Chamber of Secrets

Chamber of Secrets (http://www.cosforums.com/index.php)
-   Non Harry Potter Archives (http://www.cosforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=244)
-   -   Feminism: Definitions and Opinions (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=125690)

NumberEight December 22nd, 2010 10:12 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Muggle_Magic (Post 5673544)
IMO, of course it would. How, as a man, would you like to be addressed as "Ma'am"? :hmm:

I'm just checking to see if there's a double standard. To complain about "sir" in a television program that is inherently unrealistic and never strives to be the opposite just seems a bit strange.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muggle_Magic (Post 5673544)
You're stretching it here. But it's not for me to say, let the ladies respond to that.

I don't see how when people complain about the use of "actress". I think we should completely rewrite languages to get rid of that and languages that use a masculine and feminine form. ;)

Midnightsfire December 22nd, 2010 11:41 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
I like and appreciate the differences in language.

canismajoris December 22nd, 2010 11:58 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Muggle_Magic (Post 5673531)
All of those options are good for an informal meeting, but not a formal one. You can't see a politician's speech on the senate floor or a high-level meeting starting with "Folks", "People", or "You all". At least I can't imagine it.

Good point, but then in formal situations people may ostensibly have specific titles, e.g. "citizens," "members of the board," "Senators," "trustees," etc. ...

I mean, also I think since speech is not quite as formal as writing in general, and I think regional and vernacular speech is becoming increasingly acceptable in public life, it wouldn't wholly surprise me to hear a CEO address a group as "folks."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muggle_Magic (Post 5673531)
I do, for the reasons Fleur and Pox stated earlier. It implies that calling them "Ma'am" would reduce them to the rank of "lowly females" (this is a quote, don't jump on me!!!)

I'm actually reading an interesting book on this subject, since it has been discussed here and I've never been able to do any formal research. (It's called Language and Woman's Place by Robin Lakoff, from 1975--evidently her best-known work.) She has several examples of this sort of disparity, but one I find particularly problematic is "master" versus "mistress." In the same way as "sir" and "ma'am," there seem to be some problems in usage in attributing either or both to a particular sex. We may comfortably refer to any male as "sir" or "[a] master," but Lakoff suggests that the specific terms for women are simultaneously euphemistic and derogatory (more on this later). I.e. "lady" is a substitute for "woman" in that being a woman is already acknowledged as a disadvantage, and that a lady is (in aristocratic and chivalric terms) something of an improvement, or in other words that the presence of a euphemism in the first place is proof that the status of the referent is already denigrated. To that end she also points out that many usages of "lady" can connote both frivolity and an ennobling of something that is distasteful: she feels that "lady doctor" is at best condescending, since a doctor (a male term, as evidenced by marking a "woman doctor") requires no such enhancement, and the more demeaning the subject, the more likely "lady" is to occur. But since the premise of the whole line of inquiry is that usages are reflective of existing norms, consequently, I think the usages she describes are symptoms of the original disparity, while they are not in themselves necessarily a mechanism for creating or sustaining that disparity.

This leads me down a path with any questions and no answers. While women may face a double-edged sword in the way they speak and are spoken about, men face a similar dilemma in how we speak about them. On the one hand I'm not sure that using originally male terms for women or mixed groups is always the best approach, but we have to acknowledge that usage can and does change. Lakoff's own example of "master" and "mistress" seems to fall into this category. Her claim is that "a master" can be used for men in a variety of situations, but that "a mistress" has now only a sexual connotation (still largely true). But I think she moves on to a tangent that I don't really understand... attempting to discuss how coining a corresponding term for men in the sexual connotation of "mistress" would improve the situation. What I think is left unmentioned is that "master" can and does refer to women as well, and when its meaning in the master-servant relationship started to disappear, I think its gender-specific content did as well (that is, did start to disappear, it hasn't yet). No, I mean, she is making a fairly complex assertion with this example, so I'm definitely not rejecting it out of hand, I just think there's a wealth of variation that is unaccounted for, since Lakoff admitted her own observation and usage are the primary data set.

Ultimately then, I wonder whether insisting on separate gender-based terms for male and female occupations or positions is really productive at all. Allow me to quote this book: "The very notion of womanhood, as opposed to manhood, requires ennobling since it lacks inherent dignity of its own." If this is categorically true, and can be distinguished by linguistic analysis, then neither calling everyone "sir" nor using "ma'am" can be realistically said to correct the problem. It's not about changing what we call men, thus calling men "ma'am" is an asburd counterexample, it's a matter of how women benefit if we change what we call them. Since there is a dicohotomy between derogatory (and therefore feminine, frivolous) and prestigious (that which is like a man) terms for women in many lexicons, I'm not sure how much they do benefit by "ma'am," since this could be seen as separating them into a class of officers that is not to be taken seriously. The sexism exists already, and it is reflected in the language in both ways, and therefore in neither way in particular. Thus soldiers responding to female officers with the same obedience and respect as male ones is massively more important than what they call them. Don't you think?

Anyway, I'm by no means finished with the book, but I have a lot to think about now.

ETA: I'd like to add the disclaimer that the observations of a woman in 1975 could differ significantly from those of a man in 2010 without either being inaccurate.

FleurduJardin December 22nd, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberEight (Post 5673097)
I don't think there's anything wrong with a female officer in a television series being called "sir."

Let me remind you then of what you yourself wrote in the BSG thread:
Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberEight (Post 5591297)
As for the gender-equality issue, well, I don't care about that. It doesn't bother me. I would be flattered if I was addressed as "Sir" if I was a female officer, as it would make me feel equal to my male counterparts.

THAT is what's wrong. That to you being addressed as "Ma'am" is inferior to being addressed as "Sir". Man's the superior part of the sex duality in a lot of people's minds. :grumble:

So, whatever her accomplishments, a female officer is not "equal to her male counterparts" unless she's addressed with a male form of address? :hmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberEight (Post 5673532)
If reality was reversed, that women were considered superior and male officers were addressed as "ma'am," would the same opinion be held?

Seriously, I have to wonder if some of you think "woman" is a terrible word because the word contains "man" in it.

First question: Yes, the same opinion would be held.

Second comment: That's only true in the English language, and no one in here has spoken up against it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberEight (Post 5673553)
I'm just checking to see if there's a double standard. To complain about "sir" in a television program that is inherently unrealistic and never strives to be the opposite just seems a bit strange.

TV shows are part of the popular culture, and reflects the mores of that culture. That this happens in a show where equality between the sexes is taken for granted makes it more shocking from a linguistic point of view. As someone pointed out before, in other, just as unrealistic TV shows or movies, women officers are addressed as "Ma'am".

The only exception I can think of is the Mountie in "Due South" who addresses his female superior officer as "Sir" - which actually shocked my husband and me at the time - but in his case, said superior had, ahem, designs on him, and it's possible that the "Sir" was meant as a subtle (or not so subtle) deterrent. In all other shows with military or military-type settings, female officers are always "Ma'am".

In BSG, to boot, the female Prez, Laura Roslin is "Ma'am" unless she gives a particularly harsh order, in which case it's a reluctant "Yes, Sir". :rolleyes:

Quote:

I don't see how when people complain about the use of "actress". I think we should completely rewrite languages to get rid of that and languages that use a masculine and feminine form.
Well, in this case we agree since I'm among those who would like the feminine form used when the word does exist in the language. In English, "actress", "heroine", "goddess", "queen", "princess", "shepherdess", "heiress", "murderess" et al. all have my vote.

ETA - Yoana, that was a wonderful message. Thanks for sharing. :huggles:

ETA 2 - Canis, we posted at about the same time, so I only saw your post after mine was up. I'll have to read it carefully before I respond, should I feel a response necessary. Very interesting, though.

At first sight, after just a brief perusal, I'd say it confirms what both Melanie and I say, that somehow the feminine form of a word has, or has taken on, a negative connotation. The thing she and I disagree about is the way to do away with that negative connotation.

Concerning how to address a mixed group of people - They may not all be senators, trustees, whatever... So I think that "Ladies and Gentlemen" - in French "Mesdames et Messieurs" is the best and "safest" way to go about it. Let's say a TV host greets his audience. In France, it would be "Mesdames et Messieurs". Though, in the US, things being generally informal, "Hi, folks" would be OK. In France, the newscasters always start with "Mesdames, Messieurs, bonjour/bonsoir". In the US, it's just "Good morning", "Good afternoon" or "Good evening". Melanie, how is it in the UK? MmeB, do they say "Señoras y Señores" in Spain? :hmm:

NumberEight December 23rd, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FleurduJardin (Post 5673607)
So, whatever her accomplishments, a female officer is not "equal to her male counterparts" unless she's addressed with a male form of address? :hmm:

:rolleyes: Find a single post where I say or imply that. Unfortunately, females will never be considered equal to men. That's the reason I said what I did in the BSG post. This strawmanning makes me wonder why a lot of people hate feminists.

Pox Voldius December 23rd, 2010 4:11 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MmeBergerac (Post 5673310)
I lke the formula "Ladies and Gentlemen", and I don't think it's wrong at all. It's, as you've posted, a corteous way of adressing a mixed group of adults. What I can't stand is the overuse of that and other formulas. If you hear a politician giving a speech in Spain you'll surely hear something like:

Amigos y amigas, os aseguro que todos y todas los diputados y diputadas y los ministros y ministras trabajamos para que todos y todas los ciudadanos y ciudadanas...

¿En serio? Your politicians talk like that? Wow. That's just... overboard. And here I thought ancient texts were repetitive. :yuhup:

canismajoris December 23rd, 2010 7:17 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FleurduJardin (Post 5673607)
ETA 2 - Canis, we posted at about the same time, so I only saw your post after mine was up. I'll have to read it carefully before I respond, should I feel a response necessary. Very interesting, though.

At first sight, after just a brief perusal, I'd say it confirms what both Melanie and I say, that somehow the feminine form of a word has, or has taken on, a negative connotation. The thing she and I disagree about is the way to do away with that negative connotation.

Concerning how to address a mixed group of people - They may not all be senators, trustees, whatever... So I think that "Ladies and Gentlemen" - in French "Mesdames et Messieurs" is the best and "safest" way to go about it. Let's say a TV host greets his audience. In France, it would be "Mesdames et Messieurs". Though, in the US, things being generally informal, "Hi, folks" would be OK. In France, the newscasters always start with "Mesdames, Messieurs, bonjour/bonsoir". In the US, it's just "Good morning", "Good afternoon" or "Good evening". Melanie, how is it in the UK? MmeB, do they say "Señoras y Señores" in Spain? :hmm:

Yeah I mean, I can't deny that the disparity between women and men is reflected in certain sectors of language. But I'm just not convinced that this is a matter which can be corrected via language itself--if the vestigial conventions in language are even indicative of people's contemporary opinions, which I can't really confirm either. My problem is this: Though ample evidence exists in our various languages that men and women are regarded wholly differently, I don't see how addressing this manifestation in language gets at the heart of the matter. For one thing, if two assertive and intelligent women such as you and Melanie can't agree on the matter, then it makes me wonder if there is really a right answer rather than two or more competing preferences. On a more empirical level though, I think it can be demonstrated that efforts to neutralize language is not in itself an indicator of equalized gender relations.

I think Lakoff's seemingly underlying assertion has relevance here, that women are typically defined (conceptually, not just linguistically) by their relationships to men, while men are defined by their own agency. As a man, I have opportunistic biological and social agendas, and a woman's potential utility to me is of some importance, whether I am permitted to express it or not. Altering my mode of expression to shroud these agendas is not likely to alter these agendas--I will still desire sex and social prominence as much as I did whether I'm using gender neutral terms or not. At least I think so. Given that I do (according to this author) use a great deal more feminine speech than most men, perhaps my estimation of a womans' utility to me and her own autonomy are not really mutually exclusive. There is some consolation there, that everyone is a socially egotistical animal and gender distinctions are matters of biology rather than social value, but I can't suggest that this is universally true.

What I just can't wrap my mind around is that by using some of this language I'm upholding or advocating some form of latent sexism. Because I really don't subscribe to it. I may assume that doctors and layers and professors are men because most of the one I've known have been, and the language I use may favor this position--does this then suggest that I believe a woman can't or shouldn't be one? I don't think so. But there is certainly room for debate. I think this book presents somewhat dated evidence, but its core principles are still worth examining, namely that women are socialized to speak in such a way that they can't escape from being denigrated, that social conventions (which inform semantics) favor male autonomy only, and so on (I'm not finished yet :D).

Muggle_Magic December 23rd, 2010 8:20 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberEight (Post 5673666)
:rolleyes: Find a single post where I say or imply that.

Personally, that's what I understood when you said that if you were a woman and someone called you "sir", it would make you feel equal to men. In my mind, it implies that being called "ma'am" would make a woman feel inferior. Guess I misunderstood. :shrug:

Quote:

Unfortunately, females will never be considered equal to men. That's the reason I said what I did in the BSG post. This strawmanning makes me wonder why a lot of people hate feminists.
Can you seriously say "females will never be considered equal to men"? Do you actually believe that? Oh, my! I can't wait for one of the women to come in on this. :yuhup:

I don't get the "strawmanning" thing here. Nor why (if it's true) "a lot of people hate feminists." Can't wait for a female voice to come in on this either. :whistle:

I'm outta here before the storm hits!!! :eeep:

MmeBergerac December 23rd, 2010 2:15 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
PoxVoldius: the example was a bit exaggerated, but not too much. Our politicians usually suffer a severe case of fear to not to look politically correct enough, along with a general lack of knowledge and common sense. So they usually sound more or less as I wrote, and sometimes fall in complete nonsense while trying to be more Papist than the Pope, like that one (I don't remember who exactly, but it was a woman) who, trying not to use the word l*der (leader), which is neutral but perceived as male for not ending on -a, "invented" the word lideresa.

Fleur: In Spain, TV shows, or at least the news, which are the most formal, usually begin with "buenas tardes, señoras y señores" (well, with the proper time of the day, of course). The formula "damas y caballeros" is more old-fashioned and, now I think of it, it is not usual to hear it outside a theatre.

NumberEight December 23rd, 2010 5:08 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Muggle_Magic (Post 5673811)
Personally, that's what I understood when you said that if you were a woman and someone called you "sir", it would make you feel equal to men. In my mind, it implies that being called "ma'am" would make a woman feel inferior. Guess I misunderstood. :shrug:

The keyword is "feel." As I said, females will never be considered equal in any society, especially in America. It's the sad truth. Our politicians just don't care. There still isn't an equal pay law, which is a downright shame. Religion also comes into the mix in regards to fundamentalists, who think women should submit to their husband's will. My stepfather is an example and it really, really upsets me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muggle_Magic (Post 5673811)
I don't get the "strawmanning" thing here. Nor why (if it's true) "a lot of people hate feminists." Can't wait for a female voice to come in on this either. :whistle:

The strawman is that I apparently said that no female officer can equal a man's accomplishments unless they are addressed as "sir." I said no such thing. I said I would "feel" equal and I put that comment into the context of what I was thinking at the time, that females will unfortunately never be considered equal.

canismajoris December 23rd, 2010 9:48 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberEight (Post 5673666)
:rolleyes: Find a single post where I say or imply that.

Let's review:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberEight
As for the gender-equality issue, well, I don't care about that. It doesn't bother me. I would be flattered if I was addressed as "Sir" if I was a female officer, as it would make me feel equal to my male counterparts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberEight (Post 5673666)
Unfortunately, females will never be considered equal to men. That's the reason I said what I did in the BSG post. This strawmanning makes me wonder why a lot of people hate feminists.

The sum of these comments is not, as Fleur suggested, a mere implication that women can only feel equal to their male counterparts if addressed as "sir," it is an assertion that women will never be equal to their male counterparts under any circumstances. Is this really the position you wish to defend?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberEight (Post 5673940)
The strawman is that I apparently said that no female officer can equal a man's accomplishments unless they are addressed as "sir." I said no such thing. I said I would "feel" equal and I put that comment into the context of what I was thinking at the time, that females will unfortunately never be considered equal.

Actually I think a rather charitable inference was made compared to what you're actually saying. I don't agree with you at all. I feel men are equal to women in all reasonably possible ways, because my experience has taught me this. It's not just some ideology that I decided to adopt because it was trendy. I think it's extremely dangerous to follow your line of thinking that the goal is unattainable, because then what is the point of trying? How do these statements hit you?

Women will never be able to run businesses.
Women will never be able to own land.
Women will never be able to vote.
Women will never be able to make decisions about their own bodies.
Women will never be able to make the same salary as a man.

For every case where these have been proved false there are cases where they are still largely or entirely true. If you think that equality is a pipe dream, I wonder what you'd say to women in Uganda who are evicted from their rightful homes, or girls in Nepal who are sold into slavery, or women in Saudi Arabia who want to be politically involved but have no rights, or women in the U.S. who deserve higher wages but won't ever earn them? That there's no help for them because women will never be considered equal? Sorry, but I hope you're not right.

Significant ETA: I can't double-post, so please consider this bit separately: I want to post some additional quotes from this Lakoff book for further discussion:

pg 41My point is that linguistic and social change go hand in hand: one cannot, purely by changing language use, change social status.


pg 45I think one should force onself to be realistic: certain aspects of language are available to the native speaker for conscious analysis, and others are too common, too thoroughly mixed throughout the language, for the speaker to be aware each time he uses them.


pg 45Attempt to change only what can be changed, since this is hard enough.


pg 46[Regarding "herstory" and "himicanes"]: If this sort of stuff appears in print and in the popular media as often as it does, it becomes increasingly more difficult to persuade men that women are really rational beings.

Muggle_Magic December 24th, 2010 6:44 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by canismajoris (Post 5674088)
How do these statements hit you?

Women will never be able to run businesses.
Women will never be able to own land.
Women will never be able to vote.
Women will never be able to make decisions about their own bodies.
Women will never be able to make the same salary as a man.

Let me add:
Women's hands are not steady enough for them to be surgeons.
Women's hearts are too soft for them to be soldiers.
Women cannot be leaders, except of a group of women and/or children.
Women are not creative. There is no good woman composer, painter, writer, etc.
Women are too instable ("Frailty, thy name is woman") to be trustworthy.

For the second one of my examples above, let me just remind everyone of how, in Africa, when taken prisoners, black and white warriors alike prayed they would not be given over to the women, for they could be ten times crueller than the men. It also forgets all the famous woman warriors in history.

Back to BSG, I see Fleur's point. In that TV series, the society depicted is really a society where the two sexes are absolutely equal. Two of the best fighter pilots (Starbuck and Boomer) are women, and everyone acknowledges this. The most ruthless commander is a woman (Admiral Helena Cain.) Among civilians as among military personnel, there is no distinction between men and women. The distinction is either one of class (if you come from a rich planet, you're more likely to come up in life, nobody not named "Adama" will ever command Galactica, etc.) - And yet, in this ideal "equality of the sexes" society, a woman in command is still addressed as "Sir". IMO, that's a major flaw in the writing of the script. Because, as Bill Canis quoted:

Quote:

My point is that linguistic and social change go hand in hand: one cannot, purely by changing language use, change social status.
True. But in BSG's case, why didn't the language change to reflect the equal social status?

Quote:

I think one should force onself to be realistic: certain aspects of language are available to the native speaker for conscious analysis, and others are too common, too thoroughly mixed throughout the language, for the speaker to be aware each time he uses them.
Very accurate observation.

Quote:

[Regarding "herstory" and "himicanes"]: If this sort of stuff appears in print and in the popular media as often as it does, it becomes increasingly more difficult to persuade men that women are really rational beings.
I'd never seen "himicanes" but, for both, :rotfl:

I'd note, though, that for a long time (until the 1970's), hurricanes were given exclusively female names. It was only after feminists protested that they went to the system of alternating male and female names for tropical storms and hurricanes.

Unfortunately, people trying to change the language go to absurd lengths to do it, and it's counter-productive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberEight
females will unfortunately never be considered equal.

What a pessimistic view! They actually already are, though the countries or places where they are are few and far between. But it's coming.

We've come a long way since the 1970's. There's still a long way to go, but we're getting there.

ETA - It strikes me that the two posters who responded to NumberEight are men. The women are, for some reason, staying silent on this.

But that two men do stand up forcefully for the feminist point of view is, IMO, an encouraging sign. Both Bill Canis and I know that women are the equals of men, and that it's only a matter of time that they are universally considered so. I firmly believe this.

NumberEight December 24th, 2010 7:14 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by canismajoris (Post 5674088)
Is this really the position you wish to defend?

<snip>

Yes. I have a cynical outlook on life and that will never change. I don't ignore the accomplishments because they have indeed happened. Listing them won't change my mind, however. When you have a world where women are seen as inferior by millions, if not billions, that line of thinking won't be eradicated. What goes on in the middle East in regards to women will never change. Every church around the world allowing women to preach the gospel will never happen. Equal pay in America, even if a bill is signed into law, will not be followed by all employers. If you want to put words in my mouth and make it look like I think we should give up when striving for equality, that's your prerogative. Even though I think the goal for complete equality will never happen, at least trying increases the chances of attainability.

Melaszka December 24th, 2010 11:59 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
All of you please stop sniping at one another. Be careful not to put words people didn't actually say into their mouths. Equally, though, if someone misrepresents what you've said, 99 times out of 100 it's usually because they genuinely misunderstood you, not because they are trying to make out you said something you didn't. A polite "Sorry if I worded it confusingly, but that's not what I meant" is usually all it takes :)

Also, discussions about the concrete legal and social rights that women have achieved or seem likely to achieve in various societies belong better in this thread, not here

FleurduJardin December 27th, 2010 6:34 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by canismajoris (Post 5673784)
My problem is this: Though ample evidence exists in our various languages that men and women are regarded wholly differently, I don't see how addressing this manifestation in language gets at the heart of the matter. For one thing, if two assertive and intelligent women such as you and Melanie can't agree on the matter, then it makes me wonder if there is really a right answer rather than two or more competing preferences. On a more empirical level though, I think it can be demonstrated that efforts to neutralize language is not in itself an indicator of equalized gender relations.

I think the disagreement between Melanie and me has roots both generational and linguistic.

Generational because I'm much older - I'm more than twice your age, Bill Canis, and it's possible I'm twice Melanie's age too*. I've seen the situation as it was in an era before you were born and Melanie was a toddler. The era when telling a woman "Hey, you're quite smart for a girl" was thought to be a compliment. The era when, a lot more than now, anyone in a position of power, or in a "prestigious" profession was automatically assumed to be a man. The younger generation kind of takes for granted (and minimizes the importance of) things we had to fight very hard for.

I was working for the UN as a translator, but when I said I worked for the UN, the question was usually "Are you a secretary?" or "Are you a guide?". A woman friend of mine, who was chief of her own department, was visited once, in her UN office, by FBI agents whose first question was, "Are you the chief's secretary?"

As to the UN itself, my friends and I were instrumental in changing the title of the leaflet for visitors which was called "Every Man's United Nations" to "Everyone's United Nations". That's rather illustrative, don't you think?

Though from the start, it was equal pay for equal work for both genders, there were glaring disparities in benefits (being met at arrival in NY, home leave benefits for spouses, security matters when working on the night shift, etc.), which we managed to correct in the late 1970's to early 1980's. The UN itself (I'm not talking about Member States) has, as much as possible, achieved gender equality. There's hope yet for the rest of the world.

The linguistic disagreement stems from the fact that my main language (French) doesn't have neutral articles, while English does. It makes a world of difference. I've already written at length about it and won't bore you all with a repetition.

ETA - Oh, and at the UN, no woman, in power or not, is ever addressed as "Sir". Even among the security officers, who are our police force and hold military ranks (sergeant, lieutenant, captain, etc.).

*ETA 2 - I just looked at Melanie's age and no, I'm not twice her age. I'm not quite THAT old. :lol: If I had had children early enough, I could still be her mother, though, so the generational gap is there.

DancingMaenid December 27th, 2010 11:13 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Melaszka (Post 5672874)
My problems with -ess and -trix endings in English are:

(a) they are not a feminine equivalent of the -or or -er endings they replace (as is the case with -euse for -eur or -ienne for -ian in French), they are a suffix added to that ending and both etymologically and semantically, I feel they have a diminutive quality. NOT because they are feminine (like I said, I don't have that problem with -euse in French, because it's not a suffix added to the male title and it doesn't have a trivial sound to it - I can't explain this, -ess just sounds patronising to me.)

This is pretty much how I feel, and you put it better than I did.

I'm not inherently against gendered words, though they do make things more awkward for people like me who aren't comfortable applying them to ourselves. I don't really have a problem with languages like French and Spanish that have masculine and feminine endings for words.

But a lot of feminine words in English are altered versions of existing words. And while I can see the innocent and even positive reasons for wanting to differentiate between a male actor and a female actor, for example, I can also see the more sinister reasons why some people might care.

I find it kind of interesting that the word "authoress" is rarely used anymore. Today, women make up a large percentage of readers, and a respectable percentage of writers and editors are female. I don't know if the two trends are connected, but it does make me wonder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberEight (Post 5674329)
When you have a world where women are seen as inferior by millions, if not billions, that line of thinking won't be eradicated. What goes on in the middle East in regards to women will never change. Every church around the world allowing women to preach the gospel will never happen.

Prejudice, in general, seems to be part of the human condition, unfortunately. So no, we may not eradicate it, or prejudice against women in particular, totally.

But I don't know that that's necessary. There will always be some people who cling to outdated and discriminatory beliefs. What's important is that they don't hold the rest of us back.

FleurduJardin January 5th, 2011 6:25 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
With all the current debates on, and re-reading of the US Constitution, I'm reminded of these famous words from the US Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

It seems evident to me that "all men" did not include either women, or men of colour. "Men" doesn't have the meaning of "mankind" here" (as in "Man is a mammal which suckles its young" :lol: )

Ditto for the French Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen) - women, though addressed as "citoyenne" - "citizeness" if you read Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel series, or other books set during the French Revolution - didn't have any civil rights. Certainly not the right to vote. However they certainly had the right to be beheaded.

Which is, once again, why I'm set against the "neutral" form (which is almost always the masculine form, as in "actor/actress", "hero/heroine") of a word because, whether we want it or not, it always has a gender connotation in languages where articles are neutral. In languages where articles have a gender, that problem is much less blatant. I'm not going into Asian languages because the article system there is a lot more complicated and outside the purview of this discussion.

ETA - Melanie, I forgot. Personally, I don't think "ess" or "ette" are patronizing. There's nothing patronizing in "Mistress", "actress" or "brunette" in my opinion. And I think that "bachelorette" actually has less negative and down-putting connotations than "spinster".

Muggle_Magic January 7th, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
On the topic of addressing women in traditionally male positions. I don't remember where I read it, but it seems that the first two women to be elected at the Académie française were addressed as "Monsieur." :rolleyes:

One new male member was berated because he made the mistake of starting his maiden speech with "Mesdames, Messieurs".

It struck me as I was typing it - the term "maiden speech" for the first speech of someone elected to a high position, whatever the person's gender. :yuhup:

PrtVeela March 24th, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12843948

The article speaks to the nature of gendered language and Mexico's attempts to reduce the amount of sexist language.

So this brings me to my question, are there things that a government can do to prevent sexist language? If so, do you think these types of measures would be effective?

Bonta Kun March 24th, 2011 6:30 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
1. How would you define feminism?

The fight for equality between genders.

2. Do you define yourself as a feminist? If so, why? If not, why not?

Yes.

3. What positive things (if any) do you think the feminist movement has achieved?

Voting, being able to own and inherit property are pretty big ones, but countless smaller things too.

4. What (if anything) do you think the feminist movement should be working to achieve now? What methods do you think should be used to achieve those goals?

In the Western world the issues I have are equality in the work place- women are still earning less than men in the same positions. Also, I do not think girls are encouraged to pursue dominant job positions and still have the mindset that men are better at certain things than them. Even in typically female jobs it is often men taking the lead- for example, more women teach at a primary level than men but there are more male headmasters. More women are hairdressers than men but it seems all the household names are males. I think child support such as on site creches in large companies are something to encourage more women to take leading jobs.

In other parts of the world there are still huge amounts of things that need to be done, female genital mutilation being one of the more horrible things which I wish would be wiped out.

Education is the main way forwards- for both young girls and young boys.

5. What negative effects (if any) do you think the feminist movement has had?

I think most of the things feminism has changed have been good, but I do feel as though there is a lot of confusion with regards to working mothers. Personally I think everyone should have a choice about whether they return to work once they have had a child or not, but there seems to be bickering between either side. It seems as though some feminists don't like the idea of women being stay at home mothers, and some stay at home mothers think working mothers are not looking after their children properly. This is not really a major issue compared to the horrible abuse women have been through, but I think it is an issue that new mothers have to think about and it can be tough for them. I don't think stay at home mothers should be looked down upon- and I'm sure a lot more women would rather stay at home with their child if they could afford to give up work.

6. Have you had any negative experiences of feminists in RL?

Not personally, no.

7. Do you feel there are any common misconceptions about feminism and what would you say to someone who holds these misconceptions?

'Hairy legged man haters' spring to mind, as does the phrase 'militant feminist' which is just ridiculous (as ridiculous as the so called 'militant vegetarians') These kind of characters only seem to live in films and TV programmes but a lot of people assume that if you are a feminist you hate men or something ridiculous like that.

FleurduJardin May 20th, 2011 8:46 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberEight (Post 5673553)
I don't see how when people complain about the use of "actress". I think we should completely rewrite languages to get rid of that and languages that use a masculine and feminine form. ;)

That's the point I've been trying to make all along. If a word already exists in the feminine form, why not use it? It doesn't make sense to me.

On that matter, you'll be interested to know that on all the probate papers pertaining to the settling of my husband's estate, I'm appointed as the Executrix - the probate court used the feminine form in all its decisions, and I'm instructed to put "Executrix" after my name every time I sign a paper relating to the estate.

Midnightsfire July 18th, 2011 12:50 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Richard Dawkins Gets into a Comments War with Feminists

Opening Serve: Richard Dawkins made an unexpected appearance in the comments section of biologist PZ Myers' post at Scienceblogs.com last week. Myers was commenting on Rebecca Watson's recent experience being propositioned in a hotel elevator by a male attendee of a conference at which Watson had just spoken in Dublin. Dawkins got himself into hot water by commenting in the form of a sarcastic letter to a Muslim woman, pointing out how trivial Watson's experience in the elevator was compared to the abuses Muslim women deal with on a daily basis. "Stop whining will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and...yawn...don't tell me again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery," he wrote. "But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with."

Return Volley: Several Science Blogs readers reacted negatively to Dawkins' comment. "Did you just make the argument that, since worse things are happening somewhere else, we have no right to try to fix things closer to home? By that argument, I shouldn't complain when our local high school biology teacher tosses around idiot arguments because there are children elsewhere who can't even go to school? Or I shouldn't complain that my sister was raped by three men because far worse things are happening now in the Congo?" wrote commenter Brother Ogvorbis. Another commenter by the name of Forbidden Snowflake asked, "What right have you to bemoan the teaching of creationism in your country while people are dying of malaria in West Africa?"


Things go back and forth (Moreso in the link). Kind of like...here.

Erinacchi July 22nd, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
1. How would you define feminism?
Someone who wants to get men and women perfectly equal.

2. Do you define yourself as a feminist? If so, why? If not, why not?
I've been a feminist all my teenage life. I've noticed that at school boys are often treated... I don't know, more capable than us girls and I wanted to prove it wrong. Then... well, then I became a feminist. I don't believe in men being better then us females.

3. What positive things (if any) do you think the feminist movement has achieved?
Well, in some countries men and women are becoming more equal what comes to treatment and women aren't treated as servants any longer. Sadly this doesn't cover all countries, but the way is right.

4. What (if anything) do you think the feminist movement should be working to achieve now? What methods do you think should be used to achieve those goals?
In some countries (mostly Islamic) the female rights should be greatly improved. I don't know what methods should be used, maybe teaching boys from the beginning that women are important members of the society, not just servants.

5. What negative effects (if any) do you think the feminist movement has had?
Haven't noticed anything, except that some men seem to consider us as man-haters. Which at least I am not, neither my feminist friends.

6. Have you had any negative experiences of feminists in RL?
Nope.

7. Do you feel there are any common misconceptions about feminism and what would you say to someone who holds these misconceptions?
Well, some boys in my school have asked me if I hate men. I always say that I don't. I'm a feminist, but I still dream about a boyfriend, and I have some boys as friends. I'm trying to treat all my friends, whether men or women, equally.

Midnightsfire July 22nd, 2011 2:08 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Erinacchi (Post 5780029)
1. How would you define feminism?
Someone who wants to get men and women perfectly equal.

2. Do you define yourself as a feminist? If so, why? If not, why not?
I've been a feminist all my teenage life. I've noticed that at school boys are often treated... I don't know, more capable than us girls and I wanted to prove it wrong. Then... well, then I became a feminist. I don't believe in men being better then us females.

That word "capable" is tricky.

Mentally capable, or to have the appropriate attitudes, outlooks for some jobs for example, wouldn't be much of a problem in "equality."
Physically capable however is another story.

ephydriads August 4th, 2011 9:05 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
[list=1][*]How would you define feminism?
The belief that men and woman should have equal opportunities.

[*]Do you define yourself as a feminist? If so, why? If not, why not?
Yes.

[*]What positive things (if any) do you think the feminist movement has achieved?
Well, I can vote and get a job that should theoretically pay me the same as a man. Getting an education isn't unusual, nor is having an opinion. The ability to be independent is good.

[*]What (if anything) do you think the feminist movement should be working to achieve now? What methods do you think should be used to achieve those goals?
The whole double standard around sexuality really upsets me [staff edit]. I guess educating people is the best place to start.

Erinacchi August 4th, 2011 3:04 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire (Post 5780046)
That word "capable" is tricky.

Mentally capable, or to have the appropriate attitudes, outlooks for some jobs for example, wouldn't be much of a problem in "equality."
Physically capable however is another story.

Well, I meant mentally.

PoisonusIvy August 5th, 2011 12:25 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
1. How would you define feminism?
Someone who stands for woman's right to have equal opportunities and make the same choices as men.
2. Do you define yourself as a feminist? If so, why? If not, why not?
Usually I define myself as an equalist, because I do not only "fight" for women's right, but men's as well (in cases where they are traditionally surpressed, like when dealing with children after a divorce).
3. What positive things (if any) do you think the feminist movement has achieved?
Lots! The right to vote, right to education, right to do the same work as men, abortion rights, rights to decide what to do with my own life and my own body.
4. What (if anything) do you think the feminist movement should be working to achieve now? What methods do you think should be used to achieve those goals?
I think women still should be motivated to focuse on their careers, because women still do most of the housework and take care of their children for longer. It is possible to split the maternity and paternity leave however you want it here (basically, except a few weeks set aside for each parent), but the mom usually takes most of it. I think we need to work on making it common to have a more equal share of share of those little duties, in everyday life.

On a bigger level, of course it's important to still focus on women in other countries and try to get them educated and working, so they can provide for themselves someday (like girl schools in Africa f.ex).
5. What negative effects (if any) do you think the feminist movement has had?
I honestly cannot think of any.
6. Have you had any negative experiences of feminists in RL?
No, none.
7. Do you feel there are any common misconceptions about feminism and what would you say to someone who holds these misconceptions?
That feminists want to surpress men and be surperior in society. This isn't true, we just want the equal opportunities to do what we want with our lives.

Siriusandme September 6th, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
CNN has an article on female rescue workers during the 9/11 attacks.

http://us.cnn.com/2011/US/09/05/beyo...html?hpt=hp_c2

The comments are horrendous. A few examples:

Quote:

TrollByCarl
I bet those women made some good sandwiches for those brave and hard working men.
Quote:

tomeng marycarouba: ANSWER 1: There are few women because of sexual oppression. ANSWER 2: There are few women because they do not have the strength and courage. Now I expect that the truth lies somewhere in between. And as hard as this may be for you, you must accept the possibility of aspects of #2

Quote:

MVDouche Apparently there is no end in sight to the line of people that want to make 9/11 ALL ABOUT THEM.

FurryDice September 7th, 2011 8:18 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
The user-name of the first one is quite appropriate. I get the impression these comments are from people trying to stir up an argument.

Melaszka September 7th, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
The third one is pretty ironic, coming from someone who probably watched 9/11 unfold from the comfort of his sofa and is now using an article about rescue workers who (whatever your view of gender politics) undoubtedly risked their own lives for others in order to make a couple of cheap jibes about women.

Sereena May 8th, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatifically (Post 5668990)
For instance, there are many POC who hate white people, but, because of their hatred, should we say we do not advocate helping them achieve their rights? Granted, every ideology (social, religious, political, etc.) has extremists one way or another, but this is a poor excuse to say that one does not support a cause. I think this applies to feminism as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoana (Post 5668996)
I wonder how that "stigma" came to be at all. Since MOST feminists are not man-haters or extremists of any sort. Actually I don't wonder that much...

I know this is a late reply but I wanted to adress these points anyway. I think the man hating accusation is one of the most tiresome and hypocritical ones. I recently read about some protests in my country because a theater decided to play a controversial Valerie Solanas work. Many men took this to be a confirmation that they were right, that feminists really do hate men. The actress involved in the play received death threats daily and had to be provided with body guards (interestingly enough, the male director received no hatred at all). As feminists pointed out in the ensuing debate, there is no shortage of male authors who write texts which are degrading to women (either implicitly or explicitly) yet no one organizes protests against them nor accuses all men of being misogynists. (Indeed, it would quite tiresome for women to have to organize a demonstration whenever a rapper came out with a song describing how much he'd like to f-word a b-word.)
So I think all this shows how controversial it is in our society to question or challenge masculinity in any way or to express anger at the current relations between sexes.

Yoana May 9th, 2013 8:18 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6070032)
I know this is a late reply but I wanted to adress these points anyway. I think the man hating accusation is one of the most tiresome and hypocritical ones. I recently read about some protests in my country because a theater decided to play a controversial Valerie Solanas work. Many men took this to be a confirmation that they were right, that feminists really do hate men. The actress involved in the play received death threats daily and had to be provided with body guards (interestingly enough, the male director received no hatred at all). As feminists pointed out in the ensuing debate, there is no shortage of male authors who write texts which are degrading to women (either implicitly or explicitly) yet no one organizes protests against them nor accuses all men of being misogynists. (Indeed, it would quite tiresome for women to have to organize a demonstration whenever a rapper came out with a song describing how much he'd like to f-word a b-word.)
So I think all this shows how controversial it is in our society to question or challenge masculinity in any way or to express anger at the current relations between sexes.

Another case in point: Anita Sarkeesian at TEDxWomen about the widescale hate campaign she found herself a target of for her Tropes vs Women in Video Games debates. She was a target of a massive, organised hate campaign complete with death and rape threats and tracking down her address and personal details for the crime of making a series of debates about misogyny in the gaming industry - a very male-oriented, male-dominated industry that has been suffering from no similar hate campaign from supposedly man-hating feminists.

ETA: The video ends on a very hopeful and cheerful note so I recommend watching it.

Sereena May 9th, 2013 11:34 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
I had watched some of her videos on Youtube and enjoyed them but I had no idea who she was or what the campaign was about. She seems to be a very brave and intelligent woman- no wonder she gets hate mail from idiots :(

Yes, online harassment is a serious issue and it doesn't just happen to feminists but also to women who express any modern political views or anti-racist opinions. It's a democratic problem because these threats aim to silence the women. Luckily, the opposite happened to Anita as the video shows.
It's interesting how the idea of gender equality is perceived as a threat to male identity and sadly many men feel feminism wants to turn them into "sissies", whatever that means. Some women feel the same way and also argue that feminism makes men weak which I think is a huge slap in the face to men who take their parental responsibilites seriously for example and don't subscribe to the macho culture.(Okay, I have to confess, anti-feminism women annoy the hell out of me. I don't excuse sexism in any one regardless of gender but with men at least you can understand why they don't want to lose their privileges. The women just want to gain some male approval, I suppose...). :elaugh:

Tenshi May 12th, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6070161)
(Okay, I have to confess, anti-feminism women annoy the hell out of me. I don't excuse sexism in any one regardless of gender but with men at least you can understand why they don't want to lose their privileges. The women just want to gain some male approval, I suppose...).

And there we have yet another reason to dislike feminism. General assumptions like that. No, I do not want to gain male approval. I don't care what others (man or woman) think about my way of thinking. I don't do it to please or displease any gender.

The difference between you and me is that I find the comments posted above (the ones about the 9/11 women) funny and true. When a comedian makes good jokes about women, even when he portraits them as weak and silly, then I am laughing.
When a women doesn't get a job, then my first thought is that she probably didn't have the right qualifications and not that the boss hates women.

halfbreedlover May 12th, 2013 2:06 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
It's quite simple for me. Feminism is about equality, human rights, and the radical notion that women are human.

I don't understand how anyone can be opposed to that. When I hear women say they hate feminism, I just can't help thinking "So...you hate having the right to vote, own property, make decisions about your body and reproduction etc..?"

That's what feminism is to me. There's no rule that you HAVE to be offended by certain jokes, nor does it say that women have to be hired for every job that they apply to. A feminist blog I read, once asked it's readers to name their favorite "Feminist Guilty Pleasures" i.e. things the readers know are kind of misogynist but enjoy anyway. Readers listed things from sexist comic books to sexist comedians to books. Personally, I have a weakness for celebrity fashion blogs. I think as long as you're aware that what you're doing is problematic, and you're aware that it doesn't completely reflect reality, then it is ok. Our culture is so steeped in sexism and patriarchy that it is nearly impossible to live your life avoiding all traces of it.

Sereena May 12th, 2013 2:08 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenshi (Post 6070940)
And there we have yet another reason to dislike feminism. General assumptions like that. No, I do not want to gain male approval. I don't care what others (man or woman) think about my way of thinking. I don't do it to please or displease any gender.

Okay, but I think you misunderstood me, or I expressed myself in a bad way. I don't think anyone should be a feminist, I know not all women are into it. My problem is with people who are anti-feminist and this is based on the people I've met which held such opinions. Please don't take my comments as representative for the entire feminist movement. They are based on my personal experiences and yes I won't lie but those women annoyed me (one of them asked me for example why feminism isn't about men since 50% of people are men. I think we can all agree this is a silly comment). That doesn't mean I am annoyed with everyone who isn't a feminist. There are political and social movements I don't identify with either.

Quote:

The difference between you and me is that I find the comments posted above (the ones about the 9/11 women) funny and true
In what way are they true? As far as I can tell, they are degrading to the contributions of women to the relief they provided for the victims of 9/11. I don't see anything funny or true at all, I see men with low self esteem trying to make themselves feel better, which is what these online harassments essentially boil down to, IMO.

Quote:

When a comedian makes good jokes about women, even when he portraits them as weak and silly, then I am laughing.
That's perfectly fine but then I would also expect you to laugh when a female comedian makes degrading jokes about men.

Quote:

When a women doesn't get a job, then my first thought is that she probably didn't have the right qualifications and not that the boss hates women.
There are plenty of jobs I didn't get and I'm sure it wasn't because of sexism. But when people try to claim that sexism in the work place doesn't exist at all, that's when I get sceptical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halfbreedlover (Post 6070944)
It's quite simple for me. Feminism is about equality, human rights, and the radical notion that women are human.

I don't understand how anyone can be opposed to that. When I hear women say they hate feminism, I just can't help thinking "So...you hate having the right to vote, own property, make decisions about your body and reproduction etc..?"

Exactly, yes.

Melaszka May 12th, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Just a reminder not to insult or dismiss other people (whether present on this thread at the moment or not) for having views different from your own. This is NOT a private members club for feminists to slag off people they disagree with - it's a debate thread where everybody is welcome. You can say, "I disagree with the view that...", but can we please avoid comments like "People who think X really irritate me". And please avoid making comments which imply that every reasonable person will agree with you. Respect alternative viewpoints.

Siriusandme May 13th, 2013 11:35 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
I understand what people mean when they say they support feminism but dislike certain feminists. It sometimes seems there is a (small) group (as it seems mostly women) who go out of their way in feeling insulted/offended at everything that happens. To me (celebrity) fashion blogs are not sexist. They are about fashion. I look at them because these women wear clothes I'd like to wear but can't afford or would make me look like the Michelin character. If someone holds the door open for me I don't think he does so because he thinks I'm incapable of doing so myself and I don't see how some women could feel otherwise. To me this is not sexism. It's manners. I would never want a woman to get a job simply because she is a woman and if I thought someone offered me a job because of that sheer pride might force me to decline.
I'm not naive but I refuse to go through life thinking everyone out there is out to get me. I sometimes think women who do give feminists a bad name.

Sereena May 13th, 2013 5:16 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Siriusandme (Post 6070990)
If someone holds the door open for me I don't think he does so because he thinks I'm incapable of doing so myself and I don't see how some women could feel otherwise. To me this is not sexism. It's manners.

I don't mind men doing that either, my boyfriend does it. What bothers me is when men feel insulted if you don't need their chivalry or help. It happens to me a lot that men try to take my luggage from me even after I thanked them and told them I don't need any help. They insist that I am incapable even though I had been carrying my luggage by myself up to that point so obviously I can handle it. That's annoying to me because the point of offering help should be doing something for someone else, not doing it to make yourself feel good and then getting angry when you are refused.
Another problem is when these nice gestures actually seem false because the men who hold doors for you or pull out your chair at the restaurant are sometimes the same men who expect you to become more or less their housekeeper once you're in a relationship with them. Then it's no longer about respect, it becomes an empty and superficial gesture because the respect for women the gesture should imply isn't actually there.

Quote:

I'm not naive but I refuse to go through life thinking everyone out there is out to get me. I sometimes think women who do give feminists a bad name.
Of course there should be a middle ground between complete paranoia and denial that social injustice exists. I don't think that's why some people dislike feminism though. It's quite possible, IMO, that some people simply think men have more rights and possibly better lives because they deserve it while women somehow don't. I'm no expert but it's probably human nature to assume that those in power must be special in some way or better than others and if women just managed to be as "awesome" as men are, they would get rights and leadership positions as well. If that's the case, then there is no need for feminism.

FurryDice October 8th, 2014 6:04 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Here's something that's stood out to me lately. I will start by acknowledging that this is purely anecdotal and only based on what I have seen of online comments but I think it shows the truth of how equality is still not a reality.

Remember the reaction to the nude photo scandal - plenty of commenters were saying that the actresses concerned were foolish to take the photos, foolish to store them on the cloud, what did they expect, etc.

However, when a British MP (Brooks Newark) was recently caught sending nude photos of himself to a stranger online, the reaction was one of sympathy, of how unfair it was that it was a tabloid sting operation.

So the tabloid was in the wrong, but the hackers (thieves) were not?
The actresses and singers were at fault for taking nude pictures - that they did not send to strangers, and the male politician was not at all in the wrong for sending nude pictures to a stranger? The women took pictures for their own private use and yet are victim-blamed. The man sent the pictures to a complete stranger and is the victim who was deceived by the newspaper reporters. Hmmm. Apparently, it was foolish of actresses in the public eye to take private pictures, but the male politician in the public eye was a victim, who was deceived at the sight of an attractive woman and the idea that she wanted him?

My point is - if it's foolish to upload intimate pictures to a cloud, why is it not equally or even more foolish to send intimate pictures to a complete stranger? If it's wrong to lie to get nude photos of a man in the public eye, why is it not wrong to steal nude photos of a woman in the public eye?
It seems like the gender of the people involved is the only difference and the only reason for the different reactions.


Again, admittedly, this is only based on the comments section of a news site, but I find the differing reactions a reinforcement of the lack of equality, of the differing attitudes to men's and women's rights and the differing expectations placed on men and women.

flimseycauldron October 8th, 2014 10:20 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6071005)
I don't mind men doing that either, my boyfriend does it. What bothers me is when men feel insulted if you don't need their chivalry or help. It happens to me a lot that men try to take my luggage from me even after I thanked them and told them I don't need any help. They insist that I am incapable even though I had been carrying my luggage by myself up to that point so obviously I can handle it. That's annoying to me because the point of offering help should be doing something for someone else, not doing it to make yourself feel good and then getting angry when you are refused.

Some men, though, are offended for other reasons. The first one is if someone is offering to help you it's kinda like a slap in the face if you refuse. They are doing it to be polite and are being turned down, apparently, because it has been predetermined that they are being sexist. I have seen men hold open doors for the lady in the wheel chair and the lady who is capable of opening the door herself and the the father with two toddlers in tow and the guy on his cell phone. It is just courtesy. Not to mention the fact that men who hold doors open for people are generally taught to do so by their mothers NOT their fathers. :p

canismajoris October 9th, 2014 5:35 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6093895)
If it's wrong to lie to get nude photos of a man in the public eye, why is it not wrong to steal nude photos of a woman in the public eye?

Well I think they're both wrong, but there is another key difference. For better or worse (worse, I'm pretty sure), one and only one of those set of photos was obviously in demand. I'd be willing to bet views of the stolen celebrity photos increased thousands of percent after it was reported they were posted online--I know I never would have known they existed in a million years if every media source in the universe hadn't talked about them.

I'm not saying that's a good thing, mind you, but I just think this had some darker origins than mere (mere?) sexism. I saw in this a combination of our modern, skeevy celebrity worship, and the sad insanity of insulated online communities where users no long really think of other people as people. On that subject, I'd recommend taking a look at Jennifer Lawrence's recent comments in Vanity Fair. She reinforces with her personal experience what a lot of people seem to have missed: it was very much a crime and a violation (and if you ask me, she's clearly still not OK about it, even if she doesn't have a choice but to move on).

Well if nothing else, perhaps the crime and surrounding media event will remind people that public figures are actual human beings.

Oh and yes I heard quite a lot of people saying that the celebrities were "asking for it" by daring to store personal photos online... utter ********.

Wab October 9th, 2014 5:51 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Of course they weren't asking for it, but storing anything in the cloud shows a massive lack of judgment.

Alastor October 9th, 2014 6:14 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wab (Post 6093914)
Of course they weren't asking for it, but storing anything in the cloud shows a massive lack of judgment.

So it does. But stupidity is not a sin even if it sometimes brings lots of trouble.

Wasn't it, btw, rather recently that the mainstream media started to tell about how unsafe the cloud is?

FurryDice October 9th, 2014 11:50 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wab (Post 6093914)
Of course they weren't asking for it, but storing anything in the cloud shows a massive lack of judgment.

As does sending nude photos to a complete stranger. But strangely, the criticism was mainly of the tabloid for their underhanded sting operation and not of the politician for his lack of judgement. Contrast that with the thieves being virtually ignored and the actresses and singers being mocked and criticised.

Also, does "massive lack of judgement" mean that anyone who uses online banking and gets hacked has been careless? Anyone who buys something online and has their credit card details stolen has made an error in judgement? Anyone whose online details are in any way compromised has shown a "massive lack of judgement"? IMO, focusing on the supposed "mistakes" of the victims detracts from the fact that this was a crime. The accounts were hacked, the photos stolen. The thieves are responsible for this. Not the victims.

Whereas the man who made his own decision to send nude photos to a stranger elicits sympathy as the victim of a tabloid sting operation. There's largely sympathy for him and disgust at the tabloid in the comments. I don't see too much disgust at the hackers or sympathy for the victims in comments on the photos of Jennifer Lawrence and others'

Canis Majoris - I agree with a lot of your post. I'll have to go look up that interview. However, IMO, it's not just about the demand for one set of photos and lack of demand for others - it's about the reaction, it's about who is being held responsible for the photos being in the public domain. It's about it being somehow understandable for a man in the public eye to deliberately send nude photos to a stranger and foolish for a woman in the public eye to take nude photos for private use.

Wab October 9th, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6093923)
Also, does "massive lack of judgement" mean that anyone who uses online banking and gets hacked has been careless? Anyone who buys something online and has their credit card details stolen has made an error in judgement? Anyone whose online details are in any way compromised has shown a "massive lack of judgement"? IMO, focusing on the supposed "mistakes" of the victims detracts from the fact that this was a crime. The accounts were hacked, the photos stolen. The thieves are responsible for this. Not the victims.

Did I say they were responsible? No. So stop putting words in my mouth.

The simple fact is that online banking and shopping services entail a risk but the services are far more secure than most cloud servers.

And while online banking entails risks, so does physical banking.

While it would be wonderful if we lived in a world where everyone was kind and played by the rules, we don't.

I should be able to go on holidays, leave my house open and return to find all my possessions still in place. Won't happen, so I take precautions.

For the same reason, I have refused to use cloud services for any kind of storage of files I don't want people to access for the simple reason they aren't as secure as they should be.

As for people who email or text images of themselves, I have little sympathy as there is a difference between failing to take precautions and actively taking risks.

Midnightsfire October 10th, 2014 3:16 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
*agrees with Wab*

Just in the past few years, everyone online has had to hear that taking a photo and putting it anywhere online never goes away. If a person doesn't want his pics potentially available to the public, then that person should never post them.

No one has condemned Jennifer Lawrence beyond pointing out the risk she took putting them online.
When the hacker/s get caught their name/s will be all over the media and if successfully prosecuted, they'll go to prison as the last person that did this sort of thing.

HedwigOwl October 10th, 2014 6:15 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice
However, IMO, it's not just about the demand for one set of photos and lack of demand for others - it's about the reaction, it's about who is being held responsible for the photos being in the public domain. It's about it being somehow understandable for a man in the public eye to deliberately send nude photos to a stranger and foolish for a woman in the public eye to take nude photos for private use.

I agree. There was an incident in the Illinois US Senate race in 2004, where Jack Ryan walked away from the race under political pressure from his own (Republican) party. The issue was release of some details of previously sealed divorce documents, which contained information about his attempts at getting his wife to visit and participate in sex clubs, specifically to have sex in front of strangers who enjoyed watching. As this evolved through the media (who was responsible for getting the judge to unseal a small part of the divorce settlement for the public good), after the initial surprise wore off, it was stunning how much of the public commentary centered on defending Jack Ryan, and making derogatory comments about his wife (Jerri Ryan) and trying to somehow place blame on her. Incidentally, both had requested sealing the documents to protect their then 9-year-old son; neither appealed the ruling on the unsealing, giving rise to speculation on what else was in the mostly redacted document.

canismajoris October 11th, 2014 8:42 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl (Post 6093951)
I agree. There was an incident in the Illinois US Senate race in 2004, where Jack Ryan walked away from the race under political pressure from his own (Republican) party. The issue was release of some details of previously sealed divorce documents, which contained information about his attempts at getting his wife to visit and participate in sex clubs, specifically to have sex in front of strangers who enjoyed watching. As this evolved through the media (who was responsible for getting the judge to unseal a small part of the divorce settlement for the public good), after the initial surprise wore off, it was stunning how much of the public commentary centered on defending Jack Ryan, and making derogatory comments about his wife (Jerri Ryan) and trying to somehow place blame on her. Incidentally, both had requested sealing the documents to protect their then 9-year-old son; neither appealed the ruling on the unsealing, giving rise to speculation on what else was in the mostly redacted document.

I think a lot of people in the public and media had simply had bad experiences with the Borg, and so they assumed she was at fault.

HedwigOwl October 13th, 2014 4:23 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by canismajoris (Post 6093976)
I think a lot of people in the public and media had simply had bad experiences with the Borg, and so they assumed she was at fault.

:lol:

Sereena October 14th, 2014 6:39 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire (Post 6093947)
*agrees with Wab*
No one has condemned Jennifer Lawrence beyond pointing out the risk she took putting them online.

I think in situations like these we need to look at the larger context and to me there are two aspects to this. One of them is that, like others have mentioned, we live in a celeb obsessed culture where people feel entitled to know every intimate detail about someone just because they saw her/him in a movie once or twice. The other aspect is that there's obviously a "market" out there for pictures of naked women, in this case celebrities (I don't think any male celebrity got his phone hacked into). I think that's where the gendered aspect of it comes in. It's not just the hackers who are to blame but also everyone who looked at these pics and thought they had a right to do so.

Another thing is that after Emma Watson delivered her UN speech on gender equality she was subjected to intense internet hatred and people threatened to release naked pictures of her. To those people, releasing naked pics of her was a way of dehumanizing her, turning her into an object and in the end silencing her or making sure no one takes her seriously. This is also sexism. So I think that by just focusing on who took which risks we're missing the bigger picture. It wouldn't matter what risks women took if there weren't people out there ready to take advantage of the situation and if we didn't live in a culture which made it (somewhat) okay to do so.

Wab October 15th, 2014 5:13 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6094038)
I think in situations like these we need to look at the larger context and to me there are two aspects to this. One of them is that, like others have mentioned, we live in a celeb obsessed culture where people feel entitled to know every intimate detail about someone just because they saw her/him in a movie once or twice. The other aspect is that there's obviously a "market" out there for pictures of naked women, in this case celebrities (I don't think any male celebrity got his phone hacked into).

It wasn't their phones directly, it was iCloud. And although there haven't been images of men (as far as I know) the News Ltd revelations show that gender is no protection in violations of privacy.

Sereena October 17th, 2014 11:26 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wab (Post 6094048)
It wasn't their phones directly, it was iCloud. And although there haven't been images of men (as far as I know) the News Ltd revelations show that gender is no protection in violations of privacy.

I agree, I don't think either gender is immune to invasions of privacy. What I'm saying is that this invasion can be done for different purposes and that these purposes are gendered. In the case of Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities the only purpose was to find nude pictures of them and objectify them. It wasn't about a political scandal or about ruining their reputations. It was about objectification and this is something that women are more often victims of than men. That's not to say that this means men suffer less than women from privacy violations, just that it is done for different reasons depending on the gender of the victim (and possibly other factors).

Midnightsfire October 17th, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
A lot of men don't care about being objectified. Just the opposite at times seeing that their ummm sex-appeal is less an object and more an icon.

FurryDice October 17th, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
[quote]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire (Post 6093947)
*agrees with Wab*

Just in the past few years, everyone online has had to hear that taking a photo and putting it anywhere online never goes away. If a person doesn't want his pics potentially available to the public, then that person should never post them.

That's the general consensus. But in the case of Brooks Newmark, the general consensus was that the tabloid was in the wrong for deceiving him, not that he was in the wrong for sending nude pics to a stranger. I'm wondering why the double standard. There's sympathy for a man who sends nude photos to a stranger and gets stung, no sympathy for women who take nude photos for personal use, for a partner they know, and then have them stolen.

Quote:

No one has condemned Jennifer Lawrence beyond pointing out the risk she took putting them online.
When the hacker/s get caught their name/s will be all over the media and if successfully prosecuted, they'll go to prison as the last person that did this sort of thing.
And the victim-blaming excuse won't be used as a "mitigating factor"? As in the case of the guy at the Lincoln Memorial who got away with taking photos up women's skirts because they were in public?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl (Post 6093951)
I agree. There was an incident in the Illinois US Senate race in 2004, where Jack Ryan walked away from the race under political pressure from his own (Republican) party. The issue was release of some details of previously sealed divorce documents, which contained information about his attempts at getting his wife to visit and participate in sex clubs, specifically to have sex in front of strangers who enjoyed watching. As this evolved through the media (who was responsible for getting the judge to unseal a small part of the divorce settlement for the public good), after the initial surprise wore off, it was stunning how much of the public commentary centered on defending Jack Ryan, and making derogatory comments about his wife (Jerri Ryan) and trying to somehow place blame on her. Incidentally, both had requested sealing the documents to protect their then 9-year-old son; neither appealed the ruling on the unsealing, giving rise to speculation on what else was in the mostly redacted document.

I hadn't heard about that. How interesting - she didn't want to go to these sex clubs, have sex in front of strangers, and the public decided she was the one at fault? Nice display of misogyny there. If she had gone, the same hypocrites would surely be calling her the s-word. Was this politician very popular with voters?

[quote]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6094038)
I think in situations like these we need to look at the larger context and to me there are two aspects to this. One of them is that, like others have mentioned, we live in a celeb obsessed culture where people feel entitled to know every intimate detail about someone just because they saw her/him in a movie once or twice.

I think entitlement is a big part of this problem. Both in the case of the hackers and the tabloid - they felt entitled to intrude on the privacy of someone else. And I do not think that being in the public eye -whether as a politician or as a celebrity - entitles anyone to see that famous person naked. It's not simply a consequence of being in the public eye; it's a gross invasion of privacy. (Admittedly, in the case of male politicians, it's about disgracing them, sabotaging their career, rather than wanting to see their nude pics for gratification)

Quote:

The other aspect is that there's obviously a "market" out there for pictures of naked women, in this case celebrities (I don't think any male celebrity got his phone hacked into). I think that's where the gendered aspect of it comes in. It's not just the hackers who are to blame but also everyone who looked at these pics and thought they had a right to do so.
That's a point - there were no male celebrities whose pics were stolen. Why is there no "market" for these photos? People who are attracted to men also have sex drives, after all.

I agree that those who were looking at the pictures are also to blame. Which is why I found it highly entertaining when I read about the supposed video of Emma Watson that was doing the rounds. Apparently, when the user clicked on the link, it downloaded a virus onto their computer. Well deserved, I think, if it was true.

It also brings to mind the hypocrites who looked at the photos and then, to make themselves feel better, wanted to donate to a men's charity. I have a lot of respect for that charity for turning down that offer, as it seems these idiots wanted to turn it into a kind of ice-bucket thing - look at the photos, then donate to a men's charity. As if it wasn't a woman whose privacy they were violating.

Quote:

Another thing is that after Emma Watson delivered her UN speech on gender equality she was subjected to intense internet hatred and people threatened to release naked pictures of her.
Sad. It seems that a young woman speaking about feminism infuriates the inadequate and the entitled?

Quote:

So I think that by just focusing on who took which risks we're missing the bigger picture. It wouldn't matter what risks women took if there weren't people out there ready to take advantage of the situation and if we didn't live in a culture which made it (somewhat) okay to do so.
I agree. Focusing on the risks the woman takes is also a double-edged sword, because women who do take precautions, and who dare to mention that they feel the need to take precautions, not just on-line but in real-life, are met with the "not all men" whine. I think this one is more in real-life than on-line.
But it can also be digital - suppose a woman refuses to send her partner nude pics/videos because she doesn't want him to post them online in revenge if they split up? Does she get met with the "Not all men" rubbish? And if she does, and he posts them, she should have been more careful. Which is it?
I don't think one can have it both ways. If you're going to say that women should take precautions, "should have" done x, y and z, then how can one also turn around and say "Not all men" when women do take precautions? When they're wary? Tell a woman she "should have taken precautions", but when a woman does take precautions and he feels offended, out comes the "Not all men" line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6094094)
I agree, I don't think either gender is immune to invasions of privacy. What I'm saying is that this invasion can be done for different purposes and that these purposes are gendered. In the case of Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities the only purpose was to find nude pictures of them and objectify them. It wasn't about a political scandal or about ruining their reputations. It was about objectification and this is something that women are more often victims of than men. That's not to say that this means men suffer less than women from privacy violations, just that it is done for different reasons depending on the gender of the victim (and possibly other factors).

I agree. The reasons are different - a scandal-seeking tabloid going after a married Conservative politician who willing sent his photos to a stranger versus hackers who stole actresses' photos for the sole purpose of objectifying them. Both are wrong, but only one treats the victim as an object. Only one stole. In only one case did the victim themselves freely send the photos to a stranger, and yet, this is the only one who gets sympathy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire (Post 6094100)
A lot of men don't care about being objectified. Just the opposite at times seeing that their ummm sex-appeal is less an object and more an icon.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Could you clarify? My reading of it is that men own their sexuality whereas women don't. Or is it that male sexuality is a good thing, whereas female sexuality is shamed? Or are you saying something else entirely?

Midnightsfire October 17th, 2014 6:26 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094102)
There's sympathy for a man who sends nude photos to a stranger and gets stung, no sympathy for women who take nude photos for personal use, for a partner they know, and then have them stolen.

Never heard of any sympathy for the man. Other guys have pretty much just said "So what?" Indifference has been the rule.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094102)
And the victim-blaming excuse won't be used as a "mitigating factor"? As in the case of the guy at the Lincoln Memorial who got away with taking photos up women's skirts because they were in public?

If the guy got away with taking photos, it's because there isn't a law saying differently.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094102)
I hadn't heard about that. How interesting

Even more interesting since it didn't negatively affect Jeri Ryan.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094102)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Could you clarify? My reading of it is that men own their sexuality whereas women don't. Or is it that male sexuality is a good thing, whereas female sexuality is shamed? Or are you saying something else entirely?

A lot of guys are either indifferent, joking or bragging about it.
Rarely is there any shame.
Weiner's wiener...joking see?

FurryDice October 17th, 2014 7:16 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire (Post 6094105)
Never heard of any sympathy for the man. Other guys have pretty much just said "So what?" Indifference has been the rule.

There was criticism of the tabloid that deceived Brooks Newmark in the way there wasn't criticism of the thieves who stole the photos of young women. There was talk like "what did you expect him to do when an attractive young woman appeared to be interested in him?" It's as if he did nothing irresponsible, whereas Jennifer Lawrence and others are considered irresponsible. It's the double standard that gets me.

Quote:

If the guy got away with taking photos, it's because there isn't a law saying differently.
I wonder if the same law would be interpreted differently if it was a woman shooting photos up the trousers of a guy in loose shorts. Or a man taking those photos of a guy in loose shorts, for that matter.

Quote:

Even more interesting since it didn't negatively affect Jeri Ryan.
Even so, if some people seemed to think a woman was to blame for the impact of a sleaze scandal on her husband's political career when she refused to be pressured into having sex in front of an audience. That speaks volumes about the attitude towards women among those individuals. With people like that, a woman cannot win, cannot ever be in the right. And that's the problem - if she had gone and it had been made public, those people would surely have been calling her the s-word, criticising her for agreeing to it.

Midnightsfire October 18th, 2014 2:20 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094106)
There was criticism of the tabloid that deceived Brooks Newmark in the way there wasn't criticism of the thieves who stole the photos of young women. There was talk like "what did you expect him to do when an attractive young woman appeared to be interested in him?" It's as if he did nothing irresponsible, whereas Jennifer Lawrence and others are considered irresponsible. It's the double standard that gets me.

Hearsay doesn't mean much to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094106)
I wonder if the same law would be interpreted differently if it was a woman shooting photos up the trousers of a guy in loose shorts. Or a man taking those photos of a guy in loose shorts, for that matter.

What is this "same law" you speak of?
But what if a woman tries that on a guy, what do you think the guy's reaction might be? Probably not something she'd want to provoke...
Or a man provoking another man for that matter, but for different reasons, reasons that might involve violence.
See how that might work? A man's reactions would likely be different from a woman's.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094106)
Even so, if...

That word "If" borrows trouble that isn't there.

Once upon a time I worked in private security, and responded to a fight that broke out in a bar. The state police were also there. My supervisor talked to them as well as the guy with the bloody nose and his few friends, and the guy that threw the punch. And also his wife. Supervisor told me it was nothing. Later he told me that the drunk was getting a little too aggressive with the flirting with the other guy's wife who wanted nothing to do with him. So Romeo got a bloody nose as a result. Police said the same thing my supervisor said; "He got what he deserved." So...no reports filed. It didn't happen.
In hindsight, this might have come across as far more topical had the wife decked him instead.

FurryDice October 18th, 2014 3:29 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
[quote]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire (Post 6094113)

What is this "same law" you speak of?

For it to get as far as a judge, presumably there were grounds for arrest. Yes, the judge threw it out, but I'm assuming that in a person can't be arrested on a whim.

Quote:

But what if a woman tries that on a guy, what do you think the guy's reaction might be? Probably not something she'd want to provoke...
Or a man provoking another man for that matter, but for different reasons, reasons that might involve violence.
See how that might work? A man's reactions would likely be different from a woman's.

That just points to cowardice. Entitled cowards preying on someone they assume won't be able to physically defend themselves. Some guy takes a photo up a woman's skirt because he's pretty sure she won't be able to punch him if she sees him.

I'd like to think that most people would refrain from invading someone else's privacy out of basic common courtesy rather than fear of repercussions.

Quote:

That word "If" borrows trouble that isn't there.
There's no "if" about it. HedwigOwl's post stated that Jeri Ryan was treated to derogatory comments, whereas her ex-husband was defended.

Midnightsfire October 19th, 2014 5:14 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094115)
For it to get as far as a judge, presumably there were grounds for arrest. Yes, the judge threw it out, but I'm assuming that in a person can't be arrested on a whim.

This happened in MA. A man arrested for taking photos. And the judge said flat out there wasn't a law against it. It made the news. And never did a state congress move so fast to get a bill on the governor's desk.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094115)
That just points to cowardice. Entitled cowards preying on someone they assume won't be able to physically defend themselves. Some guy takes a photo up a woman's skirt because he's pretty sure she won't be able to punch him if she sees him.

But if her husband is there...
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094115)
I'd like to think that most people would refrain from invading someone else's privacy out of basic common courtesy rather than fear of repercussions.

Civilization was never based on common courtesy.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094115)
There's no "if" about it. HedwigOwl's post stated that Jeri Ryan was treated to derogatory comments, whereas her ex-husband was defended.

No proof..just her word doesn't do much for me.

Sereena October 19th, 2014 10:08 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire (Post 6094113)
Or a man provoking another man for that matter, but for different reasons, reasons that might involve violence.
See how that might work? A man's reactions would likely be different from a woman's.

I can't speak for other women, but if I caught someone taking pictures up my skirt... it wouldn't be pretty. I also think you're overestimating how much men are intimidated by other men. It'snot obvious from your story if the husband of the woman was there when the drunk was flirting with her but it's possible the drunk was given a verbal warning first, thought he was the tougher guy and proceeded anyway. Since it's considered "unmanly" to back away from a fight, men are more likely to get beat up, as opposed to women who know their limits and run.

FurryDice October 19th, 2014 4:01 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire (Post 6094127)

But if her husband is there...

Her husband?? A woman should not need to be with a man in order to be safe. The possibility of getting beaten up should surely not be the only thing that deters a man from treating a woman like an object. If that's the only thing that deters a man from taking photos up a woman's skirt, then there's something seriously wrong with that guy.

Quote:

Civilization was never based on common courtesy.
No, that's why we have laws.

But I'd like to think that most people have the decency not to invade other people's privacy. I'd like to think most people have the decency not to use other people as sex objects. I'd like to think that the law isn't the only thing stopping most people from committing murder, rape, robbery etc. So, I'd also like to think that the law or seeing a muscly man isn't the only thing stopping most people from taking photos up a woman's skirt. I'd like to think that common courtesy and conscience play a part for most people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6094130)
I can't speak for other women, but if I caught someone taking pictures up my skirt... it wouldn't be pretty.

I agree. I think a lot of women would react strongly. Hopefully, next time he tries this, the woman reacts as he would expect a man to.

Quote:

I also think you're overestimating how much men are intimidated by other men. It'snot obvious from your story if the husband of the woman was there when the drunk was flirting with her but it's possible the drunk was given a verbal warning first, thought he was the tougher guy and proceeded anyway. Since it's considered "unmanly" to back away from a fight, men are more likely to get beat up, as opposed to women who know their limits and run.
Perhaps it's also considered "unmanly" to take no for an answer? As telling a guy you have a boyfriend is often the only thing that will get him to back off. Just not being interested makes you either a challenge or a b.

If this story is true, this drunk must have been particularly persistent and/or particularly drunk.
Question - hypothetical - if the guy had been harassing a single woman and not taking no for an answer, and the woman, rather than a husband, decked the drunk, would the attitude have been that he "got what he deserved"? Just wondering, hypothetically.

AldeberanBlack October 19th, 2014 4:21 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Women should lobby to have their skirts registered as corporations.

Then politicians will be falling over themselves to pass laws protecting them

Midnightsfire October 19th, 2014 4:58 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6094130)
I also think you're overestimating how much men are intimidated by other men.

Size does matter. However, it's not the winning of the fight that counts. If the other guy knows he can win, but knows it might take some doing...and pain, it might not be worth it. (The hallmark of a coward is getting into fights with those much smaller or weaker)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6094130)
It's not obvious from your story if the husband of the woman was there when the drunk was flirting with her but it's possible the drunk was given a verbal warning first, thought he was the tougher guy and proceeded anyway.

*nods* I believe that's what happened.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6094130)
Since it's considered "unmanly" to back away from a fight, men are more likely to get beat up, as opposed to women who know their limits and run.

Bear in mind that the man defending his wife didn't see it as a one-on-one fight. Drunk dude had a few friends with him. (Kudos to the bartender that called security)
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094133)
Her husband?? A woman should not need to be with a man in order to be safe.

It's not an ideal world.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094133)
No, that's why we have laws.

Yeah, and there's a price to be paid whenever the law gets broken (assuming the person gets caught and successfully prosecuted).
And sometimes it's simply the price a person pays whenever the unwritten rules of society gets broken. The price of which just might be a bloody nose. It does happen.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094133)
But I'd like to think that most people have the decency not to invade other people's privacy. I'd like to think most people have the decency not to use other people as sex objects.

Reality versus what "you'd like to think" doesn't work. Especially since most women have a problem with what you "think." (Just pointing to those women in the porn industry, they wouldn't think kindly of your thoughts)

Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094133)
Question - hypothetical - if the guy had been harassing a single woman and not taking no for an answer, and the woman, rather than a husband, decked the drunk, would the attitude have been that he "got what he deserved"? Just wondering, hypothetically.

Are you kidding? I've seen that before. People laugh seeing that! And yes, the drunk would have it coming. (Bartender usually "mans" up if the guy gets pushy after that)

canismajoris October 21st, 2014 3:16 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094115)
That just points to cowardice. Entitled cowards preying on someone they assume won't be able to physically defend themselves. Some guy takes a photo up a woman's skirt because he's pretty sure she won't be able to punch him if she sees him.

I hate to nitpick, but I believe the most recent case in the news was thrown out specifically because a view up the women's skirts was already easily visible to everyone who happened to be walking by (they were sitting on stairs). It wasn't a violation of their privacy because--and I know how this sounds--what was under their skirts already wasn't being kept private. The judge makes a point of saying how disturbing the guy's behavior was, but notes that photographing "publicly exposed areas" isn't illegal.

So I think the guy's motive was not "these women won't defend themselves," but rather, "well this is easy."

FurryDice October 21st, 2014 10:02 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire (Post 6094135)
(The hallmark of a coward is getting into fights with those much smaller or weaker)

Oh you mean like the men who pester women who don't have a man to act as "bodyguard"?

Quote:

Reality versus what "you'd like to think" doesn't work. Especially since most women have a problem with what you "think." (Just pointing to those women in the porn industry, they wouldn't think kindly of your thoughts)
If they choose to work in the porn industry, that's their business. The women who had photos taken did not choose to do so. Choice matters.
And do most women want to be seen as sex objects? Really? Most women want to be seen as sexual beings. Not sex objects. Seeing a woman as a sex object means that she is just there for the gratification of the man, that her feelings are irrelevant.
And I am pretty sure that most women do not want to have their underwear photographed without their permission.
And is the reality that most men do not respect women? Is the reality that most men would assault a woman or take secret nude pictures of a woman if they thought they'd get away with it? I do not think that most men are so entitled and dangerous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by canismajoris (Post 6094161)
I hate to nitpick, but I believe the most recent case in the news was thrown out specifically because a view up the women's skirts was already easily visible to everyone who happened to be walking by (they were sitting on stairs). It wasn't a violation of their privacy because--and I know how this sounds--what was under their skirts already wasn't being kept private. The judge makes a point of saying how disturbing the guy's behavior was, but notes that photographing "publicly exposed areas" isn't illegal.

So I think the guy's motive was not "these women won't defend themselves," but rather, "well this is easy."


Then, if one is to leave aside the potential for violence, would the same apply if a woman was zooming her camera on a guy in his swimming trunks for example? Or, up a loose pair of shorts? It's on public display, after all.

Then, what of paparazzi who lie on pavements to take photos up celebrities' skirts? Is that also publicly exposed? Even when her underwear is only exposed to the pavement??

canismajoris October 21st, 2014 10:45 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094181)
Then, if one is to leave aside the potential for violence, would the same apply if a woman was zooming her camera on a guy in his swimming trunks for example? Or, up a loose pair of shorts? It's on public display, after all.

Of course. If a casual observer can see it just by happening to be there, then why would it automatically be illegal to take a photograph of it? I don't think it would hurt (and I don't think it would be sexist) to suggest that people be mindful of accidentally exposing themselves when they don't intend to. Not even because there's risk of being exploited--I just know I've seen a lot of body parts I never wanted to over the years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094181)
Then, what of paparazzi who lie on pavements to take photos up celebrities' skirts? Is that also publicly exposed? Even when her underwear is only exposed to the pavement??

Well without getting too graphic, I suspect a paparazzo doing that is probably hoping there won't be any underwear. And I think that's clearly invasive and wrong, but as I alluded to before, the relationship between the press and celebrities has gotten just... really weird and dark. Invading the privacy of celebrities is highly profitable, evidently, and as consumers that's really really the problem we should be thinking about. It's hard to condemn behaviors that we (as a group) would seem to desire.

Midnightsfire October 22nd, 2014 1:40 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094181)
Oh you mean like the men who pester women who don't have a man to act as "bodyguard"?

Why yes.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094181)
If they choose to work in the porn industry, that's their business. The women who had photos taken did not choose to do so. Choice matters.

And the law more so.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094181)
And do most women want to be seen as sex objects? Really? Most women want to be seen as sexual beings. Not sex objects.

If you say so. I know a few ladies that would say differently. That they want to be seen as "sexy." (And I should wonder if that means something differently to others)
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094181)
Seeing a woman as a sex object means that she is just there for the gratification of the man, that her feelings are irrelevant.

I'm sure that your interpretation is different from other women.

Sex sells. If it isn't appealing then it won't.
I believe that most women want to be seen as sexy. The cosmetics, the clothing, etc...all that which the more extreme feminists despise, is that which many women aspire to; to be sexually appealing. And I don't know any woman that doesn't want that.

Sereena October 22nd, 2014 12:56 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire (Post 6094191)
If you say so. I know a few ladies that would say differently. That they want to be seen as "sexy." (And I should wonder if that means something differently to others)

Sexy is one thing. Thinking "Oh, I'm gonna wear this skirt because when I look nice my self esteem is better" and thinking "oh, I'm gonna wear this skirt and hope the men who see me in it will think I have no free will, no personality and a third boob where my brain should be" are two very different things in my opinion. No doubt some women like to be seen as objects but that's only because they've been reading too much "Fifty shades of grey".

Quote:

I believe that most women want to be seen as sexy. The cosmetics, the clothing, etc...all that which the more extreme feminists despise, is that which many women aspire to; to be sexually appealing.
Women dress nicely and wear make-up even if there aren't any men around. For most people (men and women alike) when you look good you feel good.

Quote:

And I don't know any woman that doesn't want that.
I don't think there are any heterosexual men out there who are completely indifferent to how women view them either. We all like to impress potential romantic partners, it's part of courtship but it's not the same as objectification.

Midnightsfire October 22nd, 2014 3:18 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6094201)
I don't think there are any heterosexual men out there who are completely indifferent to how women view them either. We all like to impress potential romantic partners, it's part of courtship but it's not the same as objectification.

I have to wonder.
I recall a guy I knew who firmly objected when I said "A dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste." I told him it was natural. But he even objected when a man thought that way with his wife. He called it "objectification." I called it "keeping that marriage bed interesting" and "keeping her smiling."

FurryDice October 23rd, 2014 5:42 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by canismajoris (Post 6094188)
Of course. If a casual observer can see it just by happening to be there, then why would it automatically be illegal to take a photograph of it? I don't think it would hurt (and I don't think it would be sexist) to suggest that people be mindful of accidentally exposing themselves when they don't intend to. Not even because there's risk of being exploited--I just know I've seen a lot of body parts I never wanted to over the years.

Of course, people - men and women - should be careful not to expose themselves. However, that should not not mean it's a free for all when they do. Just like people should be careful to remember to lock their cars - but it's still a crime to steal something, even if the owner forgets to lock the car.
Would it be a mitigating factor for a burglar if the homeowner forgot to lock their front door? Didn't have an alarm, or forgot to set it? Would it earn the burglar a reduced sentence, because the homeowner wasn't careful? Then why on earth are there such mitigating factors in sex crimes?

By the way, let me say that I understand that this case was thrown out because the individual in question hadn't broken any laws. I'm speaking about sex-related crimes in general.

Quote:

Well without getting too graphic, I suspect a paparazzo doing that is probably hoping there won't be any underwear. And I think that's clearly invasive and wrong, but as I alluded to before, the relationship between the press and celebrities has gotten just... really weird and dark. Invading the privacy of celebrities is highly profitable, evidently, and as consumers that's really really the problem we should be thinking about. It's hard to condemn behaviors that we (as a group) would seem to desire.
I think there is something to condemn in society when society as a group seems to think that it's acceptable to violate the privacy of others. Clearly there's a market for these photos -both paparazzi and stolen. If there was no market for it, the paparazzi wouldn't be taking up-skirt shots, the hackers wouldn't be stealing.
And here's a question - why is there no demand for stolen nude pictures or paparazzi nude photos of male celebrities???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6094201)
Sexy is one thing. Thinking "Oh, I'm gonna wear this skirt because when I look nice my self esteem is better" and thinking "oh, I'm gonna wear this skirt and hope the men who see me in it will think I have no free will, no personality and a third boob where my brain should be" are two very different things in my opinion. No doubt some women like to be seen as objects but that's only because they've been reading too much "Fifty shades of grey".

I agree. Most people want to look their best but most people do not want to be denied the opportunity to choose, to say no -unless as you say, they take that Fifty Shades rubbish as a model for a relationship. And a woman looking attractive, having made an effort to look sexy, does not mean that she's available to anyone. A woman has tastes, too, and not every man is going to be her type.

Quote:

Women dress nicely and wear make-up even if there aren't any men around. For most people (men and women alike) when you look good you feel good.
I agree. Women don't dress up just to impress men. Many people want to look good in general. But looking good does not mean that a person gives up their right to say no, gives up their right to choose who they spend their time with. If I wear a nice dress, get my hair and make-up done for a special night out, that does not mean that I give up my right to turn down a guy that I have no interest in. That does not mean some guy has the right to harass me -that's objectification. Dressing sexily isn't objectification. Feeling and acting entitled to someone because they look sexy - that is objectification

Quote:

I don't think there are any heterosexual men out there who are completely indifferent to how women view them either. We all like to impress potential romantic partners, it's part of courtship but it's not the same as objectification.
Yes, looking your best to impress others is not the same as objectification. The difference is that with objectification, the woman is not given a say in the matter, some arrogant creep feels entitled to sex or to a woman's attention or to see her nude pictures just because he thinks she looks good. Her feelings on the matter don't come into it. That's objectification. And I stand by what I said - I do not think that most women want to be treated like that. Most women would actually like a say in who they spend their time with, who they sleep with, who gets to see them intimately. That is why I stand by saying that most women want to be seen as sexual beings, not sex objects. Sexy, but not just a toy to entertain a man. Most women these days feel that they have a right to satisfaction in a relationship too. And dressing sexy does not change that.

canismajoris October 23rd, 2014 10:27 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094227)
Of course, people - men and women - should be careful not to expose themselves. However, that should not not mean it's a free for all when they do. Just like people should be careful to remember to lock their cars - but it's still a crime to steal something, even if the owner forgets to lock the car.
Would it be a mitigating factor for a burglar if the homeowner forgot to lock their front door? Didn't have an alarm, or forgot to set it? Would it earn the burglar a reduced sentence, because the homeowner wasn't careful? Then why on earth are there such mitigating factors in sex crimes?

By the way, let me say that I understand that this case was thrown out because the individual in question hadn't broken any laws. I'm speaking about sex-related crimes in general.

Well right, and while I want to believe there's not much room to say that a victim is to blame for taking inadequate precautions, in many other areas of life (that is, other than sex crimes, say), it really isn't uncommon or outrageous to label someone a fool for it. Just like traffic jams, rain, and stock market crashes, criminal acts are things people should probably learn to expect from time to time.

I think we get so caught up in arguing about where blame belongs that we ignore the reality that a lot of crimes can be prevented in the first place by doing exactly what you mentioned--preparing security measures for your property, providing for personal defense, and generally being mindful of risks. Failing to do so doesn't mitigate the guilt of a criminal, but it does peg you as naive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094227)
I think there is something to condemn in society when society as a group seems to think that it's acceptable to violate the privacy of others. Clearly there's a market for these photos -both paparazzi and stolen. If there was no market for it, the paparazzi wouldn't be taking up-skirt shots, the hackers wouldn't be stealing.
And here's a question - why is there no demand for stolen nude pictures or paparazzi nude photos of male celebrities???

That is an interesting question... to what extent male celebrities are celebrated as sex objects I'm not certain. As a hetero male, I only really find Ryan Gosling, Henry Cavill, Matt Bomer, and OK I should probably stop.

Ultimately it may boil down to two things: First, our (American) society's squeamishness about male nudity in general, as expressed in television and film. For every shot of a man fully nude on screen in mainstream works, there are probably hours and hours (and hours) of footage of nude women. Why is that exactly? It's not even the disparity between the sexes itself that seems odd to me, it's the almost implausible dearth of men stripping down on film that's strange. We don't have much of an appetite for gentleman parts.

Second, and I haven't researched this (and don't plan to), so it's just a guess, but in the recent photo hacking situation, I'd bet that the majority of the women victimized have never appeared nude on screen or in photo shoots.

So putting those two factors together, it isn't only that there's demand for nude women and not much for nude men, nor that there's a market for nude images of female celebrities, but even worse, that there's a subculture for obtaining private photos of those female celebrities who specifically don't want their naked bodies out in public. It may be disturbing in those terms, but really I think even average people who know intellectually that it's wrong are likely to be curious, at the very least. Considering how widespread these recent images became, clearly it wasn't only scumbags who were viewing them.

Midnightsfire October 24th, 2014 1:41 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094227)
Of course, people - men and women - should be careful not to expose themselves. However, that should not not mean it's a free for all when they do. Just like people should be careful to remember to lock their cars - but it's still a crime to steal something, even if the owner forgets to lock the car.

Bad analogy.
Better to compare an open window. Not illegal to turn and glance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094227)
And here's a question - why is there no demand for stolen nude pictures or paparazzi nude photos of male celebrities???

The paparazzi seem exclusively male. So...where are the female paparazzi? Maybe they should step up and take some pics of males celebs. :elaugh:

Sereena October 24th, 2014 11:29 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by canismajoris (Post 6094230)
Well right, and while I want to believe there's not much room to say that a victim is to blame for taking inadequate precautions, in many other areas of life (that is, other than sex crimes, say), it really isn't uncommon or outrageous to label someone a fool for it. Just like traffic jams, rain, and stock market crashes, criminal acts are things people should probably learn to expect from time to time.

I don't think you can compare any of the things mentioned above to sex crimes, though. Those things can happen to anyone, sex crimes on the other hand are a result of the inequalities between men and women and the idea that women should always be available to please men. That's not the same as theft for example or other crimes which are also caused by societal factors but not by structural inequality and sexism.

This is why what I said earlier about context applies even here. It's not enough to look at individual actions and say that the situation could have been prevented had the victim acted differently. I'm sure that in many cases it could have. But the bigger issue, the context still remains and it's not addressed by looking at each case individually. Even if all the women were to take precautions and for example never go out after dark- well, okay, but what about the fact that women are more likely to be asaulted and murdered by men they know than by strangers? There are underlying issues which the "victim-blaming" discourse ignores and these issues are always going to be there unless we deal with the gender inequality. It's sweeping the real problem under the rug if we only focus on individual actions (and I'm not saying you're doing this, I'm just trying to explain why sex crimes are not the same as leaving your house unlocked).

Wab October 24th, 2014 11:47 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6094237)
I don't think you can compare any of the things mentioned above to sex crimes, though. Those things can happen to anyone, sex crimes on the other hand are a result of the inequalities between men and women and the idea that women should always be available to please men.

That's really only a valid argument if sex-crimes were only committed against women. It doesn't explain incidents of sexual violence committed against men which are grossly unreported.

And the idea that women should always be available to men is also perpetuated by women. The various sex-strikes are predicated on the belief that women have sex only to please men rather than for themselves.

Sereena October 24th, 2014 12:43 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wab (Post 6094238)
That's really only a valid argument if sex-crimes were only committed against women. It doesn't explain incidents of sexual violence committed against men which are grossly unreported.

There are definitely sexual assaults against men as well, I'm not contesting that. However, women are still overrepresented among sex crimes victims and plenty of women choose not to report these crimes as well. But yes, I won't deny that society is moving towards objectifying men as well (male strip clubs, male prostitution, etc) but I don't think that means that sex crimes are the same as any other kind of crimes, and that the problem doesn't go deeper than individual actions.

Quote:

And the idea that women should always be available to men is also perpetuated by women.
Oh definitely. There are plenty of women out there who objectify themselves, objectify other women, or engage in victim-blaming. Anyone can be sexist, it's a problem we have as a society not a problem that only men or only women have.

HedwigOwl October 25th, 2014 2:17 am

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wab (Post 6094238)
And the idea that women should always be available to men is also perpetuated by women.

We could have a discussion about whether this is always an individual choice, or it's what women have come to believe is expected both through cultural cues and dating/couple relationships. It's not always clear what motivates behavior, even to the people involved.

FurryDice October 27th, 2014 3:47 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by canismajoris (Post 6094230)
Well right, and while I want to believe there's not much room to say that a victim is to blame for taking inadequate precautions, in many other areas of life (that is, other than sex crimes, say), it really isn't uncommon or outrageous to label someone a fool for it. Just like traffic jams, rain, and stock market crashes, criminal acts are things people should probably learn to expect from time to time.

Label someone a fool, yes. Let the criminal off, blaming the victim, no. Nobody ever says a thief should have a reduced sentence because he stole from an unlocked car. Sex offenders do get reduced sentences, or more disturbing, public support, when there is some way to pass off blame on the victim.

Quote:

I think we get so caught up in arguing about where blame belongs that we ignore the reality that a lot of crimes can be prevented in the first place by doing exactly what you mentioned--preparing security measures for your property, providing for personal defense, and generally being mindful of risks. Failing to do so doesn't mitigate the guilt of a criminal, but it does peg you as naive.
I agree, it certainly does not mitigate the guilt of a criminal. However, in sex crimes, the actions of the victim -wearing a short skirt, for example, is used to mitigate the assailant's guilt, to give him a reduced sentence, to say she was "asking for it". Because a short skirt, apparently, is open consent to any and all.
Whereas my opinion is that if someone is such a frothing at the mouth wild animal that they can't restrain themselves from assaulting a woman because they see a bit of thigh, then that person is not fit to be out in public.

Quote:

That is an interesting question... to what extent male celebrities are celebrated as sex objects I'm not certain. As a hetero male, I only really find Ryan Gosling, Henry Cavill, Matt Bomer, and OK I should probably stop.
To the extent that no male celebrities had their nude photos stolen.

Quote:

Ultimately it may boil down to two things: First, our (American) society's squeamishness about male nudity in general, as expressed in television and film. For every shot of a man fully nude on screen in mainstream works, there are probably hours and hours (and hours) of footage of nude women. Why is that exactly? It's not even the disparity between the sexes itself that seems odd to me, it's the almost implausible dearth of men stripping down on film that's strange. We don't have much of an appetite for gentleman parts.
Who is "we"? I think that seems to be taking the straight man's perspective as representative of society in general. What about straight women? Gay men? Bisexuals?

Quote:

Considering how widespread these recent images became, clearly it wasn't only scumbags who were viewing them.
Or, perhaps people need to broaden their definition of scumbags in this context. It's not just the creepy guy lurking around in the trenchcoat or the fortysomething guy living in his mother's basement. I think people need to be aware that those who commit sex crimes are not just one narrow category. They are also people who have jobs, friends, families. They might have a pint after work with their friends, they support sports teams, they walk their dog. They live normal lives in other aspects. IMO, this narrow definition of who views these photos reflects the narrow definition of who commits sex crimes. Which means that people will refuse to believe victims when the accused is someone who seems "normal".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire (Post 6094232)
Bad analogy.
Better to compare an open window. Not illegal to turn and glance.

Taking a photo is not turning and glancing. I will stick with my analogy -the person who leaves the car open is foolish, but that doesn't mean that you can steal whatever you want without facing consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6094237)
I don't think you can compare any of the things mentioned above to sex crimes, though. Those things can happen to anyone, sex crimes on the other hand are a result of the inequalities between men and women and the idea that women should always be available to please men. That's not the same as theft for example or other crimes which are also caused by societal factors but not by structural inequality and sexism.

I agree that one cannot compare sex crimes and other crimes. My initial comparison was in the reaction, in the treatment of the victim. My comparison, maybe poorly worded, was about the victim-blaming that goes on and is used to excuse sex offenders. Something that is not used to excuse other types of offenders.

Quote:

Even if all the women were to take precautions and for example never go out after dark- well, okay, but what about the fact that women are more likely to be asaulted and murdered by men they know than by strangers?
That's also a big problem, because people don't like to admit that people they know, people who live normal lives, have friends, families,relationships, hobbies etc, can be sex offenders. Which leads to victim blaming or an insistence that the victim is lying.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wab (Post 6094238)
And the idea that women should always be available to men is also perpetuated by women. The various sex-strikes are predicated on the belief that women have sex only to please men rather than for themselves.

I agree that there are women who think that other women should be available to men -the "give him a chance" types. Some women crave male approval. Some women put male happiness above female happiness, even put male happiness above female rights. Is that something that comes from society? It's a vicious circle.
However, it cannot be ignored that there are also men who seem to see women as objects for their pleasure. Sex offenders. Men who go on killing sprees because women turned them down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sereena (Post 6094239)
Oh definitely. There are plenty of women out there who objectify themselves, objectify other women, or engage in victim-blaming. Anyone can be sexist, it's a problem we have as a society not a problem that only men or only women have.

Sometimes I wonder if women engage in victim-blaming partly to feel more safe themselves. If a woman can kid herself that another woman was raped because she was drunk or flirting or wearing a short skirt, and not because the rapist was a disgusting individual with zero respect for the victim's rights, then she can delude herself that she is completely safe as long as she takes certain precautions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl (Post 6094260)
It's not always clear what motivates behavior, even to the people involved.

How true. Sigh.

Midnightsfire October 27th, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094317)
To the extent that no male celebrities had their nude photos stolen.

Because that would be a joke that was long old.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094317)
Who is "we"? I think that seems to be taking the straight man's perspective as representative of society in general. What about straight women? Gay men? Bisexuals?

In the media, the gay doesn't sell well here if at all.
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094317)
Or, perhaps people need to broaden their definition of scumbags in this context.
It's not just the creepy guy lurking around in the trenchcoat or the fortysomething guy living in his mother's basement. I think people need to be aware that those who commit sex crimes are not just one narrow category.

If you want to believe that a person viewing a nude picture of celebrity is a "scumbag" you're certainly entitled to it. But never ever equate it as a sex crime. Because you then turn the true sex crimes (i.e Rape, Sexual assault) into a joke. The real deal has nothing to do with simply viewing a picture of a grown nude woman.
You're conflating this particular issue with genuine felonies, and you are so wrong for doing it. http://www.kurts-smilies.de/nono.gif
Quote:

Originally Posted by FurryDice (Post 6094317)
Taking a photo is not turning and glancing. I will stick with my analogy -the person who leaves the car open is foolish, but that doesn't mean that you can steal whatever you want without facing consequences.

But you're not stealing anything. And your analogy doesn't convince the "other side" of the argument. It doesn't hold water. What's being stolen according to the law? Case thrown out.

Alastor October 27th, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: Feminism: Definitions and Opinions
 
And that was the end of this thread.

If any of you wonders why, consider this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Melaszka (Post 5591874)
Righty. This is the last chance to discuss the issue of feminism on CoS. If this thread rapidly descends into the squabblefest of mass bickering and rule-ignoring of the previous version, it will vanish into the ether, never to be replaced.

*lock*


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 8:00 pm.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Original content is Copyright © MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright © its respective owners.