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.

And Manny for the major part I agree with you guys, that women have a tough time being objectified and being treated like dirt for wanting to be sexy. Sexism is still alive and rampant and its disgusting.

That being said, I still think that this case has much more to do with the Daily Mail writing an article the reinforces negative stereotypes for a profit for a (in my mind) very minor slight. And she signed off on it, which I dont respect. But we've all beat this horse enough.

At least most people are agreeing that they neither condone this behavior or will participate in it at a con.

At least everyone says that until the pack mentality takes over....

 Mannahnin wrote:
I found something on which I agree with Dutch.

Women don't need to be kicking guys in the balls, as a rule. Being prepared to deal with a physical confrontation if needed is a useful skill for anyone, of course, but there's rarely justification to start one.

Appropriate use of force kids. Bad words don't rate a beating. However should someone lay hands on someone aggressively, no matter the gender of the individual being attacked, I must admit I heartily support a good kick between the uprights as an initial disabler. Cheap? Yes. Unfair? The only fair fight is the one you win and the street isn't a sparring ring.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Define "modern" because warfare has all been about acquiring a skillset since the Middle Ages, and that's global. While Europeans had a bit of an issue with the concept of not just being a raging fethhead, the entire reason knights existed is because modern warfare (at that time) required a specific skill set in addition to just working out a lot. Other culture's martial traditions, notably Islam and Japan's knight equivalents had their rough spots as well but did try to temper the steel core of a warrior with learning and art work. I just finished reading the autobiography of a muslim knight who lived and fought during the third crusade, he was a very learned man, practiced in poetry (a big deal in the Arab world for those who don't know) and sciences, his father was very famous as a copier of the Quran, completing forty two full copies in his life time all of which could individually qualify as art work. We're all familiar with samurai considering how popular that culture is here in the west.

I'd also disagree that you need aggression any less in a fight then you do now, just because a gun is the modern tool of warfare doesn't mean you need to be any less willing to fight or use it. Discipline is the hallmark of truly lethal fighters and professional warriors from the classical era and beyond. The Spartans were one of the finest military forces in the world, and the Roman legions after them, were they more aggressive then the people around them? Possibly though I'd say the tribal Germans had a leg up in sheer ferocity on the Romans, but both forces were certainly more skilled, more practiced and more disciplined then the average opponent across the field from them.

Knights existed to siphon off excess labour and resources. If every peasant in medieval Europe had a suit of plate armour and a warhorse, I'm sure knights would have become obselete immediately.

You also undermine your own argument by acknoledging that the Romans were in fact defeated by the Germans and the Picts.

You think these guys:


give a hell about equal opportunities?

Now you could argue that being better warriors doesn't make you a more advanced civilisation, and you'd be right. That's why the Germanic tribes stole culture and learning from the Romans then propagated it themselves.

I would also take issue with your disregard for individual qualities in ancient warfare. In a situation where discipline is everything, the ability to man the feth up and get on with the job is everything, as is the physical ability to overpower your enemy. Obviously there was still a random element with arrows and siege equipment and the like, but to a far far lesser extent than today.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I found something on which I agree with Dutch.

Women don't need to be kicking guys in the balls, as a rule. Being prepared to deal with a physical confrontation if needed is a useful skill for anyone, of course, but there's rarely justification to start one.

Appropriate use of force kids. Bad words don't rate a beating. However should someone lay hands on someone aggressively, no matter the gender of the individual being attacked, I must admit I heartily support a good kick between the uprights as an initial disabler. Cheap? Yes. Unfair? The only fair fight is the one you win and the street isn't a sparring ring.

Yes but thats not what anyone was advocating. Frazzled, whembly and quite a few others were saying she should have punched him or kicked him right there no stage. As if acting like a child would give her the upper hand.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Appropriate use of force kids. Bad words don't rate a beating. However should someone lay hands on someone aggressively, no matter the gender of the individual being attacked, I must admit I heartily support a good kick between the uprights as an initial disabler. Cheap? Yes. Unfair? The only fair fight is the one you win and the street isn't a sparring ring.

Maybe.

Guy takes the piss out of his girlfriend in public, people laugh.

Girl takes the piss out of her boyfriend in public, people laugh, then she has a black eye the day after.

The moment you bring physical force into it, you're essentially consigning women to inferiority, which seems pretty unfair to me.

 Testify wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Define "modern" because warfare has all been about acquiring a skillset since the Middle Ages, and that's global. While Europeans had a bit of an issue with the concept of not just being a raging fethhead, the entire reason knights existed is because modern warfare (at that time) required a specific skill set in addition to just working out a lot. Other culture's martial traditions, notably Islam and Japan's knight equivalents had their rough spots as well but did try to temper the steel core of a warrior with learning and art work. I just finished reading the autobiography of a muslim knight who lived and fought during the third crusade, he was a very learned man, practiced in poetry (a big deal in the Arab world for those who don't know) and sciences, his father was very famous as a copier of the Quran, completing forty two full copies in his life time all of which could individually qualify as art work. We're all familiar with samurai considering how popular that culture is here in the west.

I'd also disagree that you need aggression any less in a fight then you do now, just because a gun is the modern tool of warfare doesn't mean you need to be any less willing to fight or use it. Discipline is the hallmark of truly lethal fighters and professional warriors from the classical era and beyond. The Spartans were one of the finest military forces in the world, and the Roman legions after them, were they more aggressive then the people around them? Possibly though I'd say the tribal Germans had a leg up in sheer ferocity on the Romans, but both forces were certainly more skilled, more practiced and more disciplined then the average opponent across the field from them.

Knights existed to siphon off excess labour and resources. If every peasant in medieval Europe had a suit of plate armour and a warhorse, I'm sure knights would have become obselete immediately.

You also undermine your own argument by acknoledging that the Romans were in fact defeated by the Germans and the Picts.

You think these guys:


give a hell about equal opportunities?

Now you could argue that being better warriors doesn't make you a more advanced civilisation, and you'd be right. That's why the Germanic tribes stole culture and learning from the Romans then propagated it themselves.

I would also take issue with your disregard for individual qualities in ancient warfare. In a situation where discipline is everything, the ability to man the feth up and get on with the job is everything, as is the physical ability to overpower your enemy. Obviously there was still a random element with arrows and siege equipment and the like, but to a far far lesser extent than today.

The Legions only fell because of the corruption rotting the heart out of rome and the over extension of roman military power. Shockingly no food and no pay drops morale, discipline and combat effectiveness pretty quickly.

Conversation about sexual assault in public turns into a discussion about the fall of Rome.

Welcome to OT.

Well, it did go 20 pages, and I think just about every possible dumb thing to say on the subject has already been said.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Well, it did go 20 pages, and I think just about every possible dumb thing to say on the subject has already been said.

Wholeheartedly agreed lol. Was spirited there for awhile.

I still maintain that actions that modern societies dictates are "barbaric" are actually vital in maintaining a society capable of fighting and defeating its enemies.

Hell, Mike Tyson was a rapist and that guy's solid as hell.

 Testify wrote:
Conversation about sexual assault in public turns into a discussion about the fall of Rome.

Welcome to OT.

Quoted for truth.

Mike Tyson had a very specialized talent and set of skills. He'd have been junk as a soldier.

Disciplined and coordinated troops have consistently trounced bigger and stronger troops with inferior training and discipline throughout history.

As I said, in the modern world.

Celtic/Germanic (of which Britain is essentially a hybrid) warriors just painted themselves blue and ran at the enemy until someone died

 LordofHats wrote:
typical douche baggery

The behaviour that sparked this thread is NOT typical douchebaggery. It's sexual harassment, and should be viewed and treated as such.

 Kaldor wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
typical douche baggery

The behaviour that sparked this thread is NOT typical douchebaggery. It's sexual harassment, and should be viewed and treated as such.

Having people look at your tits and ask you what bra size you are is NOT sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment is a very serious and very unpleasant thing that many women are subject to, and regarding this on the same level as that is frankly insulting.

As I said, it's much, much less severe than what the average woman will experience on a night out. Definitely not worthy of writing an article about, but the Daily Mail will publish anything about a woman with big tits. Ironic, given the subject matter.

 Testify wrote:
As I said, in the modern world.

Celtic/Germanic (of which Britain is essentially a hybrid) warriors just painted themselves blue and ran at the enemy until someone died

Sure and swarm tactics CAN work. But try that running hard gak at a properly supplied and supported Roman legion or Spartan formation. It didn't work very well. Usually the numbers required for a Roman loss were insane, and this was one, maybe two legions at most at one of the furthest lengths of the supply chain. Once that chain fell however...

For a more modern example see the Russian Army in the Second World War. Specifically see their casualties.

 Testify wrote:
As I said, in the modern world.

Celtic/Germanic (of which Britain is essentially a hybrid) warriors just painted themselves blue and ran at the enemy until someone died

Speaking as someone coming from a Celtic religious tradition and proud of his Irish and Swedish ancestry, I WISH those guys were more effective. They got decimated every time they went against the Romans, except when the Romans couldn't get proper supply and support. Even when massively outnumbered, the Romans butchered them on the battlefields.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Testify wrote:
As I said, in the modern world.

Celtic/Germanic (of which Britain is essentially a hybrid) warriors just painted themselves blue and ran at the enemy until someone died

Speaking as someone coming from a Celtic religious tradition and proud of his Irish and Swedish ancestry, I WISH those guys were more effective. They got decimated every time they went against the Romans, except when the Romans couldn't get proper supply and support. Even when massively outnumbered, the Romans butchered them on the battlefields.

Yup. Because of superior training/discipline etc.

Doesn't change the fact that, other things being equal, a man of greater aggression will be a superior soldier to a man of lesser aggression. The ability to disregard your own survival instinct, an immunity to pain and the ability to carry on physically until you literally die of exhaustion, are all good traits.

Of course they're useful. But you're changing your argument and moving the goalposts. Which is understandable.

 Testify wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Testify wrote:
As I said, in the modern world.

Celtic/Germanic (of which Britain is essentially a hybrid) warriors just painted themselves blue and ran at the enemy until someone died

Speaking as someone coming from a Celtic religious tradition and proud of his Irish and Swedish ancestry, I WISH those guys were more effective. They got decimated every time they went against the Romans, except when the Romans couldn't get proper supply and support. Even when massively outnumbered, the Romans butchered them on the battlefields.

Yup. Because of superior training/discipline etc.

Doesn't change the fact that, other things being equal, a man of greater aggression will be a superior soldier to a man of lesser aggression. The ability to disregard your own survival instinct, an immunity to pain and the ability to carry on physically until you literally die of exhaustion, are all good traits.

Those traits don't come from aggression though. A testosterone pumped meat head might be more outwardly aggressive... but an undisciplined lunatic doesn't make a good soldier. The Norse beserkers are the penultimate incarnation of PURE aggression and while they were lethal in combat, a disciplined professional solider can and will utilize a cool head, the ability to disregard one's survival instinct, the ability to put the good of the unit, the war effort and ultimately tribe or nation before one's self, the sheer force of will to power through pain and win the day.

You're listing good traits, and traits that are desired through this very day to make good soldiers, but those traits, especially the force of will to power through pain don't come from aggression. They are the result of iron discipline and will.

Lack of control is not the same thing as high aggression.

It's entirely possible to be aggressive while remaining completely in control. In fact, people with low aggression tend to be worse at exercising control of their emotions. Just look at women

 Testify wrote:
Having people look at your tits and ask you what bra size you are is NOT sexual harassment.

Examples of sexually harassing behaviour include:

unwelcome touching;
staring or leering;
sexually explicit pictures or posters;
unwanted invitations to go out on dates;
requests for sex;
intrusive questions about a person’s private life or body;
unnecessary familiarity, such as deliberately brushing up against a person;
insults or taunts based on sex;
sexually explicit physical contact; and
sexually explicit emails or SMS text messages.

From here. Obviously the precise legal definitions are going to vary from country to country... but ultimately what it boils down to is if it's something of a sexually-related nature that makes the recipient uncomfortable, then it's sexual harassment.

So any guy who's ever stared at a woman has committed sexual harassment?

You're not fething serious? That's so stupid it's not worth refuting.

You weren't taught as a child that it's rude to stare?

There's a line between 'looking' and 'staring' obviously... but it all comes back to whether or not the recipient is made uncomfortable or is intimidated by it. And, ultimately, even without any sexual being involved, making the people around us not feel uncomfortable is what social standards of courtesy are all about. If everybody actually behaved like adults and acted with a thought to how their actions impacted on others, we wouldn't need laws telling us to not act like sex-crazed monkeys the moment an attractive woman walks in the room. As it is, while most people will, more or less, the laws are needed to control the idiots.

And I guess we need to repeat, once again, that folks like Caruso who dress in skimpy costumes EXPECT people to stare and to sometimes be doofuses, and they are understanding about that.

It's the infrequent donkey-caves who cross the line of awkward doofusness into scumbag harassment who she complained about. And was right to do so.

 LordofHats wrote:
Which is obviously a delusional thing to think, cause you, I, or any reasonable person knows it isn't. I.E. We're dealing with individuals who somehow managed to miss all the oh so obvious social ques. I've dealt with my share of jerks in my life. You can say it right to the face, and they still don't care.

Some people are just like that.

Yeah, there'll always be jerks who can't get why it's wrong. But there'll also be a lot of people can be persuaded, and a whole lot more people who'd never do this kind of thing, but also won't make much of a fuss when someone else does it.

Having these kinds of conversations makes the issue that much more prominent in people's minds. It means there's a chance some other guy might think better of trying something like this. It means when something like this does happen again there's a chance that some people viewing it won't go along with it.

Afterall, there's no shortage of dickheads in the real world, and yet over time we've managed to steadily remove sexist behaviours that were once just an accepted practice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I ask again, what does white knighting have to do with saying women do not deserve to sexually harassed?

You might see yourself in here.

White Knight wrote:
On an internet forum, a person who defends a member who is clearly wrong, usually with the hopes of gaining brownie points with said member.

Umm, White Knighting is about defending a person who is on the site, coming in to defend her argument, making a show of protecting her in the hope of scoring.

It doesn't work if the conversation is about some woman who doesn't post here.

I mean, read your own definition, please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The lightbulb should have immediatly lit up saying "O' these guys are dicks. I'll just leave and complain to the Con organizers" not I'll go and complain about it to a national news outlet.

She complained about it in her blog, and didn't contact the news service. And her blog post was more about how empowered she felt by her response, than anything else.

Complaining about it on a national level really just encourages these dipwads. "Look, that girls now crying about what we did on a national news outlet"

She didn't cry. At this point you're just making up a story inside your own head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I do love how that rude comments towards a woman are horrendous and the perpetrators worse than Satan.

But advocating physical violence against someone taught from birth to not fight back is somehow ok?

Women can hit us and we can't even talk back? Whats that type of standard? I know it starts with a number, what is it again? Oh yeah double.

I think you're making a big deal out of a silly throw away line about kicking the guy in the balls. Had she actually done that she would have been charged with assault, and rightfully so.

I think you're focussing on that comment because you like to pretend you live in a world where your gender is hard done by.

And face it male superhero bodies are just as objectified and unrealistic as the females it just so happens most comic readers are straight males. Read early 90's X-men and tell me anybody's muscles look like that.

Those ludicrous muscly lumps that were supposed to be superheroes weren't drawn to be sexually appealling to women. They were drawn as an ideal for men. Dudes with big muscles and loads of guns jumping about shooting stuff is not actually a commercially viable female fantasy... it's a commercially viable fantasy for teenage boys. Just like girls in skimpy outfits somehow managing to have both their asses and boobs sticking out in every other panel is a commercially viable fantasy for teenage boys.

There are plenty of commercially viable sexual fantasies for women, as we've all seen 50 Shades sell so many copies recently. But the point is those fantasies are rarely found in comic books, so its something of a nonsense to say 'look there's a guy with an unobtainable body, therefore everyone is getting objectified so its all okay'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
Personally I would say that most men are "scumbags" and the "nice guys" are the minority. Men who're respectful and decent don't make good fighters, and cultures without good fighters don't last long.

You're wildly overstating the importance of testosterone led douchebaggery in being an effective soldier. You're also wildly understating the importance of co-operation and the ability of people to act within social norms for the overall benefit of society. And you're also making some wild assumptions about the importance of evolution over social upbringing.

 sebster wrote:


Those ludicrous muscly lumps that were supposed to be superheroes weren't drawn to be sexually appealling to women. They were drawn as an ideal for men. Dudes with big muscles and loads of guns jumping about shooting stuff is not actually a commercially viable female fantasy... it's a commercially viable fantasy for teenage boys. Just like girls in skimpy outfits somehow managing to have both their asses and boobs sticking out in every other panel is a commercially viable fantasy for teenage boys.

There are plenty of commercially viable sexual fantasies for women, as we've all seen 50 Shades sell so many copies recently. But the point is those fantasies are rarely found in comic books, so its something of a nonsense to say 'look there's a guy with an unobtainable body, therefore everyone is getting objectified so its all okay'.

Maaaan, I spent a few months shelving books at a Barnes and Noble... you need to go look at the covers of some romance novels.

 Bromsy wrote:
Maaaan, I spent a few months shelving books at a Barnes and Noble... you need to go look at the covers of some romance novels.

He really doesn't, since the point being made was about the portrayal of superheroes in comics.

AustonT wrote:

Spoiler:

 azazel the cat wrote:


@AustonT: Yeah, I was gonna use a picture of Carano, but I decided to use GSP instead for the lulz. Anyway, I'd love to hear what you have to say about the point I was making.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CDK wrote:
I haven't read the whole thread to be honest. But I am a long time comic fan and thought I'd share my thoughts.

To me it comes down to "Dress how you want to be treated". Inappropriate behavior is GOING to happen. In fact, expect it to happen. So, dress like a whore = get treated like a whore. Some guys will not do it but some will. Expect it to happen though. Don't be shocked by it when you know perfectly well guys are going to look at your chest rather than anything else. Is it right behavior? No of course not. But society has not changed much over the years and it's not going to change soon. If you really don't want the attention or comments that maybe you should dress up as a character from "Little House on the Prairie."

I was not aware that comic book female heroines are whores.

No, but many of them dress like one. Or at least like a Stripper.

Is it fair therefore to suppose that CDK's argument is that the woman was dressed as a whore, not as a comic book character, and therefore the men were entitled to treat her as a whore.

(There is a separate argument about how whores are entitled to be treated, of course.)

Then that is doubly wrong, as the woman in question was not dressed as a whore; she was dressed as the Black Cat, ipso facto.

I guess maybe I missed the point you were trying to make. Most MMA fighters choose loose fitting shorts with high cuts in favor of tight fits. Most of the reason a top isn't worn has to do with the rules of UFC post Gracie(spelled Brazilian ). A loose top can easily be used as a weapon or as a tool to evade.
What you've basically done is make the correlation that because boxers wear 15oz gloves an effective fist fighter must.
Loose fitting uniforms are the norm for those that fight for a living for a reason.
TLDR: I got what you were driving at I just think you are applying it incorrectly.
And also they ration healthcare in Canada.

I meant my point about the difference between cod players and attention whores. And there is a big difference, of which I have provided examples.

And no, we don't.

Testify wrote:You also undermine your own argument by acknoledging that the Romans were in fact defeated by the Germans and the Picts.

No, they weren't.

At least, not the iconic Roman legionnaires that you're picturing. The army of Constantine was an entirely different animal.

Testify wrote:I still maintain that actions that modern societies dictates are "barbaric" are actually vital in maintaining a society capable of fighting and defeating its enemies.

Hell, Mike Tyson was a rapist and that guy's solid as hell.

Holyfield and Lewis might disagree with you. Douglas too, but I'm not sure he counts.

 Bromsy wrote:
Maaaan, I spent a few months shelving books at a Barnes and Noble... you need to go look at the covers of some romance novels.

No, maybe you could do with reading more closely in future, though.

I said there's plenty of female fantasies, mentioning the recent 50 Shades thing, and certainly all those romance novels do the trick as well. But the point is these are not the fantasies portrayed in comic books, which are almost entirely focused on a young male audience.