Frazzled wrote: meanwhile, I walk Renn Faire in a kilt and boots. and thats it. like it or don't, its how I roll. same can be said for the ladies.
So the ladies are stomping around your renaissance fairs topless and in Scottish men's wear? Since you mentioned nothing about beards, I will envision the scene as a good thing.
Frazzled wrote: meanwhile, I walk Renn Faire in a kilt and boots. and thats it. like it or don't, its how I roll. same can be said for the ladies.
So the ladies are stomping around your renaissance fairs topless and in Scottish men's wear? Since you mentioned nothing about beards, I will envision the scene as a good thing.
renn gets a little racy round these parts. especially at night.
some things are good, other things are very VERY bad. and what is seen cannot be unseen.
and no, the dude in a princess dress with a beard like ZZ top and no undergarments was not attractive. yea, burn that one into your brain.
AustonT wrote:I suppose this one isn't her either?
Wait... so now someone wants to be objectified by wearing a black tank top? Help me understand your reasoning here. What should she wear? A burqa?
DutchKillsRambo wrote:She acted naive by saying she was shocked that men would be rude to her for wearing a racy costume at a comic con. In my mind shes lying. In yours shes not. Only she knows the truth.
Actually, if you want the quote right from her own story, it is this:
I guess I was not surprised to have a couple men ask to pose with me and...
I do not understand how you attribute this to naivete. Her entire post is about how the media itself appeared to be going out of its way to objectify her, rather than treat her like a costuming fan wearing a costume.
To summarize for you: she is upset that she was treated not as a cosplayer, but as a pair of tits in leather.
AustonT wrote: Right she can only Cosplay and pose as comic book characters right?
You've lost me now. All I know is that you have failed to show any evidence supporting your statement.
I see plenty of evidence.
This is kind of weaving in and out of my question for Cannerus, but is the issue here that you are equating sexual attractiveness with being objectified? My own account of sexuality is that people are the proper objects of sexuality so even in that technical sense, being the object is not different from being a person -- in other words, this isn't the de-personalizing objectification that we're talking about. (Contrast this with someone who wants to rub their privates against a shoe or a pillow.) A woman being sexy isn't being less of a human being.
I'm sorry I can't hear your point while Mandy Caruso doesn't objectify herself as a fully clothed heroine.
She really wants you to appreciate her for her personality.
AustonT wrote: She really wants you to appreciate her for her personality.
Manchu wrote: A woman being sexy isn't being less of a human being.
QFT.
I think she looks great. but thats as far as I would ever go with it.
now my personal preference, are people that put some SERIOUS effort intot he costumes, and less into being sexy.
Now to be fair (and I believe it was mentioned eerlier) comic book and video game designers (intentionally or note) DO place heroine's to be on the sexy scantly clad side. it IS after all a male dominated industry, and lets face it, sex sells.
but there is a REAL difference between make believe and real life.
A woman in a sexy costume, is STILL a woman. you MUST treat her with the common decency she deserves. I don't care if they're fully nude, if they say no touch, or back off, its no touch, and back off. end of story.
AustonT wrote: She really wants you to appreciate her for her personality.
Manchu wrote: A woman being sexy isn't being less of a human being.
EthicsAlert wrote:You understand the set-up, right? A beautiful, sexy, voluptuous young woman dresses in a mask and leather suit, showing a degree of cleavage that would not be appropriate in the workplace unless it was the Pussycat Lounge, and intentionally turns herself into a living, breathing fantasy sex object for an audience primarily made up of socially inept, hormonally unfulfilled young men.
EthicsAlert wrote:You understand the set-up, right? A beautiful, sexy, voluptuous young woman dresses in a mask and leather suit, showing a degree of cleavage that would not be appropriate in the workplace unless it was the Pussycat Lounge, and intentionally turns herself into a living, breathing fantasy sex object for an audience primarily made up of socially inept, hormonally unfulfilled young men.
Except no.
- Workplace standard? Explain why this is material for a cosplayer at a comic book convention. - She intends to be a fantasy sex object? This is a conclusion for which you have consistently failed to show any support. - Con attendees are mindless animals? Even the woman in question, who was sexually harassed by con attendees, denies that generalization.
What pray tell is this "Ethics Alert"? Are you just quoting something you wrote on a different website?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rimmy wrote: A woman in a sexy costume, is STILL a woman. you MUST treat her with the common decency she deserves.
Folks here seem to believe that wearing a sexy costume means she deserves no common decency. Of course, they would phrase it as "shouldn't be surprised when she's treated rudely."
Manchu wrote: Folks here seem to believe that wearing a sexy costume means she deserves no common decency. Of course, they would phrase it as "shouldn't be surprised when she's treated rudely."
I said she should not be surprised at being treated poorly at a con by socially inept weirdos.
You honestly think that I therefore believed she deserved to be treated poorly?
That's like saying 'I'm not surprised that the black guy got insulted when walking past a BNP rally' is the same as 'he deserved to be insulted'.
Expecting a negative outcome and agreeing with that negative outcome are quite different.
They aren't the same thing at all. This woman should not have been insulted, but I'm not surprised that she was and her degree of outrage is, imo, disproportionate, especially given that she otherwise appears to have strong confidence and promotes herself visually through highly sexualised photography of her wearing items of clothing that in this society, are considered revealing and designed to promote a sexual attraction in the opposite (and some of her own) gender.
. They have every right to go to a con in whatever the hell outfit they choose, for whatever reason they choose, just as you do, without being subjected to this kind of vile harassment. It is not a woman's fault if a man is sexist towards her, it is the man's fault for being sexist towards her.
Does this apply to men as well, if an equivalent man was to attend the con wearing only a thong, socks and shoes? I find it difficult to believe that people would not think of this as shameless (Either saying so or just thinking it). A clear double standard offensive to both men and women.
MGS: You tell me that she shouldn't be surprised then immediately tell me she's disproportionately offended. Now do we agree that those are separate issues or not? (For the record, she seems to think they are separate.). If so could you please explain what is disproportionate about her being offended.
Yo Manchu, do you jaywalk? Do you Jaywalk with the explicit intent of crossing the street or getting hit by a car? If you get hit by a car, guess what, pedestrians still have right of way, so it isn't you're legal obligation to watch out for cars, and it's a terrible thing to have happen. But really, if you get hit by a car while jay walking no ones going to make a huge deal over it.
That's what we're annoyed about with this woman. She got hit while jaywalking and expects us all to pull our hair and wail about how horrible the driver was for hitting her.
Lastly Manchu, what the heck is your deal? Can you just not read? Nearly everyone who has responded to you has repeatedly told you that what the interviewer did was not justifiable and your response to that is, "OMFG HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY HIS ACTIONS LIKE THAT!!! I BET YOU THINK RAPE IS THE FAULT OF THE VICTIM! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!"
I swear, you're probably the worst debater I have yet seen on Dakka.
What was the woman doing that was either illegal or wrong? How is it comparable to jay walking?
What I see in this thread is people saying "he shouldn't have done that BUT she had it coming." In other words, it's not really important that he did something wrong; the real problem is her.
But really, if you get hit by a car while jay walking no ones going to make a huge deal over it.
In what universe? Hit a pedestrian, ANY pedestrian, and you are in some serious mojo, especially if speeding. Go 50 in a 35 and hit someone and you are in line for vehicular manslaughter.
What I see in this thread is people saying "he shouldn't have done that BUT this isn't surprising at all, it happens all the time on a daily basis, move on ma'am."
What was the woman doing that was either illegal or wrong?
Nothing, in the majority of the country Jaywalking isn't a crime, and at worst is only a fine. Yet most people seem to inherently grasp the dangers of jaywalking, even though it is entirely acceptable within society.
How is it comparable to jay walking?
This lady and the jaywalker are both in the legal and moral right. Basically, is what she dressed in inherently provacitive or wrong? No, not really, can it be construed as such? Absolutely. Hence when she wore said clothing she should be prepared for the kind of actions and judgements it will likely bring. The fact that those actions are unjustified in polite society is moot.
What I see in this thread is people saying "he shouldn't have done that BUT she had it coming." In other words, it's not really important that he did something wrong; the real problem is her.
You see I'm not sure if this is a case of willful ignorance on your part or if you're simply seeing what you want to see. Just about everyone who has touched on the topic who hasn't agreed with you already has stated that no, she did not have it coming to her and it's pretty crappy that it did come to her. However, no one is surprised that it did happen, hence why everyone, you and you mates excluded, are somewhat bemused as to her shock that the that it did happen.
It means gak happens. If we all went onto the internet and decried the world for the things that happen to us all the time, we'd never get anywhere. EDIT: I seriously doubt this is the first or last time men will be horrible to her. Jerks don't go away because the rest of us don't like them.
I just described half the content of the internet didn't I
Listen, I dont go to a Raiders game wearing a 49ers Shirt and expect to be treated nicely. This is the culture, deal with it. Yes, at a glance, you will be objectivied, but in the end, its like going into the Lions dens with a full meat suit, you expect to be pounced on.
Grey Templar wrote: No, its more like "what the dude did was wrong and she really shouldn't have been surprised that what happened happened"
So you'd say she has every right to be just offended as she is, regardless of being surprised or not?
What I'm saying is, she had no right to go and complain to the media and make a big deal of it. She should have just slapped him and walked away in a huff. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if she came crying to me I'd say deal with. If you dress provocativly, you are going to attract unsavory individuals.
In what universe? Hit a pedestrian, ANY pedestrian, and you are in some serious mojo, especially if speeding. Go 50 in a 35 and hit someone and you are in line for vehicular manslaughter.
I mean no ones going to agree with her being outraged at being hit. It wouldn't hit the news. Well, except for local possibly, and even then it would only be an accident report, it wouldn't be a full on write up of how outraged she is about getting hit by a car while jay walking.
So you'd say she has every right to be just offended as she is, regardless of being surprised or not?
Yes, but it isn't anything that justifies her going, "Look at me my outrage is special and significant because I was ogled and objecrtifeid while attending a comic convention in a sexy outfit!"
She was unduly harassed. Having a group of neckbeards stand around and ask what your cup size is is completely inappropriate. I wouldn't even do that at a strip club.
If you're going to dress like that, as a man or a woman, you need to expect a certain amount, and a certain type, of attention. People are going to stare, maybe take photos, and talk about what you're wearing.
But what happened to that woman is well beyond what is acceptable, and should not be something that regular people have to worry about. People, in this day and age, should know better.
Ratbarf wrote: Hence when she wore said clothing she should be prepared for the kind of actions and judgements it will likely bring.
Who said she was unprepared? To the extent she was unprepared, it was because most people at cons don't act like this guy. But again, that's a separate issue. So when you say "she should be prepared" you seem to mean "she shouldn't be offended or if she is she should just take it." But by all means, explain to me how that is not what you are saying. I have been waiting for your ace debate skills to reveal that key distinction but alas to no avail as of yet.
LordofHats wrote: If we all went onto the internet and decried the world for the things that happen to us all the time, we'd never get anywhere.
How is this woman making a legitimate complaint holding us up as as society? If anything, her feeling like she can talk about this openly is progress. Conversely, people saying she should just "get over it" is holding us back.
hotsauceman1 wrote: in the end, its like going into the Lions dens with a full meat suit, you expect to be pounced on.
A bit like going onto a 40k message board with a MLP avatar? Are you asking to be pounced on? If you are, day after day, is that just something you should get over and we moderators should just let it happen because after all, you shouldn't be surprised?
Grey Templar wrote: If you dress provocativly, you are going to attract unsavory individuals.
There is an important thing you're glossing over by saying she should just shut up: namely, whether or not someone is rude to her, being rude to her is still wrong and in fact there's no reason to even talk about how "it's just a fact" that people might behave in a terrible way. There is no connection. If you are suggesting there is one, can you just come out and say it?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Um, I have never once complained about someone insulting me about an MLP avatar. Except right now.
So you believe that moderators should not police people tearing into you about MLP because it's just the way things would be otherwise?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Because all we can really do about it is tell her that sucks.
No way, dude. We can say "people have no right to do that." This thread is evidence for the fact that such statements really do need to be made because you and others are saying she should shut up and get over it. Surely you must understand that just means it will be more likely to happen again?
Really, I dont care, I have thick skin, Insults and like that flow over me.
Quite Frankly, if this was me, i would be happy that people that i looked so great.
Manchu wrote: MGS: You tell me that she shouldn't be surprised then immediately tell me she's disproportionately offended. Now do we agree that those are separate issues or not? (For the record, she seems to think they are separate.). If so could you please explain what is disproportionate about her being offended.
There are two issues yes, the action of the offence and her reaction to it. They are not separate as they are intrinsically linked, one was the by-blow of the other.
The offence was an unpleasant incident. It should not have happened. It can be equated to someone yelling 'fatso' at someone carrying too much weight. It was hurtful and personally intrusive.
However, it can be argued that she dramatically increased the odds of this happening by wearing an incredibly revealing outfit and entertaining attention, the amount of sympathy given to her is reduced because, like a snake preacher getting bitten by a rattler, she does appear to have courted attention from adolescent and older solitary males by dressing as highly sexualised fantasy objects of mysogeny.
She seems genuinely surprised that this happened and appears to have courted more attention via her outrage about it. So, from where I'm sitting, it all looks somewhat self aggrandizing and cynically exploitative.
I don't buy her level of outrage over something that was wrong but frankly the equivalent of being shouted at wearing a miniskirt in the center of most British towns on a Saturday night.
Grey Templar wrote: And if she came crying to me I'd say deal with. If you dress provocativly, you are going to attract unsavory individuals.
And that will continue to happen so long as people just shrug and say 'Well, it's your own fault for dressing provocatively...'
Being socially inept doesn't make unacceptable behaviour any less unnaceptable.
Women shouldn't have to fear being treated badly just because they choose to dress in sexy clothes... and if more people derided the socially unacceptable behaviour of those who react inappropriately to it rather than blaming the woman for dressing that way, they wouldn't have to. If a woman is comfortable enough with herself to dress in a chainmail bikini, good for her. It's not unreasonable for her to expect, in this day and age, that the men around her will behave like adults.
Appreciation is fine. Behaving like a neanderthal is not.
Grey Templar wrote: And if she came crying to me I'd say deal with. If you dress provocativly, you are going to attract unsavory individuals.
And that will continue to happen so long as people just shrug and say 'Well, it's your own fault for dressing provocatively...'
Being socially inept doesn't make unacceptable behaviour any less unnaceptable.
Women shouldn't have to fear being treated badly just because they choose to dress in sexy clothes... and if more people derided the socially unacceptable behaviour of those who react inappropriately to it rather than blaming the woman for dressing that way, they wouldn't have to. If a woman is comfortable enough with herself to dress in a chainmail bikini, good for her. It's not unreasonable for her to expect, in this day and age, that the men around her will behave like adults.
Appreciation is fine. Behaving like a neanderthal is not.
I never said the behavior on the guys part was acceptable. Stop implying that, its blatently false.
Grey Templar wrote: I never said the behavior on the guys part was acceptable.
By suggesting that it should be expected, you implicitly endorse it.
Nobody should have to expect that sort of nonsense. If a guy isn't capable of behaving like a grown-up without supervision, he shouldn't be going out unsupervised.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I don't buy her level of outrage over something that was wrong but frankly the equivalent of being shouted at wearing a miniskirt in the center of most British towns on a Saturday night.
But we're not talking about a court case or a boycott or anything just someone saying "that was wrong; they shouldn't have done that to me." And then there's been discussion about this, about it being wrong, about us needing to think about how this shouldn't happen anymore.
So why are you attributing cynical motives to her? She was sexually harassed and you seem to accept that this was wrong but you draw the line at her or people on the internet talking about this being wrong?
Grey Templar wrote: I never said the behavior on the guys part was acceptable.
By suggesting that it should be expected, you implicitly endorse it.
No he doesn't.
Swimming off the barrier reef carries the risk of shark attack, commenting to that effect does not equate to endorsing sharks attacking swimmers, merely recognising the potential for the attack to happen.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Swimming off the barrier reef carries the risk of shark attack, commenting to that effect does not equate to endorsing sharks attacking swimmers, merely recognising the potential for the attack to happen.
It would if the sharks were generally expected to know that they aren't supposed to eat people.
Given that they usually aren't expected to be educated in basic social niceties like 'Don't eat people' they can't really be expected to know better... so it's not exacly a similar situation.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Swimming off the barrier reef carries the risk of shark attack, commenting to that effect does not equate to endorsing sharks attacking swimmers, merely recognising the potential for the attack to happen.
For the millionth time, we're not talking about mindless animals. We're talking about grown-up people. They aren't sharks, or bears, or piranhas or anything but grown-up human beings who have no excuse or justification for sexually harassing anyone. By using these metaphors, you're making an argument that these men neither can nor should be expected to act in a polite, decent way. In your metaphor, the onus is on her for tempting the natural, blameless proclivities of these wild beasts.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Swimming off the barrier reef carries the risk of shark attack, commenting to that effect does not equate to endorsing sharks attacking swimmers, merely recognising the potential for the attack to happen.
It would if the sharks were generally expected to know that they aren't supposed to eat people.
Given that they usually aren't expected to be educated in basic social niceties like 'Don't eat people' they can't really be expected to know better... so it's not exacly a similar situation.
Manchu wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Swimming off the barrier reef carries the risk of shark attack, commenting to that effect does not equate to endorsing sharks attacking swimmers, merely recognising the potential for the attack to happen.
For the millionth time, we're not talking about mindless animals. We're talking about grown-up people. They aren't sharks, or bears, or piranhas or anything but grown-up human beings who have no excuse or justification for sexually harassing anyone. By using these metaphors, you're making an argument that these men neither can nor should be expected to act in a polite, decent way. In your metaphor, the onus is on her for tempting the natural, blameless proclivities of these wild beasts.
And therein lies my point, I don't carry a high expectation of these sexist, misogynistic guys to behave. I equate them with sharks (which is an insult to the sharks tbh) because they are just too damned stupid and ill educated and socially moronic to realise the hurtful and detrimental outcomes of their comments. It like she said in the blog, they were stunned into silence when she responded in a hostile way because they weren't aware they were being massive jerks.
One side of this argument, yours, is saying that this is horrible and should not happen. The other side is saying this is horrible but does happen but shouldn't happen.
One is talking about should and the other is talking about is.
As a comic book nerd (more than a gaming nerd, scary, I know), I can say the Black Cat outfit is VERY accurate from what I can see, and I'm impressed with her ability to pull it off-she looks good in it, has the proper sized breasts, and I'd probably stop for a "wow, I'd be her Peter Parker any day." I'd probably also like to pose for a picture with her, with my arm around her waist and maybe make a shoot-web motion with my free hand. Then I'd thank her, and go about my day. That said, I can actually talk to girls VERY easily that I'm not trying to get into the sack, especially if I won't see them again.
That all said, she DID go to a convention where a decent number of people (quite possibly less than you think, given how popular comic book EVERYTHING has become) are socially maladjusted, and she should probably have expected some guys to be pigs. I'll agree that the talkshow guy should have been more professional, and IF the interview she listed was accurate, he was a dick and should have either never run the footage or be fired if he did. Very unprofessional on his part for her accurately portraying the costume. Random idiots coming up to her and gawking at her cleavage should have been expected.
I believe in passing blame to everyone. Especially Matty for not trying to get his wife to go as Mary Jane and wrangle the Black Cat into a threesome. Bad Matty!!
MeanGreenStompa wrote: One side of this argument, yours, is saying that this is horrible and should not happen. The other side is saying this is horrible but does happen but shouldn't happen.
One is talking about should and the other is talking about is.
That's just it, though... It's all the people who just say 'Yeah, it shouldn't happen, but it does, so you should just expect it' that allow this sort of nonsense to continue. It fosters an attitude that, while you might not agree with it, there's nothing that can be done so we should just all accept it and move on.
It's people standing up and saying 'No, you know what? Not cool, dude.' that make a difference. We all need to stop saying 'Yeah, that'll happen' and instead start saying 'No, that shouldn't happen' for that mindset to change.
Also, you're prevaricating: what's being said in here is not just that it does happen but she should shut up about it.
The side that is saying this does happen is therefore not outraged but cynical and relatively unmoved. They say she should shut up about it because they feel she was being naive expecting to not find this sort of behavior or that it would warrant an outpouring online.
The side that is saying this should not happen is therefore angered and righteously indignant.
So, two sides to the argument.
and i do not appreciate the allegation of prevarication when I'm trying to illustrate the issue as I see it.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: and i do not appreciate the allegation of prevarication when I'm trying to illustrate the issue as I see it.
And I don't appreciate prevarication. You say this is a debate between people who say this does happen and people who say this shouldn't. That doesn't make any sense. That's not the fault line of this debate: no one says it doesn't happen. And even the people who are concentrating on the fact that it does happen claim to also be saying it shouldn't. The real gap here is that you and others are saying not only does it happen but that she should shut up about it while I and others are saying she should complain about it because it is just the sort of thing that needs to be complained about.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: One side of this argument, yours, is saying that this is horrible and should not happen. The other side is saying this is horrible but does happen but shouldn't happen.
One is talking about should and the other is talking about is.
That's just it, though... It's all the people who just say 'Yeah, it shouldn't happen, but it does, so you should just expect it' that allow this sort of nonsense to continue. It fosters an attitude that, while you might not agree with it, there's nothing that can be done so we should just all accept it and move on.
It's people standing up and saying 'No, you know what? Not cool, dude.' that make a difference. We all need to stop saying 'Yeah, that'll happen' and instead start saying 'No, that shouldn't happen' for that mindset to change.
Anyone that knows me on this forum knows I am all about taking action against injustices as I see them... (you and I have had disagreements in your role as moderator over that very issue on more than one occasion... )
I find her treatment reprehensible, more so because it reinforces the stereotypes each and every one of us on this forum faces when we say 'yep, i paint and play with toy soldiers'. The label of geek and nerd and what it represents (now there is another argument about her being dressed in such a sexualised way in the first place, the character she represents and what that says about us as well, I think it just says men like bewbs but lets leave that one off for the time).
But what happened happened because, fundamentally, there are groups of idiots in any gathering of people. The larger the gathering, the higher the amount of idiots. What I am glad to say is that this is reducing as time goes on. The single gender nature of these events has been undergoing a massive change in the last few years and that's only for the good.
These events are unfortunate, they are not life threatening nor are they dangerous, they should also not be emotionally damaging for a woman who dresses as she does and must be complimented on her attractiveness on a daily basis.
For me, this is a matter of perspective. It reminds me of a female friend of mine who complained about the 'difficulty of being attractive and getting bugged by guys' on the evening of the same day I'd been talking to a young woman who'd been scarred badly in an accident and was embarrassed to leave her house. I didn't have much sympathy then and I don't really have much now other than to say 'guy was rude, if you were my gf, I'd have knocked him on his arse'.
I feel it all reads like rich white folks problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: And I don't appreciate prevarication. You say this is a debate between people who say this does happen and people who say this shouldn't. That doesn't make any sense. That's not the fault line of this debate: no one says it doesn't happen. And even the people who are concentrating on the fact that it does happen claim to also be saying it shouldn't. The real gap here is that you and others are saying not only does it happen but that she should shut up about it while I and others are saying she should complain about it because it is just the sort of thing that needs to be complained about.
Fine, let me spell this out to you, nice and slow.
She should have complained.
She should have complained to the organisers and had the guy thrown out. She should not have written long blogs about it after the event and talked about how horrible it all was without something very very obvious included in the commentary. She should have expected it, if she didn't, she must be very stupid.
So what I get from the majority of posts here is this:
If you dress in a way that shows lots of skin, then we should be able to ask you how big your tits are. You are then an attention whore if you try to make us feel bad about that.
She should have complained to the organisers and had the guy thrown out. She should not have written long blogs about it after the event and talked about how horrible it all was without something very very obvious included in the commentary. She should have expected it, if she didn't, she must be very stupid.
I think expectations are important here: do we expect people at cons to behave this way? If not, what should we do about it? I think we should make it clear that this is not okay no matter how she dresses. And we need to understand that by heaping scorn on her, bending over backwards to find fault where none exists, we are undermining that message.
d-usa wrote: So what I get from the majority of posts here is this:
If you dress in a way that shows lots of skin, then we should be able to ask you how big your tits are. You are then an attention whore if you try to make us feel bad about that.
The More You Know...
Nope, it's more 'If you dress in a way that shows lots of skin, then you should expect some dickheads will say something to you, we don't condone that, but be prepared for it, cos sometimes it happens'.
She has the ability and the right to call jerks on being jerks.
We should expect better of guys. You and I hold ourselves to a better standard than the tools she encountered, and there is no reason that we should not hold men in general to a higher standard than a few sexist, malajusted tools.
Does society not put standards on how we dress? If I wore a velour jumpsuit to a job interview, is it the fault of the interviewer to disregard me? If you see someone dressed like a bum do you not think "hey he might be a bum!" If its fine in society to judge people on how they dress in certain situations, how is wrong in other situations then?
Again, not saying that its ok to harass someone for dressing provocatively, but if you dress provocatively, expect to provoke people.
If I walked into a gay bar with skintight leather pants and a sequined shirt, could I really be mad if the guys there thought I was gay? Could I show outrage for them hitting on me? After all I'm just dressing a certain way. Who are they to assume that Im a certain way? Oh right, how Im dressed.
That comment doesn't have a place in the analysis. It's immaterial. It's not that she should be prepared but rather she shouldn't have to expect this, she shouldn't have to deal with it actually happening, and she certainly have to defend that this is offensive and intolerable. At best, "be prepared" is extraneous. At worst, it is in effect a half-assed apology for bad behavior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote: If I wore a velour jumpsuit to a job interview, is it the fault of the interviewer to disregard me?
This woman dressed as comic book character at a comic book convention. She was not dressed inappropriately. Your comparison is invalid.
But we're not just talking about view, but treatment and behavior. The potential employer would be within their rights to disregard you, but not to harass or abuse you because of your outfit.
She should have complained to the organisers and had the guy thrown out. She should not have written long blogs about it after the event and talked about how horrible it all was without something very very obvious included in the commentary. She should have expected it, if she didn't, she must be very stupid.
I think expectations are important here: do we expect people at cons to behave this way? If not, what should we do about it? I think we should make it clear that this is not okay no matter how she dresses. And we need to understand that by heaping scorn on her, bending over backwards to find fault where none exists, we are undermining that message.
I was once shouted at for holding the door open for a woman, she called me a sexist pig.
I also taught a woman at an adult education center, who fled her married home because her husband broke her bones, he would bind her with rubber hose and throw her under the stairs. locked in a cupboard, whilst he went out to the pub to sell coke, because he thought she was a slut and would sleep around without him there to keep an eye on her, he burnt her arm with a cigarette if he thought she was lying to him.
There is a sliding scale of sexism and abusive behaviour of men towards women. I feel this falls into the lower end of 'bad things men do to women', this beautiful young woman being insulted by clumsy nerd's overt rude comment should be looked at, muttered about and then moved on. As I said, it's getting rarer and rarer and these sexist, incompetent people are being sidelined now as the events open up and change their attendance dynamic.
I fail to see why this girl was so shocked and horrified at some unpleasant comments towards her at a place where she was more likely to meet men with lower social skills and (obviously because she was wearing a costume that epitomizes it) a tradition of female objectification. It makes me leery of her outrage.
She should not have been spoken to like that. And yet, I can't help feeling that if she's going to go to a place like that showing that much skin, she should ensure it's thick enough.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does society not put standards on how we dress? If I wore a velour jumpsuit to a job interview, is it the fault of the interviewer to disregard me? If you see someone dressed like a bum do you not think "hey he might be a bum!" If its fine in society to judge people on how they dress in certain situations, how is wrong in other situations then?
It's a matter of the dress being appropriate to the situation, really.
Dressing like a comic book character to attend a comic book convention seems to fit within the bounds of acceptability, so long as it also follows reasonable (for the locale) standards of decency.
If I walked into a gay bar with skintight leather pants and a sequined shirt, could I really be mad if the guys there thought I was gay? Could I show outrage for them hitting on me? After all I'm just dressing a certain way. Who are they to assume that Im a certain way? Oh right, how Im dressed.
Completely different issue.
What was being complained about in the original article wasn't just guys 'hitting on her'... it was guys acting in a completely inappropriate manner to the way she was dressed. In your example, certainly it's reasonable that the guys in the bar might hit on you... but would be less acceptable for one of them to just walk up and ask about the size of your package.
Mannahnin wrote: But we're not just talking about view, but treatment and behavior. The potential employer would be within their rights to disregard you, but not to harass or abuse you because of your outfit.
And again nobody said she SHOULD have been abused. But just like I shouldn't be surprised my velour suit didnt land me a job, she shouldnt be surprised her provocative dress could provoke a response.
I am now going to do you all a favor and cut through the crap that has piled up in this thread:
All people, no matter what they wear, how they act, or indeed for any reason, deserve and have a right to basic human dignity and *gasp* respect. The interviewer, quiet frankly, violated this woman's right to those things. Sticking his @ss in her face and telling her to spank him, in front of a large audience, and then proceeding to continue with the overtly sexual overtones in the interview? Quiet frankly, that's just gross and unacceptable. I don't care what she was wearing; she still has a right to respect, and the interviewer clearly violated it. He should have had the basic sense and social skills to realize that (1) he was making her uncomfortable, (2) he should stop doing so, and (3) he shouldn't have even made sexual overtones to her in the first place.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: There is a sliding scale of sexism and abusive behaviour of men towards women. I feel this falls into the lower end of 'bad things men do to women', this beautiful young woman being insulted by clumsy nerd's overt rude comment should be looked at, muttered about and then moved on.
MGS, it's not a zero-sum game. This woman speaking doesn't prevent others in worse situations from also speaking. Quite the contrary, the ability to speak openly and receive support on relatively less serious matters creates a real expectation in society that there can also be an ability to speak on more serious ones.
Grey Templar wrote: And if she came crying to me I'd say deal with. If you dress provocativly, you are going to attract unsavory individuals.
And that will continue to happen so long as people just shrug and say 'Well, it's your own fault for dressing provocatively...'
Being socially inept doesn't make unacceptable behaviour any less unnaceptable.
Women shouldn't have to fear being treated badly just because they choose to dress in sexy clothes... and if more people derided the socially unacceptable behaviour of those who react inappropriately to it rather than blaming the woman for dressing that way, they wouldn't have to. If a woman is comfortable enough with herself to dress in a chainmail bikini, good for her. It's not unreasonable for her to expect, in this day and age, that the men around her will behave like adults.
Appreciation is fine. Behaving like a neanderthal is not.
What if people say "its your fault for not punching him in the baby maker?"
That comment doesn't have a place in the analysis. It's immaterial. It's not that she should be prepared but rather she shouldn't have to expect this, she shouldn't have to deal with it actually happening, and she certainly have to defend that this is offensive and intolerable. At best, "be prepared" is extraneous. At worst, it is in effect a half-assed apology for bad behavior.
Living day to day entirely by the notion that 'only the things that I should expect fairly' are going to happen to you is a wonderful dream.
Going about your life with a thought towards unfair things happening will probably enable you to deal with them when they do, because they will.
It's like you want to argue about the morality of the issue in a vacuum without external consideration like the likelihood of the incident, the severity of the incident in comparison to other issues, the contributing factors etc, just 'was it right or wrong and if it was wrong, why aren't you as indignant as I?'
For me, it was wrong, but it's a really tiny little pisspot of a problem that a beautiful woman wants to put in her online diary, hopefully just to vent and not as my cynical side is saying, to elicit attention and adoration and publicity.
Mannahnin wrote: She has the ability and the right to call jerks on being jerks.
We should expect better of guys. You and I hold ourselves to a better standard than the tools she encountered, and there is no reason that we should not hold men in general to a higher standard than a few sexist, malajusted tools.
She told him he was a jackass and walked out of the interview, thus refusing to participate in his jackassery even if it would get her on TV or wherever he was going to distribute the interview.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Does society not put standards on how we dress? If I wore a velour jumpsuit to a job interview, is it the fault of the interviewer to disregard me? If you see someone dressed like a bum do you not think "hey he might be a bum!" If its fine in society to judge people on how they dress in certain situations, how is wrong in other situations then?
It's a matter of the dress being appropriate to the situation, really.
Dressing like a comic book character to attend a comic book convention seems to fit within the bounds of acceptability, so long as it also follows reasonable (for the locale) standards of decency.
If I walked into a gay bar with skintight leather pants and a sequined shirt, could I really be mad if the guys there thought I was gay? Could I show outrage for them hitting on me? After all I'm just dressing a certain way. Who are they to assume that Im a certain way? Oh right, how Im dressed.
Completely different issue.
What was being complained about in the original article wasn't just guys 'hitting on her'... it was guys acting in a completely inappropriate manner to the way she was dressed. In your example, certainly it's reasonable that the guys in the bar might hit on you... but would be less acceptable for one of them to just walk up and ask about the size of your package.
But can I really be indignant that they asked about said size? Has nobody thought that not every man is Don Juan? That some think that being that forward is actually a good move? Clearly its not but she wasnt groped, she wasnt touched, she had guys with bad skills at picking up women say dumb things to her. And then posts a faux outrage article and garners a bunch of hits.
But sexy women should expect not to get it. They should be prepared to be disrespected. That is the other side of the debate ITT.
Do you expect to be respected by every single person you meet? How do you react when your not? Show me this perfect world where everyone is always respected?
And I can guarantee you ugly chicks get a lot less respect than this girl. She should consider herself lucky if having idiots fawn over her is the most disrespectful thing she deals with.
Screw faux outrage. She tolerated a little bit of the jackassery, told him to knock it off, but he persisted.
She walked out of the interview, and talked about it in part because she found it unusual and offensive, and reports that her normal experience at cons is that guys are more respectful than those idiots.
Fifty bucks says that if she was overweight and had guys saying these things nobody would be defending her and this story would never happen. Pretty women have it a lot easier than their ugly counterparts. If rude comments are the worst they deal with, so be it. Life is a lot tougher than gakky pick up lines.
Mannahnin wrote: Screw faux outrage. She tolerated a little bit of the jackassery, told him to knock it off, but he persisted.
She walked out of the interview, and talked about it in part because she found it unusual and offensive, and reports that her normal experience at cons is that guys are more respectful than those idiots.
meh my funmeter is low. I want a nerd beatdown on the local news. Now that would be entertaining.
But sexy women should expect not to get it. They should be prepared to be disrespected. That is the other side of the debate ITT.
Everyone on the face of the earth should be prepared to deal with the fact that they will meet people they find odious.
Black people should be prepared to meet racist white people, they shouldn't have to in an ideal world, but this world is not ideal, we can only work to make it better by not being the racist or the misogynist or the bigot.
If someone behaves inappropriately towards you, yes, of course you're entitled to be offended by it.
Clearly its not but she wasnt groped, she wasnt touched, she had guys with bad skills at picking up women say dumb things to her. And then posts a faux outrage article and garners a bunch of hits.
Making someone uncomfortable doesn't always require laying your hands on them. If I were female, I would imagine that being surrounded by a pack of guys who are busy getting themselves all worked up over my anatomy could quite conceivably be a bit of a worrying situation to be in.
This is way beyond just a casual 'Show us your tits'... This is a whole bunch of people carrying on like animals. She has every reason to be offended by it, and would have had every reason to be more than a little intimidated by it at the time, and quite frankly I think it's far better that she went home and posted about her outrage than that she just slunk out in embarrassment and vowed to never return, which would have been the far more likely outcome of this sort of situation where a lot of women are concerned.
Mannahnin wrote: Screw faux outrage. She tolerated a little bit of the jackassery, told him to knock it off, but he persisted.
She walked out of the interview, and talked about it in part because she found it unusual and offensive, and reports that her normal experience at cons is that guys are more respectful than those idiots.
So one lukewarm experience out of all good ones is worthy of a news story that just happens to link her webpage?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Living day to day entirely by the notion that 'only the things that I should expect fairly' are going to happen to you is a wonderful dream.
That's totally off topic.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Do you expect to be respected by every single person you meet? How do you react when your not? Show me this perfect world where everyone is always respected?
This is a bit closer: what I expect is to not be sexually harassed by anyone. And if someone sexually harasses me or anyone, I expect that they will be the ones criticized rather than me or any other of their victims.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: She should consider herself lucky if having idiots fawn over her is the most disrespectful thing she deals with.
That's repugnant. There is no part of this incident that she should consider herself lucky about. That's just a gross comment.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: And she could very easily consider herself lucky enough to be considered beautiful.
Whether or not she's beautiful to anyone has exactly NOTHING to do with her needing to expect being sexually harassed.
I mean, I get what MGS is saying to some extent: people shouldn't purposefully put themselves in danger, is how I'd put it. I have a problem, however, when we reverse it to say, if a woman is sexually harassed, well she should have expected it. I don't think it means anything except inasmuch as it's an apology for bad behavior.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Living day to day entirely by the notion that 'only the things that I should expect fairly' are going to happen to you is a wonderful dream.
That's totally off topic..
No it isn't.
I had suggested that being prepared to meet hostile people in your life can be regarded as an expectation, you dismissed that out of hand and are doing it again here.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Living day to day entirely by the notion that 'only the things that I should expect fairly' are going to happen to you is a wonderful dream.
That's totally off topic..
No it isn't.
I had suggested that being prepared to meet hostile people in your life can be regarded as an expectation, you dismissed that out of hand and are doing it again here.
You're wrong.
Dude, apply what you are saying to the actual facts at hand.
Woman is sexually harassed.
MGS says she should have been prepared for it.
You're not coming off as a gentleman on that note.
That's a false equivalence, MGS. Meeting hostile people vs. being actively and persistly harassed, even when you tell them to stop, are two distinctly different things.
There is no reason to tolerate harassment or excuse it.
I mean, I get what MGS is saying to some extent: people shouldn't purposefully put themselves in danger, is how I'd put it. I have a problem, however, when we reverse it to say, if a woman is sexually harassed, well she should have expected it. I don't think it means anything except inasmuch as it's an apologize for bad behavior.
You are misrepresenting what I'm saying.
It's unfortunately not that simple. What i'm saying is that it's a measure of risk, it's about how your conduct your actions and increase or diminish your chances of things happening. I most certainly did not say that women should expect to be sexually harassed, what I said is that conduct can contribute to things happening. Going to a comic convention in a risque costume most certainly increases your chances of things like that happening, like walking into a biker bar with a bra and mini skirt might also and that it's naive to assume it won't happen because it 'shouldn't happen'.
She went to a comic book convention dressed as Black Cat. Nothing about that scenario should make her worried about being sexually harassed. To insist over and over and over again that she should be prepared, have an expectation, basically be afraid, is talking about the WRONG issue.
But that doesn't in any way excuse the conduct of jerks.
And if she reports that in her experience, behavior like this is extraordinary and unusual, then that's a good comment that most guys are more respectful than that.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Living day to day entirely by the notion that 'only the things that I should expect fairly' are going to happen to you is a wonderful dream.
That's totally off topic..
No it isn't.
I had suggested that being prepared to meet hostile people in your life can be regarded as an expectation, you dismissed that out of hand and are doing it again here.
You're wrong.
Dude, apply what you are saying to the actual facts at hand.
Woman is sexually harassed.
MGS says she should have been prepared for it.
You're not coming off as a gentleman on that note.
She should be prepared to encounter men who behave in a bad way.
If I go out drinking at the pub, I prepare myself for the chance that I may be subjected to hostile behaviour by someone who has had too much to drink. That's not about empowering that guy being an donkey-cave, that's about me understanding that sometimes drunk people become hostile and I may become the target. I don't endorse it, I just recognise that it happens and prepare myself to respond to it.
Mannahnin wrote: That's a false equivalence, MGS. Meeting hostile people vs. being actively and persistly harassed, even when you tell them to stop, are two distinctly different things.
There is no reason to tolerate harassment or excuse it.
Actively and persistently harassed? You make it seem like they chased her around the con screaming at her. They asked some dumb questions. I wonder how many of us have "harassed" women at a bar with gakky pick up lines? Or not got the hint from a woman before?
Does anyone think that a similar situation at a Twilight or somesuch con and a Rob Pattinson cos-player wouldn't happen? That a group of female nerds wouldnt do the same with a good looking guy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: But that doesn't in any way excuse the conduct of jerks.
And if she reports that in her experience, behavior like this is extraordinary and unusual, then that's a good comment that most guys are more respectful than that.
But again, if most experiences are great, and this ONE thing was questionable, why is it news?
Also will probably get flamed for this, but has anyone seen the video of the interview? Does anyone even know if her allegations are true? Sure she says she was harassed and having been at cons I can fully see it happening, but is there any evidence of this?
Look, I agree. And if she was a little girl and I was her dad, I'd make sure she knew that.
But she's a grown woman and I am not her dad. This reiteration about whether or not she was prepared to be sexually harassed has nothing to do with the fact that she was, that she was offended by it, that she refused to remain silent on the issue, and that we shouldn't be telling her to shut up about it.
Manchu wrote: She went to a comic book convention dressed as Black Cat. Nothing about that scenario should make her worried about being sexually harassed. To insist over and over and over again that she should be prepared, have an expectation, basically be afraid, is talking about the WRONG issue.
When did i say 'be afraid'?
Being aware is not being afraid, it's about realism. She should not have been sexually harassed, but she was and it was a likely thing that she would have received comment, not that she should, but that she would and did.
They asked some dumb questions. I wonder how many of us have "harassed" women at a bar with gakky pick up lines? Or not got the hint from a woman before?
Your standards are too low. If you can't tell the difference between bad pickup lines and the jackassery quoted, then you're not qualified to express an opinion on talking to women.
But again, if most experiences are great, and this ONE thing was questionable, why is it news?
Are you kidding? Are you not aware of the difference between "dog bites man" and "man bites dog"?
But she's a grown woman and I am not her dad. This reiteration about whether or not she was prepared to be sexually harassed has nothing to do with the fact that she was, that she was offended by it, that she refused to remain silent on the issue, and that we shouldn't be telling her to shut up about it.
Quite right, she was treated badly and was right not to stand for it, but on the great scheme of things it's a minor footnote on the sliding scale of evils. What I've argued here is that she encountered a minor incident and what I read from her and in the national newspaper was blown up out of proportion. If, however, she feels sufficiently moved by the experience, there are shelters for abused women that are looking for female volunteers to come and help.
What's blowing it out of proportion? Why can't a person call out jerks on their blog?
Maybe she got more publicity because she's hot, but that's hardly an injustice. No doubt she got treated that way in part because she's hot. The jerks deserve to be stood up to and called out on their bad behavior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Who are you to say they werent hitting on her just doing a terrible job at it? Where you there?
No, he read the article. To argue otherwise the way you're doing is to ascribe dishonesty toward her. Blaming the victim, so to speak.
Mannahnin wrote: What's blowing it out of proportion? Why can't a person call out jerks on their blog?
Maybe she got more publicity because she's hot, but that's hardly an injustice. The jerks deserve to be stood up to and called out on their bad behavior.
I agree, but this incident is not worthy of a national newspaper. or even a citywide newspaper(unless it was a really small town)
What this is worthy of is her complaining to the Con's organizers and 1) having them make an announcement that such behavior will not be tolerated and 2) have the offending guys in question banned from the Con.
This deals with the situation appropriatly and fairly.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Not what i read from you for the last page of responses, you seemed to be saying that 'well it was wrong and anyone talking it down is terrible'.
Well I do think it's inappropriate to talk it down.
I mean, we have a vested interest in this as wargamers. We want our wives, girlfriends, sisters, and friends to feel comfortable around the things we like. Talking down an incident of sexual harassment tied up in "geeky" culture runs contrary to that and contrary, too, to what should be our wider commitment in this regard.
The most bothersome thing about the guy sticking his ass in her face and asking her to spank it is how crass it is. Doing that kind of thing in front of a crowd is crap, whether the girl is into it or not. Carrying on with the act when she's not into it is even worse.
And that really is at the core of what's wrong with this situation. Dressing up in a pretty sexual costume means you're going to get some level of sexual interest, and I think the girl knew that and probably doesn't mind it. But that doesn't mean that any kind of attention is welcome. You can, in fact, give a girl some suggestive attention without demeaning the both of you, and it's a lesson a lot of geeks need to learn.
Mannahnin wrote: But we're not just talking about view, but treatment and behavior. The potential employer would be within their rights to disregard you, but not to harass or abuse you because of your outfit.
And again nobody said she SHOULD have been abused. But just like I shouldn't be surprised my velour suit didnt land me a job, she shouldnt be surprised her provocative dress could provoke a response.
The level of response she experienced should be totally surprising
I agree, but this incident is not worthy of a national newspaper. or even a citywide newspaper(unless it was a really small town)
What this is worthy of is her complaining to the Con's organizers and 1) having them make an announcement that such behavior will not be tolerated and 2) have the offending guys in question banned from the Con.
Why is it not worthy of a crappy rag like the Daily Mail? It's a tabloid that probably published the story mostly as an excuse to report on/post pics of hot girls.
Publicly pointing out that this kind of behavior is not okay and should not be tolerated at cons is useful and good. It both speaks to the unsocialized and tells them it's not okay, and it encourages women and others to stand up and speak up if jerks are making people uncomfortable.
Dakkanauts have been openly and notoriously doing that since page one of this thread, It's been an eye-opener. Whenever I go to my comic shop or LGS, my wife never wants to go in because it's awkward. I'm always saying "hey, no, it's no big deal" but this makes me see a bit of what she sees.
Then, can we look at the real victims here? Creepy weirdos have like two events they can attend annually and hang out with other creepy weirdos (No offense, which means you legally can't be offended). These events have in recent years been invaded by people who have glommed on to the rising 'coolness' of the subject matter. I mean seriously, how many sweaty nerds, even if they can afford it crash high fashion events? Damned few. So now you have this new crop of attractive people who show up to things like this - which for them is one of 365 days of having fun in a year because hey - they're pretty, and get mad at some doofus who gets to maybe cram this weekend in amongst the 51 others of being disliked and generally ignored and/or denigrated by society at large - and has the audacity to act slightly inappropriate towards some complete stranger who is dressed up as his masturbatory fantasy who he has dreamed about all his life. I mean, yeah, anyone who is not a social idiot knows how to read girls - if she isn't into you lay off. But some of these people, especially in these circumstances can't tell. When I lived over in Germany, I didn't go around calling everyone a bunch of jackasses because their beer wasn't cold enough, they just didn't know any better. I didn't get mad at people because they didn't speak my language, which seems to be what a lot of this boils down to.
And your white-knighting of this topic is somehow going to change the fact that there are weirdos everywhere?
That somehow donkey-cave guys are only relegated to the nerd circles of the world?
Or maybe this is a non-issue intended to make money for everybody involved?
Any hobby or interest where there is people means there are gonna be some social misfits there. Football or Warhammer. Its just easier for a paper to demonize a group that already has a bad track record with women. But go ahead showing this woman as a paragon of virtue is really going to help nerds look better as normal people read this website, not the paper. Oh wait.
Clearly its not ok to harass anyone. But saying its so cut and dry that men=evil and women=never evil isnt exactly true.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: And your white-knighting of this topic is somehow going to change the fact that there are weirdos everywhere?
That somehow donkey-cave guys are only relegated to the nerd circles of the world?
Or maybe this is a non-issue intended to make money for everybody involved?
Any hobby or interest where there is people means there are gonna be some social misfits there. Football or Warhammer. Its just easier for a paper to demonize a group that already has a bad track record with women. But go ahead showing this woman as a paragon of virtue is really going to help nerds look better as normal people read this website, not the paper. Oh wait.
Clearly its not ok to harass anyone. But saying its so cut and dry that men=evil and women=never evil isnt exactly true.
Bromsy wrote: Guys, let's all take a deep breath and relax.
Then, can we look at the real victims here? Creepy weirdos have like two events they can attend annually and hang out with other creepy weirdos (No offense, which means you legally can't be offended). These events have in recent years been invaded by people who have glommed on to the rising 'coolness' of the subject matter. I mean seriously, how many sweaty nerds, even if they can afford it crash high fashion events? Damned few. So now you have this new crop of attractive people who show up to things like this - which for them is one of 365 days of having fun in a year because hey - they're pretty, and get mad at some doofus who gets to maybe cram this weekend in amongst the 51 others of being disliked and generally ignored and/or denigrated by society at large - and has the audacity to act slightly inappropriate towards some complete stranger who is dressed up as his masturbatory fantasy who he has dreamed about all his life. I mean, yeah, anyone who is not a social idiot knows how to read girls - if she isn't into you lay off. But some of these people, especially in these circumstances can't tell. When I lived over in Germany, I didn't go around calling everyone a bunch of jackasses because their beer wasn't cold enough, they just didn't know any better. I didn't get mad at people because they didn't speak my language, which seems to be what a lot of this boils down to.
This this 1000 times this. You win the thread hands down.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: But go ahead showing this woman as a paragon of virtue is really going to help nerds look better as normal people read this website, not the paper. Oh wait.
Clearly its not ok to harass anyone. But saying its so cut and dry that men=evil and women=never evil isnt exactly true.
Did you post that bit in the wrong thread? Because it doesn't seem to be even remotely related to the discussion in this one...
DutchKillsRambo wrote: But go ahead showing this woman as a paragon of virtue is really going to help nerds look better as normal people read this website, not the paper. Oh wait.
Clearly its not ok to harass anyone. But saying its so cut and dry that men=evil and women=never evil isnt exactly true.
Did you post that bit in the wrong thread? Because it doesn't seem to be even remotely related to the discussion in this one...
Except Manchu was just talking about how we as a group of nerds need to denounce this behavior on this website as that will somehow get more women involved in our hobbies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: Why the heck does it matter if it was "worthy " of a newspaper or not? That's really the newspaper issue, right?
The newspaper issue to me is that comic con goers are already painted in quite a bad light, and another article about how were all maladjusted cretins who only oggle women doesn't help. Lets be honest, this is one of the most minor instances of sexual harassment I have ever seen, and if you think articles like this help our cause, I'd like to see how.
Sure you could argue that by taking a stand were showing that we dont condone this behavior, but again, who reads this site but nerds? Very few Id guess.
Newspaper makes money selling article. "Harassed" girl makes money promoting website. Everybody wins. Except for our community. Now Im not saying she wasn't subjected to inappropraite behavior that she shouldn;t have had to deal with. But if like she says every other time was fine, why is she denouncing the community from such a public forum? The link to her website at the end tells me why. YMMV.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: But go ahead showing this woman as a paragon of virtue is really going to help nerds look better as normal people read this website, not the paper. Oh wait.
Clearly its not ok to harass anyone. But saying its so cut and dry that men=evil and women=never evil isnt exactly true.
Did you post that bit in the wrong thread? Because it doesn't seem to be even remotely related to the discussion in this one...
Except Manchu was just talking about how we as a group of nerds need to denounce this behavior on this website as that will somehow get more women involved in our hobbies.
No, you're misunderstanding. We need to stand up to jackasses in real life, and make clear that antisocial behavior and being nasty to and creeping women out is not acceptable. That starts with acknowledging those simple fact when we talk to one another.
The newspaper issue to me is that comic con goers are already painted in quite a bad light, and another article about how were all maladjusted cretins who only oggle women doesn't help. Lets be honest, this is one of the most minor instances of sexual harassment I have ever seen, and if you think articles like this help our cause, I'd like to see how.
Once again I don't know how you are getting this out of the facts at hand. No one is painting con goers in general in a bad light except the people who are defending the donkey-caves. The women from the original incident made a big and specific point of saying that the vast majority of guys at these things are NOT like these over the top cretins. You're not doing anyone any favors by equating them with regular nerds; even unsocialized ones.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Not what i read from you for the last page of responses, you seemed to be saying that 'well it was wrong and anyone talking it down is terrible'.
Well I do think it's inappropriate to talk it down.
I mean, we have a vested interest in this as wargamers. We want our wives, girlfriends, sisters, and friends to feel comfortable around the things we like. Talking down an incident of sexual harassment tied up in "geeky" culture runs contrary to that and contrary, too, to what should be our wider commitment in this regard.
I do have a vested interest, my wife games and has attended several dakkacons with me and come with me to gaming stores. I'm pleased to say she's only encountered good behaviour but I've seen bad behaviour from a gamer towards a woman in the store once and the rest of the gamers were so quick to jump down his throat he visibly wilted on the spot.
I do want it talked down, it was a minor incident and now it's on a national newspaper, reinforcing stereotypes and, at the same time, plastering this lady's breasts all over the article (double standard? I think so, but that's the gak rag that is the daily mail). So some soccer obsessed idiot bastard can sit there, enjoy the tits and nod to himself that these events are indeed, populated by sad bastards that can't get a woman. When I meet these dullwits at work and tell them I paint and play with toy soldiers, they can remember articles like this and lump me into that category.
Denigrating crimes towards woman should be combated, but whilst we've all been arguing about the severity of this woman's suffering due to attending a large party with her tits hanging out to be told 'Oi you've got tits!', several women have been killed in domestic violence incidents, several women have been raped and several women have been murdered by men who'd been stalking them.
There are bigger fish to fry, but, of course, they don't get into the newspaper articles, because who'd want to look at pictures of a woman's face beaten to a pulp when you can look at a hottie in a catsuit...
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Except Manchu was just talking about how we as a group of nerds need to denounce this behavior on this website as that will somehow get more women involved in our hobbies.
No, he wasn't.
He was saying that it shouldn't be accepted, period, and that dismissing it as 'She should have expected it' rather than decrying it as the unacceptable nonsnese that it is is simply not on.
The newspaper issue to me is that comic con goers are already painted in quite a bad light, and another article about how were all maladjusted cretins who only oggle women doesn't help.
This wasn't such an article. You need to go back and read it again. As Mannahnin said, she very clearly said that most con-goers aren't like that.
The only people this paints in a bad light are those who behaved like animals, and those who defend their actions.
(Unless they're guys, but I doubt that comes up too much...)
I just think that this chick wanted attention and publicity, so she dressed up like a tart and then when people started noticing, she tells everyone it is completely innapropriate and uncalled for so she can start a big case, sue, and possibly get rich. This kind of thing is real common. Dunno why this one is gettin' so much hype
I just think that this chick wanted attention and publicity, so she dressed up like a tart and then when people started noticing, she tells everyone it is completely innapropriate and uncalled for so she can start a big case, sue, and possibly get rich. This kind of thing is real common. Dunno why this one is gettin' so much hype
Shredsmore, you've completely missed the point and misunderstood what's happening and said several false things. You should feel bad. Thank you for exemplifying why we need to make a stink over incidents like this, and expect better from our fellow gamers.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: If you think the average reader is getting out of this article that its only a few con goers your giving the average reader to much credit.
I'm not too worried about the average reader, as I don't have a nerd persecution complex. I care more about what the article actually says, and how our community responds to it and to the incident (and others of its kind).
AustonT wrote:I'm sorry I can't hear your point while Mandy Caruso doesn't objectify herself as a fully clothed heroine.
She really wants you to appreciate her for her personality.
She probably does, and I probably would appreciate her personality: She seems to have put a lot of attention to detail into that Red Sonja costume, which appears to border on film-quality levels of construction, which to me indicates both a drive to do well at her craft as well as a love for the work inspired by Robert E. Howard. Here is the source material, for what it's worth:
Spoiler:
I've said it before, and I guess it bears repeating: there is a big difference between someone who dresses up in a costume that happens to be scantily-clad, and someone that dresses up in something for the purpose of being objectified.
This is a picture of someone that intends on being objectified:
Spoiler:
And this is a picture of someone that wanted to dress up as her favourite Street Fighter II character:
Spoiler:
One is dressed up true to the source material, and the other is flaunting herself because she wants people to objectify her. Yet both are wearing equallity revealing costumes. So you should probably stop judging people based on appearance and devoid of context when you're talking about costumes at comic-con.
I don't see how an objective view could change our understanding of someone being sat down for an interview, and then grilled about their breasts prior to the invocation of audience participation on questions about said breasts.
(Unless they're guys, but I doubt that comes up too much...)
I just think that this chick wanted attention and publicity, so she dressed up like a tart and then when people started noticing, she tells everyone it is completely innapropriate and uncalled for so she can start a big case, sue, and possibly get rich. This kind of thing is real common. Dunno why this one is gettin' so much hype
Except it's nothing like that at all.
It was a group of guys standing around saying "How big are your tits? Come on, tell us! How big are they? Huh? How big?"
Even if she was a stripper popping ping-pong balls across the room for money, that would still be an inappropriate way to talk to her.
Yes, if you're going to dress out-of-the-ordinary, you have to expect extra attention. Sometimes it's not going to be good attention. But that doesn't give the public carte blanche to be rude, invasive or degrading.
We, as a community, need to get that straight. So that when we are at a convention, we don't act like this guy. So when we see a guy acting like this we can step up and say "Hey dude, that's not cool."
Yeah, strippers engaged in the middle of actual stripper activity don't tend to mind questions about their boobs. At least not from the person/people currently paying them. OTOH Kaldor's got a point that it's certainly possible to harass and be inappropriate toward even a stripper in the middle of stripping. People still have boundaries and deserve certain levels of human courtesy and consideration.
Mannahnin wrote: Yeah, strippers engaged in the middle of actual stripper activity don't tend to mind questions about their boobs. At least not from the person/people currently paying them. OTOH Kaldor's got a point that it's certainly possible to harass and be inappropriate toward even a stripper in the middle of stripping. People still have boundaries and deserve certain levels of human courtesy and consideration.
True, there are always boundaries, but asking cup size is not the absolute limit thereof.
Sure. But you can make an ass of yourself even in a strip club. The kind of inanity those idiots directed toward Caruso wouldn't fly even in some strip clubs (though others would be fine with it).
Bromsy wrote: Guys, let's all take a deep breath and relax.
Then, can we look at the real victims here? Creepy weirdos have like two events they can attend annually and hang out with other creepy weirdos (No offense, which means you legally can't be offended). These events have in recent years been invaded by people who have glommed on to the rising 'coolness' of the subject matter. I mean seriously, how many sweaty nerds, even if they can afford it crash high fashion events? Damned few. So now you have this new crop of attractive people who show up to things like this - which for them is one of 365 days of having fun in a year because hey - they're pretty, and get mad at some doofus who gets to maybe cram this weekend in amongst the 51 others of being disliked and generally ignored and/or denigrated by society at large - and has the audacity to act slightly inappropriate towards some complete stranger who is dressed up as his masturbatory fantasy who he has dreamed about all his life. I mean, yeah, anyone who is not a social idiot knows how to read girls - if she isn't into you lay off. But some of these people, especially in these circumstances can't tell. When I lived over in Germany, I didn't go around calling everyone a bunch of jackasses because their beer wasn't cold enough, they just didn't know any better. I didn't get mad at people because they didn't speak my language, which seems to be what a lot of this boils down to.
No, there's no free space for anyone, social misfit or not, to go about shoving their ass in someone's faces and telling them to spank it. That's not a lack of social graces, that's just being a dick.
And I have no idea why liking comic books and other nerd stuff means a person wants a space where they can act like a particularly loathesome 13 year old.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shredsmore wrote: I just think that this chick wanted attention and publicity, so she dressed up like a tart and then when people started noticing, she tells everyone it is completely innapropriate and uncalled for so she can start a big case, sue, and possibly get rich. This kind of thing is real common. Dunno why this one is gettin' so much hype
Except there is a clear and obvious difference between 'attention' and putting your ass in a girl's face and telling her to spank it.
I refuse to believe you cannot understand that difference.
Bromsy wrote: Guys, let's all take a deep breath and relax.
Then, can we look at the real victims here? Creepy weirdos have like two events they can attend annually and hang out with other creepy weirdos (No offense, which means you legally can't be offended). These events have in recent years been invaded by people who have glommed on to the rising 'coolness' of the subject matter. I mean seriously, how many sweaty nerds, even if they can afford it crash high fashion events? Damned few. So now you have this new crop of attractive people who show up to things like this - which for them is one of 365 days of having fun in a year because hey - they're pretty, and get mad at some doofus who gets to maybe cram this weekend in amongst the 51 others of being disliked and generally ignored and/or denigrated by society at large - and has the audacity to act slightly inappropriate towards some complete stranger who is dressed up as his masturbatory fantasy who he has dreamed about all his life. I mean, yeah, anyone who is not a social idiot knows how to read girls - if she isn't into you lay off. But some of these people, especially in these circumstances can't tell. When I lived over in Germany, I didn't go around calling everyone a bunch of jackasses because their beer wasn't cold enough, they just didn't know any better. I didn't get mad at people because they didn't speak my language, which seems to be what a lot of this boils down to.
No, there's no free space for anyone, social misfit or not, to go about shoving their ass in someone's faces and telling them to spank it. That's not a lack of social graces, that's just being a dick.
And I have no idea why liking comic books and other nerd stuff means a person wants a space where they can act like a particularly loathesome 13 year old.
Look man, I'm not saying that these mouthbreathing misfits deserve some sort of veneration, I'm saying that expecting these weirdos to hold the same social standards as regular people is nonsensical. They legitimately might not get why this isn't okay. And even if they might under normal circumstances - this is comic con, one of the few venues in which these jerks get to act like themselves. If this was a group of aboriginal amazonian tribespeople, their differences would be celebrated, but since they are just a bunch of nerds and dorks, they should just shut up and be like everyone else. Right?
But Bromsy, what you just wrote has nothing to do with the actual story that's the subject of discussion.
Have you ever been to one of these big comic cons? NYCC is the second-biggest after San Diego. This isn't a dingy nerd basement, it's a huge public event and people behave with basic standards of decent conduct, albeit with a bit more silliness and costumes.
Caruso specifically said she has no problem getting looked at, and tolerates the goofy unsocialized dweebs who stare or pull faces. The guy who she got angry at (and who we agree she was right to get angry at) was the guy with a crew and a video camera, who said he wanted to interview her but turned it into a sexual harassment hot-to guide. Which she legitimately called him out on and walked out of when he persisted at it even over her objections.
We're not talking about beating up on the poor nerds, here. We're talking about not making excuses for donkey-caves.
Mannahnin wrote: But Bromsy, what you just wrote has nothing to do with the actual story that's the subject of discussion.
Have you ever been to one of these big comic cons? NYCC is the second-biggest after San Diego. This isn't a dingy nerd basement, it's a huge public event and people behave with basic standards of decent conduct, albeit with a bit more silliness and costumes.
Caruso specifically said she has no problem getting looked at, and tolerates the goofy unsocialized dweebs who stare or pull faces. The guy who she got angry at (and who we agree she was right to get angry at) was the guy with a crew and a video camera, who said he wanted to interview her but turned it into a sexual harassment hot-to guide. Which she legitimately called him out on and walked out of when he persisted at it even over her objections.
We're not talking about beating up on the poor nerds, here. We're talking about not making excuses for donkey-caves.
Yes,I have been to the Chicago CC plenty of times, which I would argue is far more of a nerd fest than the costals. I am not and have not argued that the behavior expressed towards her is fair or reasonable. What I said was that it is unreasonable to expect everyone to meet the same social standards. Some people cannot deal with women. The general expectation from, and I speak loosely here "Your" crowd is that these social outcasts should go die in a fire, or at least have the decency to never interact with the group with which they are fascinated and confused by (attractive women) - unless of course they can meet minimum standards in which they were never versed. You seem to think that unreasoning fear and avoidance is somehow morally preferable to confusion and a possible misstep. Whereas I feel that any interaction should be looked on as charity and a learning experience. Who knows what lesson might allow some socially awkward individual to land a slightly less social awkward individual with lady parts? I can't find an argument in which her stance improves the situation of anyone aside from her. It's not as if she is a pilgrim, leading the way when it comes to strong, assertive women in the con circuit.
Bromsy wrote: Look man, I'm not saying that these mouthbreathing misfits deserve some sort of veneration, I'm saying that expecting these weirdos to hold the same social standards as regular people is nonsensical. They legitimately might not get why this isn't okay. And even if they might under normal circumstances - this is comic con, one of the few venues in which these jerks get to act like themselves. If this was a group of aboriginal amazonian tribespeople, their differences would be celebrated, but since they are just a bunch of nerds and dorks, they should just shut up and be like everyone else. Right?
No-one is telling them off for quoting Monty Python or making fun of the guy who forgot the THAC0 of a third level bard. 'Nerds will be nerds' is an argument with decent argument for it, but it stops a mile short of shoving your ass in a girl's face and telling her to spank it.
And, speaking as a nerd, I'm not particularly on board with the idea that puerile misogyny is something that I actually want as part of nerd culture. I agree with you that within nerd culture there is no shortage of socially stunted nitwits who do not understand why this sort of thing is not okay, but I simply do not get why that's something we ought to accept.
Bromsy wrote: Look man, I'm not saying that these mouthbreathing misfits deserve some sort of veneration, I'm saying that expecting these weirdos to hold the same social standards as regular people is nonsensical. They legitimately might not get why this isn't okay. And even if they might under normal circumstances - this is comic con, one of the few venues in which these jerks get to act like themselves. If this was a group of aboriginal amazonian tribespeople, their differences would be celebrated, but since they are just a bunch of nerds and dorks, they should just shut up and be like everyone else. Right?
No-one is telling them off for quoting Monty Python or making fun of the guy who forgot the THAC0 of a third level bard. 'Nerds will be nerds' is an argument with decent argument for it, but it stops a mile short of shoving your ass in a girl's face and telling her to spank it.
And, speaking as a nerd, I'm not particularly on board with the idea that puerile misogyny is something that I actually want as part of nerd culture. I agree with you that within nerd culture there is no shortage of socially stunted nitwits who do not understand why this sort of thing is not okay, but I simply do not get why that's something we ought to accept.
Yeah, that's a wonderful step forward for you personally, but you are not the grand chancellor of nerd dom. If you are offended by the actions of your erstwhile comrades, then distance yourself from them instead of trying to deny them their basic nerdiness. These guys didn't drop their drawers and grab her hand in some weird attempt at sexual gratification. One guy popped his ass out and asked a couple times for a hot chick, who had apparently opted in to the whole nerd culture, to spank it. Chances are he had no idea he was being weird or off putting.
Bromsy wrote: Look man, I'm not saying that these mouthbreathing misfits deserve some sort of veneration, I'm saying that expecting these weirdos to hold the same social standards as regular people is nonsensical. They legitimately might not get why this isn't okay. And even if they might under normal circumstances - this is comic con, one of the few venues in which these jerks get to act like themselves. If this was a group of aboriginal amazonian tribespeople, their differences would be celebrated, but since they are just a bunch of nerds and dorks, they should just shut up and be like everyone else. Right?
No-one is telling them off for quoting Monty Python or making fun of the guy who forgot the THAC0 of a third level bard. 'Nerds will be nerds' is an argument with decent argument for it, but it stops a mile short of shoving your ass in a girl's face and telling her to spank it.
And, speaking as a nerd, I'm not particularly on board with the idea that puerile misogyny is something that I actually want as part of nerd culture. I agree with you that within nerd culture there is no shortage of socially stunted nitwits who do not understand why this sort of thing is not okay, but I simply do not get why that's something we ought to accept.
Again, nobody is saying it is acceptable or that it should be.
We are simply saying one should not be surprised that this behavior exists. Its the darkside of Nerddom. one that should be aknowledged, with a swift kick to the assuredly unused babymaker.
These are sad individuals. Such behavior is to be expected from them. It is problem that can be fixed, with proper precautions.
All Nerds who manage to reproduce. Make sure your offspring are properly socialized so as not to become like the guys who did this.
Fortunately, we don't have to worry about these guys reproducing.
Bromsy wrote: Yeah, that's a wonderful step forward for you personally, but you are not the grand chancellor of nerd dom. If you are offended by the actions of your erstwhile comrades, then distance yourself from them instead of trying to deny them their basic nerdiness. These guys didn't drop their drawers and grab her hand in some weird attempt at sexual gratification. One guy popped his ass out and asked a couple times for a hot chick, who had apparently opted in to the whole nerd culture, to spank it. Chances are he had no idea he was being weird or off putting.
What? I'm not denying them their basic nerdness. Their basic nerdness is safe as long as they can debate whether the DC reboot was the best or worst to ever happen. But there is nothing saying that nerdness needs to include a heaping great big dose of socially awkward sexism.
It's the great nerd fallacy - we can never criticise our own. If you look Warhammer and Doctor Who you are one of us, and we will not question your socially disfunctional weirdo ways.
feth that. There is no reason you cannot be a fan of Star Wars and functioning adult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Again, nobody is saying it is acceptable or that it should be.
We are simply saying one should not be surprised that this behavior exists. Its the darkside of Nerddom. one that should be aknowledged, with a swift kick to the assuredly unused babymaker.
These are sad individuals. Such behavior is to be expected from them. It is problem that can be fixed, with proper precautions.
Bromsy is saying that it is acceptable within the nerd bubble. It isn't, and it shouldn't be.
Bromsy wrote: Yeah, that's a wonderful step forward for you personally, but you are not the grand chancellor of nerd dom. If you are offended by the actions of your erstwhile comrades, then distance yourself from them instead of trying to deny them their basic nerdiness. These guys didn't drop their drawers and grab her hand in some weird attempt at sexual gratification. One guy popped his ass out and asked a couple times for a hot chick, who had apparently opted in to the whole nerd culture, to spank it. Chances are he had no idea he was being weird or off putting.
What? I'm not denying them their basic nerdness. Their basic nerdness is safe as long as they can debate whether the DC reboot was the best or worst to ever happen. But there is nothing saying that nerdness needs to include a heaping great big dose of socially awkward sexism.
It's the great nerd fallacy - we can never criticise our own. If you look Warhammer and Doctor Who you are one of us, and we will not question your socially disfunctional weirdo ways.
feth that. There is no reason you cannot be a fan of Star Wars and functioning adult.
No one is saying you can't criticize them, I encourage criticism. I believe I referred to the folks involved as creepy weirdos. I'm just saying that going all or nothing is a bad, and focusing on the route of ostracizing the ones that are a little awkward is selling out the roots of the nerd movement. These people have a place too, a place they have earned more than the attractive late comers.
Bromsy is saying that it is acceptable within the nerd bubble. It isn't, and it shouldn't be.
Once again, not saying it's a cool thing to do. Just saying that getting all out of shape based on a couple of nerds is ignoring the fact that those nerds might not realize they did anything wrong.
Kaldor wrote:Yes, if you're going to dress out-of-the-ordinary, you have to expect extra attention. Sometimes it's not going to be good attention. But that doesn't give the public carte blanche to be rude, invasive or degrading.
We, as a community, need to get that straight. So that when we are at a convention, we don't act like this guy. So when we see a guy acting like this we can step up and say "Hey dude, that's not cool."
This. A thousand times this, printed on T-shirts and air-dropped from dirigibles.
Bromsy wrote:Yeah, that's a wonderful step forward for you personally, but you are not the grand chancellor of nerd dom. If you are offended by the actions of your erstwhile comrades, then distance yourself from them instead of trying to deny them their basic nerdiness. These guys didn't drop their drawers and grab her hand in some weird attempt at sexual gratification. One guy popped his ass out and asked a couple times for a hot chick, who had apparently opted in to the whole nerd culture, to spank it. Chances are he had no idea he was being weird or off putting.
Well how about me, then? I am the Patron Saint of Broken Fanboys, and I do not think that running from the problem is the answer.
Ironically, however, I do not think the camera crew in question were nerds. That story reeks of collar-popped frat bros, Maxim magazine and their ilk.
Bromsy wrote: No one is saying you can't criticize them, I encourage criticism. I believe I referred to the folks involved as creepy weirdos. I'm just saying that going all or nothing is a bad, and focusing on the route of ostracizing the ones that are a little awkward is selling out the roots of the nerd movement. These people have a place too, a place they have earned more than the attractive late comers.
Nerd-dom isn't a Vetern's Day Parade, there's no earned membership. It's a bunch of people with shared interests, which hopefully means that we'll all enjoy each other's company.
I know what you mean about the late comers, declaring themselves nerds because they liked Star Wars when they watched it one time, but feth it, if they're good company I'd prefer them to some obnoxious prat who thinks it's funny to tell a girl to smack his ass.
sebster wrote: Once again, not saying it's a cool thing to do. Just saying that getting all out of shape based on a couple of nerds is ignoring the fact that those nerds might not realize they did anything wrong.
This thread has degraded my faith in my fellow man considerably. I'm dismayed to see how many people I considered honorable and righteous to engage in, and defend, slut-shaming.
Manchu wrote: Surely you must understand that just means it will be more likely to happen again?
And yet, it's going to happen again somewhere to somebody no matter what we say. Funny how that works. Almost as if the world doesn't revolve around our own sensibilities.
Bromsy wrote: it is unreasonable to expect everyone to meet the same social standards
I think the behaviour that sparked this thread falls way, way beyond the normal boundaries of social standards.
Really? Really? Way beyond the normal boundaries of social standards?
Remove her wig and mask, and change her costume slightly but she's still wearing a skin tight leather outfit. Insert her into your local bar, club, party whatever. Would ANYONE say forward and dumb questions wouldnt happen? OF course they would. But gak like this happens every weekend ad nauseaum at bars, and no one blinks an eye. You might say alcohol is to blame for poor behavior at bars, but every con ive been to has been a big party. Why is this news then?
Im not talking about nerd persecution. But as I understand it, the Daily Mail is almost a tabloid correct? So its safe to assume that most its readers are probably not the most discerning type correct? So if thats the case, then a quick glance over this article will lead many to think "well cons ARE full of the weirdos I always heard they were" Or is that wrong?
And people need to get off this bs that anyone is "slut-shaming" her. Were simply asking how this rude and crass, but overall insignificant behavior is making national news. Some of you think she's out there standing up for womens rights. Others think shes blowing something out of proportion to garner hits on her website and the Daily Mail to sell copies. Only she knows the truth. Not you. Not I.
So please stop comparing anyone that isnt instantly supporting her to rapists and wife beaters.
I cant believe we have got 15 pages in and its still raging!
Listen, having to listen to gak pick up lines and a gak "slap my ass" doesn't mean you have been served a terrible injustice. Some fat chav put her hand on my knee and told me she wanted to sit on my face in a club, I told her to bugger off, end of discussion.
The more I read about this fething chick the more ridiculous she sounds, she is all over the bastard place! You dress up because you want people to look at you in the first place, and she seems to be a ridiculous narcissist with a me complex even more than most girls who dress skimpy and go to conventions.
Yes the bloke was a fat loser with the charm of a rottweiler, but this fething chick is pissing me off the more I read about her.
Boo hoo, someone was a bit rude. If some guy jammed his fist up her skirt she might have a genuine grievance, but as it stands its absolute nonsense, and the very fact that we are even discussing it is now annoying me, because she fething loves it.
In short, blame the piss-ant whiny victim for not just telling him to feth off and leaving it at that.
Really? Really? Way beyond the normal boundaries of social standards?
Seeing as she's been to conventions in similar costumes and never been harassed or degraded like this before, yes, this is beyond the normal boundries of the social standard that's relevant.
Remove her wig and mask, and change her costume slightly but she's still wearing a skin tight leather outfit. Insert her into your local bar, club, party whatever. Would ANYONE say forward and dumb questions wouldnt happen? OF course they would. But gak like this happens every weekend ad nauseaum at bars, and no one blinks an eye. You might say alcohol is to blame for poor behavior at bars, but every con ive been to has been a big party. Why is this news then?
And if we sent her back in time, she could be burnt as a witch, or if we dropped her into a Taliban stronghold I'm sure much worse than this would happen to her.
But seeing as none of that happened, nor is she in a bar, in a different outfit, that doesn't matter.
And it's telling the sole arguments that don't largely consist of yelling "whore " at her only consist entirely of rewriting entirely new and fictitious scenarios, which bear minimal to no relevance to the case in hand.
Im not talking about nerd persecution. But as I understand it, the Daily Mail is almost a tabloid correct? So its safe to assume that most its readers are probably not the most discerning type correct? So if thats the case, then a quick glance over this article will lead many to think "well cons ARE full of the weirdos I always heard they were" Or is that wrong?
.. think print version of Fox News.
And people need to get off this bs that anyone is "slut-shaming" her. Were simply asking how this rude and crass, but overall insignificant behavior is making national news. Some of you think she's out there standing up for womens rights. Others think shes blowing something out of proportion to garner hits on her website and the Daily Mail to sell copies. Only she knows the truth. Not you. Not I.
So please stop comparing anyone that isnt instantly supporting her to rapists and wife beaters.
seeing as she's been described over and over in this thread as " whore" or slut methinks you doth protest too much.
She didn't blow anything out of proportion. The Daily Mail article is nothing to do with her, her article was originally referenced on a website that deals mainly with comic books, and from there the magic of the web did it's wonderful work.
How is a women wearing what she wants and then writing what she wants not standing up for women's right s? We've got posters in this very thread saying she's now rite to do X/Y/Z, when she quite blatantly does.
I still maintain that I enjoy seeing boobs in outrageous costumes at GenCon, and if any of your fethers feth that up, there will be hell to pay so help me Frazzled's Weener Brigade!
hotsauceman1 wrote: its like going into the Lions dens with a full meat suit, you expect to be pounced on.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
That's like saying 'I'm not surprised that the black guy got insulted when walking past a BNP rally' is the same as 'he deserved to be insulted'.
Expecting a negative outcome and agreeing with that negative outcome are quite different.
Hotsauce how can you legitimize this poor girls rape and MGS, that's clearly uinrelated and should be dismissed out of hand.
...OR when people I disagree with so fundamentally, so often, are saying similar things it exposes your internet white knightery and deliberate refusal to see obvious parallels for what it is.
d-usa wrote: Or as the wife says: build up an appetite and come home for dinner.
Good expression. Unfortunately in my experience that leads to awkward discussions of just what's wrong with her cooking; but that's a different thread.
I'd say she didn't deserve to be treated that way, and she most certainly wasn't asking for it. I grade weather a cosplayer is just trying to get attention by how accurate their costume is. she appears to be wearing a very accurate Black Cat costume, and seeing as she didn't design that costume I'd say it's not her fault it's a bit racy. now the fishnet vader on the other hand I cannot forgive, that's clearly attention seeking behavior.
I'm still stunned people got so offended on her behalf.. nothing bloody happened!
Some gak comments?! So fething what!
Welcome to life, people say gak that annoys you. Big deal.
If he had actually done you know.. anything at all, we could have a discussion, but really.. two or three gak comments? It doesnt even warrant a discussion.
Rude bitches have said all sorts of lewd things to me in my 32 years on this earth, I don't demand some satisfaction, masking tape a boxing glove to a broomshank and then goad her with it until she keels over dies, I just tell them to feth off and walk.
And at least thats in a public place, this is a chick who dresses up and attends conventions because she absolutely fething LOVES the attention.
As I said, the guy was a dick, but who cares.. there are billions of dicks. Probably about half of the globes people are dicks... so actually more than 3 billion of the fethers!
Auston has the right of it, lets blame the victim some more.
kronk wrote: I still maintain that I enjoy seeing boobs in outrageous costumes at GenCon, and if any of your fethers feth that up, there will be hell to pay so help me Frazzled's Weener Brigade!
This is a statment of clarity that should be supported.
kronk wrote: I still maintain that I enjoy seeing boobs in outrageous costumes at GenCon, and if any of your fethers feth that up, there will be hell to pay so help me Frazzled's Weener Brigade!
This is a statment of clarity that should be supported.
Manchu wrote: Surely you must understand that just means it will be more likely to happen again?
And yet, it's going to happen again somewhere to somebody no matter what we say. Funny how that works. Almost as if the world doesn't revolve around our own sensibilities.
I get that this ties into the belief that, faced with a sexy woman, a man has no choice but to sexually harass her. Now, in the real world, this isn't true. Human beings have a thing called culture. It is shaped by discussion of events. When certain events are discussed as bad and inappropriate, they are less likely to happen and -- in cases like this -- when they happen anyway, they have a less negative impact.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: I'm still stunned people got so offended on her behalf.. nothing bloody happened!
Are you illiterate? Caruso was sexually harassed. The only way your comments could come off as more stereotypically boorish is if you insisted that she deserved it. Oh wait ...
I have to say for the record, even if I agree for the most part with the "it's bullgak she got harassed" party this thread absolutely reeks of White Knighting.
Shredsmore wrote: I just think that this chick wanted attention and publicity, so she dressed up like a tart and then when people started noticing, she tells everyone it is completely innapropriate and uncalled for so she can start a big case, sue, and possibly get rich. This kind of thing is real common. Dunno why this one is gettin' so much hype
Except there is a clear and obvious difference between 'attention' and putting your ass in a girl's face and telling her to spank it.
I refuse to believe you cannot understand that difference.
Shredsmore, you've completely missed the point and misunderstood what's happening and said several false things. You should feel bad. Thank you for exemplifying why we need to make a stink over incidents like this, and expect better from our fellow gamers.
And you're a mod? Many users are more helpful than you, what you just said was totally dickish.
Shredsmore, you've completely missed the point and misunderstood what's happening and said several false things. You should feel bad. Thank you for exemplifying why we need to make a stink over incidents like this, and expect better from our fellow gamers.
And you're a mod? Many users are more helpful than you, what you just said was totally dickish.
Mods can come here and discuss same as the rest of us, they can be direct if they feel the need and we can therefore understand that they have taken off the badge in order to comment in that fashion. It's why Manchu and I were direct in our exchange a few pages back. In opening up a direct dialogue, they are checking their gun at the door.
You can both exchange direct argument, you just can't directly insult each other according to rule 1.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I have to say for the record, even if I agree for the most part with the "it's bullgak she got harassed" party this thread absolutely reeks of White Knighting.
Look my family has been defending damsels in distress and slaying dragons for the past thousand or so years. I can't help it, chivalry is in my genes at this point. I see anyone in distress I can't help but try to help them. It's just my nature.
I get that this ties into the belief that, some people are just gakholes and nothing we do, no amount of condemnation will ever make them less of a gakhole.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: You can both exchange direct argument, you just can't directly insult each other according to rule 1.
Quiet, you pernicious ragamuffin! .. oh wait, no, you're exactly right. Sorry MGS!
Kids these days...
It should not have happened, it was a bad thing.
On the scale of evil, it was not a major bad thing.
It's relevant to our own hobby and to our wider perception as fringe interest types.
I doubt this very attractive woman will be losing sleep over the incident and will likely garner a huge groundswell of sympathy and support... and publicity.
This unpleasant attitude is on the decline, both in wider society and, more slowly, in this traditionally male citadel of chauvinism.
I do feel there's a certain hypocrisy in the incident happening whilst the woman was wearing a costume that, in it's self, can be said to represent an insulting stereotype to women and reinforcement of female body image issues.
I would also just like to quote Aaron Demski Bowden, who, I think sums up this episode for me.
" It’s annoying and false that we’re always painted up like clownish, unpalatable c**ts – except, of course, the many among our diverse and multinational breed who are indeed already clownish, unpalatable c**ts. But they exist in every community, culture, subculture and fandom. So… whatever. "
LordofHats wrote: I get that this ties into the belief that, some people are just gakholes and nothing we do, no amount of condemnation will ever make them less of a gakhole.
In the real world this is true.
No, it isn't.
Changing perceptions and attitudes towards women and their treatment by men have been rapidly ongoing throughout the last century.
The masses define reality, if the masses decide that this is not acceptable, it will become more fringe and frowned upon.
Look at the office workplace and consider what was acceptable in the office in the 50s compared to today. Slapping a woman's ass, commenting on her clothing and physical appearance.
The times they are a'changing, which is why this daily mail article irritated me.
Sexually harassed? In an office setting of course. In a party setting? Thats open to personal opinion.
If your so worried about women in costumes being asked their breast size, this halloween weekend coming up is going to be hell for you. But I dont see many articles about how scantily clad women were treated rudely at frat parties across the nation. Oh thats right its easier to write trash reinforcing negative stereotypes. But by all means support this. It helps nerds everywhere. Somehow.
And for people defending her saying that she paints us in a good light these are all quotes from the article:
"It's also common, Miss Caruso revealed in a post on her blog, for them to be sexually harassed by overzealous fans."
"Several of them, she said made 'WOAH LOOK AT THOSE KNOCKERS' faces"
All this because by my count she was stared at and asked 3 rude questions. 3. After saying she had so many good experiences. And Im also waiting to see how 2 people standing can have one shoving their ass in the others face. Explain the physics of that one to me. So most likely a butt was near her. She lives in NYC and has never been near a butt on the subway?
By all means we should fight disgusting intolerance and sexism wherever it pops up. This just isnt one IMO. This is a case of trying to get famous as a fashion designer. And judging from her website, shes not comic fan, at least I dont see any evidence of this. Shes an aspiring fashion designer in NYC with artwork that looks like shes watched too many Tim Burton movies.
And since she makes t shirts with the phrase "boo you whore" can we use that phrase? Or is she the only one allowed to say whore?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Changing perceptions and attitudes towards women and their treatment by men have been rapidly ongoing throughout the last century.
The masses define reality, if the masses decide that this is not acceptable, it will become more fringe and frowned upon.
And I'm sure some people thought racism would go away forever 20 or 30 years ago. Yet we still have racists in the world. Some things never go away. We can either accept that that's just the way things are, or spend over a dozen pages on the internet talking about it... Or both...
Can we just create a rule that all women dress this way, that way it becomes 'the norm' and things like this won't happen anymore? I for one support women dressing up in super heroine costumes and putting their best, er, foot...forward.
I read through a few pages of this, made a joke and appreciated her costume as she intended-looks accurate, she cuts a fine figure, and I'd be happy to say hi, compliment her and go on with the rest of the Con. And watch her ass as she walked away, of course, but not be a lecher where she can see. Dressing up as a comic book character DOES NOT make her a whore or a slut-it means she put on an accurate costume. Is she making too big a deal out of it? Maybe it's time to let it go, and if she sues, it's stupid and I agree she fethed up. But the people calling her a whore and a slut and saying she asked for it by dressing in an accurate costume need to jump off the George Washington Bridge. Seriously, those of you doing this are bad people and you should be ashamed of yourselves. You're the reason people don't like nerds and consider us social outcasts.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Changing perceptions and attitudes towards women and their treatment by men have been rapidly ongoing throughout the last century.
The masses define reality, if the masses decide that this is not acceptable, it will become more fringe and frowned upon.
And I'm sure some people thought racism would go away forever 20 or 30 years ago. Yet we still have racists in the world. Some things never go away. We can either accept that that's just the way things are, or spend over a dozen pages on the internet talking about it... Or both...
Or we can use the internet to fail to condemn anti-social behaviour and thus tacitly endorse and encourage it.
Manchu wrote: Huh? Sexual harassment often happens exactly because the perpetrator thinks they can get away with it socially.
Which is obviously a delusional thing to think, cause you, I, or any reasonable person knows it isn't. I.E. We're dealing with individuals who somehow managed to miss all the oh so obvious social ques. I've dealt with my share of jerks in my life. You can say it right to the face, and they still don't care.
LordofHats wrote: Yes. Something bad happens, we all say "you shouldn't do that", and all becomes right with the world. That's how the world- Wait a minute.
People who do this sort of thing, don't care what we think.
In this particular instance they might care if they were named and shamed, since they appear to be interviewing her for a vidcast of some sort...
LordofHats wrote: We're dealing with individuals who somehow managed to miss all the oh so obvious social ques.
It's that [somehow] part that makes this relevant news to our crowd. This guy isn't just a jerk, although to be sure he is one. He's a jerk who thought he could get away with sexual harassment in a public place. He was also with a bunch of other guys who were going to let him get away with it and encouraging him to do it. The hypothesis is that chauvinists feel more empowered to be chauvinists in certain spaces, like a comic book convention or a table top wargaming discussion forum.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if doing this for their vidcast was the whole point. There's always money to be made in being socially outrageous.
There is, you are right. But at least from the way that SHE described the incident this didn't strike me as one of those types of situations, it just seems like a couple of guys overstepping boundaries just out of pure social ineptitude...
Interestingly, a girl next door hired a stripper for a birthday party here once. Things got out of hand when she touched the guy. He was fuming and refused to do any more dancing.
The girl was alittle shocked and heavily embarrassed.
I don't understand the double standard where women believe doing this is ok, yet simple dialogue like in this story isn't. Shouldn't both be wrong?
LordofHats wrote: Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if doing this for their vidcast was the whole point. There's always money to be made in being socially outrageous.
But at least from the way that SHE described the incident this didn't strike me as one of those types of situations, it just seems like a couple of guys overstepping boundaries just out of pure social ineptitude...
I don't think that's the case, otherwise we'd have seen their video by now.
Interestingly, a girl next door hired a stripper for a birthday party here once. Things got out of hand when she touched the guy. He was fuming and refused to do any more dancing.
The girl was alittle shocked and heavily embarrassed.
Mr Hyena wrote: I don't understand the double standard where women believe doing this is ok, yet simple dialogue like in this story isn't. Shouldn't both be wrong?
Wait, in your story, the woman touched the male stripper, the male stripper was mad, and as a result the woman who touched him was embarrassed. How does this indicate a double standard? If the woman in your story did something inappropriate, shouldn't she feel embarrassed?
Wait, in your story, the woman touched the male stripper, the male stripper was mad, and as a result the woman who touched him was embarrassed. How does this indicate a double standard? If the woman in your story did something inappropriate, shouldn't she feel embarrassed?
The fact that she felt embarrassed doesn't change the fact that she actually did it, much like the men in this incidence did it (though the men showed a crass lack of shame, ideally they should feel like she did).
The double standard is we do not see the same level of outrage as in this incidence. Are men really supposed to just 'take it'? when the roles are reversed? or is that just reinforcing gender stereotypes? Really, what should be done is a gender-neutral focus towards stopping behaviour like this in either example.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Changing perceptions and attitudes towards women and their treatment by men have been rapidly ongoing throughout the last century.
The masses define reality, if the masses decide that this is not acceptable, it will become more fringe and frowned upon.
And I'm sure some people thought racism would go away forever 20 or 30 years ago. Yet we still have racists in the world. Some things never go away. We can either accept that that's just the way things are, or spend over a dozen pages on the internet talking about it... Or both...
Ask an older black person living in the Deep South of America if racism is the same today as it was 60 years ago? Simply travelling on the bus or attending a college were segregating issues, they are not any more.
These things will likely always exist, but we can certainly reduce them, ostracize them and ridicule them.
The casual and endorsed sexism that was culturally acceptable a few decades ago is now against the law.
We can move this sort of behaviour from the mainstream to the fringe and make it clear that it's not acceptable.
This woman should have been prepared to encounter this level of clumsy rudeness, she reads as though she was not and I have limited sympathy for her outrage, given her choice of costume and the underlying misogynistic role she was dressing as. She clearly states she's dressed as a male fantasy figure and I'm cynical about how naive she was about possible outcomes. But what she encountered was wrong and certainly open to legal prosecution, should she have chosen to take that option.
Fuckwits exist, but they should be made to realise they are being fuckwits and given notice to remedy their behaviour. You are right that bigotry will always exist, you're wrong in saying that it doesn't change, it certainly has over the last century.
Wait, in your story, the woman touched the male stripper, the male stripper was mad, and as a result the woman who touched him was embarrassed. How does this indicate a double standard? If the woman in your story did something inappropriate, shouldn't she feel embarrassed?
The fact that she felt embarrassed doesn't change the fact that she actually did it, much like the men in this incidence did it (though the men showed a crass lack of shame, ideally they should feel like she did).
The double standard is we do not see the same level of outrage as in this incidence. Are men really supposed to just 'take it'? when the roles are reversed? or is that just reinforcing gender stereotypes? Really, what should be done is a gender-neutral focus towards stopping behaviour like this in either example.
There has been a massive and ongoing suppression of one half of the population of the world due to their gender, it's getting slowly better in the Western World and remains one of the reasons I have problems with the Islamic world's behaviour. It is therefore a bigger issue regarding women being groped and objectified by men. In possibly more countries than not, women are still second class citizens, beaten, voiceless and violently suppressed.
I think you do have a valid point, albeit down something of a tangent, that women have been guilty of taking their newfound liberation, in certain instances, and behaving as badly as the men they accused half a century ago. The Ladette culture for example, or the ridiculous conversations I've overheard from women being incredibly cruel about men that don't conform to a standard of hairless, skinny blokes with feminine hair, falling prey to the very forces that make men objectify women to look like Megan Fox. There are certainly examples of an annoying double standard, consider the Diet Coke adverts that would consist of a group of 30-40something women leering at a 20something male in a state of undress and ponder how those adverts would have gone down if we swapped out the genders...
Your example proves that stupidity isn't gender bias.
But it's still stupidity and should not be tolerated.
Whoa whoa whoa. She doesn't say that at all. You're headed down a very mistaken path there. What she said is that some guys think of her as representing their fantasies. This is the mistake AustonT has been blithely insisting on: that his perception = reality. "A woman can only be sexy because I want her to be."
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Fuckwits exist, but they should be made to realise they are being fuckwits and given notice to remedy their behaviour.
Whoa whoa whoa. She doesn't say that at all. You're headed down a very mistaken path there. What she said is that some guys think of her as representing their fantasies. This is the mistake AustonT has been blithely insisting on: that his perception = reality. "A woman can only be sexy because I want her to be."
Yeah we get it Manchu, reality be damned; she just wanted to be acknowledged for the accuracy of her costume. If you yell loudly enough, maybe someone will believe you. She put herself in the obvious role of a masturbatory fantasy made manifest. She doesn't have to wear a sign around her neck, she put herself in a position to be objectified: deliberately. If you want to hem and haw about not seeing evidence; there's no evidence outside Ms.Caruso's blog that this even happened.
In case you're wondering
still running on empty
Boo, you whore. A message of tough feminism we can all appreciate.
AustonT wrote: She put herself in the obvious role of a masturbatory fantasy made manifest.
I can tell that you like and know a lot about comic books.
Yeah I need to prove my nerd cred to you.
I may hire this guy to write for me. I should have just posted it's entirety but I'm perfectly happy to paraphrase it to answer your ridiculous white knighting.
When a woman appears at primarily male gathering dressed as an intentional male masturbatory graphic fantasy figure, she is viewed as what she is not only portraying, but bringing to life, and some individuals go further, and actually treat her accordingly. Do you expect anyone to believe that you appear as a credible avatar of Black Cat so that so people won’t ogle you? The character you are playing is dressed like that in her natural surroundings—comic books—so young men will ogle her, you know, and think exactly the same thoughts that some of them spoke to you. She’s not dressed like that because a skin-tight, cleavage-flashing suit is really an asset in hand-to-hand combat
Manchu wrote: I ask again, what does white knighting have to do with saying women do not deserve to sexually harassed?
You might see yourself in here.
White Knight wrote:
On an internet forum, a person who defends a member who is clearly wrong, usually with the hopes of gaining brownie points with said member.
Manchu wrote: I ask again, what does white knighting have to do with saying women do not deserve to sexually harassed?
You might see yourself in here.
White Knight wrote: On an internet forum, a person who defends a member who is clearly wrong, usually with the hopes of gaining brownie points with said member.
You believe that my argument that women do not deserve to be sexually harassed is really an attempt to score points with a woman who is extremely unlikely to ever come across this discussion.
Whoa whoa whoa. She doesn't say that at all. You're headed down a very mistaken path there. What she said is that some guys think of her as representing their fantasies.
What message does this image convey to women and what does it convey to men?
As an intelligent woman with a successful career and strong convictions on the rights and freedoms of womankind, why would she choose this character? It reinforces everything sexist about comics. Why not Jenny Sparks? Why not Tank Girl? Gaiman's Death character?
This Black Cat character and the costume reinforces the sexist viewpoint of comics and facilitates the fantasizing of dweebs like the ones she encountered.
Manchu wrote: I ask again, what does white knighting have to do with saying women do not deserve to sexually harassed?
You might see yourself in here.
White Knight wrote:
On an internet forum, a person who defends a member who is clearly wrong, usually with the hopes of gaining brownie points with said member.
You believe that my argument that women do not deserve to be sexually harassed is really an attempt to score points with a woman who is extremely unlikely to ever come across this discussion.
White Knighting, btw, is only white knighting when the female in question or sympathetic females can see the defense and the defense is designed to cast the guy defending in a good light for further ingratiation. It isn't really applicable here.
Manchu wrote: You believe that my argument that women do not deserve to be sexually harassed is really an attempt to score points with a woman who is extremely unlikely to ever come across this discussion.
It's like a broken Labour Leader.
No, it's you making a delusional argument contrary to reason and dignity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This Black Cat character and the costume reinforces the sexist viewpoint of comics and facilitates the fantasizing of dweebs like the ones she encountered.
I've been thinking that over since you part-way mentioned it yesterday ("comic books are sexist!" or words to that effect) and I think it is absolute rubbish. Being sexy is not the same thing as being a feth toy.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This Black Cat character and the costume reinforces the sexist viewpoint of comics and facilitates the fantasizing of dweebs like the ones she encountered.
I've been thinking that over since you part-way mentioned it yesterday ("comic books are sexist!" or words to that effect) and I think it is absolute rubbish. Being sexy is not the same thing as being a feth toy.
So, you think counter to the entire feminism movement of the last century then? Being sexy is, by it's definition, creating a sexual urge in others.
Many comics certainly stereotype women and reinforce body image issues and rampant sexism. Provocative imagery designed to arouse sexual interest in a fictional woman.
I'm gonna side with MGS and Auston on the bit that women are objectified in comics. There really isn't a argument that they aren't. Look at half their costumes
I wouldn't say 'comic books are sexist' but women being objectified in media is pretty standard. Black Cat especially. When she was first introduced she was just a walking sex idol. Contrast to Jean Gray or Susan Storm. Sure they're drawn to be very attractive and wear skin tight outfits, but they're not flaunting their sexuality and cleavage like (classic) Wonder Woman and Black Cat.
LordofHats wrote: I'm gonna side with MGS and Auston on the bit that women are objectified in comics. There really isn't a argument that they aren't. Look at half their costumes
I wouldn't say 'comic books are sexist' but women being objectified in media is pretty standard. Black Cat especially. When she was first introduced she was just a walking sex idol. Contrast to Jean Gray or Susan Storm. Sure they're drawn to be very attractive and wear skin tight outfits, but they're not flaunting their sexuality and cleavage like (classic) Wonder Woman and Black Cat.
I couldn't help but think of Jubilee when I was reading your comment.
I haven't read the whole thread to be honest. But I am a long time comic fan and thought I'd share my thoughts.
To me it comes down to "Dress how you want to be treated". Inappropriate behavior is GOING to happen. In fact, expect it to happen. So, dress like a whore = get treated like a whore. Some guys will not do it but some will. Expect it to happen though. Don't be shocked by it when you know perfectly well guys are going to look at your chest rather than anything else. Is it right behavior? No of course not. But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon. If you really don't want the attention or comments that maybe you should dress up as a character from "Little House on the Prairie."
CDK wrote: I haven't read the whole thread to be honest. But I am a long time comic fan and thought I'd share my thoughts.
To me it comes down to "Dress how you want to be treated". Inappropriate behavior is GOING to happen. In fact, expect it to happen. So, dress like a whore = get treated like a whore. Some guys will not do it but some will. Expect it to happen though. Don't be shocked by it when you know perfectly well guys are going to look at your chest rather than anything else. Is it right behavior? No of course not. But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon. If you really don't want the attention or comments that maybe you should dress up as a character from "Little House on the Prairie."
Then you should, really should, go back and read the thread. All of it.
mattyrm wrote:I cant believe we have got 15 pages in and its still raging!
Listen, having to listen to gak pick up lines and a gak "slap my ass" doesn't mean you have been served a terrible injustice. Some fat chav put her hand on my knee and told me she wanted to sit on my face in a club, I told her to bugger off, end of discussion.
The more I read about this fething chick the more ridiculous she sounds, she is all over the bastard place! You dress up because you want people to look at you in the first place, and she seems to be a ridiculous narcissist with a me complex even more than most girls who dress skimpy and go to conventions.
Yes the bloke was a fat loser with the charm of a rottweiler, but this fething chick is pissing me off the more I read about her.
Boo hoo, someone was a bit rude. If some guy jammed his fist up her skirt she might have a genuine grievance, but as it stands its absolute nonsense, and the very fact that we are even discussing it is now annoying me, because she fething loves it.
In short, blame the piss-ant whiny victim for not just telling him to feth off and leaving it at that.
Matty, she was sat down and asked about her cup size. Upon refusing to answer, the surrounding audience was asked to guess in what can only be described as the world's most misogynist game of The Price is Right. What if you were sat down for an interview under the pretense of your costume or uniform, and then asked about the size of your penis? And then, upon failing to answer, the surrounding audience was asked to guess its girth? And don't brush this off with a clever quip about whipping it out. Just consider the situation.
Ratbarf wrote:As an aside, does anyone else find it rather amusing that this thread seems to almost be The Mods vs the rest of Dakka?
No, I don't find it funny at all. I find it kinda depressing, actually. Fortunately, "the rest of Dakka" is a gross exaggeration.
AustonT wrote:I may hire this guy to write for me. I should have just posted it's entirety but I'm perfectly happy to paraphrase it to answer your ridiculous white knighting.
When a woman appears at primarily male gathering dressed as an intentional male masturbatory graphic fantasy figure, she is viewed as what she is not only portraying, but bringing to life, and some individuals go further, and actually treat her accordingly. Do you expect anyone to believe that you appear as a credible avatar of Black Cat so that so people won’t ogle you? The character you are playing is dressed like that in her natural surroundings—comic books—so young men will ogle her, you know, and think exactly the same thoughts that some of them spoke to you. She’s not dressed like that because a skin-tight, cleavage-flashing suit is really an asset in hand-to-hand combat
This is partially correct; most female comic-book costumes are designed with "fan service" in mind. However, the woman in question is not dressed up for battle; she is dressed up as an homage to a character she obviously likes, albeit for personality or aesthetic. And anyone that thinks they will not get attention is naive and bordering on stupid. But there is a difference between dozens of men asking for pictures, and asking inappropriate questions about her cup size before sending the question to the audience to guess. It is very easy to ask for a photo without being disrespectful; it happens to my S/O about 200-300 times a day at every comic-con. But what you are doing is saying that someone is asking to be treated disrespectfully because they are wearing a costume.
And, just to derail things here: sometimes a skin-tight, cleavage-flashing suit is an asset to hand-to-hand combat:
Manchu wrote: No, it's you making a delusional argument contrary to reason and dignity.
Yeah bro. Bears and honey = rape and IM delusional. You keep wailing about this incident like it happened in a vacuum. It did not. There's a delusional poster here: take a look in the mirror.
CDK wrote: I haven't read the whole thread to be honest. But I am a long time comic fan and thought I'd share my thoughts.
To me it comes down to "Dress how you want to be treated". Inappropriate behavior is GOING to happen. In fact, expect it to happen. So, dress like a whore = get treated like a whore. Some guys will not do it but some will. Expect it to happen though. Don't be shocked by it when you know perfectly well guys are going to look at your chest rather than anything else. Is it right behavior? No of course not. But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon. If you really don't want the attention or comments that maybe you should dress up as a character from "Little House on the Prairie."
I was not aware that comic book female heroines are whores.
AustonT wrote:I may hire this guy to write for me. I should have just posted it's entirety but I'm perfectly happy to paraphrase it to answer your ridiculous white knighting.
When a woman appears at primarily male gathering dressed as an intentional male masturbatory graphic fantasy figure, she is viewed as what she is not only portraying, but bringing to life, and some individuals go further, and actually treat her accordingly. Do you expect anyone to believe that you appear as a credible avatar of Black Cat so that so people won’t ogle you? The character you are playing is dressed like that in her natural surroundings—comic books—so young men will ogle her, you know, and think exactly the same thoughts that some of them spoke to you. She’s not dressed like that because a skin-tight, cleavage-flashing suit is really an asset in hand-to-hand combat
This is partially correct; most female comic-book costumes are designed with "fan service" in mind. However, the woman in question is not dressed up for battle; she is dressed up as an homage to a character she obviously likes, albeit for personality or aesthetic. And anyone that thinks they will not get attention is naive and bordering on stupid. But there is a difference between dozens of men asking for pictures, and asking inappropriate questions about her cup size before sending the question to the audience to guess. It is very easy to ask for a photo without being disrespectful; it happens to my S/O about 200-300 times a day at every comic-con. But what you are doing is saying that someone is asking to be treated disrespectfully because they are wearing a costume.
And, just to derail things here: sometimes a skin-tight, cleavage-flashing suit is an asset to hand-to-hand combat:
CDK wrote: I haven't read the whole thread to be honest. But I am a long time comic fan and thought I'd share my thoughts.
To me it comes down to "Dress how you want to be treated". Inappropriate behavior is GOING to happen. In fact, expect it to happen. So, dress like a whore = get treated like a whore. Some guys will not do it but some will. Expect it to happen though. Don't be shocked by it when you know perfectly well guys are going to look at your chest rather than anything else. Is it right behavior? No of course not. But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon. If you really don't want the attention or comments that maybe you should dress up as a character from "Little House on the Prairie."
I was not aware that comic book female heroines are whores.
No, but many of them dress like one. Or at least like a Stripper.
Furthermore: I can't speak to the character of the Black Cat, because I can't be bothered to read the 8 monthly issues of Spider-Man comics that have come out for the last fifteen years. So I'll use Catwoman as my example, because I am more familiar with the character. Here's a reference, for those who have lived in a cave for a long time:
Spoiler:
Now, the costume is nearly identical to that of Black Cat, so I think that will serve for comparison. Catwoman makes no excuses about her sexuality. This is more represented in personality, but is still not exactly hidden in her costume. However, I do not believe that anyone would fall the character something other than a feminist character, and I make that claim insofar as an operating definition of feminism is for women to "own" their own sexuality, and be otherwise just as capable as their male counterparts (Granted, nobody is as capable as Batman, because he's the Goddamned Batman. But you know what I mean). Catwoman represents this in that she is an independent woman that utilizes her own sexuality not as a submissive character, but how she herself chooses to do so. This is demonstrated in both her being written as a classic femme fatale character, and in her utilizing her sexuality as a tool or skill, often to the success of her criminal activities. Again: she is the one in control of her sexuality.
So please, let's refrain from the blanket statements of "the costume is sexy so it's objectifying to women". That statement in itself is misogynist, as it assumes that a woman can only be a strong character if she hides her own female identity and sexuality, going so far as to act like a man rather than a woman.
CDK wrote: I haven't read the whole thread to be honest. But I am a long time comic fan and thought I'd share my thoughts.
To me it comes down to "Dress how you want to be treated". Inappropriate behavior is GOING to happen. In fact, expect it to happen. So, dress like a whore = get treated like a whore. Some guys will not do it but some will. Expect it to happen though. Don't be shocked by it when you know perfectly well guys are going to look at your chest rather than anything else. Is it right behavior? No of course not. But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon. If you really don't want the attention or comments that maybe you should dress up as a character from "Little House on the Prairie."
I was not aware that comic book female heroines are whores.
No, but many of them dress like one. Or at least like a Stripper.
Is it fair therefore to suppose that CDK's argument is that the woman was dressed as a whore, not as a comic book character, and therefore the men were entitled to treat her as a whore.
(There is a separate argument about how whores are entitled to be treated, of course.)
@AustonT: Yeah, I was gonna use a picture of Carano, but I decided to use GSP instead for the lulz. Anyway, I'd love to hear what you have to say about the point I was making.
CDK wrote: I haven't read the whole thread to be honest. But I am a long time comic fan and thought I'd share my thoughts.
To me it comes down to "Dress how you want to be treated". Inappropriate behavior is GOING to happen. In fact, expect it to happen. So, dress like a whore = get treated like a whore. Some guys will not do it but some will. Expect it to happen though. Don't be shocked by it when you know perfectly well guys are going to look at your chest rather than anything else. Is it right behavior? No of course not. But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon. If you really don't want the attention or comments that maybe you should dress up as a character from "Little House on the Prairie."
I was not aware that comic book female heroines are whores.
No, but many of them dress like one. Or at least like a Stripper.
Is it fair therefore to suppose that CDK's argument is that the woman was dressed as a whore, not as a comic book character, and therefore the men were entitled to treat her as a whore.
(There is a separate argument about how whores are entitled to be treated, of course.)
Then that is doubly wrong, as the woman in question was not dressed as a whore; she was dressed as the Black Cat, ipso facto.
CDK wrote: I haven't read the whole thread to be honest. But I am a long time comic fan and thought I'd share my thoughts.
To me it comes down to "Dress how you want to be treated". Inappropriate behavior is GOING to happen. In fact, expect it to happen. So, dress like a whore = get treated like a whore. Some guys will not do it but some will. Expect it to happen though. Don't be shocked by it when you know perfectly well guys are going to look at your chest rather than anything else. Is it right behavior? No of course not. But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon. If you really don't want the attention or comments that maybe you should dress up as a character from "Little House on the Prairie."
I was not aware that comic book female heroines are whores.
No, but many of them dress like one. Or at least like a Stripper.
Is it fair therefore to suppose that CDK's argument is that the woman was dressed as a whore, not as a comic book character, and therefore the men were entitled to treat her as a whore.
(There is a separate argument about how whores are entitled to be treated, of course.)
No, nobody ever is entitled to do something bad to anyone.
What we are saying is that she should not have been surprised by their actions. You can be insulted and outraged without being surprised.
The lightbulb should have immediatly lit up saying "O' these guys are dicks. I'll just leave and complain to the Con organizers" not I'll go and complain about it to a national news outlet.
Complaining about it on a national level really just encourages these dipwads. "Look, that girls now crying about what we did on a national news outlet"
She should have discretely complained to the Con organizers, who would have probably banned those guys. Who really just want attention, even negative attention.
By not giving them any attention and simply cutting them off it punishes them far more then getting their faces plastered all over the internet.
mattyrm wrote: I cant believe we have got 15 pages in and its still raging!
Listen, having to listen to gak pick up lines and a gak "slap my ass" doesn't mean you have been served a terrible injustice. Some fat chav put her hand on my knee and told me she wanted to sit on my face in a club, I told her to bugger off, end of discussion.
The more I read about this fething chick the more ridiculous she sounds, she is all over the bastard place! You dress up because you want people to look at you in the first place, and she seems to be a ridiculous narcissist with a me complex even more than most girls who dress skimpy and go to conventions.
Yes the bloke was a fat loser with the charm of a rottweiler, but this fething chick is pissing me off the more I read about her.
Boo hoo, someone was a bit rude. If some guy jammed his fist up her skirt she might have a genuine grievance, but as it stands its absolute nonsense, and the very fact that we are even discussing it is now annoying me, because she fething loves it.
In short, blame the piss-ant whiny victim for not just telling him to feth off and leaving it at that.
Thanks mate, that was bloody hilarious. Great post!
Personally I think she should have just kicked the guy in the balls, but I don't have a problem with her instead complaining to a national news outlet.
CDK wrote: I haven't read the whole thread to be honest. But I am a long time comic fan and thought I'd share my thoughts.
To me it comes down to "Dress how you want to be treated". Inappropriate behavior is GOING to happen. In fact, expect it to happen. So, dress like a whore = get treated like a whore. Some guys will not do it but some will. Expect it to happen though. Don't be shocked by it when you know perfectly well guys are going to look at your chest rather than anything else. Is it right behavior? No of course not. But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon. If you really don't want the attention or comments that maybe you should dress up as a character from "Little House on the Prairie."
I was not aware that comic book female heroines are whores.
No, but many of them dress like one. Or at least like a Stripper.
Is it fair therefore to suppose that CDK's argument is that the woman was dressed as a whore, not as a comic book character, and therefore the men were entitled to treat her as a whore.
(There is a separate argument about how whores are entitled to be treated, of course.)
No man is ever Entitled to treat someone like that. I'm saying that she had to expect guys to be jerks. It's going to happen anywhere.
In real life maybe they do a look a bit like a whore. I'm no expert on whores. I guess I should have said that if you are going to dress provocative, expect proactive things to happen. Good or bad. None of that would have happened if she had dress as say Spider Woman or Supergirl probably. It's really hard to find a female super-hero that is NOT dress provocative!
CDK wrote: . But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon.
Society has changed a whole hell of a lot of the last couple of decades. As was mentioned before, certain behaviour that was not so long ago considered more or less acceptable, like patting a female co-worker on the butt as she walks past, would these days have you ejected from the workplace and potentially up on assault charges.
Those changes occur when people stand up and say 'No, that's not acceptable'. And the more people who say that, the more mainstream those changes become.
Sure, there will always be some people who don't quite get (or just don't care about) the social niceties. But the more noise that is made about these sorts of incidents, the more people who will take notice. Which is exactly why this incident being plastered all over the internet is just what should have happened. Having the guys quietly ejected from the con might have got the message to them... but putting it up on the internet gets that message out to a much larger group of people.
Obviously, going by this thread, not everyone will be receptive of that message... but some will. And those 'some' will change their perceptions slightly, and society moves that little bit further up the ladder of change.
I do love how that rude comments towards a woman are horrendous and the perpetrators worse than Satan.
But advocating physical violence against someone taught from birth to not fight back is somehow ok?
Women can hit us and we can't even talk back? Whats that type of standard? I know it starts with a number, what is it again? Oh yeah double.
And face it male superhero bodies are just as objectified and unrealistic as the females it just so happens most comic readers are straight males. Read early 90's X-men and tell me anybody's muscles look like that.
That's actually an interesting expansion from this discussion. Who here wouldn't hit a girl?
I got disabused of the notion of not hitting girls by my first sensei was I was like... eight. She was in her late 50s and a 4th degree black belt. She could wipe the floor with any one in the studio and she looked like your grandmother.
I wouldn't. Not because I think its inherently wrong but even if a woman is swinging for the fences with you and your bigger and hit back, your gonna get demonized. I've seen in a bar a girl punch her boyfriend multiple times in the head and when he shoved her off, he got his ass handed to him by the bouncers and her friends, even though he really did nothing wrong.
Unless your in actual danger and shes your size bigger knows how to fight, just try to pin her or wrap her up. Trust me all cops are gonna take her side you dont want any bloody knuckles.
CDK wrote: I haven't read the whole thread to be honest. But I am a long time comic fan and thought I'd share my thoughts.
To me it comes down to "Dress how you want to be treated". Inappropriate behavior is GOING to happen. In fact, expect it to happen. So, dress like a whore = get treated like a whore. Some guys will not do it but some will. Expect it to happen though. Don't be shocked by it when you know perfectly well guys are going to look at your chest rather than anything else. Is it right behavior? No of course not. But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon. If you really don't want the attention or comments that maybe you should dress up as a character from "Little House on the Prairie."
I was not aware that comic book female heroines are whores.
Well, to be fair, Psylocke was when she was first transformed from a British mutant to an Asian ninja mutant-she was mind controlled into being a sex slave. That said, after she broke from her conditioning she continued to wear a revealing, one piece bathing suit type outfit that, depending on the comic, was portrayed as having a thong-style backing. Early Psylocke=British gentlewoman, early transformation=whore/sex-slave, late transformation=still tries to interfere with Cyclops' and Jean's marriage at one point and has portrayed herself as somewhat of a whore if it benefited her. So some comic book heroines can be seen as whores. Black Cat is sultry though, and while VERY flirtatious with Spidey, I haven't seen her do anything more than wear a skintight leather outfit with the zipper low. Current Starfire in The New 52 also used to be a whore. I'm wracking my brain to come up with any other female characters who have been portrayed as whores, and I can't. I think two out of thousands does not make comic book females (or those who dress like them) whores.
Inappropriate behavior will happen by douchebags-I agree. I expect douchebags to be douchebags. I can understand ogling-it's expected from nerds. Fat, disgusting men asking her to spank them or take pictures pointing at her tits and worshipping them are not appropriate. And having a sitdown interview and having the audience guess her size when she is clearly upset is fething ridiculous.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: That's actually an interesting expansion from this discussion. Who here wouldn't hit a girl?
I got disabused of the notion of not hitting girls by my first sensei was I was like... eight. She was in her late 50s and a 4th degree black belt. She could wipe the floor with any one in the studio and she looked like your grandmother.
Equal rights means equal fights.
I would. I would also, while on a night out in Somerset, tell a fat girl who has just rudely stuck her hand into my food "you should lay off the chips fatty"and then after she has punched me in the neck, mash the rest of my cheesy chips into her fat buffalo sized face, and then run all the way back to camp pursued by an angry mob, who didn't notice her initial assault, but soon turned around as she let out an ear piercing shriek when the molten cheese welded itself to her eyebrows.
I would. I would also, while on a night out in Somerset, tell a fat girl who has just rudely stuck her hand into my food "you should lay off the chips fatty"and then after she has punched me in the neck, mash the rest of my cheesy chips into her fat buffalo sized face, and then run all the way back to camp pursued by an angry mob, who didn't notice her initial assault, but soon turned around as she let out an ear piercing shriek when the molten cheese welded itself to her eyebrows.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Changing perceptions and attitudes towards women and their treatment by men have been rapidly ongoing throughout the last century.
The masses define reality, if the masses decide that this is not acceptable, it will become more fringe and frowned upon.
And I'm sure some people thought racism would go away forever 20 or 30 years ago. Yet we still have racists in the world. Some things never go away. We can either accept that that's just the way things are, or spend over a dozen pages on the internet talking about it... Or both...
Are you saying that we should just expect bad things, if we can't 100% magically get rid of them?
You want us to accept racists, because they aren't going away?
What about murderers? There will always be murder. Or rapists? There will always be rape.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Changing perceptions and attitudes towards women and their treatment by men have been rapidly ongoing throughout the last century.
The masses define reality, if the masses decide that this is not acceptable, it will become more fringe and frowned upon.
And I'm sure some people thought racism would go away forever 20 or 30 years ago. Yet we still have racists in the world. Some things never go away. We can either accept that that's just the way things are, or spend over a dozen pages on the internet talking about it... Or both...
Are you saying that we should just expect bad things, if we can't 100% magically get rid of them?
You want us to accept racists, because they aren't going away?
What about murderers? There will always be murder. Or rapists? There will always be rape.
LoneLictor wrote: Are you saying that we should just expect bad things, if we can't 100% magically get rid of them?
You want us to accept racists, because they aren't going away?
What about murderers? There will always be murder. Or rapists? There will always be rape.
Seriously man, that is some weak logic.
Because equating typical douche baggery to rape, murder, kidnapping, and various other legally recognized felonies is completely logically valid.
Typically, if something isn't against the law. Some people will probably do it. Somewhere. Ignoring that racism actually is legally protected, to the extent that free speech is interpreted to allow it.
*looks around, fails to see dinosaurs*
We're still working on that cloning them from frogs thing. We'll get back to you next week.
That fact that anyone is using the language "she dressed like a whore" shows an innate lack of respect, even if it isn't expressed blatantly in front of said person. Short of being a nun, what the hell does it matter how anyone dresses? Old men get boners rather easily apparently.
@AustonT: Yeah, I was gonna use a picture of Carano, but I decided to use GSP instead for the lulz. Anyway, I'd love to hear what you have to say about the point I was making.
CDK wrote: I haven't read the whole thread to be honest. But I am a long time comic fan and thought I'd share my thoughts.
To me it comes down to "Dress how you want to be treated". Inappropriate behavior is GOING to happen. In fact, expect it to happen. So, dress like a whore = get treated like a whore. Some guys will not do it but some will. Expect it to happen though. Don't be shocked by it when you know perfectly well guys are going to look at your chest rather than anything else. Is it right behavior? No of course not. But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon. If you really don't want the attention or comments that maybe you should dress up as a character from "Little House on the Prairie."
I was not aware that comic book female heroines are whores.
No, but many of them dress like one. Or at least like a Stripper.
Is it fair therefore to suppose that CDK's argument is that the woman was dressed as a whore, not as a comic book character, and therefore the men were entitled to treat her as a whore.
(There is a separate argument about how whores are entitled to be treated, of course.)
Then that is doubly wrong, as the woman in question was not dressed as a whore; she was dressed as the Black Cat, ipso facto.
I guess maybe I missed the point you were trying to make. Most MMA fighters choose loose fitting shorts with high cuts in favor of tight fits. Most of the reason a top isn't worn has to do with the rules of UFC post Gracie(spelled Brazilian ). A loose top can easily be used as a weapon or as a tool to evade.
What you've basically done is make the correlation that because boxers wear 15oz gloves an effective fist fighter must.
Loose fitting uniforms are the norm for those that fight for a living for a reason.
TLDR: I got what you were driving at I just think you are applying it incorrectly.
And also they ration healthcare in Canada.
ALright...we need more subject matter to study. SO post pics of the females of comic con and MMA female fighters....might as well throw in the star wars convention and heck and fantasy/scifi convention showing females in the garb. By establishing a base line we should be able to see whats good and what in a good...bad sort of way. Auston T thank you for volunteering to ensure individuals on this thead to post evidence for and against um...male over eagerness. King Cracker you Sir are to rate them 1-10. Very well lets cary on this study in a serioius way....rest of you all assist our two vict..eerrrrrr fellow workers to bring enlightment to us.
LoneLictor wrote: Are you saying that we should just expect bad things, if we can't 100% magically get rid of them?
You want us to accept racists, because they aren't going away?
What about murderers? There will always be murder. Or rapists? There will always be rape.
Seriously man, that is some weak logic.
Because equating typical douche baggery to rape, murder, kidnapping, and various other legally recognized felonies is completely logically valid.
Typically, if something isn't against the law. Some people will probably do it. Somewhere. Ignoring that racism actually is legally protected, to the extent that free speech is interpreted to allow it.
I'm not arguing about laws. I'm arguing that we shouldn't condone douche baggery. I'm arguing that 'Its going to happen no matter what' doesn't make it any less acceptable.
The way I see it, the best thing (legally) that could be done to the douche bags is to shame them. If anyone caught them harassing the woman on camera, they should put it on youtube or somethin'.
LoneLictor wrote: I'm arguing that 'Its going to happen no matter what' doesn't make it any less acceptable.
Find for me where I said it does?
More than once in this thread posters have made massive logical leaps to say that people are saying things they are not. By saying that "this is never going to go away and people need to learn to deal with it" is not the same thing as saying "this is acceptable behavior." Accepting the existence of something is separate from accepting its validity.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: I do love how that rude comments towards a woman are horrendous and the perpetrators worse than Satan.
But advocating physical violence against someone taught from birth to not fight back is somehow ok?
Women can hit us and we can't even talk back? Whats that type of standard? I know it starts with a number, what is it again? Oh yeah double.
And face it male superhero bodies are just as objectified and unrealistic as the females it just so happens most comic readers are straight males. Read early 90's X-men and tell me anybody's muscles look like that.
In the words of the immortal bard: suck it up Dumbo. My Wife would have put a hurt on him, and I am raising GC to be fierce. Her response would have been unkind, but very very entertaining.
Personally I think she should have just kicked the guy in the balls
Seems disproportionate. Fits in with the double standard.
Highly appropriate and would have ended it right there. The more I think about what was done I said with Manchu. Dirt bags need to be smacked down, hard.
primates of course. They have wiener dogs on their side. Why do you think dinosaurs died out in the first place? You think some coconut eating TRex can stand against the awesome might of the wiener legions? I think not baby puppy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Ghenghis Connie though I believe would remove a few knee caps to
Lets just say the wienerdogs would be enjoying a fine feast of marrow and liver indeed.
Summary of the info we have on/from Caruso, and the statements made in reaction to it.
Caruso A: Is a (hot) chick, and likes dressing up in skimpy costumes at comic cons.
Caruso B: Is into fashion and costuming and comics, so her costumes are super-accurate and show a high attention to detail. They’re not just a cheap bikini to show off her skin.
Caruso C: The vast majority of guys she says she encounters when doing this are totally courteous and no problem.
Caruso D: There is a certain percentage of nerd guys who are unsocialized doofuses, and do some dumb stuff, but she doesn't flip out or give them a hard time about it.
Caruso E: Just recently she had a very unusual, unpleasant and unacceptable experience with a few jerks who took it way beyond that, into a realm no one should put up with.
I don’t see anything offensive or controversial in what Caruso said or did. Sure, she’s a self-promoter and obviously invites attention, but she seems to react to that attention appropriately, based on its varying levels of courtesy or creepiness.
Now here’s a selection of the various responses we’ve expressed in this thread:
Dakka poster statement A: That’s a shame. Nobody should be treated like that. There’s no excuse for being a jerk.
Dakka poster statement B: Boobs!
Dakka poster statement C: It’s her own fault for dressing like that. She should expect any man to sexually harass her. Wearing a skimpy costume to a comic con is just like wearing a skimpy costume to the office.
Dakka poster statement D: Nobody should be sexually harassed, but despite that, it was still her own fault for dressing like that. And expecting better of our peers = expecting a perfect world.
Dakka poster statement E: She’s a liar who totally wants the attention. She’s just complaining to promote herself and make money.
Dakka poster statement F: She’s a total jerk for hating nerds like she does. She should expect unsocialized doofuses to sexually harass her.
Dakka poster statement G: What? Nothing happened! Unless she was physically assaulted, she has no grounds for complaint.
Dakka poster statement H: It’s her own fault, and the people who think she had legitimate grounds for complaint are just protecting the guilty, out of some misguided fantasy about rescuing women.
I can get behind two of the above eight sentiments my fellow Dakkanauts have expressed. Which is not a good ratio. I think our community is mostly better than this junk. And can be better than it is.
Mannahnin wrote: Summary of the info we have on/from Caruso, and the statements made in reaction to it.
Caruso A: Is a (hot) chick, and likes dressing up in skimpy costumes at comic cons.
Caruso B: Is into fashion and costuming and comics, so her costumes are super-accurate and show a high attention to detail. They’re not just a cheap bikini to show off her skin.
Caruso C: The vast majority of guys she says she encounters when doing this are totally courteous and no problem.
Caruso D: There is a certain percentage of nerd guys who are unsocialized doofuses, and do some dumb stuff, but she doesn't flip out or give them a hard time about it.
Caruso E: Just recently she had a very unusual, unpleasant and unacceptable experience with a few jerks who took it way beyond that, into a realm no one should put up with.
I don’t see anything offensive or controversial in what Caruso said or did. Sure, she’s a self-promoter and obviously invites attention, but she seems to react to that attention appropriately, based on its varying levels of courtesy or creepiness.
Now here’s a selection of the various responses we’ve expressed in this thread:
Dakka poster statement A: That’s a shame. Nobody should be treated like that. There’s no excuse for being a jerk.
Dakka poster statement B: Boobs!
Dakka poster statement C: It’s her own fault for dressing like that. She should expect any man to sexually harass her. Wearing a skimpy costume to a comic con is just like wearing a skimpy costume to the office.
Dakka poster statement D: Nobody should be sexually harassed, but despite that, it was still her own fault for dressing like that. And expecting better of our peers = expecting a perfect world.
Dakka poster statement E: She’s a liar who totally wants the attention. She’s just complaining to promote herself and make money.
Dakka poster statement F: She’s a total jerk for hating nerds like she does. She should expect unsocialized doofuses to sexually harass her.
Dakka poster statement G: What? Nothing happened! Unless she was physically assaulted, she has no grounds for complaint.
Dakka poster statement H: It’s her own fault, and the people who think she had legitimate grounds for complaint are just protecting the guilty, out of some misguided fantasy about rescuing women.
I can get behind two of the above eight sentiments my fellow Dakkanauts have expressed. Which is not a good ratio. I think our community is mostly better than this junk. And can be better than it is.
/thread.
I swore I'd never use that expression. However, your post quite frankly deserves it.
I can get behind two of the above eight sentiments my fellow Dakkanauts have expressed. Which is not a good ratio. I think our community is mostly better than this junk. And can be better than it is.
Never go to a club. I have (female) friends who've had their genitals groped in clubs, and that's just what i'm willing to put on dakka. Men, and by men I do explicitly mean people with penises, are bastards.
I met most of the women I ever dated in clubs, including the one I'm married to.
Seriously, most men aren't scumbags. And it's insulting and dumb to lump the vast majority of us in with the scumbags, and to give those scumbags cover for their jackassery and even crimes (from what you're saying) by pretending that crap is normal.
Personally I would say that most men are "scumbags" and the "nice guys" are the minority. Men who're respectful and decent don't make good fighters, and cultures without good fighters don't last long.
And Frazzled are you really promoting physical violence as an acceptable alternative? Do people really think thats ok? Because all it takes is one wrong guy and suddenly your daughter is lying in a gutter beaten and broken. Violence is never the answer unless your in actual physical harm and to promote it otherwise is horribly dumb. And please spare me some stupid weiner dog comment or how you'll shoot that person or some such.
But Im glad that my theory has been helped along. Rude comments to woman = evil. Physical violence to a man = you go girl!
And Mannahain thats gotta be one of the worst most one sided summaries Ive ever seen. I get it you dont like any of our arguments, some dumb posts aside. That doesn't invalidate them though. I get you think a woman could never do something with an ulterior motive and that anyone that thinks different from you is a misogynistic cretin, but really, nobody here knows but her.
Mannahnin wrote: Summary of the info we have on/from Caruso, and the statements made in reaction to it.
Caruso A: Is a (hot) chick, and likes dressing up in skimpy costumes at comic cons.
Caruso B: Is into fashion and costuming and comics, so her costumes are super-accurate and show a high attention to detail. They’re not just a cheap bikini to show off her skin.
Caruso C: The vast majority of guys she says she encounters when doing this are totally courteous and no problem.
Caruso D: There is a certain percentage of nerd guys who are unsocialized doofuses, and do some dumb stuff, but she doesn't flip out or give them a hard time about it.
Caruso E: Just recently she had a very unusual, unpleasant and unacceptable experience with a few jerks who took it way beyond that, into a realm no one should put up with.
I don’t see anything offensive or controversial in what Caruso said or did. Sure, she’s a self-promoter and obviously invites attention, but she seems to react to that attention appropriately, based on its varying levels of courtesy or creepiness.
Now here’s a selection of the various responses we’ve expressed in this thread:
Dakka poster statement A: That’s a shame. Nobody should be treated like that. There’s no excuse for being a jerk.
Dakka poster statement B: Boobs!
Dakka poster statement C: It’s her own fault for dressing like that. She should expect any man to sexually harass her. Wearing a skimpy costume to a comic con is just like wearing a skimpy costume to the office.
Dakka poster statement D: Nobody should be sexually harassed, but despite that, it was still her own fault for dressing like that. And expecting better of our peers = expecting a perfect world.
Dakka poster statement E: She’s a liar who totally wants the attention. She’s just complaining to promote herself and make money.
Dakka poster statement F: She’s a total jerk for hating nerds like she does. She should expect unsocialized doofuses to sexually harass her.
Dakka poster statement G: What? Nothing happened! Unless she was physically assaulted, she has no grounds for complaint.
Dakka poster statement H: It’s her own fault, and the people who think she had legitimate grounds for complaint are just protecting the guilty, out of some misguided fantasy about rescuing women.
I can get behind two of the above eight sentiments my fellow Dakkanauts have expressed. Which is not a good ratio. I think our community is mostly better than this junk. And can be better than it is.
Would it be wrong to say I love you in a platonic way after posting this? I assume poster statements A and B are the ones you approve of? I agree. Boobs. And well created costume. She knows her gak-we should applaud her for being a hot girl who knows how to make a good costume accurately and fill it out something proper. Yay boobs!! And accuracy
Testify wrote: Personally I would say that most men are "scumbags" and the "nice guys" are the minority. Men who're respectful and decent don't make good fighters, and cultures without good fighters don't last long.
Er...what?
I'm with Ragnar on this...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote: And Frazzled are you really promoting physical violence as an acceptable alternative? Do people really think thats ok? Because all it takes is one wrong guy and suddenly your daughter is lying in a gutter beaten and broken. Violence is never the answer unless your in actual physical harm and to promote it otherwise is horribly dumb. And please spare me some stupid weiner dog comment or how you'll shoot that person or some such.
But Im glad that my theory has been helped along. Rude comments to woman = evil. Physical violence to a man = you go girl!
And Mannahain thats gotta be one of the worst most one sided summaries Ive ever seen. I get it you dont like any of our arguments, some dumb posts aside. That doesn't invalidate them though. I get you think a woman could never do something with an ulterior motive and that anyone that thinks different from you is a misogynistic cretin, but really, nobody here knows but her.
Uh... so, you're a total pacifist?
That dude deserved to be slapped and/or his jewels kicked...
Oh... I second Ragnar's summary A/B... oh and Boobs!
Testify wrote: Personally I would say that most men are "scumbags" and the "nice guys" are the minority. Men who're respectful and decent don't make good fighters, and cultures without good fighters don't last long.
I've been doing martial arts for fourteen years, I can hit head shots on silhouette targets at 500m with iron sights with the M-16A4 service rifle, and completed some of the tougher training the U.S. military offers that doesn't involve trying out for one of the S.F. groups, and I like to think I'm a very nice guy, just ask my momma. She'll tell you she raised a proper gentleman. A warrior's sword is only drawn when it needs to be, acting like a hooligan's not the mark of a good fighter and neither is making an arse of one's self in public. (Much the same thing really)
Caruso F: She signed some kind of deal with the Daily Mail or else they couldn't run her story. A deal that happens to include a link to her design website.
Take it as you will, but thats a fact as much as your others.
Dakka I: The characters Black Cat and Red Sonja are whores, because they wear skimpy outfits. Anyone who wears an outfit like either of those is a whore.
There is a large middle ground between scumbags and pushovers. Most men who actually talk to women and do anything in their lives are somewhere in the middle, and know how to conduct themselves with basic human decency and courtesy.
Testify wrote: Personally I would say that most men are "scumbags" and the "nice guys" are the minority. Men who're respectful and decent don't make good fighters, and cultures without good fighters don't last long.
I've been doing martial arts for fourteen years, I can hit head shots on silhouette targets at 500m with iron sights with the M-16A4 service rifle, and completed some of the tougher training the U.S. military offers that doesn't involve trying out for one of the S.F. groups, and I like to think I'm a very nice guy, just ask my momma. She'll tell you she raised a proper gentleman. A warrior's sword is only drawn when it needs to be, acting like a hooligan's not the mark of a good fighter and neither is making an arse of one's self in public. (Much the same thing really)
:fist bump:
This?
I can hit head shots on silhouette targets at 500m with iron sights with the M-16A4 service rifle
Damn... I need to practice more.
Point is Testify... if you think most men are scumbags... then you're perpetuating the problem.
Testify wrote: Personally I would say that most men are "scumbags" and the "nice guys" are the minority. Men who're respectful and decent don't make good fighters, and cultures without good fighters don't last long.
I've been doing martial arts for fourteen years, I can hit head shots on silhouette targets at 500m with iron sights with the M-16A4 service rifle, and completed some of the tougher training the U.S. military offers that doesn't involve trying out for one of the S.F. groups, and I like to think I'm a very nice guy, just ask my momma. She'll tell you she raised a proper gentleman. A warrior's sword is only drawn when it needs to be, acting like a hooligan's not the mark of a good fighter and neither is making an arse of one's self in public. (Much the same thing really)
I'm not doubting your skills, but ultimately your ability to use tools - weapons, martial arts - are a modern phenominon. The personality traits of aggression and rage etc are still more important at an inherent level than an ability to learn new skills, which is what modern warfare seems to be about. Hell a 12 year old girl with a pistol could kill Brock Lesnar in a heartbeat. Does that mean that she is a better man than him?
Testify wrote: Personally I would say that most men are "scumbags" and the "nice guys" are the minority. Men who're respectful and decent don't make good fighters, and cultures without good fighters don't last long.
Er...what?
I'm with Ragnar on this...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote: And Frazzled are you really promoting physical violence as an acceptable alternative? Do people really think thats ok? Because all it takes is one wrong guy and suddenly your daughter is lying in a gutter beaten and broken. Violence is never the answer unless your in actual physical harm and to promote it otherwise is horribly dumb. And please spare me some stupid weiner dog comment or how you'll shoot that person or some such.
But Im glad that my theory has been helped along. Rude comments to woman = evil. Physical violence to a man = you go girl!
And Mannahain thats gotta be one of the worst most one sided summaries Ive ever seen. I get it you dont like any of our arguments, some dumb posts aside. That doesn't invalidate them though. I get you think a woman could never do something with an ulterior motive and that anyone that thinks different from you is a misogynistic cretin, but really, nobody here knows but her.
Uh... so, you're a total pacifist?
That dude deserved to be slapped and/or his jewels kicked...
Oh... I second Ragnar's summary A/B... oh and Boobs!
Im not a pacifist at all. But go ahead tell women to start punching and kicking men for being rude. That could NEVER backfire. No woman has EVER been beaten because she humiliated a man. That could NEVER happen. Take a hotheaded guy and emasculate him in public. He would NEVER wait for her outside and beat her mercilessly when shes alone. That has NEVER happened.
But thanks for promoting violence because of bad words. Thats the sign of a truly enlightened mind. If someone threatens you, by all means respond with appropriate force. But somebody said something rude and hurtful and one is supposed to strike them? What is this grade school?
Women don't need to be kicking guys in the balls, as a rule. Being prepared to deal with a physical confrontation if needed is a useful skill for anyone, of course, but there's rarely justification to start one.
Women don't need to be kicking guys in the balls, as a rule. Being prepared to deal with a physical confrontation if needed is a useful skill for anyone, of course, but there's rarely justification to start one.
Okay... kicking the jewels in this case is excessive.
Testify wrote: Personally I would say that most men are "scumbags" and the "nice guys" are the minority. Men who're respectful and decent don't make good fighters, and cultures without good fighters don't last long.
I've been doing martial arts for fourteen years, I can hit head shots on silhouette targets at 500m with iron sights with the M-16A4 service rifle, and completed some of the tougher training the U.S. military offers that doesn't involve trying out for one of the S.F. groups, and I like to think I'm a very nice guy, just ask my momma. She'll tell you she raised a proper gentleman. A warrior's sword is only drawn when it needs to be, acting like a hooligan's not the mark of a good fighter and neither is making an arse of one's self in public. (Much the same thing really)
I'm not doubting your skills, but ultimately your ability to use tools - weapons, martial arts - are a modern phenomenon. The personality traits of aggression and rage etc are still more important at an inherent level than an ability to learn new skills, which is what modern warfare seems to be about. Hell a 12 year old girl with a pistol could kill Brock Lesnar in a heartbeat. Does that mean that she is a better man than him?
.
Define "modern" because warfare has all been about acquiring a skillset since the Middle Ages, and that's global. While Europeans had a bit of an issue with the concept of not just being a raging fethhead, the entire reason knights existed is because modern warfare (at that time) required a specific skill set in addition to just working out a lot. Other culture's martial traditions, notably Islam and Japan's knight equivalents had their rough spots as well but did try to temper the steel core of a warrior with learning and art work. I just finished reading the autobiography of a muslim knight who lived and fought during the third crusade, he was a very learned man, practiced in poetry (a big deal in the Arab world for those who don't know) and sciences, his father was very famous as a copier of the Quran, completing forty two full copies in his life time all of which could individually qualify as art work. We're all familiar with samurai considering how popular that culture is here in the west.
I'd also disagree that you need aggression any less in a fight then you do now, just because a gun is the modern tool of warfare doesn't mean you need to be any less willing to fight or use it. Discipline is the hallmark of truly lethal fighters and professional warriors from the classical era and beyond. The Spartans were one of the finest military forces in the world, and the Roman legions after them, were they more aggressive then the people around them? Possibly though I'd say the tribal Germans had a leg up in sheer ferocity on the Romans, but both forces were certainly more skilled, more practiced and more disciplined then the average opponent across the field from them.
The tools change, the core of what makes a warrior, and what it takes to pick those tools up hasn't changed.
Dakka I: The characters Black Cat and Red Sonja are whores, because they wear skimpy outfits. Anyone who wears an outfit like either of those is a whore.
To be fair... Red Sonja does have that little sex problem of hers.
And Manny for the major part I agree with you guys, that women have a tough time being objectified and being treated like dirt for wanting to be sexy. Sexism is still alive and rampant and its disgusting.
That being said, I still think that this case has much more to do with the Daily Mail writing an article the reinforces negative stereotypes for a profit for a (in my mind) very minor slight. And she signed off on it, which I dont respect. But we've all beat this horse enough.
At least most people are agreeing that they neither condone this behavior or will participate in it at a con.
At least everyone says that until the pack mentality takes over....
Women don't need to be kicking guys in the balls, as a rule. Being prepared to deal with a physical confrontation if needed is a useful skill for anyone, of course, but there's rarely justification to start one.
Appropriate use of force kids. Bad words don't rate a beating. However should someone lay hands on someone aggressively, no matter the gender of the individual being attacked, I must admit I heartily support a good kick between the uprights as an initial disabler. Cheap? Yes. Unfair? The only fair fight is the one you win and the street isn't a sparring ring.
Define "modern" because warfare has all been about acquiring a skillset since the Middle Ages, and that's global. While Europeans had a bit of an issue with the concept of not just being a raging fethhead, the entire reason knights existed is because modern warfare (at that time) required a specific skill set in addition to just working out a lot. Other culture's martial traditions, notably Islam and Japan's knight equivalents had their rough spots as well but did try to temper the steel core of a warrior with learning and art work. I just finished reading the autobiography of a muslim knight who lived and fought during the third crusade, he was a very learned man, practiced in poetry (a big deal in the Arab world for those who don't know) and sciences, his father was very famous as a copier of the Quran, completing forty two full copies in his life time all of which could individually qualify as art work. We're all familiar with samurai considering how popular that culture is here in the west.
I'd also disagree that you need aggression any less in a fight then you do now, just because a gun is the modern tool of warfare doesn't mean you need to be any less willing to fight or use it. Discipline is the hallmark of truly lethal fighters and professional warriors from the classical era and beyond. The Spartans were one of the finest military forces in the world, and the Roman legions after them, were they more aggressive then the people around them? Possibly though I'd say the tribal Germans had a leg up in sheer ferocity on the Romans, but both forces were certainly more skilled, more practiced and more disciplined then the average opponent across the field from them.
Knights existed to siphon off excess labour and resources. If every peasant in medieval Europe had a suit of plate armour and a warhorse, I'm sure knights would have become obselete immediately.
You also undermine your own argument by acknoledging that the Romans were in fact defeated by the Germans and the Picts.
You think these guys:
give a hell about equal opportunities?
Now you could argue that being better warriors doesn't make you a more advanced civilisation, and you'd be right. That's why the Germanic tribes stole culture and learning from the Romans then propagated it themselves.
I would also take issue with your disregard for individual qualities in ancient warfare. In a situation where discipline is everything, the ability to man the feth up and get on with the job is everything, as is the physical ability to overpower your enemy. Obviously there was still a random element with arrows and siege equipment and the like, but to a far far lesser extent than today.
Women don't need to be kicking guys in the balls, as a rule. Being prepared to deal with a physical confrontation if needed is a useful skill for anyone, of course, but there's rarely justification to start one.
Appropriate use of force kids. Bad words don't rate a beating. However should someone lay hands on someone aggressively, no matter the gender of the individual being attacked, I must admit I heartily support a good kick between the uprights as an initial disabler. Cheap? Yes. Unfair? The only fair fight is the one you win and the street isn't a sparring ring.
Yes but thats not what anyone was advocating. Frazzled, whembly and quite a few others were saying she should have punched him or kicked him right there no stage. As if acting like a child would give her the upper hand.
Appropriate use of force kids. Bad words don't rate a beating. However should someone lay hands on someone aggressively, no matter the gender of the individual being attacked, I must admit I heartily support a good kick between the uprights as an initial disabler. Cheap? Yes. Unfair? The only fair fight is the one you win and the street isn't a sparring ring.
Maybe.
Guy takes the piss out of his girlfriend in public, people laugh.
Girl takes the piss out of her boyfriend in public, people laugh, then she has a black eye the day after.
The moment you bring physical force into it, you're essentially consigning women to inferiority, which seems pretty unfair to me.
Define "modern" because warfare has all been about acquiring a skillset since the Middle Ages, and that's global. While Europeans had a bit of an issue with the concept of not just being a raging fethhead, the entire reason knights existed is because modern warfare (at that time) required a specific skill set in addition to just working out a lot. Other culture's martial traditions, notably Islam and Japan's knight equivalents had their rough spots as well but did try to temper the steel core of a warrior with learning and art work. I just finished reading the autobiography of a muslim knight who lived and fought during the third crusade, he was a very learned man, practiced in poetry (a big deal in the Arab world for those who don't know) and sciences, his father was very famous as a copier of the Quran, completing forty two full copies in his life time all of which could individually qualify as art work. We're all familiar with samurai considering how popular that culture is here in the west.
I'd also disagree that you need aggression any less in a fight then you do now, just because a gun is the modern tool of warfare doesn't mean you need to be any less willing to fight or use it. Discipline is the hallmark of truly lethal fighters and professional warriors from the classical era and beyond. The Spartans were one of the finest military forces in the world, and the Roman legions after them, were they more aggressive then the people around them? Possibly though I'd say the tribal Germans had a leg up in sheer ferocity on the Romans, but both forces were certainly more skilled, more practiced and more disciplined then the average opponent across the field from them.
Knights existed to siphon off excess labour and resources. If every peasant in medieval Europe had a suit of plate armour and a warhorse, I'm sure knights would have become obselete immediately.
You also undermine your own argument by acknoledging that the Romans were in fact defeated by the Germans and the Picts.
You think these guys:
give a hell about equal opportunities?
Now you could argue that being better warriors doesn't make you a more advanced civilisation, and you'd be right. That's why the Germanic tribes stole culture and learning from the Romans then propagated it themselves.
I would also take issue with your disregard for individual qualities in ancient warfare. In a situation where discipline is everything, the ability to man the feth up and get on with the job is everything, as is the physical ability to overpower your enemy. Obviously there was still a random element with arrows and siege equipment and the like, but to a far far lesser extent than today.
The Legions only fell because of the corruption rotting the heart out of rome and the over extension of roman military power. Shockingly no food and no pay drops morale, discipline and combat effectiveness pretty quickly.
I still maintain that actions that modern societies dictates are "barbaric" are actually vital in maintaining a society capable of fighting and defeating its enemies.
Hell, Mike Tyson was a rapist and that guy's solid as hell.
The behaviour that sparked this thread is NOT typical douchebaggery. It's sexual harassment, and should be viewed and treated as such.
Having people look at your tits and ask you what bra size you are is NOT sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment is a very serious and very unpleasant thing that many women are subject to, and regarding this on the same level as that is frankly insulting.
As I said, it's much, much less severe than what the average woman will experience on a night out. Definitely not worthy of writing an article about, but the Daily Mail will publish anything about a woman with big tits. Ironic, given the subject matter.
Celtic/Germanic (of which Britain is essentially a hybrid) warriors just painted themselves blue and ran at the enemy until someone died
Sure and swarm tactics CAN work. But try that running hard gak at a properly supplied and supported Roman legion or Spartan formation. It didn't work very well. Usually the numbers required for a Roman loss were insane, and this was one, maybe two legions at most at one of the furthest lengths of the supply chain. Once that chain fell however...
For a more modern example see the Russian Army in the Second World War. Specifically see their casualties.
Celtic/Germanic (of which Britain is essentially a hybrid) warriors just painted themselves blue and ran at the enemy until someone died
Speaking as someone coming from a Celtic religious tradition and proud of his Irish and Swedish ancestry, I WISH those guys were more effective. They got decimated every time they went against the Romans, except when the Romans couldn't get proper supply and support. Even when massively outnumbered, the Romans butchered them on the battlefields.
Celtic/Germanic (of which Britain is essentially a hybrid) warriors just painted themselves blue and ran at the enemy until someone died
Speaking as someone coming from a Celtic religious tradition and proud of his Irish and Swedish ancestry, I WISH those guys were more effective. They got decimated every time they went against the Romans, except when the Romans couldn't get proper supply and support. Even when massively outnumbered, the Romans butchered them on the battlefields.
Yup. Because of superior training/discipline etc.
Doesn't change the fact that, other things being equal, a man of greater aggression will be a superior soldier to a man of lesser aggression. The ability to disregard your own survival instinct, an immunity to pain and the ability to carry on physically until you literally die of exhaustion, are all good traits.
Celtic/Germanic (of which Britain is essentially a hybrid) warriors just painted themselves blue and ran at the enemy until someone died
Speaking as someone coming from a Celtic religious tradition and proud of his Irish and Swedish ancestry, I WISH those guys were more effective. They got decimated every time they went against the Romans, except when the Romans couldn't get proper supply and support. Even when massively outnumbered, the Romans butchered them on the battlefields.
Yup. Because of superior training/discipline etc.
Doesn't change the fact that, other things being equal, a man of greater aggression will be a superior soldier to a man of lesser aggression. The ability to disregard your own survival instinct, an immunity to pain and the ability to carry on physically until you literally die of exhaustion, are all good traits.
Those traits don't come from aggression though. A testosterone pumped meat head might be more outwardly aggressive... but an undisciplined lunatic doesn't make a good soldier. The Norse beserkers are the penultimate incarnation of PURE aggression and while they were lethal in combat, a disciplined professional solider can and will utilize a cool head, the ability to disregard one's survival instinct, the ability to put the good of the unit, the war effort and ultimately tribe or nation before one's self, the sheer force of will to power through pain and win the day.
You're listing good traits, and traits that are desired through this very day to make good soldiers, but those traits, especially the force of will to power through pain don't come from aggression. They are the result of iron discipline and will.
Lack of control is not the same thing as high aggression.
It's entirely possible to be aggressive while remaining completely in control. In fact, people with low aggression tend to be worse at exercising control of their emotions. Just look at women
Testify wrote: Having people look at your tits and ask you what bra size you are is NOT sexual harassment.
Examples of sexually harassing behaviour include:
unwelcome touching;
staring or leering;
sexually explicit pictures or posters;
unwanted invitations to go out on dates;
requests for sex;
intrusive questions about a person’s private life or body;
unnecessary familiarity, such as deliberately brushing up against a person;
insults or taunts based on sex;
sexually explicit physical contact; and
sexually explicit emails or SMS text messages.
From here. Obviously the precise legal definitions are going to vary from country to country... but ultimately what it boils down to is if it's something of a sexually-related nature that makes the recipient uncomfortable, then it's sexual harassment.
You weren't taught as a child that it's rude to stare?
There's a line between 'looking' and 'staring' obviously... but it all comes back to whether or not the recipient is made uncomfortable or is intimidated by it. And, ultimately, even without any sexual being involved, making the people around us not feel uncomfortable is what social standards of courtesy are all about. If everybody actually behaved like adults and acted with a thought to how their actions impacted on others, we wouldn't need laws telling us to not act like sex-crazed monkeys the moment an attractive woman walks in the room. As it is, while most people will, more or less, the laws are needed to control the idiots.
And I guess we need to repeat, once again, that folks like Caruso who dress in skimpy costumes EXPECT people to stare and to sometimes be doofuses, and they are understanding about that.
It's the infrequent donkey-caves who cross the line of awkward doofusness into scumbag harassment who she complained about. And was right to do so.
LordofHats wrote: Which is obviously a delusional thing to think, cause you, I, or any reasonable person knows it isn't. I.E. We're dealing with individuals who somehow managed to miss all the oh so obvious social ques. I've dealt with my share of jerks in my life. You can say it right to the face, and they still don't care.
Some people are just like that.
Yeah, there'll always be jerks who can't get why it's wrong. But there'll also be a lot of people can be persuaded, and a whole lot more people who'd never do this kind of thing, but also won't make much of a fuss when someone else does it.
Having these kinds of conversations makes the issue that much more prominent in people's minds. It means there's a chance some other guy might think better of trying something like this. It means when something like this does happen again there's a chance that some people viewing it won't go along with it.
Afterall, there's no shortage of dickheads in the real world, and yet over time we've managed to steadily remove sexist behaviours that were once just an accepted practice.
Manchu wrote: I ask again, what does white knighting have to do with saying women do not deserve to sexually harassed?
You might see yourself in here.
White Knight wrote: On an internet forum, a person who defends a member who is clearly wrong, usually with the hopes of gaining brownie points with said member.
Umm, White Knighting is about defending a person who is on the site, coming in to defend her argument, making a show of protecting her in the hope of scoring.
It doesn't work if the conversation is about some woman who doesn't post here.
I mean, read your own definition, please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: The lightbulb should have immediatly lit up saying "O' these guys are dicks. I'll just leave and complain to the Con organizers" not I'll go and complain about it to a national news outlet.
She complained about it in her blog, and didn't contact the news service. And her blog post was more about how empowered she felt by her response, than anything else.
Complaining about it on a national level really just encourages these dipwads. "Look, that girls now crying about what we did on a national news outlet"
She didn't cry. At this point you're just making up a story inside your own head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote: I do love how that rude comments towards a woman are horrendous and the perpetrators worse than Satan.
But advocating physical violence against someone taught from birth to not fight back is somehow ok?
Women can hit us and we can't even talk back? Whats that type of standard? I know it starts with a number, what is it again? Oh yeah double.
I think you're making a big deal out of a silly throw away line about kicking the guy in the balls. Had she actually done that she would have been charged with assault, and rightfully so.
I think you're focussing on that comment because you like to pretend you live in a world where your gender is hard done by.
And face it male superhero bodies are just as objectified and unrealistic as the females it just so happens most comic readers are straight males. Read early 90's X-men and tell me anybody's muscles look like that.
Those ludicrous muscly lumps that were supposed to be superheroes weren't drawn to be sexually appealling to women. They were drawn as an ideal for men. Dudes with big muscles and loads of guns jumping about shooting stuff is not actually a commercially viable female fantasy... it's a commercially viable fantasy for teenage boys. Just like girls in skimpy outfits somehow managing to have both their asses and boobs sticking out in every other panel is a commercially viable fantasy for teenage boys.
There are plenty of commercially viable sexual fantasies for women, as we've all seen 50 Shades sell so many copies recently. But the point is those fantasies are rarely found in comic books, so its something of a nonsense to say 'look there's a guy with an unobtainable body, therefore everyone is getting objectified so its all okay'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: Personally I would say that most men are "scumbags" and the "nice guys" are the minority. Men who're respectful and decent don't make good fighters, and cultures without good fighters don't last long.
You're wildly overstating the importance of testosterone led douchebaggery in being an effective soldier. You're also wildly understating the importance of co-operation and the ability of people to act within social norms for the overall benefit of society. And you're also making some wild assumptions about the importance of evolution over social upbringing.
Those ludicrous muscly lumps that were supposed to be superheroes weren't drawn to be sexually appealling to women. They were drawn as an ideal for men. Dudes with big muscles and loads of guns jumping about shooting stuff is not actually a commercially viable female fantasy... it's a commercially viable fantasy for teenage boys. Just like girls in skimpy outfits somehow managing to have both their asses and boobs sticking out in every other panel is a commercially viable fantasy for teenage boys.
There are plenty of commercially viable sexual fantasies for women, as we've all seen 50 Shades sell so many copies recently. But the point is those fantasies are rarely found in comic books, so its something of a nonsense to say 'look there's a guy with an unobtainable body, therefore everyone is getting objectified so its all okay'.
Maaaan, I spent a few months shelving books at a Barnes and Noble... you need to go look at the covers of some romance novels.
@AustonT: Yeah, I was gonna use a picture of Carano, but I decided to use GSP instead for the lulz. Anyway, I'd love to hear what you have to say about the point I was making.
CDK wrote: I haven't read the whole thread to be honest. But I am a long time comic fan and thought I'd share my thoughts.
To me it comes down to "Dress how you want to be treated". Inappropriate behavior is GOING to happen. In fact, expect it to happen. So, dress like a whore = get treated like a whore. Some guys will not do it but some will. Expect it to happen though. Don't be shocked by it when you know perfectly well guys are going to look at your chest rather than anything else. Is it right behavior? No of course not. But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon. If you really don't want the attention or comments that maybe you should dress up as a character from "Little House on the Prairie."
I was not aware that comic book female heroines are whores.
No, but many of them dress like one. Or at least like a Stripper.
Is it fair therefore to suppose that CDK's argument is that the woman was dressed as a whore, not as a comic book character, and therefore the men were entitled to treat her as a whore.
(There is a separate argument about how whores are entitled to be treated, of course.)
Then that is doubly wrong, as the woman in question was not dressed as a whore; she was dressed as the Black Cat, ipso facto.
I guess maybe I missed the point you were trying to make. Most MMA fighters choose loose fitting shorts with high cuts in favor of tight fits. Most of the reason a top isn't worn has to do with the rules of UFC post Gracie(spelled Brazilian ). A loose top can easily be used as a weapon or as a tool to evade.
What you've basically done is make the correlation that because boxers wear 15oz gloves an effective fist fighter must.
Loose fitting uniforms are the norm for those that fight for a living for a reason.
TLDR: I got what you were driving at I just think you are applying it incorrectly.
And also they ration healthcare in Canada.
I meant my point about the difference between cod players and attention whores. And there is a big difference, of which I have provided examples.
And no, we don't.
Testify wrote:You also undermine your own argument by acknoledging that the Romans were in fact defeated by the Germans and the Picts.
No, they weren't.
At least, not the iconic Roman legionnaires that you're picturing. The army of Constantine was an entirely different animal.
Testify wrote:I still maintain that actions that modern societies dictates are "barbaric" are actually vital in maintaining a society capable of fighting and defeating its enemies.
Hell, Mike Tyson was a rapist and that guy's solid as hell.
Holyfield and Lewis might disagree with you. Douglas too, but I'm not sure he counts.
Bromsy wrote: Maaaan, I spent a few months shelving books at a Barnes and Noble... you need to go look at the covers of some romance novels.
No, maybe you could do with reading more closely in future, though.
I said there's plenty of female fantasies, mentioning the recent 50 Shades thing, and certainly all those romance novels do the trick as well. But the point is these are not the fantasies portrayed in comic books, which are almost entirely focused on a young male audience.
)
in a good...bad sort of way. Auston T thank you for volunteering to ensure individuals on this thead to post evidence for and against um...male over eagerness. King Cracker you Sir are to rate them 1-10. Very well lets cary on this study in a serioius way....rest of you all assist our two vict..eerrrrrr fellow workers to bring enlightment to us.
