Feminism: Definitions and Opinions

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Sereena

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.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

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]

Of course they weren't asking for it, but storing anything in the cloud shows a massive lack of judgment.

[Alastor]

Originally Posted by Wab

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]

Originally Posted by Wab

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]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

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]

*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]

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]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

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]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

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.

[Sereena]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

*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]

Originally Posted by Sereena

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]

Originally Posted by Wab

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]

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]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

*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.

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?

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

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]

Originally Posted by Sereena

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)

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Sereena

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?

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

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]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

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.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

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.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

I hadn't heard about that. How interesting

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

Originally Posted by FurryDice

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]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

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.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

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.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

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]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

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.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

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...

Originally Posted by FurryDice

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.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

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.