


Thanks for your thoughts. :happy:

I would just like to say that I certainly don't mean to downplay the discussion of sexism and its ilk; personally, I have taken it to the level of "human beings," rather than gender-based, for as long as I can remember. 

If the internalizations being framed as treatment of women gets some people to rethink their mindsets, then I am happier for it. I will always caution against individuals maintaining such a one-side-focused mindset though. Only because it is vulnerable to a pendulum of extremes.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> What do you mean?
> Are you implying that I'm plotting something sketchy?


Not at all, you seem like a nice guy to me (a very confusing one at times though, I will admit :wink, and I doubt you would do something like that. I am just thinking you might be subconsciously affected by confirmation bias. It is a very easy trap to fall in to; it happens to me a lot too. :/



Eska said:


> Although, the question would be, why did she find red to be attractive in that particular show? What did it interpret in that show?
> It is far more complex than the simplified explanation given.
> 
> Some of it can be buried into the subconscious.


The things the girl wore in that show were black and red (it was a goth type show), the merchandise sold was thusly black and red. It may not have been the red she was attracted to actually, that might just be my perception. It is entirely possible that she just liked the items for its correlation to a bad ass girl who doesn't take sh*t from anybody. I know that I made decisions based off of similar logic, and honestly, the simplest answer is often the correct one.



Eska said:


> What do you mean?
> The factors governed by biological factors?
> 
> I think we both agree that biological factors have a significant influence on the matter, and that is my point.


I don't believe that biological factors have more influence than cultural or personal factors though.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> Not at all, you seem like a nice guy to me (a very confusing one at times though, I will admit :wink, and I doubt you would do something like that. I am just thinking you might be subconsciously affected by confirmation bias. It is a very easy trap to fall in to; it happens to me a lot too. :/


It might very well be the case, although, I highly doubt it.

I don't think I've dismissed anyone's arguments, I've simply doubted them.



> The things the girl wore in that show were black and red (it was a goth type show), the merchandise sold was thusly black and red. It may not have been the red she was attracted to actually, that might just be my perception. It is entirely possible that she just liked the items for its correlation to a bad ass girl who doesn't take sh*t from anybody. I know that I made decisions based off of similar logic, and honestly, *the simplest answer is often the correct one.*


I believe you're mistaking my point.
I'm not saying that either one is correct or not, if you can recall, I've said that it is often the "surface" of what is actually happening.

"I like this [...]" is an oversimplified description of what is taking place on many different levels. 
I'm not say that either one is correct/incorrect, I'm saying that both biological factors and "surface" level factors are to be acknowledged, one does not have to be dismissed, both have to be recognized.



> I don't believe that biological factors have more influence than cultural or personal factors though.


I see.
I don't think I've alluded to the level of intensity, I'm stating that it remains that, at least, subconsciously, a lot of biological factors are in motion.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> It might very well be the case, although, I highly doubt it.
> I don't think I've dismissed anyone's arguments, I've simply doubted them.
> 
> I believe you're mistaking my point.
> ...


That's fair enough then I suppose. It only took, what, 20 pages to clear that up (for me) then? :laughing:


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Apolo said:


> Haha, but that is what a good portion of the most vocal feminists push... Unless of course, they want the attention, then it is cool...
> 
> 
> Like this video, from the feminists point of view, it is sexual harassment... BAHAHAHAHA


Hmm, I thought "asking to talk" counted as being interested in more than just her body.
But, there's an even more important point about this video.





It's easily mocked.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

g_w said:


> Hmm, I thought "asking to talk" counted as being interested in more than just her body.
> But, there's an even more important point about this video.
> 
> 
> ...


While we're on the topic of Star Wars, here is a similar experience from a males perspective. Lets see how he reacts.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> At this point, I'm going to let the OP speak for herself.


Okay, but again, my issue is with the particular post, not the person who posted it, though obviously I do wonder if they are able to see the disrespectful and sexist edge to the wording and description they have posted...


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

g_w said:


> Hmm, I thought "asking to talk" counted as being interested in more than just her body.
> But, there's an even more important point about this video.
> 
> 
> ...


No, you are mistaken... Any form of approach, attention, or contact is nothing less than sexual abuse and rape. They should be sentence to solitary isolation, so that he and the rest of them, uttering such phrases as; God bless you, or you look nice, can sit and think on their heinous crimes for the rest of their lives.

:wink:

I like that video though, lol.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

I read the article a few days ago, but it took me like 2 days to read this thread before I was going to reply. :frustrating:

Our social norms, particularly norms with respect to how women need to be challenged. I agree with the "truths" listed at the end of the article. To me they seem like (un)common sense. 

Of course, looking at the comments, it seems there is a group of men who are going out of their way to disagree. 

Whenever someone writes about these sorts of issues (and it doesn't have to be about feminism, it can be any norm-challenging discussion), there is a tendency to communicate it in such a way that preaches to the choir. By that I mean use language that polarises people, attacking those people whom the article should be educating. When you attack people, they tend to either respond defensively (eg. men who feel hurt or ashamed at being described in such a manner and say 'not all men') or (unfortunately) become hostile.

It seems to be a lesson needed for the whole internet, but the fact is that it is difficult to persuade people of anything when you are attacking them. It is not about 'balance'. It is about communicating in such a way that breaks down the barriers.

There is not going to be any sort of cultural shift or revolution until we start communicating in such a way that breaks down those barriers.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

How dare these women desire to go about their day in peace! It's an atrocity! Why won't they give me, a completely nonthreatening stranger who walks up to them and invades their personal space a chance? I mean, it's not like they know I'm nonthreatening, but I'm a nice guy! I mean, have they seen this sweet fedora and these useful cargo pants showcasing my class and manliness?

For shame, women, for shame.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Snow Leopard said:


> I agree with the "truths" listed at the end of the article. To me they seem like (un)common sense.


If the author's points were actually well-thought-out, neutral, and respectful, her views could be taken more seriously by men who actually care about these issues, like myself. But the points (I have not read the article), read more like the writings of an angry immature person who wants to blame or mock the opposite sex, in the guise of pushing for equality and respect.

Read her points again. Now imagine a man making the somewhat similar points (bit exaggerated for effect):

_This is directed to women who treat men badly. If you are one of "those women", you don't deserve to be addressed, but if you are lucky to be one of the ones for whom there I think there is still hope, and who do want to learn how to behave towards men, internalize these biblical truths of mine!

-A man is more than his money or car or a meal ticket!

-He has a complex outer life, he doesn't just drink beer and watch sports and talk about girls' boobies with his drunk buddies! 

-Your happiness is not his responsibility, so stop nagging him! 

-He doesn't have to listen to your problems with your girlfriends and your family and the various "bitches" at work. His time is as valuable as yours.

-He is not obligated to get romantically involved with you just because you had sex, and he is definitely not obligated to stay with you, so stop faking pregnancies or try to guilt him or manipulate him.

-You can not blame him for "stealing your youth"!

Etc._

What's wrong with the above points? Well, aside from humor and bit of exaggeration, I hope you can see that this is a kind of an angry man talking about a particular type of woman. If you clean it up a bit, it can be like the the points in the OP. Here you see the man is making some remarks that can be seen as sexist or condescending. Which, while potentially true in his experience, are not necessarily true when it comes to other women or to all women. 

There are users and abusers and manipulative and rude and irresponsible people amongst men and women, children and parents, friends and family, and romantic partners. But him addressing this to women in general, makes the assumptions that this is how women think. How they behave. Of course, as if that was not bad enough, he won't even address the mean ones, there's no hope for them! He will address the second group of women, who instead of being mean, are luckily just simply dumb and unaware of how to behave. But there is hope for them, thank god, because if they "internalize" these biblical "truths" he has come up with, they may have a chance!

Here's what I would write, if I actually did not want to blame and misrepresent or attack the opposite sex in guise of saying something respectful about equality. I would say: 

-men and women are both human beings and deserving of respect.

-though men might be better at something and women might be better at other things, their interests, abilities, and activities, are both valuable, and to overvalue one and use it to devalue the other person, is plain wrong.

-though they may have different priorities, view things differently, both views are valid.

-at the end of the day, it's not a stereotypical man and a woman but two complex individuals relating to each other. 

-a man and a woman can share and help each other, be it with physical work, emotional or social problems. But each still has to take responsibility for their own issues and the fair share of shared responsibilities. 

-Honest and clear communication is key. What a man or woman says, should be of equal importance. Manipulation and blackmail is wrong and must be avoided.

-Both men and women are the only ones who have authority and ownership of their own body. They should be treated as such.

etc


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

conscius said:


> If the author's points were actually well-thought-out, neutral, and respectful, her views could be taken more seriously by men who actually care about these issues, like myself. But the points (I have not read the article), read more like the writings of an angry immature person who wants to blame or mock the opposite sex, in the guise of pushing for equality and respect.


Maybe you should actually read the article before you assume what the author's intentions were or judge her for being "angry and immature." Just a thought. :happy:

I agree with most of your points but do not entirely agree with the second one. I agree with your overall intention in the second point (to not devalue men's or women's skills or abilities) but dispute the notion that men and women are necessarily better at different things. This assumption is not necessarily true for individual men and women who may fall outside of traditional or stereotypical gender paradigms. We shouldn't assume that a man is good at x and a woman is good at y. Of course, it would depend heavily on what you actually mean by "some things." If we are not factoring transgendered people into the equation, women do tend to be better at giving birth to children, for example.

ETA: I did mention that I know biologically based and culturally based gender differences do exist in a later post.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> Maybe you should actually read the article before you assume what the author's intentions were or judge her for being "angry and immature." Just a thought. :happy:


He obviously did...



TurtleQueen said:


> but dispute the notion that men and women are necessarily better at different things.


Sexual dimorphism is a thing, sorry. Of course we shouldn't judge individuals based on gender trends, but men and women clearly have different skills.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Torai said:


> How dare these women desire to go about their day in peace! It's an atrocity! Why won't they give me, a completely nonthreatening stranger who walks up to them and invades their personal space a chance? I mean, it's not like they know I'm nonthreatening, but I'm a nice guy! I mean, have they seen this sweet fedora and these useful cargo pants showcasing my class and manliness?
> 
> For shame, women, for shame.


Epic strawman. xD


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Ziggurat, men and women on average have some biologically based and culturally based gender differences. I wouldn't necessarily agree that men and women have different "skills" unless you explain what those "skills" are and show that they are backed up by credible scientific research in some way. A lot of common ideas about the level of differences between men and women are not actually true. I'm going to share this link from the American Psychological Association that includes some brief summaries of research on gender differences in various areas. The differences are generally not as large as some people might assume. Also, some men or women might fall outside the norms for their gender. I agree with you that we should not judge individuals by gender trends.

@conscius admitted that he did not read the article linked in the original post. I quoted him.

ETA: Here's an interesting link from Live Science about a meta-analysis of research on gender differences.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> @Ziggurat, men and women have some biologically-based gender differences. I wouldn't necessarily agree that men and women have different "skills" unless you explain what those "skills" are and show that they are backed up by scientific research in some way.


Can you even lift?



TurtleQueen said:


> @conscius admitted that he did not read the article linked in the original post. I quoted him.


Ah, I see that. He seems to have picked up enough quotes from it to come to an accurate conclusion, however. This article is saturated with animosity.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> I agree with your overall intention in the second point (to not devalue men's or women's skills or abilities) but dispute the notion that men and women are necessarily better at different things. This assumption is not necessarily true for individual men and women who may fall outside of traditional or stereotypical gender paradigms. We shouldn't assume that a man is good at x and a woman is good at y. Of course, it would depend heavily on what you actually mean by "some things." *If we are not factoring transgendered people into the equation, women do tend to be better at giving birth to children, for example*.


 lol, the bolded part made me chuckle. not sure if serious or joking but obviously it's not matter of better or worse, men just can't get pregnant and give birth.

I think some work is more suited to men and some more to women. Maybe it's nature or nurture. Or maybe it's sexism (men/women do not want the other one doing that work, even though the other is just as capable). I'll just mention random things:

Why so few men working in day cares taking care of children? Would they be allowed if they wanted to?
Why so many women in psychology, nursing, etc?
Why so many men in business, politics, engineering, etc?
Why rarely do you see any woman in construction jobs? Is it that women are not allowed or they don't want to?


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Ziggurat, I can lift a fairly heavy amount for someone of my size. I am not a professional weightlifter, so many women and men can presumably lift a lot more weight than I can. Men are typically able to lift more weight than women in general. I am a fairly small woman. If you have an average amount of physical strength and are taller than me (a.k.a. above 5 feet), you can probably lift more weight than I can. 

@conscius, I'm glad you enjoyed my joke about giving birth. Men and women might be concentrated in certain career fields for different reasons including cultural factors (and sexism as a part of culture) or biological factors. I know that "nurture" can greatly influence career choices and am open to the idea that "nature" could play some kind of role as well. I don't think that means that men or women are necessarily "suited" for certain kinds of jobs. Any man or woman could be suited to do a job if he or she meets the qualifications of that job. If a woman wants to be a construction worker and can do the job as well as a typical man who does that sort of work, she should feel comfortable pursuing work that is unusual for women to pursue in this society. If a man wants to work in a day care center and is qualified for the job, he should be allowed to work in a day care center.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> @conscius, men and women might be concentrated in certain career fields for different reasons including cultural factors (including sexism) or biological factors. I don't think that means that men or women are necessarily "suited" for certain kinds of jobs. Any man or woman could be suited to do a job if he or she meets the qualifications of that job.


You are contradicting yourself? You are saying people are concentrated in different areas for various reasons including sexism and then say people are suited for whatever job they meet the qualification for. You make it sound as if it's a completely neutral process and men and women have the exact same chance of being hired and no other factors affects it. What happened to earlier talk about sexism, about biological tendencies, gender roles, etc? Also just because you get hired for a job, doesn't mean it suits you. I have done different kinds of work, some suited me, some didn't, but I still got hired. 

Can a 45-year-old man apply to be a babysitter or work at a day care center? Let's say he has experience with children just as much as a teenage girl has experience with children. Any problem?


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I am not contradicting myself. Allow me to rephrase some of my earlier points in a different way. Many women (for various reasons) may not want to be construction workers. A small number of women might want to be construction workers and be suited for the work. These women should face no barriers against becoming construction workers. Similarly, many men may not want to work in day care centers. Yet the small number of men who want to work in day care centers and could be good day care workers should be "allowed" to pursue that kind of work.

Basically, I'm acknowledging that men and women might decide to do different things for careers on a broad scale. I am arguing against employment discrimination or institutionalized sexism in career fields. Many careers can have institutionalized sexism which could prevent an individual man or woman who is perfectly "suited" for a job from following the ideal career path for him or her as an individual. Ideas of what men and women are allegedly "suited" for can lead to employment discrimination or institutionalized sexism. This kind of thing can then become self-reinforcing.

A man and a woman who are equally qualified for a job should have an equal chance of being hired. Unfortunately, individuals can be discriminated against.

ETA: I see no reason why a 45-year-old man should be disallowed from working at a day care center. He might not end up being hired as a babysitter if individual parents will not feel comfortable having him around their children due to ideas about who a "babysitter" should be. Employment discrimination would not be fair to this man. Employment discrimination law as I understand it cannot apply to something like parents hiring a babysitter. In general, any individual man or woman could be potentially suited to do some kind of job that is usually done by the opposite gender.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

TurtleQueen, thank you, that's more clear to me. And I agree with your opposition to "employment discrimination or institutionalized sexism in career fields."

On a different topic: I was in the mall a few days ago and I don't know why this did not occur to me before but I was surprised at how many stores have young beautiful women up front, in tight and sexy clothes, standing there smiling seductively at random strangers. I don't know what to think of it. It makes me think about the issue of women being more than appearances. Yet is this not why these women were hired, because they know some men will just come in, I guess fantasizing that they might get a date out of it? I live in North America btw. I know in some countries women are not even allowed to dress this way. But though I'm not exactly a fan of the logic that would keep those women home and not allowed in public places, I don't find myself appreciating this either because there is a kind of objectification involved it seems to me. So thinking back to the mall thing, I just wanted to ask you what you think of this, if you mind it or if you see it as female empowerment?


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Based upon how you described it, these incidents did not seem like normal interactions of sales associates trying to get people to come into a store. These stores did seem to be objectifying these women by using their attractiveness to entice customers into the stores. If they had other job duties it would be less objectifying than if they only did what you saw. I think that they probably have some other kinds of job duties because most stores can't afford to just hire hot women to stand around all day. The women themselves did agree to be employed by the store, so they may not think that this objectification is a bad thing to them. It's not entirely comfortable to me but I wouldn't want to override the opinion of the women themselves. As long as they were informed that this kind of thing would be part of the job, it's not necessarily a bad thing from their perspective.

I'd like to explain what I meant about entrenched sexism becoming self-reinforcing in a job. Let's presume that some kind of job could be done equally well by men or women in general, but people think men can do it better due to stereotypical assumptions about gender. This may block a woman from wanting to pursue a field or lead to employment discrimination. The workforce could become filled with men who continue to look out for their own gender, refuse to hire women, and even drive the women who get employed in that kind of job out through some kind of pattern where they don't get promoted or they get harassed in some way. The same kind of thing could happen in the reverse case (women discriminating against men). I think we need to be careful about assuming what men or women may be "suited" to do even at a very broad level.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Torai said:


> How dare these women desire to go about their day in peace! It's an atrocity! Why won't they give me, a completely nonthreatening stranger who walks up to them and invades their personal space a chance? I mean, it's not like they know I'm nonthreatening, but I'm a nice guy! I mean, have they seen this sweet fedora and these useful cargo pants showcasing my class and manliness?
> 
> For shame, women, for shame.


You should make Monty Python sketches.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

TurtleQueen, Well, I still find it bothersome, but I guess mainly if those same women come on forums like this and complain about guys judging them mainly on their appearances. If that's what you use to get hired or make sales or get promotion or get free gifts or attract your favorite guy, and if you spend so much time and money on clothes and makeup and all that, then it's quite unfair to judge those same men, the friends, the customers, the gift givers, as ignorant or malicious for not seeing more to you. I remember reading one girl's describing how she was able to make so much money in tips and saying the trick is to "look single and available." She, btw, was a single mother. It seems hypocritical if she then decides to criticize guys for not thinking beyond appearances. I think that's exactly what she hopes guys will do, at least at her work. 

But I'm also reminded of my friend's favorite saying, "don't hate the player, hate the game." Maybe those women just realized how the game is played and maybe they don't like it either but decided to adapt and play to win. Like the view that if we are going to just be an object, then we might as well be an attractive object. I personally also blame this on the capitalistic view that seems to treat people as things to be bought and sold. I hate it whenever people tell me, "Sell yourself." Heck, maybe if I was a handsome guy, I would work on my looks too, to sell myself, it's not a woman thing only. I mean in the mall, the stores that did not have pretty ladies, usually had young slim handsome guys. 

Anyhow, as far as your point about entrenched sexism, I understand that. I wonder if politics might work like that. Like people assuming it's aggressive and nasty and women are sensitive or emotional and so it's not suitable for them. Then slowly everybody believes it and even if a woman gets hired in politics she doesn't think she can do the work so she never gets promoted. Then people use that as further example of how women are not suited to that kind of work...and it goes round and round. The way you explain things btw, makes me think you're a college student in women's studies or sociology or something.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

@conscius what you described is not common here. I've never seen store wiring pretty females just to look pretty, especially in male clothing stores. If they're expensive someone that is more like the alpha male that is described on the videos @Eska posted is wired or an older female (between her late 30s and early 60s) because they have this aura of trust ands confidence that sales more products. I personally don't trust in a seller in an expensive store that's too young because they might not know what they're selling and how they should do it. I wouldn't trust me, for more pretty that I was made looking for the store.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

@TurtleQueen, @_conscius_

The gender discrimination inherent in the job market will dissipate once it dissipates at a more personal level throughout society. One of my personal friends has been trying to become a male nurse for a while, the demand for male nurses has gone up due to the amount of cases where the female nurses are unable to lift heavier patients (roll them over or lift them technically). Many hospitals have people on staff _just_ for being muscle currently. They're seeking to balance that out now by utilizing the inherent upper body strength that men tend to have.

As far as shops putting women out front to attract others by their looks... that is something I noticed years ago. I have always disliked the way that marketing works, but it always most certainly exploits the human psyche. -.-


----------



## Roman Empire (Oct 22, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

conscius said:


> TurtleQueen, Well, I still find it bothersome, but I guess mainly if those same women come on forums like this and complain about guys judging them mainly on their appearances. If that's what you use to get hired or make sales or get promotion or get free gifts or attract your favorite guy, and if you spend so much time and money on clothes and makeup and all that, then it's quite unfair to judge those same men, the friends, the customers, the gift givers, as ignorant or malicious for not seeing more to you. I remember reading one girl's describing how she was able to make so much money in tips and saying the trick is to "look single and available." She, btw, was a single mother. It seems hypocritical if she then decides to criticize guys for not thinking beyond appearances. I think that's exactly what she hopes guys will do, at least at her work.
> 
> But I'm also reminded of my friend's favorite saying, "don't hate the player, hate the game."


You also have to consider that they have bills to pay, and some people aren't picky about what they do. I reserve the right to complain about my job even if I make no attempts to relieve myself of the situation. >.> (it is pointless I know, but venting is venting, I don't mind when people just want to vent).


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

apa said:


> There's not really any other advantages of being a woman than:
> 
> 1. You can act exactly the way you want.
> 2. You can base your arguments off your emotions, instead of facts.
> ...


Trolllolololol. ;P

Edit: Tis the season to be Trolly, Trollololol-la-lololol! =)


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Sequestrum said:


> @TutleQueen, @_conscius_
> 
> The gender discrimination inherent in the job market will dissipate once it dissipates at a more personal level throughout society. One of my personal friends has been trying to become a male nurse for a while, the demand for male nurses has gone up due to the amount of cases where the female nurses are unable to lift heavier patients (roll them over or lift them technically). Many hospitals have people on staff _just_ for being muscle currently. They're seeking to balance that out now by utilizing the inherent upper body strength that men tend to have.
> 
> As far as shops putting women out front to attract others by their looks... that is something I noticed years ago. I have always disliked the way that marketing works, but it always most certainly exploits the human psyche. -.-



Very interesting about nurses, thank you for sharing. Yeah, this idea of attracting others, like I do appreciate beauty, but just this kind of being calculated about it and it's like this sense of using people, that's what I don't like. 


Aya Saves the World said:


> @conscius what you described is not common here. I've never seen store wiring pretty females just to look pretty, especially in male clothing stores. If they're expensive someone that is more like the alpha male that is described on the videos @Eska posted is wired or an older female (between her late 30s and early 60s) because they have this aura of trust ands confidence that sales more products. I personally don't trust in a seller in an expensive store that's too young because they might not know what they're selling and how they should do it. I wouldn't trust me, for more pretty that I was made looking for the store.


Yeah I think I probably did not explain myself well. I think they probably had some kind of job in there, not just to stand out there and look pretty, but I just felt their appearances were being used to draw customers in. But yeah once you go in sometimes there is this older man or woman behind there who maybe is the manager. btw your last sentence made me chuckle. or maybe you were too pretty and blinded people?


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

conscius said:


> Very interesting about nurses, thank you for sharing. Yeah, this idea of attracting others, like I do appreciate beauty, but just this kind of being calculated about it and it's like this sense of using people, that's what I don't like.


At least marketing teams are equally sexist! Have you seen the crap they bombard women with in magazines? o.o


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Sequestrum said:


> You also have to consider that they have bills to pay, and some people aren't picky about what they do. I reserve the right to complain about my job even if I make no attempts to relieve myself of the situation. >.> (it is pointless I know, but venting is venting, I don't mind when people just want to vent).


Yeah a lot of times people just do what they have to do to bring in the money to make a living. 

p.s. I love venting! Frankly I wish I could just find a place I could vent without offending someone.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Sequestrum said:


> At least marketing teams are equally sexist! Have you seen the crap they bombard women with in magazines? o.o


lol, you're right! What a wonderful world we live in.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Sequestrum, TurtleQueen, Aya Saves the World, and others, good discussion, thank you for engaging me, it's early morning so I got to get some shut-eye. Talk later.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

conscius said:


> Yeah a lot of times people just do what they have to do to bring in the money to make a living.
> 
> p.s. I love venting! Frankly I wish I could just find a place I could vent without offending someone.


You can always vent to my PM inbox if you like. I won't judge you.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Ziggurat said:


> Epic strawman. xD


Satire, actually.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Satire, actually.


That's what I was getting at as well with my Monty Python comment. ._.


----------



## Enlightenedakacrazy (May 16, 2014)

Snow Leopard said:


> It seems to be a lesson needed for the whole internet, but the fact is that it is difficult to persuade people of anything when you are attacking them. *It is not about 'balance'*. It is about communicating in such a way that breaks down the barriers.


No, in fact it is exactly about making the arguments/descriptions *balanced*.
*That's how barriers break down*.
Yes, write about women's issues with men, and if there is more to complain about men about than vice versa, then fine, have more forums dedicated to women's issues with men/men being pigs/rapists/whatever.
But when it comes to the debate, where the goal is for opposite sides to unite (right......?), *make both sides feel understood by talking about what frustrates both sides and how they can meaningfully and functionally meet each others needs better*.
(And I'm not just talking about intimate relationships here just because I mentioned "needs" - people try to meet each others needs on a day to day basis almost anywhere where there is a relationship to be made, be it between custommer and cashier at times.)


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Sorry I haven't been participating in this thread! I'm currently on a birthday weekend vacation. I look forward to returning to the topic on Monday night.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I was away for a while. I guess the only thing I might point out to @conscius is that I would expect less objectification out of the men in my personal life than some guy at my job (if part of my job does involve my appearance). I'd expect more respect out of people with whom I choose to have romantic or sexual relationships than guys at that kind of job. At work, some women report being creeped out by male customers who want to engage their attention too much. On this website (I think it was the street harassment thread), one woman posted about being bothered by older men who kept trying to talk to her too much (in an inappropriate way for a regular customer) at work. She couldn't behave normally and brush these men off since she had to stay "pleasant." Earlier in this thread, @koalaroo talked about how some customer at work decided to stare at her breasts inappropriately. I find any behavior that is really bothering someone just trying to make a living unacceptable even if her appearance does play into her job in some ways. I wouldn't expect random men to "see more into me," but I would expect to be treated with human respect and courtesy and to not have any personal boundaries violated. For instance, a stripper might reasonably expect men to ogle her body as part of her job since that seems to be the basic purpose of stripping, but she should never be touched inappropriately. 

I have seen a lot of very attractive young women in some clothing stores usually marketing to teenage girls or fairly young women. These women were in stores like Hollister and Abercrombie and Fitch. They worked in the stores and didn't need to try to get young women to come in. It's objectifying that they may have been hired in part for their appearance, but it is less objectifying than what @conscius described since they were only expected to act like regular sales associates. Abercrombie and Fitch does have a look policy for their employees that has been controversial over the years. Here's one case that mentions it. I understand that they want to represent their brand, but the policy does bother me. The idea that some woman could not be hired for not being "pretty enough" is very disturbing to me.

Was that single mother @conscius mentioned a waitress? If so, I can't judge her for trying to look "single and available" if she's trying to support a child on a waitress's salary. Waitresses depend on tips to make any kind of living wage since their base salaries are below minimum wage, and attractive women who seem "single and available" would probably get better tips.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

conscius said:


> Very interesting about nurses, thank you for sharing. Yeah, this idea of attracting others, like I do appreciate beauty, but just this kind of being calculated about it and it's like this sense of using people, that's what I don't like.
> 
> 
> Yeah I think I probably did not explain myself well. I think they probably had some kind of job in there, not just to stand out there and look pretty, but I just felt their appearances were being used to draw customers in. But yeah once you go in sometimes there is this older man or woman behind there who maybe is the manager. btw your last sentence made me chuckle. or maybe you were too pretty and blinded people?


Probably they're taking care of the clothing and helping consumers, for that they like to use pretty females and males to lead the costumers to buy. It's the same reason why we use young or attractive people in clothing and perfume adds.
I don't think of myself as pretty.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Here's an interesting link that discusses sexism in politics, since @conscius mentioned it: Blog | Name It. Change It.

I think that the issue with sexism in politics is that the media and political opponents criticize female candidates in unfair ways for things like their appearance or their mothering abilities when similar comments are usually not made about male candidates. This kind of thing can hurt female candidates' chances against men. I think that some women might avoid pursuing higher political offices if they don't want to deal with wider scrutiny and more sexist attacks against them in the media.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

In regards to the women at the stores @conscius mentioned, I will clarify my position that these women should have been informed of the unusual duty (flirting with random people) *before* they were hired. It's not okay if these women were tricked into thinking they would have a normal sales associate's job (which involves being pleasant and trying to possibly get customers into the store, but not flirting with random people) and then were told later that they had to flirt with people to keep their job.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I would also like to mention that a woman being nice and pleasant to a male customer as part of her job is not necessarily flirting with him. Even if a man thinks that a woman (in the course of her job) is flirting with him, he should be very careful to avoid violating her boundaries or trying to flirt with her "in return." A woman can easily feel uncomfortable if she can't tell some guy to stop bothering her without risking potential job loss. Men should realize that women might seem very friendly in order to get tips or to get a man to buy something if she is at work, but women may not want a guy to "reciprocate" what might seem to be "flirtatious" behavior in other contexts.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

TurtleQueen said:


> I would also like to mention that a woman being nice and pleasant to a male customer as part of her job is not necessarily flirting with him. Even if a man thinks that a woman (in the course of her job) is flirting with him, he should be very careful to avoid violating her boundaries or trying to flirt with her "in return." A woman can easily feel uncomfortable if she can't tell some guy to stop bothering her without risking potential job loss. Men should realize that women might seem very friendly in order to get tips or to get a man to buy something if she is at work, but women may not want a guy to "reciprocate" what might seem to be "flirtatious" behavior in other contexts.


That is a very good point. I'm usually nice and pleasant to others as well, and I've been hit on because of it. By both men and women. -.-


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

sogood said:


> That would make sense if there was a definition of flirting that didn't commonly fall under "being polite" when these smarmy men want it to.
> The fact is, it is very hard to distinguish what flirting is, that's why you get people asking "does she/he like me?" because things that could be mere politeness can be read as flirting when you're interested--
> WHat does flirting look like, let's think:
> Smiling
> ...


Well, I think flirting is different from being polite or smiling, or rather, it's those things but also more. If any person who simply smiled and made contact with me was flirting, from tellers in the bank to store to doctor office to my teachers to random pedestrians...then I would have a thousand female admirers already! I think smile and eye contact show respectful acknowledgement or general interest, not necessarily romantic interest. But it can get quite complex of course, where to draw the line. So I do understand your point about men being genuinely confused, and also some men who want to read more into a mere polite smile even when a part of them knows better. 


sogood said:


> Turtlequeen took my quote from another thread, but let me make it clear that my quote earlier involves merely being POLITE and not cutting off people who are trying to talk to you.


 Yeah I was looking for your quote in this thread and couldn't find it because I wanted to reply it, so thanks for clarifying this.



sogood said:


> I make bare minimum polite conversation and act friendly aka a smile. I do not flirt because I have to, because I don't flirt. I merely exist as a human being who isn't a jerk. If a person wanted to they could read flirting into that but I think that is only the decision someone would make if they were over-sexualizing benign situations and reading implicit sexuality into neutral conversation. I am not paid to flirt; I am paid to provide polite, friendly customer service while I point cusomters out to where the napkins are. I don't mean starting conversations; I don't mean trolling for tips; I don't mean being overly complimentary or flirtatious; I mean merely responding to other people's questions and not rolling my eyes or walking away when people talk to me, and smiling when I say "thank you, here's your change". And I've had my appearance commented all the time, had my hand literally held my a strange man, winked at almost every day, men linger at the counter trying to continue talking to me and I can see their eyes light up when I remember their name though I do it for the female customers too.. once again: It is not having it both ways, because if a man was merely friendly, or an unattractive/older female it would be read as merely being friendly. THe behavior does not change, it is the perception of the older man who takes advantage of the bare minimum politeness aka not walking away or telling him to stop forcing his smarmy winks on me that I am forced to provide.


I was not responding to your quote when I talked about having it both ways. I was talking about those who complain about it and yet dress and act in ways that they know is flirty and suggestive to get tips or whatever. Some do know what they're doing but deny it and some are just don't seem to own their behavior for whatever reason. Those are the people I'm talking about when I say you can't have it both ways. If you know what you're doing and you're not flirting, then you're not flirting. And if any customer behaves inappropriately, you can complain about it to the manager. Why put up with any of it? I don't know if man winking or lingering at the counter to continue talking to you is over the line, but holding hand certainly is and sexual comments on your appearance would be too I think. 



sogood said:


> It is only men who want to force their attention on women who decide to construe friendliness as "asking for it" because they trap women in an impossible situation. They see what they want to see.
> 
> In the end, only common sense can provide the answers:
> Is she the same attractiveness as you?
> ...


I agree with most of what you're saying about the context and knowing that people are paid to be friendly and not necessarily feeling friendly or attractive towards the person, etc, except your comment about if the person is in the same attractiveness or social group. I've seen many people go on dates who are not the same attractiveness or not close to age. There are even people who are married (by choice) who have 10-20 year difference. Attractiveness is not the only thing that brings people together. Obviously it's more focused on the women, because it's more rare to see a real ugly woman going out with an attractive guy but I've seen plenty of the opposite, an attractive woman going out with an ugly guy. Like many people, I assume he has something else that she is interested in. Maybe great personality, status, is very loving and considerate, or the usual suspect, money!


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Double Post


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Eska said:


> There is a reasonable difference between gazing and pestering.


Agreed.



Chesire Tower said:


> Interesting, that's exactly what I was _trying_ to do - no thanks to you.
> 
> :dry:
> 
> ...


 If you post on a public forum, you are opening yourself, willingly, to people responding to your silly posts. So telling me not to respond to you is illogical.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@conscius, I do think that @sogood makes a reasonable point that people do tend to get together with people who are similar to them in overall level of physical attractiveness and in age. I'm sorry if I confused anyone by quoting @sogood, but I did include a link to the main thread from which her post came. The small button after the name in the quote boxes does take people to the original posts in their entirety.

Let me address the topic of waitresses since you mentioned it again. In general, I think that waitresses tend to get better tips if they are friendly with all the customers and good at their jobs. If they merely "dress and act in ways that they know is flirty and suggestive," they will only get better tips from male customers. To get good tips overall, a waitress will need to get good tips from male and female customers; "flirty" behavior will not necessarily get you good tips from women. What waitresses wear and how they act will probably be influenced to a large degree by the culture and expectations of the dining establishment. In fact, what they wear is often not a personal choice and may be a requirement of the restaurant. Let me quote something that you wrote earlier on this thread:



conscius said:


> I remember reading one girl's describing how she was able to make so much money in tips and saying the trick is to "look single and available." She, btw, was a single mother.


I would like to point out that this was only a single waitress's point of view of her situation at work. She probably prioritized making money in tips since she was a single mother who may not have received any help from the father of her child. She probably has a higher need to make as much money as she can than many other waitresses since she does have a child to support. She did mention that she "looks" single and available; this could be a comment on how she dresses and not how she necessarily acts. If she did act "available" in some way, it could have been a fairly unique response to her specific situation which is financially difficult (attempting to support a child on a waitress's salary). If this woman feels that she needs to appear "available" to support her child, she may be frustrated if she would not normally try to appear "available" at work. Even if she does seem "available," male customers should have enough social etiquette to avoid trying to ask a woman out who is doing her job.

I would also like to address this point:


conscius said:


> Obviously it's more focused on the women, because it's more rare to see a real ugly woman going out with an attractive guy but I've seen plenty of the opposite, an attractive woman going out with an ugly guy. Like many people, I assume he has something else that she is interested in. Maybe great personality, status, is very loving and considerate, or the usual suspect, money!


Why do you assume that money is the "usual suspect" if you have no other information on the man and woman in the relationship? Why are you making this unfounded assumption that the woman is interested in the man for his money? This reasoning could involve some sexist stereotyping of women as seeking the money of men.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

accidental double post


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> @Ziggurat didn't seem to understand that some men can read politeness required by a woman's job as "flirting."


Misunderstandings occur. I just don't see why anyone needs a PSA on this topic.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Apolo said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> If you post on a public forum, you are opening yourself, willingly, to people responding to your silly posts. So telling me not to respond to you is illogical.


If you consider my posts to be so "silly"; then what does it say about you, that you appear to have a rather obsessive interest in them?
And anyway, you are not so very skillfully avoiding my accusation: 
*why did you address another member with MY post?* Please explain to me with your overly abundant supply of "logic" (*snort*) wtf the point of that was. 

P.S. If you insist on continuing to either directly respond to me or indirectly through a 3rd party; keep in mind: I don't intend to drop it and I won't allow you to flip it back on to me.


* *




*waiting for Hell to freeze over before I ever get my question answered and not swept under the rug. :S*


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Maybe we need some slightly more controversial language. Instead of saying that women should be treated like "human beings" - something that few understand but even fewer disagree with - I'm going to suggest that women be treated like men. Not because men are always treated with respect, but because it's patently obvious that they aren't and anyone who argues in favour of this disparity is probably going to sound like an idiot. I think that's going to be a much more interesting conversation.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Mee2 said:


> Maybe we need some slightly more controversial language. Instead of saying that women should be treated like "human beings" - something that few understand but even fewer disagree with - I'm going to suggest that women be treated like men. Not because men are always treated with respect, but because it's patently obvious that they aren't and anyone who argues in favour of this disparity is probably going to sound like an idiot. I think that's going to be a much more interesting conversation.


Which means if a woman slaps a man, he has the right to slap hee back, because that's how men are treated?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Aya Saves the World said:


> Which means if a woman slaps a man, he has the right to slap hee back, because that's how men are treated?


That's called assault and it's illegal no matter who does it. Besides, women are hardly immune from violence as it is. Despite the apparent social unacceptability of hitting women, they're disproportionately the victims of intimate partner violence. If women were treated like men, they'd be the victims of far less intimate partner violence, and would receive more of many other types of violence. 

But you're missing my point. Individual issues aside (did you miss the part where I said that men aren't always treated with respect either?), I think it would still be a step in the right direction. Would you disagree? Perhaps more women would be on the receiving end of violent acts? I'd consider that as a possibility. But unless you want to make some kind of weird essentialist argument, what they'd get in return is equal representation among the world's power structures (at least - likely among other things). I wouldn't diminish the importance of something like that.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Mee2 said:


> That's called assault and it's illegal no matter who does it. Besides, women are hardly immune from violence as it is. Despite the apparent social unacceptability of hitting women, they're disproportionately the victims of intimate partner violence. If women were treated like men, they'd be the victims of far less intimate partner violence, and would receive more of many other types of violence.
> 
> But you're missing my point. Individual issues aside (did you miss the part where I said that men aren't always treated with respect either?), I think it would still be a step in the right direction. Would you disagree? Perhaps more women would be on the receiving end of violent acts? I'd consider that as a possibility. But unless you want to make some kind of weird essentialist argument, what they'd get in return is equal representation among the world's power structures (at least - likely among other things). I wouldn't diminish the importance of something like that.


I know that. But men engage in fights often and it's seen as normal, while when a man hits a woman (sometimes even if it's not intensional or a joke) everybody loses their minds. I understand why, but in a truly equal world we would either lose our minds about both or not care either.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm simply putting out a scenario that creates tension and uncomfortablenesss and asking you what you think should be made in such a scenario.

What should be done when a woman hits a man first or insults him? Should be treated like other men would?
What about when they a hit or disrespect policeman?


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

I haven't been paying attention, but I'd just like to say that genocide is bad.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

@Aya Saves the World

Here's what I'm saying: it's undeniable that men and women are treated differently. This is not justified in the vast majority of cases. I don't think people understand what women/feminist mean when they demand to be treated as "human beings" so I'm suggesting "like a man" as a less ambiguous compromise. I acknowledge that men aren't treated like "human beings" too on occasion, which is why I'm calling it a compromise. You don't need to point this out to me. 

As for your scenarios, are you asking what I would do personally? If so, I can't answer the first one because I don't have a "standard" response to insults or violence. But generally speaking I think that people handle violence poorly regardless of who initiates it. In the second one, I really can't see why men and women would be treated differently. As far as I'm aware, hitting a police officer is a crime regardless of gender. So I'd expect them to get arrested, basically.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Aya Saves the World, I think that people freak out about a man hitting a woman because a man is usually physically stronger than a woman. I'm very short and much weaker than most men. If a guy hits me, it's not the equivalent of hitting a fully grown man. It's the equivalent of hitting a 14-year-old boy.

I do think that women assaulting men does need to be taken more seriously as an issue. If a woman hits a man first, she is committing assault against him and that is not okay.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I could also say men need to be treated more like women. The difference is undefined and arbitrary. The goal is to say "people should be treated with respect"


----------



## Strayfire (Jun 26, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> @_Aya Saves the World_, I think that people freak out about a man hitting a woman because a man is usually physically stronger than a woman. I'm very short and much weaker than most men. If a guy hits me, it's not the equivalent of hitting a fully-grown man. It's the equivalent of hitting a 14-year-old boy.


Well unless said man had the psyche of a 14 year old boy 

Aka me.

^.^


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

This topic actually reminds me a lot of this _Friends_ episode:






The only reason this behavior was seen as "funny" in the episode was because people assumed that Joey couldn't get really hurt by this tiny woman. This kind of thing could not have been passed off as comedic if Rachel, Monica, or Phoebe were getting hit by a boyfriend. Joey's girlfriend was being completely inappropriate in "playfully" hitting him. She totally disregarded Joey's boundaries when Joey tried to tell her to stop her behavior. Rachel only seemed to understand how problematic the situation was once the woman started hitting her too.

Domestic violence happens more often to women, but it can happen to men too. When it happens to men, their concerns are often not taken as seriously as they should be. I once watched a documentary about male victims of domestic violence on TV. (I can't find it on the Internet right now very easily. I can't remember the title.) In the documentary, men faced difficulties getting help through normal channels for domestic violence victims because those channels are normally designed for women and often designated specifically for women. One case in the documentary discussed how a man who was the abuse victim was the person to get in trouble with the police when he called the cops on his physically abusive wife. I'm going to present a link on this serious issue: Help for Abused Men: Escaping Domestic Violence by Women or Domestic Partners

Male domestic violence victims show how sexist, stereotypical ideas can hurt both men and women. Women tend to be considered more seriously as victims if people are already predisposed to think of them as "weak" and less capable, but men are often ostracized for somehow being "weak" and "not manly" enough if they get hit by their female partners. Sexism can harm men and women, and everyone needs to learn to treat each other as human beings instead of categorically dividing people due to assumptions about their gender.


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

@Mee2 @TurtleQueen

That's my point exactly. Which case is a case and each person is a person. We should treat all with equal respect. A woman should not be treated as a man nor a man like a woman but as a human being.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

MisterD said:


> Cum dumpster, meat sock, semen container...


Are you talking about 19th century condoms?


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Eska

I'm not dismissing those issues of job choice and employment. I think that some of those choices could be influenced by the different societal expectations for men and women. Women might not want to do some high-paying, stressful job if their husbands will still expect them to take over the majority of household responsibilities and childcare responsibilities. A research paper about the unequal distribution of these responsibilities is available here. Women might want to become stay at home mothers if they feel "pushed out" of their jobs due to inflexible policies and have a harder time getting hired or paid as well because they had a child (men are not financially penalized for having children, by the way). A link to verify the issue of women being "pushed out" of their jobs rather than opting out is available here.

Not all of women's choices are what they would freely choose to do if society did not have different expectations for men and women. In addition, not all of the pay gap is due to women's choices.

Men earn more than women on a specific occupation level in all but a few occupations according to research available here. College-educated women new to the workforce are paid less than their male counterparts even after researchers control for college major and other factors that could impact pay. This research report explains more.

The link about negotiation in the first article didn't work, but I did find this article. That article explains how negotiating for higher pay may not work well for a woman; it may instead make her seem too "aggressive" when a man could seem "assertive." This difference in perceptions means that women cannot be expected to negotiate for higher pay and fix this issue themselves.

ETA: The first article didn't have links that worked well. But the points that article raised are valid.


----------



## sogood (Aug 24, 2014)

Aya Saves the World said:


> My point is: if women are equal to men, some people's conclusion will be that women can be hit equally, like men are.
> 
> See the problem with saying that you want women to be treated like men? That's all I'm getting at.


WOw way to ignore everything I posted. And as others have stated, the reason that saying that you shouldn't hit a woman exists is because women ARE being hit due to the power and perhaps the aggressive hormones men have and men ARE NOT BEING ABUSED BY WOMEN. In other words, MEN ARE ALREADY NOT BEING HIT BY WOMEN, IN GENERAL. so there's no reason to say it. People say you shouldn't hit a woman but women still get hit. That's why they say it. How are you not getting this?


----------



## sogood (Aug 24, 2014)

Aya Saves the World said:


> I'm not even suggesting that, it's an hypothetical scenario that could happen if we ask women to be treated like men.


If women were to be treated like men, they would not be hit. That is the entire point. Because statistically overwhelmingly men hit women in terms of both domenstic and non-domestic assault, not the other way around. Where are you getting this imaginary scenario where women beat up men and that is a priveldge women have? It is not TAKEN AS SERIOUSLY when a woman hits a man in a playful, non-serious way like you see on TV in a "shucks you idiot" or "shut dummy" kind of way, or the well-known "how dare you, perv, unahnd me slap!" because when a woman hits a man it's only a gesture of defiance it doesn't carry neraly the same level of physical threat because she can't realy carry out any real damange like he could if he chose. It is an entirely different scenario. It's like if a child its me, they aren't really a physical threat to me, they're just asserting they don't want to be controlled. I would feel entirely different if an adult hit me than a child because it means totally different things. Overwhelingly men are aggressive not only physically but sexually, so a woman slapping or playfully hitting a man isn't seen as her attacking him. And as for actually itting men in a domestic violence or physical assault type way, that Isn't OK and it's illegal just as the reverse is... 

ONce again:

If women were treated by the same standards as men,
THEY WOULD NOT BE HIT.

That is why people get upset about men hitting women

because it happens every day, and so we developed teaching to teach men not to do that. Because men are both more aggressive, in general, sorry for the generalization but we can agree in general that is true, and capable of hurting women, they are not only more likely to do it, but some men WILL and DO hurt women, and it will do lots of damage to their counterparts in the human race who can't fight back,, so we try ot teach them to respect that because women are weaker they need to behave slightly differently.

When a woman actually DOES assault a man, if it is a real violent attack, it is still treated as a crime. But it doesn't have the same connotation if it a playful fake slap like if a man fake slaps a woman because it is humorous because we know that most women don't have the desire to or THE ABILITY to hurt a man by actually attacking him, so it's just not even the same THING.


Honestly what you're saying is a milder version of "why aren't children brought to jail when they slap their parents?" because a CHILD hitting an adult is different than the reverse. Obviously this is not the exact same situation but I am trying to show you how when things are not ALIKE you cannot treat them like they are ALIKE in every single aspect.
If a man fake slaps a woman playfully or like slaps her for being too forward like you see women do on TV, the question is-- how hard? Because generally when men are hit in TV for comedic effect, it's more of an annoyance than actually damaging him in any way. I think part of the reason itd' seem weird if a man fake slaps a girl is because it seems like part of him may ACTUALLY want to hurt her... like fake slapping a child isn't really funny unless there is a large amount of trust like a parent or older sibling being playful or it's done in a funny way, and I think that could be true for men fake slapping women too... but in general it just hints at something that is threatening and confusing and so it's not really funny.

I honestly don't find this hard to understand. If we have to get along with people who are almost exactly like us as equals but have some physical differences, of course we would have to learn differences in how to treat them.


----------



## JackSparroww (Dec 10, 2010)

sogood said:


> If women were to be treated like men, they would not be hit.


 on ?

I mean my english ^^


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

sogood said:


> WOw way to ignore everything I posted. And as others have stated, the reason that saying that you shouldn't hit a woman exists is because women ARE being hit due to the power and perhaps the aggressive hormones men have and men ARE NOT BEING ABUSED BY WOMEN. In other words, MEN ARE ALREADY NOT BEING HIT BY WOMEN, IN GENERAL. so there's no reason to say it. People say you shouldn't hit a woman but women still get hit. That's why they say it. How are you not getting this?


Natural levels of testosterone is not strong enough to make someone violent. Do you think female to male transsexual get violent because they take testosterone as well?

More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals | Society | The Guardian

Nobody should get beaten.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

This is the most stupidest thread concieved .

Bad brains is the number one cause to objectifying woman it's quite clear don't you think...

So we know will never fix a brain so lets leave it.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

sogood said:


> If women were to be treated like men, they would not be hit.


Some men, because some men use violence to solve their problems, especially when they're drunk. They'll hit anyone who crosses their path.



> Because statistically overwhelmingly men hit women in terms of both domenstic and non-domestic assault, not the other way around.


I wasn't even speaking about domestic violence. I was talking about street fights, treats to the police and club interactions.



> Where are you getting this imaginary scenario where women beat up men and that is a priveldge women have?


I'm not getting such a scenario nor I have spoken about it. I've simply talking about a scenario where if a woman hits a man, she'll be hit back as if she was a man.



> It is not TAKEN AS SERIOUSLY when a woman hits a man in a playful, non-serious way like you see on TV in a "shucks you idiot" or "shut dummy" kind of way, or the well-known "how dare you, perv, unahnd me slap!" because when a woman hits a man it's only a gesture of defiance it doesn't carry neraly the same level of physical threat because she can't realy carry out any real damange like he could if he chose. It is an entirely different scenario


I actually think this is a very big problem. Domestic violence against men is not taken seriously, it's played for laughs. It shouldn't. No human should be beaten.



> It's like if a child its me, they aren't really a physical threat to me, they're just asserting they don't want to be controlled.


Depending on the age, a child might not even know they're doing wrong. A healthy adult will know they're doing wrong, the problem is when they think they're righteous. The power of owing (in domestic violence) or justice (in street, club fights) is stronger than "violence is wrong" because you must feel that your rights are not taken from you.
The owing a person (because some women think they own their lovers in many different ways besides violence itself) is a matter of education more than anything, one is stronger with people, areas and countries.
Now some women think they own men in some ways just because women were/are abused. That is wrong and makes them as bad as their abuser. But then again, some criminal theories say that the abused may become the abuser. Revenge and justice are strong feelings.



> If women were treated by the same standards as men,
> THEY WOULD NOT BE HIT.


How do you know that?



> That is why people get upset about men hitting women
> 
> because it happens every day, and so we developed teaching to teach men not to do that.


But men get hit too, everyday. Actually, the chance of getting killed or beaten is much higher when you're a male. Why don't we teach people just not to be violent in general instead of how not to be violent against one sex?



> Because men are both more aggressive, in general, sorry for the generalization but we can agree in general that is true, and capable of hurting women, they are not only more likely to do it, but some men WILL and DO hurt women, and it will do lots of damage to their counterparts in the human race who can't fight back,, so we try ot teach them to respect that because women are weaker they need to behave slightly differently.


That is one ugly generalization. Men are not more likely to hit women, it's a matter of how they were educated. Men aren't just going to see a woman and hit her for reasons. It's not how works.
In my experience, women are worse to women than men are, generally. They're psychological violent. Men have been very kind and understanding to me throughout my life. I was not once hit by one. I cannot say the same for women.



> When a woman actually DOES assault a man, if it is a real violent attack, it is still treated as a crime.


Expect when the police calls the man a pussy and tells him to man up and the woman gets like 2 years in jail. If she even goes on trail.



> Honestly what you're saying is a milder version of "why aren't children brought to jail when they slap their parents?" because a CHILD hitting an adult is different than the reverse. Obviously this is not the exact same situation but I am trying to show you how when things are not ALIKE you cannot treat them like they are ALIKE in every single aspect.


Because women are so pure they can't hit a fly, now can they?



> If a man fake slaps a woman playfully or like slaps her for being too forward like you see women do on TV, the question is-- how hard? Because generally when men are hit in TV for comedic effect, it's more of an annoyance than actually damaging him in any way. I think part of the reason itd' seem weird if a man fake slaps a girl is because it seems like part of him may ACTUALLY want to hurt her... like fake slapping a child isn't really funny unless there is a large amount of trust like a parent or older sibling being playful or it's done in a funny way, and I think that could be true for men fake slapping women too... but in general it just hints at something that is threatening and confusing and so it's not really funny.


That's the problem. When a woman hits a man it's funny, but when a man hits a woman it's tragic and bad.



> I honestly don't find this hard to understand. If we have to get along with people who are almost exactly like us as equals but have some physical differences, of course we would have to learn differences in how to treat them.


We have to take in consideration our differences and treat each other like human beings, regardless of sex, regardless of gender, regardless of sexuality, regardless of body shape, regardless if it's Samson or Samus.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

xXxRosexXx said:


> Bad brains is the number one cause to objectifying woman


The band?


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

Oh yea course full on drum kits *_____* Don't be silly *smashes face*


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

xXxRosexXx said:


> This is the most stupidest thread concieved .
> 
> Bad brains is the number one cause to objectifying woman it's quite clear don't you think...
> 
> So we know will never fix a brain so lets leave it.


What do you mean by "bad brains"?


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

The general scope that a brain features to human anatomy like psychologically , physically , emotionally , heck I bet even balance is involved.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

xXxRosexXx said:


> The general scope that a brain features to human anatomy like psychologically , physically , emotionally , heck I bet even balance is involved.


So a bad brain might be someone who's depressed or someone who simply has dyslexia? That's not a very good thing to say... I was thought that the reason for domestic violence was uprising and education, not dyslexia.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

Aya Saves the World said:


> So a bad brain might be someone who's depressed or someone who simply has dyslexia? That's not a very good thing to say... I was thought that the reason for domestic violence was uprising and education, not dyslexia.



It goes much further then that into personality disorders and possibly just general brain usage misfiring neurons or whatever there's multitude reasons and that's the problem no one can pinpoint the cause because it's so diverse problem.

So no matter how hard we want it too go away it never will just embrace it , swear back or hell enjoy it like me lol <3 .

Loved to get feeled up to fuck aslong the guy is half way decent in the case that he is not well still enjoy the sensations but then get away from him as quickly possible lol.

I talk like I've experienced such a thing but nope so , but I know problems and solutions.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

xXxRosexXx said:


> It goes much further then that into personality disorders and possibly just general brain usage misfiring neurons or whatever there's multitude reasons and that's the problem no one can pinpoint the cause because it's so diverse problem.


Ah. Glad you elaborated on this. I was starting to think you put everything that affects the brain on the same bag.



> Loved to get feeled up to fuck aslong the guy is half way decent in the case that he is not well still enjoy the sensations but then get away from him as quickly possible lol.


You mean an one night stand?



> I talk like I've experienced such a thing but nope so , but I know problems and solutions.


Are you a doctor? I would like to know more about you pin pointing the cause of objectification as personality disorders.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@xXxRosexXx

A lot of the objectification women are discussing is not about objectification within consensual sexual encounters. This thread has discussed a variety of situations in which women might wish to be treated in a way that values them as human beings. We have discussed issues as diverse as how and when we feel it is appropriate to be approached by men, equal pay, and domestic violence. I agree that it will be hard to make society change, but I would be grateful if any part of this conversation helped even one man understand how women wish to be treated as equal human beings.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

@aya-saves-the-world

You have movements "all moving everything", overlap "all anatomy everything " , you have accidents "all accidents everything" , diversity "all variety everything" probably some others that are all variable somehow so it's not hard to think how it would be possible when you percept those facts into perspective and context towards the particular problem at hand.


@_TurtleQueen_ 

You must reach the requirement to make an occurrence before that will happen.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

xXxRosexXx said:


> @aya-saves-the-world
> 
> You have movements "all moving everything", overlap "all anatomy everything " , you have accidents "all accidents everything" , diversity "all variety everything" probably some others so it's not hard to think how it would be possible when you put that those facts into perspective and context towards the particular problem at hand.


I'm an "every case is a case" type of person. Judging all situations in the same way is kind of stupid. Not all situations are equal, so all situations that look like accidents might all be accidents, for example. We are very diverse and we should take that in consideration and not try to to all look/sound/be the same.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

Yes it is all variable too should have mentioned that 
it wouldn't makes sense that diversity is everything 
when there is no variability .


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

xXxRosexXx said:


> Yes it is all variable too should have mentioned that
> it wouldn't makes sense that diversity is everything
> when there is no variability .


Exactly. In other to have diversity you need variabilities that can be changed.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

Some guy once said everything is just change lots an lots ah change that lead me onto discovering movement , neutrality then eventually diversity ,etc and the my personal end towards believing period.










I call it diversity cores.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

@TurtleQueen

No female game developer has received any harassment for simply being female. I've been a gamer all my life and the gaming community is one of the most inclusive communities.
Gamergate did nothing, Gamergate is about the corruption in sites like Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun that was shown by the actions of a female game "developer" (I say it like this because I have my doubts that Zoe Quinn actually did anything productive for Depression Quest. Not because she's female but because of her behavior). People like Brianna Wuu get shit online because they say shit online, just like male game devolpers have got. I remember clearly people for EA, the head of the Assassin's Creed Unity team and former leader of the Silent Hill Origins, Shattered Memories and Downpour getting shit because they did a shitty job and said shitty things online. The guy who has in charge of SH, said he didn't like people who have no involvement in games getting credit for anything (aka the fans) and that petitions do nothing, then he had to shallow his own words and pride and release SH HD on PS3 and Xbox 360.

Nobody is harassed or gets shit on their Twitter of Facebook because of their gender, they get it because they're assholes and do a shitty job.

Like that Kotaku writer who said that gamers deserved to be bullied and he's glad that anti-Gamergate movement is doing it again.

And no you cannot talk about it on 4chan. If you do you're banned.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Sometimes women are denied raises, refused employment, and refused career advancement because of their gender. I don't think any individual woman should assume that she has faced career difficulties due to these issues unless she has some reason to suspect that this kind of discrimination occurred against her. But evidence from research on the issue suggests that discrimination can happen to women in employment.

If you aren't familiar with what happened to Zoe Quinn this article might be helpful (or not): The sexist crusade to destroy game developer Zoe Quinn

She may have been harassed because of her views and opinions, but it seems to have been done in an incredibly sexist way based on what that article says.

@Aya Saves the World: I only talked about video games since @Eska brought it up. I don't see how it's not sexist to harass a woman for allegations that aren't based in truth. If there was some reason to believe the accusations were true, she could have been let go from her job in a way that didn't harass her or her family. If that article I posted is wrong on the issue, I'm sorry. I don't know enough about gaming to say with 100% certainty if gaming is a sexist environment for women or not. Even if it isn't, people outside the gaming community might judge female gamers negatively if they assume gaming is an activity designated only for males. I can't be certain if this happens or not.

ETA: I apologize for all of the accidental double posts. I would appreciate it if some moderator could delete them. I didn't mean to clog the thread.

@DaphneDelRey: You may want to go back and edit the post where you quoted me if you want your post to make sense to other users. I have the same basic posts near the accidental repeat posts, and any changes I made were minor and did not impact the content of the posts.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

@TurtleQueen











Here.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Aya Saves the World: I'll take a look at those Youtube videos later. It's my sister's birthday, and I don't want to bother her by watching something on my computer when she's trying to watch TV. I'll admit that I might be wrong about the Gamergate issue since I did only read one article on it. I don't know anything about gaming, and I never meant to claim with absolute certainty that it's some horribly sexist environment against women. Until I actually learn more about this topic, I'm going to refrain from discussing the Gamergate issue or gaming in general.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

TurtleQueen said:


> @_DaphneDelRey_: You may want to go back and edit the post where you quoted me if you want your post to make sense to other users. I have the same basic posts near the accidental repeat posts, and any changes I made were minor and did not impact the content of the posts.


I was being facetious earlier sorry :tongue:
:crazy:


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@DaphneDelRey 

Oh, ok. :laughing:

I'm sorry for all those accidental double posts, everyone. My Internet is being more normal, so it shouldn't happen as frequently.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

TurtleQueen said:


> @_DaphneDelRey_
> 
> Oh, ok. :laughing:
> 
> I'm sorry for all those accidental double posts, everyone. My Internet is being more normal, so it shouldn't happen as frequently.


On behalf of everyone who is not bothered or offended, it's cool!<3


----------



## Enlightenedakacrazy (May 16, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> I think that emotional abuse is a serious issue that's often unrecognized. It's easier to see physical abuse, and it's more difficult for people to draw the line between someone who is acting like an ordinary jerk and someone who is being emotionally abusive.


Good 
Yup, it can be hard to detect, but I think the bigger picture; what we can do something about; is to try make people recognise that emotional abuse is a problem to begin with, and that there's more scenarios of emotional abuse than just bullies at schools and work or men that yell obscene names to their women; that emotional abuse comes in many variations, and often subtle ones, and all the implications and methods of accommodation that is or could be involved, etc.



TurtleQueen said:


> As far as "don't hit a woman," I think it's a good message for physically active boys (who may hit each other) to hear as they grow up so that they don't injure girls. I think it's important for men to learn that women are physically weaker and you can't just hit a woman in the same way they might hit some man who pissed them off.


Sure. I thought that was pretty common sense and already a well known fact even among the majority of quite simple-minded people, though.
I just think "don't hit a woman" is too black-white. It actually excludes self-defense for a male, for instance, who should instead seek to just please, run away, or be considered a coward by the social community involved if he tells anyone about it.
A better expression would be something like: don't FIGHT girls/women, or avoid physically injuring women, etc.
And that's just a simple rephrase - I believe there's much more viable options available than any mantra to solve this issue, although some kind of mantra should probably be involved as far as teaching little boys what's appropriate and what's not goes.

Edit: But if there really are some communities that are totally unaware of the idea that one shouldn't abuse women's biological inferior physicality, I could understand encouraging some kind of mantra there like "don't hit a woman.".
But for the rest of society that are already aware that abusing anything is usually bad, I think that mantra needs an upgrade to something less black and white.



TurtleQueen said:


> Ultimately, men shouldn't hit each other either. I think domestic violence is bad in general.


That should be somewhat of a long-term goal, perhaps, but as long as being and acting like animals/monkeys is celebrated or/and not looked down upon, which in large part it still isn't, that will be an unreachable goal.



TurtleQueen said:


> I think you should avoid hitting people because a man can't "calibrate" his impact to make sure he isn't hitting someone "too hard." Any amount of physical violence toward someone (outside of BDSM) is "too much."


Whatever.
You're right that in a rage it's hard to keep the self-restraint to calibrate physical force, now that I think of it.
But you still can't ban one part of the relationship from acting out physically in any way whatsoever just because that part has more strength and allow the other part to do act out just because that part's weaker. That's absolutely ridiculous and not an argument for equality at all.
The truth is both of the parts "deserve" whatever comes at them if they provoke each other into physical confrontations rather than breaking up or whatever.
The male deserves to go to jail if he beats up his wife, and the wife deserves to be beaten up for having provoked him if she already knew he's stronger and is no more a saint able to act on more self-constraint than she herself does, which she freaking should if she's in a long-term relationship with him, and has got hundreds of thousands of years of genetic memory of how males have acted for thousands of years (How long does genetic memory last again? My only estimate from memory is 1-10k y).
But they also deserved to have been educated better prior to this confrontation to leave such relationships before it gets to those points, so I'm not saying it isn't an unfortunate situation, but I am saying that you can't make up some bullshit one-sided restraint on one side of humanity just because people are stupid/uneducated.



TurtleQueen said:


> I don't think that men physically abuse women more because they have already been emotionally abused.


Nono, not _been_ abused, just the *threat* of emotional abuse.
We all seek to find our own strengths in relation to survival, right?
Very simplified: Men were given physical strength, women emotional.
So men use physical strength to defend themselves, women use emotional strength, which can include emotional manipulation, and emotional attacks/force, like men will use physical attacks/force.
Men doesn't have a natural defense against emotional force. That's all I'm saying.



TurtleQueen said:


> But I'm not willing to accept that women actually emotionally abuse men more. I did find these statistics from the U.S. that show that "psychological aggression" (their term for physical abuse) is almost equal between the genders.


Here's apparently their definition of psychological aggression:


> Psychological aggression by
> an intimate partner, including
> information on expressive forms
> of aggression and coercive control
> ...


I don't think that has anything to do with emotional abuse, which is about hurting and infesting someone psychologically/mentally/emotionally, by ripping a shred ones self-confidence, image, deeply held values, etc.
And I'm not sure it's so easy to measure in the first place, but I'd still be interested if you found something on that.



TurtleQueen said:


> I don't think that abusers "compensate" in less they are in reciprocally abusive relationships. Abusers often harm people who cannot "compensate."


Of course they do.
The only type of hypothetical perpetrator there is that seek unlimited power for the sake of power itself is a Psychopath.
I say hypothetical because it's a very controversial subject.
Anyhow, most, if not all "abusers" as you call them, are just human beings with certain problems that they can't defend in a normal and healthy way, so they have to compensate by (over)using a different aggressive strength.
Have you never "abused" anyone in the tiniests of ways?
Lashed out on someone who didn't quite deserved it, truly because of your own problems and inadequacies?
Never done anything wrong to another human being at all?
And if you truly believe that you haven't then you're simply delusional.



TurtleQueen said:


> The best response to being abused is to try to get out of the relationship as quickly as possible and to not abuse your partner in return. I'm not going to compare someone who got killed by physical abuse or someone who killed him/herself due to emotional abuse. Both situations are pretty fucking shitty


I absolutely agree with that.



TurtleQueen said:


> and people who physically abuse often use emotional abuse at the same time.


I'm not so sure about that.
Sometimes that may be the case, possibly even the majority of cases, but that still leaves a large number of cases where there's abuse at both ends.
Really, Turtle, why would a lot of people be obsessed with hurting/abusing others if they weren't abused/afraid of something that they need to compensate for themselves?
Why is it that bullies were usually victims of bullying themselves?
Or to take an example I know the science on: why is NPD socially inherited? (NPD = Basically the closest thing to a true, full-blown and compulsive Abuser without being a Psychopath)
Etc.



TurtleQueen said:


> It's unfair to tell women that they need to stop emotionally abusing men to end physical abuse against women. Stopping one gender's abusive behavior will not stop the other gender's abusive behavior.


I just reversed the statement "men must stop physically abusing women!" for the sake of satire.



TurtleQueen said:


> Everyone needs to stop being abusive, period.


Yeah. But the question is how it will be done. What rules and principles we should enforce backed up by what ideas and information. Etc.
But I'm glad we can agree about that much nevertheless.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Given the recent turn of events in this thread. *backs away slowly*


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Enlightenedakacrazy

I don't agree with the idea that women are more easily able to emotionally abuse men than men are able to emotionally abuse women. I acknowledge that I didn't read the term "psychological aggression" correctly when I gave that statistic. Fair enough. I won't accept that women emotionally abuse men more often than the reverse scenario occurs unless I can see some kind of statistic indicating what you said. I do think that physical abuse is often coupled by emotional abuse or financial abuse; the emotional abuse or financial abuse can keep people from leaving people who physically abuse them. That link I gave near the end of my previous post mentions that physical abusers often start with emotional abuse.

I don't like the idea that a woman "provoked" a man to attack her physically. It's a crappy argument an abusive man would use if a woman annoyed him but was not emotionally abusive. People are still responsible for their behavior, and initiating physical violence against a partner is never acceptable. A woman never "deserves" to be beaten up by her husband. I'm not arguing that either side should "act out" in any way that is abusive physically or emotionally. I think that a man does have a right to defend himself physically if he is physically attacked, but it would generally not be in his best interest to do so because of how it may be unfairly perceived by other people (including the police).

I'm not going to speculate on the possible mental illnesses abusive people may have. The link I put at the end of my post emphasized that abusive people are not "out of control" when they abuse people, and I would not want to feed a narrative that is untrue and harmful to abuse survivors.

ETA: I acknowledge that it may be hard to find statistics on emotional abuse. I think that even statistics on physical abuse aren't perfect because men may be less likely to report physical abuse than women. All abuse may be underreported. I'm just not going to accept some argument that women are more emotionally abusive than men are without some kind of evidence (beyond one person's reported experiences).


----------



## Enlightenedakacrazy (May 16, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> I'm not going to accept the idea that women are more easily able to emotionally abuse men than men are able to emotionally abuse women.
> I won't accept that women emotionally abuse men more often than the reverse scenario occurs unless I can see some kind of statistic indicating what you said.


If you had paid attention you'd notice I only said this was my own experience and that I'm very open to it being wrong, but it's a pretty well known stereotype that (many) women are emotionally aggressive. For example that they're very cruel to other girls, compared to boys who tend to confront each other physically more.
Men accuse women of it all the time. Women accuse other women of it all the time. Etc.
I've also said plenty of other things around this subject, like that in my estimate it may be hard to produce any statistics on this, as the idea of emotional abuse is quite fuzzy and hard to pinpoint, yet very real.
Anyhow, I might be interested in giving it a try - searching for statistics on this subject at some point if I first get a solid impression that you find this idea critical; that the implications of potentially finding the research favoring my hypothesis are critical in influencing/changing your own perceptions and considerations.
Otherwise why waste my time doing hard work on finding something that's hard to find for someone that won't necessarily be strongly affected by it.



TurtleQueen said:


> I do think that physical abuse is often coupled by emotional abuse or financial abuse; the emotional abuse or financial abuse can keep people from leaving people who physically abuse them. That link I gave near the end of my previous post mentions that physical abusers often start with emotional abuse.


We could be talking about 3 different types of people/dynamics here:
1. Actual, born abusers; Psychopaths (1% of the population, and therefor an unlikely candidate).
2. Victims of abuse having becomed the abuser (bullies, narcissists, etc).
3. People of otherwise unspecificied/unknown mental health that are getting progressively deeper into a toxic relationship.

Either way you're now talking about actual abusers who at least partially intentionally, insistently and with great interest abuse the other part in the relationship, and these can be of any gender, rather than men with mere bad temper.
You're not gonna affect any abuser by telling him "hitting a woman is bad, mkay?".
Of the three types mentioned:
Type 1 are the hardest personality type to change of all, so there's no use even discussing them, unless you're willing to talk about experimental drugs and brainwashing.
Type 2 needs a lot of therapy/professional help.
Type 3 may have underlying issues which is not originally the other part's fault, but these types of relationships only work because both parts are drawn to eachother's abuse/flaws, so neither part is faultfree, although one part may be more aggressive.

Either way I feel like we're borderline digressing from the topic of gender roles and gender nature, as both gender can be afflicted by any of the three personality flaws mentioned above.



TurtleQueen said:


> I don't like the idea that a woman "provoked" a man to attack her physically.


Of course, because most people attack physically without provocation. Right? No.
In many cases the provocation may of course not be the woman but something else, and the man might take it out on the woman, but in many cases that's not it.



TurtleQueen said:


> It's a crappy argument an abusive man would use if a woman annoyed him but was not emotionally abusive.


It's an argument that can be abused by an abusive man, or it can be an absolutely true description of the situation.
Being annoying can be the opening to abuse, anyhow (and is often used that way when the annoyance is intentional).
Constant or powerful annoyance gets to ones mind and emotions, leaving ones emotions exposed to attack.
And again men might not like that like I said earlier because they hate being emotionally vulnerable.



TurtleQueen said:


> People are still responsible for their behavior, and initiating physical violence against a partner is never acceptable.


Neither is emotional abuse.



TurtleQueen said:


> A woman never "deserves" to be beaten up by her husband. I'm not arguing that either side should "act out" in any way that is abusive physically or emotionally.


I never said you did.
But she does if she intentionally provoked him, just like someone kicking a sleeping lion for fun deserves to be eaten.
I did explain further down though that the situation is still tragic, and on a deeper level whomever kicked the lion deserved more to have been educated earlier about how kicking a lion will get him eaten, but in practice, due to the world being imperfect and so on, he deserved what got to him, and the same goes with a woman who provokes his man when she's fed up with him or whatever rather than breaking up with him - obviously I'm assuming she has the option to break up with him, but in the majority of cases she does. Projecting her fear of his man leaving her as "fear of the man", which I also believe could be a real, albeit not necessarily too prevalent of a phenomenon, is also not an acceptable excuse.
But then there's obviously cases where there is a real reason to fear the man, and in which case she should grow a spine/we should educate women that it's a human right to break up with a man and that she should contact the police and do whatever to get an abusive man out of her life.
And the same goes the other way around, although men more often have the physical strength, confidence and the spine to do so.



TurtleQueen said:


> I think that a man does have a right to defend himself physically if he is physically attacked, but it would generally not be in his best interest to do so because of how it may be unfairly perceived by the police.


Okay.



TurtleQueen said:


> I'm not going to speculate on the possible mental illnesses abusive people may have. The link I put at the end of my post emphasized that abusive people are not "out of control" when they abuse people, and I would not want to feed a narrative that is untrue and harmful to abuse survivors.


I don't know what is meant by "out of control"; I assume conscious emotional control, in which case they obviously aren't - men supress their emotions, which is why they have violent physical attacks, again like I mentioned before due to emotional vulnerability (supressed out of conscious awareness and by compensating with physical aggression).



TurtleQueen said:


> ETA: I acknowledge that it may be hard to find statistics on emotional abuse. I think that even statistics on physical abuse aren't perfect because men may be less likely to report physical abuse than women. All abuse may be underreported.


And you can't even report emotional abuse to any authorities that I know of.
"Police, help, my woman is telling me I'm a bad and worthless person! Someone come rescue me plz!" - just doesn't work.



TurtleQueen said:


> I'm just not going to accept some argument that women are more emotionally abusive without some kind of evidence (beyond one person's reported experiences).


I addressed this earlier in this post.


----------



## Merov (Mar 8, 2009)

My girlfriend is a Feminist. She wants equality for everyone, regardless of age, race, color, sex or LGBT thing.

You're essentially fighting for the right to be respected and recompensed. 
...which is admirable, and I can understand the cause. 

...in some respects I even accept that Feminism was born out of desperation...from woman who didn't just want to be objects of sexual gratification...who wanted to compete with their male counterparts in the work place and be eligible to equal wages...

...but yeah...somewhere along the line it turned into a smear and shame campaign and woman did what they do best.

...and now woman are divided between supporting the cause and being labeled as a femminazi, or not supporting it and having to swallow when they are unfairly treated.

...but I like what this lady has to say.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Enlightenedakacrazy

I think there are many reasons why one person may act badly to another person. Ultimately, I don't feel sorry for people who intentionally harm people. If someone needs therapy to better control their behavior, I support that person getting therapy but would want most of the sympathy to lie with people who have been victimized by the person. People always bear responsibility for their behavior even if they struggle with serious issues. The link that I mentioned did define abusers as people who acted in ways that indicated they had more control over their behavior. Examples of this control included appearing calm and reasonable to police and avoiding hitting their partners in places that would show bruising when the partners wear normal clothes. In any case, I don't believe men's brains are so different from women's brains that they cannot help being physically aggressive to people because they "suppress their emotions."

I know that stereotypes exist, but I don't think that the commonly reported behavior of schoolchildren (girls channeling conflict through social factors and boys channeling conflict through physical aggression) can be a basis for thinking that women are more capable of emotionally abusing people. I think that men are just as capable of emotional abuse as women.

If a man reacts to emotional abuse by physically attacking a woman, both parties are wrong. If a man is "provoked" into attacking a woman, I don't think that the woman was necessarily emotionally abusive. If you are annoyed by someone, the appropriate thing to do would be to leave that person (at least for a while) or to focus on other things. I can be annoyed by a lot of things, but I don't assume the annoyance is intentional. Many people can be annoying without realizing how annoying they are being. I can be annoying without realizing that I'm annoying another person. So, I find it horrible that you think women "intentionally" annoy or provoke men in ways that lead to physical abuse. Most women do not want to be beaten, so I don't think that most women "intentionally" act in ways that they think will make men so angry they would hit them. Whether a man responded to emotional abuse or something he deemed "provoking," the man initiated physical violence against a woman and acted inappropriately. I don't think physical abuse is an acceptable response to emotional abuse.

Please don't say that abuse survivors who didn't immediately leave should have "grown a spine." They may have had emotional problems that prevented them from leaving (caused by emotional abuse much of the time). They may have had the abusers monitoring their phone calls and Internet access. They may have had abusive people controlling their finances or being their sole financial supports. They may have had children with their abusers. All abuse victims need help getting away from the abusive person. They do not need any message from someone implying that they lack a spine or lack strength because they find it difficult to leave abusive situations. I am including male abuse survivors in this statement.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> Sometimes women are denied raises, refused employment, and refused career advancement because of their gender. I don't think any individual woman should assume that she has faced career difficulties due to these issues unless she has some kind of reason to suspect this kind of discrimination. But evidence from research on the issue suggests that discrimination can happen to women in employment.


Of course, and it can happen to men as well, but I don't see why it's assumed to be the prime reason behind the wage gap when there is an enormously more suitable cause to that, which also has been documented; job choices. 

On a side note, 

I was speaking with a worker at my gym, and a friend brought up a topic about employment and why he was chosen over a woman. I said (looking at the worker for the approval of my theory as I was saying it); Women are more likely to be employed at the front desk due to their appeal in a gym filled with men with a pump to their testosterone levels. They're more likely to be engaged in a conversation (which happens often), and behind them? A full array of products (supplements). (The worker nodded with a smile.)

The point is, "sexism" happens on both sides, it's not something exclusive to females, although, to make it prime issue behind the wage gap? I find that unreasonable.

Do not forget that business has to exploit gender-related aspects in order to make it more profitable for the company.

This "sexism" is most likely not derived from misogynistic ideologies, rather, it is motivated by profit, which could excuse it's "sexism" since the point is not to discriminate women, it's to fully exploit the tools available in order to make their business more profitable.

I believe that the wage gap is a representation of the job choices made by men and women, and I find it unreasonable to use it as an excuse to play the victim by making false causes out of it.

To recapitulate,

Is sexism present in employment? Yes.
Is it the prime cause of the wage gap? No, I don't believe so.
Is it unreasonable to pass "sexism" as the primary cause of the wage gap? Yes, I believe so.
Is it unreasonable to make the wage gap an issue? Yes, I believe so.
Do I think the issue is misplaced and misinterpreted? Yes, I believe so.
Do you think the issue should be relocated? Yes, I believe so. It should be redirected towards gender stereotypes, not salary.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Merov said:


> ...and now woman are divided between supporting the cause and being labeled as a femminazi, or not supporting it and having to swallow when they are unfairly treated.


That is exactly what I fear the most. I really dislike the idea of someone needing help, and not getting it.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

@Eska - the pay gap usually refers to women earning less than men for the same work. So, female accountants earning less than male accountants, for example. I don't know exactly how they measure it but that's at least what they're _trying_ to measure. 

@Aya Saves the World - GamerGate is a load of sexist bullshit. Quinn did basically nothing wrong. The allegations that she slept with someone for positive reviews are undoubtedly and predictably false. And 4chan definitely played a huge part in the whole thing. Here's an article about it: Zoe Quinn’s screenshots of 4chan’s dirty tricks were just the appetizer. Here’s the first course of the dinner, directly from the IRC log | we hunted the mammoth


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Eska

Even when women make the same choices as men in terms of the type of job they have and are equal to men in other factors that could impact pay (such as hours or years of experience), women are still statistically paid less than men. The pay gap shrinks but does not disappear entirely. In any individual company, men and women doing the same job may be paid equally or unequally.

I agree that sexism can happen to men too. If a qualified man was passed over for a job because he's a man, I do think that it's a serious issue. The male employee could have generated just as much profit for the business as the woman who got the job. I don't think that employers are morally right to discriminate in hiring due to unfounded assumptions of how a man or a woman could create profit for the company.

My goal was not to convince you that an equal pay law should be passed. I agree with you that other issues need to be addressed if women want the opportunity to earn the kind of salary they desire and advance their career. My only goal was to convince you that the differences in pay between men and women were not entirely a result of men and women making different choices.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> @Eska - the pay gap usually refers to women earning less than men for the same work. So, female accountants earning less than male accountants, for example. I don't know exactly how they measure it but that's at least what they're _trying_ to measure.


The same work, under the same circumstances?

That is what I find odd, is it as if the minimum wage of women was lower than men's?

Hypothetically, if a woman and a man were both employed on the same day, with the same CV, at the same position, with the same hour shifts, the woman would be making 10$/hour, while the man would be doing 12$/hour?



TurtleQueen said:


> @Eska
> 
> Even when women make the same choices as men in terms of the type of job they have and are equal to men in other factors that could impact pay (such as hours or years of experience), women are still statistically paid less than men. The pay gap shrinks but does not disappear entirely. In any individual company, men and women doing the same job may be paid equally or unequally.


Indeed, as I've said, sexism is present, but I highly doubt that it is present enough to the point of making it the prime issue behind the wage gap.



> I agree that sexism can happen to men too. If a qualified man was passed over for a job because he's a man, I do think that it's a serious issue. The male employee could have generated just as much profit for the business as the woman who got the job. *I don't think that employers are morally right to discriminate in hiring due to unfounded assumptions of how a man or a woman could create profit for the company.*


This is another topic, although, I will say that I disagree.
If pity is involved in an employment, it could hurt the profits of the company, and the company's goal is to make as much profit as it can, within reasonable/legal circumstances.



> My goal was not to convince you that an equal pay law should be passed. I agree with you that other issues need to be addressed if women want the opportunity to earn the kind of salary they desire and advance their career. My only goal was to convince you that the differences in pay between men and women were *not entirely a result of men and women making different choices.*


I know, I haven't denied that, and I've agreed with you in earlier posts.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

The wage gap tends to exist when people are paid above the minimum wage. Women cannot be paid below the minimum wage unless a lot of their job involves collecting tips (the situation for waiters and waitresses.)

I'd like to address your hypothetical:



Eska said:


> Hypothetically, if a woman and a man were both employed on the same day, with the same CV, at the same position, with the same hour shifts, the woman would be making 10$/hour, while the man would be doing 12$/hour?


Your hypothetical is very possible. An employer who doesn't pay all workers in the same job the same advertised (and therefore known to all employees) wage could pay women more than men or men more than women. Since we know that women tend to be paid less statistically (isolating other factors), women would probably be the group being paid less.

I don't think people should be hired on pity. I think that an employer should hire the best person for the job. I think that an employer shouldn't assume that a woman would make more profit at a gym than a man. A man may not have sex appeal for straight male customers, but he could be a good salesman or more personable than the woman who was hired.


----------



## Enlightenedakacrazy (May 16, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> The same work, under the same circumstances?
> 
> That is what I find odd, is it as if the minimum wage of women was lower than men's?
> 
> Hypothetically, if a woman and a man were both employed on the same day, with the same CV, at the same position, with the same hour shifts, the woman would be making 10$/hour, while the man would be doing 12$/hour?


Obviously the minimum wage is the same for both sexes. If you only looked at the lowest paid workers, I suspect that the gap would be smaller, if it existed at all. Where it exists the most is in fairly well paid industries where salaries are negotiated individually. Again, I have absolutely no idea how they actually go about measuring this. I know that they're _trying_ to measure the gap "under the same circumstances" but you'll have to have a look at the studies yourself to decide whether or not they actually succeeded.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Enlightenedakacrazy said:


> I can see how men in the past may have been aggressive with you if this kind of strawmanning is all you do whenever anyone is trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.


You really need to tread carefully.. is this a threat?

Edit: That was extremely uncalled for.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Enlightenedakacrazy said:


> I can see how men in the past may have been aggressive with you if this kind of strawmanning is all you do whenever anyone is trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.


This response was completely inappropriate. I am not an abuse survivor, but if I was you could have really fucking triggered me with this response. I was not stammering. I was objecting to arguments and language that I found offensive to abuse survivors and female abuse survivors in particular.

How do you know when someone is "intentionally" annoying you? Do you have any proof that it's intentional?

You seem to believe that women are "better" at emotionally abusing people. I think that men and women are equal in their capacity to be emotionally abusive. You say that I don't have any reason for my belief, but the only "good reasons" you have for your belief are built on personal experiences and stereotyping about women (including women's supposedly superior ability to handle emotions).

I think that most men don't hit women because they are decent enough to avoid hitting women. Most men are also smart enough to know that they could go to jail for it. I don't believe that *most * women emotionally abuse men or intentionally annoy them. I don't believe that even the few women who intentionally annoy men would usually realize that they're annoying a guy enough to make him want to hit her.

I never said that physical abuse was worse than emotional abuse. It's worse than emotional abuse in causing immediate physical injuries, but I wouldn't argue that it's "worse" in terms of overall impact. You're the one who has been saying a woman shouldn't poke a lion by "intentionally" (which you never explained) annoying a man. Is annoying a man emotional abuse according to your definition of that term? I even took up the situation of a man responding to emotional abuse from a woman with physical abuse and condemned both parties. Don't twist my words.

I don't appreciate you editing my quote. You could at least say that you "weren't interested" in the points I said instead of acting like I accused you of using straw man arguments and rambling. I tried to respond to the points you said. You did not do the same for me.

ETA: Apparently, he said my quote was "strawmanning" instead of "stammering." What he said to me was still awful.


----------



## Enlightenedakacrazy (May 16, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@_Enlightenedakacrazy_ -- If you're going to sling around personal insults, please do not participate in this thread. As a survivor of emotional abuse that probably would have become physical abuse had I married my abuser, I find your phrasing offensive. Abusers enjoy victim blaming instead of taking responsibility for their own abusive actions. I don't endorse people of that kind of mentality; please don't victim blame in this thread. It's counterproductive. Your words say more about you than they do about @TurtleQueen.


----------



## Enlightenedakacrazy (May 16, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Enlightenedakacrazy said:


> I guess you don't understand "fin". I'll play along though and pretend I didn't either, that way we can both be dishonest together.
> 
> Who cares what you finding offensive?
> I find a lot of things offensive, should I try to enforce censorship on everyone that offends me?
> ...


FWIW, there is nothing calm or reasonable about making personal insults in an argument. You made many of them. Quoted your post to make sure that the mods see this. Good day.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Enlightenedakacrazy said:


> I guess you don't understand "fin". I should've known though, considering you have the inferior gender.
> 
> Who cares what you find offensive?
> I find a lot of things offensive, should I try to enforce censorship on everyone and everything that offends me?
> ...


Wow, you edited it to make it even more offensive.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

...


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Yeah, I'd agree @Arturo. That guy showed his true colors, I guess. I thought a lot of his arguments about various forms of domestic abuse were potentially awful, but I tried to speak to him reasonably and acknowledge that emotional abuse is not okay. I thought he was attempting to make a legitimate contribution to the thread, but I guess he wasn't. It's more than a bit strange how someone who claims that emotional abuse against men is a terrible thing goes on to say that two women and a man who disagree with him should be raped. How is that not emotionally abusive?


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

@Enlightenedakacrazy

Hilarious, considering that you are the one that lacks the ability to control yourself. Your growing frustration is only proof of your weakness. For what it's worth, I have had a straw man or two used on me in this same thread, and my reaction was far more controlled than your own.

Your lack of respect for others is only a reflection of what is inside of you. By all means, show me more of your desperate attempts to feel good about yourself by putting others down. It only makes you look all the more pitiful.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Also, I would like to add that I don't think I posted 15 times in response to that user. I did have an Internet connectivity issue earlier today that resulted in a number of accidental repeat posts. I deleted the full text from those posts and wrote "accidental double post" so that he (and other users) wouldn't bother trying to read them. Some of those accidental posts were in response to @Eska.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

TurtleQueen said:


> Yeah, I'd agree @_Arturo_. That guy showed his true colors, I guess. I thought a lot of his arguments about various forms of domestic abuse were potentially awful, but I tried to speak to him reasonably and acknowledge that emotional abuse is not okay. I thought he was attempting to make a legitimate contribution to the thread, but I guess he wasn't. It's more than a bit strange how someone who claims that emotional abuse against men is a terrible thing goes on to say that two women and a man who disagree with him should be raped. How is that not emotionally abusive?


Yeah--that is not alright. This is a place of discussion, and people should not be harassed here. There are rules for the forum for a reason, and I am sorry for the people who had to be subjected to his inappropriate words.

Emotional abuse is wrong against anyone, no matter what gender.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> I'd like to address your hypothetical:
> 
> Your hypothetical is very possible. An employer who doesn't pay all workers in the same job the same advertised (and therefore known to all employees) wage could pay women more than men or men more than women. Since we know that women tend to be paid less statistically (isolating other factors), women would probably be the group being paid less.


That is initially what I thought the wage gap was about.



> I don't think people should be hired on pity. I think that an employer should hire the best person for the job. I think that an employer shouldn't assume that a woman would make more profit at a gym than a man. A man may not have sex appeal for straight male customers, but he could be a good salesman or more personable than the woman who was hired.


What you may see as "sexist" could actually be the employer employing who he thinks the best person for the job is.

That is part of why I find it odd that there is an assumption that sexism is a major part of the problem concerning the wage gap.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Arturo said:


> Yeah--that is not alright. This is a place of discussion, and people should not be harassed here. There are rules for the forum for a reason, and I am sorry for the people who had to be subjected to his inappropriate words.
> 
> Emotional abuse is wrong against anyone, no matter what gender.


~sighs~ You are right of course.. and now I am out of line as well. -.- I still stand by my feelings on the matter, but I apologize if I hurt your feelings @Enlightenedakacrazy.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Eska, I wouldn't assume that any particular person being hired for a job is sexist. You believe that the woman was hired based on assumptions that she would earn more money for the store due to her gender. If the gym followed that line of reasoning, she would be hired in a way that is misandrist to the male candidate. If I were that woman, I would want to be hired due to _my_ unique capabilities as a salesperson and receptionist. I wouldn't want to be hired because my employer made assumptions about my gender.

The wage gap is a distinct issue from discrimination in hiring. I'm sorry if I conflated the two issues in some of my earlier posts, but I was mostly referring to problems mothers can face. I wasn't sure if by "choices" you were also discussing the choices some women make in response to motherhood.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Sequestrum, you never went as far as @Enlightenedakacrazy did. I didn't mind him saying I was using strawman arguments against him or saying he wasn't interested in what I said. I did mind him saying that my "stammering" could have excused any inappropriate aggressiveness men have used against me in the past. I didn't like his personal insults against you, me, and @koalaroo. I really disliked his sexist language in his last post and his saying that he hoped we all got raped.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> @Eska, I wouldn't assume that any particular person being hired for a job is sexist. You believe that the woman was hired based on assumptions that she would earn more money for the store due to her gender. If the gym followed that line of reasoning, she would be hired in a way that is misandrist to the male candidate. If I were that woman, I would want to be hired due to _my_ unique capabilities as a salesperson and receptionist. I wouldn't want to be hired because my employer made assumptions about my gender.


Of course, there is more to take into count than gender.

Although, gender can be a tilting point (not sure what the correct expression is for that).



> The wage gap is a distinct issue from discrimination in hiring. I'm sorry if I conflated the two issues in some of my earlier posts, but I was mostly referring to problems mothers can face. I wasn't sure if by "choices" you were also discussing the choices some women make in response to motherhood.


Do you mean childcare?

Women not being hired because they are pregnant or have kids? Do you find that sexist?


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Enlightenedakacrazy said:


> You posted about 7 strawmen in each of the last posts. Dumb ******.


I'm white, for your information. But thanks for letting everyone know that you're racist as well as sexist! Do you want to get banned? At this point, you're clearly being a troll.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

> Obviously I was arguing that how my current and future posts were calm while talking about my past posts, yes, that makes perfect sense.
> 
> Dumb bitch that deserve to be abused is dumb.
> 
> You posted about 7 strawmen in each of the last posts. Dumb ******.


Trolling this hard takes commitment. _
_


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

-same-


----------



## JoetheBull (Apr 29, 2010)

I kind of feel the 5 things listed in the OP's quote are common sense things (there is the all humans are things (as in terms of anything that has mass) but not all things are human kind of thinking also). When it comes to dating, human dating rituals still kind of elude me regardless of gender or sexuality.

The article kind of pissed me off a little when it said stuff about gamergate and how its a bunch of angry men at woman for stuff. From what little I am still learning about the movement that the men and women of gamergate are more angry annoyed by the corruption and ethics in gaming journalism and how it affect people who develop games and the games themselves. Personally I started to look toward and try to keep up with gamergate was a bit after the gamers are dead articles. Which I found ridiculous since I still have a pulse and I am still alive. So the title is automatically wrong right there.

After reading the rest of the article my mind drew a blank and just thought to myself Humans are confusing. But that could be because I have no experience with dating.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Hehe, page 69...

Gamergate is a shitshow of epic proportions. No one really knows what it is about and seems to be fueled by magic and Sarkeesian feminazism.

I think a lot of the problems comes from a small portion of feminists/-nazis targeting a small portion of men. But they do it while representing all feminists casting blame on all men. 

Of course this will have men lash out against feminists, especially when the arguments used against them are inane at best.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Eska said:


> From another perspective, another candidate could complain by saying that the woman was employed out of pity. It could be said that competence is being overlooked.
> 
> I personally don't find it immoral to deny a pregnant woman a job because she is pregnant.
> Despite finding it unfortunate in some cases, making profitable decisions is part of business, in general.
> ...


I would agree that a woman shouldn't deserve special consideration just for being pregnant. I think that it shouldn't be an automatic penalty against her, however. Employers do have to make decisions about candidates who are very closely matched in terms of skills and years of experience. If an employer is torn between the top two candidates and one of them is a pregnant woman, I hope the employer will consider hiring her. I hope that the employer doesn't just see someone who's visibly pregnant and then mentally discard her as a candidate too early in the process before the employer can get a full sense of the skills and talents she could bring to the company.


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

Determined troll is determined.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

@Mee2 Quinn triggered Gamergate. Nobody talks about her for months.
There are asses involved in the movement, just like there are in the other side.
I've been a gamer for years I don't suffer from sexism since 2000, when there weren't that many female gamers.
I don't care if she slept or not with someone, that's her problem. The reviewer she slept with did NOT reviewed her game, I know that as well, but he defended her various times. I can link you to the articles he wrote about her later if you so wish.
4Chan bans anyone who speaks about Gamergate, it was a decision by it's mod. The whole thing started because of a bitter ex-boyfriend who felt betrayed by her. He created a Wordpress blog and did not go to 4chan post that.
That still doesn't take away the fact that Quinn has a horrible behaviour, according to others who meet her.
She tried to take down the Fine Young Capitalists (a group dedicated to make a contest for female indie developers) and barged about having to kill a guy who she accused to raping her to a female nude photographer.

Again I can link you to more information if you so wish.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Aya Saves the World said:


> Quinn triggered Gamergate. Nobody talks about her for months.


Exactly. She 'triggered' it in the way that it sparked investigations into video game journalists. It's never been about her.

Those investigations had indeed revealed that serious ethical violations had occurred. 
Exposed: The Secret Mailing List of the Gaming Journalism Elite

They all colluded to create "Gamers are Over" articles, thereby pissing off their entire audiences and causing the phenomenon of #Gamergate which is still going strong. They tried to deflect attention from their own abysmal behaviour by blaming it on misogyny, which has apparently worked to some degree because there's a decent amount of people who actually think that's the primary motivation behind the movement. But most of us aren't fooled.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Still on Gamergate and women on gaming












































This is the lead editor of the site gameranx.com



















This is Jon Safari also known as JonTron. He's an Youtuber who does humorous reviews on retro and retro related games. He's got a lot of shit because he's a Gamergate supporter. People have insulted him and send him death threats because of that, like they have done to many Gamergate supporters who have some notoriety on the internet. It's not just the precious other side getting shit for their views.





































Sam Biddle is part of Gawker website network which includes Kotaku



























The CEO of BuzzFeed


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

So, I went to bed and this thread got really entertaining. :shocked:


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Also more on Zoe Quinn






Sadly theinternetaristocrat deleted his Youtube channel and Twitter. He has a lot of information on Gamergate on both. However, Sargon of Akkad has more than a few videos about it from a Gamergate supporter vision with proof to back what he says.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> So, I went to bed and this thread got really entertaining. :shocked:


I try to make my share to make life interesting for others and myself.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Aya Saves the World said:


> I try to make my share to make life interesting for others and myself.


Haha that was more about the guy who trolled, got banned, made multiple accounts to troll some more.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> Haha that was more about the guy who trolled, got banned, made multiple accounts to troll some more.


I know, I was asleep while that happened too. XD


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Suddenly I feel so much more appreciative of the civility the other members here have shown during this time..
@_Eska_, @_TurtleQueen_, @_Ziggurat_, @_Apolo_, @_Aya Saves the World_, @_koalaroo_, @_Mee2_, and @_Wellsy_ and I am sure I am missing others..

You've all shown a great deal of respect towards one another, and I definitely appreciate that. Thank you all.

Edit: Also, please do not thank this post. It is meant to be a mass praise to you all, not to me.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Sequestrum said:


> Suddenly I feel so much more appreciative of the civility the other members here have shown during this time..
> @_Eska_, @_TurtleQueen_, @_Ziggurat_, @_Apolo_, @_Aya Saves the World_, @_koalaroo_, @_Mee2_, and @_Wellsy_ and I am sure I am missing others..
> 
> You've all shown a great deal of respect towards one another, and I definitely appreciate that. Thank you all.
> ...


Too bad, I'm thanking you anyways. I'm also very happy with how everyone is treating each other. I feel like we're starting to understand that most of us have similar core values as each other except we differ on how best to go about changing things for the better.

As far as my own perspective is concerned, I come into the conversation as a white man who was told throughout his university career that was to blame for a great deal of the suffering of all other groups in the world. I had to feign agreement with my professors' clearly flawed feminist talking points or else be punished with bad grades. I observed while the atheist community of youtube which I so enjoyed several years ago was destroyed when social justice warriors and feminists injected their own agendas into our discourse and called those who objected "misogynists". And here I am now, as the gaming community which I love so much is under a similar attack by people like Anita Sarkeesian and game journalists themselves. So I'm very much an antifeminist. But I'm absolutely in favour of equality of opportunity and of rights when the genders are concerned. I may be annoyed by vague, unsubstantiated claims like that the portrayals of women in video games, etc. (or of so-called "objectification) causes tangible damage to society's perception of women, but when it comes to the real important issues, I'm sure that I'd agree with many of you.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Sequestrum said:


> Suddenly I feel so much more appreciative of the civility the other members here have shown during this time..
> @_Eska_, @_TurtleQueen_, @_Ziggurat_, @_Apolo_, @_Aya Saves the World_, @_koalaroo_, @_Mee2_, and @_Wellsy_ and I am sure I am missing others..
> 
> You've all shown a great deal of respect towards one another, and I definitely appreciate that. Thank you all.
> ...


Sorry but I will thank it anyway.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Too bad, I'm thanking you anyways. I'm also very happy with how everyone is treating each other. I feel like we're starting to understand that most of us have similar core values as each other except we differ on how best to go about changing things for the better.





Aya Saves the World said:


> Sorry but I will thank it anyway.


Defiance is both an admirable and useful trait. =) And I agree with the core values... I think both TurtleQueen and Eska have been having such a great debate... I've really not had much to add. >.>


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

I might be splitting hairs but I think that men rarely ever treat women like 'things' (or vice versa). People in general tend to treat other people as objects of their own feelings at least some of the time but they aren't viewing them as non-mental objects, their assumed mental states and personalities have to do with their feelings toward them even if they don't sympathize with the independent feelings of the 'object' him or herself. I think it's inconsistent for feminists to emphasize the lack of responsibility that they have toward men (ie. catering to their sexual and romantic needs or their feelings in general) but criticize men for not considering their interests in scenarios where men at fault aren't violating their autonomy, they're just behaving in a way that feminists have a problem with but they should have the freedom to do this if feminists should not be responsible for the needs of those same men. Respecting someone's autonomy only means respecting someone's right to make all decisions regarding their body or their property and not respecting their actual decisions, not attempting to influence those decisions or respecting them (depending on what constitutes 'respect'). I wouldn't say this if the argument was only that women's interests (interests and not just 'rights') weren't given equal consideration but the two are sometimes conflated.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Sequestrum said:


> Defiance is both an admirable and useful trait. =) And I agree with the core values... I think both TurtleQueen and Eska have been having such a great debate... I've really not had much to add. >.>


I'm hard headed like that.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> As far as my own perspective is concerned, I come into the conversation as a white man who was told throughout his university career that was to blame for a great deal of the suffering of all other groups in the world. I had to feign agreement with my professors' clearly flawed feminist talking points or else be punished with bad grades. I observed while the atheist community of youtube which I so enjoyed several years ago was destroyed by social justice warriors and feminists injected their own agendas into our discourse and called those who objected "misogynists". And here I am now, as the gaming community which I love so much is under a similar attack by people like Anita Sarkeesian and game journalists themselves. So I'm very much an antifeminist. But I'm absolutely in favour of equality of opportunity and of rights when the genders are concerned. I may be annoyed by vague, unsubstantiated claims like that portrayals of women in video games, etc. (or of so-called "objectification) causes tangible damage to society's perception of women, but when it comes to the real important issues, I'm sure that I'd agree with many of you.


Nobody enjoys being slandered by others, regardless of the circumstances. That being said... life exists between a delicate balance of extremes. I think that is what is best to work towards.

Edit: To clarify what I mean.. the sun burns hot, but we can't live on the sun, out deeper in space is beyond cold, but we can't live out there. These things both need to exist, without the sun, we would freeze, without the void of space, we would burn. They both exist, yet we comfortably sit at a medium between the two.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Sequestrum said:


> I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't mean to goad you, I was just trying to lighten the mood a bit. =(


You can try, but I'm like a hurt lion when in a bad mood. I'll bite hard if I feel in danger.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Apolo said:


> I am not sure how I gave you that impression by my comment. I thought I was pretty general in my terms when I said kids can be bullies. I was not referring to one gender being any worse than the other, and in fact I have seen some pretty disturbing bullying from both genders. Which is why I outlined that in order to fix it, we need to focus on the root causes of the issue.


I got that impression by this post:


Apolo said:


> What he is not trolling, he is speaking the truth... I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to support his post... Until the feminists keep women from using their gender and sex appeal to get what they want, you won't get men to change either. Again, as I have state numerous times, this is a fruitless battle that will only waste time. With the moral decline of our country, comes further sexual immorality and discrimination. Feminists like to fight for immorality, but then want men to treat them morally. Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Haha, winner winner chicken dinner!!!


I could most certainly be wrong in my impression though.

Edit: Also, you could have changed your opinion on the matter since then. I probably shouldn't be bringing this up. =/


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Aya Saves the World said:


> You can try, but I'm like a hurt lion when in a bad mood. I'll bite hard if I feel in danger.


You probably aren't like me in this regard. I generally prefer to be alone when I am in a bad mood. Maybe some friends to call would be better suited to you though? Again, I am sorry. -.-


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Sequestrum said:


> You probably aren't like me in this regard. I generally prefer to be alone when I am in a bad mood. Maybe some friends to call would be better suited to you though? Again, I am sorry. -.-


Which friends? They're too busy.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Sequestrum said:


> I got that impression by this post:
> 
> 
> I could most certainly be wrong in my impression though.
> ...


I think you read to much into that, and assumed I only see one side of the coin. =) I was just bringing up one factor in particular in response to their post. That feminists most frequently pawn off the responsibility on men, and act as though it is a problem with them alone.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Apolo said:


> I think you read to much into that, and assumed I only see one side of the coin. =) I was just bringing up one factor in particular in response to their post. That feminists most frequently pawn off the responsibility on men, and act as though it is a problem with them alone.


To be quite honest, I have never been exposed to "feminists" before. So maybe I am missing out on that experience, maybe that is why I have a hard time relating to some of the things here. All of the friends I've had have never declared themselves to be "feminists" (I keep air-quoting that because the literal definition of the word seems to have changed from what the interpreted definition now is).

-.- I don't like suffering in the world. I'd like to come to a compromise on both sides.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

Just to interject some humor and because it seems apt:






#myeyesareuphere


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Tezcatlipoca said:


> Just to interject some humor and because it seems apt:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The video is broken.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

mhysa said:


> this is a problem i always have when i try to talk to someone about what rape culture is and what it means. they always say something like "but i don't see anyone saying 'rape is awesome' or having seminars on how to rape people!!" they completely misunderstand the fact that it's more sneaky and subtle than that - "normalization" doesn't mean that people are literally saying that rape is normal and a-OK. sometimes it feels like they're just intentionally being obtuse. it's especially frustrating considering the fact that rape culture still exists because people so vehemently deny it.


When people misunderstand, it is usually that either they aren't interested in listening and you aren't having a real conversation, or that you aren't communicating effectively on their level.

"Rape culture" has two definitions. The first is the layman interpretation - a culture where rape is widespread.

The second is the jargon definition, discussed by those who already have familiarity with the term.

(Jargon defined as "special words or expressions used by a profession or group that are difficult for others to understand.")

So before mentioning the term "rape culture" to those who are unfamiliar with the term, it would be much easier to understand if the subtleties are explained first. Then explaining that "rape culture" was used to describe this by specific people, eg. a book edited by Noreen Connell and Cassandra Wilson and later in the 1975 film Rape Culture. Citing the original context of the term is important as it provides a basis for the discussion.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

Jetstream Aya said:


> The video is broken.


Thanks

[VIDEO=youtube,7aW9VgEkIvM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aW9VgEkIvM[/VIDEO]


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

Jetstream Aya said:


> The video is broken.


Thanks

[VIDEO=youtube,7aW9VgEkIvM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aW9VgEkIvM[/VIDEO]


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Tezcatlipoca said:


> Thanks


.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> The one basic thing men still don't seem to understand about women
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see anything controversial in the quote from my perspective. I just don't grasp the "want to treat", its just natural for me.

That being said I don't have much experience of romantic relationship. 

But some of my friends point out on how women like the "bad boys". Even like trying to appear like assholes not to attract someone, ending with opposite result.
It would almost appear as if most woman dream to catch and tame bad boys. And failing the later leading to being treated like things. 
I mean even the sentence "and you really do want to treat women like human beings, go ahead and internalize these simple truths:" sounds like directed "manipulation" to those bad boys that seem to be tame-able, rather then to those who are inherently gentlemen anyway.


----------



## DualGnosis (Apr 6, 2013)

I'm a little upset in the sense that those five things need to be spelled out in the first place. I would assume most guys treat women as other human beings and with the respect and dignity that accompanies it. 

If a guy doesn't treat you as such, then he's an asshole. And you should do your best to have no affiliation with him whatsoever.

I don't know, I guess I'm just angry that some lady I don't know needs to tell me something so inherently obvious, that I wonder who is stupid enough to not know this already?


----------



## bigstupidgrin (Sep 26, 2014)

Humans: treat* other humans like human beings! Don't arbitrarily put them above or below you because of differences in gender, race, orientation, culture, religion, or creed.

*by treat I mean the actual real way you treat them. Jokes in the right environment can be funny and prove you aren't robots/overly sensitive. Please don't censor language/artistic endeavors because taken in the wrong context may violate ^. True equality doesn't mean censoring everything. That doesn't mean I support the pick-up strategy of putting women down. Honestly I thought that was trolling...

These gender debate threads are starting to get annoying...


----------



## bigstupidgrin (Sep 26, 2014)

DualGnosis said:


> I'm a little upset in the sense that those five things need to be spelled out in the first place. I would assume most guys treat women as other human beings and with the respect and dignity that accompanies it.
> 
> If a guy doesn't treat you as such, then he's an asshole. And you should do your best to have no affiliation with him whatsoever.
> 
> I don't know, I guess I'm just angry that some lady I don't know needs to tell me something so inherently obvious, that I wonder who is stupid enough to not know this already?


These posts are why we need a "thank 10 times" button.


----------

