On Sexual Objectification

Via Feministe, we have a really startling example of misandry from some gentleman at Aggie Catholics:

Something I never really wanted to post about, but feel I have to, because I don’t think that young women quite understand the problem.

Yesterday when I logged onto Facebook, I had several pictures of college co-eds in bathing suits, who are friends on Facebook, come up on my feed. In response, I posted the following on Facebook as my status:

“A note to young women on Facebook, from a guy who works with young men struggling with pornography…you might look good in your bathing suit, but if you were able to see yourself through 20 year-old male eyes, which are struggling to see you as a human and not an object, you would never post that pic. Just a thought.”

In my opinion, this is one of the more common slurs against male sexuality, commonly created by people who do not understand the concept of “objectification”– that men looking at women sexually are inherently objectifying them.

Objectification means treating a person as an object– i.e., as the opposite of a subject. Think of it like grammar: a subject goes about doing things (in the technical term, it has “agency”); an object has things done to it. For a long time in Western culture women have been treated as objects: the damsel in distress is rescued but does not do much herself, and could generally be replaced with a piece of paper that says MacGuffin on it for all she contributes to the plot.

How does this relate to sex? Sometimes people are treated as “sex objects.” That is, they are passive things to be looked at or have acts performed on them; they themselves have no sexual agency, no ability to choose. I will now provide a helpful guide to things that are and are not objectifying.

Not Objectification: Finding a person attractive.
Objectification: Finding a person’s attractiveness to be the only important thing about a person.
Not Objectification: Having mutualistic, enthusiastic, enjoyable sex.
Objectification: Using another person as a glorified masturbation aid.
Not Objectification: Establishing a relationship, whether casual or committed, with another person.
Objectification: Viewing another person as an annoying impediment to access to their genitalia. 

It is important to note that most people who are sexually objectifying are (a) complete douches and (b) not that good in bed.   

However, what this gentleman is assuming is that male sexuality is inherently objectifying. That is, that men by definition are incapable of viewing women as people, as opposed to as sexual objects. 

I don’t know about you, but I presume that when most people who are attracted to ladies see a picture of a hot lady in a bikini, their reaction is “I would like to engage in mutually pleasurable sex with her!” With kink this gets a little more complicated, but even so it almost always boils down to “I would like to engage in mutually pleasurable sex that looks like it isn’t to an outside observer with her!” or even “I would like to fantasize about engaging in sex that is not mutually pleasurable with her, but if we ever had sex I would like to engage in mutually pleasurable sex with her!” I feel this is the normal person way to go about things.

However, in our culture male sexuality is often viewed as “predatory,” as “degrading,” as “creepy.” Sometimes this gets to the line of rape apologia, as when people suggest that women ought to not wear short skirts or flirt or make out lest men, unable to control themselves, be driven to rape them. (Oddly, these are often the sort of people who think that feminists think that all men are rapists.) And because people live down to low expectations, all too often male sexuality becomes perverted from its natural form into predation.

In this schema, a man looking at a woman in a bikini has to think of her as a pussy with a flap of skin around it. As soon as the penis turns on, the ability to treat women as human beings turns off. The only way men can respect women for their minds and personalities as well as their bodies is for women to dress “modestly,” a word with an ever-changing definition that generally means “a skirt two inches longer than the one  you’re wearing.” No man is ever able to treat a woman in a bikini as anything more than a hole to be fucked.

I hope I don’t have to explain how misandric that is.  

Side note: One of the commenters on the Feministe post links to a study on objectification cited by the gentleman from Aggie Catholics. What the study actually shows is that men with high levels of hostile sexism tend to objectify women. This tells you some interesting things about the gentleman’s psyche (i.e. all men have high levels of hostile sexism) and is also something that would clearly not be predicted by feminist ideas at all.

This entry was posted in noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz, rape culture, sexism and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

273 Responses to On Sexual Objectification

  1. Brian says:

    I think sexual objectification is one of those things that covers at least two distinct terms that need to be split out.

    Objectification 1 is in the grammar sense of object: “women are the objects of sexual desire”. It is obviously not sexist for individual women to be the objects of sexual desire; it is only sexist if women are always the object of sexual desire. As such no single man (or lesbian) can ever objectify women in this way.

    Objectification 2 is treating women as objects in the sense a vibrator is an object. That is, considering them a way for you to get off rather than people. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with naked pics; many if not most PUAs do this entirely through text.

    So TL;DR: the dude at the top is clearly getting his objectifications confused. And being a misandrist douchbag, but besides that he is ALSO getting his objectifications confused.

  2. machina says:

    Eh, Sartre is probably the main man when it comes to sexual objectification.

    http://www.thebubble.org.uk/philosophy/sartrean-sex

  3. Graham says:

    To be fair, the guy said “if you were able to see yourself through 20 year-old male eyes” – so in that quote he’s not talking about all males by definition, but males without much life experience. There may well be a tendency for younger males to look at females in an objectifying manner. I wouldn’t necessarily say that was a slur on male sexuality, just something that a lot of men have to work through.

  4. Feckless says:

    Can porn be seen as objectification because of Objectification point 1 and 2?

  5. Feckless says:

    Ugh hit the submit button too fast. The average porn watcher probably is just interested in the actors looks and not in their personality….also masturbation aid…

    Objectification?

  6. Tamen says:

    Depictions of people, be it still or live images are objects and never subjects, thus porn watching in itself can never be objectification since it the watcher does not interact with a REAL person. Of course the actors themselves are real people, but the watcher have no way of interacting with them and let them be subjects nor does the watcher have any possibility within the scope of porn watching to explore and consider the personality of the actors. Ironically enoguh, when porn watcher does try to explore other aspects of the actors persons and personalities outside the scope of the porn watching itself by for instance joining fan clubs attending conventions etc. then it’s considered creepy and stalker-ish.

    The more precise question is whether porn watching will increase the watchers tendency to objectify people they meet. I don’t think we can say that it does as a rule.

  7. The complete lack of perspective on this one intrigues me. As a something-approaching-androsexual, I went to a park this weekend and saw some men with their tops off. They didn’t appear to understand the way in which their bodies could be sexualised. Not that this makes them ignorant- I never understand the ways in which a woman in a bikini could have a sexualised body.

    I reckon that sexualisation flowing from women to men (or any other gender to men) is something that has completely escaped this guy’s worldview. Which is ironic, considering he’s annoyed at women for the same lack of awareness.

  8. Emmeline says:

    @Slightlymetaphysical: Whenever guys don’t understand that women can objectify just as much, I show them the reaction to THE AREA, otherwise known as David Bowie’s bulge in Labyrinth. They’ll either get it, be afraid or admit to liking THE AREA themselves.

    As for myself, I have to admit something. I have two main crushes, one male and one female. The girl is hot and dommy, the guy is subby and pretty so that might have something to do with it, but in my fantasies he’s down on the floor being humiliated while she’s kind of up there being a BAMF. And if ever I catch myself thinking I want to peg her I actually feel terrible and disrespectful. Logically I know I shouldn’t, but it’s still an emotional reaction.

  9. Alex says:

    Tamen said – “Depictions of people, be it still or live images are objects and never subjects, thus porn watching in itself can never be objectification since it the watcher does not interact with a REAL person”

    Exactly! Interestingly the person quoted from facebook above refers to a study in which men viewed pictures of women in bikinis – some had their heads digitally removed. So you’ve got a PICTURE of a woman, with her HEAD MISSING, and wonder why men don’t react ‘normally’. Bizarre.

  10. ozymandias42 says:

    Feckless: In my admittedly limited experience, in the context of the storyline (such as it is) of porn, a woman often has quite a lot of sexual agency. She’s a horny slut who craves cock, and she gets cock. Your average sexy-lady-draped-over-a-car advertisement is much more objectifying.

    The GUYS in porn, on the other hand…

    machina: or de Beauvoir!

    Brian: Yes, exactly. 🙂

    Emmeline: I show them the reaction to Hugh Jackman with his shirt off. All the ladies didn’t go see Wolverine for the sparkling dialogue and Oscar-worthy acting, you know?

  11. machina says:

    De Beauvoir fails by thinking class analysis is a way out of hell. Hello feminist theory.

  12. Brock says:

    “Objectification: Using another person as a glorified masturbation aid.”

    I’d like to see some elaboration on this.

    Fantasizing about a celebrity while masturbating: Objectification or not? Objectionable or not?

    Secretly fantasizing about an acquaintance, whom one otherwise treats with respect, while masturbating: Objectification or not? Objectionable or not?

  13. Feckless says:

    @Brock – I kind of had the same thought…

  14. Brock says:

    Or maybe I shouldn’t have taken “masturbation aid” literally, and what Ozy meant by “using someone as a glorified masturbation aid” is “having sex with someone without any consideration for their pleasure”, just as one would not have any consideration for a literal, inanimate masturbation aid.

  15. Shora says:

    To be fair, the guy said “if you were able to see yourself through 20 year-old male eyes” – so in that quote he’s not talking about all males by definition, but males without much life experience. There may well be a tendency for younger males to look at females in an objectifying manner. I wouldn’t necessarily say that was a slur on male sexuality, just something that a lot of men have to work through.

    But this kind of assumes that the “default” for men’s sexuality is predatory and degrading, and they only learn better later. I don’t really see how that’s any better.

    As someone who dates 20-somethings, I know that men of that age are perfectly capable and even willing to be respectful about their sexual desires, both to themselves and to others.

  16. xevv says:

    And of course, part of this kind of misandry is the victim-blaming, slut-shaming spiel: “ladies, it is out of *respect* for you that I ask you to not be so slutty and be ever aware and afraid of all the 20 year old perverts who can’t help but be terrible people when they look at you. Your covering up means so much to us.”

    That isn’t respect. That’s shoving the responsibility for your behavior onto someone else, with the unspoken promise that if that person doesn’t comply, you will lose respect for them.

    Sometimes I just want to walk around topless like every man is allowed to. Men usually don’t do it because they want the sexual attention of strangers, and few people automatically assume so. They assume men do it because it’s hot and it’s nice to feel the breeze and sunshine on your bare skin. But when I walk around topless in public, I run the risk of being arrested or possibly attacked/harassed. The instinct of people to make life hell for a woman walking around topless is, in my opinion, just an extension of what this guy is talking about.

  17. Rachel says:

    Man, when it comes to Aggies doing stupid-ass shit, that is TAME.

    (That’s my university ;_____________; I wish I could fix them.)

  18. Clarence says:

    My views on this are very nuanced.

    Nothing wrong with wanting to be seen in a sexual manner, nothing wrong with seeing someone in a sexual manner. Women should be aware that the more skin they show ON AVERAGE the more people will notice them -mostly male people- in a sexual manner. Same with men.Some of this attention may be unwanted but provided they are not physically or verbally attacked, one has to deal. I think everyone else already covered all the rest which I agree with.

  19. xevv says:

    @clarence I don’t mind being looked at, since I ogle shirtless men and look at gay porn. And I think we should all expect people to be able to look without staring. Anyone who says people (men more specifically) are incapable of this basic courtesy are buying into a lot of harmful myths and stereotypes that simply aren’t true.

    Catcalling and other forms of sexual harassment are totally voluntary however and no one should have to deal with them for any reason. I’m guessing you agree?

  20. xevv says:

    And Clarence, be aware that you’re painting human beings with a pretty broad brush—the term “woman” covers a huge range of people, including women of all weights, gender presentation, ages, and resemblances. Some women are super muscular and/or flat chested and/or hairy, at any point in their lives. I might discretely ogle a young Adonis who walks by me in biker shorts, shoes and nothing else, but when a 70 year old man is walking his dog in a sweaty wife beater that hangs off his bent, hair-covered torso, I personally just see a 70 year old man walking his dog, and him taking off his tank top isn’t going to inflame my loins just because suddenly he’s wearing less clothing.

  21. Clarence says:

    xevv:

    I don’t consider whistling, or a one-off complimentary comment to be sexual harassment, xevv. I also don’t much care to “police” my gaze. Notice I said “complimentary” comment, such as “hey babe”, or “you are looking beautiful”, or at the worst, “nice ass”.

    But I’m still going to bet you disagree.

  22. xevv says:

    er, pressed enter too soon. I’m not comparing masculine-seeming women to old men. It’s just I get the feeling many men, when thinking of “Woman” see what they personally think most women look like–someone they would be attracted to, since for the most part, attractive women get the most representation in our media. Women who don’t fit into that box tend to become invisible. All men have different preferences, so some men are going to ignore a flat-chested girl with hairy arm pits while others are going to fantasize about her when they next masturbate. Living with the fear that if I show my skin (and how much? in some cultures, my forearms are too much, in others, a short skirt is all I need to be considered decent) every man who sees me is going to make me uncomfortable with their open stares is more of a fear tactic to get me to cover up than an accurate description of what really happens.

  23. xevv says:

    @clarence yep, and that is harassment according to the laws where I live, and carries a $500 fine if anyone bothers to take you to court over it. It’s called street harassment and besides being an asshole thing to do that you’re totally voluntarily engaging in, it makes plenty of people feel unsafe. So why do you do it? Do you feel a sense of power when you do it? Do you honestly think women like being talked to like that?

    Please educate yourself: http://hollabackdc.wordpress.com/about/

  24. Clarence says:

    xevv:
    Please don’t :
    A. Assume I’m not an “old hat” at this type of argument.
    B. Assume that whatever law wherever YOU live applies everywhere else
    C. Assume that I think such a law is anything other than stupid and counterproductive.

    Thanks.

  25. xevv says:

    @clarence: please don’t sexually harass women on the street.
    The end.

  26. Clarence says:

    xevv:

    I am not responsible for your internal feelings of comfort or discomfort, and the same thing that one woman may like another may not. I am also not about to police myself to the extent you seem to regard as optimal for you. Personally, I think anyone who takes even something such as “nice ass” or a whistle to be something they need to call the police over is someone who is not mentally well. I’ve been randomly street attacked 3 times in my life, and had an armed robbery done to me once. I still leave my house every day.

  27. noahbrand says:

    Assume I’m not an “old hat” at this type of argument.
    @Clarence, the expression you want is “old hand”, a term originally of nautical origins, indicating someone who has sufficient experience to know what they’re doing. “Old hat” indicates something worn out and no longer relevant or useful, like the argument that somebody not wanting to be harassed on the street is somehow all about the harasser’s feelings of personal validation.

  28. -Great Gallant – This mostly verbal harassment involves excessive compliments and personal comments that focus on appearance and gender, and are out of place or embarrassing to the recipient. Such comments are sometimes accompanied by leering looks.
    -Unintentional – Acts or comments of a sexual nature, not intended to harass, can constitute sexual harassment if another person feels uncomfortable with such subjects

    @Clarence
    I know you might find it odd, but I don’t want to walk or drive anywhere, where someone calls out my body or my looks. It makes me aware that people are looking at my butt, or thinking of me in that way. If you’re thinking it keep it to yourself. Calling someone out like that does nothing but impose your presence on them and make them aware that you are sexually aroused by them. I dont want ANYONE coming out and telling me things like that.

    Also, you don’t care much to police your gaze? You have to. There is no question, you have to. That’s excusing yourself from responsibility and laying back onto laziness. If people didn’t care to police their gaze you’d find it okay for every person male or female, attractive OR NOT, to stare at you and call you out and say something dirty and uncomfortable to you?

    The fact of the mater is that it is against the law (in the usa) to “catcall” That is verbal sexual harassment Hands down. It makes people uncomfortable, end of story, period. You may not like it, but its there to protect people. You should read up on the law. Not mad bro, but I think more people need to know the actual laws surrounding harassment of all kinds.

  29. This is a great post. The quote at the beginning of this piece is quite appalling – for one, it reinforces the notion that women should be more modest to prevent men’s sexual appetites from running wild, and another thing is that the same kind of thinking is rarely applied to how women view the appearance of men.

  30. Erik says:

    @Clarence It absolutely is your responsibility if you’re the one making someone uncomfortable. Even if you don’t intend to it’s still your responsibility.

    And in this case you very well know that catcalling can make people feel downright afraid. If you don’t realize that then you have some thinking to do.

    I’ve been violently mugged before and I’m not afraid to leave the house. But when people harass me on the street it really raises my hackles sometimes. Leaving the house and being directly harassed are not even remotely the same thing. Your analogy is invalid.

    And as for catcalling isn’t that just a little pathetic? It suggests that the only way you can interact with women is to yell at them from a distance like cattle. There’s nothing wrong with *tactfully* complimenting someone but it’s certainly not appropriate at all times. And certainly not when bugging a stranger who’s just trying to get home.

    I’ve been propositioned to by strange men right on the street. And after turning them down I feel like I need to keep checking behind me to make sure I’m not being followed. Kinda ruins the evening.

  31. If we’re being consistent … is it OK to compliment someone on their hair? If so, their tan? Their eyes? Their arms? Their mustache? Their legs? Their butt? Their abs? Their feet (ew)? Their labia?

    Why or why not?

  32. Clarence says:

    Wow.
    Literally , wow.
    I was partly deliberately being a hard-ass on this subject in order to see if anyone could make reasoned arguments based on fact.
    Instead, many people seem to think that work place sexual harassment law that falls under civil statutes and in private and governmental areas applies on public avenues such as streets. Far as I know NYC is the only major metropolitan area in the USA even considering such statutes and they’ve been trying to work with the ACLU because their are tremendous free speech implications. In short, I’m afraid public places don’t protect you from whistles, compliments, or stares. People that do think so (and since I couldn’t be protected from actual violence, hence privilege their own ability not to be OFFENDED over police working on things such as physical safety) are better off staying home.

  33. Clarence says:

    Well, let’s see where this goes. So far the commenters on this thread don’t seem to know very much about this subject, haven’t given the implications of legislation concerning it much thought, and prefer to do things like launch personal attacks based on accidentally misused phrases.

  34. Laura says:

    “The fact of the mater is that it is against the law (in the usa) to ‘catcall”

    There is no one law in the USA on what you can or can’t holler at people in the street. It varies by location.

    “the same thing that one woman may like another may not. ”

    This is very true. You cannot assume that every woman dislikes being whistled at.

    As to specifics – I wouldn’t like having a stranger comment on my butt. I was raised that you don’t make personal comments to strangers – “nice blouse” is about as far as you should go. Otherwise you are assuming intimacy that’s not there, which is generally considered rude, or used to be. But that is me. I wouldn’t make comments like that because I don’t want to be rude, but I wouldn’t assume that it would bother anyone else if someone else did.

  35. noahbrand says:

    “Old hat” indicates something worn out and no longer relevant or useful, like the argument that somebody not wanting to be harassed on the street is somehow all about the harasser’s feelings of personal validation.
    That’s not a personal attack, Clarence. That’s pointing out that your argument is completely invalid, not to mention old. It probably feels like a personal attack, but as I was trying to explain, there are things in the world other than your personal umbrage.

  36. Clarence says:

    noahbrand:
    Ha,ha,ha, you kidder!
    This whole area of “activism” depends on NOTHING but personal umbrage.
    Why are you even commenting in this thread if my saying that asking me to police my freaking eyes (on someone presumably looking like a hooker) is something that causes me personal umbrage?

  37. Rachel says:

    @noah, you are my Hero of the Day

  38. Clarence says:

    Oh, wait.
    I forgot. The subject isn’t about “asking” me. It’s requiring me by force of law (whether civil, criminal, or both) to try to ever avoid offending anyone on the street with my sexual attentions or even simple attractions. Of course such laws have no costs in terms of civil liberties, false accusations, lack of mens-rea (guilty mind) requirements and diversion of police effort – how dare I be against laws that make sure no one is ever sexually offended.
    You guys can call me a Nazi now.

  39. I have found and followed this fascinating exchange because my daughter informed me that someone named Clarence thinks that as long as women are not physically or verbally “attacked”, they should just “deal with” unwanted attention from strangers, in the form of whistling or observations such as “Nice ass.”
    Clarence, were you brought up or just fed? I’ve walked past clones of you on the street for over forty years. The “compliments” are no more varied than the facial expressions that accompany them: sneers or fatuous self-satisfaction. Well, what etiquette apparently failed to accomplish in your cases, feminism has taken on. So you must deal with people’s bad opinion of you expressed openly, rather than as in my youth, when we rolled our eyes and discusssed your loutish behavior behind closed doors…in the ladies’ rooms, where we held our informal feminist meetings.

  40. Rachel says:

    @Clarence, nobody is saying that you absolutely should not be allowed to look at a woman on the street, ever, or to say anything to her, ever. Or at least I don’t think so.

    What we’re saying is that the decent and reasonable thing to do is to consider the feelings of the strangers you’re looking at or speaking to, and that IF one of them is upset by your actions, YOU are responsible for it. Not her. And if she calls you on it, “Hey, it was a compliment!” is neither an apology nor a good excuse.

    I guess most people would take that as good enough reason to be unobtrusive around strangers.

  41. xevv says:

    @easilyenthused I don’t think there’s anything wrong with complimenting someone for anything. It’s about context.

    When I leave the house, I want to be left alone. I think it’s sane to assume that about people you see going about their daily lives, trying to get their errands done. It’s a real asshole move for anyone to see someone and think “that person doesn’t have the right to be left alone; I can say whatever I want to them and if they feel unsafe because a stranger is talking to them that is their problem”. In my life I’ve talked to a whole lot of women, all of whom have said they HATE when strange men try to talk to them on the street, or in a commercial establishment, because they are not leaving the house to socialize, they are leaving the house to get shit done and want to feel mobile and safe. Some men who say “women who can’t deal with a compliment from a stranger should stay home” are fucking assholes who are either unaware of their own ability to move about in a public space unnoticed, or who actually, deep down, don’t think women deserve to leave the house without risking some unasked for comments.

    No matter how good your intentions are, I have no way of knowing them, because you’re a stranger. If you want to compliment people, do it in a bar, a club, or while engaging in an activity with that person—settings where people want to socialize. But all this explanation and arguing over laws is tedious when considering the fact that a person who chooses not to catcall is being a better person, and is doing his part to make his community a less hostile place, without LOSING ANYTHING. The person who chooses to catcall is being a pathetic dickwad who places his own sense of entitlement over the feelings of others….and no amount of rationalizing changes that.

  42. Clarence says:

    A. I’ve never catcalled a woman in my life.
    B. I’ve never followed a woman spewing insults in my life, nor have I ever reacted badly to rejection -though to be fair, I’ve never been rejected in a downright cruel manner.
    C. I might have said “nice ass” three times in my life. I don’t do the club scene very often and until I was over 30 never at all.
    D. Once in awhile I actually *gasp* stare. Esp when a person has already walked past me.

    Anyway, I love all the assumptions and half-arsed personal attacks going on here. I’ve been aware of Hollaback for about 3 years now, I was of the commenters in the original thread on Shroedingers Rapist. I was reading civil libertarian and rad feminist arguments over sexual harrasment law in the late 1980’s , early 1990’s. Heck, me and Ozy had a discussion on appropriate street behavior recently and the only thing we disagreed on was whistling. That’s it.

    In short, people here don’t have to teach me anything.

    Now , when one goes to the Hollaback site one sees some pretty horrible stories, some of which arguably, could be addressed under other laws already. But then one also sees some stories that make one wonder about the mental health of those who post them. I remember seeing a video of a girl about a year and a half ago where this young lady was complaining about how horrible it was that men had noticed she had a flower in her hair and were saying such horrid things as “That’s a pretty flower” or “I like your hair!” Privileging the “concerns” of someone like that in terms of law is not something I want to do.

    So I support some things that these activists have done. For instance, working with local businesses to make areas more civil and get rid of people who have issues with repeat harrasment. As for the rest, I’m wait and see.

  43. Paul says:

    EE:

    “If we’re being consistent … is it OK to compliment someone on their hair? If so, … Their feet (ew)?”

    was that little paranthetical aside really neccessary?

  44. Rachel says:

    @Clarence, if we don’t have anything to teach you, maybe you could try expressing that in your first post rather than being intentionally confrontational (“I’m still going to guess you disagree”) and then spending half the day calling us reactionary lol sensitives for disagreeing with a post YOU ALREADY SAID THAT YOU GUESSED WE DISAGREED WITH.

    And like I said, you aren’t the one who gets to decide what is an acceptable compliment and what isn’t. If someone takes exception to what you say, it is HER choice whether or not to forgive the offense once you make your benign intentions clear — because at the end of the day, your intentions don’t matter one tiny little bit with regard to the way that women are made to feel that their bodies are public property.

  45. Jen says:

    Clarence. As someone who has received multiple types of what you consider to be compliments from all walks of life, I’d like to say: Please stop.
    YOU are responsible for your actions and how they affect others. There are plenty of women on this thread telling you that hearing these things from strangers makes women in general uncomfortable. BELIEVE THEM. It’s true.
    A woman doesn’t get dressed in the morning and then go out seeking your approval. What makes you think you deserve to spout your opinions to her?

  46. naeelah says:

    Clarence — and also answering some general questions brought up by other folks up thread —

    There is no law protecting me from being looked at or yelled at, nor do I expect there to be, but the right to free speech extends both ways. If someone is a jerk to me, I tell him to go fuck himself, and that’s pretty much the end of the process. It doesn’t ruin my day, but if I get harassed every time I go a particular place, it starts to make me feel unsafe there, and I VERY much resent being forced to stop what I’m doing and leave (if, for example, I’m parked outside a cafe using my laptop) just to get away from some jackass who refuses to accept “No thanks, I’m not interested.” (I admit that’s a separate issue from catcalling, but it falls under the same umbrella of “just because you can do it doesn’t mean you should.”)

    I have been followed, cornered, groped and such frequently, ever since I was 13. So for the majority of my life, I have had to escape men — men who probably weren’t actually going to assault me (well, except for one) but who didn’t understand how threatening their actions were. (hint: you never, ever follow a woman down a street, into a store, and then corner her. That’s not persistence, that’s a red flag.)

    I’ve had plenty of strangers compliment me on the street, even shout them, and even address them to specific features, without making me feel harassed. I am not brainless or mentally unwell, I am quite good at reading people, and it takes very little effort to tell if someone is being nice or being a jerk. If you are a jerk and your comments piss me off, I will let you know. if you don’t piss me off, I’ll say thanks. We are all capable of discretion.

  47. In short, people here don’t have to teach me anything.

    No we don’t do we? We just thought we would try.

  48. Lynet says:

    From the OP: “[I]f you were able to see yourself through 20 year-old male eyes, which are struggling to see you as a human and not an object, you would never post that pic.”

    I’m intrigued that this highlights one of my major problems with how some people react to the phenomenon of objectification*. Firstly, there is the implication that if I am seen to be sexual then nobody (or, at least, no man) is going to view me as a person. That’s the misandry which this blog so ably highlights. But I’d also like to point out the assumption that this is my problem — so much my problem that if I knew it was happening, I would apparently take action to stop it from happening immediately. It really bothers me when I see people, sometimes even feminists, taking that second view. If somebody finds themselves ignoring my humanity because of what I wear, then, morally speaking, that’s their problem, not mine.

    Moreover, nobody can erase my humanity by viewing me that way. It’s a lot easier for me, as a feminist, to not fear men, if the question of whether they objectify me isn’t seen as defining how everyone views me and ending the conversation. That way, I can go out, wearing whatever I like, and know that I’m always human, most men know that, and if anyone, male or female, thinks otherwise, well, I’m not required to worry about it.

    *where by ‘objectification’ I mean ‘ceasing to see somebody as a human being’, not ‘regarding sexually’ — thanks for that clarification above, Ozy

  49. aliarasthedaydreamer says:

    @EE: I find it nice to get comments on my clothes, because they are not at all a part of me. A person who comments on my really neat skirt is complimenting both my excellent taste (an intellectual quality) and the skill of the designer of the skirt. That’s not sexual at all, it’s purely aesthetic, on the same level as complimenting a piece of art I choose to hang on my wall.

    I find it acceptable but still sometimes uncomfortable-making to get comments [from strangers] on my hair, skin (fair and freckled, and so sometimes notable), or eyes. Those areas are not really sexualized, but I still sometimes wonder where they’re going with it — especially hair comments (“are you a natural redhead? *winkwinkwink*).

    I find it uncomfortable and a little scary to get comments [from strangers] on my general body shape, breasts, ass, or legs. It’s the “finding another person’s attractiveness to be the only thing that matters about them” objectification-thing — if that’s the first interaction I have with someone, I have no way to know if they also think I am a brilliant scientist and effective writer with witty and stunning conversational skills. That stranger has no relationship with me as a person, they just have my body. I don’t even want a deep relationship — five to thirty minutes of flirting would totally be enough to get me into bed with someone, it just has to be enough that I and they can establish that neither of us is going to be particularly noxious.

  50. Brian says:

    Whether or not it’s actually illegal, telling someone that you’re ogling them is a JACKASS move. The only possible reason I can think of for doing it is to deliberately make someone uncomfortable.

    Ogling itself is only okay insofar as you make sure it doesn’t make anyone uncomfortable.

  51. Shora says:

    Clarence:

    We’ve had this discussion before so I’m going to avoid engaging with you on what is an is not harassment. I do have a question though.

    Why are you so aggressive about this topic? What is it about reducing random women on the street to there looks that you feel the need to defend so vigorously? Why all of the contempt for the people who dislike comments about their appearance from strangers? Why defend so ardently the assumption that women’s bodies in public are at least in some way public property as well?

  52. Clarence says:

    Mary Beth:
    I’m probably much closer on being able to write a book on the argument about this stuff than you are. In short, I doubt you know very much about it, whereas I’ve done thing such as read “model” laws on this subject.
    Of course even if you did have something useful to say, throwing me in with the very worst of the street harassers just about guarantees I would not be open to hear you say it.

  53. Hugh Ristik says:

    Folks, could you please decide whether you are talking about ethics, or the law?

    Ethically, I’m against cat-calling, because it tends to make people uncomfortable. (A sincere approach or a nonsexual compliment is not cat-calling.) Some women do appreciate cat-calling, but I suspect the reaction if more likely to be negative.

    Legally, I believe that Clarence is right that in the US cat-calling is protected as free speech. Trying to ban it legally would be problematic from a civil liberties standpoint.

    If I understand Clarence correctly, he is defending the legality of cat-calling, not its ethics. (Nor is he saying that he does it, which is a rather bad faith assumption by some posters.) He is saying that it’s not sexual harassment in a legal sense (because sexual harassment law applies only in companies and schools), which is true.

    Clarence, do you believe that the forms of cat-calling you mention are ethical for men to use, or are you simply saying that they shouldn’t be illegal?

  54. Clarence says:

    Rachel:

    I’m not the one calling for laws (and possible violations of civil liberty) in order to police how women reject men who make passes at them. I haven’t said a darn thing about how a woman SHOULD act when she is whistled at or stared at or heck, downright catcalled. I realize that women have different reactions to the same thing from positive to negative. I’m not the one proposing either legislatively OR socially to regulate how women should act while they are on the street or what their feelings about my intentions and interests.

    That is what is being proposed in this thread. Legal and other coercions applied to men as to how WE may react verbally and non verbally when we find someone we are interested in for either personal or sexual reasons.

    And arguably, as I stood there, less than 500 feet away from the main police station in Baltimore city with a gun shoved in my face, I think I quite literally knew what it felt like to have my body “belong” to someone else.

  55. Shora says:

    For clarification; I don’t believe in legislating verbal harassment on the street. As well as the sticky constitutional issues it would just be worthless.

    I would just like it if we as a society agreed that it’s not okay to see a girl in a dress walking along a street, crying, and decide that that moment would be an awesome time to drive along side her and call out “hey baby, how YOU doin” and whatever (true story).

  56. Clarence says:

    Shora:

    My point is rather simple and can be divided into two parts:
    A. What is sexually offensive is relative to the woman involved
    B. One does not have the right to go out in public and not be offended, esp. as its rather easy to see that there is someone, somewhere, who will take offense to just about anything.
    I’d farther maintain that laws that try to make it a crime to offend people in a sexual manner in public are fraught with several perils such as :
    1. Constitutional viability.
    2. Effectiveness would be rather low: often the more behavior they would take in, the harder it would be to get all the violators.
    3. Subject to issues with false reporting.
    4. Morally offensive to me in that “mens reas” does not apply since they are based on subjective impressions.
    5. And my fifth argument would be that the Police have better things to do and worry about, as they don’t seem to particularly be very good at actually defending people.

  57. Clarence says:

    Shora:

    I just saw your latest. I think we can agree on that. Everything I’ve defended is, at least partly, context dependent.

  58. Clarence says:

    Hugh:
    I am merely saying that downright cat calling shouldn’t be illegal or , at least, I can’t think of how to make it illegal in a fair, constitutional, and consistent manner. Obviously it’s not ethical. Who, except a jerk or group of jerks wants to cause a woman to be scared or cry or get her angry for no reason other than enjoyment(BDSM scenes excluded of course)?

  59. xevv says:

    Ok, I’m starting to wonder if Clarence is actually a troll.

    The social experiment:
    “I was partly deliberately being a hard-ass on this subject in order to see if anyone could make reasoned arguments based on fact.”

    The ‘your disagreeing with me is a personal attack, and also you’re all stupid, and also it’s not my responsibility to express myself clearly’ line:

    “So far the commenters on this thread don’t seem to know very much about this subject, haven’t given the implications of legislation concerning it much thought, and prefer to do things like launch personal attacks based on accidentally misused phrases.”

    The HYSTERICAL free-speech whining when one or two people say sexual harassment is illegal in some states (whether it is or isn’t is debatable, it’s rarely if ever enforced and the law is open enough on harassment in the street that you could make a case for it. But of course, whether it’s illegal or not, you’re still a grade-a douchebag for engaging in it):

    “I forgot. The subject isn’t about “asking” me. It’s requiring me by force of law (whether civil, criminal, or both) to try to ever avoid offending anyone on the street with my sexual attentions or even simple attractions. Of course such laws have no costs in terms of civil liberties, false accusations, lack of mens-rea (guilty mind) requirements and diversion of police effort – how dare I be against laws that make sure no one is ever sexually offended.
    You guys can call me a Nazi now.” Ooh, a Nazi reference. Zing!

    The ‘how dare you read into what I’m saying and accuse me of sexually harassing women on the street, this is my little social experiment, remember? I can just defend asshole behavior on principle! I don’t catcall! But also, I can make huge assumptions about the other commenters and make a complete jackass of myself by saying I’ve read books and stuff and claim to know waaaaaay more about the subject than you do so I’m right and you’re wrong.”

    “Mary Beth:
    I’m probably much closer on being able to write a book on the argument about this stuff than you are. In short, I doubt you know very much about it, whereas I’ve done thing such as read “model” laws on this subject.
    Of course even if you did have something useful to say, throwing me in with the very worst of the street harassers just about guarantees I would not be open to hear you say it.” Class out the ass, Clarence.

    The “yeah, yeah, I know all about what a bunch of wet-blanket women are complaining about on that other blog, there were like three women I didn’t agree with on there so basically I’m right about everything.”

    “Now , when one goes to the Hollaback site one sees some pretty horrible stories, some of which arguably, could be addressed under other laws already. But then one also sees some stories that make one wonder about the mental health of those who post them”

    The derailing, “I suffer just as much, if not more, that supposedly less privileged people so I know all about what it’s like to be those people, and I gotta say, you’re all being a bunch of sissies.”

    “I’ve been randomly street attacked 3 times in my life, and had an armed robbery done to me once. I still leave my house every day.”

    The “not being a creepy jackass would infringe on my comforting sense of entitlement, and it’s up to everyone else to give me the space I need to be a creepy jack ass, rather than owning up to the fact that my behavior is disgraceful and changing it.”

    “I am not responsible for your internal feelings of comfort or discomfort, and the same thing that one woman may like another may not. I am also not about to police myself to the extent you seem to regard as optimal for you. ”

    And then making it into a discussion about the criminalization of harassment (not what we’re talking about here) and basically denying you’ve said the majority of irrational stupid bullshit you’ve just said in an effort to cover your ass. And while maintaining a smug sense of superiority the whole time. How do you do it, Clarence? How are you able to take a thing as large as your own head, and shove it so far up your ass?

    Mod note: we try not to say “crazy” here, because that’s ableist.

  60. xevv says:

    And for the record, Clarence? Saying “nice ass” three times in your life to a lady on the street (oh, to women who look like hookers! So they are tooootally asking for it, amirite?) is three times more than any decent man I have ever known has said it. Gentlemen just don’t feel the need to engage women in that way, because they know that they are charming and courteous enough to engage with women in appropriate ways and benefit from their company afterwards. Only insecure men with a lot of misogynist convictions (like, slutty-looking women deserve to be treated like public property) need to make women on the street feel small in order to make themselves feel big. They also tend to think they are the ONLY ones who’ve catcalled that particular lady that day; they have no idea what it’s like to leave the house and every day be whistled at, catcalled, approached by strangers, followed, etc MULTIPLE times in one excursion.

    Honestly, who the fuck says “nice ass” to anyone? Who the hell really isn’t aware of how creepy and pathetic that is?

  61. Clarence, you may very well know much more about the law than I do, which is why I was only writing from the standpoint of etiquette, which I believe holds us to a higher standard of behavior than laws do. Also, I never assumed your behavior to be worse than the two examples I cited, which came from your own post defending them. Whistling or calling attention to a stranger’s appearance, whether meant as a compliment or not, are examples of loutish behavior. “The very worst of the street harassers”, as you describe them, are worse than louts, yes, but only in degree. I am truly sorry to know that you had to go through such a terrible experience as a violent mugging. Using such experiences to rationalize or trivialize offensive behavior of a lesser degree doesn’t strengthen your argument, in my opinion, and is beneath your intelligence.

  62. Clarence says:

    Xevv:

    I will give you a hint:
    Notice how I mentioned “clubs” in a nearby part of the paragraph?
    Notice also that in and near clubs are lots of women “dressed to impress” as they would tell you themselves.
    Lastly, consider that in and near clubs there is thing called “alcohol”.

    Your assumption that I’d just say that to any woman walking down the street or heck on her way to church is rather silly.

    Sorry, if 3 times in 40 years near clubs makes me a misogynistic pig.

  63. Brian says:

    @Hugh: I don’t think anybody is talking about the law here.

    And Clarence said outright some forms of catcalling were ethical in his first post about this. And strongly implied he’d done them, to boot:

    I don’t consider whistling, or a one-off complimentary comment to be sexual harassment, xevv. I also don’t much care to “police” my gaze. Notice I said “complimentary” comment, such as “hey babe”, or “you are looking beautiful”, or at the worst, “nice ass”.

    And as it turned out he had done some of them.

    @Clarence: Drunkeness doesn’t matter. I’d think that one ought to be obvious at least.

    Neither does attempts to get sexual attention. They’re not necessarily attempts to get sexual attention from you. Why does everyone assume that a woman dressed sexily is dressed sexily for the sake of every man who sees her?

  64. Clarence says:

    Brian:
    That argument is stupid.
    Does the woman have a sign on her saying WHO she is trying to get sexual attention from?
    Seriously, you can do better than that.

  65. ozymandias42 says:

    Clarence, xevv, I’ve trashed posts that contain insults from both of you. Argue politely or don’t argue at all.

  66. Clarence says:

    Ozy:
    It’s one thing to trash posts containing insults. It’s another entirely to trash a post that was in response to Brian that did NOT contain an insult.
    What gives?

  67. Pablo says:

    A couple things struck me about that post even before he got the the main point. #1 Using “co-ed” as a noun meaning “female student”, is frightfully outdated. #2 Any time I hear about people “struggling with pornography”, alarm bells go off in my head. I don’t want to deny the panoply of human experience, but in my own experience, people who use that turn of phrase are invariably coming to the issue from a very unproductive perspective. Basically it means they enjoy porn, but think it (and possibly sex in general) is evil. So of course after those two warnings, I was not at all surprised to hear him go on to say something stupid and insulting to both men and women.

  68. Seriously, Clarence?

    “Does the woman have a sign on her saying WHO she is trying to get sexual attention from?”

    …otherwise, by whatever subjective criteria you use to label clothing, makeup and accessories as provocative, she is implicitly inviting comments from all and sundry, thereby absolving them and you from all responsibility to zip it. (I mean refrain from comment, but the same tired rationalization has been used right on down the line to rape).

    And here you almost had me convinced that all your reading made you an expert.

  69. Shora says:

    Aight y’all. Backing up ozy here and saying we ALL need to tone this discussion down several notches. (yes this is including myself). As well as being off topic, this discussion is getting poisonous, so lets all calm down and maybe start talking about the subject of the OP?

  70. I apologize for the last sentence of my last comment. Snideness has no place in a serious discussion.

  71. ozymandias42 says:

    Sorry, Clarence, that post got lost in the shuffle. Should be up now.

  72. Brian says:

    Does the woman have a sign on her saying WHO she is trying to get sexual attention from?

    Does she have a sign on her saying she wants sexual attention from you?

    Again, the assumption that because she wants sexual attention from somebody she must want sexual attention from you specifically IS an assumption. You don’t have to assume it. You can and should treat women in revealing clothing the same way you’d treat any other woman.

    (Also what Mary said.)

  73. Clarence says:

    Brian:
    What if she just wants sexual attention in general?
    Hmm?

  74. Clarence says:

    I also just love the mis-use of “subjective”.
    By that criteria any undergarments I pull up from Victoria’s Secret -well, it’s only an ASSUMPTION they are not meant to be sexual.
    And if 99 men out of a hundred would call a particular style of dress “revealing”, well, it’s still just “subjective” and clothing that the vast majority of women would use when they wanted to “flash their bootay” can be handwaved out of existence.

    Nope.
    Also, I don’t have a duty to “zip it” in public.

  75. Rae says:

    So, I notice that a couple of people (Clarence and EasilyEnthused) have chosen to get really legalistic about the concept of harassment. I think this is because you are thinking from the following perspective:

    You are minding your own business until somebody accuses you of a heinous sexual offence. If you do not clear your name definitively, something bad will happen to you: either you’ll get in legal trouble, or you’ll suffer serious bullying and social ostracism. The people around you are making you feel off-guard and uncomfortable; you suspect that they are trying to establish their own social superiority. They are extremely concerned with monitoring you and your behaviour.

    This is not how it looks from perspective of people who are used to being victims of sexual harassment (mostly women, but I think there are complications having to do with physical appearance and gender presentation). From my perspective, sexual harassment looks like this. (I think this experience is sadly common among women, by the way):

    You are minding your own business when some guy approaches you and starts talking to you. Something about him is a little weird, but you don’t want to be rude, so you say hello. His questions get more and more personal–he’s asking where you work, where you hang out, whether you like to watch porn… and he seems to be following you as you walk. You suddenly realise there’s nobody else around, and he’s a lot bigger than you. You feel nervous; you start giving polite but curt responses in an attempt to discourage the guy without pissing him off. He seems to be be getting pissed off anyway. Now he’s swearing at you, really loudly! In theory, you could punch him, but he’s a lot bigger than you, and he seems unstable. You increase your pace, but so does he. You were headed home, but you’re not sure you want this guy knowing where you live. You bolt around the corner, and fortunately there’s a public library there, and you duck in. He doesn’t follow you in, but he does wait outside. You are not sure if you should say anything to the librarian, so you just step into the fiction section and spend some time reading. When you leave, he is gone.

    Now imagine that this scenario plays itself out again and again on a regular basis, each time with a different man. If you are not polite and submissive, the men sometimes go away, sometimes they insult you verbally, and sometimes they threaten you or grab you physically. When they get insulting, they often yell about how they weren’t doing anything wrong, and why do you have to be so rude? In good cases, the scenario stops at an early stage; in bad cases, it plays out even longer, with stalking and sexual assault. The good cases are more common than the bad cases, but you never know.

    I would like you to consider thoroughly what the second perspective feels like from the inside. This is where many of the people you’re talking to are coming from. (I believe that there are people who try to assert their superiority by portraying men as sexual predators, but that is not what I see going on here at all.)

    Talking about which specific behaviours are forbidden by some set of legal rules is thinking according to the first perspective. From the second perspective, the question is empirical: “What signals tend to be present at the beginning of frightening social interactions, and how can I avoid sending those signals?”

  76. Rachel says:

    Rae is now my co-Hero of the Day.

  77. xevv says:

    Brian:
    What if she just wants sexual attention in general?
    Hmm?

    What were you saying earlier about making assumptions? It’s not good form to accuse others of making them and then absolving yourself of looking like a jerk when you make them about others.

    The idea of girls wanting the kind of sexual attention you seem to be willing to give is about as laughable in most cases as assuming girls on dating sites want to see pictures of your penis. I suggest you own your actions—this is not about them wanting sexual attention and you being SO kind as to provide them with it, this is about you wanting sexual attention from women without the social presence of mind to get it without being a creep.

    We were talking about street harassment, so it’s not really fair for you to say “i’ve said nice ass to a lady” and then get offended when we assume you meant on the street. In fact that seems like pretty blatant trolling behavior. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to include the detail “in a club” in the first place?

    I agree with what Rae is saying—you *seem* to be coming at this from the perspective of someone who doesn’t have much understanding or sympathy for the victims of sexual harassment. You seem to be protesting quite a bit when the simple, simple solution is to be respectful to strangers no matter what they’re wearing. The more you protest, the more I tend to suspect you do come off as a creep in real life, and your “compliments” don’t come off as compliments at all.

  78. Brian says:

    What if she just wants sexual attention in general?

    Very few women ever truly want sexual attention “in general”. If you don’t believe me, how do you think most women would feel about a 70-year-old man catcalling at them? (If you don’t know, how would you feel if a 70-year-old woman yelled “nice ass” at you?)

    Similar to men, women are mainly interested in sexual attention from people they’re attracted to. And similar to men, sexual attention from people who you’re not interested in is always uncomfortable.

  79. typhonblue says:

    “I think this experience is sadly common among women, by the way”

    Welp. I guess that’s another way I’m gender non-normative.

    Never had that happen to me once.

    So in all this, where’s the room for taking about how women can respect men sexually?

  80. TomeWyrm says:

    Wow, Goodwin’s Law!

    I don’t know, if you replaced “pornography” with “alcoholism” and “bathing suit” with “cocktail”, I see the poster’s point. Would YOU post a picture of yourself enjoying a beer if you knew that an alcoholic would see it? Your profile picture is NOT the same as a photo in your album somewhere, lots of people will probably see it. You can be addicted to anything, I’m rather fond of the shorthand definition of “Your pursuit of it is negatively impacting your life”.

    If you were a counselor that worked with alcoholics, don’t you think seeing booze in public places like a profile pic would be distressing? If you worked with suicide victims, would not a picture of someone cutting themselves (like for a tasteless haloween costume) distress you?

    The argument surrounding women’s clothing, and the comments they elicit, annoys me. Both sides are jumping to conclusions and assuming nasty things about the other. Both in arguments and out in life. Women your clothing has socially accepted meanings. Men, the women worry about you being a rapist. Both sides of the equation suck.

  81. Clarence says:

    Xevv:
    First to repeat part of an earlier post because you just can’t get enough of accusing me of not even adding that I was talking about clubs in the post in question:

    Xevv:

    I will give you a hint:
    Notice how I mentioned “clubs” in a nearby part of the paragraph?
    Notice also that in and near clubs are lots of women “dressed to impress” as they would tell you themselves.
    Lastly, consider that in and near clubs there is thing called “alcohol”.

    When I specifically use a term in the context of a few sentences talking about “clubbing” you may IGNORE It. You may not take my behavior at or around clubs and extrapolate it to the street. It is also appropriate to bring up clubs and such venues when we are talking about styles of dress, and what messages they send. I bet you, for example, dress different at work or church then you would in a club. What we can probably both agree on is that clothing sends messages in various contexts.

    Brian made a problematic assumption.
    Let me put it to you and him very bluntly: I do not have a right to approach a woman in WHATEVER manner and be assured she will not consider me a creep or a jerk. I have made no such complaint, it’s you that keeps assuming the worst behavior that you can imagine by me and bringing up “creep” and “jerk” as personal insults. Might I also add I have never sent someone a picture of my penis that I was not in a relationship with, but thank you for bringing up that up as well. Anything else creepy or nasty you want to associate me with?

    Guess what? I don’t have the right to go outside my house and have my clothes and what messages they send not be judged by others, some of whom may very well misread my intent. I am also not the one ASKING to have such a right codified into some kind of law.

    I am not one who demands , as a matter of law, that I not be found to be a creep or a jerk. Since I have never demanded any such right, I’ll thank you to give me credit for taking responsibility for my actions, something I seem to think you and Brian are busy removing from women when it comes to taking care to consider what messages they might want to send in their choice of dress in various situations. Also will you both get off my “ethical” obligations? I am arguing about legal obligations. I may have more freedom legally in terms of behavior then I feel comfortable with in terms of my own ethical paradigm. But I will say that my ethics of approach does not make me 100 percent responsible for assuring that no one ever feels any discomfort. All I should do is try to minimize the likelihood of that interaction being unpleasant for us both, I cannot guarantee it will be that way, and indeed my approach is based on context such as location.

  82. Clarence says:

    Brian:
    Given that men do most of the approaching, and given the context that women sometimes very much do dress to impress when they want to be picked up by a guy (I’m sure Hugh could school you, quite frankly I find your denial of this absurd) in clubs and such places, I totally refuse to assume that all women are simply not going to like the slightest bit of sexual attention by me. It doesn’t match my real world experiences.

  83. typhonblue says:

    “So in all this, where’s the room for taking about how women can respect men sexually?”

    I mean all this conversation about how men’s super-sayin level nine omnipotent ultrapotent megapotent agency can DESTROY LIVES(single tear) is interesting and all (I lie, it’s a snoozefest), but how about we spare some room for taking about women’s agency?

    In other words how do women act upon men? And I don’t mean how women act upon men in order to punish or show men up for having girly-man agency, which is really just another way of talking about men’s agency(or lack of it).

  84. Clarence says:

    Thank you Tomewyrm.

    We certainly know that women consider us potential rapists. We get that message all the time.
    But pointing out that some clothing is considered “sexy” clothing and that one might get potentially unwanted attention from it, is considered the next thing to “rape apologism” as if :
    A. Women never do dress to show off their sexiness
    B. Looking and whistling is the same as following up the street, grabbing, insulting, or raping.

    It is rather ridiculous.

  85. Nope, didn’t misuse the word subjective. You defend your POV with what you consider blatantly sexual clothing, i.e. Victoria’s Secret underwear.

    “By that criteria any undergarments I pull up from Victoria’s Secret -well, it’s only an ASSUMPTION they are not meant to be sexual.” — Honestly, I wouldn’t assume what YOU mean when you pull up undergarments from Victoria’s Secret. Or take them off, for that matter. What I was actually alluding to in my post was the men who can read sexual signals in the most innocuous kinds of clothing, because that’s what they want to see. That is what I would call subjective objectification.
    As for whether you have a “public duty to zip it”: fine, Miss Manners gives up: go around proudly unzipped.

  86. Clarence says:

    Rae:
    I really, really appreciate the fact that you have tried to be fair and see this from both sides.
    That being said, the behaviors we are talking about here (whistles, looks, catcalls on the street or in clubs) do not come anywhere close to the severity of the situations you mentioned.

    Anyway, your final sentence is one I fully agree with.

  87. Clarence says:

    Mary Beth:
    I don’t think you know where “gentleman” came from or how it relates to “lady” I can assure you that dressing as one wants is not something a lady would do. Saying I should have the same standard of sexual politeness at a club as I do on the street, or on the street as I might in a church strikes me as totally two faced on top of being socially clueless.

  88. Clarence says:

    typhonblue:

    Thank you for bringing up women’s agency in all of this. Apparently even though we could link to show otherwise, no women ever dress for sexual titilation and of course they never like being whistled at, or complimented. Nope, not our feminist empowered sex positive ladies. Instead they wish to go around naked and not be stared at – at least not longer than 3 seconds. It is to weep.

  89. xevv says:

    “Nope, not our feminist empowered sex positive ladies. Instead they wish to go around naked and not be stared at – at least not longer than 3 seconds. ”

    Yeah, actually. I guess I’m just a big ol’ freak for thinking that’s ok.

    For the record, I actually don’t give a shit if men stare at me. I’d prefer that if they wanted to look, they do so discretely—guys, it’s not that hard, I do it all the time. For hours. What I don’t like is strangers commenting on me verbally. It’s alienating and makes me feel like I don’t have the right to just go about my day and be left alone. Again, guess I’m just a big ol’ freak for expecting better.

  90. typhonblue says:

    @Mary Beth Loup

    “Nope, didn’t misuse the word subjective. You defend your POV with what you consider blatantly sexual clothing, i.e. Victoria’s Secret underwear.”

    How about this? What would you consider ‘blatantly sexual clothing’ if a male co-worker had a calendar of women posing while wearing said clothing up on his wall?

  91. TomeWyrm says:

    Clarence, the sarcastic smart-assery is not appreciated.

    I do see the ridiculousness of point A, but point B is a matter of degree, and escalation. People that follow on the street, grab, insult, and rape? They start out by giving unwanted compliments. Personally I think it’s taking it too far to react confrontationally to something like that. It’s also likely to escalate conflicts. Read some articles on http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/ if you want to know why I take that stance. Both parties in a fight think the other person started it, someone is obviously wrong.

    Someone has to rise above, and if you react angrily to something that another person meant to be a compliment, you’re just antagonizing them. Why not be the better person, take it with a smile, and move on? You don’t have to completely ignore them, I keep a little bit of attention on anyone doing something that could put them in an advantageous position for assault in any area where that might happen. Roads, elevators, parking lots. Pretty much anywhere there’s not a lot of people nearby.

    Besides, I want to be able to go around shirtless without getting people yelling at me to put a shirt on, making retching noises, and fake-vomiting. I would much prefer unwanted sexual attention to outright revulsion. I’m male, so maybe that says something. Instead of yelling and people who do stuff like that, I wear a shirt in public. My shirtless appearance elicits unwanted attention from the public, so I don’t go shirtless in public. Is that limiting my freedoms? Yep. Do I care much? Nope. I’m invading SHARED space with something they find objectionable, it’s infinitely easier to simply avoid confrontation than deal with it when it happens. Notice some parallels between my situation and the “sexy clothes” scenarios put forth in this thread?

    Why do some of you feel the need to poke at people instead of avoiding confrontation?

  92. typhonblue says:

    @ xevv

    “Again, guess I’m just a big ol’ freak for expecting better.”

    Unless you want to take away people’s right to free speech then I don’t see how you can ‘expect better’.

    There be douches. Every species has them. Giving government the power to police non-physical douchebaggery is a recipe for tyranny.

    The government isn’t your daddy. The government is a fucking police state just waiting to happen. (Correction: waiting to get even worse.)

  93. TomeWyrm says:

    I mean out on the street, and such. In real situations.
    Not arguments on the internet.
    Stating your opinion in a public forum is inviting debate and sometimes conflict.

  94. Clarence says:

    TomeWyrm:
    You misread me completely. I was agreeing with you, or so I thought.

  95. typhonblue says:

    @TomeWyrm

    “Besides, I want to be able to go around shirtless without getting people yelling at me to put a shirt on, making retching noises, and fake-vomiting. I would much prefer unwanted sexual attention to outright revulsion.”

    Actually that was what I was thinking. It’s not like men don’t get these awful comments either when they wear certain types of clothing. Bicyclists get them when they wear those tight shorts. Men who don’t have six-packs get them when they don’t wear shirts. Any guy gets them when they wear something too bright, too see-through, too ‘I think of myself as something worth looking at’ ish.

    How do we stop all this human judgementalism?

  96. xevv says:

    The government isn’t your daddy. The government is a fucking police state just waiting to happen. (Correction: waiting to get even worse.)

    Woah, Typhonblue. Calm down. Chill. Relax. I wasn’t saying I expect the government to make it illegal.

    What I expect is for, when douchebaggery happens, I can call that guy on it without everyone jumping down my throat screaming “police state” and accusing me of “just asking for it” and that I should “just deal”.

  97. Clarence says:

    Xevv:

    I fail to see where I policing YOUR reactions and actions. I have been reacting to what I perceive as attempts to police mine in an almost totally subjective area of human relations according to ALL of you.

  98. typhonblue says:

    @ Xevv

    Um. Where did I say you couldn’t call the guy out on it?

    And clothing choices have consequences. Because clothing choices send messages.

    After all if a coworker of yours wore a tie depicting a woman in certain types clothing and was reprimanded for ‘creating a hostile work environment’ would anyone accept ‘well *I* didn’t intend it to be seen as sexual’ as a defence? If someone told him he was ‘asking to be punished’ for it, would anyone disagree? And if he said ‘but it’s just my right to free expression’ and someone said ‘just deal with it, your clothing choices have consequences’ whose side would you be on?

  99. Clarence, your post makes a lot of assumptions. Skipping over the semantics, I never said anything about behavior in clubs, you’re the one who keeps bringing them up. The issue was brought up by Brian as to whether women in whatever setting who dress in a sexually alluring way (and I’m perfectly willing to assume that we agree that it is “blatantly sexual”)–whether or not their choice in clothing confers on you the right to assume they want your attention. I’ve never frequented clubs but I’ve led a life of social interaction on many levels in several countries, so I believe I can say from experience that treating everyone with the same level of respect in every setting is the best way to avoid social cluelessness in any setting, clubs included.

    Typhonblue, thank you for asking. If a male co-worker had such a calendar I probably wouldn’t notice it, no matter how blatantly sexual the clothing or the posing. But that is because I used to work in the Copyright Office, where one of my duties was to catalog all manner of porn magazines that came in for copyright registration. When I started in 1975 that was just considered part of the job description, and it got boring very quickly. Over time there were complaints about having to handle porn (and I suspect that deposits were disappearing), so the policy changed: it was locked up and only supervisors would clear it.

  100. typhonblue says:

    @ Mary Beth Loup

    “The issue was brought up by Brian as to whether women in whatever setting who dress in a sexually alluring way (and I’m perfectly willing to assume that we agree that it is “blatantly sexual”)–whether or not their choice in clothing confers on you the right to assume they want your attention.”

    What does ‘confer the right to assume they want your attention’ mean? That Clarence shouldn’t go up to them and try to strike up a conversation? Is there a difference between assuming that they _might_ want attention and that they do?

    “Typhonblue, thank you for asking.”

    If a female coworker came up to you complaining about a calendar depicting women, at what level of undress would you consider their clothing to be ‘blatantly sexual’ and thus support her in any complaints to management?

  101. xevv says:

    Isn’t “strike up a conversation” a lot different from saying “nice ass”? In a club, if a guy I’m not attracted to comes over and offers to buy me a drink or ask me if I come there often etc., I feel like I’m being treated with respect even though his intentions to try and hook up with me might be obvious. Coming over, looking me up and down, and just saying “nice ass” as a conversation starter makes me feel like….this guy is not worth my time and is probably a creep.

    Coming to a blog, and with several other people (men and women) asking a few guys to *please* consider our feelings and keep their sexual comments to themselves while out on the street is hardly “policing”….if you insist that actions have consequences, then if you act like a jerk you’re bound to face ostracism at some point. If you’re ok with that, act like it.

    Also, an interesting point—when I leave the house alone I get harassed and catcalled about thirty percent of the time. It never happens when I’m with my boyfriend. I get followed, I get men old enough to be my grandfather pestering me for personal information and then asking me out while I’m in the library or eating at a diner by myself, I get men just demanding that I stop and talk to them about my sex life. I even get groped sometimes! But on the whole it’s mostly creepy guys and their “compliments”. And what am I wearing? A long tunic that sometimes exposes a shoulder, long pants, and flat walking boots. My wardrobe rarely varies. I might look good in my clothes, but it’s not like I wear them HOPING someone will infer that I actually want to have lots of casual sex with every man I see. So why am I getting so much attention? At this point I can only assume it’s because the men who do it are cowards who can’t treat women like people, and get a thrill out of putting me in my place for daring to leave the house unchaperoned by the man who has a claim to me.

    Please, feel free to mansplain to me how wrong I am.

  102. TomeWyrm says:

    Right, sorry Clarence. You were agreeing with me. Slight matter of differing perceptions, but that one isn’t really important.

    @xevv
    What I take offense to, personally, is your over-broad definition of douchebaggery. I don’t see complimenting a woman on her appearance in public to be douchebaggery or verbal assault or a predictor that he’s going to rape.

    Persistence in ignoring the signs and warnings that you’re not interested? Yeah. That’s being a jerkass. But what I read when I see the kind of argument that you are putting forth is “He said the blouse made me look good! HE’S A RAPIST! BE AFRAID” A compliment, followed by an overreaction to that compliment.

    @typhonblue
    “These awful comments” aren’t that awful to me. Being seen as a being that both has sexual desires and is sexually desirable is a personal goal. I’m unable to personally relate to the issue in any way but abstractly or via another issue. (I’m a bit beyond “doesn’t have a six pack”, I don’t really begrudge people’s lack of desire to see my shirtless self. I don’t want to see my shirtless self, so how can I condemn them for it?)

    Oh wait, all the undesired opinions? I don’t think it’s possible to stifle the opinions themselves, and I wouldn’t want to if I could. But a return of common courtesy, and simple empathy and understanding would probably go a long way into mitigating the unwitting offenders.

  103. Just want to point out: even if a person-attracted-to-ladies-in-bikinis DID mentally objectify the women in the picture, there is a BIG LONG ROAD between looking at a picture and saying “wow, hot ladiez” and doing anything that may make those ladies uncomfortable. If the viewer didn’t know the ladies in the picture, it might be difficult to avoid objectification, since zie doesn’t know them, but going from “wow hot picture!” to messaging them with “sexy bikini, i’d love to fuck you” is something else. I don’t mind that some people may objectify me in their heads, but I don’t want to have to deal with it in any way.

    Also, I don’t know too many people, male or female, who, upon meeting someone whose hot picture they have seen, would continue to fantisize about zie if zie proves to be stupid, ignorant, or totally boring. Personification in practice!

  104. xevv says:

    @tomewyrm woah wait, where did I say anything about accusing guys of being rapists?

    And actually, I don’t over react. When men approach me on the street, even to give me an innocent compliment, I try to avoid confrontation and usually pray they just leave me alone. Many of my female friends react the same way.

    I don’t care what a stranger is saying to me. He’s a stranger. I want to be left alone. The previous statement has nothing to do with the probability that he will rape me. It’s simply about the freedom to be left. the hell. alone.

  105. MaMu1977 says:

    @Brian

    When a 68 year old women commented on my strong arms (hint: they’re not especially big or solid with muscles), followed me to a bathroom and then yelled that she still “had some fire in her boiler” as I left the pub, I didn’t accuse her of sexual harassment. That’s the difference. Although I would never catcall or physically harass a strange woman (or person, ad I received a marriage proposal from a man once, when we crossed each other in walking), I’d not consider sexual harassment. That’s just people being assholes.

    When I worked with a woman who flat-out told me that she was going to fuck me before I deployed, that was sexual harassment.
    When I had a woman follow me across a 250-kilometer span (to the point of being confronted by her children in areas that were hours away from our shared station), that was sexual harassment.
    When I went to work and had a woman escort me to a secluded area and grab my groin because “Black guys don’t care who give them the pussy.”, that’s sexual harassment.

    Although I can sympathise with women receiving come-ons from douchebag dudes, it isn’t the same as being sized up (genitally) by a 13 year old girl so that she can (and did) report the findings to her mother. Unless you’re going to undergo a total revocation of current male-female sexual response reaction, teasing us with, “But,but telling me that my buttocks are hot is equivalent to rape!!” and expecting people (of any gender) to have a sea change in generic human sexual response isn’t cool. Otherwise, I hear someone complaining about ghetto (low-class) men while ignoring entitled (non low-class) women. Catcalls from guys can be solved by ignoring, answering back (you’d be surprised at how easily a comment at how catcaller No.1 “couldn’t handle this stuff” would shut them up) or calling 911. Catcalls from women usually involve you saying “No”, then.learning that you don’t get to test for promotion because the women who were turned down had the “Any guy who I offered pussy should be HONORED to get the invitation, so fuck his dreams! Doesn’t he know that he isn’t good enough to get pussy from anyone else but ME_!!”) complex. Or, of course, getting punched into unconsciousness in the street by the catcaller and her friends.

    Once again, this site keeps on tossing me “Hey, didn’t you just deal with this yesterday?”, questions.

  106. typhonblue says:

    @ xevv

    “So why am I getting so much attention? At this point I can only assume it’s because the men who do it are cowards who can’t treat women like people, and get a thrill out of putting me in my place for daring to leave the house unchaperoned by the man who has a claim to me.”

    So not my experience. Compared to you I’ve gone out in stripperiffic clothes and not had a single man approach me once. In fact I don’t even notice stares; the few guys I catch looking seem to glance down at their feet immediately and look ashamed(?)

    The last time anyone commented on my clothing was a friend of mine who suggested my (quite) short shorts were gathering too much attention. (I was wearing them due to the weather; I have a sensitivity to heat.) Attention that I never really noticed. I stopped wearing them because they seemed to make her feel uncomfortable.

    I have never actually experienced feeling harassed or stalked. Or even approached.

    Either I’m ugly as sin or something nefarious is afoot. Perhaps it’s my fetishistic cultivation of my agency and refusal to embrace any bullshit that lessens it.

    “Please, feel free to mansplain to me how wrong I am.”

    Well I can’t mansplain, not being a man. But mayhap I can femsplain. (Dismissive, derogatory term noted.)

    Since we’re both female our likely very different receptions probably have a lot more to do with how we present ourselves, respectively.

    I’m, apparently according to several sources, intimidating. However if you’re not into terrifying people into leaving you alone, perhaps you could try changing your expectations. I know a woman with similar experiences to yours who simply decided to stop assuming all men were out to get her and start assuming that men were decent, kind and gentle. Overnight she discovered that what she expected she got.

  107. @typhonblue, others have said it better than I, but to answer your first question, I don’t think anyone has the right to ASSUME that another’s clothing or lack of it implies availability, even if only for conversation. I’m talking in human terms, not legalistic ones.
    To your second question, I had used the term “blatantly sexual” to describe Clarence’s view of provocative clothing. I would not base my decision to support a colleague’s complaint on the level of clothing displayed in a calendar but rather on whether the owner of the calendar leverages it for any kind of power play over others. And that kind of behavior doesn’t require sexually explicit material; an office bully could just as easily torment a cat-phobic co-worker with a calendar of kittens.

  108. typhonblue says:

    @ Mary Beth Loup

    “I would not base my decision to support a colleague’s complaint on the level of clothing displayed in a calendar but rather on whether the owner of the calendar leverages it for any kind of power play over others. ”

    Interesting. Would you extend that also to clothing choice?

  109. typhonblue says:

    @ Mary Beth Loup

    “I don’t think anyone has the right to ASSUME that another’s clothing or lack of it implies availability, even if only for conversation.”

    So men should not approach women ever? How about women approaching men? After all a man is not indicating by his choice of dress or his presence at any locale that he wishes to be approached by a woman.

    I’d love to see how women would react if men, en masse, stop responding to the signals they put out. Of course, you’re saying they’re not signals at all. I’m guessing women dress up the way they do to impress their friends?

    Anyway, it could happen. Men have done stranger things to demonstrate their manhood; you just have to tie manhood to ignoring women in public. Sounds easier then stuffing your hand in a vat of fire ants; or suspending yourself from hooks; or bungie jumping with a length of vine.

    I don’t get any portion of my self esteem from wearing silly ass shit in public to get attention, so it’s not going to affect me.

  110. Hugh Ristik says:

    Most people here are still talking past each other, because some people are talking about what should be legal, and others are talking about what should be ethical.

    @Clarence

    I am merely saying that downright cat calling shouldn’t be illegal or , at least, I can’t think of how to make it illegal in a fair, constitutional, and consistent manner. Obviously it’s not ethical. Who, except a jerk or group of jerks wants to cause a woman to be scared or cry or get her angry for no reason other than enjoyment(BDSM scenes excluded of course)?

    That’s what I thought, However, it does appear that some people interpreted your comments as comments as being about ethics:

    Some of this attention may be unwanted but provided they are not physically or verbally attacked, one has to deal.

    In a moral sense, people should not have to deal with cat-calling, because in a moral sense, nobody should be cat-calling them. I think people read you as saying that women have no moral objections to cat-calling. Whereas I think you meant “has to deal” in a legal sense: women should not be able to call the police on cat-callers.

    Clarence, I understand that you are frustrated in this thread. It’s mega-gross that some of the posters here are talking to you like you are the last guy who followed them around on the street. Shame on them.

    But remember that this is a feminist blog, where (a) it’s easy for people to get triggery about cat-calling and street harassment, and (b) people don’t have enough background in civil liberties to understand what you are so pissed off about (e.g. they don’t know about the destruction of civil liberties on college campuses by sexual harassment codes).

    Your expectations are too high. Telling people they are uneducated and don’t know what they are talking about isn’t really constructive, and will bias them against receiving the education they need in the future. As a practical matter, more disclaimers would be helpful in getting your point across, and dispelling predictable misinterpretations.

  111. xevv says:

    @typhonblue While I do respect your experiences, and am truly happy you have never felt harassed, I find your blaming my attitude and presentation rather condescending and dismissive in itself. You don’t know me, or what I have to deal with. You also have no idea how I present and you haven’t yourself witnessed the harassment I deal with or how I process it. Our different experiences could be due to any number of factors, including location.

    I’ve been a perv magnet since the age of 8. I’ve been in very dangerous situations since I was a child, and now that I’m an adult I just want to be left alone. That in itself should be enough justification to expect it. I don’t get mad at “you look nice”, but I do spend every minute of that time looking for a way out. I don’t doubt that a lot of men were raised to give compliments innocently. But often I get cornered by men who know I can’t leave without causing a great deal of disturbance or inconvenience, and I have been socialized to be non-confrontational (which I’m working on). This reflects the experiences of nearly all my friends throughout life, and somehow I doubt a mere change in my own attitude is the solution to this problem.

  112. typhonblue says:

    @ Hugh

    “It’s mega-gross that some of the posters here are talking to you like you are the last guy who followed them around on the street. Shame on them.”

    It’s more then mega gross, it’s just about the level of _street harassment_ rudeness as far as I’m concerned. Sort of like insinuating a black person is a mugger if he challenges white people who are afraid of black people.

  113. @typhonblue, do you mean clothing choice in an office setting? It would be better to ask people who currently work in offices how these issues are resolved. I personally think that a corporate culture that cultivates a professional code of conduct will find people dressing to a higher level of expectations than an office that tries to enforce a rigid dress code. That’s the best my sleepy brain can come up with.

  114. Hugh Ristik says:

    @Rae,

    Thanks for providing your story of a typical harassment scenario. I receive street harassment, and I know that it can be uncomfortable and scary.

    So, I notice that a couple of people (Clarence and EasilyEnthused) have chosen to get really legalistic about the concept of harassment.

    Yes. Do you understand why? The reason is that there are people out there who want to create sexual harassment laws that would destroy civil liberties. In many colleges, this has already happened due to sexual harassment policies.

    Some men get massively triggery about the idea that sincere approaches that at least some women enjoy could be made illegal… especially since they are expected to approach. Many men don’t like the idea that they could be punished for a sincere advance just because a woman turn out to not want their attention; being unattractive and making an advance should not be a crime. This is not theoretical or conceptual. It’s already happening.

    For example, check out the harassment policies at Kansas State University (emphases mine).

    Persons having a formal association with any of our state educational institutions shall not use profane or vulgar language in a threatening or disruptive manner or engage in a rude or challenging behavior in or upon any of the institutional properties, including residence halls and organized living groups.

    “Vulgar language” is banned?

    Hostile environment sexual harassment can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or other conduct of a sexual nature or disparaging comments that is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive to have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or learning or creating an intimidating, hostile, abusive or offensive work or learning environment. This includes:

    1. Gender harassment: generalized sexist statements and behavior that convey insulting or degrading attitudes about women. Examples include insulting remarks, offensive graffiti, whistling at someone, cat calls, obscene jokes or humor about sex or women in general.

    “Humor about sex or women in general” is banned? That’s awfully broad. Of course, notice that insulting attitudes about men are just fine, according to this policy.

    Sex-related comments or gestures: comments or gestures with sexual content or sexual implications: Examples include sexual teasing, jokes, remarks or questions, personal questions about sexual life, kissing sounds, howling and smacking lips, simulating sexual acts, facial expressions, winking, throwing kisses or licking lips, spreading rumors or telling lies about a person’s personal sex life or performance; touching oneself sexually or talking about one’s sexual activity in front of others; turning discussions to sexual topics, asking about sexual fantasies, preferences or history, making sexual gestures with hands or through body movements, staring, looking a person up and down (elevator eyes).

    Got that? “Sexual jokes” and “turning discussions to sexual topics” can be considered harassment. It’s difficult to imagine how people could go on a date at Kansas State without the risk of falling afoul of this policy. If you read NSWATM to someone out loud in your dorm, then someone overhearing you could accuse you of sexual harassment. While that is unlikely, a policy by which it is possible is deeply broken.

    Can everyone see how massively broad and second-wave these policies are? And that it’s impossible to enforce them fairly? The type of neo-second-wave feminist activists who write these policies would make laws the same way, if they could. That is what’s scary to many men (and women), and motivates legalistic talk. In contrast, to some people, women’s discomfort from harassment seems like the most important topic, since they aren’t aware of how some activists are trying to use women’s comfort to destroy civil liberties.

    @Shora

    Why are you so aggressive about this topic? What is it about reducing random women on the street to there looks that you feel the need to defend so vigorously?

    “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” —H. L. Mencken

  115. typhonblue says:

    @ xevv

    “I find your blaming my attitude and presentation rather condescending and dismissive in itself. ”

    I’m not blaming your attitude. I’m offering you a possible way of improving your situation. Do I know if it’ll work? No.

    Incidentally the friend that changed her situation was not just harrassed and catcalled but actually physically assaulted over a dozen times in the same metropolitan location that I was in.

    “This reflects the experiences of nearly all my friends throughout life, and somehow I doubt a mere change in my own attitude is the solution to this problem.”

    Of course not. It has to be the men who have all the agency.

  116. typhonblue says:

    @ Hugh

    “That is what’s scary to many men (and women), and motivates legalistic talk. In contrast, to some people, women’s discomfort from harassment seems like the most important topic, since they aren’t aware of how some activists are trying to use women’s comfort to destroy civil liberties.”

    Haha. Trying? Politicians are going to use women’s victimhood like a fleshlight to push whatever twisted anti-liberty agenda they can dream up. So some women don’t have to face street harassment people like me and other non-conformists will face police brutality instead.

    I don’t see how victim-pimping is any different then objectifying women, incidentally.

  117. Erik says:

    Hugh: You seem to have good intentions but I should add: it’s not easy for people here to get “triggery” about cat calling just here, just because it’s a feminist blog.

    Forget “triggers” altogether. People in general, of all genders do not like to be harassed by random assholes on the street in any way whatsoever. At best it’s annoying, at worst it can make one feel downright unsafe. Period. End of story.

    The rest of this argument is beside the point and ultimately boils down to very small men with poor relations with women trying to defend their right to be obnoxious about it. Nevermind coming off as blatant trolls.

  118. typhonblue says:

    @ Erik

    “Forget “triggers” altogether. People in general, of all genders do not like to be harassed by random assholes on the street in any way whatsoever. At best it’s annoying, at worst it can make one feel downright unsafe. Period.”

    I’ve been getting the impression that this conversation isn’t about ‘street harassment’ but about telling men they shouldn’t assume that women are ever ‘available’ to be spoken to. (Jeezus, shades of Victorian England.) In other words no man should ever approach a woman for conversation.

    If this also applies to women has yet to be clarified. I’m guessing not because *grand flourish* patriarchy.

  119. Clarence says:

    There is obviously a alot of “fill in the blanks” going on here.
    I mention I might have said “nice ass” 3 times in roughly ten years in the context of clubs, and it’s assumed i approach women with that. Golly gee, I must get thrown out of clubs a lot.

    I’ll admit that SOME of the arguments in the threads here have spoiled me. This particular thread, no, just a bunch of assumptions about me and how I MUST approach women. After all, I defend someone’s RIGHT to be a douche, I must be a douche myself. Heck if I did get drunk and yell “nice ass” at a woman in a tight skirt and low cut blouse near a club ONCE, clearly that means I do it ALL THE TIME and I do it in broad daylight, on the street , and to nuns. And clearly I don’t go up to girls and say “you have pretty eyes, and I liked how you made me laugh ” or something like that. No, no, too corny, and besides, not EVIL enough. Nope, I must obviously go around showing them pics of my penis on my celly and asking if they’d like to “try a taste”? Wow.
    I just became Evil Pickup Man on this thread.

    Instead, I’m really people to watch out what they wish for. They might just get it.

  120. Clarence says:

    I will also state and other people have picked up on this already:
    There is a blatant disconnect between how “sexual harassment ” law works in offices in terms of assumptions and how proposed “street harassment” laws would work, even though advocates for them, as one can see in this thread, call this stuff sexual harassment. In real life sexual harassment law, bikini pictures on someone’s desk have been considered evidence of sexual harassment. However when talking about “street harassment” we are to believe that bikinis say absolutely nothing in terms of sexual intent or availability no matter what the circumstance. In your typical office there is a “dress code” in part to show it is a professional setting. Typically, to avoid SH lawsuits and such any overtly revealing clothing is banned. Yet, once again, in terms of SH laws as currently conceived not only would I NOT be able to sue for a hostile public environment or something like that, but I’d be liable for sexually noticing this clothing in any way that is at all noticeable or perceived by someone else.

    The cognitive dissonance is mind-boggling.

  121. Hugh Ristik says:

    @Erik,

    Very well, let’s forget the word “triggers.” My perception of this thread is that people are reacting to Clarence’s words based on negative experiences they have had, and projecting them onto him, or thinking that he is justifying the harassment they received (when he is merely saying that it shouldn’t be illegal on the grounds of civil liberties). Here are some examples:

    @clarence: please don’t sexually harass women on the street.
    The end.

    Clarence, were you brought up or just fed? I’ve walked past clones of you on the street for over forty years. The “compliments” are no more varied than the facial expressions that accompany them: sneers or fatuous self-satisfaction. Well, what etiquette apparently failed to accomplish in your cases, feminism has taken on. So you must deal with people’s bad opinion of you expressed openly, rather than as in my youth, when we rolled our eyes and discusssed your loutish behavior behind closed doors…in the ladies’ rooms, where we held our informal feminist meetings.

    These comments were made before Clarence mentioned saying “nice butt” in a club environment 3 times. I don’t advise that sort of approach, because I think it’s most likely to make people uncomfortable, but I don’t think it should make Clarence into the bogeyman.

    Clarence. As someone who has received multiple types of what you consider to be compliments from all walks of life, I’d like to say: Please stop.

    The idea of girls wanting the kind of sexual attention you seem to be willing to give is about as laughable in most cases as assuming girls on dating sites want to see pictures of your penis.

    Clearly, there is something people in this thread are reacting to which is not about Clarence. In the ears of some people in the thread, his comments evoke the evil creepy guy who follows them on the street, and they feel the need to lecture him. These sorts of misinterpretations, assumptions, and accusations are not uncommon on feminist blogs when male posters attempt to join discussions about sexual laws and ethics.

    I’ve given my own lecture to Clarence about how his comments confused some people, and how he could use better disclaimers in the future so that people don’t mistake his ethical views.

    Mods, I would interested to know if the above quotes are acceptable on this blog. In discussions of sexual laws and ethics on feminist blogs, it’s common to see dissenting men get psychoanalyzed, lectured about appropriate sexual behavior and have their sexual history put on trial (analogous to the treatment dissenting women get at some of the worse MRA/PUA blogs). For example, male posters may get unfounded accusations of various forms of sexual misconduct, or be lectured in a way that assumes that they engage in that misconduct. I hope that behavior is not acceptable at NSWATM.

  122. Turning back to the original post even though the discussion has mainly been on street harassment, unpacking the idea of “sexual objectification” is worthwhile.

    It’s a concept that gets thrown around a lot in feminism, yet historically there’s been very little in the way of concrete definition of the concept. I give Ozymandias some big thumbs up for using an operational definition of “sexual objectification” that is basically sex-positive and does not condemn raw sexual attraction. This distinction, unfortunately, has not always been made, and I’ve seen several cases where feminist philosophers writing about the issue have condemned the raw impulse of seeing a stranger and immediately being attracted to them sexually. The mere act of feeling attraction to someone physically without knowledge of their inner self is held to be immoral under this view. If that’s the view that some (albeit mostly second-wave or radical) feminists view attraction, its no wonder they have such a freak-out over pornography.

    There’s a fairly comprehensive discussion of ideas about sexual objectification in these two articles over at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, albeit, I’ll note the second one, by Lina Papadaki, is somewhat biased toward an overly broad, sex-negative view of the subject (in particular, I’d take what she has to say about Alan Soble’s ideas with a grain of salt):

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-sex-markets/#SexObj
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/

    Interestingly, there are predecessors to the idea of sexual objectification going back to Kant, who used similar arguments to condemn any kind of sex outside of marriage.

    As to the experiment mentioned in the Feministe article, there’s a link to it here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/16/sex-object-photograph

    I remember reading about it a few years ago, and I take it with a certain grain of salt. First, experiments like this in general that are based on correlating functional MRI with behavior is very much in its infancy, and it isn’t very well worked out just what particular brain centers and neural pathways actually do. Talk about “object centers” in the brain is pretty speculative. Secondly, even if that was worked out, to extrapolate from a simple behavior like object manipulation to an abstract idea like “objectification” is a bit of a stretch.

  123. Brian says:

    Given that men do most of the approaching, and given the context that women sometimes very much do dress to impress when they want to be picked up by a guy (I’m sure Hugh could school you, quite frankly I find your denial of this absurd) in clubs and such places, I totally refuse to assume that all women are simply not going to like the slightest bit of sexual attention by me. It doesn’t match my real world experiences.

    Oh dear, are you moving the goalposts.

    I’m not saying that no woman ever wants sexual attention from you. I’m saying that some women don’t want sexual attention from you. Which means it’s rude to catcall at any women, because you’ll make some of them uncomfortable.

    Not that hard to understand.

    @Hugh: I find it disingenuous to accuse everyone in the thread of wanting to ban speech for calling out Clarence on his rudeness.

    And I gotta say, though the policy you linked is indeed badly written, I would totally be in favor of a “no street harassment” policy at a university. And I’m usually crazily for free speech.

  124. TomeWyrm says:

    Hell, I’m male and I thought Clarence was defending creepy stalkers for a while (really REALLY sorry about that, by the way).

    @xevv
    Never said you accused anyone of being rapists, I was merely escalating the examples to illustrate a point. You may not think the people you’re uncomfortable with are rapists, or about to assault you, or much anything other than “creepy”. I wouldn’t know, I can’t read minds.

    @ Erik and typhonblue
    I know I’ve been talking about the “telling men they shouldn’t assume that women are ever ‘available’ to be spoken to” as couched in complaints about street harassment, and harassment in general. The rest of us seem to be having three different conversations at once.

    @Brian
    I’m against most sexual harassment policies and “training/seminars”, they’re too broadly overreaching and fearful. They have to be to cover their collective asses, but it’s ridiculous, and the policies/advice/examples are sexist! Or at least the ones I’ve seen are. It’s like the “WARNING: Contents may be HOT!” labels on cups at fast food restaurants, or “Do not run in water” on electrical appliances commonly used in bathrooms, such as hair dryers. Should be common sense, but like the saying goes “common sense, sure isn’t very common anymore”

  125. FlawInTheSystem says:

    “I’m not saying that no woman ever wants sexual attention from you. I’m saying that some women don’t want sexual attention from you. Which means it’s rude to catcall at any women, because you’ll make some of them uncomfortable.”

    Well having politely offered to by a lady a drink, or asking if they’d like to dance I’ve been told to “Fuck off” or “Who the fuck do you think you are?”
    I was polite, they were not, that made me feel uncomfortable. But its my understanding women should not be expected, or trained to handle rejection gently (Due to the perception men turn nasty when its handled poorly).

    In this situation why do I not have a moral right to not feel uncomfortable?

    Also where did Clarence move his goal posts? I’ve read through the entire comment thread and his stance its pretty entrenched.

  126. FlawInTheSystem says:

    Replace moral for etherical (or both) and “buy a lady a drink” not by.

  127. FlawInTheSystem says:

    Ok ethical, if thats not ok I give up on spelling today 😦

  128. Clarence says:

    Brian:
    Since I”ve never defended catcalling as an ethical thing to do, nor have I ever catcalled, it is YOU who are moving the goalposts. And slandering me as well. Good job, ol’ chap!

  129. Getting the discussion a little bit more on track – has anyone noticed the recent trend in POV movies to interview the actress before the scene starts? They ask her where she grew up, what kind of things she likes in her partners, etc.

    Could we say that this reflects a trend away from the objectification of women in real life if people are going for movies where they get to know the actress before the action starts?

  130. Clarence says:

    Easily Enthused:
    It’s not that new of a trend, at least in porn. I’ve seen plenty of interviews, in some cases before and after. This is often done in some BDSM type scenes, but even the infamous “Bang Bros” would usually have a chat with the lady involved first, even though in their case it was strictly superficial and usually just a few minutes of talking and joking about sex. The fact is, though, by doing even THAT limited amount of talking, one gets some idea of the personality of the young lady involved.

    As for the “op” itself I will say that yes, any study that uses “decapitated” women and comes up with “objectification” is sort of like a study that finds water is wet. I can’t imagine finding a woman attractive if I can’t even see her face, bitchin bod or not.

  131. Mary says:

    To quote my professor of Women and Language: “If I were a man, I would be OFFENDED to think that the general consensus was that I was so incapable of controlling my actions that I turned into a rapist at the very sight of a short skirt”

  132. Jim says:

    Skipped ahead in the thread because this one from Clarence caught my eye:
    “Mary Beth: I don’t think you know where “gentleman” came from or how it relates to “lady”

    I find it laughable that anyone on a feminist board is trying to assert a right to be treated as a “lady”. And this comes not just form Clarence’s characterization of the conversation up to that point, but from mary Beth’s own use of of the word” etiquette” in explanantion of her position, and form several other posters’ comments to the effect that someone who makes someone else uncomfortable issome kind of brute. That is Lady Privilege, pure and simple. If it were not gendered then men could expect reciprocal consideration from women, and we all know better than that, as Flaw In The System notes.

    This is exactly what Christine Hoff Summers called the new Victorianism.

    “Coming to a blog, and with several other people (men and women) asking a few guys to *please* consider our feelings and keep their sexual comments to themselves while out on the street is hardly “policing”….”

    This comment is either disingenuous or just ignorant in this era of speech codes and sexual harrassment firings. Just really not helpful at all. At best it shows a sheltered lack of awareness of the situations these men are repsonding to.

    “When I went to work and had a woman escort me to a secluded area and grab my groin because “Black guys don’t care who give them the pussy.”, that’s sexual harassment.”

    MaMW1977, that was not sexual harrassment, that was sexual assault, and it’s telling that you and al the rest of us have been socialized to dismiss and downgrade it to the level of sexual harrassment. This is a really clear example of how this culture license women to aggress men’s bodies freely enough that a gross aggression like this could occur and you wouldn’t swear out a complaint on that predator. And incidentally that woman’s racism was pretty disgusting, and it’s interesting but unsurprising that that went unpunished.

    “Whistling or calling attention to a stranger’s appearance, whether meant as a compliment or not, are examples of loutish behavior.

    Others have touched on the sexist double standards involved here. FITS gives one example and Hugh’s post at 7/29 1:03AM gives some really blatant ones too. But right here in the discussion is another:

    Marilyn Roxie says:
    July 28, 2011 at 2:40 pm
    This is a great post. The quote at the beginning of this piece is quite appalling – for one, it reinforces the notion that women should be more modest to prevent men’s sexual appetites from running wild, and another thing is that the same kind of thinking is rarely applied to how women view the appearance of men.

    She is responding to the quote which contains this bit:
    “Yesterday when I logged onto Facebook, I had several pictures of college co-eds in bathing suits, who are friends on Facebook, come up on my feed. In response, I posted the following on Facebook as my status:”

    What in fact the author is reacting to a exactly the equivalent of the cat-calling that is coming in for so much condemnation and minute parsing – women who pursued him to his facebook page and rubbed his nose sexually explicit pictures of themselves. Yet Marilyn is so oblivious to this possiblity that she interprets it as policing of women’s dress choices. how’s that ofr sexist double-standard-induced blindeness? And this is not to pick on Marilyn; none of the men here saw this either. Where are all the same howls of condemnation from those commenters who were so exercised about cat-calling? That’s some pretty sick, selfish sexism.

  133. southernxyl says:

    “I’d love to see how women would react if men, en masse, stop responding to the signals they put out. ”

    Thanks for saying that. I am of the understanding that some women get an ego boost from the occasional catcall or appreciate word or glance. It puts a smile on their face and brightens their day. What are such women supposed to do, if men have to understand that they can’t seem to react to a woman wearing a tight tank top and daisy dukes – put a sign around their neck, “PLEASE OGLE ME”? It gets hot here in Florida but shorts not cut right up to the crotch and t-shirts or nonrevealing tanks aren’t any less comfortable than those outfits.

  134. Brian says:

    @Clarence: “Nice ass” is a catcall. You have been defending your telling that to three different women for most of the thread.

  135. Clarence says:

    Brian:
    Some sources say catcalling is only something done in a moving vehicle. Regardless..and I will link to it if you want… a catcall is meant as an INSULT not a compliment.

    So no, my statement was not a catcall. I demand an apology.

  136. Rachel says:

    @Jim, how on earth do you get to a place where that dude’s lady friends were “cat-calling” when they posted pictures of THEMSELVES on THEIR OWN facebook feeds? He’s complaining because apparently the ability of his female friends to play in their own sandboxes compromises his rights over his own — and that, sorry to say, is stupid, butthurt bullshit. He has absolute control over what shows up on his feed, control which any woman entering a public space lacks.

    And again, @Clarence, whether you mean it as an insult or a compliment has jack and shit to do with the cultural context or social ramifications of you saying it.

  137. Brian says:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=catcall

    “A loud whistle or a comment of a sexual nature made by a man to a passing woman.”

  138. Clarence says:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catcalling

    cat·call (ktkôl)
    n.
    A harsh or shrill call or whistle expressing derision or disapproval.
    v. cat·called, cat·call·ing, cat·calls

    v.tr.
    To express derision or disapproval of with catcalls.
    v.intr.
    To make catcalls.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/catcall

    –noun
    1.
    a shrill, whistlelike sound or loud raucous shout made to express disapproval at a theater, meeting, etc.

    Your move.

  139. Laura says:

    “MaMW1977, that was not sexual harrassment, that was sexual assault, and it’s telling that you and al the rest of us have been socialized to dismiss and downgrade it to the level of sexual harrassment. This is a really clear example of how this culture license women to aggress men’s bodies freely enough that a gross aggression like this could occur and you wouldn’t swear out a complaint on that predator.”

    I agree with all of this, but it’s the mirror image of what women put up with in the workplace for decades until they finally had enough and started invoking the law, regardless of what society said they should expect, appreciate, or put up with. Men are going to have to do it too. And yes there was a lot of sneering and obstructing when women started pushing back, and there still is a certain amount, so y’all are going to have to proceed in the face of the very same crap. Even with the shaming – “she must have said or done something or it must be the way she dresses to get that kind of thing / a real lady would know how to handle the situation without making a complain” isn’t any easier to deal with than “a real man takes what he can get, what is your problem that you won’t just accept what she offers”. No one, male or female, should be in a position where they have to deal with any of this, of course. Welcome to life on planet Earth.

    …I guess it’s just one more example of what appeared to be a gender thing turning out to be just a human nature thing.

  140. Clarence says:

    I have a post in moderation , I think because it has multiple links to dictionary.com and other places on the definition of catcall. “Urban dictionary” doesn’t count.

    Regardless, Brian, what’s the difference between a catcall and a sexual compliment?

  141. Jim says:

    “@Jim, how on earth do you get to a place where that dude’s lady friends were “cat-calling” when they posted pictures of THEMSELVES on THEIR OWN facebook feeds? ”

    Reread the qotation. It was in HIS feed. They supposedly knew they were on his feed and intentioanly posted these pictures so they would come up on HIS feed. They sought him out. That’s how I get to that place. Here’s the relevant quote agian for you:

    “Yesterday when I logged onto Facebook, I had several pictures of college co-eds in bathing suits, who are friends on Facebook, come up on my feed. ”

    “He’s complaining because apparently the ability of his female friends to play in their own sandboxes compromises his rights over his own ”

    That’s a distortion of the facts. duly noted.

    “— and that, sorry to say, is stupid, butthurt bullshit.”

    Butthurt in an unacceptable reference to anal rape. Retract it immediately and apologize so that you can try to allay the clear sense that you have no real moral sense. Meanwhile your sexist female privilege is duly noted.

    ” He has absolute control over what shows up on his feed, control which any woman entering a public space lacks.”

    This is the same kind of “control” that a woman on the street has to decide not to hear cat-calls, isn’t it? Why, yes it is. Are you claiming that he can allow certain postings from a permitted sender but not others based on content of which he is unaware? Why, yes you are. So your assertion fails. Your sexist damselling – “control which any woman entering a public space lacks.” –
    and double standards are duly noted.

    Oh, but your not done with the sexism and the double standards, are you Rachel?

    “And again, @Clarence, whether you mean it as an insult or a compliment has jack and shit to do with the cultural context or social ramifications of you saying it.”

    Because your clear implication is that Clarence has no say in what the cultural context or social ramifications of his actions are, he external to all that, but the dainty thing he supposedly is traumatizing does have that authority. And what is the basis of this difference in enfrachisement? I think that’s quite obvious. Isn’t it, Rachel? Your sexist objectification of dehumanization of Clarence is duly noted.

    Oh, and as a side note – as far as concerns “the cultural context or social ramifications” – if a person is in a culture or a social setting where cat-calling or any other kind of sexist discrimnation is tlerated, then that person has a duty to herself to denounce that aspect of the culture and that social and distance herself from it, not to accept and thereby validate it. The same goes for a gay man and the homophobia of this society. Because a social group whose culture devalues a woman for being cat-called is indecent, unclean, primitive and ignorant – it is only one step away from honor killings.

  142. Clarence says:

    Laura:
    Please don’t compare trying to set up a police state regime on private expression in public places with sexists wanting to keep women out of the workforce.

    It makes you sound either dishonest in your argumentation or uneducated.

  143. Jim says:

    “I agree with all of this, but it’s the mirror image of what women put up with in the workplace for decades until they finally had enough and started invoking the law, regardless of what society said they should expect, appreciate, or put up with. Men are going to have to do it too. ”

    Laura,
    Yeah, no. For one thing, two wrongs don’t make a right. For another, if you are referring to white men grabbing white women’s breast somewhere in the workplace, then there’s no analogy. A woman in that position had full license to strike back physically. It was celebrated, and still is in film and TV. Contrast that with MaMu’s position vis-vis that white pig, and she undeniably was a pig. He clearly did not have that option. Any resistance on his part would almost certainly resulted in his arrest and probably a conviction. Maybe you are unaware of the constraints men face in this society in resisting women’s violence, even against thier own children, and you are almost certainly unaware of what balck men face. It is a disgrace to have to point this out in the 50th anniversary year of To kill A Mockingbird. The prison stats are proof that that is not in the past; only the methods have been refined.

    “And yes there was a lot of sneering and obstructing when women started pushing back, and there still is a certain amount, so y’all are going to have to proceed in the face of the very same crap.”

    So no, what men face is a couple of orders of magnitude greater than what women faced then. For one thing, men don’t have ten white knights waiting to rush in against one chauvinist pig, becasue the chauvinist pig will have the wrong parts. Men in these cases are not facing sneering and obstructing or being slut-shamed after a man’s advances, they face being accused of being the harrassers when they are aggressed and of having that accusation believed and getting terminated for it, or in fact of having criminal charges brought.

    These are longstanding institutional barriers to men fending off female pigs. Men are supposed to feel flattered by the attentions, and get gay-shamed if they don’t. Didn’t you learn all this back when you were a boy? The rest of us sure did. Never, ever hit a girl. Only a brute makes a woman cry – we even had a version of this one above. Et cetera.

  144. Brian says:

    @Clarence: I looked at dictionary.com already, and it’s not using the slang definition, which is the only one relevant to this thread. They’re using catcall in the sense of “the fans were catcalling at the opposing team”. It’s got nothing to do with harassing women. So no matter how many cites you have to other dictionaries, mine is the only one that’s referring to the word we’re talking about.

  145. Laura says:

    Jim and Clarence, the remedy to being assaulted is to call the police. That’s the remedy for women, and it’s the remedy for men. The remedy to sexual harrassment is to report to your supervisor, HR person, whoever, and if you don’t get satisfaction, to report to EEOC. That’s the remedy for women, and it’s the remedy for men.

    “So no, what men face is a couple of orders of magnitude greater than what women faced then.”

    You have got to be kidding me.

    Look, you can do one of two things. You can solve your problem, looking to people who have faced it before for encouragement and inspiration. Or you can sit around and cry about how bad you have it and no one has ever had it that bad. It’s your choice.

  146. Laura says:

    Also:

    “Laura:
    Please don’t compare trying to set up a police state regime on private expression in public places with sexists wanting to keep women out of the workforce.

    It makes you sound either dishonest in your argumentation or uneducated.”

    Perhaps you will tell me what you are talking about. Everything I said in my comment regarded the workplace. I didn’t say one single cottonpickin thing about public places or private expressions.

  147. Rae says:

    @Clarence: That being said, the behaviors we are talking about here (whistles, looks, catcalls on the street or in clubs) do not come anywhere close to the severity of the situations you mentioned.

    No, I agree that these are not equivalent. But what TomeWyrm says is true: “People that follow on the street, grab, insult, and rape? They start out by giving unwanted compliments.” This is why I think it is good to think really carefully about whether your compliments are having the impact you want, and bad to complain that women are oversensitive.

    Since saying “don’t do X” is generally not as useful as saying “don’t do X; do Y”, so I also recommend this thread to all and sundry.

    @typhonblue: Never had that happen to me once.

    Great! There should be more people for whom this is true. It should be everyone. (Just to make myself perfectly clear, I don’t think it happens to all women, or only women, or the women who are most properly womanly. I just think it happens to women statistically more often than it happens to men. And that people of all genders who have never been harassed would do well to think about what it’s like.)

    So in all this, where’s the room for taking about how women can respect men sexually?

    Don’t harass men?

    @Hugh: The sexual harassment policies you quote do look badly written. At the university where I work, the sexual harassment policy is also poorly written. The topic I am more qualified to talk about is the morality/etiquette of harassment. I don’t think I am qualified to comment on policies of other universities, but anybody who wants to sit on those committees and do a good job has my eternal gratitude.

    I guess in general, I am less worried about the block of text as an object of theoretical speculation, than about how it functions in day-to-day life. I don’t know what the punishments for the different things labeled “harassment” are, or how they typically get applied. But honestly, there are limits to the scope of my interest in university policy, and I don’t think I’m up for a long debate about it. There are too many good books to read; I can’t spend life poring over Codes of Conduct, especially ones I have little ability to change.

    I thought Clarence and EasilyEnthused were talking about their moral rights and not their legal rights or their rights under university/company policy, but I am open to correction.

    @FlawInTheSystem: Well having politely offered to by a lady a drink, or asking if they’d like to dance I’ve been told to “Fuck off” or “Who the fuck do you think you are?”… In this situation why do I not have a moral right to not feel uncomfortable?

    You do have a moral right to feel uncomfortable. That sounds pretty rude.

  148. Jim says:

    “Jim and Clarence, the remedy to being assaulted is to call the police. That’s the remedy for women, and it’s the remedy for men. The remedy to sexual harrassment is to report to your supervisor, HR person, whoever, and if you don’t get satisfaction, to report to EEOC. That’s the remedy for women, and it’s the remedy for men.”

    You so do not get it. You just.don’t.get.it. That may be because you will never be in a position to be arrested when you are the victim of an attack. Just a thought.

    “You have got to be kidding me.”

    This confirms it. Maybe if women started going to jail in the same numbers as men on trumped up charges, or fired on spurious or worse yet inverted accusations, this would begin to reach you. You people don’t, so you have no idea of the. This really is an example of how privilege blinds.

    “Look, you can do one of two things. You can solve your problem, looking to people who have faced it before for encouragement and inspiration. Or you can sit around and cry about how bad you have it and no one has ever had it that bad. It’s your choice.”

    I’ve already dealt with the dissimilarities between the workplace harrasment women and men face, basically due to the differences in the way the harrassment is perceieved and handled. So no, women’s experiences and and responses do not provide much of a guide to men facing harrassment form women. Women have far more license with men’s bodies than men do with women. It’s written into all sorts of laws. Until very recently women could not be charged with rape of any sort. as one example. Now as to the second part – I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on the “sit arouond crying” bit because you haven’t done the dick-shanming thing before. But just to let you know, this one puts you right on the margin of it.

    Anyway, there is a third option – go after and disable the white knights who make all this possible. And this is the difference. Where women were being oppressed by a male power structure, they could count on white knights as allies. But for a man oppressed by a female pig who grabs a man by his crotch, the white knights are allies of his female oppressor. The white knights are the enemy. So the remedy is going to be quite different.

  149. Clarence says:

    Brian:
    I can’t reproduce your meaning anywhere else but that one source.
    This source disagrees:
    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-cat-call.htm

    Quoting:
    A cat call is often paired in people’s minds with the wolf whistle, a two-toned whistling noise usually directed at attractive members of the opposite sex. A cat call may be a series of loud cries used as an attention getter, while the salacious wolf whistle essentially seals the deal. A cat call isn’t always meant to be derisive, but it is meant to be noticed. Whoops, hollers, Bronx cheers and other rude noises could all constitute a cat call.

    Sorry, but a crude sexual compliment would not seem to fit.

  150. Clarence says:

    Brian:
    You are a most excellent troll by the way. You love to put words in people’s mouths, you quote selectively, you leave threads if you get owned, and you are good at changing arguments from one thing to another. I actually spent quite a bit of time trying to find somewhere else to back up your contention that a crude sexual compliment was a catcall and I could not do so.

  151. Clarence says:

    Laura:
    I apologize for misreading you. I thought your personal sympathies for MaMW the wrong way.

  152. Clarence says:

    This place needs an edit function..that “thought” should have been “took” in my post to Laura.

  153. Clarence says:

    Rachel:
    I shall use a famous quote:
    Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.

  154. Laura says:

    No problem, Clarence.

  155. aloneinthedark says:

    for the record, this is why don’t speak to women even to interact non sexually ever unless introduced by somebody else or they speak to me first.

    If your going to take away ALL responsibility of offense from the person being addressed and place it on the person doing the addressing, it is frankly impossible to know 100% weather or not they are or will be offended by what you say to them. Thus by engaging in any communication at all, you risk being “that guy”.

    So the only way to never be “that guy” is to never speak to women who don’t initiate contact. And since women are socialized to never do that, it means no talking to them, ever.

    … This is probably why I have been told I suffer from mild gynophobia.

  156. Brian says:

    @Clarence: I resent everything you said about me, including the “only one source that says that”.

    As it happens there seem to be only two sources on the internet that are even talking about “catcall” in the sexual harassment sense and one of them agrees with me. I think it’s extreme bad faith to accuse me of trolling because I cited a source that supports me.

  157. figleaf says:

    If nobody else will cop to ever having performed cat-calling I will. It was only for a relatively brief time but when I was a very young man I used to cat-call the owl shit out of girls. Maybe only one out of 30 seemed even remotely pleased. This generally didn’t matter because we typically did it in groups from very far away — e.g. up on construction sites, sitting on balconies, driving past, etc. The significant audience nearly all the time was the guys in the group, not the women being called or whistled at.

    At the time it didn’t seem all that weird, even though technically I knew better. As a frequently hitch-hiking hippie at the tail end of the Viet Nam war era I got a lot of street harassment as well. And hated it. And even though the harassment I got was more overtly threatening (people sometimes threw not just words but bottles and cans at us hippies, at African Americans, and at Latinos, and so on) I just didn’t make the connection until later.

    Context is everything. And in the right context compliments and even “objectification” can be fine. As a general rule, walking down the street generally doesn’t seem to be one of those contexts.

    I don’t think the cops should just randomly pull people off the streets for cat-calling, or aggressive panhandling, or even spam and phone soliciting. I do, however, believe people who receive it and don’t like it should have recourse to shut it down. Because at the end of the day cat-calling is just open-air spam.

    figleaf

  158. Brian says:

    @figleaf: Congratulations, you’ve said exactly what I’ve been trying to say all thread in one post.

  159. Lamech says:

    I would also like to point out that Figleaf illustrates a rather important difference between a “cat-call” and a compliment. A cat-call has things like far-away, the other guys being the audience ect. while a compliment would be actually talking to someone. Big difference.

  160. JIm says:

    “But remember that this is a feminist blog, where (a) it’s easy for people to get triggery about cat-calling and street harassment, and (b) people don’t have enough background in civil liberties to understand what you are so pissed off about (e.g. they don’t know about the destruction of civil liberties on college campuses by sexual harassment codes).

    Your expectations are too high.”

    Hugh, can you please you mean when you tell Clarence that it is too much to expect people on a feminist blog to have the very basic understaning he presumes them to have. He is not talking about technical points of law but about very basic principles of human freedom and dignity. Yes it is disgusting that certain commenters are either unaware of these basic principles or else are just unwiling to admit that they apply to men as well as to women, because as I noted above, no one seems willing to even notice the incidenet of visual harrassment that this whole discussion is based on, but do you realy want to attribute that to feminism?

    That would be a serious charge, especially after the Bush era and Obaa’s failure to correct those abuses, and while Fundamentalists still hold the power they do. Feminism is a social justice movement, and social justice movements have a bad tendency to turn totalitarian. This is a serious accusation you are making.

  161. typhonblue says:

    @ figleaf

    “Because at the end of the day cat-calling is just open-air spam.”

    Hey, as long as you have a place in your schema for visual harassment, I’ll agree.

  162. Clarence says:

    Brian:
    Why should I care about your feelings when you chose to attack me as a person? If you want respect, up your game, and stop making accusations about people you don’t knows character , and about behavior that you don’t even know the context of.

  163. Clarence says:

    Lamech:
    I actually agree with you, cat calls are usually if not always done in groups though admittedly none of the definitions I’ve seen specifies that a group is necessary. So many definitions of catcall have a “whistling” component I’m inclined to believe that people really are confusing catcalls with wolf whistles.

  164. mythago says:

    Maybe if women started going to jail in the same numbers as men on trumped up charges, or fired on spurious or worse yet inverted accusations, this would begin to reach you.

    Oh, how quickly we forget the “Satanic panic” of the 1980s, when women and men were being accused of (and prosecuted for) child sexual abuse in equal numbers, since women made up a very large percentage of the childcare workers who were being accused of running sekrit Satanic covens. (There also seems to be collective amnesia about how the Christian right was involved in this; nowadays it’s all laid on feminism.)

  165. typhonblue says:

    @ mythago

    Actually there is a fairly strong strain of recognizing conservative misandry in many MRA groups.

  166. Tamen says:

    Lamech: I think you definitively need to include more criterias for the difference between a compliment and a cat-call than proximity.

  167. Lamech says:

    Erm, a compliment is when you go to someone and talk to them like one normally talks to people. You know how you would ask a stranger for directions? Like that except you change “What way to a wal-mart?” with “Hey you have nice hair.” Also vulgar language generally isn’t a good way to do it.
    A cat-call will lacks some or all of those things. For example you don’t ask for directions when your driving by in a car. Think if you only changed the words would it be a good way to ask for directions?

  168. Brian says:

    @Clarence: I have not ever attacked you as a person. I am very careful not to attack people as people.

    BUT if I can guess what this is about, it is not a personal attack to argue that your catcalling at women was piggish. I’m still attacking something you’ve done, not something you are.

  169. Maxwellsilverhammer says:

    “Not Objectification: Finding a person attractive.
    Objectification: Finding a person’s attractiveness to be the only important thing about a person.”

    There are some girls who I don’t like as people, but who I find incredible attractive…

    I’m willing to ignore their humanity, and undesirable personal traits, and to fantasize about their bodies. So I’m objectifying them.

    I’m also willing to be sexual with women I have no plan on knowing on any personal level. I suppose I’m objectifying them as well.

    I would never commit sexual assault.

    What’s wrong with this form of objectification?

  170. Brian says:

    Just popping in to note: Objectification is not wrong because it causes sexual assault, because it doesn’t cause sexual assault.

  171. Laura says:

    MSH, are the women clear that you dislike them and only want them for sex?

  172. Maxwellsilverhammer says:

    The women I dislike I’ll just whack off to in all likely hood (sorry for being crude). Yah some of them are probably aware that I dislike them and/or that I’m attracted to them.

    Just to be clear, the women I’ll hook up with that I don’t get to know are distinct from the women I dislike (two different examples). However, I believe them both to be examples of benign objectification.

    Yah, in all cases I do my best to be honest about what I’m looking for.

  173. superglucose says:

    Wait, wait, wait… you mean it’s ok to see a woman and think she’s hot?!

    I mentioned to my friend once that a girl we saw was very, very cute. This lead to a huge rant from someone about how misogynistic I was being. Erm… I’m not sure how “This person is really cute” is hateful towards women in any way shape or form.

  174. mythago says:

    @superglucose: I’m not sure either, but apparently that was what your friend (?) was trying to communicate via rant. Why did they think it was misogyny, exactly? I mean, presumably the rant was not simply repeating the phrase “You are a misogynist” over and over in those words.

  175. Johnny_B says:

    Just wanted to say thanks to TyphonBlue and a few others for articulating my point better than I could have. It seems to me that certain people here seem to have the idea that it’s always wrong for a man to approach or express any interest in a woman, because there is a chance that the woman will feel uncomfortable. And if she does, it’s all the fault of the approacher and has nothing to do with her own mental state and/or baggage. In other words, all men have to do is become mind-readers. Problem solved!

    Sarcasm aside though, to what extent are we responsible for how we make others feel? And as long as our words/actions did not actually have a malicious intent, to what extent are we guilty if the receiver of our attention feels uncomfortable? And what would the solution be? One I’ve heard already would be if men simply stopped approaching.

  176. xevv says:

    @johnny_B

    I can, at this point, only really speak for myself here. I don’t want this to be written into law or anything, but I would personally prefer it if we as a society agreed a little more (idealistic, I know) on the contexts where it’s appropriate to approach strange women. AND, at the same time, socialize women to feel like it’s ok to approach men (in the same contexts).

    I’ve got a big problem with men in their 60’s and up soliciting me when I am out grocery shopping, or at the library, or just walking in any public area. So do all my other female friends in their early twenties. It starts with a compliment—which if I ignore, I’m usually pestered in a somewhat threatening way, and if I acknowledge in any way, the guy launches into his pick-up-routine. It never happens when I’m with my boyfriend, or even with other friends, and it never just STOPS at a compliment, it always continues into this rehearsed, somewhat creepy spiel about why I should give them my personal information, or what they can tell about my personality/sex life from a first impression, etc., etc. And in my head, I’m like “you’re the fifth guy who has tried to sell me this today, I just want to buy my cheese and bread and go, and hope that you don’t follow me like one of those other four did.” It’s not hard, I don’t think, to see how this kind of repeated encounter can wear anyone, male or female, down to the point where they dread leaving the house alone, right? And why, if this is really a problem, for some people to really resent ANYONE who approaches them on the street because it’s putting them in a position to have to guess whether or not the approacher is going to overstep his/her bounds.

    This could be me and my social circle, but I make friends with guys before I consider whether or not I want to sleep with them. It’s kindof obnoxious to talk to anyone who clearly is ONLY talking to you because they hope you’ll either fuck them or date them. And when the only expectation is to make friends, most women I know have no problem approaching guys, and vice versa. The key is context—when I’m on the street doing errands, I am getting shit done and want to be left alone, and do not care to make friends. If I am at an event, a convention, a class, a bar, a party, a concert, a workshop, (the list goes on) I am totally up for making new friends and meeting people and possibly having sex with any of them the same day provided I’m attracted to them and the feeling is mutual. And in this context, compliments are a great way to start a conversation that is often welcome (so long as you don’t then launch into your PUA spiel). All my friends, male and female, and all my lovers have come to me (or I to them) in this way. So I guess it’s a little confusing for the men on this thread to say “what if we just stopped approaching women! How would anyone get laid?”

    It’s gotta be a combination of “teach women to approach” and “approach women in situations where mingling is socially acceptable and safe, since you aren’t alone and you can presume to have SOME common interest)”.

    Of course, I’m coming at this from my own limited experience, so I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me, and it makes sense to the men I personally know.

  177. @Johnny_B: as regards approaching, whatever the gender of the approacher and approachee, I think the basic thing is to respect someone’s stated or strongly implied boundaries. If you go to a club or bar and someone is scanning the crowd, open, casting glances around, then both the body language and the setting implies that zie would like to meet someone. If someone is in a library, nose buried in a book and taking notes, the approacher should at least SERIOUSLY consider leaving zie alone, even if the book is the approacher’s Favorite Book of All Time. Neither body language nor setting give hint that zie would like to be approached. Earphones? Generally a signal that a person does not want to be approached.

    HOWEVER there are exceptions to every story. Sometimes the people that met at the library fall in love and are together for a bieberillion years, so you might take the chance anyway.

    The problem is when the approaches are constant and full of uncomfortable pressure. It doesn’t take a mind reader to know that, if a person approaches me in the library and says “Oh wow, that’s my favorite book of all time! How do you like it?” and I reply “It’s okay” and stick my nose back in my book, zie should leave me the hell alone. If I am at a club talking to a friend and I tell someone who approaches me, “I’m just here to hang with my friend,” zie should similarly respect that and go away. If the approachee is “playing that game” or whatever and trying to make the approacher “work for it” or some bullshit game, as has been said before on NSWATM, you should not continue to approach zie on the off chance that zie is “into that.” Being an asshole = transgressing implied and stated boundaries. Being a nice person = respecting stated boundaries and giving a good faith effort to sense implied boundaries.

    I think that’s a big step towards addressing approaching issues. We can’t read minds, but we can stop assuming that our attention is God’s Gift to the Approachee – i.e. when we approach people, know that our attention might be unwelcome, and respect that as a legitimate response to having a stranger talk to you out of nowhere. It would certainly cut down on conversations like the one below, which I have had many times in various permutations of differing threateningness.

    Dude: I think you’re beautiful.
    Me: Thank you. ::returns to task::
    Dude: God, why are you such a BITCH?

    I’m sure some guys must have similar stories about women approaching them, and upon being rebuffed, throwing out some kind of slur or insult. Objectification is pretty normal, I think, for both sexes, but the truly harmful objectification takes place when we’re rejected and use that as an excuse to lash out – denying the other person any legitimacy of zie’s feelings or right to disengage: in short, denying zie’s personhood and casting zie as an object designed to fill our needs for validation (which is currently acting up and needs to be “corrected”).

    That was kind of rambly, I hope it makes some sense.

  178. BlackHumor says:

    @Johnny: I want to make this clear here: it’s not wrong to approach a woman, it’s wrong to make a woman (or a man of course) feel uncomfortable.

    Saying “nice ass” will generally make women feel uncomfortable, because it implies that you’re only interested in them for sex (not to mention it’s not even a real approach). Approaching women in an elevator (yeah, I’m diving into Elevatorgate) will generally make them uncomfortable, because there is no way for them to get out of the situation if you happen to be a nutcase.

    However there are plenty of perfectly fine manners and places to approach women and so of course I’m not saying that it’s always bad to approach women; only that some care must be taken when you do.

  179. typhonblue says:

    @ BlackHumor

    “However there are plenty of perfectly fine manners and places to approach women and so of course I’m not saying that it’s always bad to approach women; only that some care must be taken when you do.”

    Of course women can approach men however and whenever they wish!

  180. Rae says:

    @Johnny_B: I co-sign to everything xevv said. And refer you to this thread again.

    This all falls under the larger heading “developing good social skills”. If you would like to read more about social skills, I recommend Succeed Socially and Captain Awkward.

  181. Pssst mods! Any reason my comment is still awaiting approval?

  182. JIm says:

    “Oh, how quickly we forget the “Satanic panic” of the 1980s, when women and men were being accused of (and prosecuted for) child sexual abuse in equal numbers,…’

    Yeah, not quite. that was one episode, and there have been others. There is nothing episodic about the female sentencing discount and the genral sexism of the criminal justice system. It is quite biased and has been for a very long tiem. Look at the stats on hnagings and te trnd line beginning in 1800. The Victorians didn’t start this “pure vessel” bullshit and it didn’t end with them.

  183. ozymandias42 says:

    Typhon: Everything startledoctopus, xevv and BlackHumor said about men approaching also applies to women approaching. Creepy doesn’t look good on any gender.

  184. @ozymandias42 and @typhonblue, I was really careful to avoid gender specific pronouns in my comment, and although the example I gave was a man approaching me (a woman), I’ve also been approached and objectified in uncomfortable ways by women (though usually less out of nowhere).

  185. Hugh Ristik says:

    @xevv

    I’ve got a big problem with men in their 60′s and up soliciting me when I am out grocery shopping, or at the library, or just walking in any public area. So do all my other female friends in their early twenties.

    I can understand how this experience would give you bad associations with being approached. If attractive young men in their twenties were approaching you instead, then how do you think you would feel about being approached in the same contexts?

    It never happens when I’m with my boyfriend, or even with other friends, and it never just STOPS at a compliment, it always continues into this rehearsed, somewhat creepy spiel about why I should give them my personal information, or what they can tell about my personality/sex life from a first impression, etc., etc.

    If they were taking a different approach, do you think you would feel differently in response?

    I’m trying to figure out what the biggest part of the problem is: the type of guys typically approaching you, what they say, and/or where they do it.

    So I guess it’s a little confusing for the men on this thread to say “what if we just stopped approaching women! How would anyone get laid?”

    I think you’re correct that street approaches by men are not how most people get laid. Yet I do think approaches and advances by men in other social situations are a big part of how men and women get laid. You might not want to prohibit men from approaching in social gatherings, but when men hear female complaints about male street approaches, some of them might perceive a negative view of male sexuality that inhibits them in environments other than the street.

  186. Johnny_B says:

    Thanks for the replies and clarification, everyone. For the record, I wasn’t referring to extreme cases where the approacher is openly hostile, threatening, gets physical or won’t take no for an answer. I’m sorry to hear that scenarios like this have happened to some of you. I’d call that harassment, and treat it as any other clear-cut harassment case. I was talking more about normal approaches where a guy might think “hey, there’s a pretty girl, I’ll pay her a compliment” while she thinks “eww, creepy guy trying to hit on me, must get away!”, but I’m glad to see most of you don’t think that way.

    Since I come from a country with fairly traditional values where it’s still considered “improper” for a woman to approach a man, I guess I just get a little sensitive sometimes when all this online talk seems to place all the responsibility and the blame squarely on the guys, like it’s their job to approach and also their fault if it doesn’t work out. It’s good to see xevv for example saying that more women should be taught to approach. As for the men, I agree with what you all said about paying attention to the environment, the cues, and the other person’s body language. Maybe sometimes we’ll still get it wrong, but as long as the intention is good and we learn from it, I don’t think anyone can be blamed for that. If I’d blame anyone, it’d be the jerks, the predators, and the socially-inept idiots who make women wary about being approached in general. If we could educate all of them, things would be better for everyone.

  187. aloneinthedark says:

    @xevv

    “what if we just stopped approaching women!” This is exactly what Ive done ever since the the 2nd grade. Pro tip, its pretty much impossible to get laid this way, but I just kinda put up with it cus being celibate is better than constantly risking offending people.

    The idea about laying out “appropriate situations to approach individuals of both genders” is a novel idea but totally impossible since a) some women believe it is impossible for men to approach women in any context without being rude until rape culture doesn’t exists (these same people claim that men can solve this problem because “men can stop rape”), and b) almost no women agree on where an appropriate place to approach is (even the bar is debated amongst women who claim “women primarily go to clubs to be with friends and the men who approach them are harassing them by their very presence”)

    This is also about item number 6782934617203947819238123 down the list of “things feminism gives a crud about” because “figuring out how to approach a women without offending her” is seen as “men’s problem” and in general feminist women feel like they have explained the situation enough and men who don’t get it are simply choosing to ignore the “obvious”.

    as I said before (and was promptly ignored by the entire thread), if you are willing to place 100% of the responsibility of offense on to the approacher, you create a terminally broken social rule set, since it is totally impossible to KNOW you are not going to offend somebody in advance.

    the sooner we address the issue as “people need to attempt to be polite and give polite no’s before resorting to crudeness” as the responsibility of both genders the sooner we fix the problem, sadly everybody would rather blame the other side for “not getting it” instead.

  188. xevv says:

    @Hugh

    Lol, well, one of my favorite anecdotes comes from a friend my age who was hit on in a barnes and noble by an attractive guy her age. She was feeling somewhat unwashed and wearing trash-bag clothes, when this guy comes up to her, takes the book she’s reading OUT OF HER HANDS, flips through it, slides it back on the shelf, and says to her “you’re done with that book.” He then takes one of her hands, kisses the back of it, and launches into this speech about how beautiful she is and how much he wants to take her out for coffee sometime. It’s not until he finishes that she is able to say “uh, I have a boyfriend.” He then drops her hand, cocks his head back, and says “you know, you might have said so earlier, it’s not right to waste the time of a handsome guy like me.” And then stormed away. We refer to him as “Gaston”.

    I get hit on *mostly* by old guys, for reasons I can guess at but can’t really know for sure (some have said I remind them of how girls used to look and dress when they were my age). But younger guys do it too, and a few have even been attractive. But again, I’m always by myself, and it’s never just a compliment, and it’s always got this menacing “I’m going to be nice while I hit on you, but the second you start trying to back out of this conversation, or if you assert yourself, I’m going to call you a frigid bitch, but the longer you stay and talk to me, the more I’m going to think it’s okay to touch you or follow you.” I’m sure lots of women do this to guys too. I’m always disappointed when younger guys do this, though, because I think ‘wow, if you had just complimented me and left it at that, I *might* have started a conversation with you.” or “had you approached me at a festival or a club, and talked to me about our mutual interests, I might have gone home and slept with you.” They didn’t need to just hit on me on the street. And it’s guys like Gaston above who make me almost wish I had a magical troll who, half an hour after the approach, could find said guy and just repeat the whole encounter back to him, just to show how potentially uncomfortable such an experience is when you’re on the receiving end of it. I think it would really underscore how on the street, you have no control over who approaches you. If I started approaching men, and only approached men I found attractive, it still wouldn’t stop jerks and creeps from approaching me in inappropriate and threatening ways. I guess what I’m trying to say here is that being handsome counts for nothing if you’re deaf to social boundaries or you make it obvious that this encounter is all about your desire to get something from me, like my name, number, where I live, or access to my vagina.

    As for guys being afraid of approaching women in socially acceptable situations because they don’t want to be “that guy” on the street, I’m not sure what I personally can do about that, or what anyone can, besides the things I mentioned earlier. My boyfriend is one of those guys, but he’s good at projecting the fact that he just wants to be friends first, so I try to encourage him to start conversations with girls when he’s at parties etc. and I introduce him to all my female friends. I travel in pretty sex-positive circles, and so the women I know have no problem starting conversations with guys they’ve never met *in order to make friends, and in the context of social gatherings*. My boyfriend still has trouble reading social cues though, and I admit I’m often not sure about some of those social cues either. But I think everyone he talks to, myself included, really appreciates his sensitivity and willingness to observe stated boundaries.

  189. This is exactly what Ive done ever since the the 2nd grade. …

    I tried this, but my appetite got the best of me – and I just began getting angry. So I started approaching women innocently and ended up in the “friend zone” when I really didn’t need more “just friends.” I had enough “just friends” and I really only had time in my life for one more person – and so I kinda needed that one person to be “more than friends” if I was going to get all of my needs met.

    So, I started approaching women with overt sexual overtones. I had already validated my desires myself – and I wasn’t interested in women who would not validate my own needs.

    I completely realize that some women were bothered by my advances because they had boyfriends or whatever reason – but that was unavoidable collateral damage. (This was in the days before OKCupid, etc. Now that you can LITERALLY filter out folks who are unavailable, this type of collateral damage can be more easily avoided by going online.)

    That’s the unfortunate reality of meeting new people: you can never be sure that by striking up polite conversation with another person that you won’t be making them uncomfortable. So you just have to suck it up and decide: do I value my own romantic/sexual needs over someone who may be hypersensitive to the opposite sex? If yes, move a head and do your best to read their comfort level.
    If no, try to enjoy your celibacy until a woman approaches you – you’ll probably end up waiting for quite a while.

  190. xevv says:

    @aloneinthedark like I said, all I can speak for is my own personal experiences. The way I’ve outlined it, works really well for the men I know. Isn’t it kind of an exaggeration to say it’s totally impossible because some women don’t ever want to be approached by men, under any circumstances? If you’re having trouble talking to women, unless she specifically states that she doesn’t want to talk to men as a general rule, assuming so is maybe a little drastic IMO. I would first evaluate my own social skills—even if you just want to be friends with a woman, some guys (I’m not saying you) are so used to treating women like they’re and alien species that no matter what they say, the way they say it is off putting. Or condescending—plenty of guys have tried to start conversations with me and when they found out I, y’know, read, treated me like a trained parrot (when I made some reference to Caligula during one such conversation, the guy hitting on me said “woah, how do you know about Caligula? Did somebody tell you, did you see him in a movie?” I shit you not). I’m not trying to lecture you or tell you you’re bad at talking to women, it’s just frustrating when I feel like some guys blame women as a group for their lack of success. Which is sort of what it sounds like you’re doing? But i’m not sure, I’m probably misreading you. Most guys I talk to really don’t have this problem, they don’t live in fear of never getting to talk to women in a way that doesn’t come off as threatening because a. they have access to and feel comfortable in mixed gender social situations (having a large circle of friends helps) and b. they’re socializing with women who feel totally comfortable with approaching them if they find them attractive. So maybe it’s not a men’s problem, but a socially awkward people’s problem? I’m having a really hard time imagining some guy just saying “hi” to a girl at a mixer and her just freaking out, in my mind there’s gotta be some follow up of some crossed boundary. But yeah, honestly? a guy just saying hi to me when we’re alone in an elevator immediately sends off alarms in my head, because no matter what his intentions are I can’t know them, and I can’t leave. That kind of response comes after many years of weighing the pros of gaining a new friend versus the potential cons of engaging a complete stranger when alone and somewhat vulnerable. Be sensitive to that, and the women you’re talking to will appreciate it : )

  191. xevv says:

    @EE maybe it’s just me, again, but I don’t have a “friend’s zone”….and from my experiences, neither do most women. Most women I know have…guys who are their friends, and guys who are their friends whom they’d like to fuck/date. Maybe it’s unfortunate, but isn’t it possible that the women you were friends with just don’t find you attractive? And also a really important thing to keep in mind: women can tell when you’re just trying to be their friend so that eventually you’ll have the chance to fuck them. God I can smell it like a shark smelling blood in the water—it’s rarely a subtle thing, and I think women are socialized to notice when the person they’re talking to has ulterior motives. And that is really, really unsexy. Who wants to date someone, much less be friends with, who sees them as just a ticket to pussy? I don’t want to be friends with anyone with the fine print reading * “you know, if this doesn’t get sexual soon, I’m going to get angry at you for wasting my time with your otherwise worthless friendship”.

    Guys don’t just do this. Girls do it too. If you’re still angry about this, EE, I highly rec Holly’s “How to Not Be Creepy” http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-to-not-be-creepy.html it’s short and to the point, and it starts out with Holly admitting she was a creep at first too, especially in the way you’re describing: making friends *to get sex*, and then getting angry when your friends don’t fuck you.

  192. Schala says:

    “making friends *to get sex*, and then getting angry when your friends don’t fuck you.”

    I tried something before, it was “making friends *to get into a relationship*” and then, 5 years later, abandon because it’s not happening.

  193. Schala says:

    That was from 14 to 19 years old, btw. I wasn’t sexually attracted to her as much as I thought she looked cute (something that doesn’t mean much sexually to me, but is nice aesthetically).

    She completely ignored either my advances or my friendship (I was always available so she came to my place, but never invited to her own), while taking advantage of my naiveté to have a shoulder to cry on when she changed boyfriend every 2 weeks.

    Eventually realized it wasn’t love but the illusion of it. And left her.

  194. @xevv
    I completely believe you when you say that you don’t have a friend zone. I’ll bet most women on this site don’t put men into “friend zones” (which is a term that probably needs to be defined a bit better – are we referring to women who intentionally string men along for emotional support while they know that the men have sexual interests in them, or are we referring to women who spend so much time being friends with a man that they are unable to see him in a sexual way? I’m referring to the second definition.)

    If you are a woman or man who puts friends of the opposite sex into the “friend zone” like my second definition above – you are very likely emotionally and sexually immature. You think of a person’s sexuality being different than the rest of them.

    In a way, you objectify people as sexual or non-sexual – and never the two shall meet.

    This type of behavior is what we see some early teens engage in regularly and what we see ignorant people on The Jersey Shore, or The Real World engage in.

    I would suspect that almost everyone mature enough to come online and discuss gender issues would be mature enough to not engage in that sort of objectification.

  195. Clarence says:

    EE:

    That’s rather weird.
    I can be friends with someone I have no sexual interest in at all.
    Then there’s people who are married or in a long term relationship, and in which messing around with sexually could hurt them, you, or everyone.

    How the heck do you NOT have a “friends” zone?

  196. ozymandias42 says:

    Clarence: Hmm… maybe I can explain how the “friends zone” works for me, and that will help.

    There are, in this world, roughly two types of people: people I’d fuck and people I wouldn’t. According to the “friends zone” theory, at some point in the friendship it will become firmly platonic and I would not want to fuck them, even if I otherwise would, because they are “like a brother/sister to me.” However, for me, people I want to fuck I will continue to want to fuck, no matter how long we are platonic friends, and people I don’t want to fuck I will continue to not want to fuck, even if they hit on me right out and don’t become platonic friends ever. Therefore, I don’t have a friends zone, even though I do have people I’m not sexually interested in.

    This true for other people?

  197. I don’t have a “friend zone” (quotation marks are important here) where I deny those people in that zone their sexuality.

    I was referring to the second kind of “friend zone” where (frequently) women act surprised/disgusted to discover that a friend has sexual feelings towards them or other women.

    I have friends that I am sexually attracted to and I have friends I am not attracted to – but I do not deny the sexuality (and possible attraction) that the second group may have towards me. That would be Non-Sexual Objectification – in that I make them an object that lacks sexual desire or validity.

  198. Clarence says:

    Ozy, EE:

    Thanks. That explains it.

  199. Clarence says:

    Since this thread has, for whatever reason, revived, I wish to say two things:

    A. To Xevv: I am sorry that you have had bad experiences, and I certainly do not ethically condone most of what you have complained about. I know that it can be tough on any halfway sexually desirable young/middle aged woman at times. Some of your suggestions make perfect sense.
    B. I’ll spend some time tonight or tomorrow outlining my overall beliefs.

  200. xevv says:

    @Ozy: yep. that is how I operate. Of course, I can be attracted to a man, but not want to fuck him for real, because his personality isn’t compatible with mine or he’s in a relationship or something.

    @EE I’ve been referring to the second definition. As for the first, it REALLY SUCKS when that happens, but I think guys stick around for years because sitcoms and romcoms create this myth that persistence actually works, and that women can suddenly feel sexual attraction to a man they didn’t feel that way about before. I personally think that is a bullshit myth that hurts *everyone*, and if you find yourself in that situation the only answer is to cut that person off. But yeah, second definition? I ask my friends about it and they say “friends zone? Isn’t that something cosmo and PUA came up with to negate the fact that women have actual, specific desires?” The concept of a friends zone creeps me out, also, because doesn’t it imply that women aren’t attracted to men that are nice to them? I thought that’s where the whole ladder-theory PUA stuff was born, by teaching guys how to be assholes so that emotionally immature/unbalanced women will supply them with pussy without making any demands on them.

    @Schala that really sucks, I’m sorry you had to go through that. Though to everyone here, is there some alternative to getting into relationships? I can’t really think of another way to do it, besides being someone’s friend first. Am I just being naive? I mean I suppose a one night stand could become a year long stand, it happens, but even then I thought you had to actually like the person a little bit first. You can’t take a friendship that isn’t turning into a relationship and just somehow convince the other person you’re actually worth dating. You can’t coerce, threaten, cajole, or plead someone into liking you enough to date you, at the most you might get a pity fuck, followed by a lot of hostility when you keep pestering them. I mean, if I really like a guy, to the point where I don’t want to date anyone else, and I try to be his friend and eventually tell him how I feel, what do I do if he doesn’t return the feelings? It’s happened to me before, I’ve had very intense feelings for guys who didn’t return them. Rejection didn’t make me mad or think he’d wasted my time or think that if only I could just convince him that he really did, deep down, like me. Instead I just went home, cried for an hour, and watched NatGeo until I felt better. I repeated this process until eventually some guy did return the feelings, and we dated. This is obvious to everyone, right?

  201. Pedantic Harper says:

    I spent way too long reading the debate when all I wanted to say was:

    ‘Mutual’ is an adjective. ‘Mutualistic’ sounds like a terrible parody of what was once an innocent word.

    On the ‘friend zone’ – geez, I’d rather be in that one than in the ‘sex only’ zone. If a ladyfriend is startled or creeped when I say, hey, doing anything tonight?, then that’s on me, but it doesn’t have to be a big deal. I back off, we both relax, next week we’re going out for drinks and bitching about politics. Assuming she wanted to have sex with me when she didn’t was MY mistake. If I cop to it like a reasonable person, a reasonable lady will recognize that I made that mistake and shrug it off.

    Both the catcaller’s: “oh, she REALLY wanted to hear that, she’s wearing a short skirt!”
    and the girl-at-the-bar’s: “hey buddy, fuck off!”

    are examples of individual people being less than considerate.

  202. Eagle33 says:

    Is it okay to have crushes on someone? That’s not sexual objectification is it?

    Because when I have a crush on someone, I take into account their personality and inner strength. Not just their body.

  203. Pingback: No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?

  204. ozymandias42 says:

    No, of course having a crush on someone is not objectification. It’s the opposite of objectification!

  205. Paul says:

    “Most women I know have…guys who are their friends, and guys who are their friends whom they’d like to fuck/date.”

    You all must be using a different definition of friend zone than me… because I always thought tha this is what it was.

    Also: “Men always approach me when i’m alone.” Whether it’s the right behavior or not, why does this seem to shock people? I mean geez, approacing is hard enough as it is, imagine what it’d be like with an audience.

  206. xevv says:

    @paul to me, women who have friends zones have guy friends whom they don’t want to fuck, and they have men who aren’t their friends, they’re boyfriends (but who aren’t really their friends). Does that make any sense? The women I know have boyfriends who are their friends, guy friends they’d fuck if circumstances were right but don’t want a relationship with, and guy friends they don’t want to fuck or have a relationship with, but enjoy their friendship. Interestingly enough, most guys I personally know have the same system in place for all the women in their life.

    Also, I think it’s only really hard to approach a woman when she’s with her friends in the street if you plan on engaging her in a discussion about how much you’d like to date her….but if all you want to say is “nice blouse”, or “you have really pretty hair” without pursuing the discussion further, everyone can take it as a genuine compliment and move on. If you really want to talk to women when they’re by themselves, but don’t want to make her feel cornered, it’s probably best to approach her in a social situation where she has friends but they’re not actually part of the conversation. It’s the difference between me walking to my car in the evening by myself, and me getting a drink at the bar while my friends are waiting for me at my table.

  207. Amphigorey says:

    @Paul – my safety trumps your desire to not be embarrassed.

  208. Kendall says:

    @mythago

    There also seems to be collective amnesia about how the Christian right was involved in this; nowadays it’s all laid on feminism.

    Maybe among anti-feminists/MRAs, or when people are criticising the specific feminists involved in it. But look at coverage of the satanic abuse myth among certain left-wingers or sceptics/atheists and the collective amnesia seems to have erased the feminist involvement instead.

    Where I live in the UK feminists were the public face of the witch hunt, and they did their best to conceal the Christian right connection (in fact I remember feminists blaming “patriarchal right-wing family structures” for the supposed ritual abuse). Because of that (rather than “amnesia”) I’d probably lay it all on feminism myself if I hadn’t investigated it more deeply.

  209. typhonblue says:

    @ Amphigorey

    Because you think men who approach you alone are going to hurt you?

    I know exactly what you mean, but I think this about black people.

  210. Paul says:

    Amphigorey: Did you not read the part where I said “Whether it’s the right behavior or not…”? I don’t endorse it, I’m just wondering why it’s so shocking. It’s basically the same kind of bemusement i would express if someone were to say “I can’t believe how many people get mugged in dark alleyways.”

  211. figleaf says:

    @Kendal: “…look at coverage of the satanic abuse myth among certain left-wingers or sceptics/atheists”

    Seriously? In my state the chief persecutor was the decidedly non-feminist Robert Perez. Virtually all the other accusations I know of were initially brought by the kind of people who’d most be freaked out by Satanism in the first place. I’m… pretty sure there weren’t a lot of feminists lying awaken nights worrying about what Satanist cults were doing to children. And not because feminists have a soft spot for Satanists — more like because feminists generally don’t go in for a lot of deeply religious symbology.

    I think you and/or Mythago might be talking about the so-called recovered memory movement, which I think did have backing from some groups of feminists but was never what any reasonable person would call a mainstream feminist platform plank.

    figleaf

  212. Paul says:

    Also, perhaps in the future people could maybe not jump to the worse posible interepretation of what somebody has written? I don’t particulalrly like the insinuation that I’m some creepy stalker or something.
    Fact of the matter is, I pretty much don’t approach women regardless of whether she’s alone or not.

  213. Clarence says:

    Ahh, recovered memories and feminism. Fun!

    http://www.rickross.com/reference/false_memories/fsm1.html
    Why, here’s more of those pesky feminists ..this time in a published journal defending their meddling in a psychiatric controversy.
    http://www.jstor.org/pss/466798
    Heck, as this paper shows, recovered memories and “satanic abuse” weren’t even always regarded as separate things..often recovered memories of ritual abuse were defended by feminists.

    Click to access 466883.pdf

  214. Clarence says:

    Paul:
    Look at my earlier comments. Since it *with a grand total of maybe two exceptional threads in three years* always happens when this subject comes up, it did not surprise me. You are not alone.

  215. Kendall says:

    @figleaf

    Here in the UK one of the main witchfinders was feminist social worker Judith Dawson. She definitely did describe the abuse as being carried out by satanic cults, and she successfully brought about the removal of children from their families based on that.

    I think I first heard about satanic child abuse though the documentary “Listen to the Children” by communist feminist Bea Campbell, along with articles from feminists in the left wing press (e.g. The Guardian newspaper). “Recovered memories” were a part of it, but they did talk about satanic rituals too. I remember it being claimed that the accused parents were followers of Aleister Crowley and the child abuse was part of ritual “sex magick”.

    I wouldn’t say that they were mainstream, but they were taken seriously, received plenty of attention, and negatively affected the lives of dozens of families.

  216. @Johnny_B: As regards “normal” approaches, I think the reaction on the part of the approachee is partially determined by how zie is approached, and much of the rest depending on how zie’s day is going. Has zie been hit on a million times before that day? Zie will then have less patience. But if you read here (I thought someone linked to this before), most of the happy stories about receiving compliments have to do with being given space, having rejections respected, etc.

  217. mythago says:

    @Kendall: I can’t speak to the UK, but here in the US, the main driving force behind the ‘Satanic panic’ was the Christian far right. It’s entirely fair to note that they were aided by a segment of feminism that pushed a very aggressive view of ‘recovered memories’ and allied with the far right on issues like pornography (we all know how well that turned out). But as figleaf says, the prosecutors, investigators and state therapists were not part of a Sekrit Feminist Conspiracy.

    But you know how it is with time. The far Christian right is much more marginalized in the US and isn’t doing a very good job of keeping porn away from us anymore, so why pick on them when it’s a convenient way to whack at feminism? And never mind that women were victims of the (often literal) witch-hunt; we’ve got a narrative to craft.

  218. typhonblue says:

    @ mythago

    “we’ve got a narrative to craft.”

    Wow. Ironic.

  219. TomeWyrm says:

    On the subject of the Friend Zone, the problem as I understand it from what other people have said to me, is that it shuts out any possibility of advancement or change. You are Just Friends, and you can expect that you will be a shoulder to cry on, you’ll get all the complaints about their relationship troubles, and you can fully expect to be stuck in a box with a label instead of being taken for who you are. You’ll feel exploited or dehumanized, not taken for who you are. Pigeonholing anyone into an absolute category is a shitty move.

    The problem isn’t “guy friends they don’t want to fuck or have a relationship with, but enjoy their friendship” and ” guy friends whom they don’t want to fuck” is the perception of the permanently static nature of those categories. It’s not “don’t want to have sex” it’s “will never want to have sex, no matter what”.

    That static binary objectification is a bad place to be stuck (That’s the operative word. Stuck) into. Some people aren’t looking for another acquaintance, they’re sated with their friends, they’re looking for something different. Something more, whether that be satisfying, complex, or simple. As bad as it may or may not sound, not everyone is satisfied with never having any chance at sex with every last single person they’re friends with, or any that they became friends with and later develop different opinions of, or started a relationship. I should clarify that I mean relationship in the original broader sense, as in friendship is a form of relationship, not just marriages, life partners, romantic and/or monogamous sexual relationships.

    ===========

    On another unrelated and slightly off-topic note: Why do people feel the need to invent words when there are perfectly serviceable words for the job. They, them, themselves, and their — while originally plural in usage — work just fine as gender neutral singular pronouns. Xie, Xir, Zie, Zir, Hir, et cetera, look pretty silly to me, but maybe that’s just me and my crotchety grammar tyrant tendencies.

  220. Pingback: Read it! « The Brunettes Blog

  221. Schala says:

    “Rejection didn’t make me mad or think he’d wasted my time or think that if only I could just convince him that he really did, deep down, like me. Instead I just went home, cried for an hour, and watched NatGeo until I felt better. I repeated this process until eventually some guy did return the feelings, and we dated. This is obvious to everyone, right?”

    Ah, well, I didn’t communicate my feelings much since, so this process happened I dunno, once or twice in my life? Probably involuntarily a lot more (People think my trusting them = hitting on them, because I’m very open).

    I was lucky my boyfriend communicated his intent, he’s my second relationship to date, and the first was more of a joke it seems.

    To me rejection was permanent, forever. Not “out of your league”, but undateable. Thankfully, transitioning made me more dateable, because I don’t need to approach necessarily. And that’s saying much given how 75%-90% of people veto trans women once they know they’re trans.

  222. aloneinthedark says:

    @xevv

    ” Isn’t it kind of an exaggeration to say it’s totally impossible because some women don’t ever want to be approached by men, under any circumstances?”

    no, because I have herd many a women profess exactly that.

    “I’m not trying to lecture you or tell you you’re bad at talking to women, it’s just frustrating when I feel like some guys blame women as a group for their lack of success.”

    I don’t blame them for my “lack of success”, I blame them for feeling no social obligation to be polite if I do so. In my experience, “yes” is usually “why the hell did you wait so long?” because they relying on signals rather than words, or “no, and matter of fact, hell no, wtf is wrong with you”. I have never experience a middle ground where she simply says “no thank you” and I can wave and walk away. The assumption is “well if she yelled at you its obviously something you did to make her feel that way” rather than maybe she was just irrational or a middle ground.

    “Most guys I talk to really don’t have this problem, they don’t live in fear of never getting to talk to women in a way that doesn’t come off as threatening because a. they have access to and feel comfortable in mixed gender social situations (having a large circle of friends helps) and b. they’re socializing with women who feel totally comfortable with approaching them if they find them attractive. So maybe it’s not a men’s problem, but a socially awkward people’s problem? I’m having a really hard time imagining some guy just saying “hi” to a girl at a mixer and her just freaking out, in my mind there’s gotta be some follow up of some crossed boundary.”

    This has literally happened to me, I was apparently “smiling at her devilishly and obviously attempting a lewd act”, those were her words exactly, didn’t even entertain the idea that perhaps she had no freaking clue what was going on inside my head. And it was not the first or last time.

    “But yeah, honestly? a guy just saying hi to me when we’re alone in an elevator immediately sends off alarms in my head, because no matter what his intentions are I can’t know them, and I can’t leave. That kind of response comes after many years of weighing the pros of gaining a new friend versus the potential cons of engaging a complete stranger when alone and somewhat vulnerable. Be sensitive to that, and the women you’re talking to will appreciate it : ).”

    This is why I just stopped talking to them, I’m tired of being punished for something I can never know 100%, you can read all the “signals” you want, your still guessing. The analogy I use typically is akin to being additionally punished for loosing in a vegas card game, Its impossible not to get yelled at so the answer is to just stop playing.

  223. aloneinthedark says:

    @EasilyEnthused

    “do I value my own romantic/sexual needs over someone who may be hypersensitive to the opposite sex?”

    nope, according to all the self proclaimed feminists I talk to, doing so would make me misogynist. And yes, I do wait a pretty massive time between partners due to this.

  224. Figleaf –

    I realize we’re going off on a bit of a derail here with the Satanic Ritual Abuse conversation, but I do want to address what your point. Yes, SRA was for the most part a myth originated and mainly perpetuated by the religious right, but just as there was crossover on the issue with pornography, all too many feminists got on board with SRA. There was both a good deal more crossover between proponents of recovered memory and SRA and it was a great deal more mainstream in feminism at one time than you give credit for. To the point that Ms. ran a front page story advocating belief in SRA! More here:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n2_v53/ai_13566129/
    http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2007/07/sunday-more-satanic-sex-panic.html

    And while this may be something that’s long passed from the world of anglophone feminism, it is something that lives on in Sweden (that seeming homeland of cloud-cuckoo feminism):

    http://www.lauraagustin.com/satanic-sex-on-sunday-gunilla-ekberg-sex-war-and-extremist-feminism

  225. A.T.Barnum says:

    Why is it always the worst sexist douchebags, the guys who very obviously have all kinds of deep-seated women issues, who insist on protecting us from all of the awful perverts who like looking at our bodies by constantly informing us of how they will NEVER respect us if we look attractive? That men can NEVER mix unbridled sexual longing and pleasure with respect for a partner’s humanity. Why? Whyyy??

    These types often try to posture like they’re the only good guys around- they’re the ones who want to have sex with us only for deep and meaningful reasons like True Love(tm)- and it’s all of those other bad guys out there that we need to watch out for. All the while subtly reminding us that *even they*, paragons of non-creepy manhood that they are, have trouble respecting women in bathing suits.

    Nine times out of ten, they’re NiceGuys(tm), too.

    Ugh, just gag.

  226. A.T.Barnum says:

    Oh, and a sincere message to the MRAs on thread:

    It seems that some men tend to dump their sexual guilt and shame issues on women via projection. I don’t know a single woman who thinks men are bad or sexually evil for trying to approach them, as long as they approach by striking up a casual conversation. If you leer at someone from across the room, then follow them around, or pose as a disinterested friend only to spring your intentions on a woman while she’s crying over a breakup, she is not going to trust you. It’s that simple.

    Dig deep. Think about your attitudes about sex roles and how they may be contributing to your social situation. Could you be expecting standards of sexual purity from women that are unrealistic? Could you be idealizing women to the point where you feel paralyzed, unable to approach them, and ashamed of your own sexual desires and needs? Try talking to a psychologist or a life coach- either of whom may be able to help you smooth out your social approach. Stop treating every encounter with a woman like a speed date, and just loosen up a bit. Take these steps, and you may be surprised by how quickly your dating dilemma magically takes care of itself.

  227. Dr Anonymous says:

    @A.T Barnum

    See Amanda Marcotte’s and Rebecka Wattsons comment on elevatorgate for that exact statement.

  228. Tamen says:

    I don’t know a single woman who thinks men are bad or sexually evil for trying to approach them, as long as they approach by striking up a casual conversation.

    Well, some feminists have an issue with men saying hello to them:
    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/08/05/the-politics-of-hello/

  229. Dr Anonymous says:

    The Nice Guy(tm) trope allways has me laughing.
    So I am supposed to respect your preference, that you find your boyfriend who hurls insults at me, and tells me I should go back to my basement and watch some more porn is just so charming and witty, at the same time I am supposed to police my male friends so that you don’t feel threatened.
    Sorry, doesn’t work that way. As you give, so shall you receive.

  230. Schala says:

    @Tamen

    Talk about incredible paranoia on that thread. Sheez. I’ve had unwanted interactions in my life, but I know better than to all attribute the maliciousness of such to some general state of society specifically targeted at me – it’s very few people in my experience.

  231. BlackHumor says:

    @Dr. A 4:54: Watson got mad (or really, not even mad) not because a man approached her, but because a man asked her to come have sex with him, in an enclosed space. Same with Marcotte and all the other people on this side of Elevatorgate. In fact in her original video Watson said explicitly she has no problem with men asking her out in general.

    Please stop confusing “don’t be rude about approaching” with “don’t ever approach”. It’s really disingenuous.

  232. Dr Anonymous says:

    @BlackHumor

    He asked her to join her for a cup of coffee. She said no, he pursued no further. Marcotte has turned this into a long winding discussion about rape.

  233. BlackHumor says:

    He asked her to go up to his hotel room, which is pretty clearly a euphemism for sex. That is, he asked her for sex, when he didn’t know her, in an enclosed space. Can’t you see how this might make her uncomfortable?

  234. Tamen says:

    BlackHumor:
    “Do you fancy a night-cap” or “Would you like join me for a cup of coffee in my room” and so on are often, but not always used as a eupemisms for sex for a reason. It affords plausible deniability for both parties and thus it leaves room for declining the offer with less risk for any escalation of the situation. However, one can’t assume that it always means sex, because sometime coffee and night-caps get offered as just coffee and night-caps and jumping someone’s bones based only on them offering you a night-cap or coffee is hazardous. And, besides, if they always ment sex then they would be pointless to use as an euphemism for sex as the plausible deniability would be neither plausible or deniable anymore.

    Do you have any thoughts on the “Hello” post and comments on Feministe?

  235. noahbrand says:

    @BlackHumor: Dr. Anonymous is not going to get, or attempt to get, anything that doesn’t fit his existing set of opinions. I think he’s made that clear.

  236. Dr Anonymous says:

    @BlackHumor

    Yes, I know very well that it might be an euphemism, probably is. And I think that it was a not very clever move from elevator guy. However I think it should have stayed at him doing a not very bright move, no one knows anything about elevator guy’s motives.

  237. Clarence says:

    BlackHumor aka Brian:

    I’ve watched the original video. Elevator Guy started off with a disclaimer basically to “…I know how this is going to sound”. I’m afraid thinking he was aiming for sex means either Watson lied about his disclaimer or that you are accusing a man you do not know of lying based on no evidence.

  238. Clarence says:

    Here’s a post I did on the subject:
    http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/elevatorgate/

    No, I am not a Christian of any type. Yes, I am friends with a few on that site.

  239. Rae says:

    OK, I’ll say something about the “hello” thread.

    I am a friendly person, and I like talking to people on the street. But I was a lot less friendly when I was getting sexually harassed regularly, because I didn’t want anybody reading my “hello” as a sign that I didn’t have boundaries, or was sexually interested in them. (This is not an abstract possibility; one guy who started with “hello” ended with grabbing my arm and trying to make me kiss him.) It probably didn’t help that I was living in the northeastern US at the time. Since it is not socially normal to speak to strangers in my hometown, a large proportion of the “hellos” I got from strangers were people who wanted something out of me.

    So (a) this stuff depends on geographic location and (b) a few assholes can ruin the social environment for everybody. If you want women to act less paranoid, work to change your social environment so that paranoia makes less sense.

  240. BlackHumor says:

    @Noah: Worth trying anyway. I don’t argue to convince the people I’m arguing with, I argue to convince the people reading the argument. Doesn’t really matter whether Dr. A himself ever comes around.

    @Dr. A: And it would’ve, had people not reacted so very negatively to Watson’s original “don’t do this guys”.

    Or is it the rape thing that you’re talking about? That’s not reading into Elevator Guy’s motives, that’s the explanation of why it made her uncomfortable. Nobody is saying anything about whether EG would’ve raped her had she accepted. The reason she was uncomfortable was that he could’ve raped her, and it doesn’t matter one way or the other whether he was actually going to rape her.

    Probably he wasn’t, but then the crazy guy on the bus probably isn’t going to stab you either. But that doesn’t mean you want to sit next to him, right?

    @Clarence: Full proposal was “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting. And I would like to talk more, would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?”

    The disclaimer was on the “I find you very interesting”. And it wouldn’t have negated the euphemism even if it wasn’t.

  241. Clarence says:

    BlackHumor aka Brian:

    The disclaimer was on any sexual intent. Unless now you are saying that EG was insulting Ms. Watson? Am I going to have to explain to you why you just accused ElevatorGuy of insulting Ms. Watson? Oh, please do.

  242. Clarence says:

    And um …if ElevatorGuy had said “please don’t take this the wrong way, but would you like to come to my room for coffee…” just how would that not of negated the alleged (since this isn’t even taking place in the US) euphmemism, hmm?

    Oh, I’m fully prepared to own you.

  243. noahbrand says:

    @Clarence: Just stop. You’re making a fool of yourself. This is an issue that has been argued out to an embarrassing degree over the past several months, and is at this point long past being a dead horse. The women who have risen as one to agree with Ms. Watson that some things feel creepy and inappropriate have made their voices heard well enough that if you haven’t yet read them, or haven’t yet understood them, you’re not going to. This ship has fucking sailed.

    Basically, any time you’re stating that you’re “fully prepared to own [someone]” you are no longer having a good-faith exchange of views. I realize that you personally want a definition of sexual harassment that most women actively hate, and that you are prepared to defend this desire of yours to the last pathetic wheeze of smug entitlement. But for fuck’s sake, you could spare the rest of us having to wade through it.

  244. Cheradenine says:

    The women who have risen as one to agree with Ms. Watson

    I feel it’s important to note that plenty of women disagree with Ms. Watson too. “Risen as one” kinda suggests otherwise.

    My personal view is that I keep hearing deeply flawed arguments on both “sides” and I’m sick to death of the whole thing.

  245. Dr Anonymous says:

    @noahbrand

    That women feel that a thing is creepy doesn’t make the thing on it’s own creepy.
    That would be akin to me declaring that red is blue and then stating that it is such, because that is how I perceive it. And this is something that seems to be infecting the debate a lot. It is all subjective perception, but some subjective perceptions are somehow more objective than other.

  246. Clarence says:

    noahbrand:
    Read my link. It’s to a post I did on this subject. I dare say I know a bit more on this than you do, as should be obvious if you read my post, and yes, I was reading about EG over 4 weeks ago. I lurked and hardly ever commented, but I am aware of the conversations at over a dozen blogs concerning this.

    Good faith exchanges do not involve insulting a man you’ve never meant nor putting words in his mouth, nor thoughts in his head as anyone who insists elevatorguy wanted sex or didn’t mean his disclaimer basically IS doing. If Brian would concede that he doesn’t know ElevatorGuy’s motivations anymore than you do or I do then he might be arguing in good faith. The ONLY reason I got involved here was to point out that no one knows EG’s motivations, and I would think such a simple statement of fact would be readily acknowleged. It’s fine to sympathize with Ms Watson feeling threatened in the elevator, I do MYSELF – it is not fine to assert that absent evidence, you KNOW that E.G wanted sex, when he seemed to specifically disclaim any such intent.

    Frankly, many people who have commented on this have done so assuming facts not in evidence about this guy (and I say this about BOTH sides) and attributed motives with which they are comfortable to him.

  247. BlackHumor says:

    @Dr. A: Yes, women or anyone else feeling something is creepy makes it creepy. (In fact it’s a long standing point in philosophy that if you genuinely thought the color red was what everyone else sees as blue, there would be no way to prove you wrong, but that’s irrelevant.)

    @Clarence: Now Noah’s made his argument a little more explicit I agree there’s really no point in arguing this any more. Anybody who doesn’t have an opinion about Elevatorgate at this point has clearly been hiding in an elevator these last few weeks.

  248. debaser71 says:

    Now, since day one, elevator gate has been thrust at me. I used to read skepchick, and several other female atheist bloggers. I was subbed to rkwatson on youtube. Pharyngula was my favorite blog.

    I was aware of what was going on, in real time, as it all happened. And not by choice. My atheism blogs were overrun with vitriolic radical feminists. I tried to just kind of ignore it but it was so nasty and so often that, well I eventually found my way here (and elsewhere) to find more information.

    Anyway…

    So from my perspective rkwatson made some condescending (but casually and nonchalantly) remarks about how men should behave if they are trying to pickup women. At the time it wasn’t an issue to me, except for how rkwatson has a tendency to tell others what they should and should not be doing or saying. I can accept that it’s her style and I was ok with it. I don’t have to agree with everything everyone ever says.

    (And this is were the ‘dating game’ aspect of elevatorgate started and ended, with me. I’m not interested in ‘the dating game’ at all.)

    Then Rebecca Watson (and I use her name here because this is a lecture she was giving in person, not a youtube video) insulted a student at a college she was speaking at. IMO harsh, but again, I didn’t really care all that much. I liked rkwatson and that’s good enough for me. Rebecca Watson the lecturer, is alright, but not really suited to what I look for. Again, whatever, no big deal.

    Then Richard Dawkins makes a comment on Pharyngula. I thought it was an awesome post because it was aimed at the Pharyngula horde. Two more comment were made…again at the horde. But skepchick (again, I use this name because this is her blog) took it personally and chastised Richard Dawkins for telling others what they should or should not be doing. (note I am ignoring the ‘dating game’ stuff). That’s when it crossed the line for me. Not only was Rebecca Watson preachy, judgmental, and mean. She was a hypocrite too.

    So I read up on feminist theory. And I couldn’t believe that my fellow atheists, skeptics, and freethinkers were buying into this stuff 110%. So in addition to being preachy, judgmental, mean, and hypocritical the PZ horde was also dogmatically clinging to bad reasoning and bad ideas. Essentially being the exact opposite of freethinking skeptics. More than anything, I feel it’s an embarrassment.

    To me, elevatorgate is a microcosm of the larger issue of how feminist theory fails.

    As far as objectification goes sexual thoughts are only a small part of the thoughts that race through my mind. This word “objectify” is vague and slippery; to the point of meaninglessness. Generally the word includes both thinking and acting; both regarding and treating.

    Given the nature of the human mind, holding someone accountable for some random thoughts is way over the top. As in OMFG.

    So what percentage of my conscious thoughts regarding sex is acceptable to you? 3%, 10%. .05%, 0.0% ?

    What about thoughts about people’s intelligence level? After speaking with them and watching them, what percentage of thoughts is acceptable in assessing mental acuity?

    Or thoughts about political affiliations?

    Religious inclinations?

    Physical prowess?

  249. Jim says:

    This is what Wikipedia says Martha Nussbaum defined objectification:

    “This term is also used to describe the treatment of a human being as a thing, disregarding his/her personality or sentience. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum[1] has argued that something is objectified if any of the following factors is present:

    Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one’s own purposes;
    Denial of autonomy – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination;
    Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency;
    Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another;
    Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable;
    Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy;
    Denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the ‘object’s’ feelings and experiences. ”

    Do anyone recognize any of these in some feminists’s misandrist narratives about men – Borgification of men (fungibility), erasure of men’s iisues (denial of subjectivity) , narratives about men and DV or men and rape (violability)? No wonder sexual objectification bulks so large in their discourse; it’s an irreplaceable cover for them.

  250. BlackHumor says:

    @debaser: You realize that PZ himself is not on your side, right?

    I think anyone who accuses PZ Myers of “clinging to bad reasoning and bad ideas” should take a long look at themselves. That’s like accusing MLK of racism; come on, you can’t be serious.

  251. debaser71 says:

    PZ is *gasp* wrong and IMO an embarrassment to skeptics.

    It’s pretty clear this blog isn’t what I thought it was.

  252. OrangeYouGlad says:

    I admit, I have never quite been sure about where Elevator Guy went wrong. Even under the presumption that the coffee meant sex. He asked her back to his place for some consensual coffee and when she refused he backed down. That seems model behavior?

    Maybe I am drawing too strongly from experiences in the queer community but generally one can fairly easily ask for sex, coffee euphemism may or may not be included, then if the guy refuses that’s the end of it. I always found this a bit ideal. Sure there’s some guys that don’t take a hint but I find they are the exception rather than the rule. Generally, there’s no “playing hard to get” social meme so, since that is off the table entirely as the reasoning behind a ‘no’, refusals are typically taken at face value.

    Now that I am done explaining where I am coming from socially. I have trouble seeing the trouble with his behavior. He expressed interest in casual sex* with a stranger (surely no fault there?) and when that stranger declined he dropped the subject.

    Now I do see the argument that they were alone in an enclosed space and therefore, were he a rapist, he could have raped her. The trouble with that, though, and the shitty thing about rapists, is they aren’t always strange guys in an elevator. Hell, *most of the time* they aren’t strange guys in an elevator. It seems to me that, you are not more or less (well, maybe less) likely to be raped by a Stranger-In-The-Bushes than people you have close interpersonal relationships with. I mean, people are raped by their *spouses*.

    Personally, I think the fault for the (very likely) misunderstanding is a society that pushes Strange-Guy-In-Elevator-Will-Rape-You on every little girl from the time they’re pubescent *while at the same time* coming close to systemically denying rape when it occurs when the perpetrator is in a close relationship (whether platonic or not) with the victim.

    Which isn’t to say I want women to be afraid of every man in their lives. That would be horrible. Just that they do not need to be so afraid of strangers in elevators, or invitations to coffee, as long as all of their boundaries and responses are respected.

    I guess, overall, to me, it doesn’t seem that reasonable or even a pleasant way to go through life fearing everyone could rape you, when anyone could and no circumstances are really more or less amenable to rape than it would be reasonable to go through life fearing everyone could stab you since really anyone could and the “crazy guy” on the bus really isn’t the most likely to do it.

    Overall, I don’t think Ms. Watson is at fault for feeling threatened but I also do not think Elevator Guy is at fault for asking a stranger if they wanted to have coffee (maybe meaning sex) with him. I do not think he should be faulted for it.

    Aaand, speaking of the “crazy guy on the bus”, separately from the rest of this, since “crazy” is so vague I am going to assume you mean one of three things.

    A) “Crazy Guy” = Homeless – If you ever speak to them it turns out the majority of homeless people are simply human beings like everyone else except they’ve had a harder life than most, probably haven’t had a shower in a while, or regular meals. Unsurprisingly none of that changes they are people and not terribly frightening if possibly quite socially inept. If your first thoughts on seeing someone homeless is “probable stabber, avoid”, then yeah, you kind of are an ass.

    B) “Crazy Guy” = Literally “Crazy” – They have some form of mental disorder from Depression to AsPD. You can’t usually spot these people by looking so I presume you don’t mean this. (I still want to call you an ass but I can at least concede that some mental disorders (AsPD combined with sadism, for instance) can yield unfortunate results).

    C) “Crazy Guy” = Like “Homeless Guy” But Muttering To Self – Reasons not to want to sit near him would be “poor conversationalist” as might be the case with Regular Homeless Guy. Assuming “probable stabber” still makes you an ass.

    *and that is assuming that is even what he wanted.

  253. Paul says:

    Wow… the borgification of men and the presumption of motives based on a single frigging word is fairly blatant in that “hello” thread.

    How they can go from claiming to know any particular guy’s motivations from a single word on one hand, to stating that “all women are individuals” on the other shall probably forever remain a mystery to me.

  254. elementary_watson says:

    “I think anyone who accuses PZ Myers of “clinging to bad reasoning and bad ideas” should take a long look at themselves. That’s like accusing MLK of racism; come on, you can’t be serious.”

    Regardless of right or wrong, but I guess any skeptic worth his/her salt would be unhappy with an appeal to authority argument …

  255. BlackHumor says:

    @debaser: Anyone who claims PZ fucking Myers is an embarrassment to skeptics should look very skeptically at their own arguments.

    Seriously. PZ Myers. You just said PZ Myers is an embarrassment to skeptics. That doesn’t make you take pause for a bit? Putting PZ Myers and unskeptical in the same sentence doesn’t seem wrong to you at all?

    Not that he can’t be wrong, but he certainly won’t be wrong without good reason.

  256. BlackHumor says:

    @elementary_watson: I’m not appealing to authority, I’m saying that “PZ Myers is being unreasonable” is as silly a claim as “Martin Luther King is being racist” or “Gandhi is being violent”.

    The thing that PZ Myers does is be reasonable. That is all he does. All day. I’m only half joking here.

  257. Thomas says:

    I think anyone who accuses PZ Myers of “clinging to bad reasoning and bad ideas” should take a long look at themselves. That’s like accusing MLK of racism; come on, you can’t be serious.

    I’m not really familiar with Myers’ blog but I’ve read on several atheist blogs that his skeptical thinking ends when it comes to feminism.

    Actually, the first time I heard about his blog was when a highly reasonable blogger/commenter mentioned it. A female commenter accused him of stalking her and Meyers banned him. What he actually did was something completely common. He tells the story on Toysoldier’s blog ( http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/lost-in-translation-2/#comment-22464 )

    He, Thaddeus. Blanchette, wrote a very smart article on the MRM and feminism for the Good Men Project ( http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/playing-the-victim/ ) and stood out for me with his thoughtful comments on other blogs. He gets banned on Myers’ blog over a ideological disagreement with a feminist.

    Draw your own conclusion.

  258. Tamen says:

    I am pretty sure this PZ Myers guy is a human and no humans are immune to being hit by the stupid stick occasionally as far as I know. Gandhi were a racist and urged the Indian population in South Africa to join the 1906 Zulu war before he became known for his non-violence stance.

  259. Paul says:

    @Blackhumor: “I’m not appealing to authority, I’m saying that “PZ Myers is being unreasonable” is as silly a claim as “Martin Luther King is being racist” or “Gandhi is being violent”.

    The only reason those claims are inherently unreasonable is because both those individuals are dead and aren’t able to “be” anything.

    BH, I don’t really know who PZ Meyers is, and I don’t really care. (far as I’m concerned, athiests and religious people are right about in the same spots on the asshole-spectrum) but the way you’re going on about him, I’d half suspect you of having a shrine to the guy.

    Nobody’s right all the time, nobody is reasonable all the time, and to suggest that he can’t be wrong or unreasonable “without good reason….” is, well, it’s nuts.

    Also @ elementary_watson: ”

    Regardless of right or wrong, but I guess any skeptic worth his/her salt would be unhappy with an appeal to authority argument …”

    I lol’d.

  260. @BlackHumour PZ Meyers can be a prominent skeptic and an embarrassment to skeptics the same way the trans rights movement can distance itself from the operative essentialists…

    Yes, he’s been accommodating towards Rebecca Watson and her public shaming of EG and then sexual assault survivor Richard Dawkins, he has. That is not the same thing as being reasonable. A reasonable person would beg to differ with a woman who said that people like EG who in her words “found what you had to say interesting and would like to discuss it further over coffee in [his] room,” should just buy real dolls and flesh lights. A reasonable person would say that a personal discomfort with someone’s activities does not mean that those activities are prima facie bad-faith and primarily ulterior in motive…

    But then, I suppose that’s just the exception that proves the rule?

  261. elementary_watson says:

    You know, BlackHumor, I just looked “reasonable” up in Miriam-Webster’s dictionary, and indeed, I found:

    being reasonable: The thing PZ Myers is doing all day, apart from breathing

    Looks like I was totally wrong and you (and, per definitionem PZ Myers) were absolutely correct.

    I also found this tidbit of information about “appeal to authority”:

    “Appeal To Authority is a syllogism which usually has the following form:

    “You are on one side of an argument.
    Person X is on the other side of the argument.
    Ergo, you are wrong.”

    If Person X is not PZ Myers, this conclusion is not valid and presents a logical fallacy.”

    I can see why you are so impressed with that Myers person …

  262. Titfortat says:

    Ok, Im going to be really bad here but PZ meyers looks like he could have been the guy on the elevator. 😉

  263. debaser71 says:

    PZ accommodates. He has also briefly stated a few opinions regarding some of what feminist theory covers (which I disagree with) But my comments here were made towards the PZ horde. Go read the comments in the relevant posts on Pharyngula. It’s ugly. This is the face of feminism to the atheist skeptic and freethinker community. Good luck with that.

    And notice here on this blog how I am 1) misquoted 2) taken out of context 3) and then attacked for things I did not say.

  264. OrangeYouGlad says:

    Not sure who PZ is either but I have post up there in moderation that hopefully won’t get lost behind too much discussion. Also, it is somewhat directed at BlackHumour in the second part and I didn’t specify that and figured I ought to.

  265. Nobby says:

    @Valerie Keefe
    “found what you had to say interesting and would like to discuss it further over coffee in [his] room,” should just buy real dolls and flesh lights.”

    *sigh* that is not what she said. She said that EG, who said the first part (after a ton of context you naturally dropped), shouldn’t do that, because it made her uncomfortable. That’s it.

    Now, the bit about fleshlights and realdolls was not directed at EG. Unless of course EG was also an internet troll. Because that statement was made directly at the people who were trolling her blog, telling her to shut up, calling her unreasonable, and in general saying that she had no right to feel unconformable by an unwelcome come on at 4 am in an elevator.

    If you actually watched both videos, you would know this. And the relevant context.

  266. BlackHumor says:

    @watson, Paul, Tamen: See, reason this is not an appeal to authority is I’m not saying that debaser is wrong because he disagrees with PZ. I’m not actually saying anything about debaser disagreeing with PZ per se. What I am saying is that accusing PZ of being not only wrong but unreasonable is insane.

    Gandhi may have been wrong on occasion, but he was never violent, because that would’ve been a betrayal of everything he stood for. Martin Luther King may have been wrong on occasion, but he was never racist, because that would’ve been a betrayal of everything he stood for.

    And so similarly PZ Myers may be and have been wrong, but he is assuredly not being unskeptical. Though of course it’s theoretically possible it’s quite unlikely, to the point where anybody suggesting it without ironclad proof is essentially guaranteed to be wrong.

    @Valerie: You know very well neither PZ or anyone on his side is responsible for things other people say. Richard Dawkins isn’t responsible for anything the hordes say either.

    Besides that, what Nobby said: she was definitely not directing that to EG. She was pretty much entirely non-hostile towards EG; she said he made her uncomfortable and that’s it. And while I do agree it’s a bad form of insult period, I also think that it was kind of understandable after the massive wave of hate that came her way after she posted the original video.

    And you also know very well that neither he nor anyone else has ever suggested that EG had an ulterior motive for suggesting what he did, only that he was inept at suggesting it*. I realize it’s easy to confuse us saying “Watson was uncomfortable because EG could’ve raped her” with “EG wanted to rape Watson”, but they’re two totally different things.

    *: And he very much was; anyone who doesn’t get that after having it explained to them as many times as it has been these last few months should seriously not attempt to date anyone.

  267. @Blackhumour

    I got someone saying I should be sent to Saudi Arabia to see how women are really treated after I did a vid (I’m valeriereified on Youtube, btw) on EG and false equivalency. I thought that was reprehensible, but I did not proceed to mock the commenter’s sexuality. Do I have inherently more dignity than RW, or is it possible she’s shaming male sexuality because it works well for her political points.

    PS On a slightly related note, I also got degendered a couple of times too … http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/cis-privilege-checklist/

    The Relevant excerpt from the list:

    “9. Perception/acceptance of my gender is generally independent of:

    Anything mentioned in 8.*
    My clothing choices, how my clothing fits
    My adherence to traditional roles of my gender (both “too much” and “too little”)
    Holding sexist, sex-negative, or rape-culture beliefs
    Holding feminist or sex-positive beliefs”

    It’s good to know that trans women are women until we criticize a unidirectional construction of gender power… or that men are ‘normal’ and ‘able to get a relationship with a woman’ until they criticize the public shaming to an audience of tens of thousands that Ms. Watson.

    Do you find anything about these silencing tactics sort of…

    creepy?

  268. debaser71 says:

    @blackhumor “I’m not saying that debaser is wrong because he disagrees with PZ. I’m not actually saying anything about debaser disagreeing with PZ per se. What I am saying is that accusing PZ of being not only wrong but unreasonable is insane.”

    You took a sentence fragment then applied it to PZ when, in fact, the sentence fragment was being applied to the commentors on Pharyngula.

    I said this, “So in addition to being preachy, judgmental, mean, and hypocritical the PZ horde was also dogmatically clinging to bad reasoning and bad ideas. ”

    But you said this, “I think anyone who accuses PZ Myers of “clinging to bad reasoning and bad ideas” should take a long look at themselves.”

    Note the difference? Note what you’ve been harping on ever since.

    You misquoted me. Then took your misquote out of context. to create a strawman.

    I attempted to clarify but then you simply added more strawmen to the strawman you already created.

    What you did is IMO contemptuous. Bottom of the barrel unadulterated bullshit. And it reeks this place up.

    Here’s the deal. PZ has become an embarrassment to many in the atheist community because he is wrong regarding feminist theory and he accommodates the vitriolic nasty people who comment on his blog.

    From the comments PZ (himself) has actually made, he seems to 1) be stuck in ‘the dating game’ aspect and 2) seems to buy into some of the specifics of feminist theory, such as ‘rape culture’ male privilege’ and ‘patriarchy’. I have no problems with these ideas when they are used as models, or examples. I take issue when they are espoused as fact…no discussion allowed. This is where PZ is wrong.

    That in my opening paragraph I go about to explain that Pharyngula and some others were my favorite blogs should give you a clue to the high regard I used to have for these people. But since finding out how they fail to apply their skepticism to feminist theory makes me saddened and disappointed. That supposed skeptics and freethinker buy into trope nullifies their skepticism and freethinking ‘street-cred’.

    So stop with the misquotes, the strawmen, the false equivalencies, and the personal attacks. (You called me “insane”…isn’t that ableism?)

  269. Clarence says:

    debaser71:

    Thank you for explaining so much of your own beliefs and your posts here and at Feminist Critics. And I agree: when it comes to certain feminist tenants or at least certain types of feminism PZ is not a skeptic at all, but a true believer in the bad sense of that term. He was acting far more “white knight” than skeptical throughout the whole mess.

  270. Clarence says:

    Jim:

    About that list of negative objectification attributes:
    Yes, feminist obviously do some or all of those things at times.
    I have my own problems with the simplistic and overgeneralized way that “objectification” is used and dealt with in feminist and “progressive” circles, which I will not talk about right now. However, I will say two things:
    A. Inevitably every human being objectifies things.
    B. No political philosophy is immune to this.

  271. Jim says:

    Yes, Clarence, that is all true. Objectification is necessary in any world where oyu have to interact with peole who are not part of your immediate circle. Basically that’s any adult, or anyone who lives an adult life, let me be more specific. My point is that it is not only hypocritical of (those )feminists (who do) to swing the O word around like it is an unqualified evil, but it also shows a certain childishnes sin that worldview.

  272. OrangeYouGlad says:

    “”(You called me “insane”…isn’t that ableism?)””

    Technically it is though not as bad as some other things he’s said in this thread (as I don’t object too much to the slang meaning of that word in certain contexts) as I attempted to point out if my post will ever get out of moderation. I assumed it was because I used “crazy” to point out some of the things he’s been saying but now I’m wondering how all of his posts are getting through.

  273. Divinity33372 has a great video on ‘objectification’ though a bit heteronormative for my lesbian tastes:

Leave a comment