|
Post by impatiens on Apr 7, 2011 1:10:33 GMT -5
It depends on the subject. In sexual matters, yes. Because that's the role we're put in. So, women are not allowed to say no? With that attitude, nothing will change. Only reason any progress has been made is exactly because of people who understand just how fucked up that idea is. Because emotions are for women, and womanly things are inferior. Why does "but what about teh minz" come up in every discussion of the marginalization of women? If you want to make a point about men, make a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Apr 7, 2011 1:23:00 GMT -5
Rat, right now, I think you should take "reasonable" right the fuck out of your name...or put "un" in front of it. If women keep their skimpy clothes in the closet because men (and yeah, some women) decide skimpy clothes = open season, then nothing's going to change.
Maybe a woman can reasonably expect to be harassed if she shows some cleavage, shows some leg, shows her elbows, whatever...but you know what's a better deterrent to persistent harassment than covering everything up? Mace.
This is NOT like saying you need to expect some danger if you become a vulcanologist; lava and gases will never cease being dangerous. Assholes, though, can change, and barring a personal change, they can learn which women do and don't like being continually propositioned. It's a little skill that involves opening your goddamned ears.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Apr 7, 2011 1:51:11 GMT -5
Someone synopsise OP video please?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Apr 7, 2011 1:52:53 GMT -5
Rat, right now, I think you should take "reasonable" right the fuck out of your name...or put "un" in front of it. If women keep their skimpy clothes in the closet because men (and yeah, some women) decide skimpy clothes = open season, then nothing's going to change. Maybe a woman can reasonably expect to be harassed if she shows some cleavage, shows some leg, shows her elbows, whatever...but you know what's a better deterrent to persistent harassment than covering everything up? Mace. This is NOT like saying you need to expect some danger if you become a vulcanologist; lava and gases will never cease being dangerous. Assholes, though, can change, and barring a personal change, they can learn which women do and don't like being continually propositioned. It's a little skill that involves opening your goddamned ears. Much like Muslims re: Koran burnings.
|
|
|
Post by impatiens on Apr 7, 2011 1:59:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Apr 7, 2011 1:59:30 GMT -5
Rat, right now, I think you should take "reasonable" right the fuck out of your name...or put "un" in front of it. If women keep their skimpy clothes in the closet because men (and yeah, some women) decide skimpy clothes = open season, then nothing's going to change. Maybe a woman can reasonably expect to be harassed if she shows some cleavage, shows some leg, shows her elbows, whatever...but you know what's a better deterrent to persistent harassment than covering everything up? Mace. This is NOT like saying you need to expect some danger if you become a vulcanologist; lava and gases will never cease being dangerous. Assholes, though, can change, and barring a personal change, they can learn which women do and don't like being continually propositioned. It's a little skill that involves opening your goddamned ears. Much like Muslims re: Koran burnings. True dat. Though, to be fair, for it to be a real comparison, it'd be like a guy in the US raping a chick in the US because someone in England flashed her tits. ...actually, some people do justify rape because of porn, so scratch what I just said. Sometimes, I wish I could put everybody in the world at one table, make them sit down and shut the fuck up, and proceed beating just how much humans have in common with one another into their thick, thick skulls. Fucking humanity.
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Apr 7, 2011 2:28:48 GMT -5
I've been mistaken for a girl on many ocassions due to my avatar and banner set, but never because of my username. Maybe some people realize Harley is unisex, but it's impossible for a guy to like female characters.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Apr 7, 2011 6:21:38 GMT -5
I did mention that pathological rapists don't care what you're wearing. And there is certainly SOME correlation between harassment/assault and attire, in that there are some men who think of sexualizing clothing as an invitation. On the assault end, that's purely specious reasoning. But hey....
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Apr 7, 2011 6:24:27 GMT -5
Why does "but what about teh minz" come up in every discussion of the marginalization of women? If you want to make a point about men, make a new thread. Because you have to look at both sides, even if one is absurd. Or made up.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 7, 2011 7:37:45 GMT -5
Assuming there's some sort of correlation between rape/assault and attire. Now, go prove that, and we'll talk. I did mention that pathological rapists don't care what you're wearing. And there is certainly SOME correlation between harassment/assault and attire, in that there are some men who think of sexualizing clothing as an invitation. [citation needed]
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Apr 7, 2011 7:50:46 GMT -5
Vene, I love you. XD
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 7, 2011 8:15:02 GMT -5
Is that because I'm not wearing any pants? (or, at least I wasn't when I posted)
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Apr 7, 2011 12:21:58 GMT -5
So what is the argument called wherein one assumes that taking a cautious, gradual stance against adversity is the same thing as condoning that adversity and then accuses the person with the former view of the latter?
|
|
|
Post by impatiens on Apr 7, 2011 12:25:18 GMT -5
There is, indeed, some correlation between clothing and sexual harassment. After all, take a look at this Iranian woman: That's why there's no sexual harassment in Iran.ETA: So what is the argument called wherein one assumes that taking a cautious, gradual stance against adversity is the same thing as condoning that adversity and then accuses the person with the former view of the latter? Maybe you're not condoning adversity, but you sure are making excuses for it, at the detriment to your fellow women.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 7, 2011 12:41:00 GMT -5
I, um, mostly agree with Rat. I don't know if there's a correlation between assault and clothing, but I'd guess that there's some degree of correlation between harassment and clothing. Whether or not it's up to women to conform to social standards, if certain behaviors (i.e. choice of clothing) would seem to correlate with certain consequences (i.e. level or frequency of harassment) then it's prudent for those who want to avoid the consequence to avoid the behavior. This doesn't make any sort of normative judgment, just a wholly logical and, dare I say it, reasonable one. There are lots of things I'd like to change in the world, but I'm afraid of the consequences of taking a stand - if my co-worker loses his job for a bullshit reason, I'd love to stand up and quit in solidarity to maybe hurt the company a little while they work to replace me, but I can't afford to do that so labor takes one on the chin.
I think it's unfair to accuse her of being an apologist for the sort of backward thinking that leads to sexism and harassment (let alone assault). Indeed, to the contrary I think that such accusations comes entirely too far to the other side, like gay people accusing other gays of hurting the cause because they aren't fabulous enough or whatever. Or that person who screamed at the kids with the free lemonade stand because they weren't engaging in the free market. When it comes down to it, we're on the same side here. Saying that women need to be aware of their own safety and attire does not in any sense mean that their aggressors, male or female, are excused when they don't do so!
|
|