|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 4, 2012, 4:47 PM
Post #77 of 173
(21018 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
wonderwoman wrote: cracklover wrote: GMBurns, don't bother - most here are totally convinced that they're living in a beer commercial, despite the evidence all around them every day showing otherwise. GO Thank you for categorizing some of us as delusional simply because we disagree with you. That always makes it easier to dismiss differing opinions. You don't have to take my word for it, but here is the perspective of sexualization from a 17 year old blogger from Waterville, ME: http://www.sparksummit.com/...the-power-of-a-word/ I thought it was interesting and timely that it showed up in my FB newsfeed this morning.
Oh dear. I seem to be failing to make myself clear. Why do people have to paint this as black or white?
I am not calling you delusional.
I am not questioning your story.
What I am saying is that what I see in society is that girls raised in the circumstances you describe as your upbringing, or even the more extreme ones like GMB describe, *do* happen here in the US, but are far from ubiquitous. And that in general, women (like men) get very mixed messages about what they're supposed to be. They get the messages you are highlighting, as well as many others that are contradictory in a whole variety of ways.
Trying to discuss this seems to be making people feel marginalized for their experiences, which is not my intent at all. I recognize that it's a sensitive subject, so please, try not to take my perceptions as invalidating yours.
I started by asking others for their experiences, and that's mostly what I'm looking for. If I'm pushing a little, it's simply to try to see the rest of the picture.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jun 4, 2012, 4:49 PM
Post #78 of 173
(21016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
wonderwoman wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: wonderwoman wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: cracklover wrote: I spelled it out, and Drivel agreed that's what she meant. So far no-one else has actually touched it. All of you have merely said that yes, there are gender biases in modern society, and yes, women's looks and attractiveness is deemed important, and that this is *one* of the messages society sends girls. None of that lends a whit of credence to Drivel's claim. GO I can't get to the far end of the extreme that you want to take Drivel's comment, but if you spend a good amount of time in a place like Brasil then you'd see very clearly what he means. North American women are incredibly lucky. We are lucky that women in other countries are more oppressed than those of us in the states? I guess I should be thankful that I earn as much as 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns. Thanks for enlightening me as to how liberated we are. Tiff, I'm not saying you should feel lucky compared to men in the US, but yes, you have it much better than than women in other countries, much better. And I'm not saying you should stop fighting. In fact, I was more speaking about Drivel's initial comment. I never said pay or treatment was fair there. But back to the point of what Drivel was trying to say, here, in Brasil, the ingrained culture is that women exist to make the home a happy place and men exist to provide. Women who speak out against it are often banished from society, not allowed to have friends or visitors, and men are judged by their "trophies," thus giving the men perfectly good reason to keep their women in line (because trophies don't talk, have opinions, work (and no, work in the home isn't considered work here), drive with men in the passenger seat, pass other cars that men are driving if the woman is driving, etc., etc., etc.). Trophies look sexy; trophies have sex when the man wants to have sex; trophies clean the house and cook dinner; trophies deal with the crying children; trophies wash the dishes and do the laundry; trophies load the groceries onto the belt, bag the groceries after they've passed the scanner, and pay the bill all the while the man stands and the end waiting for the trophy to finish everything; trophies have to ask permission to have male friends (or even to continue long-standing friendships with men that began before the marriage); trophies are only allowed to go out with other men if those men are friends with the husband...I could go on. I saw this in the U.S. maybe once every few months, if that, and when I did it certainly wasn't to the extreme level that it is here. Here, I see it every single day multiple times per day. The US (and in North America in general) does not have a macho culture. In fact, it's not even close. In the U.S., if a man at work hits on a girl then that man can get fired. Here, the woman gets fired. In the U.S., domestic violence is a problem, but it's also frowned upon. Here, the woman deserved it. In the U.S., rape is a very serious crime. Here, rapists get raped in prison more than other criminals because why would a man need to rape a woman when that's what the woman's role is? I'm not making this shit up. I'm lucky to have a girlfriend with similar attitudes that you have (in a feminist bull-in-a-china-shop sort of way, as well. In fact, if we ever make it back to Boston I kind of figured you'd be someone she'd latch right on to due to your similarities), but the difference is that I don't really see people shunning you (maybe I don't know you well enough) for being a strong woman. Here, I see this sort of thing all the time. Most of the strong women who I know here can't maintain any kind of long-term relationship as a result of the societal pressures they face to shut the hell up and look pretty. That's their role here. That's how women are valued here. I'm not exaggerating. It's part of the reason why Brasil has an eating disorder epidemic (too many girls want to be like Gisele). Of all the non-American men I know here, I'm the only one who knows how to use a washing machine. And of the ones who cook on a regular basis, only a few aren't gay. A good friend of mine, and one of my former students, has been on crutches for the past three years due to a life-long degenerative condition she has. She is co-owner of a company that my gf founded (co-owned with one of my gf's strong-women friends who hasn't had a good, long-term relationship since her divorce ten years ago) and makes good money. Her husband is a music teacher and doesn't make good money. Nothing wrong with that except he doesn't have many friends anymore because they laugh at him for making less money. (again, I'm not exaggerating). They own a nice apartment paid mostly by her (in all honesty, she can afford it and he can't). That's great for her, right? Who do you think cleans the house? How about cooks dinner? Remember, she's on crutches and can only stand on one leg for a few minutes at a time. So, they hire a cleaner to help her out a couple of times per month. Who pays? Who do you think? And they order out a few times per week because it's hard for her to use her hands while she cooks (because she needs them to stand upright with the crutches). Who pays? Ah, so maybe they'll go to a restaurant every now and again instead of take-out all the time, right? Nope! Because he doesn't want to get his driver's license. Why is this a problem? They can only go to restaurants where there is parking really close to the restaurant due to her not being able to walk very far (i.e. - he won't get his license so that he can drop her off and drive to a parking lot and return to meet her at the restaurant). It gets better! She has been saving for three years to have surgery so that she can get a new knee. Then her mom has to have an emergency surgery, thus delaying my friends surgery. The mom is in the ICU for about a week and an in-patient for another 10 days or so. Who spends all her time with the mom in the hospital? The son? NO! Because the son "has a job and needs to work." (<-- That's a direct quote.) Remember, my friend co-owns a business (she's the graphic designer in a communications company). The husband complains that my friend is at the hospital with her mother because doesn't want to call the restaurant to order out food because they don't know him as well as they know her. And now, it's time for her surgery that will finally allow her to start walking again (and doing something she's only dreamed of the past few years, such as travelling where one needs to walk a lot, for example). But does the husband support her? No! He doesn't want her to get the surgery because "she might die!" OK, with all of her health problems, it was a valid concern, but really, that's not why everyone thinks he doesn't want her to get the surgery. Everyone thinks he doesn't want her to get the surgery because it will mean she'll have more freedom and will "need him less" (<-- another direct quote from the brother). OK, she has the surgery (and she's doing great, btw). But the doctor forbids her from driving for a month to let her new knee heal. Does the husband drive her to work? No, of course not silly. Remember, he doesn't have a driver's license and doesn't need it because she has one. So, her aunt comes to stay with them for a few weeks to help out. The aunt cooks, the aunt cleans, the aunt drives my friend to PT and sometimes to work and back...and drives the husband to his music lessons now because, well, there's someone who can drive him now. And then, when it comes time for the aunt to go back and take care of her family, the husband complains because it means he'll have to take care of some things while my friend continues to recover. Fast-forward. She's not my student anymore because, unfortunately, the surgery, PT, and all the other expenses of her (and him) having to pay for things they should have been doing on their own the past few years (i.e. - eating out instead of him cooking, etc) have left them financially strapped. They've cut out a lot of things, but the two things he's complaining about? No cleaner and no cable...both of which she paid for. This is not an exaggerated story. It's NORMAL. Men here are children, and they treat women like servants, and the better looking the servant, the higher the man's standing. And since here it's a man's world, well, why would anyone care about a woman's standing? The answer is that they don't. So since women aren't important, they might as well look pretty. Again, I'm not making this up. This is how it is here, and I can't tell you how many times I've pleaded with my gf to make her 20 year-old son do the dishes, cook, or do the laundry to help her out around the house (I don't live with them, btw, and can't tell him myself because, well, he has a dad and that's a sensitive subject - a father who, btw, hardly acknowledges the son outside of work because all that lovey-dovey stuff is for the mom, but I digress). She says she's tried her best and she's harder than the vast majority of moms. At some point, he needs to stand up and do things himself. Will he? Who knows? Societal pressures are pretty strong and guess what? He now has a trophy gf he's madly in love with. So yeah, in some contexts, Drivel's point is spot on. What you describe is absolutely horrible and I believe every word of it. However, you would probably agree that there are even worse atrocities imposed upon females in other parts of the world (genital mutilation / widow burning). I would never say that Brazilian women are 'incredibly lucky' for not living in those areas. Anyone who is oppressed is not lucky, and you can always find someone who has it worse. As far as being described as a bull in a China shop feminist, I tend to think of myself as someone who just wants to be treated as a human being. What's so radical about that?
I just wanted to repeat that, because you've said something more clearly that I have apparently been able to.
I would also like to point out that while it's nice that Gmburns thinks rape is treated as a very serious crime in the US, the fact is that it's grossly underreported and has a frighteningly low conviction rate when it is. And when it is, the victim is put on trial, because any display of sexuality under her own agency (look what she was wearing, she's into BDSM and is a freak, she made out with a girl at that party!) it is treated as license for men to do whatever they want. And if they can make the vicim look like a slut, no conviction. So yes, we have a long way to go there as well.
my sister, the one who got called a dyke all through high school for wearing loose/boys clothes? she's a tough chick. she is told, laughing, by a frightening number of people that they're sure she could kick somebody's ass and they're not worried about her walking alone at night because she'd never be raped. Which is cruel every time, because her first penis-in-vagina experience was, in fact, rape. Which she never reported because what was the point? She was underage drinking at the guys house late at night.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jun 4, 2012, 4:53 PM
Post #79 of 173
(21014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
cracklover wrote: drivel wrote: cracklover wrote: granite_grrl wrote: cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: So here's a question, actually, I'll pose this one for Lena: Let's say there's a book written for girls your daughter's age. Dust jacket photo of the author. She's a middle-aged sweet looking woman. What is your daughter's reaction? Is it "oh my god, she's ugly, I don't want to read this book"? Or let's say the dust jacket photo of the author shows a young woman in minimal clothes and lots of cleavage. Would her reaction be "Mommy, this looks like a good book, can I get this one"? NO, of course she wouldn't base her decision to get a book based on the picture of the author on the dust cover. And neither would most people. But there is a REASON why the photo of the author is on the inside of the back flap of the book, not on the front. Yes, and the reason is clear: society agrees that for both men and women, the way you look is *not* a prerequisite for the way your work will be judged. Otherwise we *would* see the author-as-model on the front cover. GO Everyone gets judged on how they look, whether you think it gets done or not. An interesting difference I find is that women spend more time on their looks then men do, and not just with things like hair and makeup. Once guys hit around 30 (or a little earlier) they start to "let themselves go". Get little beer bellies (or big ones), etc. Women at this age are still stressing and striving to diet and keep the weight off. In society it's far more acceptable for a man to let himself go than for a woman. Of course, everyone is judged on his/her looks, and women more than men. How's that got anything to do with what you just quoted me (above) saying? Do you agree that if a woman doesn't have a sexy photo of herself prominently placed on a book she'd authored, that no-one would ever bother to read the book, because the woman couldn't possibly have anything worthwhile to say if she wasn't a sex-object? GO I find this conversation incredibly frustrating, but since you're so determined to go with the book author photo, here is an example: The author of the incredibly popular Twilight books, looks like this: [image]http://www-hollywoodlife-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/062811_stephenie_meyer_the_host_600110628125419.jpg[/image] her author photo on her books looks like this: [image]http://www.4tnz.com/files/stephenie-meyer.jpg[/image] why do you think that is? I'm sorry you're frustrated. That can happen when you stand behind hyperbole as fact. Ha! Those photos are awesome! Um... because the books are written for a shallow audience? GO
the books are written for girls, who don't want to fuck stephanie meyers. try again.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jun 4, 2012, 4:58 PM
Post #80 of 173
(21009 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
drivel wrote: wonderwoman wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: wonderwoman wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: cracklover wrote: I spelled it out, and Drivel agreed that's what she meant. So far no-one else has actually touched it. All of you have merely said that yes, there are gender biases in modern society, and yes, women's looks and attractiveness is deemed important, and that this is *one* of the messages society sends girls. None of that lends a whit of credence to Drivel's claim. GO I can't get to the far end of the extreme that you want to take Drivel's comment, but if you spend a good amount of time in a place like Brasil then you'd see very clearly what he means. North American women are incredibly lucky. We are lucky that women in other countries are more oppressed than those of us in the states? I guess I should be thankful that I earn as much as 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns. Thanks for enlightening me as to how liberated we are. Tiff, I'm not saying you should feel lucky compared to men in the US, but yes, you have it much better than than women in other countries, much better. And I'm not saying you should stop fighting. In fact, I was more speaking about Drivel's initial comment. I never said pay or treatment was fair there. But back to the point of what Drivel was trying to say, here, in Brasil, the ingrained culture is that women exist to make the home a happy place and men exist to provide. Women who speak out against it are often banished from society, not allowed to have friends or visitors, and men are judged by their "trophies," thus giving the men perfectly good reason to keep their women in line (because trophies don't talk, have opinions, work (and no, work in the home isn't considered work here), drive with men in the passenger seat, pass other cars that men are driving if the woman is driving, etc., etc., etc.). Trophies look sexy; trophies have sex when the man wants to have sex; trophies clean the house and cook dinner; trophies deal with the crying children; trophies wash the dishes and do the laundry; trophies load the groceries onto the belt, bag the groceries after they've passed the scanner, and pay the bill all the while the man stands and the end waiting for the trophy to finish everything; trophies have to ask permission to have male friends (or even to continue long-standing friendships with men that began before the marriage); trophies are only allowed to go out with other men if those men are friends with the husband...I could go on. I saw this in the U.S. maybe once every few months, if that, and when I did it certainly wasn't to the extreme level that it is here. Here, I see it every single day multiple times per day. The US (and in North America in general) does not have a macho culture. In fact, it's not even close. In the U.S., if a man at work hits on a girl then that man can get fired. Here, the woman gets fired. In the U.S., domestic violence is a problem, but it's also frowned upon. Here, the woman deserved it. In the U.S., rape is a very serious crime. Here, rapists get raped in prison more than other criminals because why would a man need to rape a woman when that's what the woman's role is? I'm not making this shit up. I'm lucky to have a girlfriend with similar attitudes that you have (in a feminist bull-in-a-china-shop sort of way, as well. In fact, if we ever make it back to Boston I kind of figured you'd be someone she'd latch right on to due to your similarities), but the difference is that I don't really see people shunning you (maybe I don't know you well enough) for being a strong woman. Here, I see this sort of thing all the time. Most of the strong women who I know here can't maintain any kind of long-term relationship as a result of the societal pressures they face to shut the hell up and look pretty. That's their role here. That's how women are valued here. I'm not exaggerating. It's part of the reason why Brasil has an eating disorder epidemic (too many girls want to be like Gisele). Of all the non-American men I know here, I'm the only one who knows how to use a washing machine. And of the ones who cook on a regular basis, only a few aren't gay. A good friend of mine, and one of my former students, has been on crutches for the past three years due to a life-long degenerative condition she has. She is co-owner of a company that my gf founded (co-owned with one of my gf's strong-women friends who hasn't had a good, long-term relationship since her divorce ten years ago) and makes good money. Her husband is a music teacher and doesn't make good money. Nothing wrong with that except he doesn't have many friends anymore because they laugh at him for making less money. (again, I'm not exaggerating). They own a nice apartment paid mostly by her (in all honesty, she can afford it and he can't). That's great for her, right? Who do you think cleans the house? How about cooks dinner? Remember, she's on crutches and can only stand on one leg for a few minutes at a time. So, they hire a cleaner to help her out a couple of times per month. Who pays? Who do you think? And they order out a few times per week because it's hard for her to use her hands while she cooks (because she needs them to stand upright with the crutches). Who pays? Ah, so maybe they'll go to a restaurant every now and again instead of take-out all the time, right? Nope! Because he doesn't want to get his driver's license. Why is this a problem? They can only go to restaurants where there is parking really close to the restaurant due to her not being able to walk very far (i.e. - he won't get his license so that he can drop her off and drive to a parking lot and return to meet her at the restaurant). It gets better! She has been saving for three years to have surgery so that she can get a new knee. Then her mom has to have an emergency surgery, thus delaying my friends surgery. The mom is in the ICU for about a week and an in-patient for another 10 days or so. Who spends all her time with the mom in the hospital? The son? NO! Because the son "has a job and needs to work." (<-- That's a direct quote.) Remember, my friend co-owns a business (she's the graphic designer in a communications company). The husband complains that my friend is at the hospital with her mother because doesn't want to call the restaurant to order out food because they don't know him as well as they know her. And now, it's time for her surgery that will finally allow her to start walking again (and doing something she's only dreamed of the past few years, such as travelling where one needs to walk a lot, for example). But does the husband support her? No! He doesn't want her to get the surgery because "she might die!" OK, with all of her health problems, it was a valid concern, but really, that's not why everyone thinks he doesn't want her to get the surgery. Everyone thinks he doesn't want her to get the surgery because it will mean she'll have more freedom and will "need him less" (<-- another direct quote from the brother). OK, she has the surgery (and she's doing great, btw). But the doctor forbids her from driving for a month to let her new knee heal. Does the husband drive her to work? No, of course not silly. Remember, he doesn't have a driver's license and doesn't need it because she has one. So, her aunt comes to stay with them for a few weeks to help out. The aunt cooks, the aunt cleans, the aunt drives my friend to PT and sometimes to work and back...and drives the husband to his music lessons now because, well, there's someone who can drive him now. And then, when it comes time for the aunt to go back and take care of her family, the husband complains because it means he'll have to take care of some things while my friend continues to recover. Fast-forward. She's not my student anymore because, unfortunately, the surgery, PT, and all the other expenses of her (and him) having to pay for things they should have been doing on their own the past few years (i.e. - eating out instead of him cooking, etc) have left them financially strapped. They've cut out a lot of things, but the two things he's complaining about? No cleaner and no cable...both of which she paid for. This is not an exaggerated story. It's NORMAL. Men here are children, and they treat women like servants, and the better looking the servant, the higher the man's standing. And since here it's a man's world, well, why would anyone care about a woman's standing? The answer is that they don't. So since women aren't important, they might as well look pretty. Again, I'm not making this up. This is how it is here, and I can't tell you how many times I've pleaded with my gf to make her 20 year-old son do the dishes, cook, or do the laundry to help her out around the house (I don't live with them, btw, and can't tell him myself because, well, he has a dad and that's a sensitive subject - a father who, btw, hardly acknowledges the son outside of work because all that lovey-dovey stuff is for the mom, but I digress). She says she's tried her best and she's harder than the vast majority of moms. At some point, he needs to stand up and do things himself. Will he? Who knows? Societal pressures are pretty strong and guess what? He now has a trophy gf he's madly in love with. So yeah, in some contexts, Drivel's point is spot on. What you describe is absolutely horrible and I believe every word of it. However, you would probably agree that there are even worse atrocities imposed upon females in other parts of the world (genital mutilation / widow burning). I would never say that Brazilian women are 'incredibly lucky' for not living in those areas. Anyone who is oppressed is not lucky, and you can always find someone who has it worse. As far as being described as a bull in a China shop feminist, I tend to think of myself as someone who just wants to be treated as a human being. What's so radical about that?I just wanted to repeat that, because you've said something more clearly that I have apparently been able to. I would also like to point out that while it's nice that Gmburns thinks rape is treated as a very serious crime in the US, the fact is that it's grossly underreported and has a frighteningly low conviction rate when it is. And when it is, the victim is put on trial, because any display of sexuality under her own agency (look what she was wearing, she's into BDSM and is a freak, she made out with a girl at that party!) it is treated as license for men to do whatever they want. And if they can make the vicim look like a slut, no conviction. So yes, we have a long way to go there as well. my sister, the one who got called a dyke all through high school for wearing loose/boys clothes? she's a tough chick. she is told, laughing, by a frightening number of people that they're sure she could kick somebody's ass and they're not worried about her walking alone at night because she'd never be raped. Which is cruel every time, because her first penis-in-vagina experience was, in fact, rape. Which she never reported because what was the point? She was underage drinking at the guys house late at night.
sorry, gonna elaborate on this one. every girl who's ever wondered if it was really "rape rape" despite the fact that she never said he could put his dick in her, that maybe it was her own fault for being at that party/flirting with him/taking her shirt off, that maybe he could not be expected to stop? that is the result of teaching girls and women that they are the sex objects of men. consent is ASSUMED. their bodies are assumed to be available. that's is what is implied in "no means no." because it's yes until she screams no amirite?
[it should be "yes means yes," and we *should* have a culture of requiring affirmative consent, but we don't.]
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 4, 2012, 5:04 PM
Post #81 of 173
(21003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
lena_chita wrote: granite_grrl wrote: cracklover wrote: granite_grrl wrote: cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: So here's a question, actually, I'll pose this one for Lena: Let's say there's a book written for girls your daughter's age. Dust jacket photo of the author. She's a middle-aged sweet looking woman. What is your daughter's reaction? Is it "oh my god, she's ugly, I don't want to read this book"? Or let's say the dust jacket photo of the author shows a young woman in minimal clothes and lots of cleavage. Would her reaction be "Mommy, this looks like a good book, can I get this one"? NO, of course she wouldn't base her decision to get a book based on the picture of the author on the dust cover. And neither would most people. But there is a REASON why the photo of the author is on the inside of the back flap of the book, not on the front. Yes, and the reason is clear: society agrees that for both men and women, the way you look is *not* a prerequisite for the way your work will be judged. Otherwise we *would* see the author-as-model on the front cover. GO Everyone gets judged on how they look, whether you think it gets done or not. An interesting difference I find is that women spend more time on their looks then men do, and not just with things like hair and makeup. Once guys hit around 30 (or a little earlier) they start to "let themselves go". Get little beer bellies (or big ones), etc. Women at this age are still stressing and striving to diet and keep the weight off. In society it's far more acceptable for a man to let himself go than for a woman. Of course, everyone is judged on his/her looks, and women more than men. How's that got anything to do with what you just quoted me (above) saying? Do you agree that if a woman doesn't have a sexy photo of herself prominently placed on a book she'd authored, that no-one would ever bother to read the book, because the woman couldn't possibly have anything worthwhile to say if she wasn't a sex-object? GO Sexy doesn't have to mean that you're advertising for sex. For me, sexy on a man is flat stomach with a great set of abs, nice lats and generally well defined muscle. For the ladies we should be trim, a nice set of tits and well shapped ass. I'm just saying you take a sample of 30 year olds in the work place and you'll find that men don't care if they look sexy, women are still very concerned with this (regardless if they're looking for a mate or not). So why do women care more than men? Because we're supossed to and we're judged if we're not. I think they point that you're missing Gabe, is that the differences in how men and women are precived and the things that we're told are valuable about our sex from society is not blatant. It's a subtle attitude and change can only happen if we pay attention to it and we make effort to change it. I feel that BEC is aware of it, and he is doing his best to send positive messages to his daughter to combat it. I think the reason why so many people keep jumping on you is that it seems you keep telling us that the problem isn't as bad as we think it is. I keep coming back to one simple and yet very telling difference: girls are praised for their looks, from early age. Boys are usually praised for their actions. I have one of each, boy and girl. They are reasonably good-looking, they looked very much like each other when they were little, and they both were absolutely adorable toddlers/young preschoolers. It is really quite ridiculous. I remember a woman gushing over how smart my 3yo SON was when he counted some apples in the cart out loud in the grocery store. Several years later, my daughter got complimented by another random stranger for the exact same thing. Except this person didn't say, oh, look how smart you are. She said: oh, how CUTE you are, so precious!!! I've heard time and time again, directed at my daughter: You are so pretty. You are so cute. Aren't you a precious little princess? What a pretty outfit you have! Look at that cute face! I've heard time and time again, directed at my son: wow, you are so smart. Wow, you read a lot. Wow, that is an impressive vocabulary. The thing is, they both have the same IQ. They both qualify for gifted programs. And they are both reasonably good looking. So why the difference in treatment from complete strangers and random people? If this is not representation of "societal attitude", I don't know what is.
@ GG - I'm sure you're right (that the reason I'm getting flack is that folks here think I'm saying there is no discrimination based on gender in our society). The funny thing is, I've said quite the opposite numerous times. I think there is pervasive gender inequality and a wide variety of biases based on gender.
What I don't think is that Drivel's statement of blunt fact is the whole story in our culture. I see many different threads in modern American society telling girls and women a wide variety of things they're supposed to be (including the always helpful "be yourself"). And what I see is that not all of the messages say that you need to be sexy before society will allow you any other place of importance.
@ Lena - that sucks, plain and simple. And yes, that's a great example of the gender bias I keep saying I agree is prevalent in our society.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jun 4, 2012, 5:10 PM
Post #82 of 173
(20999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: granite_grrl wrote: cracklover wrote: granite_grrl wrote: cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: So here's a question, actually, I'll pose this one for Lena: Let's say there's a book written for girls your daughter's age. Dust jacket photo of the author. She's a middle-aged sweet looking woman. What is your daughter's reaction? Is it "oh my god, she's ugly, I don't want to read this book"? Or let's say the dust jacket photo of the author shows a young woman in minimal clothes and lots of cleavage. Would her reaction be "Mommy, this looks like a good book, can I get this one"? NO, of course she wouldn't base her decision to get a book based on the picture of the author on the dust cover. And neither would most people. But there is a REASON why the photo of the author is on the inside of the back flap of the book, not on the front. Yes, and the reason is clear: society agrees that for both men and women, the way you look is *not* a prerequisite for the way your work will be judged. Otherwise we *would* see the author-as-model on the front cover. GO Everyone gets judged on how they look, whether you think it gets done or not. An interesting difference I find is that women spend more time on their looks then men do, and not just with things like hair and makeup. Once guys hit around 30 (or a little earlier) they start to "let themselves go". Get little beer bellies (or big ones), etc. Women at this age are still stressing and striving to diet and keep the weight off. In society it's far more acceptable for a man to let himself go than for a woman. Of course, everyone is judged on his/her looks, and women more than men. How's that got anything to do with what you just quoted me (above) saying? Do you agree that if a woman doesn't have a sexy photo of herself prominently placed on a book she'd authored, that no-one would ever bother to read the book, because the woman couldn't possibly have anything worthwhile to say if she wasn't a sex-object? GO Sexy doesn't have to mean that you're advertising for sex. For me, sexy on a man is flat stomach with a great set of abs, nice lats and generally well defined muscle. For the ladies we should be trim, a nice set of tits and well shapped ass. I'm just saying you take a sample of 30 year olds in the work place and you'll find that men don't care if they look sexy, women are still very concerned with this (regardless if they're looking for a mate or not). So why do women care more than men? Because we're supossed to and we're judged if we're not. I think they point that you're missing Gabe, is that the differences in how men and women are precived and the things that we're told are valuable about our sex from society is not blatant. It's a subtle attitude and change can only happen if we pay attention to it and we make effort to change it. I feel that BEC is aware of it, and he is doing his best to send positive messages to his daughter to combat it. I think the reason why so many people keep jumping on you is that it seems you keep telling us that the problem isn't as bad as we think it is. I keep coming back to one simple and yet very telling difference: girls are praised for their looks, from early age. Boys are usually praised for their actions. I have one of each, boy and girl. They are reasonably good-looking, they looked very much like each other when they were little, and they both were absolutely adorable toddlers/young preschoolers. It is really quite ridiculous. I remember a woman gushing over how smart my 3yo SON was when he counted some apples in the cart out loud in the grocery store. Several years later, my daughter got complimented by another random stranger for the exact same thing. Except this person didn't say, oh, look how smart you are. She said: oh, how CUTE you are, so precious!!! I've heard time and time again, directed at my daughter: You are so pretty. You are so cute. Aren't you a precious little princess? What a pretty outfit you have! Look at that cute face! I've heard time and time again, directed at my son: wow, you are so smart. Wow, you read a lot. Wow, that is an impressive vocabulary. The thing is, they both have the same IQ. They both qualify for gifted programs. And they are both reasonably good looking. So why the difference in treatment from complete strangers and random people? If this is not representation of "societal attitude", I don't know what is. @ GG - I'm sure you're right (that the reason I'm getting flack is that folks here think I'm saying there is no discrimination based on gender in our society). The funny thing is, I've said quite the opposite numerous times. I think there is pervasive gender inequality and a wide variety of biases based on gender. What I don't think is that Drivel's statement of blunt fact is the whole story in our culture. I see many different threads in modern American society telling girls and women a wide variety of things they're supposed to be (including the always helpful "be yourself"). And what I see is that not all of the messages say that you need to be sexy before society will allow you any other place of importance. @ Lena - that sucks, plain and simple. And yes, that's a great example of the gender bias I keep saying I agree is prevalent in our society. GO
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jun 4, 2012, 5:11 PM
Post #83 of 173
(20996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
^^That was heinously oversimplified on my part, I'm just too hopped up on benadryl to put much more effort into anything.
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jun 4, 2012, 5:13 PM
Post #84 of 173
(20995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
carabiner96 wrote: ^^That was heinously oversimplified on my part, I'm just too hopped up on benadryl to put much more effort into anything.
I thought is was simply stated and eloquent. Hope you feel better.
|
|
|
|
|
clee03m
Jun 4, 2012, 5:37 PM
Post #85 of 173
(20982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 785
|
wonderwoman wrote: What you describe is absolutely horrible and I believe every word of it. However, you would probably agree that there are even worse atrocities imposed upon females in other parts of the world (genital mutilation / widow burning). I would never say that Brazilian women are 'incredibly lucky' for not living in those areas. Anyone who is oppressed is not lucky, and you can always find someone who has it worse. As far as being described as a bull in a China shop feminist, I tend to think of myself as someone who just wants to be treated as a human being. What's so radical about that?
Once again, she said it better than I could've. Gm, I don't think you meant to be offensive, but what you said about how we should feel 'incredibly lucky' was pretty bad.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 4, 2012, 5:40 PM
Post #86 of 173
(20979 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
If I can be reasonably accused of one thing in this thread, it's of being overly optimistic.
In my defense, Howard Zinn said this better than I can:
"An optimist isn’t necessarily a blithe, slightly sappy whistler in the dark of our time. To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something." --Howard Zinn
It's precisely that "seeing both the best and the worst", and "our capacity to do something" that I have been trying to emphasize throughout this thread. That's where my reference to women-only climbing clinics came from. There's clearly a risk tolerance issue that some women struggle with, and it's fascinating *and actionable* that such clinics are a way to help break through such barriers for some women.
Cheers,
GO
|
|
|
|
|
clee03m
Jun 4, 2012, 5:45 PM
Post #87 of 173
(20976 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 785
|
lena_chita wrote: I keep coming back to one simple and yet very telling difference: girls are praised for their looks, from early age. Boys are usually praised for their actions. I have one of each, boy and girl. They are reasonably good-looking, they looked very much like each other when they were little, and they both were absolutely adorable toddlers/young preschoolers. It is really quite ridiculous. I remember a woman gushing over how smart my 3yo SON was when he counted some apples in the cart out loud in the grocery store. Several years later, my daughter got complimented by another random stranger for the exact same thing. Except this person didn't say, oh, look how smart you are. She said: oh, how CUTE you are, so precious!!! I've heard time and time again, directed at my daughter: You are so pretty. You are so cute. Aren't you a precious little princess? What a pretty outfit you have! Look at that cute face! I've heard time and time again, directed at my son: wow, you are so smart. Wow, you read a lot. Wow, that is an impressive vocabulary. The thing is, they both have the same IQ. They both qualify for gifted programs. And they are both reasonably good looking. So why the difference in treatment from complete strangers and random people? If this is not representation of "societal attitude", I don't know what is.
While I am not surprised, I am really sorry this is happening. Good thing she has got a great mom who is going to teach her. I would be so angry, but I am not sure how I would be able to prevent this from happening to her. I am almost glad I don't have daughters to have to try to undo what is being done. I have noticed that in our efforts to be gender neutral and minimize heterosexual bias, my husband and I are having some difficulty finding books and toys that we feel are completely appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jun 4, 2012, 5:48 PM
Post #88 of 173
(20973 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
cracklover wrote: If I can be reasonably accused of one thing in this thread, it's of being overly optimistic. In my defense, Howard Zinn said this better than I can: "An optimist isn’t necessarily a blithe, slightly sappy whistler in the dark of our time. To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something." --Howard Zinn It's precisely that "seeing both the best and the worst", and "our capacity to do something" that I have been trying to emphasize throughout this thread. That's where my reference to women-only climbing clinics came from. There's clearly a risk tolerance issue that some women struggle with, and it's fascinating *and actionable* that such clinics are a way to help break through such barriers for some women. Cheers, GO
I have thought this whole time that you don't want to accept the premise [that women are socialized to be sex objects of men] because you dearly hope that it's not true. Because you want the world or at least our country to be better than that. That doesn't help anything though, and it has the side effect of silencing people who experience the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
clee03m
Jun 4, 2012, 6:00 PM
Post #89 of 173
(20968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 785
|
drivel wrote: I have thought this whole time that you don't want to accept the premise [that women are socialized to be sex objects of men] because you dearly hope that it's not true. Because you want the world or at least our country to be better than that. That doesn't help anything though, and it has the side effect of silencing people who experience the problem.
I agree also that in case, this kind of optimism may not pay off. I personally know 4 different girls who were raped, two were their first time ever having sex, and none even bothered reporting. One guy even bragged at school that he had sex with her. Unfortunately, this is our reality. No amount of optimism makes this go away. But it may, as drivel said, silence those who need to speak out.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 4, 2012, 6:11 PM
Post #90 of 173
(20964 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
drivel wrote: cracklover wrote: If I can be reasonably accused of one thing in this thread, it's of being overly optimistic. In my defense, Howard Zinn said this better than I can: "An optimist isn’t necessarily a blithe, slightly sappy whistler in the dark of our time. To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something." --Howard Zinn It's precisely that "seeing both the best and the worst", and "our capacity to do something" that I have been trying to emphasize throughout this thread. That's where my reference to women-only climbing clinics came from. There's clearly a risk tolerance issue that some women struggle with, and it's fascinating *and actionable* that such clinics are a way to help break through such barriers for some women. Cheers, GO I have thought this whole time that you don't want to accept the premise [that women are socialized to be sex objects of men] because you dearly hope that it's not true. Because you want the world or at least our country to be better than that. That doesn't help anything though, and it has the side effect of silencing people who experience the problem.
Oh, there's no doubt that this is happening. What I hope, actually, what I *know* to be true, is that women and girls are *also* getting messages that that tell them about the value that women have had, and do have, and will have, and that they themselves may have, that is not as a sexual object, but as a valuable part of society *irrelevant* to what they look like, or who finds them attractive.
That is the part that is actively denied by your statement "To be blunt: women are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as sex objects. Of men."
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 4, 2012, 6:14 PM
Post #91 of 173
(20962 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
clee03m wrote: drivel wrote: I have thought this whole time that you don't want to accept the premise [that women are socialized to be sex objects of men] because you dearly hope that it's not true. Because you want the world or at least our country to be better than that. That doesn't help anything though, and it has the side effect of silencing people who experience the problem. I agree also that in case, this kind of optimism may not pay off. I personally know 4 different girls who were raped, two were their first time ever having sex, and none even bothered reporting. One guy even bragged at school that he had sex with her. Unfortunately, this is our reality. No amount of optimism makes this go away. But it may, as drivel said, silence those who need to speak out.
You either didn't understand my quote, or are choosing to misrepresent it.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jun 4, 2012, 6:16 PM
Post #92 of 173
(20959 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
clee03m wrote: lena_chita wrote: I keep coming back to one simple and yet very telling difference: girls are praised for their looks, from early age. Boys are usually praised for their actions. I have one of each, boy and girl. They are reasonably good-looking, they looked very much like each other when they were little, and they both were absolutely adorable toddlers/young preschoolers. It is really quite ridiculous. I remember a woman gushing over how smart my 3yo SON was when he counted some apples in the cart out loud in the grocery store. Several years later, my daughter got complimented by another random stranger for the exact same thing. Except this person didn't say, oh, look how smart you are. She said: oh, how CUTE you are, so precious!!! I've heard time and time again, directed at my daughter: You are so pretty. You are so cute. Aren't you a precious little princess? What a pretty outfit you have! Look at that cute face! I've heard time and time again, directed at my son: wow, you are so smart. Wow, you read a lot. Wow, that is an impressive vocabulary. The thing is, they both have the same IQ. They both qualify for gifted programs. And they are both reasonably good looking. So why the difference in treatment from complete strangers and random people? If this is not representation of "societal attitude", I don't know what is. While I am not surprised, I am really sorry this is happening. Good thing she has got a great mom who is going to teach her. I would be so angry, but I am not sure how I would be able to prevent this from happening to her.
NO, there isn't really any way to stop people making those comments. The comments are meant to be nice, and usually people don't even realize that they are using different language for boys and girls.
This goes back to the question of how pervasive this attitude is...
The strongly negative attitudes ("you belong in the kitchen woman! Go bring me my beer and shut up!") have clearly diminished/bacame unacceptable to be expressed widely in society.
But the same message is communicated in seemingly positive ways (really, what parent would do anything other than smile and say thank you, when a good-intentioned stranger comments on how pretty her daughter is?). It is not the message that the little girl is pretty that is wrong, in itself. It is what other messages are not being communicated to the little girls. Because absence of praise can speak quite as loudly as the praise...
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jun 4, 2012, 6:20 PM
Post #93 of 173
(20956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
lena_chita wrote: clee03m wrote: lena_chita wrote: I keep coming back to one simple and yet very telling difference: girls are praised for their looks, from early age. Boys are usually praised for their actions. I have one of each, boy and girl. They are reasonably good-looking, they looked very much like each other when they were little, and they both were absolutely adorable toddlers/young preschoolers. It is really quite ridiculous. I remember a woman gushing over how smart my 3yo SON was when he counted some apples in the cart out loud in the grocery store. Several years later, my daughter got complimented by another random stranger for the exact same thing. Except this person didn't say, oh, look how smart you are. She said: oh, how CUTE you are, so precious!!! I've heard time and time again, directed at my daughter: You are so pretty. You are so cute. Aren't you a precious little princess? What a pretty outfit you have! Look at that cute face! I've heard time and time again, directed at my son: wow, you are so smart. Wow, you read a lot. Wow, that is an impressive vocabulary. The thing is, they both have the same IQ. They both qualify for gifted programs. And they are both reasonably good looking. So why the difference in treatment from complete strangers and random people? If this is not representation of "societal attitude", I don't know what is. While I am not surprised, I am really sorry this is happening. Good thing she has got a great mom who is going to teach her. I would be so angry, but I am not sure how I would be able to prevent this from happening to her. NO, there isn't really any way to stop people making those comments. The comments are meant to be nice, and usually people don't even realize that they are using different language for boys and girls. This goes back to the question of how pervasive this attitude is... The strongly negative attitudes ("you belong in the kitchen woman! Go bring me my beer and shut up!") have clearly diminished/bacame unacceptable to be expressed widely in society. But the same message is communicated in seemingly positive ways (really, what parent would do anything other than smile and say thank you, when a good-intentioned stranger comments on how pretty her daughter is?). It is not the message that the little girl is pretty that is wrong, in itself. It is what other messages are not being communicated to the little girls. Because absence of praise can speak quite as loudly as the praise...
I remember someone once commenting that our daughter was smart when she was little. She said, 'No, I'm not.' She wanted to be pretty rather than smart. You apparently can't be pretty and smart at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Jun 4, 2012, 6:29 PM
Post #94 of 173
(20946 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
cracklover wrote: drivel wrote: cracklover wrote: If I can be reasonably accused of one thing in this thread, it's of being overly optimistic. In my defense, Howard Zinn said this better than I can: "An optimist isn’t necessarily a blithe, slightly sappy whistler in the dark of our time. To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something." --Howard Zinn It's precisely that "seeing both the best and the worst", and "our capacity to do something" that I have been trying to emphasize throughout this thread. That's where my reference to women-only climbing clinics came from. There's clearly a risk tolerance issue that some women struggle with, and it's fascinating *and actionable* that such clinics are a way to help break through such barriers for some women. Cheers, GO I have thought this whole time that you don't want to accept the premise [that women are socialized to be sex objects of men] because you dearly hope that it's not true. Because you want the world or at least our country to be better than that. That doesn't help anything though, and it has the side effect of silencing people who experience the problem. Oh, there's no doubt that this is happening. What I hope, actually, what I *know* to be true, is that women and girls are *also* getting messages that that tell them about the value that women have had, and do have, and will have, and that they themselves may have, that is not as a sexual object, but as a valuable part of society *irrelevant* to what they look like, or who finds them attractive. That is the part that is actively denied by your statement "To be blunt: women are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as sex objects. Of men." GO
A lot of girls get both messages, but what about the girls who don't? And even when we do get both positive and negaticve messages the signal to noise ratio is pretty high.
I'm an optimist too, my mother had to take drafting in college because it's one of the few trades they'd allow a woman to enter if she didn't want to be a secratery or a nurse. Both me and my older sister are engineers. We were talking recently how we've come a long way in just a generation, but still have a long way to go (it was ~10% female in EE in my graduating class).
When I look at the link of childern's toys it scares the crap out of me. There are so many of us thinking that things are moving forward, but looking at what the generation behind me is being exposed to we might be wrong. 
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 4, 2012, 6:36 PM
Post #95 of 173
(20942 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
lena_chita wrote: clee03m wrote: lena_chita wrote: I keep coming back to one simple and yet very telling difference: girls are praised for their looks, from early age. Boys are usually praised for their actions. I have one of each, boy and girl. They are reasonably good-looking, they looked very much like each other when they were little, and they both were absolutely adorable toddlers/young preschoolers. It is really quite ridiculous. I remember a woman gushing over how smart my 3yo SON was when he counted some apples in the cart out loud in the grocery store. Several years later, my daughter got complimented by another random stranger for the exact same thing. Except this person didn't say, oh, look how smart you are. She said: oh, how CUTE you are, so precious!!! I've heard time and time again, directed at my daughter: You are so pretty. You are so cute. Aren't you a precious little princess? What a pretty outfit you have! Look at that cute face! I've heard time and time again, directed at my son: wow, you are so smart. Wow, you read a lot. Wow, that is an impressive vocabulary. The thing is, they both have the same IQ. They both qualify for gifted programs. And they are both reasonably good looking. So why the difference in treatment from complete strangers and random people? If this is not representation of "societal attitude", I don't know what is. While I am not surprised, I am really sorry this is happening. Good thing she has got a great mom who is going to teach her. I would be so angry, but I am not sure how I would be able to prevent this from happening to her. NO, there isn't really any way to stop people making those comments. The comments are meant to be nice, and usually people don't even realize that they are using different language for boys and girls. This goes back to the question of how pervasive this attitude is... The strongly negative attitudes ("you belong in the kitchen woman! Go bring me my beer and shut up!") have clearly diminished/bacame unacceptable to be expressed widely in society. But the same message is communicated in seemingly positive ways (really, what parent would do anything other than smile and say thank you, when a good-intentioned stranger comments on how pretty her daughter is?). It is not the message that the little girl is pretty that is wrong, in itself. It is what other messages are not being communicated to the little girls. Because absence of praise can speak quite as loudly as the praise...
IRT the part I bolded: I couldn't agree more!
The argument I am trying to make is that the same is true on the societal level as on the personal. By failing to acknowledge and celebrate the positive female role models, the successful and accomplished women in every strata of society, the positive messages being sent every day, we are cursing society. We are denigrating and devaluing the good by failing to acknowledge it alongside the bad.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 4, 2012, 6:47 PM
Post #96 of 173
(20937 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
granite_grrl wrote: cracklover wrote: drivel wrote: cracklover wrote: If I can be reasonably accused of one thing in this thread, it's of being overly optimistic. In my defense, Howard Zinn said this better than I can: "An optimist isn’t necessarily a blithe, slightly sappy whistler in the dark of our time. To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something." --Howard Zinn It's precisely that "seeing both the best and the worst", and "our capacity to do something" that I have been trying to emphasize throughout this thread. That's where my reference to women-only climbing clinics came from. There's clearly a risk tolerance issue that some women struggle with, and it's fascinating *and actionable* that such clinics are a way to help break through such barriers for some women. Cheers, GO I have thought this whole time that you don't want to accept the premise [that women are socialized to be sex objects of men] because you dearly hope that it's not true. Because you want the world or at least our country to be better than that. That doesn't help anything though, and it has the side effect of silencing people who experience the problem. Oh, there's no doubt that this is happening. What I hope, actually, what I *know* to be true, is that women and girls are *also* getting messages that that tell them about the value that women have had, and do have, and will have, and that they themselves may have, that is not as a sexual object, but as a valuable part of society *irrelevant* to what they look like, or who finds them attractive. That is the part that is actively denied by your statement "To be blunt: women are socialized to believe that their value as persons and to society is contingent upon their value as sex objects. Of men." GO A lot of girls get both messages, but what about the girls who don't? And even when we do get both positive and negaticve messages the signal to noise ratio is pretty high. I'm an optimist too, my mother had to take drafting in college because it's one of the few trades they'd allow a woman to enter if she didn't want to be a secratery or a nurse. Both me and my older sister are engineers. We were talking recently how we've come a long way in just a generation, but still have a long way to go (it was ~10% female in EE in my graduating class). When I look at the link of childern's toys it scares the crap out of me. There are so many of us thinking that things are moving forward, but looking at what the generation behind me is being exposed to we might be wrong.
I think the last 15 years has seen what I would call a "post-feminist" trend among women in society. Part of this is the rejection of some of the feminist ideals of the 60s and 70s, and the desire to retake the "sexy" as a tool of power. I feel like that's fine, to a degree. The trouble is - who's defining "sexy"?
Oh, and worse than those toys are the little girls JonBenet Ramsey style fashion shows. They make me want to puke.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jun 4, 2012, 7:08 PM
Post #97 of 173
(20930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
drivel wrote: sorry, gonna elaborate on this one. every girl who's ever wondered if it was really "rape rape" despite the fact that she never said he could put his dick in her, that maybe it was her own fault for being at that party/flirting with him/taking her shirt off, that maybe he could not be expected to stop? that is the result of teaching girls and women that they are the sex objects of men. consent is ASSUMED. their bodies are assumed to be available. that's is what is implied in "no means no." because it's yes until she screams no amirite? [it should be "yes means yes," and we *should* have a culture of requiring affirmative consent, but we don't.]
you gonna respond to this one, GO?
also, I see what you're trying to get at with saying there are alternative messages. But the fact remains that every girl DOES get the negative messages, even among the ones that also manage to get some positive ones as "alternatives," the positioning of which is itself problematic, as 'biner pointed out.
|
|
|
|
|
SylviaSmile
Jun 4, 2012, 7:59 PM
Post #98 of 173
(20896 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 983
|
drivel wrote: drivel wrote: sorry, gonna elaborate on this one. every girl who's ever wondered if it was really "rape rape" despite the fact that she never said he could put his dick in her, that maybe it was her own fault for being at that party/flirting with him/taking her shirt off, that maybe he could not be expected to stop? that is the result of teaching girls and women that they are the sex objects of men. consent is ASSUMED. their bodies are assumed to be available. that's is what is implied in "no means no." because it's yes until she screams no amirite? [it should be "yes means yes," and we *should* have a culture of requiring affirmative consent, but we don't.] you gonna respond to this one, GO? also, I see what you're trying to get at with saying there are alternative messages. But the fact remains that every girl DOES get the negative messages, even among the ones that also manage to get some positive ones as "alternatives," the positioning of which is itself problematic, as 'biner pointed out.
I'm going to be controversial here and say that the issue with rape/not reporting rape goes a bit deeper than just women being trained to think of themselves as sex objects, though of course that is extremely pertinent. I think another part of it also has to do with the fact that women have a peculiar ability to internalize intuitively others' needs and desires and give them preference to their own needs and desires, often more so than men. Obviously that's a very general statement, but it's probably linked to a maternal instinct so that mothers can sense what their children need without having to be told. When this tendency is wrapped up with the complicating factors of sexual desire and a man's unique ability NOT to internalize another's feelings (or easily to ignore them), it can get very dangerous. I agree that "we should have a culture of requiring affirmative consent," yet I can also see how this is still a work in progress when I don't see that guys even from a young age have a tendency to ask permission for things...nature vs. nurture, I don't know, but it does sort of connect back to the risk tolerance issue in just seeing different approaches to doing something that might be considered unacceptable, scary, daring, etc.
I'm still aghast whenever I think of the statistics that show that rape, the most awful of violent crimes, is most often perpetrated by someone who actually KNOWS the victim. In fact, this also happened to one of my friends (a "date rape" scenario, which I think is an awful, stupid, and oxymoronic phrase), but she did end up reporting it. I recall her saying that the police in our southern town told her that probably they wouldn't do much to prosecute the guy.  Why aren't MEN more up in arms about rape, anyway?? When you think about it, the problem of rape is at the core a MEN'S issue, not a woman's issue--no matter how self-confident a woman is or sure of herself or NOT seeing herself as a sex object, it can still happen to her, simply by the fact of a man being violent and evil. (And yes, I know that women do commit rape, but those scenarios are by far more rare.)
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jun 4, 2012, 8:14 PM
Post #99 of 173
(20891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
SylviaSmile wrote: drivel wrote: drivel wrote: sorry, gonna elaborate on this one. every girl who's ever wondered if it was really "rape rape" despite the fact that she never said he could put his dick in her, that maybe it was her own fault for being at that party/flirting with him/taking her shirt off, that maybe he could not be expected to stop? that is the result of teaching girls and women that they are the sex objects of men. consent is ASSUMED. their bodies are assumed to be available. that's is what is implied in "no means no." because it's yes until she screams no amirite? [it should be "yes means yes," and we *should* have a culture of requiring affirmative consent, but we don't.] you gonna respond to this one, GO? also, I see what you're trying to get at with saying there are alternative messages. But the fact remains that every girl DOES get the negative messages, even among the ones that also manage to get some positive ones as "alternatives," the positioning of which is itself problematic, as 'biner pointed out. I'm going to be controversial here and say that the issue with rape/not reporting rape goes a bit deeper than just women being trained to think of themselves as sex objects, though of course that is extremely pertinent. I think another part of it also has to do with the fact that women have a peculiar ability to internalize intuitively others' needs and desires and give them preference to their own needs and desires, often more so than men. Obviously that's a very general statement, but it's probably linked to a maternal instinct so that mothers can sense what their children need without having to be told. When this tendency is wrapped up with the complicating factors of sexual desire and a man's unique ability NOT to internalize another's feelings (or easily to ignore them), it can get very dangerous. I agree that "we should have a culture of requiring affirmative consent," yet I can also see how this is still a work in progress when I don't see that guys even from a young age have a tendency to ask permission for things...nature vs. nurture, I don't know, but it does sort of connect back to the risk tolerance issue in just seeing different approaches to doing something that might be considered unacceptable, scary, daring, etc. I'm still aghast whenever I think of the statistics that show that rape, the most awful of violent crimes, is most often perpetrated by someone who actually KNOWS the victim. In fact, this also happened to one of my friends (a "date rape" scenario, which I think is an awful, stupid, and oxymoronic phrase), but she did end up reporting it. I recall her saying that the police in our southern town told her that probably they wouldn't do much to prosecute the guy. Why aren't MEN more up in arms about rape, anyway?? When you think about it, the problem of rape is at the core a MEN'S issue, not a woman's issue--no matter how self-confident a woman is or sure of herself or NOT seeing herself as a sex object, it can still happen to her, simply by the fact of a man being violent and evil. (And yes, I know that women do commit rape, but those scenarios are by far more rare.)
and this is where we wildly disagree on "nature vs nuture"
The fact that women tend to put others desires above their own men do not is part of male privilege. Men are taught that they have the right to have desires, and women are taught that they have the right to be grateful if they are desired.
(This post was edited by drivel on Jun 4, 2012, 8:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jun 4, 2012, 8:19 PM
Post #100 of 173
(20884 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
wonderwoman wrote: What you describe is absolutely horrible and I believe every word of it. However, you would probably agree that there are even worse atrocities imposed upon females in other parts of the world (genital mutilation / widow burning). I would never say that Brazilian women are 'incredibly lucky' for not living in those areas. Anyone who is oppressed is not lucky, and you can always find someone who has it worse.
Don't disagree with that point at all, and there's always work to be done, but really, it's also OK to acknowledge advances and to be happy with one's situation. Of course, this wasn't my point to begin with, but I guess it did come across that way.
In reply to: As far as being described as a bull in a China shop feminist, I tend to think of myself as someone who just wants to be treated as a human being. What's so radical about that?
Actually, I used those words to describe you because you once used them to describe yourself one day. 
Don't remember when it was. Might have been at the gym.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
