Hey guys, this has been a topic that's been buggin' me for a bit. Why is it that there is so much sexism on the Internet nowadays, mostly in social media? Obviously not on Dakka, but stuff like Facebook, Twitter, a lot of other forum sites.
I never understood why/how a person's personality/capabilities could be judged by their looks, but it seems the Internet found a way to do it. I've seen this mostly from comments on photos, where a majority of the posters have no sense of respect for the person in the pictures.... Stuff like,
Spoiler:
"She's hot, wonder what she'd look like in bed" or "would look better naked"
.
This is especially the case for female athletes too I've seen some pretty interesting comments, ranging from, "She looks like a pig, will definitely lose", to "Only way for me to care for this sport is if they wore no clothes".
The most appalling thing to me is the amount of upvotes/likes/whatever those comments get. Do that many people really think the same way? It just seems weird to me.
What are your thoughts, Dakka? Sorry for the huge wall of text. I know this is a strange subject to get into, so if the mods decide this is a no-go from the start I understand.
There is sexism on the internet because there is sexism in everything else. The only thing the internet contributes is a sense of anonymity that encourages people to post things they wouldn't dare to say in other contexts.
There is some people in a FB group I am in for a different game. There were pictures of a lady in cosplay for the game, obviously taken without consent by looking at it. It was pretty much all "Oh man I want to Bone that" or "dat ass". These are the same people who call anyone else a White Knight for saying anything against it.
SO yes, Sexism is alive and well. Be it IRL or on the internet.
In my experience, sexism is more noticeable on the internet. Under one period I ceased to voice chat due to the... potentially unpleasant response. I still don't, but now it is due to problems with my throat rather than wanting to avoid attention.
Overall it is definitely improving, particularly since the gender ratio is slowly smoothing out, but it certainly still exists.
My current policy is 'smack them if you see it, otherwise enjoy the peace' which works perfectly well.
The problems should not be overblown, people in general are pleasant, but they do exist.
It should be noted that I can only speak for the areas where I usually hang out, like WoW.
Well you've got sexism on the Internet for all the regular reasons there is elsewhere in the world. Going into it all is probably well beyond the scope of this thread.
Then there is the special brand of Internet sexism you get around all the nerdy parts of it. That's a whole lot of neckbeards being all butt hurt women aren't the enthusiastic sexual accessories to their masculinity their media promised them. They huff and they -uff and they rage but they're really just more sad than harmful for the most part. It's all just bunch of angry fools that get caught up in silly movements like PUA or Redpill or MRA because the haven't an ounce of self-awareness.
Whatever. I think a lot of communities lack the will to remove them, so the best that can be done is ignoring them. That's probably a bit easy for me to say as dude, but really it just kind of sucks.
feeder wrote: Is it sexist to observe that a picture of an attractive lady is attractive?
It depends on the context. Are you observing it in a context completely unrelated to attractiveness where you wouldn't even think about making the same kind of comment about a man? If so, it's sexism. Is it in a context where the person's attractiveness is relevant, whatever gender they happen to be? No, probably not sexism unless you're using sexist language/descriptions/etc to make your observation.
It depends on the context. Are you observing it in a context completely unrelated to attractiveness where you wouldn't even think about making the same kind of comment about a man? If so, it's sexism. Is it in a context where the person's attractiveness is relevant, whatever gender they happen to be? No, probably not sexism unless you're using sexist language/descriptions/etc to make your observation.
Relationship to the person is also a factor. If I comment on a female friend's picture "Wow, you look great!", even if it was taken at a business function, that seems less sexist and more complimentary* despite the fact I wouldn't make similar comments about a male friend. To me the barometer for sexism on the internet is simply "Would this upset X is real life." If yes, then it probably is, if no then it probably isn't.
*In fact I've done this very thing numerous times, and gotten nothing but negative responses.
If they said something like "women athletes, what a joke" or something then I would consider it sexist. What people are doing in the examples is just being rude.
Commenting on attractiveness in a vulgar way is not sexism just because the target is female. Just like commenting on ugliness is not sexism regardless of gender. Its simply being an ass.
While sexism probably does exist, I dont think many of the above examples are sexist.
cincydooley wrote: So when I say, WNBA basketball, what a joke, that's sexist?
Had to google what that was. Dont know, is it? Im sure if you siad that out loud to the women playing the sport they would take it as a sexist remark. Of course you could simply mean the sport is a joke, but then, why would you specify the gender?
Its all nitpicky stuff at the end of the day I guess.
feeder wrote: Is it sexist to observe that a picture of an attractive lady is attractive?
It depends. If it is a picture in which a lady is trying to look pretty then saying as much isn't sexist. But if the lady in question is trying to do, well, anything else, and people still focus on whether or not they want to have sex with her... well that's objectifying and it's a really gak thing to do.
And because at least half the internet consists of trolls and misogynists that would be terrified of talking to a woman in real life. Go to 4Chan or Misc. Half the posters are terrified of women and constantly lash out of them. It's a breeding ground for Elliot Rodgers.
There are certainly plenty of people who are actually sexist, but I think the internet has a number of people who will post whatever disgusting or unsavory thing they can to get a response out of others, but who don't necessarily hold that particular view in actuality. That isn't restricted to just sexism, though.
feeder wrote: Is it sexist to observe that a picture of an attractive lady is attractive?
Oh yes, certainly. If their attractiveness has nothing to do with their role then to discuss it is completely sexist because you are elevating your desire to publish your personal sexual feelings above their identity.
People can feel attraction to pictures of nice-looking people without the necessity of blathering on about it in public.
I think it is 2 part.
1: tragedy of the Commons, it's internet, no one knows who you are, so who is going to punish you.
and 2: backlash, we live in a world where modern Feminism has passed wanting equality and is more misandrist then anything else. and judging someone based on appearances or saying they "would look good in bed" really strays from Sexist and goes towards the stupidity on the internet. same concept as the Nazi jokes. just because you make them, doesn't mean you support genocide.
Lucarikx wrote: Hey guys, this has been a topic that's been buggin' me for a bit. Why is it that there is so much sexism on the Internet nowadays, mostly in social media? Obviously not on Dakka, but stuff like Facebook, Twitter, a lot of other forum sites.
Lucarikx
That word bugs me.
There's always been plenty of sexism and I'd argue there's a lot less of it today, it's just more visible.
Lucarikx wrote: I never understood why/how a person's personality/capabilities could be judged by their looks, but it seems the Internet found a way to do it. I've seen this mostly from comments on photos, where a majority of the posters have no sense of respect for the person in the pictures.... Stuff like,
Spoiler:
"She's hot, wonder what she'd look like in bed" or "would look better naked"
.
Not sexist.
Wanna know if it's sexist? Just switch genders. If it's still offensive it's definitely sexist. If it's not, well... maybe you shouldn't feel offended. Unless you are using two different scales, one for each gender. Which, in my book, is pretty much the definition of sexism.
Call me weird, but I don't see any problem when a girl says "Cristiano Ronaldo is hot, I would definitely bang him" and gets 2365 likes.
As with pretty much every matter out there, the internet blanks out the middle-ground and heavily emphasizes the lows.
On the one hand, sexism is much worse on the internet as it would be in real life due to being anonymous and thus taking away the risk of social repercussions.
On the other hand, the internet also is a good breeding ground for the vocal minority who claim to be feminists but actually are merely attention-seeking inviduals.
Is it sexist to compliment somebody on their appearance?
If I get a compliment I usually feel pretty top notch and don't take it as an automatic sign that somebody wants to fondle my genitals.
Similarly if I compliment a female colleague I'm not expressing my desire to force myself on them. Typically it's things like new hair style or if they are wearing something nice. Perhaps it's just how you phrase it? I don't think I'd say "you look great in X". Probably just that's a nice dress or that hair style really suits you.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You're an ableist CIS-scum! All my headmates agree.
hmmm. Let's see.
Thread regarding a difference between genders/sexism? Check.
People making decent points? Check.
HBMC coming in and derailing with stupid posts about Tumblr? Check.
Now all we need is Seaward to post something along the lines of 'ableist cis-hetero otherkin gaklord', before staring a witty repartee with HBMC where they just say nonsense words that very few people use at each other, and we'll have every thread remotely related to something other than straight white males, ever!
Goliath wrote: Seriously. You do this in Every. Single. Thread.
Of course. Because there's actual sexism and then there's the dilution of the word "sexism" and when it starts getting applied to things that aren't sexist. And I like to ridicule professional victims and offence takers.
Commenting on a woman being attractive isn't sexist.
Unless we're discussing Miss America or some other arena in which someone exclusively competes on their looks, then how someone looks is rarely relevant and often sexist, and yet thread after thread, that's exactly what happens.
Can't tell you how many times I've seen a woman poster put something up and have "Everything in this photo is plastic" or similar written on them.
Hell, there was one time where a chick put up a couple of photos of her painting her minis and the immediate response from Dakkaitte regulars, people whom until previous to that I actually rather respected, was "Oh wow, she's a cutie, but her nose is a little too big" or something like that. This chick wanted to just get into the hobby, and one of the MAJOR forums for it pretty much treated her like a piece of meat.
I mean, I go to a Magic the Gathering forum as well recently, and I've seen quite a few chicks posting without worrying about them being known as chicks. Dakka? Maybe one or two.
Acting like your opinion of how attractive a woman is and/or how much you would like to have sex with her is always relevant is sexist. It will continue to be sexist until every thread about Marneus Calgar gets derailed with nonsense about how much people want to bang him.
One problem with our culture is that one of its misogynistic precepts is that nothing a woman does matters unless she is also sexually attractive to men. Acting like your opinion on a woman's sexual attractiveness is relevant at all times feeds into and reinforces that precept.
Ouze wrote: Of course it can be. It depends on the context.
Ah good. You used that important word: "context". That's good. I actually agree with you. I guess what I mean is that saying someone is attractive isn't inherently sexist.
Yes. I can. Why? Because finding someone attractive and stating said attraction does not preclude you from also acknowledging her achievements, nor does it mean you devalue them, nor does it mean you think any less of them. Nor is someone required to put other qualifiers on. You don't have to say "I think she's attractive and I also deeply respect her achievements". I could bring up the example of oh I dunno... Kacy Catanzaro. I think she's cute. Is that just there a sexist statement? How can it be? How can my statement that I find someone attractive somehow devalue them as a person, or push forward ideas of traditional sexual stereotypes. If I instead said "I like Kacy Catanzaro, but why is she doing all that man stuff?", then yeah, you'd be able to scream "Sexist!" to the high heavens and you'd be right to do so. But simply stating whether someone finds someone else attractive isn't enough for it to be sexist. You'd be adding additional meaning to a statement.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: One problem with our culture is that one of its misogynistic precepts is that nothing a woman does matters unless she is also sexually attractive to men. Acting like your opinion on a woman's sexual attractiveness is relevant at all times feeds into and reinforces that precept.
Wow. Talk about escalation.
How did we go from "I think she's good looking" to "I hate women" (which is what 'misogyny' means).
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: It will continue to be sexist until every thread about Marneus Calgar gets derailed with nonsense about how much people want to bang him.
Wargaming is mostly a male hobby. You will find women doing exactly the same thing in female orientated forums. From football players being talked about fir there looks to TV personalities, other athletes, boy bands. Why was Twilight so popular? Was it for the high quality writing and enticing plot? No, it was the sexy vampires. George Clooney and Leonardo DiCaprio are both superb actors, yet time and again they talked about only for their looks.
I do find it distasteful when pall someone can talk about is how attractive a sports person is, or a fields medal winner, but lets not pretend this is a sexist thing, or a male thing. Women do exactly the same thing, but this is justified using terms like "male privilege" and "Patriarchal Society" completely inappropriately. It is an issue across society that people, male and female are judged on their looks. Good looking people are paid more, regardless of gender. It's not about sexism, it's about the way society as a whole values people.
Ouze wrote: If I posted a thread up in the OTz about it, and the very first comment was commenting how hot she was, can you honestly say that wouldn't be sexist?
Yes. Just saying that someone is looking attractive is one of the least sexist things there is. Let's not even start about that we're biologically primed to make out attractive people, but merely stating that another person is attractive isn't offensive in the least.
It would be offensive if you said "Meh, ok for a woman but at least she looks nice." since you obviously devalue the other person's achievements by reducing her to her gender.
Thinking that replying "She looks good!" or even "She's hot!" is sexist is...worrying.
Can't tell you how many times I've seen a woman poster put something up and have "Everything in this photo is plastic" or similar written on them.
Not everyone likes metal minis.
Hell, there was one time where a chick put up a couple of photos of her painting her minis and the immediate response from Dakkaitte regulars, people whom until previous to that I actually rather respected, was "Oh wow, she's a cutie, but her nose is a little too big" or something like that. This chick wanted to just get into the hobby, and one of the MAJOR forums for it pretty much treated her like a piece of meat.
I stereotype most nerd communities as being like this, and I'm usually surprised to hear when it's not. I don't like it, but that's what happens when you get a bunch of relatively socially awkward people together and allow them to hide behind the internet and then present them with a group of people who they're incapable of personally interacting with. I mean, there's an almost 50 page long thread on how to get a date, FFS.
It's not just here though. Other communities, like Slashdot, are evidence that it occurs outside of 40k sites and that's unmoderated, so it's even worse most of the time. You can correct this behavior when you see it here with the Triangle of Friendship though.
I mean, I go to a Magic the Gathering forum as well recently, and I've seen quite a few chicks posting without worrying about them being known as chicks. Dakka? Maybe one or two.
I assume that's because for whatever reason, MtG is more appealing to women than 40k. I had a girlfriend who was kind of interested in Fantasy, but she had zero interest in 40k. I'm not sure which part of muscled supermen who wear loin clothes and inject each other with geneseed doesn't appeal to them, but it seems to be the case. That being said, I have played against a couple at the game store. From what I could tell, everyone in the store treated them like human beings.
One problem with our culture is that one of its misogynistic precepts is that nothing a woman does matters unless she is also sexually attractive to men. Acting like your opinion on a woman's sexual attractiveness is relevant at all times feeds into and reinforces that precept.
Pure propaganda.
Such statements are made all the time and are utterly useless and even counter-productive. Angela Merkel, Hilary Clinton, Sarah Palin, the Queen, Adele...pretty much every woman in politics...you're promoting a mindset that (fortunately) is a thing of the past. For what reasons I don't know.
Ouze wrote: Of course it can be. It depends on the context.
Ah good. You used that important word: "context". That's good. I actually agree with you. I guess what I mean is that saying someone is attractive isn't inherently sexist.
Well, you didn't use the word "inherently" originally.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yes. I can. Why? Because finding someone attractive and stating said attraction does not preclude you from also acknowledging her achievements, nor does it mean you devalue them
I think we disagree on that, mostly right where I stopped quoting (for emphasis). I think when a woman does X and the first response is how pretty she is (or isn't), it does devalue her. It is a reminder that regardless of what else a woman might do, her most important characteristic is to be a pretty object.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: One problem with our culture is that one of its misogynistic precepts is that nothing a woman does matters unless she is also sexually attractive to men. Acting like your opinion on a woman's sexual attractiveness is relevant at all times feeds into and reinforces that precept.
Wow. Talk about escalation.
How did we go from "I think she's good looking" to "I hate women" (which is what 'misogyny' means).
I would like to draw your attention to the particular noun the adjective is applied to: precept. It was not applied to "person who acts as if his opinion on a woman's attractiveness is always relevant."
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: It will continue to be sexist until every thread about Marneus Calgar gets derailed with nonsense about how much people want to bang him.
Wargaming is mostly a male hobby. You will find women doing exactly the same thing in female orientated forums. From football players being talked about fir there looks to TV personalities, other athletes, boy bands. Why was Twilight so popular? Was it for the high quality writing and enticing plot? No, it was the sexy vampires. George Clooney and Leonardo DiCaprio are both superb actors, yet time and again they talked about only for their looks.
I do find it distasteful when pall someone can talk about is how attractive a sports person is, or a fields medal winner, but lets not pretend this is a sexist thing, or a male thing. Women do exactly the same thing, but this is justified using terms like "male privilege" and "Patriarchal Society" completely inappropriately. It is an issue across society that people, male and female are judged on their looks. Good looking people are paid more, regardless of gender. It's not about sexism, it's about the way society as a whole values people.
You seem to agree this is a bad thing. I suggest that as a way forwards, people not inserting their opinions on the attractiveness of random mentioned or pictured women on the forum would be a positive step.
You seem to agree this is a bad thing. I suggest that as a way forwards, people not inserting their opinions on the attractiveness of random mentioned or pictured women on the forum would be a positive step.
Yes, I agree it is a bad thing, however, I also think calling it sexism is a bad thing, which is the issue I have with your statement. It puts an incorrect label on it, makes it a "male" issue, and also leads people to be defensive, obscuring the issue. It also makes people think that they other direction (Men being judged on looks) is acceptable.
You seem to agree this is a bad thing. I suggest that as a way forwards, people not inserting their opinions on the attractiveness of random mentioned or pictured women on the forum would be a positive step.
It also makes people think that they other direction (Men being judged on looks) is acceptable.
This. Attesting another person's attractivity in an appropriate way isn't offensive to begin with, but when talking about it, those...people only refer to the "men comment on women" side. How many girls actually like 1D for their song-writing? How many women like Hugh Jackman for his cutting-edge acting (ehem)?
Blindly shouting "SEXISM" at everything is a terrible thing to do as you heavily devalue the term. If "sexism" is applied to everything, even totally normal situations, you immediately make actually sexist situations look less bad in comparison.
Thinking that replying "She looks good!" or even "She's hot!" is sexist is...worrying.
IMO, I think that saying "she/he looks good!" is not sexist (generally), but saying "she/he's hot!" is sexist (generally).... Saying things like "I'd tap that" or "dat ass" or the like are removing everything but the object of the person. It may not be inherently sexist, but it is incredibly "demeaning" in a way, because saying something like that removes all personhood from them, and the are basically being reduced to a living carbon based sex toy.
As others' have already pointed out, sexism seems to be worse on the net because of the perceived anonymity.
Blindly shouting "SEXISM" at everything is a terrible thing to do as you heavily devalue the term. If "sexism" is applied to everything, even totally normal situations, you immediately make actually sexist situations look less bad in comparison.
You can argue that with any sort of hypersensitive overreaction in a public setting. Eventually, people just stop giving a damn, and then you see open mockery of people who disapprove of what SHOULD actually be something worthy of disapproval. It's not really a good thing, because then it leads people to turn a blind eye to the things people should get genuinely disgusted with. It's the bo... err, "Child" Who Cried Wolf.
Sigvatr wrote: people only refer to the "men comment on women" side. How many girls actually like 1D for their song-writing? How many women like Hugh Jackman for his cutting-edge acting (ehem)?
This is kind of a strawman, yes? No one here has said it's only wrong when it's "men commenting on women". You're making a counterargument to a nonexistent premise.
Sigvatr wrote: people only refer to the "men comment on women" side. How many girls actually like 1D for their song-writing? How many women like Hugh Jackman for his cutting-edge acting (ehem)?
This is kind of a strawman, yes? No one here has said it's only wrong when it's "men commenting on women". You're making a counterargument to a nonexistent premise.
I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread, but to the general motion. If I'd refer to anyone in particular, I would explicitely do so.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Saying things like "I'd tap that" or "dat ass" or the like are removing everything but the object of the person. It may not be inherently sexist, but it is incredibly "demeaning" in a way, because saying something like that removes all personhood from them, and the are basically being reduced to a living carbon based sex toy.
/thread right there. That's the most insightful we'll get on the topic.
Blindly shouting "SEXISM" at everything is a terrible thing to do as you heavily devalue the term. If "sexism" is applied to everything, even totally normal situations, you immediately make actually sexist situations look less bad in comparison.
You can argue that with any sort of hypersensitive overreaction in a public setting. Eventually, people just stop giving a damn, and then you see open mockery of people who disapprove of what SHOULD actually be something worthy of disapproval. It's not really a good thing, because then it leads people to turn a blind eye to the things people should get genuinely disgusted with. It's the bo... err, "Child" Who Cried Wolf.
Precisely. This sadly is the case right now with a lot of topics, and this includes actual feminism. Small, but very vocal group that just wants attention and does not care for the movement they pretend to support or represent.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Saying things like "I'd tap that" or "dat ass" or the like are removing everything but the object of the person. It may not be inherently sexist, but it is incredibly "demeaning" in a way, because saying something like that removes all personhood from them, and the are basically being reduced to a living carbon based sex toy.
/thread right there. That's the most insightful we'll get on the topic.
Sigvatr wrote: people only refer to the "men comment on women" side. How many girls actually like 1D for their song-writing? How many women like Hugh Jackman for his cutting-edge acting (ehem)?
This is kind of a strawman, yes? No one here has said it's only wrong when it's "men commenting on women". You're making a counterargument to a nonexistent premise.
Thats some selective quoting there... The argument was against the use of the term sexist, both by Sigyatr and myself. That both men and women do it IS an argument against using the term sexist, not against the right or wrong of objectification.
The internet is increasingly becoming an all walks of life public space.
Some degree of decorum is required because many sites can be visited by any age, sex and nationality = you never know who is watching.
Context can be difficult if skirting the edge of good taste due to also 2nd-3rd language understanding or heaven forbid, using Google translate.
I must admit I could be drawn into the discussion of some woman who is recognized for an incredible achievement of intellect and then notice they are quite beautiful as well.
I had a classmate that was incredibly intelligent, gorgeous and rich, it rises some degree of envy, she also had the nerve to be very nice too, so I could not get a proper dislike for her.
Part of our nature to be attracted to aspects of a person, a straight out "wow, she is beautiful" is fine too, comments of your wants with this person, is usually not of interest to anyone and best left unsaid. This poor impulse control or just trying to be shocking, trying to seek some strange form of acceptance, is best dealt with pointing out the statement is repulsive giving them the opposite of what they want. I keep thinking of some discussion on Dakka recently that Cosplay people are great and fine, the people following them around "trying to cop a feel" are repulsive.
I think when we mix/confuse "make believe" with reality the more lizard brain behaviors occur and we forget the subject of our admiration is a living breathing person not an object of play.
trexmeyer wrote: Calling someone attractive isn't sexist. You could say it is objectifying and rude, but it isn't sexist.
Objectification meets the classic definition of discrimination. By definition to objectify someone is to deny them human agency, i.e. discriminatory, i.e. objectification of women is sexist.
trexmeyer wrote: That's a very big leap from "She's pretty/she's cute" to "I have no respect for her as a human being and would like to plow her green acres."
No one is pretending to be ignorant that sexism, much like most other things, happens in degrees. You seem to be fixated on only the most extreme examples as a way of dismissing any less severe ones.
daedalus wrote: So is it wrong to feel attracted to someone, or it just wrong to say it?
It's wrong to feel attracted to someone. If you do, you should set your shower to freezing, get in, and use a plunger handle to tuck in your bad parts while you think about how bad you are.
daedalus wrote: So is it wrong to think someone is attractive, or it just wrong to say it?
Neither... It only becomes wrong if you say it in an objective manner..."I'd tap that", "dat ass" (the phrases that I used in a prior post) the key distinction is that, if you are thinking, "Damn, she's beautiful" you are acknowledging in your mind that she is attractive to you. If you finish that thought with "I'd definitely hit that" then you have crossed from thinking someone is attractive to objectifying that person. And obviously, there are some people who actually have no brain/tongue filter, and just say exactly what they think, as they think it.
I've never understood why the right to not be offended over-rides the right to free expression of people who like to talk about sex/women's bodies. I can understand if it's in a place where such talk would not ordinarily be socially justified, but generally speaking all I can is quote Stephen Fry -
It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fething what."
As I say though, social norms must still be adhered to. If I was talking to someone who I know plays women's rugby I probably wouldn't say something offensive about women's rugby for example.
I wouldn't even say that finishing one phrase with the other is necessarily objectifying. it is possible to recognize a woman as beautiful and someone you'd like to be with while recognizing that she is a person fully free and able to reject any such advances without being reduced as a person for it. I think most people unconsciously recognize this, they probably just don't actively think about it that much.
Like numerous people in this thread have said; context matters.
You just said calling someone attractive is sexist because any form of objectification meets the criteria for discrimination.
I claimed objectification is discriminatory, therefore sexist. I never claimed the statement "you're attractive" is an objectifying statement. You chose in your post to distinguish objectification from sexism. That's what I was responding to, not the preceding sentence.
Ouze wrote:
It's wrong to feel attracted to someone. If you do, you should set your shower to freezing, get in, and use a plunger handle to tuck in your bad parts while you think about how bad you are.
Okay, I just wanted to make sure I was still doing the proper thing.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Neither... It only becomes wrong if you say it in an objective manner..."I'd tap that", "dat ass" (the phrases that I used in a prior post) the key distinction is that, if you are thinking, "Damn, she's beautiful" you are acknowledging in your mind that she is attractive to you. If you finish that thought with "I'd definitely hit that" then you have crossed from thinking someone is attractive to objectifying that person. And obviously, there are some people who actually have no brain/tongue filter, and just say exactly what they think, as they think it.
I agree with you entirely. My question was mostly aimed at LordOfHats and others who think that way.
@OP, its apparent from almost any "Comments" section that many people see the internet as a venue to express their inner chimpanzee without much fear of reprisal.
I think behind most of the more extreme forms of sexism on the internet is a deep-seated hatred towards women caused by either the inability to find a partner (rejection by women), or some trauma caused by a female earlier in life (projection of that trauma as being caused by all women).
KommissarKarl wrote: I've never understood why the right to not be offended over-rides the right to free expression of people who like to talk about sex/women's bodies. I can understand if it's in a place where such talk would not ordinarily be socially justified, but generally speaking all I can is quote Stephen Fry -
It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fething what."
As I say though, social norms must still be adhered to. If I was talking to someone who I know plays women's rugby I probably wouldn't say something offensive about women's rugby for example.
Another problem is that whether or not it is perceived as being sexist or offensive depends on the source. When an attractive guy compliments a woman she usually takes it as just that, a compliment. When an ugly guy does the same thing he's being a "creeper."
"Objectification" means reducing anyone to a single thing. I could objectify someone to his / her intellect as well.
Saying that someone is looking good is not objectification. Far from it. It merely means that you value one trait. It does NOT mean that you do not value all other aspects.
"The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
It shows some measure of respect yet the word "plaything" gives a different spin.
Another neat one:
Stupid as a man, say the women: cowardly as a woman, say the men. Stupidity in a woman is unwomanly.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Sexism really boils down to stereotyping, discrimination, applying attributes in broad strokes to a large and varied population.
Jury still seems to be out on what is an "inherent" nature due to predisposition by biology vs. learned cultural behaviors.
The only method that seems to be acceptable is a case by case basis witnessed behavior rather than pre-conceived model.
"The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
It shows some measure of respect yet the word "plaything" gives a different spin.
Another neat one:
Stupid as a man, say the women: cowardly as a woman, say the men. Stupidity in a woman is unwomanly.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Sexism really boils down to stereotyping, discrimination, applying attributes in broad strokes to a large and varied population.
Jury still seems to be out on what is an "inherent" nature due to predisposition by biology vs. learned cultural behaviors.
The only method that seems to be acceptable is a case by case basis witnessed behavior rather than pre-conceived model.
Nietzsche was a horrible sexist from a modern Western persepctive. He felt that women must conform to his concept of femininity in order to be true women.
I'd have to look it up, but I distinclty remember he had much worse things to say about women in his writings.
Here are some key quotes:
"Woman has much reason for shame; so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty licentiousness and immodesty lies concealed in woman."
"What inspires respect for woman, and often enough even fear, is her nature, which is more “natural” than man’s, the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the tiger’s claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and virtues."
"Compare man and woman on the whole, one may say: woman would not have the genius for finery if she did not have an instinct for a secondary role."
"The perfect woman. The perfect woman is a higher type of human than the perfect man, and also something much more rare."
"Finally: woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak--she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the "powerful", the "strong", the men"
jasper76 wrote: Nietzsche was a horrible sexist from a modern Western persepctive. He felt that women must conform to his concept of femininity in order to be true women.
I'd have to look it up, but I distinclty remember he had much worse things to say about women in his writings.
Here are some key quotes:...<snip>
Many of his works were intentionally controversial to provoke thought, he was not exactly delicate in presenting his philosophies.
See this link, it points to what I said earlier: judge a person on a case by case basis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche's_views_on_women He would probably find this very discussion pointless.
I just love his statement "Women are god's second mistake" you think HEY! wait a minute...
For a person of that time period there are some very interesting viewpoints... think context.
Please don't post images like this on Dakka.
Reds8n
"The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
It shows some measure of respect yet the word "plaything" gives a different spin.
Another neat one:
Stupid as a man, say the women: cowardly as a woman, say the men. Stupidity in a woman is unwomanly.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Sexism really boils down to stereotyping, discrimination, applying attributes in broad strokes to a large and varied population.
Jury still seems to be out on what is an "inherent" nature due to predisposition by biology vs. learned cultural behaviors.
The only method that seems to be acceptable is a case by case basis witnessed behavior rather than pre-conceived model.
Nietzsche was a horrible sexist from a modern Western persepctive. He felt that women must conform to his concept of femininity in order to be true women.
I'd have to look it up, but I distinclty remember he had much worse things to say about women in his writings.
Here are some key quotes:
"Woman has much reason for shame; so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty licentiousness and immodesty lies concealed in woman."
"What inspires respect for woman, and often enough even fear, is her nature, which is more “natural” than man’s, the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the tiger’s claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and virtues."
"Compare man and woman on the whole, one may say: woman would not have the genius for finery if she did not have an instinct for a secondary role."
"The perfect woman. The perfect woman is a higher type of human than the perfect man, and also something much more rare."
"Finally: woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak--she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the "powerful", the "strong", the men"
Sounds like Nietsche was unlucky with the ladies...
"That which does not destroy us, makes us stronger."
-Nietsche.
"He who practices his dance moves, gets the girl. He who doesn't, whines lilke a little nietsche boy."
-Frazzled.
"That which does not kill you will make you wish it had."
-Talizvar
He did have something on dance:
"We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"If you can dance and not care who is looking, you are doing it right."
-Talizvar
Gosh, darn, on-topic: at least it appears it is important to "get the girl", sounding terribly object oriented again.
Convince the girl you are a lot of fun to be around and you are sure you will respect her mind once you get to know her but in the meantime "shake that body!!!!"
"Two things are infinite: the universe and the ability of OT to go...OT. I like bacon." - Einstein
Automatically Appended Next Post: To get a bit back on topic again:
I recently got send some really interesting stuff about a giant --Language!--that's currently going on: Zoe Quinn. She supposedly who...slept with 5 guys to get positive reviews for her game (Depression Quest) and shut critics down. She allegedly abused YouTube's copyright claim system to shut critical videos down. I just read into this and want to get a closer look before making a new thread on it, but it really looks...bad.
Relevant to the thread because she claimed to be in favor of feminism. If the aforementioned bears truth, then she ashames all women in the gaming business.
It is confirmed, however, that she slept with someone else despite being married, so she's a s*** anyway.
Here's Total Biscuit's reponse to it, which seems very reasonable to me:
Relevant to the thread because she claimed to be in favor of feminism.
There is a particular set of people who believe that the ability to enjoy your sexuality in a means that you wish regardless of being against the grain of the constraints of society is empowering. It represents their own empowerment over men.
I don't really have a strong opinion over it one way or the other. Honestly, it makes more sense to me than the "burkas are empowering" thing does. At this point though, I'm close to giving up on trying to understand people, and just nodding and smiling politely at whatever comes my way.
Sigvatr wrote: Relevant to the thread because she claimed to be in favor of feminism. If the aforementioned bears truth, then she ashames all women in the gaming business.
One of the most pernicious things about the -isms is how people are perfectly willing to take the actions of an individual and use them to generalize. I suppose I should make a broad & sweeping statement here...but I won't. Instead, I'll encourage all of you to leave judgmental gendered labels out of your posts, for fear of losing access to the OT.
When we encounter some of the more extreme displays of sexism on the internet, are the writers expressing their sincere beliefs, or is something else going on?
To me , a lot of it comes off as desperate attempts to get attention, like yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater....not excusing the behavior, just wondering what's really behind it.
It is confirmed, however, that she slept with someone else despite being married, so she's a s*** anyway.
Is she married to you? If not, then it's not your fething business who she sleeps with! (And it would probably be better, if you'd never call anyone by that word, stars or no stars. It is pretty misogynistic word.)
It is confirmed, however, that she slept with someone else despite being married, so she's a s*** anyway.
Is she married to you? If not, then it's not your fething business who she sleeps with! (And it would probably be better, if you'd never call anyone by that word, stars or no stars. It is pretty misogynistic word.)
You don't think that promiscuous activity should be looked down on by society? I'm pretty sure it's generally still considered to be a "bad thing" by most people.
You don't think that promiscuous activity should be looked down on by society? I'm pretty sure it's generally still considered to be a "bad thing" by most people.
Especially if it is done by women! A man with many sexual partners is a stud, a woman with many sexual partners is a slut! This is just one bs way many men try to police female sexuality.
You don't think that promiscuous activity should be looked down on by society? I'm pretty sure it's generally still considered to be a "bad thing" by most people.
Frankly, no. It shouldn't. There's a HUUUGE double standard out there now where if a guy sleeps with a bunch of random girls, his buddies will high five, and say "right on bro" (or something like that)... but for some reason this EXACT SAME activity is frowned upon when it's a woman doing it? (I've used this logic to get a girl to sleep with me once)
You don't think that promiscuous activity should be looked down on by society? I'm pretty sure it's generally still considered to be a "bad thing" by most people.
Frankly, no. It shouldn't. There's a HUUUGE double standard out there now where if a guy sleeps with a bunch of random girls, his buddies will high five, and say "right on bro" (or something like that)... but for some reason this EXACT SAME activity is frowned upon when it's a woman doing it? (I've used this logic to get a girl to sleep with me once)
I think this double standard is somewhat of a red herring. If a guy is sleeping with numerous random women, I am more inclined to think his body is riddled with STDs than that he's worthy of any special praise.
You don't think that promiscuous activity should be looked down on by society? I'm pretty sure it's generally still considered to be a "bad thing" by most people.
Especially if it is done by women! A man with many sexual partners is a stud, a woman with many sexual partners is a slut! This is just one bs way many men try to police female sexuality.
I never said anything of the sort, so I'll repeat my question, more clearly so you can't straw-man your way out of it.
Is it okay to look down on people who sleep around while in a relationship? Yes or no?
Is it okay to look down on people who sleep around while in a relationship? Yes or no?
No, not really. You do not know what sort of arrangement or situation they have with their partner and it really isn't your business.
Well I guess that's fair enough. It also means that we have little left to discuss if you don't believe in what I regard to be basic moral tenets.
Well perhaps you could clarify a bit. What exactly makes having fun with your genitals evil?
Like, someone stabs a bro. Sticks a knife in a bro. Bro feels pain. Bro dies. Bro is like, totally deprived of his life and rights ya know what I'm saying.
Like, woman goes out and looks to have sex. Gets something that isn't a knife stuck in her. Woman feels pleasure. Woman enjoys herself. Woman is not like deprived of her life or any rights or nothin'.
I'm super-duper totally open that to the idea (excessive?) sex is like.. "bad mmmkay", I'm just wondering basis for it. Like what's the line causation of here. Like if we were to work backwards from the sex, to like the fundamental essence of what makes right and wrong.. what are the steps we take and what is that essence?
Ouze wrote: You mean,basic like "Judge not, and you shall not be judged."?
I am pretty certain that, in Western culture (outside of France), cheating on your significant other is a tabboo and is looked down upon by people and society. Adultary is generally up there with theft, assault, etc. To my mind, anyway. Maybe I'm old fashioned
I am pretty certain that, in Western culture (outside of France), cheating on your significant other is a tabboo and is looked down upon by people and society. Adultary is generally up there with theft, assault, etc. To my mind, anyway. Maybe I'm old fashioned
Assault! Hell no! Are you sure you're not talking about middle-eastern culture instead of western culture? (Hint: assault, theft and adultery, two of these are a crimes in every western country, while one is not a crime in any of them.)
Besides, whilst I generally think that breaking your promises is a bad thing, there are a lot of lousy relationships where the one partner might not for various reasons feel beholden to their promise to not sleep with other people. And more importantly, there are plenty of people who have open relationship, and thus sleeping around is not cheating for them. I really wouldn't feel comfortable judging some random people which I know next to nothing about.
It's not illegal, and it's their body with which to do as they please - within the law. It might be looked down on, but so are many, many other things, and they have every right to do it regardless.
I am pretty certain that, in Western culture (outside of France), cheating on your significant other is a tabboo and is looked down upon by people and society. Adultary is generally up there with theft, assault, etc. To my mind, anyway. Maybe I'm old fashioned
Assault! Hell no! Are you sure you're not talking about middle-eastern culture instead of western culture? (Hint: assault, theft and adultery, two of these are a crimes in every western country, while one is not a crime in any of them.)
Besides, whilst I generally think that breaking your promises is a bad thing, there are a lot of lousy relationships where the one partner might not for various reasons feel beholden to their promise to not sleep with other people. And more importantly, there are plenty of people who have open relationship, and thus sleeping around is not cheating for them. I really wouldn't feel comfortable judging some random people which I know next to nothing about.
Assault can have mitigating circumstances too. If I beat someone up because he beat up my little brother, is that morally worse than cheating on my loving and faithful girlfriend?
Adultary leads directly to family breakup and plumetting life chances for any kids in the relationship, as well as huge emotional damage to the cheated partner. It is an activity that causes a huge amount of suffering for many people involved, so I have no doubts whatsoever about labeling it a morally abhorant activity.
That's OK, I doubt anyone involved was looking for your stamp of approval.
I think adultery is definitely secondary to unsolicited, judgemental moralizing of other people's lawful personal activities that don't impact you at all, taboo-wise.
Assault can have mitigating circumstances too. If I beat someone up because he beat up my little brother, is that morally worse than cheating on my loving and faithful girlfriend?
I'm not sure how it being a revenge beating makes it any better than some other beating. You get that revenge is, is wrong right? Like you don't get to do gakky things to people purely for the sake of doing gakky things to them, just because they did gakky things to you. You like... understand... that... right... I hope?
Assault can have mitigating circumstances too. If I beat someone up because he beat up my little brother, is that morally worse than cheating on my loving and faithful girlfriend?
I'm not sure how it being a revenge beating makes it any better than some other beating. You get that revenge is, is wrong right? Like you don't get to do gakky things to people purely for the sake of doing gakky things to them, just because they did gakky things to you. You like... understand... that... right... I hope?
KommissarKarl wrote: Adultary leads directly to family breakup and plumetting life chances for any kids in the relationship, as well as huge emotional damage to the cheated partner. It is an activity that causes a huge amount of suffering for many people involved, so I have no doubts whatsoever about labeling it a morally abhorant activity.
No, adultery can lead to a family break up by way of divorce, the consequences of which are often what causes any trouble for children and exacerbate emotional and mental damage to either or both parents due to having to dramatically change their lifestyles. It should be noted, however, that a divorce itself usually does not lead to these issues, and what does is how the divorce is handled by the parties involved. It's easy to say that out of X many divorces, Y numbers of children experienced Z numbers of issues, but correlation does not equal causation, and those issues will likely have come from the parents' inability to handle the situation and not simply from the fact that there was a divorce; plenty of well-handled divorces end perfectly well for all parties, children included. To say that adultery directly leads to anything you listed is inaccurate to say the least.
What i get from all this is sexism is subjective, some ladies would be offended, while others would take it as a compliment of being called attractive.
About sleeping around, it is a thing between the husband and wife to solve, still in this society when a women sleeps around it is ridiculed while a bro gets no flak for it, same with age difference between male and female partners. There is this strange opposition when a female is (much) older than her partner, but not when it is the other way around.
KommissarKarl wrote: Adultary leads directly to family breakup and plumetting life chances for any kids in the relationship, as well as huge emotional damage to the cheated partner. It is an activity that causes a huge amount of suffering for many people involved, so I have no doubts whatsoever about labeling it a morally abhorant activity.
No, adultery can lead to a family break up by way of divorce, the consequences of which are often what causes any trouble for children and exacerbate emotional and mental damage to either or both parents due to having to dramatically change their lifestyles. It should be noted, however, that a divorce itself usually does not lead to these issues, and what does is how the divorce is handled by the parties involved. It's easy to say that out of X many divorces, Y numbers of children experienced Z numbers of issues, but correlation does not equal causation, and those issues will likely have come from the parents' inability to handle the situation and not simply from the fact that there was a divorce; plenty of well-handled divorces end perfectly well for all parties, children included. To say that adultery directly leads to anything you listed is inaccurate to say the least.
My parents divorced when I was five or something, I am mentally well. Mostly. Of course, that is only anecdotal. You are correct in that it depends entirely on what the parents make of it.
Frazzled wrote:Sexism is stupid. A female... divine.
When I got to this page of the thread I was preparing to make a number of responses. However Crimson has largely beaten me to most of them, and for that I thank him.
When we encounter some of the more extreme displays of sexism on the internet, are the writers expressing their sincere beliefs, or is something else going on?
To me , a lot of it comes off as desperate attempts to get attention, like yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater....not excusing the behavior, just wondering what's really behind it.
I think this nails it, right here. It reminds me of people I see who couldn't get a date if their life depended on it, and this is their way to get noticed by the opposite sex.
KommissarKarl wrote: Is it okay to look down on people who sleep around while in a relationship? Yes or no?
I'm going to go with option c) "It depends".
This might be a shocker, but there's more than one type of relationship. If they were in an open relationship or similar then I'd only expect you to look down on them if you also looked down on them for using handcuffs in bed or doing it with the lights on. (which based on the rest of your posts, I'm getting the impression that you actually might. wow.)
KommissarKarl wrote: Is it okay to look down on people who sleep around while in a relationship? Yes or no?
I'm going to go with option c) "It depends".
This might be a shocker, but there's more than one type of relationship. If they were in an open relationship or similar then I'd only expect you to look down on them if you also looked down on them for using handcuffs in bed or doing it with the lights on. (which based on the rest of your posts, I'm getting the impression that you actually might. wow.)
Well lots of actions that we generally consider immoral can have mitigating circumstances, and yes there are such things as open relationships. So I'll be more specific - In general, do you think that cheating on your partner is morally acceptable?
KommissarKarl wrote: So I'll be more specific - In general, do you think that cheating on your partner is morally acceptable?
If you're in an open relationship then sex with someone other than your partner/spouse isn't cheating. You seem to think that "sleeping around" and "cheating" are interchangeable when they really aren't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: So wait, is it sexist to compliment a member of the opposite sex or not?
I assume "no" if done with tact and respect? If so I'll keep on keeping on.
Depends on the context. If it's a context where the compliment is relevant then sure, as long as it's done respectfully then it's probably not sexist. But in a context where the compliment isn't relevant and you wouldn't make a similar comment about a person of the opposite gender it's probably sexism. For example, it's sexism when half the comments on a woman doing something entirely unrelated to her appearance are "wow she's hot".
feeder wrote: I
I posit that observing a picture of an attractive person and calling that person attractive cannot be sexist, because that is all the picture is.
Your statement seems to imply what we've all been railing against; that a picture of an attractive person doing something else is just a picture of an attractive person, and that the rest of the context is irrelevant. For example, if we had a picture of Derp, God of Dashin' Good Looks where he illustrates how the Pythagoran Theorem works, claiming that the only thing that picture is is a picture of an attractive person is patently false. If it were a case of Derp posing for a photographer in order to create aesthetically pleasing pictures then I'd agree with you.
KommissarKarl wrote: So I'll be more specific - In general, do you think that cheating on your partner is morally acceptable?
If you're in an open relationship then sex with someone other than your partner/spouse isn't cheating. You seem to think that "sleeping around" and "cheating" are interchangeable when they really aren't.
That's why I used the qualifying phrase "in general".
It is confirmed, however, that she slept with someone else despite being married, so she's a s*** anyway.
Is she married to you? If not, then it's not your fething business who she sleeps with! (And it would probably be better, if you'd never call anyone by that word, stars or no stars. It is pretty misogynistic word.)
You don't think that promiscuous activity should be looked down on by society? I'm pretty sure it's generally still considered to be a "bad thing" by most people.
No.
My full answer, which I've edited many times, would get me banned.
There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.
kronk wrote: There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.
To me its more like "unwise hominid riddled with disease" vs. "unwise hominid riddled with disease", at least when the people involved become numerous and random.
Jehan-reznor wrote: What i get from all this is sexism is subjective, some ladies would be offended, while others would take it as a compliment of being called attractive.
About sleeping around, it is a thing between the husband and wife to solve, still in this society when a women sleeps around it is ridiculed while a bro gets no flak for it, same with age difference between male and female partners. There is this strange opposition when a female is (much) older than her partner, but not when it is the other way around.
No, sexism is objective, but individual's reactions to being exposed to it are individual and thus could be said to be subjective on a case by case basis.
This explains why it is best to avoid the dangerous area altogether unless you are sure of the terrain.
You don't actually have to go on news websites to say you think Chancellor Merkel has a great body or not.
About saying that you find someone attractive: This is obviously not inherently sexist, but it often happens in larger context which is incredibly sexist. It is part of the idea that most important quality of women is their sexual attractiveness, and men are free to comment that attractiveness or lack of it any time, often quite rudely. Women who are perceived as attractive get sleazy comments, and if the woman do not live up to the beauty standards of the commenter, then that will be made known in impolite manner as well. And this does not only happen in contexts where the woman's appearance is somewhat relevant, it happens constantly. And of course this lovely behaviour is not only isolated to the internet, street harassment is part of this exact same issue.
kronk wrote: There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.
To me its more like "unwise hominid riddled with disease" vs. "unwise hominid riddled with disease", at least when the people involved become numerous and random.
In other words people who are more sexually active then you are diseased?
You can pour all that sugar on there but that is where you are going with it. Fortunately you are wrong. Some people have more sex then others. Those people can be perfectly safe about it. An usually it isn't as random as you wish it to be.
Crimson wrote: About saying that you find someone attractive: This is obviously not inherently sexist, but it often happens in larger context which is incredibly sexist. It is part of the idea that most important quality of women is their sexual attractiveness, and men are free to comment that attractiveness or lack of it any time, often quite rudely. Women who are perceived as attractive get sleazy comments, and if the woman do not live up to the beauty standards of the commenter, then that will be made known in impolite manner as well. And this does not only happen in contexts where the woman's appearance is somewhat relevant, it happens constantly. And of course this lovely behaviour is not only isolated to the internet, street harassment is part of this exact same issue.
Funnily enough the first thing I see on a person is their attractiveness.
kronk wrote: There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.
To me its more like "unwise hominid riddled with disease" vs. "unwise hominid riddled with disease", at least when the people involved become numerous and random.
I other words people who are more sexually active then you are diseased?
You can pour all that sugar on there but that is where you are going with it. Fortunately you are wrong. Some people have more sex then others. Those people can be perfectly safe about it. An usually it isn't as random as you wish it to be.
Nope, I mean that a person (male or female) who engages in exchanges of bio-materials with numerous random people is at much greater risk of contracting one or more STDs than a person who engages in an exclusive exchange of bio-materials with one partner.
Its simple math. A matter of wisdom, not morality.
kronk wrote: There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.
To me its more like "unwise hominid riddled with disease" vs. "unwise hominid riddled with disease", at least when the people involved become numerous and random.
In other words people who are more sexually active then you are diseased?
You can pour all that sugar on there but that is where you are going with it. Fortunately you are wrong. Some people have more sex then others. Those people can be perfectly safe about it. An usually it isn't as random as you wish it to be.
This is Kronk. No one is more active then Kronk. He's single handedly reversed the population declines in Moldova, Serbia, and Macedonia (the now famous "Balkans Disco Party" of 2008).
kronk wrote: There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.
To me its more like "unwise hominid riddled with disease" vs. "unwise hominid riddled with disease", at least when the people involved become numerous and random.
I other words people who are more sexually active then you are diseased?
You can pour all that sugar on there but that is where you are going with it. Fortunately you are wrong. Some people have more sex then others. Those people can be perfectly safe about it. An usually it isn't as random as you wish it to be.
Nope, I mean that a person (male or female) who engages in exchanges of bio-materials with numerous random people is at much greater risk of contracting one or more STDs than a person who engages in an exclusive exchange of bio-materials with one partner.
Its simple math. A matter of wisdom, not morality.
Your statement is actually still wrong, I'll let you try to find the error.
jasper76 wrote: Nope, I mean that a person (male or female) who engages in exchanges of bio-materials with numerous random people is at much greater risk of contracting one or more STDs than a person who engages in an exclusive exchange of bio-materials with one partner.
Its simple math. A matter of wisdom, not morality.
Your statement is actually still wrong, I'll let you try to find the error.
I do like a good guessing game, but to me my statement is self-evident. Please illuminate. I am perfectly open to the idea that I a wrong.
kronk wrote: There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.
To me its more like "unwise hominid riddled with disease" vs. "unwise hominid riddled with disease", at least when the people involved become numerous and random.
You do realize that the odds of you, or anyone getting an STI is actually pretty low... I mean, when I first got to Fort Carson, CO, they told us the current stats of 2005, which was basically that up to 20% of the population in the Springs area had an STI.... 20%, odds were actually somewhat low that you'd catch something you didn't want. And that was the worst city in the entire state.
For real, if anyone out there, especially young people, think that condoms are a magic bullet against STDs, its worth your time to educate yourself on the matter.
Zoe Quinn's pickle is a fine example.
Software developer, seems to be a true honest to goodness geek in many things and published a game that got onto Steam.
Supposedly some evidence that some form of sexual relations were had with some reviewers of her game and she is presently in a relationship.
Let huge media storm commence.
Probably one fifth of the media storm going on would have happened if it was a guy (plus the difficulty of a guy finding compatible reviewers could be problematic).
Also the reviewers that had said relations have not had quite as much public backlash.
I have to also comment: how much popularity prior to this would she have had if a guy? (I suspect less, I do admit she had done many interesting things and has good skills that have their own merit)
Sexism both giveth and taketh away.
I guess I have mixed feelings when someone has no problem using the advantages their condition/status can afford them and then complain fiercely when faced with disadvantages due to their condition/status seems just plain old whiny/angling for advantage.
I figure in the workplace, the gender of the person should mean nothing, but the public reaction in this case proves otherwise.
jasper76 wrote: For real, if anyone out there, especially young people, think that condoms are a magic bullet against STDs, its worth your time to educate yourself on the matter.
I thought this was in response to my statement that its riskier to have multiple sexual partners than one exclusive partner. Apologies if that assumption was incorrect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Avatar 720 wrote: Condoms remain the most effective protection against STDs.
So wrong it hurts. I am no Xian, but it is self-evident that sexual abstinence is the most effective way one can protect themselves from STDs.
Sorry for the diversion. The whole tangeant was brought up when I suggested that the "stud vs. sl-t" double-standard may be becoming more and more of a red herring.
Among men in my age group that I know personally, none of us could care less how many people so-and-so sleep with, and lots of random partners is considered an unwise lifestyle for men as much as women.
That's all I was originally trying to say. I will withdraw now. Cheers!
jasper76 wrote: Sorry for the diversion. The whole tangeant was brought up when I suggested that the "stud vs. sl-t" double-standard may be becoming more and more of a red herring.
Among men in my age group that I know personally, none of us could care less how many people so-and-so sleep with, and lots of random partners is considered an unwise lifestyle for men as much as women.
That's all I was originally trying to say. I will withdraw now. Cheers!
You are right. I think it is common in my area, because it is small town, and we are not known for having long relationships among my generation.
jasper76 wrote: So wrong it hurts. I am no Xian, but it is self-evident that sexual abstinence is the most effective way one can protect themselves from STDs.
You know what's a great way of preventing injury during a car crash? Don't go driving.
The best way to prevent drowning whilst doing watersports? Don't go near water.
The best way to prevent head injuries whilst cycling? Walking.
The best way to prevent injury if you fall out of a plane? Don't get on planes.
jasper76 wrote: So wrong it hurts. I am no Xian, but it is self-evident that sexual abstinence is the most effective way one can protect themselves from STDs.
You know what's a great way of preventing injury during a car crash? Don't go driving.
The best way to prevent drowning whilst doing watersports? Don't go near water.
The best way to prevent head injuries whilst cycling? Walking.
The best way to prevent injury if you fall out of a plane? Don't get on planes.
Seriously, that argument is stupid.
Actually all of those arguments are 100% correct. Everything listed can be prevented by NOT participating.
jasper76 wrote: So wrong it hurts. I am no Xian, but it is self-evident that sexual abstinence is the most effective way one can protect themselves from STDs.
You know what's a great way of preventing injury during a car crash? Don't go driving.
The best way to prevent drowning whilst doing watersports? Don't go near water.
The best way to prevent head injuries whilst cycling? Walking.
The best way to prevent injury if you fall out of a plane? Don't get on planes.
Seriously, that argument is stupid.
Dying mitigates risk of all of those things happening. Including the STDs. You could always get an infection from a blood transfusion or accident.
You guys are conveniently removing the context of the statement to which I was replying. Which was that condoms are the best way to keep yourself from getting an STD (not that condoms are the best way to keep yourself from getting an STD during intercourse).
Personally I despise sexism, but a lot of what's been brought up in this thread isn't sexism IMO, ''that ass'' is rude but not really sexist, which is a problem because then people who actually suffer from sexism get branded under this new 'diluted' sexism label. One things that's always annoyed me is how sexism towards men is largely ignored accepted.
There's also the 'Lost Girl' approach to sexism in general, non professional life. - Objectify everyone equally.
Well, that's a rather flippant and dismissive quip about real issues but still, is it worth thinking about? As in, having a page 3 girl and a page 5 guy?
In any case, instead of my hamfisted ramblings, this might be a good read.
Of course, it doesn't really deal with the 'hard stuff' but it's an interesting sidetrack.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: Personally I despise sexism, but a lot of what's been brought up in this thread isn't sexism IMO, ''that ass'' is rude but not really sexist, which is a problem because then people who actually suffer from sexism get branded under this new 'diluted' sexism label.
It's only "not sexist" if you ignore the fact that this kind of thing happens much more frequently to women than to men. If a male politician gives a speech about tax policy the comments on it will be almost entirely about their political activities. If a female politician gives the same speech you can almost guarantee that there will be a lot of discussion about how attractive she is, often to the point that her political arguments aren't even the focus anymore. And this isn't just coincidence, there's a sexist attitude that it's appropriate to comment on how attractive a woman is, regardless of context. The result is that their professional/artistic/etc accomplishments are neglected in favor of how hot they are, something a lot more damaging than an occasional bit of rudeness.
Compel wrote: Well, that's a rather flippant and dismissive quip about real issues but still, is it worth thinking about? As in, having a page 3 girl and a page 5 guy?
Not really. The solution to objectification isn't more objectification, it's to stop objectifying people in a context where it isn't appropriate.
Peregrine wrote: It's only "not sexist" if you ignore the fact that this kind of thing happens much more frequently to women than to men. If a male politician gives a speech about tax policy the comments on it will be almost entirely about their political activities. If a female politician gives the same speech you can almost guarantee that there will be a lot of discussion about how attractive she is, often to the point that her political arguments aren't even the focus anymore. And this isn't just coincidence, there's a sexist attitude that it's appropriate to comment on how attractive a woman is, regardless of context. The result is that their professional/artistic/etc accomplishments are neglected in favor of how hot they are, something a lot more damaging than an occasional bit of rudeness.
Sarah Palin comes to mind. I am conflicted here because, quite frankly, her low intelligence combined with her belief that she is highly intelligent made and still makes for good 'guilty-pleasure' entertainment. But I recall when she was picked by John McCain, before most people really knew anything about her, there were sexists comments coming in from both the left (she only got picked because she's good-looking) and the right (I'd tap that, they got my vote!).
Depends on the context. If it's a context where the compliment is relevant then sure, as long as it's done respectfully then it's probably not sexist. But in a context where the compliment isn't relevant and you wouldn't make a similar comment about a person of the opposite gender it's probably sexism. For example, it's sexism when half the comments on a woman doing something entirely unrelated to her appearance are "wow she's hot".
Attractiveness is not entirely dependent upon appearance. It is a factor, of course, but not the only one. A relevant matter given that the majority of prolific internet commentators are male.
Additionally, I have a hard time calling "sexism" when people are commenting on a person they'll never actually meet. In that instance the relevant person is little more than an object.
Sarah Palin comes to mind. I am conflicted here because, quite frankly, her low intelligence combined with her belief that she is highly intelligent made and still makes for good 'guilty-pleasure' entertainment. But I recall when she was picked by John McCain, before most people really knew anything about her, there were sexists comments coming in from both the left (she only got picked because she's good-looking) and the right (I'd tap that, they got my vote!).
Don't forget the people who used her sex as a shield regarding her lack of knowledge.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Back on topic.... Just saw this on my FB feed, and thought it'd go nicely into this topic, as it pertains:
Spoiler:
Anyone know how accurate it is, or how true it still is? (I know that some job categories have sort of "evened out" over the years)
There was a test where the same company was sent the same resume, and all they changed was the name (and of course other gender indentifiers) and the resume named John was offered $4000 more for the same job, apparently anyway, I'll see if I can find something concrete on that.
Also, I recently started watching the videos on youtube "Analog with Lisa Foiles" and on evey video there are guys commenting stuff like " I fornicated through this entire video" (didnt say that exactly but I have to watch my language of course) and "next video be naked" or just "boobs" and one guy saying she was a porn star, and when ever challanged their reations are "this is the internet what do you think girls are gonna get"
Apparently our society thinks its obvious to watch a video about game recommendations from an admitedly good looking female (although tbh I am more intrested in her jewellery then her chest) and instead of commenting about the games and the content instead say how her lipstick gave them boners and the like...disgusting.
Yeah, I dunno, this link just reads a lot like the political talking points, and doesn't really sound all that well researched.... As with the picture that I posted, they at least say that men work an average of X hours more per month/week than women.... I've seen other magazine articles and the like that state that men who are married, with children are almost double as likely to work overtime as their single, or TWINK male counterparts... IF it is true that men, in general work more hours per week/month than women, then that will obviously create a "gap" in pay in my eyes, because one group of people is simply working more paid hours than another, it's simple math there.
I have seen some people say they did maths taking into account men working extra hours, and there was almost no difference, there was one but it wasnt as large as people say. But at the same time I have seen people say that males and females working the same job and the same hours get paid differently just as the pay gap stuff suggests, it depends on where you read...
Also when I say I dont know how trust worthy the site is it is because I had never heard of the site before, not because of its content or anything
dogma wrote: Additionally, I have a hard time calling "sexism" when people are commenting on a person they'll never actually meet. In that instance the relevant person is little more than an object.
Personhood is not inversely proportional to degrees of separation.
DukeBadham wrote: I have seen some people say they did maths taking into account men working extra hours, and there was almost no difference, there was one but it wasnt as large as people say. But at the same time I have seen people say that males and females working the same job and the same hours get paid differently just as the pay gap stuff suggests, it depends on where you read...
Also when I say I dont know how trust worthy the site is it is because I had never heard of the site before, not because of its content or anything
Lol, I think there are definitely places where it could still be an issue, but from looking at things the way I've been recently (moving from one career, into school for another) here in the State of Washington they treat people such as Teachers, like military people; basically, a 1st year teacher makes X money per year, it doesn't matter what school you go to, etc. The only thing that can affect that, is whether the teacher has a masters or not.
About the only way that I can think of that Federal/State employees would have any kind of gender gap, is if Janitor A is hired on the 4th step of his paygrade, while Janitor B is hired on the 2nd of hers, and they are both the same "grade"
Personhood is not inversely proportional to degrees of separation.
Of course not, but people that deliberately place themselves in the public eye are knowingly turning themselves into objects for the majority of people.
I recognize that Scarlett Johansson is a person, but from my perspective she is little more than an object I admire from afar; for her beauty and behavior.
dogma wrote: Of course not, but people that deliberately place themselves in the public eye are knowingly turning themselves into objects for the majority of people.
I recognize that Scarlett Johansson is a person, but from my perspective she is little more than an object I admire from afar; for her beauty and behavior.
So, from your perspective, when does that change? When did Scarlett Johansson become an object and when will she not be an object anymore?
dogma wrote: Of course not, but people that deliberately place themselves in the public eye are knowingly turning themselves into objects for the majority of people.
I recognize that Scarlett Johansson is a person, but from my perspective she is little more than an object I admire from afar; for her beauty and behavior.
So, from your perspective, when does that change? When did Scarlett Johansson become an object and when will she not be an object anymore?
she'll always be an object, but then again, aren't we all.
Object: 1. a material thing that can be seen and touched.
dogma wrote: Of course not, but people that deliberately place themselves in the public eye are knowingly turning themselves into objects for the majority of people.
I recognize that Scarlett Johansson is a person, but from my perspective she is little more than an object I admire from afar; for her beauty and behavior.
So, from your perspective, when does that change? When did Scarlett Johansson become an object and when will she not be an object anymore?
In this context, presumably when Dogma has some sort of personal relationship with her, such as if they become friends or coworkers and similar.
Janthkin wrote: And that will do for the digression into 7th grade SexEd, thanks.
But Pa. We talking about condoms now.
In all honesty really people?
Sexism is a common occuence on the internet. A girl reveals her identity everyone rushes over to greet her and try to sext her up.
I've been in many online games where that happens.
Always asking for pictures etc.
Its kind of despicable really.
I personally find that behaviour disturbing. When I'm not participating in that crap like 80% of the guys I often wonder have I accidentally chemically castrated myself by easting too much raw soybean.
So, from your perspective, when does that change? When did Scarlett Johansson become an object and when will she not be an object anymore?
When the person is someone I interact with on a level that extends beyond remote observation, or common courtesy. Or, as Krellnus said, when I have a personal relationship with the individual.
Janthkin wrote: And that will do for the digression into 7th grade SexEd, thanks.
But Pa. We talking about condoms now.
In all honesty really people?
Sexism is a common occuence on the internet. A girl reveals her identity everyone rushes over to greet her and try to sext her up.
I've been in many online games where that happens.
Always asking for pictures etc.
Its kind of despicable really.
I personally find that behaviour disturbing. When I'm not participating in that crap like 80% of the guys I often wonder have I accidentally chemically castrated myself by easting too much raw soybean.
I watch Call of Duty videos made by Msheartattack, and the sexual talk she gets her way is both funny and baffling. Although in Japan Sexism is rampart, the online game community here is more civil , no one bats an eye when a girl is in the lobby.
jasper76 wrote: Sorry for the diversion. The whole tangeant was brought up when I suggested that the "stud vs. sl-t" double-standard may be becoming more and more of a red herring.
Among men in my age group that I know personally, none of us could care less how many people so-and-so sleep with, and lots of random partners is considered an unwise lifestyle for men as much as women.
That's all I was originally trying to say. I will withdraw now. Cheers!
Id like to know where all these people who "high five" studs that sleeps around are? Why would I like a person thats hoggin all the ladies? So where are all these Studbeibers?
DukeBadham wrote: I have seen some people say they did maths taking into account men working extra hours, and there was almost no difference, there was one but it wasnt as large as people say. But at the same time I have seen people say that males and females working the same job and the same hours get paid differently just as the pay gap stuff suggests, it depends on where you read...
Also when I say I dont know how trust worthy the site is it is because I had never heard of the site before, not because of its content or anything
There are several aspects to the pay gap.
One is the fact that women often work shorter hours weekly or over their lifetime. This can be because they are doing unpaid household work such as child rearing, or because businesses prefer to hire women workers on short hours contracts because it enables the business to pay less and give fewer employment rights. (The same happens to men, but it happens more to women, due to sexism.)
Another is when women are paid less than men for the same job. This clearly is unjust and in most modern countries is illegal but it still happens quite widely.
A third is when women advance in their careers slower than men, because of taking career breaks for child-bearing, and end up on a lower pay grade than they would have reached
if their husband had taken a few years out instead of them. Essentially this is a variation of point 1.
Finally, because of points one, two and three, women often end up with much smaller pensions than men.
Whether all this is fair or not is a debate to be had. I would not rely on one source of information partly because internet sites are often very biased.
dogma wrote: When the person is someone I interact with on a level that extends beyond remote observation, or common courtesy. Or, as Krellnus said, when I have a personal relationship with the individual.
Ok. Perhaps I'm trying to understand this from the wrong direction.
How does your attitude/response change between dealing with a 'close interaction' person vs 'remote observation' person. Say, (to use a particular example from this thread) how does your response differ if you saw people discussing a picture of a movie star you don't know vs people discussing a picture of a co-worker? Is it ok to comment on the attractiveness of one but not the other? Is "I'd tap that" and similar comments more acceptable for the one you don't know personally?
Further, if there is no difference, why the distinction?
DukeBadham wrote: I have seen some people say they did maths taking into account men working extra hours, and there was almost no difference, there was one but it wasnt as large as people say. But at the same time I have seen people say that males and females working the same job and the same hours get paid differently just as the pay gap stuff suggests, it depends on where you read...
Also when I say I dont know how trust worthy the site is it is because I had never heard of the site before, not because of its content or anything
There are several aspects to the pay gap.
One is the fact that women often work shorter hours weekly or over their lifetime. This can be because they are doing unpaid household work such as child rearing, or because businesses prefer to hire women workers on short hours contracts because it enables the business to pay less and give fewer employment rights. (The same happens to men, but it happens more to women, due to sexism.)
Another is when women are paid less than men for the same job. This clearly is unjust and in most modern countries is illegal but it still happens quite widely.
A third is when women advance in their careers slower than men, because of taking career breaks for child-bearing, and end up on a lower pay grade than they would have reached
if their husband had taken a few years out instead of them. Essentially this is a variation of point 1.
Finally, because of points one, two and three, women often end up with much smaller pensions than men.
Whether all this is fair or not is a debate to be had. I would not rely on one source of information partly because internet sites are often very biased.
Equally men are far more likely to work unpaid overtime and when they do work more of it. Women are also far more likely to be given part time or flexible working when they ask and are far more likely to ask for it, which is one of the reasons women are more likely to take time off for children. Men are also not supported in the same way women are if they chose to be the main carer for children. There are issues that need to be addressed for men as well as women.
It is a very complex issue, and IMO research is too quick to select the reason that fits their view and we get nowhere. In the UK at least we need more support for men with childcare and more input in to good management that treats everyone equally with time off, overtime, leave, flexible working, regardless of gender or children.
Hence we need...the Feminist-Team!!!! *cue action music*
"Are you suffering because of gender roles? well if you can find them, maybe you can hire, the F-Team!"
jasper76 wrote: Sorry for the diversion. The whole tangeant was brought up when I suggested that the "stud vs. sl-t" double-standard may be becoming more and more of a red herring.
Among men in my age group that I know personally, none of us could care less how many people so-and-so sleep with, and lots of random partners is considered an unwise lifestyle for men as much as women.
That's all I was originally trying to say. I will withdraw now. Cheers!
Id like to know where all these people who "high five" studs that sleeps around are? Why would I like a person thats hoggin all the ladies? So where are all these Studbeibers?
Well, in the interest of full disclosure, after every time I do the deed, when I look out the window, about 20 drunk guys in fraternity t-shirts come out of the forest screaming "Hootenanny! Hootenanny! Oi! Oi! Oi!". I keep telling them it was kind of amusing when I was single, but now that I'm married, its getting creepy.
Sexism on the Internet is the same with Racism and homophobia on the Internet and that the Internet does not have any filter on who gets to see or comment on the material you post ,when you post things on the Internet you are exposing your self to the entire world and that includes the not so nice people as well. Before you might only share things with your friends or other like minded people who would not say things like " I got a boner while watching you" or scream "BOOBS" while you give your speech or performance and if they did they would be quickly dealt with by the other people who would not take kindly to those things. The other thing to remember is that more than likely those people are a minority but a very vocal minority that now have a huge platform to spread their ideals and stupidity, and now that we have identified these people as Trolls no one engages them and ignores them hoping they go away because they are not getting the attention that they crave, problem with that is now it seems the Trolls are they only ones commenting and the other Trolls back them up leaving the rest of us at our keyboards shacking our heads or laughing how stupid they are.
How does your attitude/response change between dealing with a 'close interaction' person vs 'remote observation' person. Say, (to use a particular example from this thread) how does your response differ if you saw people discussing a picture of a movie star you don't know vs people discussing a picture of a co-worker? Is it ok to comment on the attractiveness of one but not the other? Is "I'd tap that" and similar comments more acceptable for the one you don't know personally?
Honestly, I have a hard time classifying positive commentary on another person's appearance as being particularly sexist; there have to be other behaviors associated with it for me to take notice. But, to elaborate:
The easiest way to explain the distinction revolves around the relevance of personality. To carry the Scarlett Johansson example: I don't care about her personality at all, because I will never meet her and I'm well aware that the mannerisms I am privy to are an extension of a public persona rather than her unfiltered self. As such it seems silly for me to consider her as anything more than a remote object*. Further, I would argue that the nature of acceptable comments changes as your relationship, or lack thereof, with that person changes not in a digital manner, but an analog one. In essence you can get away with fairly crude comments regarding someone you don't know at all, and someone you know very well, but not someone you have a middling relationship with.
*I'll also add that this isn't a behavior that's limited to me, or men in general, women are just as guilty of objectifying attractive guys.
What do you mean a woman is always right. Guess you're not in a relation.
Yeah, anonymity is both a blessing as well as a burden on the internet, too many people misuse it to vent their (imagined) issues, or just to stir up gak.
I don't understand why people do this, i am who i am and what i post are my real (maybe misguided) opinions
What do you mean a woman is always right. Guess you're not in a relation.
Yeah, anonymity is both a blessing as well as a burden on the internet, too many people misuse it to vent their (imagined) issues, or just to stir up gak.
I don't understand why people do this, i am who i am and what i post are my real (maybe misguided) opinions
What bums me out most is that we have had some of the most brilliant minds ever born who devoted their lives (some destroying themselves in the process) to progressing humanity over some 70 years or so to eventually get us to the point where we can have a box in our pockets smaller than a book that can transmit messages to the opposite side of the world in seconds, and that message was how he chose to use it.
One of the most pernicious things about the -isms is how people are perfectly willing to take the actions of an individual and use them to generalize.
Oh, you mean like professionalism?
Your point is correct and that's the problem. We can all agree that there's a huge problem regarding behavior on the internet. In a lot of areas, there's a huge male surplus and as with every issue, this leads to zerging up and offensive and hateful remarks towards the opposing party. In this very case, it's sexism. It's not a problem on the internet, it's a problem in (a lot of) areas. And just to mention it since most people forget about it: sexism goes both ways. If a woman claims having been sexually harassed at Twitter, there's a huge uproar and people immediately jump on the whiteknight train. A man claims having been sexually harassed and he gets shouted down.
The actual problem starts when sexism is instrumentalized. And that was what I wanted to point out previously: not every sexist action or trouble is started by sexism. It's disgusting to see it being instrumentalized by certain inviduals who purposefully cause trouble and uproar to then play the victim and play the "Just because I am a woman!" card. See: Zoe Quinn. Faking a "raid" to then play the sexism card is nothing but instrumentalizing feminism. And that's why I said that it "ashames all women in the gaming industry". Such a behavior strongly reinforces the "women are inferior" archetype which we, hopefully, do not want to further endorse.
That, of course, does not justify so many things that occur in the aftermath of such an abuse - that's not my point. In all cases on this, the consequences get really ugly. Posting private data, sending nudes around, people trying to set them up and in general just mudwash...etc. All of those aren't justified, they still are very wrong (and illegal, on top). But what comes around, goes around.
Sexism will always be around. Men and women are different. Slightly different in some areas, largely different in others. Some see these differences as strengths (as we do), some use them to abuse them to exert power on others. Like all -isms.
It's up to everyone to make the most of that situation. People need, in general, to open their mind and practice being able to step back and not to get involved too emotionally in regard to certain issues. Sexism is rarely rationally motivated, most of the time, there's an emotional reasoning behind all of it and then, the pack-mentality rushes in. For BOTH sides.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: Personally I despise sexism, but a lot of what's been brought up in this thread isn't sexism IMO, ''that ass'' is rude but not really sexist, which is a problem because then people who actually suffer from sexism get branded under this new 'diluted' sexism label.
It's only "not sexist" if you ignore the fact that this kind of thing happens much more frequently to women than to men. If a male politician gives a speech about tax policy the comments on it will be almost entirely about their political activities. If a female politician gives the same speech you can almost guarantee that there will be a lot of discussion about how attractive she is, often to the point that her political arguments aren't even the focus anymore. And this isn't just coincidence, there's a sexist attitude that it's appropriate to comment on how attractive a woman is, regardless of context. The result is that their professional/artistic/etc accomplishments are neglected in favor of how hot they are, something a lot more damaging than an occasional bit of rudeness.
But it's not like the people commenting about the women politician's attractiveness aren't not talking about the male politician's attractiveness because they don't think it's okay to do it to a man, but because they're probably not sexually attracted to the male as well.
What do you mean a woman is always right. Guess you're not in a relation.
Yeah, anonymity is both a blessing as well as a burden on the internet, too many people misuse it to vent their (imagined) issues, or just to stir up gak.
I don't understand why people do this, i am who i am and what i post are my real (maybe misguided) opinions
What bums me out most is that we have had some of the most brilliant minds ever born who devoted their lives (some destroying themselves in the process) to progressing humanity over some 70 years or so to eventually get us to the point where we can have a box in our pockets smaller than a book that can transmit messages to the opposite side of the world in seconds, and that message was how he chose to use it.
I found it interesting that recent discussion of the gender pay gap again focused on the glass ceiling for women. They always solely focus on the pay of a tiny proportion, as if the pay of a handful of senior managers and executives is the gauge for sexism in society, and if a handful of women can get into a few more minority jobs, the world will be ok. I'm obviously not against equal pay, but the equal pay act exists. The pay of the vast majority isn't looked at or the broad fairness of it for men and women alike, or their working rights. Men don't get equal access to paternity time to support their partners during birth. More women should be encouraged into traditionally male environments such as engineering as there are higher wages to be had in these.
The media and other commentators only focus on the 1% or so that have senior positions with very high wages because if those seem equal then everyone seems more equal despite the fact that it's largely an irrelevance what the top end can fight each other to get.
Personally, I think it's more important to look at the pay of millions on the minimum wage than it is to obsess over the pay of the most senior positions, who earn vast amounts anyway through years of fighting and crawling to each other. Constant talk of a glass ceiling that the majority will never get near seems like misdirection to more underlying problems with equality and fairness.
What do you mean a woman is always right. Guess you're not in a relation.
Yeah, anonymity is both a blessing as well as a burden on the internet, too many people misuse it to vent their (imagined) issues, or just to stir up gak.
I don't understand why people do this, i am who i am and what i post are my real (maybe misguided) opinions
What bums me out most is that we have had some of the most brilliant minds ever born who devoted their lives (some destroying themselves in the process) to progressing humanity over some 70 years or so to eventually get us to the point where we can have a box in our pockets smaller than a book that can transmit messages to the opposite side of the world in seconds, and that message was how he chose to use it.
It is quite saddening I agree.
I was trying to joke, when i used this before people laughed so i figured i would have the same result here.
I was hoping the " *Starts running* " part would make it clear that its just a joke.
Jokes sometimes misfire. Dont hate me for it.
I have a lot of "left wing" wievs so im all for women's rights.
dogma wrote: Honestly, I have a hard time classifying positive commentary on another person's appearance as being particularly sexist; there have to be other behaviors associated with it for me to take notice. But, to elaborate:
The easiest way to explain the distinction revolves around the relevance of personality. To carry the Scarlett Johansson example: I don't care about her personality at all, because I will never meet her and I'm well aware that the mannerisms I am privy to are an extension of a public persona rather than her unfiltered self. As such it seems silly for me to consider her as anything more than a remote object*. Further, I would argue that the nature of acceptable comments changes as your relationship, or lack thereof, with that person changes not in a digital manner, but an analog one. In essence you can get away with fairly crude comments regarding someone you don't know at all, and someone you know very well, but not someone you have a middling relationship with.
This seems to me to be something to be questioned. You may do it reflexively, or naturally, but that does not mean that act is not problematic. Are you saying that if, in a discussion, the subject is 'remote person' is it OK to say the same things, and demonstrate the same level of respect as you would for a 'remote chair' or 'remote rock'? And that to do otherwise is 'silly'?
dogma wrote: *I'll also add that this isn't a behavior that's limited to me, or men in general, women are just as guilty of objectifying attractive guys.
For me, this isn't a question of prevalence, or process, it's a question of rationale. Why is ok to treat people differently depending on your relative relationship. (Excepting the obvious: that when you have a close relationship with someone; you have the opportunity to establish mutually acceptable rules of interaction.)
This seems to me to be something to be questioned. You may do it reflexively, or naturally, but that does not mean that act is not problematic. Are you saying that if, in a discussion, the subject is 'remote person' is it OK to say the same things, and demonstrate the same level of respect as you would for a 'remote chair' or 'remote rock'? And that to do otherwise is 'silly'?
No.
Not all objects are created equal. I would have thought this to be obvious.
For me, this isn't a question of prevalence, or process, it's a question of rationale. Why is ok to treat people differently depending on your relative relationship. (Excepting the obvious: that when you have a close relationship with someone; you have the opportunity to establish mutually acceptable rules of interaction.)
Why exempt that?
At any rate, prevalence and process feed into rationale.
As to why it is OK: I would rather work with someone who I had a reasonably significant relationship with, than someone I did not.
Not all objects are created equal. I would have thought this to be obvious.
I'm afraid it is not obvious to me. In so far as how you talk about them, all 'objects' are crated equal. A chair is not accorded particular respect that a table is not, there are not words you would use to describe a computer, that would be offensive* when used to describe an eggcup.
I exempt that mainly because I do understand that sort of thing with 'someone you know very well'. What I still don't understand is the difference in acceptable treatment between 'someone you don't know at all' and someone with whom you have a 'middling relationship'.
dogma wrote: At any rate, prevalence and process feed into rationale.
I am starting to wonder if we are just working from fundamentally different frameworks.
In a question of 'why do you do something?' 'prevalence' is only of value if you think 'cause everybody else is doing it' is a good enough answer.
Similarly 'process' is (while interesting) still outside the matter of 'why?' It would be like answering 'why do you dance?' with 'by moving in time with the music'.
Perhaps you could expand on the 'relevance of personality'. Is it just a matter of how 'real' then now seem, or is it a matter of their personality being relevant now that you may have to deal with it?
dogma wrote: As to why it is OK: I would rather work with someone who I had a reasonably significant relationship with, than someone I did not.
