Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"Because people often do this wrong thing, it's your fault this wrong thing happens whether you deserve it or not."

Um, I have never once complained about someone insulting me about an MLP avatar. Except right now.

How is this woman making a legitimate complaint holding us up as as society?

Because all we can really do about it is tell her that sucks. Its not a crime. Its not surprising, or noteworthy at all.

It's that random everyday horrible thing that happens to people.

I.E. She should just get over it and move on with life.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Um, I have never once complained about someone insulting me about an MLP avatar. Except right now.

So you believe that moderators should not police people tearing into you about MLP because it's just the way things would be otherwise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Because all we can really do about it is tell her that sucks.

No way, dude. We can say "people have no right to do that." This thread is evidence for the fact that such statements really do need to be made because you and others are saying she should shut up and get over it. Surely you must understand that just means it will be more likely to happen again?

Really, I dont care, I have thick skin, Insults and like that flow over me.
Quite Frankly, if this was me, i would be happy that people that i looked so great.

 Manchu wrote:
MGS: You tell me that she shouldn't be surprised then immediately tell me she's disproportionately offended. Now do we agree that those are separate issues or not? (For the record, she seems to think they are separate.). If so could you please explain what is disproportionate about her being offended.

There are two issues yes, the action of the offence and her reaction to it. They are not separate as they are intrinsically linked, one was the by-blow of the other.

The offence was an unpleasant incident. It should not have happened. It can be equated to someone yelling 'fatso' at someone carrying too much weight. It was hurtful and personally intrusive.

However, it can be argued that she dramatically increased the odds of this happening by wearing an incredibly revealing outfit and entertaining attention, the amount of sympathy given to her is reduced because, like a snake preacher getting bitten by a rattler, she does appear to have courted attention from adolescent and older solitary males by dressing as highly sexualised fantasy objects of mysogeny.

She seems genuinely surprised that this happened and appears to have courted more attention via her outrage about it. So, from where I'm sitting, it all looks somewhat self aggrandizing and cynically exploitative.

I don't buy her level of outrage over something that was wrong but frankly the equivalent of being shouted at wearing a miniskirt in the center of most British towns on a Saturday night.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And if she came crying to me I'd say deal with. If you dress provocativly, you are going to attract unsavory individuals.

And that will continue to happen so long as people just shrug and say 'Well, it's your own fault for dressing provocatively...'

Being socially inept doesn't make unacceptable behaviour any less unnaceptable.

Women shouldn't have to fear being treated badly just because they choose to dress in sexy clothes... and if more people derided the socially unacceptable behaviour of those who react inappropriately to it rather than blaming the woman for dressing that way, they wouldn't have to. If a woman is comfortable enough with herself to dress in a chainmail bikini, good for her. It's not unreasonable for her to expect, in this day and age, that the men around her will behave like adults.

Appreciation is fine. Behaving like a neanderthal is not.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And if she came crying to me I'd say deal with. If you dress provocativly, you are going to attract unsavory individuals.

And that will continue to happen so long as people just shrug and say 'Well, it's your own fault for dressing provocatively...'

Being socially inept doesn't make unacceptable behaviour any less unnaceptable.

Women shouldn't have to fear being treated badly just because they choose to dress in sexy clothes... and if more people derided the socially unacceptable behaviour of those who react inappropriately to it rather than blaming the woman for dressing that way, they wouldn't have to. If a woman is comfortable enough with herself to dress in a chainmail bikini, good for her. It's not unreasonable for her to expect, in this day and age, that the men around her will behave like adults.

Appreciation is fine. Behaving like a neanderthal is not.

I never said the behavior on the guys part was acceptable. Stop implying that, its blatently false.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never said the behavior on the guys part was acceptable.

By suggesting that it should be expected, you implicitly endorse it.

Nobody should have to expect that sort of nonsense. If a guy isn't capable of behaving like a grown-up without supervision, he shouldn't be going out unsupervised.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I don't buy her level of outrage over something that was wrong but frankly the equivalent of being shouted at wearing a miniskirt in the center of most British towns on a Saturday night.

But we're not talking about a court case or a boycott or anything just someone saying "that was wrong; they shouldn't have done that to me." And then there's been discussion about this, about it being wrong, about us needing to think about how this shouldn't happen anymore.

So why are you attributing cynical motives to her? She was sexually harassed and you seem to accept that this was wrong but you draw the line at her or people on the internet talking about this being wrong?

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never said the behavior on the guys part was acceptable.

By suggesting that it should be expected, you implicitly endorse it.

No he doesn't.

Swimming off the barrier reef carries the risk of shark attack, commenting to that effect does not equate to endorsing sharks attacking swimmers, merely recognising the potential for the attack to happen.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Swimming off the barrier reef carries the risk of shark attack, commenting to that effect does not equate to endorsing sharks attacking swimmers, merely recognising the potential for the attack to happen.

It would if the sharks were generally expected to know that they aren't supposed to eat people.

Given that they usually aren't expected to be educated in basic social niceties like 'Don't eat people' they can't really be expected to know better... so it's not exacly a similar situation.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Swimming off the barrier reef carries the risk of shark attack, commenting to that effect does not equate to endorsing sharks attacking swimmers, merely recognising the potential for the attack to happen.

For the millionth time, we're not talking about mindless animals. We're talking about grown-up people. They aren't sharks, or bears, or piranhas or anything but grown-up human beings who have no excuse or justification for sexually harassing anyone. By using these metaphors, you're making an argument that these men neither can nor should be expected to act in a polite, decent way. In your metaphor, the onus is on her for tempting the natural, blameless proclivities of these wild beasts.

One of the many important things I learned in life is this. "Just because they where asking for it, dosen't mean you should give it to them."

Though I don't think people actually ask to get harassed.

insaniak wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Swimming off the barrier reef carries the risk of shark attack, commenting to that effect does not equate to endorsing sharks attacking swimmers, merely recognising the potential for the attack to happen.

It would if the sharks were generally expected to know that they aren't supposed to eat people.

Given that they usually aren't expected to be educated in basic social niceties like 'Don't eat people' they can't really be expected to know better... so it's not exacly a similar situation.

Manchu wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Swimming off the barrier reef carries the risk of shark attack, commenting to that effect does not equate to endorsing sharks attacking swimmers, merely recognising the potential for the attack to happen.

For the millionth time, we're not talking about mindless animals. We're talking about grown-up people. They aren't sharks, or bears, or piranhas or anything but grown-up human beings who have no excuse or justification for sexually harassing anyone. By using these metaphors, you're making an argument that these men neither can nor should be expected to act in a polite, decent way. In your metaphor, the onus is on her for tempting the natural, blameless proclivities of these wild beasts.

And therein lies my point, I don't carry a high expectation of these sexist, misogynistic guys to behave. I equate them with sharks (which is an insult to the sharks tbh) because they are just too damned stupid and ill educated and socially moronic to realise the hurtful and detrimental outcomes of their comments. It like she said in the blog, they were stunned into silence when she responded in a hostile way because they weren't aware they were being massive jerks.

One side of this argument, yours, is saying that this is horrible and should not happen. The other side is saying this is horrible but does happen but shouldn't happen.

One is talking about should and the other is talking about is.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
One is talking about should and the other is talking about is.

So please explain to me how these are "sides."

Also, you're prevaricating: what's being said in here is not just that it does happen but also that she should shut up about it.

As a comic book nerd (more than a gaming nerd, scary, I know), I can say the Black Cat outfit is VERY accurate from what I can see, and I'm impressed with her ability to pull it off-she looks good in it, has the proper sized breasts, and I'd probably stop for a "wow, I'd be her Peter Parker any day." I'd probably also like to pose for a picture with her, with my arm around her waist and maybe make a shoot-web motion with my free hand. Then I'd thank her, and go about my day. That said, I can actually talk to girls VERY easily that I'm not trying to get into the sack, especially if I won't see them again.

That all said, she DID go to a convention where a decent number of people (quite possibly less than you think, given how popular comic book EVERYTHING has become) are socially maladjusted, and she should probably have expected some guys to be pigs. I'll agree that the talkshow guy should have been more professional, and IF the interview she listed was accurate, he was a dick and should have either never run the footage or be fired if he did. Very unprofessional on his part for her accurately portraying the costume. Random idiots coming up to her and gawking at her cleavage should have been expected.

I believe in passing blame to everyone. Especially Matty for not trying to get his wife to go as Mary Jane and wrangle the Black Cat into a threesome. Bad Matty!!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
One side of this argument, yours, is saying that this is horrible and should not happen. The other side is saying this is horrible but does happen but shouldn't happen.

One is talking about should and the other is talking about is.

That's just it, though... It's all the people who just say 'Yeah, it shouldn't happen, but it does, so you should just expect it' that allow this sort of nonsense to continue. It fosters an attitude that, while you might not agree with it, there's nothing that can be done so we should just all accept it and move on.

It's people standing up and saying 'No, you know what? Not cool, dude.' that make a difference. We all need to stop saying 'Yeah, that'll happen' and instead start saying 'No, that shouldn't happen' for that mindset to change.

 Manchu wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
One is talking about should and the other is talking about is.

So please explain to me how these are "sides."

Also, you're prevaricating: what's being said in here is not just that it does happen but she should shut up about it.

The side that is saying this does happen is therefore not outraged but cynical and relatively unmoved. They say she should shut up about it because they feel she was being naive expecting to not find this sort of behavior or that it would warrant an outpouring online.

The side that is saying this should not happen is therefore angered and righteously indignant.

So, two sides to the argument.


and i do not appreciate the allegation of prevarication when I'm trying to illustrate the issue as I see it.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
and i do not appreciate the allegation of prevarication when I'm trying to illustrate the issue as I see it.

And I don't appreciate prevarication. You say this is a debate between people who say this does happen and people who say this shouldn't. That doesn't make any sense. That's not the fault line of this debate: no one says it doesn't happen. And even the people who are concentrating on the fact that it does happen claim to also be saying it shouldn't. The real gap here is that you and others are saying not only does it happen but that she should shut up about it while I and others are saying she should complain about it because it is just the sort of thing that needs to be complained about.

 insaniak wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
One side of this argument, yours, is saying that this is horrible and should not happen. The other side is saying this is horrible but does happen but shouldn't happen.

One is talking about should and the other is talking about is.

That's just it, though... It's all the people who just say 'Yeah, it shouldn't happen, but it does, so you should just expect it' that allow this sort of nonsense to continue. It fosters an attitude that, while you might not agree with it, there's nothing that can be done so we should just all accept it and move on.

It's people standing up and saying 'No, you know what? Not cool, dude.' that make a difference. We all need to stop saying 'Yeah, that'll happen' and instead start saying 'No, that shouldn't happen' for that mindset to change.

Anyone that knows me on this forum knows I am all about taking action against injustices as I see them... (you and I have had disagreements in your role as moderator over that very issue on more than one occasion... )

I find her treatment reprehensible, more so because it reinforces the stereotypes each and every one of us on this forum faces when we say 'yep, i paint and play with toy soldiers'. The label of geek and nerd and what it represents (now there is another argument about her being dressed in such a sexualised way in the first place, the character she represents and what that says about us as well, I think it just says men like bewbs but lets leave that one off for the time).

But what happened happened because, fundamentally, there are groups of idiots in any gathering of people. The larger the gathering, the higher the amount of idiots. What I am glad to say is that this is reducing as time goes on. The single gender nature of these events has been undergoing a massive change in the last few years and that's only for the good.

These events are unfortunate, they are not life threatening nor are they dangerous, they should also not be emotionally damaging for a woman who dresses as she does and must be complimented on her attractiveness on a daily basis.

For me, this is a matter of perspective. It reminds me of a female friend of mine who complained about the 'difficulty of being attractive and getting bugged by guys' on the evening of the same day I'd been talking to a young woman who'd been scarred badly in an accident and was embarrassed to leave her house. I didn't have much sympathy then and I don't really have much now other than to say 'guy was rude, if you were my gf, I'd have knocked him on his arse'.

I feel it all reads like rich white folks problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
And I don't appreciate prevarication. You say this is a debate between people who say this does happen and people who say this shouldn't. That doesn't make any sense. That's not the fault line of this debate: no one says it doesn't happen. And even the people who are concentrating on the fact that it does happen claim to also be saying it shouldn't. The real gap here is that you and others are saying not only does it happen but that she should shut up about it while I and others are saying she should complain about it because it is just the sort of thing that needs to be complained about.

Fine, let me spell this out to you, nice and slow.

She should have complained.

She should have complained to the organisers and had the guy thrown out. She should not have written long blogs about it after the event and talked about how horrible it all was without something very very obvious included in the commentary. She should have expected it, if she didn't, she must be very stupid.

So what I get from the majority of posts here is this:

If you dress in a way that shows lots of skin, then we should be able to ask you how big your tits are. You are then an attention whore if you try to make us feel bad about that.

The More You Know...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Anyone that knows me on this forum knows I am all about taking action against injustices as I see them...

To me, this is why your comments here seem not only wrong but also bizarre.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
She should have complained.

She should have complained to the organisers and had the guy thrown out. She should not have written long blogs about it after the event and talked about how horrible it all was without something very very obvious included in the commentary. She should have expected it, if she didn't, she must be very stupid.

I think expectations are important here: do we expect people at cons to behave this way? If not, what should we do about it? I think we should make it clear that this is not okay no matter how she dresses. And we need to understand that by heaping scorn on her, bending over backwards to find fault where none exists, we are undermining that message.

 d-usa wrote:
So what I get from the majority of posts here is this:

If you dress in a way that shows lots of skin, then we should be able to ask you how big your tits are. You are then an attention whore if you try to make us feel bad about that.

The More You Know...

Nope, it's more 'If you dress in a way that shows lots of skin, then you should expect some dickheads will say something to you, we don't condone that, but be prepared for it, cos sometimes it happens'.

She has the ability and the right to call jerks on being jerks.

We should expect better of guys. You and I hold ourselves to a better standard than the tools she encountered, and there is no reason that we should not hold men in general to a higher standard than a few sexist, malajusted tools.

Does society not put standards on how we dress? If I wore a velour jumpsuit to a job interview, is it the fault of the interviewer to disregard me? If you see someone dressed like a bum do you not think "hey he might be a bum!" If its fine in society to judge people on how they dress in certain situations, how is wrong in other situations then?

Again, not saying that its ok to harass someone for dressing provocatively, but if you dress provocatively, expect to provoke people.

If I walked into a gay bar with skintight leather pants and a sequined shirt, could I really be mad if the guys there thought I was gay? Could I show outrage for them hitting on me? After all I'm just dressing a certain way. Who are they to assume that Im a certain way? Oh right, how Im dressed.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
but be prepared for it

That comment doesn't have a place in the analysis. It's immaterial. It's not that she should be prepared but rather she shouldn't have to expect this, she shouldn't have to deal with it actually happening, and she certainly have to defend that this is offensive and intolerable. At best, "be prepared" is extraneous. At worst, it is in effect a half-assed apology for bad behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
If I wore a velour jumpsuit to a job interview, is it the fault of the interviewer to disregard me?

This woman dressed as comic book character at a comic book convention. She was not dressed inappropriately. Your comparison is invalid.

My comparison was how people view you based on your dress. If you wear something that could easily be worn in a strip club, people might get ideas.

But we're not just talking about view, but treatment and behavior. The potential employer would be within their rights to disregard you, but not to harass or abuse you because of your outfit.

You comment was based on people making appropriate judgments about others behaving inappropriately. It has nothing to do with this scenario.