[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=teal>Cookies?<h6>A Scientist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]josedequeso wrote: [/QUOTENAME] But it is a fact of life that women are treated as objects and as such most men have been indoctrinated into believing that this type of behavior is OK. [/QUOTE]
That is, unfortunately, true for some cases. However, I also believe that the way a man treats a woman can depend on the way the woman acts and treats herself. If the lady acts like a slut and sleeps around and dresses/looks like a hooker... (This comes from my very little experience of watching Jerry Springer on no school-days) Then the man will most likely treat her like a trashy, slutty hooker and look at her only as a "Hot 'n' freaky piece of ass"...
But if the woman shows self respect by not dressing like a ho (And I don't mean she has to wear a muumuu every fucking day, just dress with a little more class.. :O) or by not doing things that convey that sort of image, then I think a (normal) man will see that and treat her like an actual person and not just an object that you can bang every night after you come home from work.
(Did that even make sense?... :O)
[/QUOTE]
Ah. So women are only deserving of respect if they dress 'tastefully.' Otherwise they are obviously base creatures without an once of humanity. This mindset seeks to control women by placing them on a figurative pillar, which we then tell women they should aspire to. By elevating them, we isolate them.
This is a common trope amongst those with little to no awareness of the extremely sexist society in which we live. Have you ever heard of a concept called the virgin/whore dichotomy? It's a fabulous means by which society demands that women both act like decent 'good girls' and simultanously like 'sluts' when it suits mens' purposes. Then men can satisfy their own egos and sexual appetites (god knows we don't critique men for sleeping around) and then decry their partners as whores.
Why should having multiple sexual partners be in any way significant in your judging of a human being? You will find that the human is an incredibly complex creature crafted of innumerable motivations and drives. To generalize and blithely state that all women who sleep around are dirty and whorish is an abominable generalization that deprives women of their agency to act as they please.
Oh, by the way, we live in a patriarchal society that, through various subtle means, has completely encouraged and fed the 'trashy' style of female garb. Don't doubt for a moment that women who dress in a fashion you find inappropriate do so specifically because they are being informed by their culture, which was male forged and is male driven. We live in a world where women regularly vomit up their meals or simply cease to eat in order to emulate airbrushed models on magazine covers. This is a travesty of the gravest sort.
Meanwhile, men snap their suspenders and say, "Golly gee, I like ladies fine, but they shouldn't dress like no slut, no sir." Excuse me...are innumerable women debasing you as a human being based on your clothing choice? I think not. Thing is: you're not a woman. You have no inkling what it means to be woman. I myself am male, and have found my road to feminism long, arduous and occasionally confusing. If you need an example of your own cultural conditioning, just glance at your above post. You associate trashy women with Jerry Springer, a cultural connection crafted by a male society. By watching the show, you then learn to generalize about all people who resemble the incredible minorty of polygamists, sheep fuckers and incestuous so-and-so's.
I am not saying that certain clothing looks terrible on people. However, I am claiming that it is a person's right to choose how they adorn their body, and mistreating another human being because you disapprove of their dres
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Music Man -
In the 'interest of objectivity' you claim to serve, would you be at all willing to critique the opposing opinion as well? It's all very well to claim that you support an objective stance, but the proof is in the pudding.
I will write up a more detailed response to your bits later. Touche and such. But I would appreciate (purely in the interest of objectivity) that you extended your reasoned criticisms to both sides of the playing field.
Oh, and I never try to 'sound smart. I promise, in those rare instances where I come across as a vaguely intelligent individual, it's usual a typo. Cheerio.[/QUOTE]
Like I said - I usually don't take sides. Essentially, I will analyze a person's argument (any argument, for any side) for objective shortcomings and poke holes in it. Since no one has really offered an opposing argument (at least none as compelling or well thought-out as yours), it seems that you're really the only option.
To be honest, like I said, I'm not quite sure what the argument is, exactly. Also, my response was a lot weaker than I would have liked it to be, but I would like you to especially consider the particular point that "as women/men have the right to self determination, men/women have the right to discriminate in their choice of partner(s) based on attraction, which is caused by many factors."
In the 'interest of objectivity' you claim to serve, would you be at all willing to critique the opposing opinion as well? It's all very well to claim that you support an objective stance, but the proof is in the pudding.
I will write up a more detailed response to your bits later. Touche and such. But I would appreciate (purely in the interest of objectivity) that you extended your reasoned criticisms to both sides of the playing field.
Oh, and I never try to 'sound smart. I promise, in those rare instances where I come across as a vaguely intelligent individual, it's usual a typo. Cheerio.[/QUOTE]
Like I said - I usually don't take sides. Essentially, I will analyze a person's argument (any argument, for any side) for objective shortcomings and poke holes in it. Since no one has really offered an opposing argument (at least none as compelling or well thought-out as yours), it seems that you're really the only option.
To be honest, like I said, I'm not quite sure what the argument is, exactly. Also, my response was a lot weaker than I would have liked it to be, but I would like you to especially consider the particular point that "as women/men have the right to self determination, men/women have the right to discriminate in their choice of partner(s) based on attraction, which is caused by many factors."
P.S. It is the third rebuttal.
P.S. (again - I would edit, but my posts don't show up immediately) - and by "trying to sound intellectual," I meant that you are trying to provide an intelligent, logical, and objective answer, but that it was flawed - not that you are acting pretentiously, or that you are not intelligent.
Very good, very good. In my (relatively weak) defense I typed up my second post in a dazed stupour...which is less of an excuse and draws more attention to the question of why I was dealing with sensitive social issues in an essentially unconscious state. Music Man, you have been most decent in your posts. And Cookies...I like ya. I generally enjoy your posts, and was certainly not spoiling to initiate a pitched conflict with a fellow QZner.
Looking back over this thread I find it both an intriguing glance into the socialized male psyche and a crash course in my own burgeoning feminism (how arrogant does that sound, eh?). I do, on occasion, consider myself intelligent and well-informed, but I can also go off at the hilt, a trait which most middle-of-the-road individuals associate with feminism's perceived 'crazy hard-core lack of humour man hating lesbian' stereotype. This is certainly not the impression I wanted to leave, especially since I am a relatively sane, laid-back man who enjoys Monty Python.
Ahem. That being said, I feel that my second post was in some measure justified, but poorly executed. When I have some time I'll sit down and elaborate my misgivings with a slightly greater cohesion. Unless everyone is tired of this thread, and of looking at pictures of naked 16-year-olds in particular.
Looking back over this thread I find it both an intriguing glance into the socialized male psyche and a crash course in my own burgeoning feminism (how arrogant does that sound, eh?). I do, on occasion, consider myself intelligent and well-informed, but I can also go off at the hilt, a trait which most middle-of-the-road individuals associate with feminism's perceived 'crazy hard-core lack of humour man hating lesbian' stereotype. This is certainly not the impression I wanted to leave, especially since I am a relatively sane, laid-back man who enjoys Monty Python.
Ahem. That being said, I feel that my second post was in some measure justified, but poorly executed. When I have some time I'll sit down and elaborate my misgivings with a slightly greater cohesion. Unless everyone is tired of this thread, and of looking at pictures of naked 16-year-olds in particular.
I don’t want to speak for Lozlan, and Music Man I know your comments weren’t directed at me, but I’d like to put in my two cents.
Lozlan was responding to something someone said. He wasn’t posting just to post. I won’t go line by line but rather give my overall impression of the comments that intrigued me.
Cookies said – "But if the woman shows self respect by not dressing like a ho (And I don't mean she has to wear a muumuu every fucking day, just dress with a little more class.. :O) or by not doing things that convey that sort of image, then I think a (normal) man will see that and treat her like an actual person and not just an object that you can bang every night after you come home from work."
Lozlan replied to that with – "Ah. So women are only deserving of respect if they dress 'tastefully.' Otherwise they are obviously base creatures without an once of humanity. This mindset seeks to control women by placing them on a figurative pillar, which we then tell women they should aspire to. By elevating them, we isolate them."
And to that, Music Man said – "Visual appearance plays a strong role in social behavior. One's impression of another will therefore be strongly correlated to his or her appearance. Society is such that _everyone_ is provided with potential acceptable aspirations. "Tasteful dress" does not only apply to women; both men and women are strongly judged by the clothing they wear. You don't provide sufficient objective grounds to validate your argument (i.e. society is biases against women)."
===
I think Lozlan’s argument is clear in this case because of what he was replying to (Cookies’ comment about women dressing as “ho’s” vs. dressing “tastefully”.) Generally speaking, however, Music Man’s comment is valid. So no one here is wrong and no one’s argument is flawed, but rather focused on something specific and different.
In this case, I agree with Lozlan. While Cookies’ comments make sense – with her key words being “(normal) man”, they also bother me. How does a “ho” dress? Who decides what’s decent and what’s trashy?
Perception is everything.
My grandmother’s opinion of proper dress is very different than the opinion of someone in their 20’s. A guy comfortable with himself and his wife/girlfriend won’t object if she goes out wearing a mini-skirt – he knows she looks good and isn’t flaunting anything. A jealous guy might beat her when she gets home – because if she dresses ‘that way’ then she must be looking for something.
Just recently, a woman was admonished for wearing a too-short skirt and a too-tight top while boarding a plane. Passengers complained her attire was offensive. Arguments went back and forth about whether she was properly dressed. Who were the people who complained? Did they have that right? If a guy boarded the plane with short-shorts, I doubt anything would have been said. If he boarded with his waistband half down his ass and his underwear showing, would he have been pulled to the side and reprimanded? I highly doubt it.
The Taliban and other extremists ‘over there’ say women have to be covered head to toe in a sack that does not show the female form because it will encourage lust in men who see them. So – because they feel men have no self control, women must be punished, “isolated”, as Lozlan said.
Yes, we all make choices based on personal appeal, but perception of what is proper is definitely skewed against women. That doesn’t mean men aren’t scrutinized in some way, but not as much as women. It’s no surprise. It’s the way it is and the way it’s been. Which is why when a woman goes out, she should dress and behave in a way that is comfortable to HER, to hell with what others will say or think. However, posing naked for photos then crying about it (not that the actress this thread is about is crying, but...) is something for which many of us have no sympathy.
Bottom line is we all form opinion
Lozlan was responding to something someone said. He wasn’t posting just to post. I won’t go line by line but rather give my overall impression of the comments that intrigued me.
Cookies said – "But if the woman shows self respect by not dressing like a ho (And I don't mean she has to wear a muumuu every fucking day, just dress with a little more class.. :O) or by not doing things that convey that sort of image, then I think a (normal) man will see that and treat her like an actual person and not just an object that you can bang every night after you come home from work."
Lozlan replied to that with – "Ah. So women are only deserving of respect if they dress 'tastefully.' Otherwise they are obviously base creatures without an once of humanity. This mindset seeks to control women by placing them on a figurative pillar, which we then tell women they should aspire to. By elevating them, we isolate them."
And to that, Music Man said – "Visual appearance plays a strong role in social behavior. One's impression of another will therefore be strongly correlated to his or her appearance. Society is such that _everyone_ is provided with potential acceptable aspirations. "Tasteful dress" does not only apply to women; both men and women are strongly judged by the clothing they wear. You don't provide sufficient objective grounds to validate your argument (i.e. society is biases against women)."
===
I think Lozlan’s argument is clear in this case because of what he was replying to (Cookies’ comment about women dressing as “ho’s” vs. dressing “tastefully”.) Generally speaking, however, Music Man’s comment is valid. So no one here is wrong and no one’s argument is flawed, but rather focused on something specific and different.
In this case, I agree with Lozlan. While Cookies’ comments make sense – with her key words being “(normal) man”, they also bother me. How does a “ho” dress? Who decides what’s decent and what’s trashy?
Perception is everything.
My grandmother’s opinion of proper dress is very different than the opinion of someone in their 20’s. A guy comfortable with himself and his wife/girlfriend won’t object if she goes out wearing a mini-skirt – he knows she looks good and isn’t flaunting anything. A jealous guy might beat her when she gets home – because if she dresses ‘that way’ then she must be looking for something.
Just recently, a woman was admonished for wearing a too-short skirt and a too-tight top while boarding a plane. Passengers complained her attire was offensive. Arguments went back and forth about whether she was properly dressed. Who were the people who complained? Did they have that right? If a guy boarded the plane with short-shorts, I doubt anything would have been said. If he boarded with his waistband half down his ass and his underwear showing, would he have been pulled to the side and reprimanded? I highly doubt it.
The Taliban and other extremists ‘over there’ say women have to be covered head to toe in a sack that does not show the female form because it will encourage lust in men who see them. So – because they feel men have no self control, women must be punished, “isolated”, as Lozlan said.
Yes, we all make choices based on personal appeal, but perception of what is proper is definitely skewed against women. That doesn’t mean men aren’t scrutinized in some way, but not as much as women. It’s no surprise. It’s the way it is and the way it’s been. Which is why when a woman goes out, she should dress and behave in a way that is comfortable to HER, to hell with what others will say or think. However, posing naked for photos then crying about it (not that the actress this thread is about is crying, but...) is something for which many of us have no sympathy.
Bottom line is we all form opinion
This is creepy.
Naked people scare me. D:
Naked people scare me. D:
I think it is funny that a thread about someone being naked has started a discussion about fashion.
It's a bit off topic I guess, but I love the new show with Tim Gunn (the teacher from Project Runway).
It's a bit off topic I guess, but I love the new show with Tim Gunn (the teacher from Project Runway).
Yes I would!