Your ornamental function must be your important asset — never mind those degrees and skills and various non-superficial attributes. I can imagine how Sheril must feel, but have never experienced it myself. Strangely, I’ve never met a distinguished stranger and had them compliment my looks or ask after my marriage status.
It’s the Western complement to the burka: women aren’t hidden away overtly, but instead every one is seen as if they’re wearing a beauty queen/cheerleader costume.
Does this have anything to do with the Florida blog (chuckle)?
Me neither. Maybe I better stop wearing my beanie hat with the propeller.
Nothing says “Good-Job” like a firm open-handed slap on the rear.
The third comment on that page was very good. That being said I have only one question:
Will you be my next mistress PZ?
Don’t want you to feel left out.
I never have understood that attitude towards appearances. If I’m reading something, I’m only interested in the content. Is the topic interesting? Is the writer clear? Is their writing engaging? Are they dull or interesting? I can somewhat understand that attitude in person – then you’re actually seeing the person as they speak, although even then it’s ridiculous to consider that an important criterion, and even to remark on it.
That applies even to topics far less serious than science writing, such as, say, music. I listen to a singer if I like their voice, the tunes they use, etc. I can’t see them when I’m listening to the music, so what do I care if they’re attractive or not?
(BTW, the quote on the side “It is best to read the weather forcast before praying for rain.” is one I had just used today, amusing :))
She is attractive, but in fairness, so is Mooney. And yes I am straight.
Using religion for good.
Plenty more at my TPMuckraker blog:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/timtimes/2009/03/where-should-obie-look.php
Enjoy.
I was once shown a video about religious extremism, and I was once surprised to hear that an Egyptian woman supported the Islamic reaction against westernization in the 1960’s-1970’s which continues to this day, because according to her, Islam somehow respects women better than the capitalism because Islam respects women according to their person, not to their looks, whereas the capitalism brought on to Egypt exploited women, just using them for their looks, just so that the companies could sell more. Well, I am sure that everyone here would agree that the Burka is the greater of the two evils, and that Islam does not really respect women, and surely holds them to be inferior to men, but is this kind of attitude the norm in such places like Egypt?
Bah. This is nothing but dead white male bashing from a PC thug. It’s women like her who keep the rest of us from landing a husband
“Strangely, I’ve never met a distinguished stranger and had them compliment my looks or ask after my marriage status.”
Well, this is usually not the way people get married in the United States nowadays, is it? I wonder, though, whether this was the norm in the past.
of course it’s annoying and sexist, but I’ve actually noticed the opposite becoming more and more common too. I’ve been told by a friend that during the inauguration, a British TV reporter/anchor (don’t remember which) was having a hard time not constantly referring to “those broad shoulders”. she thought it was hilarious.
the bad part of course is that when a woman does this, she’s an “airhead” for crushing on some guy rather than dealing with the hard issues/facts. when a man does it, it’s normal.
Men find some women attractive. I’m shocked!
When I see an attractive women, it’s like my brain has a mind of its own. On the outside I’m Mr. Cool, but on the inside my neurons are freaking out. Could there be an evolutionary explanation?
It’s time for men to stop apologizing for finding some women attractive.
I saw the original thread and was pretty appalled. Glad it’s been addressed.
Wow, way to miss the point.
“It’s time for men to stop apologizing for finding some women attractive.”
Yes, you definitely missed the point. It is not about finding some women attractive. It is about seeing women as ONLY things to marry, and look at, and nothing more.
This brings home the question
“Why have men IQs greater than dogs?”
“So they don’t hump ladies legs at cocktail parties”
@8: I’ve heard similar comments from Muslim women.
@10: In a very formal way, wasn’t it true once? That you complemented the person’s appearance then asked after their family as a common polite conservation starter? (What these twits are doing on the blog is not in the same vein, however…)
@11: I’ve seen this both ways on TV, too. Including the presenter immediately catching themselves and saying straight to the camera “I’m going to have to have an answer for this one when I get home…” :-)
Is there any way for me to express how tired I am of hearing about this incident without being decried as a foot-soldier of the manocracy?
Being cursed with Greco Roman good looks, I am uniquely qualified to understand her dilemma, albeit from a male perspective.
I’ve always just taken it for granted, and although I have a high opinion of my own good looks (lol), I’m not Tom Cruise good looking, and that’s what it takes for a male to really get “oggled”.
You find out how important looks are when, e.g. I lost my hair for a year or so. No explanation or diagnosis. I never went to the doctor. They’re too expensive unless the problem is pain or sexual dysfunction. I attribute the event to the 24,000 minutes of talk time I put on that original Motorola flip cellular phone….
For the year I was bald, I looked a cross between a holocaust survivor, chemotherapy patient and Michael Stipe of R.E.M.
I actually scared people. My svelte physique undoubtedly added to the illusion. I have “bounced” between 131 and 145 pounds since ninth grade when my adult weight stabilized. I’m 51. I’m self confident enough (who would have guessed??) that my baldness never bothered me, nor was I interested in any of the myriad hair restoration schemes available. YMMV.
My hair grew back in a little over a year and I returned to my Greek God status. My friends were righteously pissed, because the year I happened to lose my hair, the Michael Stipe look was sort of ‘in’ and they couldn’t believe my karmic good luck. In the end, all your friends really do want to see you suffer so they can feel better about themselves. It is what endears them to us. In the final analysis, Ken Ham style, I guess God was just looking out for me.
Enjoy.
On the last thread I commented on NdGT’s looks. Does that make me sexist?
Personally I’m more inclined to criticise SK’s judgement for hanging out with a framer.
I think it was about more than that. It was saying any kind of comment on someone’s sexual appeal in a blog about science is inappropriate.
Yeah, that’s right. My gender’s a few IQ points away from humping ladies (sic) legs. Big into insightful humour are you?
Damn. Short straw.
Dr Myers? Let me explain …
Oh yeah, one last thing….
“Sciencey” chicks are just hot. I don’t make the rules, I just repost ’em.
Enjoy.
“when a man does it, it’s normal.”
Well, do you think that it should be less normal? I think that judging people based on their appearance, as a way of judging their health, and thus, their personal responsibility to themselves, is a good thing, and encourages people to stay healthy, lest they be judged as “unhealthy” by others. However, I am concerned about how people judge others for their looks because they think of others as objects, merely for their personal enjoyment – it is the same objection people have to pornography. Am I justified in being concerned in this way? I know that perhaps people can never change their attitudes, and that men (and women, let’s not forget that this is not exclusive to males) will always be this way, but maybe, just maybe, this kind of attitude can just be more discouraged by society.
But then, thinking about it more, I guess I am a little unjustified about being concerned…
Well, do you think that it should be less normal?
It’s only normal because men are used to getting away with outrageously rude shit like this.
Ha!ha!ha! Dangely parts!
please go back and re-read that paragraph. it went like this: the bad part of course is that […] when a man does it, it’s normal..
I apologize for the confusing sentence structure.
This is a pretty complex issue I admit. There’s perhaps a finer line between total objectification of attractive women and how much hard-wiring we can admit to. I remember a certain number of studies on even babies responding better to what were judged to be ‘attractive’ carers.
I totally agree that the ‘why aren’t you married?’ and ‘I expect you’ll be my sex object’ questions would piss any woman off. And the label ‘a woman —-‘ whatever is pretty insulting. Unfortunately the British news media, which I work for, still has a bizarre habit of qualifying if a police officer or Doctor is a woman, but strangely doesn’t feel the need to say Male Nurse etc.
On the other hand, I’m a straight, young male and there’s some hardwired mentality going on when I see a good looking girl. I’d be interested to see if I pay more attention to a science post if it’s written by an attractive female.
That said, I’m a token straight guy in the media so I’m aware of a certain amount of objectification by gay men so that’s perhaps the closest I’ll get to experiencing the same thing.
Reproductive potential is unfortunately a common criterion in judging the general worth of a person. For men it’s a product of their ability to provide, for women it’s a product of their ability to provide healthy babies. Youth and beauty correlate with reproductive potential more strongly in women so I don’t get why people are surprised by the double standard.
Women have it easier anyway. They can go far in life being lazy and vapid as long as they invest shrewdly in their sex appeal for the few years that they have it. Men must work hard to procure resources in this rat race while at the same time remaining light-hearted and interesting (no small feat, ladies, give us a break).
I can understand how women would feel uncomfortable by constant irrelevant comments about their looks, partly because leering men can be somewhat threatening. I however always welcome positive comments regarding my fading sexual attractiveness, even when they make me uncomfortable. I like walking down the street and having some repulsively forward gay man whistle at me, even when it sends a chill down my spine. It gives me confidence and I would be surprised if women were much different.
@#21 Marc Abian
“It was saying any kind of comment on someone’s sexual appeal in a blog about science is inappropriate.”
Well, having read the following from the blog entry on Discover Magazine:
“2003: I’m a budding marine scientist on my first fishing boat. “How old are you?” asks the captain. “Twenty-three.” He grimaces and blows smoke from his pipe into my face. “My niece’s younger’n you and she got three kids. You got no business here, what’s wrong with you?”
2008: Now a science writer, I’ve just returned from a conference, ecstatic to have met one of my–and everyone else’s–science heroes. He somehow tracks down my number and calls the following week. How would I feel about being “his next mistress?” I remind him I have a popular science blog and warn never to call back.”
It seems to be talking about the attitude of someone who cares only about their marriage status, and cares only about their looks, not about how it is inappropriate to talk about someone’s sexual appeal. Then again, I have not read the whole thing, so I could be wrong.
“Strangely, I’ve never met a distinguished stranger and had them compliment my looks or ask after my marriage status.”
You’ve obviously never been to Ipswich then, where I live.
Granted the “distinguished” part is non-existent and really its not so much a marital status enquiry as to a query as to possible kinship in an attempt to bring new DNA into the town after a century of apparent inbreeding but…well lets say you’d have to have a face like Jimmy Durante to NOT get a proposition from the mouth breathing, mullet-wearing weirdos in these here parts.
“It gives me confidence and I would be surprised if women were much different.”
Prepare to be surprised. As a confident, independent woman, I feel completely opposite. When anyone whistles at me on the street or makes an inappropriate comment about my appearance it in NO WAY makes me feel more confident. It mostly just makes me more concerned that the only thing that a man thinks that I have to offer is all on the outside.
While I’m glad we seem to be out of the phase where a woman would glare at you if you held a door open for her, it doesn’t seem to be the result of a regression back into chivalry.
No, no one seems to hold doors open for anyone anymore.
And this is coming from a twenty-six year old woman.
I hold the door open for anyone I see, old, young, male, female. No one ever does the same. In this city I get doors slamming right in front of my face every day.
Not sure where I’m going with this. I guess the point is, I don’t get offended if a dude wants to hold a door open for me because it’s just polite — as polite as it would be if a chick did it. But I think the loss of manners as a whole supercedes any lingering idea that men treat women like slabs of meat.
If you told me I could snap my fingers and people would be more polite out there, but I’d be ogled more, I’d still take it in a heartbeat. Is that messed up?
Women have it easier anyway. They can go far in life being lazy and vapid as long as they invest shrewdly in their sex appeal for the few years that they have it. Men must work hard to procure resources in this rat race while at the same time remaining light-hearted and interesting (no small feat, ladies, give us a break).
Yeah! That’s why you never see a woman working, but somehow they have all the money and political power! And no mean, lazy, or humorless guys never get married. Damn.
#31
What brought this up was a blog post with comments telling the author that she was attractive. The two anecdotes in the post PZ linked to were indeed not about blogs at all.
on a related note
thoughts from ERV
4. Always true phrases:
* Never get in a scientific debate with a cute, sweet chick with ‘SCIENCE!’ plastered across her boobs.
is the objectification acceptable because it comes from the object????
Years ago, when thinking through life, the universe, and everything, I concluded that one of the stumbling blocks to further development by Homo sapiens was the lack of talent (lots of people, not that much talent). Immediately cutting off 50% of the potential talent due to their genetic make-up (XX vs XY) seemed irresponsible. Carry-on with the discussion.
I’ve seen the same thing in professional, bureaucratic and corporate settings. My present boss is a good looking woman in her late 30s or early 40s. I’ve heard several men say that she reached her position through sexual favors whereas if they considered the situation dispassionately they’d realize, as most of the rest of us have, that she’s extremely competent.
A couple of times I’ve told some of these men to knock off the casual sexism. In return a couple of them have made snide remarks about my sexual orientation. (I do find it amusing that they’re more willing to listen to the one openly gay man in our section when he tells them to cease making sexist remarks.)
If you told me I could snap my fingers and people would be more polite out there, but I’d be ogled more, I’d still take it in a heartbeat. Is that messed up?
First of all, that so-called phase about women snapping at men for just being polite is bullshit. Women have never had the societal power to be as rude as men, ever.
Secondly, why should social justice and basic politeness be mutually exclusive?
And incidentally, PZ is suggesting that maybe treating women as ends in themselves rather as means to others’ ends is a good idea, and commenters are rushing to explain that, well, yes, women are put on earth for other people (i.e. straight men). Fauxgressivism – you’re soaking in it.
is the objectification acceptable because it comes from the object????
I think you need a new sarcasm detector. I do not think it was meant literally that “cute” and “sweet” matter substantively in this recommendation.
Was an instance of objectification noticed by the object and subsequently reported in this fashion? That would be my interpretation.
Where did you see that?
Yeah, we can be valued for our looks, or not at all. I wonder if I’m the only one who has struggled with a lot of inner conflict over that. I spent my early adult years in jeans and a crew cut, and have swung out to the Barbie doll extreme in middle age; that’s what it’s taken for me to feel safe in a dress.
Whichever way we go, we’ll be looked down on for it… by men and women alike. (I think if sexism were just something men do to women, we would have licked it by now.)
@30: most of us wouldn’t want to prostitute ourselves so we could be “lazy and vapid,” even if we were miraculously born with buckets of cash to spend on our looks. And these days we’re judged by our money and prestigious job titles (or lack thereof), on top of being expected to look good.
All this brouhaha over a headshot of Sheril. Imagine the dust-up that Katie the Intern will cause over at Zooillogix.
I myself was recently forced to reprimand a commenter (who shall go nameless) on the thread about the Dawkins and Dembski (comment # 278) for misongynistic rhetoric. It is among us.
Reproductive potential is unfortunately a common criterion in judging the general worth of a person. For men it’s a product of their ability to provide, for women it’s a product of their ability to provide healthy babies. Youth and beauty correlate with reproductive potential more strongly in women so I don’t get why people are surprised by the double standard.
Ah, a crude understanding of evolutionary psychology being used to excuse misogyny. Haven’t see this before!
This is going to get messy…
Where did you see that?
12, 18, 20, 24, 29, 34, and probably more by the time I post this. The treatment of the woman referred to in PZ’s link is completely outrageous – the kind of thing that no man would ever put up with – and yet people are downplaying it with evopsych nonsense about hard wiring and concerns about politeness. Ridiculous!
Women were put on this earth for straight men? Wow.
The comment that follows mine (#46) appears to be spam probably disseminated by a hijacked computer. Shut it down
@#47 Abbie
“Ah, a crude understanding of evolutionary psychology being used to excuse misogyny. Haven’t see this before!”
If you have carefully read it, then you will have seen that it is not to excuse misogyny, but to explain it. To say that Turkey had some motivation for massacring the Armenians because they feared that they would side with the Russians, during the First World War, is an explanation for the Armenian genocide, but it certainly does not excuse it.
Comment #47, I would never excuse misogyny, I was explaining sexism. I bet you’ve seen it before many times though because you seem to be looking for it.
@46:
Vas?
Why do men name their penises? To be on a first name basis with the person making 95% of their decisions.
Normally I hate that kind of sexist joke- but some men deserve it.
Abbie,
misongyny is not to be tolerated as you point out. It can not simply be excused by appealing to our nature. We are rational beings. See my comment # 45 on misongyny among us.
God, it’s so simple. Don’t comment on a person’s appearance. See? Wasn’t that easy?
If you need more detail, don’t comment on a person’s appearance when it is entirely irrelevant to the situation at hand, which is just about all of the time. Go ahead and think they’re attractive if you want, but you don’t need to say everything that comes into your head. There are these neat internal filters that most people have in their brain that keep them from making inappropriate remarks.
If you need more empathy, try seeing it from a woman’s point of view. If she’s attractive, she’s spent her entire life having men catcall her, look at her chest instead of her face when she’s talking to them, possibly getting frightening sexual advances from bosses and other people in positions of power and/or in scary circumstances. Your comment that you think is complimentary could well at worst trigger her to remember every other time this has happened in worse situations, and at best will be an annoyance because it is entirely off-topic to what she’s trying to discuss. Can you find some women who will say “I like it when men tell me I’m pretty”? Of course you can. BUT, that does not in any way mean the woman you’re about to say it to thinks of it that way, and the probability that she will not be happy about it pretty damned high.
Pete, that is exactly the type of comment that will get you banned. This is PZ’s blog, not yours. Until you acknowledge that simple fact, you are WRONG, and heading toward being banned, as PZ himself has told you on many occasions. Say five Hail Ramens and sin no more my son.
@#34 Holydust
“But I think the loss of manners as a whole supercedes any lingering idea that men treat women like slabs of meat.”
Actually, it does not need to supercede it at all. Politeness and personal respect can co-exist, in fact.
@#49 Sniper
“Where did you see that?
12, 18, 20, 24, 29, 34, and probably more by the time I post this. The treatment of the woman referred to in PZ’s link is completely outrageous – the kind of thing that no man would ever put up with – and yet people are downplaying it with evopsych nonsense about hard wiring and concerns about politeness.”
While I see your point about 12, 18, 20, and 34, I severely doubt that 24 and 29 are the same.
I never knew its that simple ! Just phone a friend and ask “Will you be my next mistress?” Wow,cool !
I think a woman really comfortable with her looks and sexuality can to a degree use her appeal on men,because,yes,of course we look,and if a woman can be cool about that and play with it,like ERV can,I dont have a problem with it,I think its refreshing.
On the other hand,those neanderthal macho responses we see here and on other blogs way too often when we are dealing with a good looking woman,and this concentrating on how she looks,not what she is saying or what her skills are,is truly embarrassing.
And I think these tensions in society arise when we attempt to blur the natural gender gap/divide in society.
So the conduct cannot be excused but the factors that lead to it must be examined.
As I’ve noted:
It is disturbing to note the increasingly homogeneous nature of clothing to the extent that what passes for menswear could equally pass for womenswear. Nowadays it is quite common to see “businesswoman” in suites and with close cropped hair. Stick a pen in their pants pocket and they might as well be men. These feminists want to deny the intrinsic differences between the sexes and the roles they have played and should continue to play in society.
Incidentally, has anyone seen Mad Men. Not a portrait of particularly moral people but it did, I think, perfectly explicate the pitfalls of allowing women and men in the workplace alongside each other without allowing for innate differences.
Liberal guilt time: I can’t go and click on the link because I might accidentally see a picture of the blogger in question, and then I’ll torment myself for only going there to see if she’s pretty.
Does she happen to have written anything about Java programming, by any chance? If so I’m pretty sure I can convince myself I’m only clicking the link to check out her neat package.
I agree with #57
And thanks to #59 for noticing.
WOW, PZ, hypocritical much? This from from the asshole who gives his students extra credit if they can name a female scientist, and who likes Florida because he likes to objectify female human beings?
Fuck off, Pete, and take your own weird brand of idiotic misogyny with you.
As an intellectual problem and perhaps the source of all humor, the question posed is interesting, important, and even, like the source of “consciousness” or “life”, eventually answerable (No, it will not be “42”!).
As something we have to live and deal with, it’s a pain.
Also, the comments at her blog are much higher in quality, so far, than those on this thread. Could the many thoughtful and funny folk here raise the tone?
@#61 Pete Rooke
“It is disturbing to note the increasingly homogeneous nature of clothing to the extent that what passes for menswear could equally pass for womenswear.”
But not the other way around. But of course, you already know that.
@#62 Tony Sidaway
I think that this guilt is entirely appropriate. Due to all the hard-wiring in the brain, I think that it would take a little effort to judge a woman impartially, regardless of her looks, yet I still think that it is a good thing to do.
I will try to raise the tone, certainly.
1och.org,
I don’t follow.
The thing is that while this kind of objectification is a natural instinct, just because it is “natural,” does not make it right. Instincts can be good or bad: religion is an example of an instinct that is sometimes wired into people’s brains. Yet, sometimes, it is still important to resist them, even if it takes effort. Humans are not ruled by their instincts; surely you do not want to be ruled by your own instincts either.
@#69 Pete Rooke
“I don’t follow.”
Simple. You wrote, quote, “[i]t is disturbing to note the increasingly homogeneous nature of clothing to the extent that what passes for menswear could equally pass for womenswear.” However, what passes for womenswear cannot equally pass for menswear.
@#61 Pete Rooke
“Natural gender gap”? You’re an idiot. Get a goddamned sociological education and then come back.
Sniper, I can understand the frustration with several (not all) of those comments, but no where did anyone go as far as to say “women are put on earth for straight men”.
@#72 Terry Small
I am not very knowledgeable about the subject, but I think that Pete Rooke is talking about the differences in the brains. For example, the proportion of white matter to gray matter in the brain is different on average for males and females. Males tend to remember things by landmarks, and females tend to remember things based on the location of food – a evolutionary adaption from the hunter-gathering era of human prehistory. There are a lot of differences, which are natural, and it is to these that Pete Rooke refers.
Of course, by pointing out that these differences are natural, I do not intend to say that they are right. People often sometimes confuse the idea of “natural” with “morally correct.”
Science, online gaming communities… blergh. Forget personal pictures; the mere fact that I’m obviously female over voice chat is enough to start the catcalls, sometimes, with a new group.
Come on guys and girls. You’re all into biology. You’re all into psychology. We know EXACTLY why this stuff happens, it it isn’t a surprise. Men are sexual attracted to an attractive women. Period. This is mostly socially repressed as it’s not acceptable to shout cat calls during a lecture on some such subject, but it’s there. It’s boiling over. And ever now and then it spills over. And it’s NOT going away.
And the one sided comparisons, “Men don’t get this kind of treatment!” Yeah. Duh! And if they do, they LIKE it.
Women, just try to take it how it is. Guys are attracted to you. That should make you feel great. Brush them off kindly and set them back on their path. Men, don’t be creeps.
@74 10ch
It would be nice if you’re right, but the entirety of the quote gives the impression that he’s harping on about gender roles and socially-constructed differences, and blaming the feminist movement for men’s discomfort with an integrated workplace. He also appears to be confusing gender with sex, a huge mistake.
Yeah, I should’ve guessed that my last comment would be interpreted as excusing or agreeing with the comments that started this whole thing. To clarify, I think that those comments were out of place in that context and barely literate in any context. I don’t, however, think that they were so egregious as to warrant a post on every Seed blog, and I don’t think that Phil Plait deserved a lot of the blame that was being heaped on him.
Daenyx,
It works both ways though. As a child I was fond of baton twirling and similar pursuits. I was teased mercilessly and eventually gave it up.
Nerd of Redhead:
Me neither. Maybe I better stop wearing my beanie hat with the propeller.
A) Said propeller beanie could be viewed as a valuable way to check for useful personality traits. Anyone who would discount a prospective mate due to a kickass hat would not be worth the time and effort otherwise involved in uncovering their lack of potential.
B) Personally, the sight of any reasonably attractive1 female in a propeller beanie that she enjoyed wearing would cause a rapid drop in functional IQ due to hormonal surges such that, as per Otto, I would feel a strong, near-irresistible urge to hump her leg.
1 Pretty much anything short of vomit-inducingly deformed.
Shorter #76:
“It’s okay to belittle women by telling them their boobs are more important than their minds. And they should totally appreciate that.”
Sadly, when I was a graduate student in 2008, I still had to remind my colleague from India SEVERAL times that I’m not fodder for his macho urges, especially not by physical force, but an engaged, lesbian scientist-to-be. While we can defend ourselves and while it is comparatively easy to make other scientist see the unconscious mistake, it’s quite annoying.
@#77 Terry Small
“These feminists want to deny the intrinsic differences between the sexes and the roles they have played and should continue to play in society.”
Oh, I guess you are right. The word “natural” and “intrinsic differences” and “innate” suggested to me to mean something like “nature,” meaning entirely biological, but after reading the entire thing, it certainly does seem to be… stupid.
“These feminists want to deny the intrinsic differences between the sexes and the roles they have played and should continue to play in society.
Incidentally, has anyone seen Mad Men. Not a portrait of particularly moral people but it did, I think, perfectly explicate the pitfalls of allowing women and men in the workplace alongside each other without allowing for innate differences.”
Yep, stupid. The key word in the following phrase, “the roles they have played and should continue to play in society” is the word “should.” No, they there is no “should” for females to play the same role as they have in the past.
Pete Rooke wrote:
For all our sakes, please don’t attempt to lower it – as we already know you can.
“It’s the Western complement to the burka: women aren’t hidden away overtly, but instead every one is seen as if they’re wearing a beauty queen/cheerleader costume.”
No. We’re not all seen as if we’re wearing a beauty queen costume. If you aren’t attractive enough, you’re not seen at all. Period. And, consequently, neither are your accomplishments. As a woman, you don’t matter one goddamned bit to the world unless you’re pretty. If you’re not, you don’t exist: talents, achievements, and intellect be damned.
I’d swap places with Sheril any day, just so I could get a few breaks in life and get people to pay attention to the things I’m capable of doing. A woman who is both smart and attractive knows how to use her attractiveness to her advantage, as Sheril obviously does.
A woman who is smart but ugly, like yours truly, is invisible to the world, no matter what she does.
I can understand the frustration with several (not all) of those comments, but no where did anyone go as far as to say “women are put on earth for straight men”.
In a sane world what happened to Ms. Kirshenbaum would be unthinkable. The people who perpetrated that kind of nonsense would be laughed off he surface of the earth. That people are even debating whether or not this is natural or not a big deal reflects an acceptance of the status quo which is definitely that straight white men are the norm and everyone else is, to one extent or another, an accessory rather than an agent.
Also, #76. Jesus Herman Christ.
I’m shallow. I’m attracted to women based on their looks.
I’m not proud of it, and I guess that in part is why I don’t usually act on it.
I hope I’ll have time to read the 1000+ comments that’re gonna be here tomorrow. Perhaps there’ll be something to help me deal with my issues.’
(Yes, I made this comment all about me me meee.)
Oh dear god, don’t let Pete start talking about women’s clothing again. That never leads anywhere good.
As a child I was fond of baton twirling and similar pursuits. I was teased mercilessly and eventually gave it up.
Which might not have happened if we didn’t force people to conform to rigid gender constructs. Sexism doesn’t only hurt women; it just has them in the cross hairs.
The point is not to hide intelligent, successful professional women.
The point is to publicly devalue and privately intimidate them.
There are still many places and professional environments in this country in which only women who burka themselves into homliness with mannish clothes, bad haircuts and no makeup are taken seriously.
Washington D.C. is the probably the worst about dismissing and ignoring the intellectual contributions of any woman who dares to appear attractively feminine.
Pete Rooke said:
“I will try to raise the tone, certainly.” @Comment 69
Pete, that’s the funniest thing you’ve EVER said here – or likely anytime, anywhere!!!!!!!!!
RAISE the TONE! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaa!!! I’m dying! Coffee over the monitor! Tears in my eyes!!!!!! HA-HA-HA!!!!
“We know EXACTLY why this stuff happens, it it isn’t a surprise. Men are sexual attracted to an attractive women. Period. This is mostly socially repressed as it’s not acceptable to shout cat calls during a lecture on some such subject, but it’s there. It’s boiling over. And ever now and then it spills over. And it’s NOT going away.”
How pessimistic of you. And next thing, you are going to utter the pessimistic statement that religion can never go away either. Well, you know, natural instincts can be eradicated if they choose so. Don’t you know? Humans are the species on earth which can choose to defy their instincts.
“Women, just try to take it how it is. Guys are attracted to you. That should make you feel great. Brush them off kindly and set them back on their path.”
Translation: “Shut up, women, if a man thought that you women should feel great, you better damn well feel great, ’cause it sure doesn’t matter what you think.”
Libbie,
I think you overstate the case.
See my previous contribution #61. And I am the one who raises the issue when people like AnthonyK make misognistic comments.
It’s a marvelous idea. In fact, it’s the way I was brought up back when Eisenhower was President. It was part and parcel of the repressive, up-tight white-bread American society. Other antediluvian mores that got tossed out with it included “keep your personal life personal” and “don’t discuss sex at the office” and “don’t date co-workers.”
Fortunately, those times are gone. We are much more enlightened now, and it’s OK for some of us to comment on each others’ appearance, it’s OK for some of us to discuss the hot date we had with the test engineer over in Building Three, etc.
The hard part is keeping straight which of us are allowed which comments. It would seem that some people guess wrong — and especially with the reach of the Internet, even a very small percentage is enough to light off a week-long flamefest.
Carlie,
All I’ve said on the subject of inappropriate clothing is that the miniskirt (above the knee-roll length) seems like a strange choice to wear by anyone worried about objectification.
I think it’s probably fair to agree that people are going to find people attractive and that denying that reality is not going to change it.
How we express that and whether it has any place on a science blog should be the point. As has been pointed out by more sober heads, humans get to restrain themselves and should.
@#86 Sniper
“Also, #76. Jesus Herman Christ.”
I agree. That comment #76 was just retarded. Seriously, Jerome Haltom, if you so think that the opinions of women do not count on this matter, then you might as well take away their right to vote.
@#87 Sili
“I’m shallow. I’m attracted to women based on their looks.
I’m not proud of it, and I guess that in part is why I don’t usually act on it.”
Well, I agree, you should not be proud of it, and I do not think you should act on it. Just because you feel a certain feeling, doesn’t mean that you should act on it.
You’ve got to be joking. You think it’s more enlightened and fabulous to be able to make comments on who’s hot and who’s not? Really? That’s just…sad. I can’t even snark on that.
sioux laris,
Your comment certainly failed to raise the tone of this debate.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Shorter Pete Rooke #61:
It’s all the uppity wimmenz fault we treat them as inferiors. If they’d just act like proper ladies we’d treat them right!!! Also, they wouldn’t get raped if they’d dress more modestly.
Okay, dudes. Understand: FINDING A WOMAN ATTRACTIVE IS FINE AND DANDY. JUST DON’T BE A SLOBBERY ASS ABOUT IT. There are many natural feelings and urges we don’t really bring up in polite company. You probably wouldn’t talk about how badly you have to poop at a business lunch, either.
And, yes, believe it or not, certain situations call for certain kinds of behavior. Chatting up a woman in a casual setting? Complimenting on looks is fine—hell, expected. Talking to a colleague in a professional setting? Act like a professional. To use a more extreme example, you’d tell a woman “I want to eat your pussy” while in an intimate situation, not a professional one. Unless your job is very interesting.
Wait, I think Pete might have a point. Why shouldn’t men and women wear clothes that reflect their true natures? What could be more masculine than a warlike and macho Scottish kilt? And it keeps the goods nice and cool, too! Similarly, the Vietnamese ao dai with its long pants and tunic is so delicately feminine, yet comfy!
And while we’re at it, let’s all stop blending fabrics. I understand God hates a poly blend.
And Pete Rooke @#94 plays the “blame the victim” card.
I’m curious: Of course it’s a completely different situation, but you’ve responded to some of the reactions that people have had to meeting you or to your photograph in a way that suggests that you aren’t happy with their characterizations (the hilarious “You wouldn’t say that if you were a cracker, man” comes to mind). If I say things like that about men – strong but gentle teddy-bear, etc. – I really mean them as a compliment, and I think most women do, too; but I can see how some men would have problems with it or simply not recognize it as flattering. So even if I see your picture or read one of your posts and tilt my head to the side and say “aww,” I don’t express it. But maybe you’re just joking and I’m overthinking it…
She is. Now you don’t have to bother unless you’re interested in what she has to say. Or because you’re now more interested than ever in the pic. ;D
Pete Rooke: I admit I only go three hours of sleep last night, hauled rocks and dirt around all day, and am staying up late to go owl-watching, so my sleep deprivation may have me misreading your comment. But are you seriously trying to imply that if I’d only wear a dress men would take me seriously?
Really?
That seems far off the mark.
As for over-simplifying the case, you haven’t lived the life of an unattractive girl/woman, have you? It’s easy for you to say I’m oversimplifying the situation when you didn’t grow up seeing all the resources in the family thrown at your beautiful sister while you were all but ignored by parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles. (Incidentally, a very good book called “Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters” helped me understand my family’s rejection from a biological perspective, so now it makes sense to me.) It’s easy for you to say I’m oversimplifying the situation when you haven’t had men–total strangers–walk up to you in public places and say, “Hey, do you know you’re really ugly?” It’s easy for you to say I’m oversimplifying the case when you’re not a 29-year-old woman who has had to do all the asking for dates because no man even SEES her, let alone asks her.
The point PZ was trying to make is that it sucks when women of great intellect and talent aren’t recognized for their intellect and talent, but are only judged on how pretty they are. It does suck; I’m not denying that. It also sucks that humans are still so biologically shallow that unattractive women are immediately written off as having no value to society whatsoever because they aren’t pretty enough.
Women are judged first and foremost by how they look. Even other women judge women this way. This is the way evolution has shaped us. I understand that, but it still blows to be on the receiving end of society’s judgment. Still, I’d rather be judged hot and then have the world’s attention long enough to prove to them that I’m worth listening to than not be seen at all because I’m not pretty.
@#92 Pete Rooke
“See my previous contribution #61.”
Your previous contribution #61 is, in fact, a misogynistic comment. Quote: “These feminists want to deny the intrinsic differences between the sexes and the roles they have played and should continue to play in society.” Essentially, you are saying that you want women to play the same role as in the past, which is not to have any rights at all, to be property of their husbands, and to stay at home.
On a side issue, it is one thing to notice that someone is wearing a ridiculously short skirt (above the knee-roll etc.) and another thing to then act upon any impulse (even mere comments). There is such a thing called tact which I happen to value highly.
Libbie
There are some nerds like myself floating around dear lady (I’m well of the market). We appreciate someone who would like us, propelerred beanie and all. We may be a little socially inept, but then we will allow you to repeatedly turn a 2 hour trip for looking at new glasses frames into a 5 hour trip including yarn, yarn, and more yarn. And we also make a decent wage. And see post #2 for our steadfastness.
A serious question from a lay linguist: where the heck does the word ‘knee-roll’ come from, Pete? I’d never heard it before that wonderful day you showed up here. Why don’t you just say ‘above the knee’? That is, AFAIK, the standard for describing that particular skirt length.
I suspect it was chiefly that expression which led me to believe you were a creepy old man in a basement somewhere; it sounds like the sort of thing people might have said in the 1940s – when they weren’t yelling at the neighourhood kids to get of their lawns.
I always was more attracted to Velma than Daphne because of Velma’s sciencey mind.
Prev. comment was to DC Sessions, sorry for the omission.
All I’ve said on the subject of inappropriate clothing is that the miniskirt (above the knee-roll length) seems like a strange choice to wear by anyone worried about objectification.
No, Pete, you said that women wearing miniskirts shouldn’t be surprised to find themselves raped, and that rapes more often happen to women wearing revealing clothing. The first is stupid, because rapes happen because of rapists, not sartorial choices, and the second is flat-out wrong. There is absolutely no statistical correlation between clothing and rape.
Chatting up a woman in a casual setting? Complimenting on looks is fine—hell, expected. Talking to a colleague in a professional setting? Act like a professional.
EXACTLY. And when in doubt, choose to act like a professional. If you don’t want to, please stop and try to figure out why it is that you think it’s so important for that woman to be told your opinion on her appearance.
All I’ve said on the subject of inappropriate clothing is that the miniskirt (above the knee-roll length) seems like a strange choice to wear by anyone worried about objectification.
Only if you assume that women should make all their decisions with other people in mind and that dressing in a certain way justifies objectification. I know men who go around wearing tanks and shorts as long as they can do so without actually getting frostbite, but they still expect you to listen to their opinions. Go figure.
#93:
PECS OR GTFO
Pete Rooke, here is a protip for you: Stop referring to women’s knees as “rolls” and you might get laid some day.
Even The Invisible Woman knows that much, you scumball.
It seems like most are calling for a cultural change in how men treat women. I applaud that and agree wholeheartedly. Those two examples Sheril used are not even some of the most extreme out there. However, changing the culture means changing the saturation of media images objectifying and sexualizing women. It also means losing the fascination most people seem to express over those who portray themselves as vapid airheads(Paris anyone?) I agree that men should not judge women solely by their looks. It’s just that some women allow themselves to be portrayed as simple sexual objects, which doesn’t help matters at all.
*headdesk* The Rev. BDC cooties are every where. My paren clause in *106, …off…
(Yes, I made this comment all about me me meee.)
Sili, if you were referencing the “all about the menz” trope there, you totally deserve a cookie. :D
Well, the tone has been lowered further – people are engaging a ridiculous, vain teenager (of “a certin age”) rather than discussing the linked, well-written, even-tempered blog article that should be the focus of this discussion!
I’m off, but will check back to see if people start ignoring the troll and discuss this fascinating example of deadly foolishness.
It’s quite funny to see Libbie’s frustrated rant.
“you’re not a 29-year-old woman who has had to do all the asking for dates because no man even SEES her, let alone asks her.”
That’s pretty much the experience of most guys, in case you didn’t know. It’s certainly been mine. Work up some courage, start conversations with the opposite sex and I can tell you that is much more effective than whining about your lack of good looks.
I find it funny that only 100 years ago, men would make women cover themselves because they found it indecent. Then the women’s rights movements happens and now women dress themselves, and suddenly we’re complaining how sexist we are that they wear such revealing clothing? It seems you can’t win on this issue.
“All I’ve said on the subject of inappropriate clothing is that the miniskirt (above the knee-roll length) seems like a strange choice to wear by anyone worried about objectification.”
It doesn’t matter. If objectification is wrong (or, at least, bad or inappropriate), then it is the objectifier’s fault. For example, going outside certainly does increase the risk of being spat at by a random stranger, but it is not the person’s fault for going outside; it is the stranger’s fault.
There is absolutely no statistical correlation between clothing and rape.
Oh, Carlie, don’t throw science at the boy. You’ll hurt him!
It’s just that some women allow themselves to be portrayed as simple sexual objects, which doesn’t help matters at all.
I wouldn’t be too hard on anyone for the survival techniques they use to get by in a world where they’re set up for failure.
Carlie,
it was a statement about probability not justification (in reference to rape). I was then told that there is no correlation.
Libbie,
“Hey, do you know you’re really ugly?”
That is sick and beyond obnoxious. If I were all powerful I would seriously put that type of people in prison. Sick individuals. I can only take comfort in the infrequency of this type of behaviour.
jrock: You make an interesting point, but I’ve always felt intuitively that the media portrays women as objects because that’s what men responded to in the first place. I don’t think that men were all about chatting about quantum mechanics over cups of tea before the media was invented. They wanted to make little copies of themselves, and the women who looked like they could survive birth and then nurture the babies to survival age were the sexiest. That’s why human males dig chicks who are young, healthy-looking, and who have conspicuous symbols of fertility and milk production.
@#116 sioux laris
“I’m off, but will check back to see if people start ignoring the troll and discuss this fascinating example of deadly foolishness.”
I am sure that most people here are serious, Pete Rooke for one.
Holy good lovin’ shit, as my sainted mother used to say. Is this generalizing pseudo-evopsych really the best you boys can do?
But Sniper has said it quite well enough, even explicated it in #86 there.
I’ll tellya, Libbie, and from direct personal experience: Ugly is a great fool-filter. Saved me a whole lot of time and energy, and our resulting personal life has been excellent—much to my surprise. (shrug) To make a WAG, maybe it’s pheromones.
#114
Nerd , are you sure? I think he would objectify women only if they were wrapped in bacon!
Libbie@#85:
Isn’t that basically the same kind of argument as cited in #39:
Jesus. Well, that’s one way to tell the world “I have never, ever been laid and never will be,” running around the Internet and going “Whoo-whoo!” at female professionals of any sort.
BTW, would “Would you like to be my next mistress?” ever work in any situation that didn’t involve something like a sociopathically greedy, stupid woman and a million dollars?
“Work up some courage, start conversations with the opposite sex and I can tell you that is much more effective than whining about your lack of good looks.”
NO SHIT. How do you think I landed a suitably nerdy husband? Or the ample supply of sexual partners I’ve had in the past? It sure wasn’t by sitting around demurely waiting for my fairy godmother to turn me into a pretty pretty princess. Just because I’m fugly doesn’t mean I don’t know how to get some action when I need it. But it’s true; I’ve never been approached for a date in my life. Big woo that that’s the case for most men; in Western society, the expected norm is that men approach women, not vice-versa.
I thought that a discussion of how smart women are treated vis-a-vis their physical appearance was an appropriate place to toss in my personal experience with the issue at hand. I guess it’s “whining,” though.
Fuck off, dude.
Yes, the term knee-roll does seem archaic. I believe I picked it up in reference to horses and ranching. Above the knee then.
Sheril wrote: “I remind him I have a popular science blog and warn never to call back.”
So, are you gonna call her back?
The problem here is not simply that Sheril has men telling her she’s pretty. The impression I’m getting is that she would like to be a scientist without being treated like a sex object. She would like to do her job and have the discussion be about the job she’s doing, not on her ability to arouse men or produce children. I don’t see why that should be so much to ask. The anecdote about the captain on the fishing boat, for example, was simply revolting.
Yeah, the knee-roll is a part of a saddle. That you apply allusions to riding equipment to your feminine vocabulary only makes you seem more misogynistic. In a kind of funny way.
Well, I suppose i’ll thrown in a mea cupla and say that I am guilty of it. My fire station is right across the street from the beach. While I fully admit we all look, we don’t ask questions.
It’s quite the opposite. The female beach goers tend to ask us a lot of questions.
Aren’t men ‘hardwired’ ( no pun intended-or is there?) for looks first? I thought I read that somewhere.. men are visual..blah blah blah.
Beauty and brains? 100% win!
Hmm, as it was mentioned, could someone please explain one thing to me:
Why do people name body parts? Do they feel it isn’t a part of them or something? I’ve never felt the need to name my left thumb Algy or the Thumbinator and so on, why do people sometimes name their genitals and breasts? All those examples seems equally (il)logical to me. I’m not asking this as an attack, I’m honestly trying to comprehend, and so far alienation is the only thing I could think of. As in “I don’t have as much control over it as my healthy hand, it’s as if it’s a different being that’s merely connected to me!”
In spite of that explanation, it still seems weird to me… How can healthy individuals feel so alienated to any of their fully functioning and healthy body parts? Confusing.
Anyway, I apologize for asking stupid questions, but if someone could try to shed some light on it, that would be nice.
Laughing at #130…PZ, you cad!
“I’ve always felt intuitively that the media portrays women as objects because that’s what men responded to in the first place.”
i. e. sex sells. Sad, but true. I wonder whether this can change. Of course it can, but I wonder how.
Rrr, you appear to be a disturbed being. Don’t concern yourself with such issues.
#128! #132!
High-fives Libby.
Libby said:
If you really, really think you are that unattractive, go the Ayn Rand route and invent a batshit crazy “philosophy.”
Pete Rooke wrote:
Yeah, but if this were the case the rest of us would all be in prison for wishing your magic cracker ill, laughing at your nonsensical religious beliefs, and calling the top man of your bizarre religion an sanctimonious, out-of-touch, genocide-enabling, child-rapist-protecting scumbag of (literally) biblical proportions.
PZ, show us yer tits!
mmmmmmmm……….. ba-con.
@#133 firemancarl
“Aren’t men ‘hardwired’ ( no pun intended-or is there?) for looks first? I thought I read that somewhere.. men are visual..blah blah blah.”
But just because they are hard-wired, doesn’t mean that it is a good thing. Just because it is a natural instinct, doesn’t mean that it is a good instinct.
@#134 Rrr
“Why do people name body parts?”
What? People actually do that? I have never heard of this before?
Arrrgh, I’ve lost the original: There are still many places and professional environments in this country in which only women who burka themselves into homliness with mannish clothes, bad haircuts and no makeup are taken seriously.
The real problem, of course, is that men preceded women in that course. Guys, just give up the pantsuits. Really, you’ll find the big bad world so much easier to navigate if you make yourselves a little more attractive!
Not true. There is always the salt mine.
The above was said in jest….
The problem is not just men either. Each day I walk past a news agency and there sits poster after poster for women’s magazines with attractive, sexy women on it. The men’s magazines seem to show a bit more sexual images, but it seems that attractiveness sells regardless of gender. We want what’s attractive, should we really make people feel bad for having this hard-wired impulse?
Historically, unattractive women would consider becoming Nuns.
Libbie @85:
It depends a great deal on what she does. I can’t comment on other professions from experience, but in science and academia your work stands on its own merits; when you read a manuscript you have no idea what the author looks like.
I think a key is having confidence (especially in not letting some damned fools get to you, as hurtful as their actions were) and adopting an attitude of being attractive enough, not striving to conform to ideals that are unattainable. Some people win the genetic jackpot when it comes to looks, the rest of us have to be more clever.
@#143.
I am not saying it was a good thing. I was just saying.
In all honesty, men get objectified too. We just don’t mind it much, if at all.
This reminds of the joke:
Q: Why do men name their penises?
A: Because they don’t want a total stranger making 99% of their decisions!
Now, that isn’t really all that funny; that isn’t why I wrote it. What is funny (but not ha-ha funny) is that I heard that joke on a number of occasion over the course of a few years and didn’t get it. And yes, I am a male.
It probably won’t come as a surprise that I don’t spend all that much time having my decisions made by ‘Little Wowbagger’.
@#139 Guy Incognito
“If you really, really think you are that unattractive, go the Ayn Rand route and invent a batshit crazy ‘philosophy.'”
Nowhere did it ever say that she thought of herself as unattractive. She was complaining about the treatment that unattractive women get. Also, even if this was so, do you really think that all unattractive women should go the Ayn Rand route?
@#140 Wowbagger, OM
“Yeah, but if this were the case the rest of us would all be in prison for wishing your magic cracker ill, laughing at your nonsensical religious beliefs, and calling the top man of your bizarre religion an sanctimonious, out-of-touch, genocide-enabling, child-rapist-protecting scumbag of (literally) biblical proportions.”
Perhaps you have mis-read Pete Rooke’s comment, but Pete Rooke was talking about how he disapproved of people who walked up to strangers and said, “hey, do you know that you’re really ugly?” Perhaps he was extreme in saying that such rude people should be put in prison, but I fail to see how it was any indication of nonsensical religious beliefs.
We males, when it comes to women, have our brains disconnect. It’s just a fact of life. Some of us can get the brain to start working again, but there is still going to be that moment of fantasy.
We must master our sexual desires as Wowbagger says.
Pete @ 129
Well done, lad – a tiny step forward.
Now, see if you can build upon it by typing “thigh-length skirt.”
Bacon, Redheads, Yummm…. (Gets whacked by Redhead for being a MSP, get turned on… this blog is public, further actions is best left to the imagination.)
Then those “documentaries” on Nuns I’ve been watching have it wrong.
@Rrr
I honestly couldn’t answer that question as I’ve never met anyone that actually took naming a body part seriously. The only times I’ve seen that happen is when someone’s trying to be self-deprecating or making a joke. One reason might be to provide a euphamism out of some fear(some of it justifiable) of saying penis, vagina, breasts, etc. Another might be sheer arrogance or an attempt to compensate for a perceived lack of some kind.
Pete #153We must master our sexual desires as Wowbagger says.
Are you saing that we have to be the master of our domain?????
@Kel #146
“We want what’s attractive, should we really make people feel bad for having this hard-wired impulse?”
We should feel bad when this goes too far. We should judge healthier people more highly, but we certainly should not just judge people only for their sex appeal.
@Mobius #152
“We males, when it comes to women, have our brains disconnect. It’s just a fact of life.”
But it is not like this is a necessary fact of life. Just because something is instinctual, doesn’t mean that we can’t resist it. Humans do not have to be ruled by their instincts.
http://www.10ch.org, I’ve misread nothing; I’m just referring to Pete’s longer posting history – he’s a Catholic who arrived here last year to protest PZ’s cracker desecration – not just his recent posts. Trust me, do a search and you’ll understand what I mean.
I agree with his sentiment – though I don’t agree with the extremity of the proposed punishment.
Libbie
” Big woo that that’s the case for most men; in Western society, the expected norm is that men approach women, not vice-versa. ”
ROFL! And in Western society the expected norm is that men pay more attention to women who are good looking.
I’m surprised you missed the irony of your comment. Maybe you’re not as smart as you claim to be.
Seriously, if you’re married and still fretting about not being asked on a date you have bigger problems.
That’s all well and good, but no one on here said that women are put on earth for men. As far as I can see, that’s a great exaggeration.
@#159 fiermancarl
“Are you saing that we have to be the master of our domain?????”
I believe that this is indeed what Pete is saying. The most important domain is our mind. We cannot let ourselves be ruled by irrational instincts or feelings.
There’s a lot of misandry in these comments.
Rrr,
I think at some point, someone got the idea out of arrogance to name a body part. Most people do it now to mock said unknown original person.
I admit to partaking in this practice occasionally (and other things to mock societies expectations of me as a heterosexual male). However, since I don’t care enough to remember, my penis’s name is different every time the joke comes up. Usually I try to make it sound like English gentry.
…I understand if you all want me gone now.
Sorry, Carlie, no cookie for me.
I just realised that I’d rather inappropriately ended up focusing squarely on my own neuroses rather than address the bigger issue.
I’m just a not too clever, not pretty guy, who don’t socialise well and don’t seem to bother getting to know people and ‘fall in love’ with them based on their personalities and intelligence. I just moon after good looks.
just? That sounds a little unrealistic. How many people are judged just on their looks beyond the glossy magazines? And do you think from a biological perspective it might be important to find a desirable mate so that your offspring might have that same chance?
@10ch.org
We should judge healthier people more highly, but we certainly should not just judge people only for their sex appeal.
Why should we judge anyone more highly at all? Isn’t that the whole idea behind this. Isn’t it kind of hypocritical to say we should judge someone based on one criteria while dismissing the idea that we should judge someone based on another?
what an utterly dense comment. from my experience, the least objectified women are those at nude beaches/nude saunas. somehow men in those situations manage not to drool or behave like 13-year-olds.
@#160 Wowbagger, OM
“www.10ch.org, I’ve misread nothing; I’m just referring to Pete’s longer posting history – he’s a Catholic who arrived here last year to protest PZ’s cracker desecration – not just his recent posts. Trust me, do a search and you’ll understand what I mean.”
Oh, I know now, now that you have told me. Thanks for informing me of this.
@#161 Steve
“Seriously, if you’re married and still fretting about not being asked on a date you have bigger problems.”
I do not think that recalling a personal experience is automatically fretting about it.
@Nerd #155
Too late, I was turned on a long time ago. Bacon wrapped redheads indeed!
@#164 nal
“misandry”
Would you take it to its analogous idea, “racism against whites?”
@#167 Kel
“just? That sounds a little unrealistic. How many people are judged just on their looks beyond the glossy magazines?”
Women are judged just on their looks all the time. Men here and there always talk about how this or that female is “hot” or “sexy” etc. while paying no attention to the actual person. At least this is from my own personal experience.
@#168 jrock
“Why should we judge anyone more highly at all? Isn’t that the whole idea behind this. Isn’t it kind of hypocritical to say we should judge someone based on one criteria while dismissing the idea that we should judge someone based on another?”
As Martin Luther King once commended people in his “I Have a Dream” speech to judge people based on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin. It is no hypocrisy to suggest that that one form of judgment is good, while another form of judgment is bad.
@#167 Kel
To elaborate, there was once a classmate from my High School who said (and I remember for some strange reason) “she was smoking!” I replied, “that’s not healthy.” Then another classmate told me that he was intending to mean, “sexy.” He did not talk about her character, only her looks. I hear this kind of thing all the time. Or is it just the immaturity of High School teenagers?
Carlie @#97 and #109
I am distraught. I ran that post past $HERSELF and she swore that the sarcasm was over the top as was. Either I have totally lost my writing ability and she has lost her editing skill, or your sarcasmometer is direly in need of repair.
Either way, one of us is not having a happy day.
@#170 10ch
“I do not think that recalling a personal experience is automatically fretting about it.”
Not per se, but I was amused by Libbie’s long whine about being ugly. She expects men to approach women but then complains that they prefer to approach good-looking ones. Talk about self-defeating irony!
@ Libby,
In your comment #85
I have to disagree. Were I not married, there is a woman who is not ‘hot’ that I would so totally ask out. She’s brainy. I dig that.
In another comment you made, you said that ‘you knew how to get some’. Honestly, innit the point? getting some when needed??
You must have misspoken. That girl’s attraciveness is irrelevent, which is why it is wrong to talk about it on her science blog.
It would be perfectely ok to judge her based on her ability to write about science.
@10ch.org
I’m glad you brought up King as his words were in my mind when I asked that question. Character is not a physical characteristic. To imply that any physical characteristics should be judged superior to others(the more highly you spoke of)leads to a slippery slope. Now if you meant mentally healthier, i.e. rational thinking non-superstitious people, I would agree. However, the way you put it, intentionally or not, seems to be that unhealthy people do not contribute to society in a productive way and so should be judged as having less value.
If I’ve misconstrued what you’ve said, please let me know.
@#175 Steve
“She expects men to approach women but then complains that they prefer to approach good-looking ones.”
Yes, perhaps I have read the following sentence wrong: “big woo that that’s the case for most men; in Western society, the expected norm is that men approach women, not vice-versa.” I have read it as, “this expectation is a bad thing; we ought to be more gender-equal,” or something like that. I blame this on the usage of the word, “woo,” which is incorrectly used as a noun, but which is actually a verb, meaning, “to win someone’s favor or affection.” Libbie, such confusing language is… confusing.
Totally random, but speaking of attractiveness: I read a neat article the other day about a study executed with men and women on attraction. A panel of scientists ranked the test individuals on attractiveness using a scale of 1-10. Then, they showed each woman pictures of men, and each man pictures of women.
They asked two core questions: is this person attractive? would you approach this person for a date?
What the researchers observed was that test group women found men at their level and above to be attractive, but would only approach a man for a date if he was on a commensurate level of attractiveness. If the man was far more attractive than the woman, she would decline to approach him.
Men… well. The test group of men were generally attracted to any woman at their level and up, and nearly all of them said they would approach all the women at their level and up for a date. So, if you ask greasy, overweight dude working at Burger King if he’d ask Scarlett Johannsen out, he’d probably say yes.
The hypothesis is that women are much more aware of their level of attractiveness and their limits on the attractiveness of their potential partners.
So, when I tell my homeboys “Dude. She is totally out of your league”, and they reply “No, man. She is totally gonna dig me”, this is why they just don’t get it.
You know, it is actually entirely possible for women to be attractive in a non-sexual kind of way – which is, thorough intellect.
In #181, I meant, “through intellect,” not “thorough intellect.”
I think the reason some folks have trouble seeing what is wrong with these kinds of comments is that there isn’t anything particularly wrong with any single one of them. It is not any one comment that is sexist. The sexism lies in the trend one finds in the huge volume of comments, images and messages that repeatedly single out appearence as being the most important thing that a woman can offer. There is a reason that over 90% of cosmetic surgery is performed on women and that over 90% of individuals with eating disorders are women. There is a huge amount of pressure on women to look good. If this were not the case, if we did not live in a society that systematically placed more value on a woman’s looks than on any other attribute she may have, then there would be nothing wrong with these comments. But our society does put this pressure on women and whether their authors intend it or not these comments become a part of that.
@Marc #177
Actually I was pointing out judging people by one physical characteristic while dismissing another physical characteristic didn’t really make much sense. I sorry I wasn’t more clear. I went over and read some her articles and consider her to be far more intelligent than me. We should judge people based on ability and character, not any type of physical charateristic. Sorry for the confusion.
Sigh, is this really so difficult? People have said it above. You [not you, Kel – people in general (on, se) who care about other people] don’t have to express every fucking thought that comes to your mind.* When in doubt, err on the side of caution. Try to see it from that person’s point of view. If it helps, listen to what people are telling you. You can stop yourself from making a comment, and certainly from writing and posting one on a blog.
And every situation isn’t about what one party “wants.”
*Honestly, Ive never understood the comments on here or other blogs about attractive women. It’s not like they’re going to think “Oooh, Y-Anon said I’m ‘hawt’ – I think I’ll try to find out who he is and email him.” It seems it’s almost more for other men than for women (many such comments aren’t at all directed at the woman in question). “I’m more male and sexually-driven than you!” or “We’re alike because we like women!” seem to be the messages, and women aren’t the recipients.
As far as academe/science goes, any advantage that accrues to some subset of women based on their looks is drowned by the larger disadvantage of being women. Obviously. FFS.
(BTW, hung out with Emmet this week during his visit. He’s as fun as you’d expect, and an adult.)
#62 Tony – I’ll dissagree a little bit with #67 on the Liberal Guilt thing. Personally, I have found it to be of little value. Just use your best judgment when it comes to giving women attention, and appologize when you fuck up. Call me crazy, but I do not think that it is terribly productive to cripple yourself with guilt and anxiety just because some yahoos out there exercise poor judgment in this area.
@#184 jrock
“Actually I was pointing out judging people by one physical characteristic while dismissing another physical characteristic didn’t really make much sense. I sorry I wasn’t more clear. I went over and read some her articles and consider her to be far more intelligent than me. We should judge people based on ability and character, not any type of physical charateristic. Sorry for the confusion.”
Health is not just a “physical characteristic.” If a person’s lifestyle is unhealthy, it is also indicative of their lifestyle. In fact, it is very indicative of their character and ability. So, should we judge people based on their health? Well, only so far as it reflects their personality. Sometimes, there are unfortunate people who are born that way, with disadvantages, and surely we should not judge people based on that, yet, it might just be the case that physical looks correspond to character – but, of course, if it doesn’t, then we shouldn’t.
Well, the best explanation I ever ran across for the breast-naming was a story by a woman [1] who, after a while in conversation with a co-worker, introduced “Leah” and “Rachel” [2]. Co-worker, embarrassed, asks why she’s introducing him to her breasts and she responds that they’re the ones he’s been addressing so it only seems right to introduce them.
Story was told by the woman in question as part of a series on the obstacles women run into in engineering and how they dealt with them.
[1] engineer, manager-level, and this was a good ten-plus years ago
[2] as in “Left” and “Right”
Careful what you wish for, Newfie.
once and for all: the idiotic “men go bonkers when they see an attractive woman, it’s really not their fault” is dumb beyond belief.
Has it never occurred to any one of you that women too sometimes see someone so attractive it gives them tingles? women get horny, too. i know it’s a shocker, but it’s true nonetheless. And yet, they’re somehow capable of professional, polite conduct. what you’re doing is special pleading. either that, or you’re telling women you’re all neanderthals and really do think with your dick.
@#186 Derek
“Call me crazy, but I do not think that it is terribly productive to cripple yourself with guilt and anxiety just because some yahoos out there exercise poor judgment in this area.”
It is better not to fuck up in the first place. By the way, expressing doubts about the merit and virtue of one’s instincts is in no way “crippling yourself.” Perhaps guilt and anxiety are unnecessary, but really, it is not a good idea just to act on every instinct.
@ #137, Pete Rooke
I am frequently disturbed, however I wouldn’t agree on it being the same kind of disturbed you meant. Though I have no doubt an untimely death for me would be perceived as a pleasant thing by you if you had known me better. You seem like the type who would.
@ #143, 10ch.org
Some do, yes.
@ #157, jrock
I see, thanks.
@ # 165, GMacs
Hehh.
@10ch.org #187
I think it would help me if you defined “unhealthy” and show how it relates to character. I would be especially interested in hearing any characteristics that can be found among the “unhealthy” that are seperate from the “healthy”. Kindness, trustworthiness, work ethic, general attitudes?
I think Islam is a very respectful religion. Why don’t you like burqa’s?
@#190 Jadehawk
“Has it never occurred to any one of you that women too sometimes see someone so attractive it gives them tingles? women get horny, too. i know it’s a shocker, but it’s true nonetheless. And yet, they’re somehow capable of professional, polite conduct. what you’re doing is special pleading. either that, or you’re telling women you’re all neanderthals and really do think with your dick.”
Bravo! It may be okay to feel the feelings, but it is not okay just to act on them whenever one feels like it. If an instinct is a bad instinct, one ought to try to suppress it. Always think it through before acting on an instinct, and be rational about it, don’t just blindly act on instincts. That’s what rationality is all about, people.
This is why I’ve developed a preference for communicating with people over the internet; no-one gives a crap what anyone else looks like. There are also quite a few posters whose gender I remain ignorant of.
Am I the only one who’d be okay with humanity ending up as brains in jars? Oh, crap – PZ’s going to lump me in with the futurists now, isn’t he?
@#193 jrock
“I think it would help me if you defined ‘unhealthy’ and show how it relates to character. I would be especially interested in hearing any characteristics that can be found among the ‘unhealthy’ that are seperate from the ‘healthy’. Kindness, trustworthiness, work ethic, general attitudes?”
How about, “attentiveness to their health – at the present moment”?
PZ, you’re looking mighty fine yourself.
Seriously, though, men, you need to step it up in the maturity department. Even you guys who aren’t pigs…please, just help the others out. We are all human, we have sexual instincts, we find other people attractive. But there is a time and a place to comment on it, and a time and a place to keep it to yourself.
Learn what those times are.
No, it isn’t. Very or otherwise.
And you can measure this how, exactly?
Impossible. And if you study, say, the development of obesity in relation to the growth of industrial agriculture and urban “development,” you’d appreciate how small (or at least profoundly complex) is the role of individual choice in the matter.
Not to mention the effects of depression on lifestyle…
And “physical looks correspond to character” is absurd, given the widely varying range of what is considered physically attractive. Do you think standards of beauty might just be fundamentally determined by those with power?
I know this is going down a losing path, so I just want to say that men find women attractive in certain ways, and vice versa. It’s a shame that so much focus is on looks, but that’s the society we’ve built. We’ve gone from a state where it was obscene for women to show anything to a state where sexuality is flaunted quite openly. Yet it seems that no matter where we are at in this, there’s always going to be the complaint about men oppressing women – that misogyny is rampant in our culture regardless of what we do.
And in that thought, this is what I find appalling. No matter what we do, we are always going to be accused of misogyny. Do people here honestly think that the sole reason for the make-up industry is that men treat women as sex objects? Because that does sound absurd to me. Yes men can find women attractive, and there should be nothing wrong with that given it’s been a driving force in selection for our species. This to me seems not so much as a superiority / inferiority gender issue, rather than different roles across gender lines.
For me personally, looks don’t play much of a part in who I’m attracted to. Intelligence is the main thing that drives me, and I’m as shallow in that respect as someone who mainly cares about looks. Why is it okay for me to be shallow when it comes to intelligence / personality and someone else not to be shallow when it comes to looks?
wowbagger, i agree as well, and that’s why i generally don’t hand out photos and actual names on the internet. i actually very much miss the pre-social networking days when your internet-you didn’t have a face, name, and address.
Kel @ 146
It’s either make people feel bad for having this impulse or let the unattractive people who are victims of this impulse feel bad.
More Kel:
Actually, in an overpopulated world, I don’t think it’s important to have offspring at all. And why should your offspring benefit from unearned and irrelevant characteristics?
@10ch.org
How about, “attentiveness to their health – at the present moment”?
Two questions: The above has what to do with character? How do you tell when someone is healthy? (Unless you know them personally the answer has to be how they look physically or some other outside indicator that has nothing to do with character.)
I often notice that some individual woman is attractive, but never comment on it because I have learned that it won’t be received as a compliment. But it’s OK to compliment my male co-workers when they’re looking sharp – I have learned that too. Which means that something in our culture has undermined the self-confidence of women on an enormous scale (not any mystery to it really) and that makes me very sad.
If we ever get to the point in our culture when we can talk about anything personal without it becoming a threat, a put-down, or a power-play, it will be because people know they are safe from irrelevancies in their professional relationships. Probably many generations of Victorian echoes until we reach that promised land.
Same, it simply is irrelevant on here what one looks like. But at the same time, I’m wondering how many people would still be on here if most of the commenters were idiots who couldn’t write a coherent sentence to save their life. i.e. would any of you comment on this place if it were like youtube?
I like this place because it’s filled with intelligent, witty, knowledgeable, learned people. I post here because this is a great place to hang with attractive netizens – in that I mean that here we judge others on what’s presented. Our intelligence is our attractiveness on here because that’s what other people see of us. And we have no problems on here calling someone stupid. It almost seems a hypocrisy that we can chastise others for one aspect of behaviour that we are guilty of doing the same thing.
Pete Rooke:
Sigh. Yes, it’s very respectful of itself. Women, not so much.
We don’t like burqas because their sole purpose is to control women. I have a female relative currently working in Saudi Arabia, and her opinion of the culture and religion would put Holbach to shame.
BWT, it’s not an Islamic thing, per se, it’s a cultural one.
How is it irrelevant if it helps us finding a mate? How is it any different to a peacock’s plumage?
@#199 SC, OM
“And ‘physical looks correspond to character’ is absurd, given the widely varying range of what is considered physically attractive. Do you think standards of beauty might just be fundamentally determined by those with power?”
I was saying, though, was that this kind of attitude might just pressure people to be more healthy. I admit, though, that perhaps it is not so effective, given how it can frequently result in eating disorders.
@#200 Kel
“No matter what we do, we are always going to be accused of misogyny.”
Yes, there is a way out of it. To have culture (i. e. mainstream mass media popular culture) include more of the female viewpoint. Or, at least I think this is a way out of it. Right now, I perceive most of mainstream media popular culture as dominated by males, and the “male-point-of-view.” Or is this my imagination?
DC – it did go over my head; my apologies to you.
I just realised that I’d rather inappropriately ended up focusing squarely on my own neuroses rather than address the bigger issue.
Even better – that’s exactly what the trope is about. There is a classic derailment tactic that often happens in discussions on sexism during which a person of the male persuasion tries to redirect the topic entirely to him and his feelings and his reaction to the issue, rather than the broader issue at hand. It is almost nonexistent for said person to realize they’ve done that, which is why it was so interesting that you caught yourself right away before even trying to do it. Two cookies!
@ #191 10ch – “It is better not to fuck up in the first place.”
I agree. That would be awesome, but it is not reality. One cannot read the minds of every person met and then accomodate their needs accordingly. One will make mistakes sometimes.
“By the way, expressing doubts about the merit and virtue of one’s instincts is in no way ‘crippling yourself.’ Perhaps guilt and anxiety are unnecessary, but really, it is not a good idea just to act on every instinct.”
I was not suggesting that one act on every instinct and be completely unreflective. I was suggesting that one use one’s best judgment.
There would be some aspects where that is true, but I would find it a bit incredulous to think that the women’s magazines that perpetuate these gender roles and push the barbie image of beauty are for the most part run by women. Cosmopolitan has a woman editor-in-chief for example.
@#206 John Morales
The Economist once stated that women do actually want freedoms, but they balk at the notion of westerners coming in to “liberate” them. They want to be free, but they don’t want to destroy their cultural heritage.
Respectfully, horseshit. There are many men on this very blog whom I’ve never accused nor remotely suspected of misogyny or sexism (OK, I’ll name a few – Knockgoats, Sven, Bill Dauphin, PZ, Ichthyic, truth machine, Rev. BDC, Emmet, Wowbagger, Bobber, Bernard Bumner, ‘Tis Himself, Owlmirror [I assume he’s a man],…).
I didn’t mean it that way SC.
Yep, at least among the upper classes in the West, it was true. Even among women. Literature from those times is… awkward to read.
Would embarrass the living shit out of me to be supposed to do that. By default I’d interpret any comment about someone’s looks, when said to that person, as an unimaginative but completely unambiguous attempt at flirting.
Frankly, that sounds like you have an unhealthy obsession with your “fading sexual attractiveness”.
That was sarcasm. The obvious idea is to get across that this is how the dumb creationist must have seen her, and how she showed him.
Frankly, not everyone has their hormones crystallizing out in their blood like you… But, more importantly, just because someone’s pretty and/or sexy doesn’t mean one can’t talk reasonably to them. It just… doesn’t. You should try it sometime.
I’ve never got it, and I wouldn’t like it at all. I’d feel bullied like in early highschool, complete with stomach cramps and all.
Have you no empathy?
============================
Nerd, really, fuck you. That comment really was left by a spambot. It’s a press release about how the economy crisis is supposed to be a chance for corporations and would immediately get the author banned for insipidity anyway.
That said, Pete, if PZ reads this thread at all (which has to be doubted), he’ll see the spam and delete it anyway, so you don’t need to tell him.
And please, please, please stop inserting an extra n into misogyny. That’s mis- as in misanthropy, and gyne, “woman” in Greek.
Marc Abian:
Sigh! Marc, you’re obviously a well-intentioned boy. Please don’t refer to an adult as a “girl.”
There’s also a pretty easy way to figure out whether to say something or not. Does your perceived “right” to say it outweigh the possible discomfort the statement might cause the other person? That’s really what’s at play here.
“Ok,” you say, “some people might take it the wrong way, but why does that mean I shouldn’t say it”? Think about it. You’re privileging your desire to comment on someone’s appearance above everything else – how that makes her feel, how that makes everyone else in the room/board feel, how that makes you look, how it contributes to the overall milieu of how women are viewed in society. Is that all really worth it? Is whatever flits into your head that important to share with the world?
PZ must have a short memory. I remember this young woman received the honour of a thread to herself, merely for expressing her fantasy of sex with PZ and RD.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/only_in_the_virtual_world.php
Nary a hint of censure there – is this a dual standard I wonder?
@10ch.org
Right now, I perceive most of mainstream media popular culture as dominated by males, and the “male-point-of-view.” Or is this my imagination?
Nope, not imagining. The ariwaves are surely dominated by programming aimed toward males. Any efforts to include more female oriented programming always seem to follow a start-stop cycle. I mentioned something very similar earlier, also mentioning that there were no shortage of women willing to portray themselves as sexual objects which undercuts the efforts to end mysogony.
@#203 jrock
“Two questions: The above has what to do with character? How do you tell when someone is healthy?”
Alright, I guess not. Although, I still have this feeling that sometimes, the pressure not to be overweight can be a little positive, despite its dark side of causing depression amongst the obese or causing eating disorders. Perhaps it would be better if it were less extreme, although I am not quite sure right now.
@#210 Derek
“That would be awesome, but it is not reality. One cannot read the minds of every person met and then accomodate their needs accordingly. One will make mistakes sometimes.”
However, to try not to fuck up in the first place is at least better not to try.
“I was suggesting that one use one’s best judgment.”
I guess we are in agreement, then. Judgment, after all, means rationally thinking about the merits of one’s feelings.
That was excellent, PZ. Thanks for linking to it. Your comparison is perfectly apt, as well.
You miss the point as well as lack an adequate appreciation of the sociohistorical context in which people live. If you really care about people’s health you should support CSA and public funding for it (in production and purchasing), fresh and local food in public schools, and pedestrian facilities as well as bike paths, among other things. Your individually-judgmental approach is both ignorant and useless.
Holy crap, the land mines are everywhere. Thank goodness I’m a misanthropist and not merely a misogynist.
10ch.org @208,
Botox. Liposuction. Blepharoplasty. Mammoplasty. Etc etc.
No, what it encourages is superficiality.
re #212, they’re in no position to speak up. You might wish to read Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
firemancarl @176: I’m with you in regard to being attracted to the brainy. I may have been married for decades(!), but I still regard intelligence as far more of an turn-on than mere looks. Somewhere on the web I read the term “sapiensexual” – attracted to smarts – and it clicked for me immediately.
Intelligence men are sexy, dammit. Way more than muscle-bound mouth-breathers. “Show me your grey matter, fellas!” R-r-r-rrow!
…and now you know why I like lurking at Pharyngula. It’s like (ahem) teh pron for Yours Truly. [relurks]
DM, Ich lese Deutch, at least in my college days. I remember the grammar, but the vocabulary…
@#219 jrock
“Nope, not imagining. The ariwaves are surely dominated by programming aimed toward males. Any efforts to include more female oriented programming always seem to follow a start-stop cycle. I mentioned something very similar earlier, also mentioning that there were no shortage of women willing to portray themselves as sexual objects which undercuts the efforts to end mysogony.”
If this is true, then you may think that the following solution is way out there, but I think that the solution is to change the culture from mass-media being predominant to… people-made culture being predominant. It won’t have as many special effects, it won’t have flashy expensive movies made for it, but it will be made by the people. An example of this is the really obscure fan-fiction world, which is actually quite female-dominated. I do believe that this “people-culture” or “fan-culture” can be huge and mainstream, but unfortunately, it is somewhat chilled by copyright in the U.S. as of now. Fan-fiction has the good fortune of being ignored by most people (and so most of it escapes the wrath of copyright litigation), but most of the rest is under attack by copyright. See: transformativeworks.org – the website of an organization for the legal defense of fan-works. Or am I just crazy?
Slightly OT, but riffing off of Jadehawk’s comment:
Does anyone else get reeeeally annoyed at how “everybody knows” men are obviously more visually aroused than women, and this is obviously natural rather than due to the fact that “women’s body == sexual arousal yay” is insinuated through images nearly everywhere you look? Relatedly, the idea that any arousing portrayal of the male figure is always “homoerotic” is also rather annoying. It’s like female viewers don’t exist!
It’s like when one of my CS classmates responded to the idea of watching Top Gun with “who wants to watch a bunch of shirtless guys jumping around?” Hellooo, I certainly do!
@#223 SC, OM, #224 John Morales
I guess so.
@#228
“It’s like female viewers don’t exist!”
I guess not in mainstream mass media popular culture.
@10ch.org #220
All of us who are obese(yes, I include myself)wish to be healthier and try. I get some pressure from my family(wife,parents)who are concerned about my wieght because they want me to live longer and not have so many health problems. The biggest problem I have is being judged as a person by how I look, which is why I can empathize with Sheril. Not only attractive people are judged by looks in a negative way.
The overweight are stereotyped as much as anyone else. That may be why I took such exception to the idea you expressed. Is pressure bad? Depends on the type. I accept the pressure from my family because they know me and care about me. And while societal pressures can be useful, i.e. encouraging acceptance of all races, in this case it seems to be more along the lines of “If you don’t look like this you can’t possibly be happy.” False. I am generally a happy guy. I realize I have faults and work to correct them. Like many I enjoy varying degrees of success. I love my family, and honestly believe that my weight has caused me to be a better person, simply because I was looked at in a negative light.
Then how did you mean it? As I understood it, it was demonstrably false, in a “oh, they’re always looking to take offense” sort of way. Couldn’t you perhaps try being a bit more self-critical or self-aware?
Exactly.
Ok, the thread got away from me. That was in response to Jadehawk @ 190
Guys, the tl;dr version of all this is: because of the looooooooooooooooong history of using a woman’s attractiveness as a backhanded means of downplaying her professional achievements, any looks-related compliment you give to a woman in a professional setting will run the risk of a.) making her feel shitty or anxious, b.) making you look like a douche, c.) creating lots of drama, or d.) all of the above.
This ain’t our fault, it’s the years and years of stupid assholes ruining things for everyone. You want to stop this? Stop the assholes! (Examples of which can be found in the linked article.)
@#230 jrock
Well, thanks for telling me. I am not obese myself, and I do not know many people who are obese, so I do not know much about the situation about the societal attitudes towards obesity.
Where on earth did you get the idea that women dislike remarks about their looks in work settings because they lack self-confidence, George W.?
WOMEN DON’T LIKE COMPLIMENTS ABOUT THEIR LOOKS AT WORK BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATION (WHICH IS ALL TOO OFTEN A REALITY) THAT THEIR LOOKS MATTER MORE THAN THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS. WOMEN DON’T WANT TO BE SOME JERK’S EYE CANDY.
Demeaning treatment is annoying regardless of how self-confident you are.
Although, I still have this feeling that sometimes, the pressure not to be overweight can be a little positive, despite its dark side of causing depression amongst the obese or causing eating disorders.
I fucking knew this was coming. “Health” inevitably comes down to “what I wanna look at.”
There is so much wrong I don’t even know where to start. The notion that causing depression is secondary to salutary shame (is there such a thing?) is obscene. The notion that “health” can be discerned by looking is idiotic. The idea that what anybody else does with his or her body is any of your business is presumptuous.
Also, you might want to get your head out of… the clouds, and do a little research on the actual human and financial costs of our cultural obsession with weight loss. Nothing you said in your posts on “health” has any relevance to reality.
@#234 plum grenville
Perhaps george.w meant that women lack self-confidence because of all the societal pressures that tell them that only their looks are important – and thus lack the self-confidence in the idea that they are being taken seriously. i. e. they are not confident that the implication that you referred to is not a reality, because, as you have pointed out, it is actually all too often a reality.
Also, all caps are annoying to look at.
Yay – improvisational music reference!
That’s extremely impressive. It’s so hard to question our attitudes, and always amazing to see people who can. Brav@.
You don’t watch daytime soaps obviously. It’s a parade of buff and ripped shirtless males as well as silicone enhanced underfed females. Lot’s of older actors too, though – men with Marlborough Man faces and mature actress shot in very soft focus, obviously a gesture to appease a loyal but aging fanbase.
I happened on a soap opera a few weeks ago and was appalled by the acting and script but was amazed at the overt sexuality and left wondering how many hours the men must be spending at the gym. (I was more amazed to recognize actors from 30 years ago still on the same program, I’d assumed they would have retired or died by now)
That’s becaues she knows you and knows what to expect of you. This here, however, is the Internet. Neither your intentions nor your voice intonation come across. Run a double-blind test, and then we can talk.
I would certainly refer to a fellow university student of comparable age as a girl (if at all). And I wouldn’t refer to myself as a man either – I don’t feel that adult… (And I’m not explicitly mentioned in comment 213. That proves it. ;-) )
@#235
“Nothing you said in your posts on ‘health’ has any relevance to reality.”
Well, I guess I did not know much about the subject in the first place. After all, the only way I know about obesity in the first place, other than the (very few) obese people I have gotten to know, is through the news, and things like that. I guess that this is not a very good resource.
@#237 SC, OM
“That’s extremely impressive. It’s so hard to question our attitudes, and always amazing to see people who can.”
It is for most people, it is their pride at stake. People do not want to change their mind, lest they be seen as “weak.” They do not want to bend, for their pride, but what people often forget is that in a flood, the trees that can be more easily are the ones that can more easily survive.
You don’t watch daytime soaps obviously.
Yes, we know how daytime soaps are the biggest thing in the media.
I still have this feeling that sometimes, the pressure not to be overweight can be a little positive, despite its dark side of causing depression amongst the obese or causing eating disorders.
*bangs head against desk repeatedly*
Please read what you just wrote. You think that shaming someone is a good thing, even though it causes depression and eating disorders. Because, you know, there are no messages in all of society that fat=bad without you bringing it up to someone personally. Fat people would have no idea that there is a stigma attached to being fat if you didn’t specifically point it out. And of course we all know that all fat people are entirely unhealthy, and all skinny people are healthy.
I meant, in #240, “the trees that can bend more easily are the ones that can more easily survive in a flood” – a paraphrase of something that Haimon said in Antigone.
@#238 E.V.
“You don’t watch daytime soaps obviously.”
I wonder, how popular exactly are these daytime soaps? I don’t know much about soaps, so I am curious to know.
Chick needs to get off the internet and back into the kitchen. There’s roasts to be made and turkeys to be stuffed. There are blowjobs to be given, goddammit.
I didn’t mean it that way at all, but there’s not going to be a way I can write what I mean without digging my own grave. Society has swung from one extreme to the other, from sexually repressed to sexually explicit. Are all those young women I see each day while walking to the bus stop dressing that way purely out of rampant misogyny permeating through society? Are those glossy magazines showing pictures of what is beauty that are plastered up everywhere again a societal symptom? Why is it the local shopping centre has dozens of clothing and jewellery stores, while there’s seldom a mens clothing store in sight?
I’m not arguing that it’s okay to be misogynistic, I’m not arguing for women to “know their place” or to try to be pretty. I’m a firm believer in equal rights for women and I abhor sexist remarks and behaviour. Yet it feels like I’m digging my own grave on this because I believe that people resonate towards what they perceive is attractive. And this feels way off topic now, and I agree with PZ and the initial post.
And of course we all know that all fat people are entirely unhealthy, and all skinny people are healthy.
Back in the 80s, I had a number of classmates who got super-healthy on the stress-and-cocaine diet. But at least they weren’t fat.
@#241 Carlie
No, I do not think so anymore.
E.V. @238, yeah, I can confirm that daytime (free-to-air) TV here in Australia is demographically targeted, and not to men.
@#247 John Morales
“I can confirm that daytime (free-to-air) TV here in Australia is demographically targeted, and not to men.”
Are those shows popular?
101ch – I’m sorry I sounded so harsh, but I’ve been following a couple of threads on and off today, and between some of the things here and Maggie, I’m at my wits’ end.
Back in the 80s, I had a number of classmates who got super-healthy on the stress-and-cocaine diet. But at least they weren’t fat.
I have a friend who keeps going on and off the anorexia diet. She gets all kinds of compliments on how healthy and great she looks.
Are all those young women I see each day while walking to the bus stop dressing that way purely out of rampant misogyny permeating through society? Are those glossy magazines showing pictures of what is beauty that are plastered up everywhere again a societal symptom?
Well, yes, that would be my guess. Have you also noticed that plastic surgery is going nuts (look up cosmetic labial surgery, seriously), that eating disorders are off the hook, and that sexuality is thoroughly commmodified? There’s money to be made in making women and girls feel like shit.
Eating disorders and body shame are starting to eat at boys and young men as well, but not to the same extent. Just give it time… unless we do something to change our society.
Any television show which features a woman wearing anything but a labcoat is misogynistic and should be banned. Any television show that depicts or implies feminine sexuality of any sort is misogynistic and should be banned. Any man who comments on the physical attractiveness of a woman under any circumstance, private or public, is a misogynist and worthy of scorn.
Womyn uber alles, sisters.
Oh, go beat off to your straw feminist fantasies somewhere else, Commenter.
“Are all those young women I see each day while walking to the bus stop dressing that way purely out of rampant misogyny permeating through society? Are those glossy magazines showing pictures of what is beauty that are plastered up everywhere again a societal symptom? Why is it the local shopping centre has dozens of clothing and jewellery stores, while there’s seldom a mens clothing store in sight?”
Simple answer, provided many times before: because much of society and culture cares only about their looks, and not about their character or abilities, and females thereby feel pressured to act according to these standards. It is indeed a symptom of misogyny, even if it is not misogyny outright.
@#252 Sniper
If you paid attention, Commenter is just a troll, and whoever Commenter is, he/she clearly did not intend him/herself to be taken seriously. See the previous comment #243
“Chick needs to get off the internet and back into the kitchen. There’s roasts to be made and turkeys to be stuffed. There are blowjobs to be given, goddammit.”
Yep, not meant to be taken seriously.
Yep, not meant to be taken seriously.
I realize that. Perhaps I shouldn’t have reacted, but hearing the same tired “jokes” for three or four decades wears on a person.
Nah, I’m digging my present surroundings just fine, thank you very much. Nothing makes me laugh more than watching PC jackholes circle-jerk each other into believing we’re all living in the 1950’s. This instance is particularly entertaining to me seeing as it was sparked by two utterly innocuous comments on a female-written science blog.
a) too lazy to cut and paste your name after a long week (although thanks to Emmet I now know how to pronounce it)
b) still stickin’ in my craw that you voted against me for the Molly. Against me. (The fact that I don’t think it was sexist, since you’ve supported other women, made it kind of worse in a way.)
:)
That said, you certainly should’ve been included in my list. I’ve never thought of you as anything other than a man, although I call most men “guys” and I might call you a “kid” just because you’re younger, with no disrespect intended (my students are for the most part a bit younger and far less knowledgeable and accomplished than you, and I respect them immensely).
Inside of every doddering geezer is an 18yo.
Seriously — apparently mens’ self-images stabilize at about age 18, and that’s pretty much it.
Ladies, if you please, the obvious comments are just that: obvious. (Not saying necessarily untrue, mind, but still obvious.)
It is well proven that carrying excess weight increases risk of many chronic diseases and early death, and that skinny people generally live longer and with less disability. Nobody said that ALL overweight people are less healthy than ALL thin people, what is it with the hypersensitivity among a couple of you distorting your logical skills?
Unhealthy living, including being overweight, is immoral because it harms others by creating an environment where such behaviors are permissable and even tacitly ecnouraged. Obesity and smoking are socially contagious, especially from parent to child. It is immoral to teach unhealthy behaviors by example to children thereby increasing their risk of disease and premature death, so it is immoral to remain overweight while raising children.
Shaming DOES alter behavoir. We shame people who harm others in more direct and immediate ways like robbery and cruelty, and should shame smokers and overweight people too.
“Perhaps I shouldn’t have reacted, but hearing the same tired ‘jokes’ for three or four decades wears on a person.”
Perhaps one ought never to let jokes wear on you, even if it shall be eternity, because, after all, there is not much one can do about what others say, so the best way to deal with it is not to let it affect one’s own self. Well, that is at least what I think – well, as long as it is not disruptive.
Yeah, there is some pretty messed up shit going on. I’m just not convinced that it’s purely memetic, that there are underlying processes by which our brain works on which the memes build on. That if there weren’t an underlying process for which to act on, then the memes would easily fade away. What role does sexual selection play in our species? It would be hard to deny it plays a role in many others.
Obesity and smoking are socially contagious, especially from parent to child.
Or maybe body type is inherited. You seem to be suggesting that fat people don’t have the right to have or raise children. This makes you a monster. Don’t reproduce.
Oh sorry, my previous post was in response to 235 and 241.
From what I can gather, the most popular soaps garner an audience average of a couple of a million viewers each.
So yeah, they’re pulling in some decent shares.
These disparate fans coalesce to give Oprah and Dr. Phil huge numbers (yuck).
The lesson here is to not disregard what goes on while you’re at work.
We can go round and round about how patriarchal and misogynistic our culture is and who’s responsible and how shitty humans are to other humans… and it makes me glad I’ve come to despise everyone regardless of sex or melanin. Everyone but my lovely wife and my wonder kids, at least that’s what she’s making me type right now.
@#256 Commenter
And now I believe that you are serious.
“This instance is particularly entertaining to me seeing as it was sparked by two utterly innocuous comments on a female-written science blog.”
It was not innocuous, but rather, rather rude, and indicative of a systematic kind of misogyny or gender double-standard that permeates culture. We do not believe that we live in the 1950’s, I do not know where you have gotten this idea from. We are talking about how women are judged for their looks; we are not talking about how women are failing to get jobs other than teaching, nursing, and cleaning.
@#259 shamwowmytounguehurts
“Shaming DOES alter behavoir.”
Do you think that we should bring back punishment by public shaming?
This distinction has zero to do with the issue at hand. Given the number of discussions of misogyny and sexism that have occurred on this blog, and given your knowledge of and awareness of their history, I can only conclude that you’re being willfully ignorant. And there’s such a thing as “sexually empowered,” in case you weren’t aware.
why can’t men get mad cow disease…?
because men are pigs!!
sorry, i just thought that was funny.
ok i’m not sorry.
@#262 Sniper
“Or maybe body type is inherited. You seem to be suggesting that fat people don’t have the right to have or raise children. This makes you a monster. Don’t reproduce.”
I think that you are exaggerating what shamwowmytounguehurts wrote. He/she wrote that having fat people around provides a bad example to people, and that fat people, although they ought to have the right to have and raise children, do not provide a good example to their children. He/she did not suggest that they ought to be isolated from society, or should not have children.
@#267 gypsytag
“why can’t men get mad cow disease…?
because men are pigs!!”
To qualify this: some, maybe a majority, possibly most, but certainly not all.
10ch.org, dunno how popular daytime soapies are, but that’s not the point. Women are roughly half the population, and they merit their share of the media, and the expectations those media provide are generally superficial.
—
Commenter:
Thanks for clarifying. At first, I thought you were a fine satirist. Then you posted again. Now you post this.
Troll.
#265, Of course not. Shaming works perfectly well in its natural setting-the social and family group. Public shaming may be effective but it would tend to be vastly disproportionate to the offense, so I agree with it being categorized as cruel and unusual.
@#264 E.V.
“it makes me glad I’ve come to despise everyone regardless of sex or melanin. Everyone but my lovely wife and my wonder kids, at least that’s what she’s making me type right now.”
Does that include PZ, myself, and all the other commentators here?
It is immoral to teach unhealthy behaviors by example to children thereby increasing their risk of disease and premature death, so it is immoral to remain overweight while raising children.
What do you call this piece of disgusting bigotry, http://www.10ch.org?
Hey, I have an idea. Maybe people with any health problems should be prevented from increasing children’s risk of disease and premature death. Sterilization clinics on every block! Of course, some illnesses don’t show up until people already have children, so maybe we should have genetic testing as a prereq to having children.
Also, shamwowmytounguehurts is making ridiculous assumptions about how fat people live, as well as how far society can intrude into their lives. In short, shamwowmytounguehurts does not view fat people as fully human, and can therefore fuck his or her hat until Doomsday.
< < Posted by: Marc Abian | March 28, 2009 6:07 PM Bah. This is nothing but dead white male bashing from a PC thug. It's women like her who keep the rest of us from landing a husband >>
So Marc, you want a husband?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
@shamwowmytonguehurts
So I’m fat and that makes me immoral? Sure you’re not a jebus freak cause that sounds like the kind of rhetoric they would spout off. I tried to be civil to 10ch. org and it worked, he reconsidered his opinion and admitted he maybe got his information from unreliable sources. I applaud him for his open mind. You however seem to be taking a more fundamentalist stance.
Just for your edification, there already is considerable public shaming of the overweight and laws regarding smoking. Spouting off because it’s “for the children, God won’t somebody please think of the children” is the same kind of crap anti-choicers use. “Doom on you!”
I’m well aware of the discussions on misogyny, and was even accused of being a misogynist for making a comment about sex. If it was simply on discussion on this blog, then it was OT. but to me it seemed the discussion became about wider social ramifications and that’s why I chimed in.
And I am aware of “sexually empowered.” Just because I disagree with you, it doesn’t mean I’m ignorant on the matter.
Yup. For instance, it can make an overweight person feel so shitty and rejected that the only comfort available is food.
@#273 Sniper
“What do you call this piece of disgusting bigotry, http://www.10ch.org?”
I call it “Shamwowmytoungue is saying that ‘being obese sets a bad example to one’s children.'” I don’t see how you can jump from there to the suggestion that they should all be sterilized, or that obese people are not fully human.
So I’m fat and that makes me immoral?
Well, yeah, jrock. What could you possibly offer a child except kindness, understanding, education, a comfortable home, an example or tolerance, help with homework, and a shoulder to cry on?
Oh, sure, maybe there are another 20 or 30 things I could add to the list, but none of them count because YOU’RE FAT!
Granted, I, of course, do not agree that obesity is like smoking, and so I do not agree with Shamwowmytoungue, but I still think that it is a gross exaggeration to suggest that he/she is saying that obese people are not human.
Compliment officially retracted.
Tiresome. And stupid. :(
#275, I am deeming it immoral using secular humanistic values as the standard, I am not a moral absolutist. I should not have criticized childless overweight people, but as much as you refuse to admit it, raising children while being overweight, eating unhealthily and not exercising does harm them. I consider that immoral because these are correctable behaviors.
Okay, http://www.10ch.org, I’ll try one more time, and then I’ll stop dealing with your apparent concern that obvious bigots be treated fairly. Look at this:
It is immoral to teach unhealthy behaviors by example to children thereby increasing their risk of disease and premature death, so it is immoral to remain overweight while raising children.
Now try to think of what this means in practical terms. Think of fat people you actually know. Think about the kind of person who could write this shit. I don’t like to compare prejudices, but if you have to, put some other “lifestyle choice” in place of “overweight”.
If you still think the writer isn’t an hateful asshole – good luck to you. I’m done.
@10ch.org
I hesitate to speak for Sniper, but I will tell you why I agree with the posts calling out shamwowmytonguehurts. Calling someone immoral for how they look or anything else that has absolutely nothing to do with character is bigoted. Would you be alright if I rewrote her post inserting black/gay/woman/cross-dresser, etc. Probably not. I’ve admitted my obesity and she has the nerve to call me immoral without knowing me? Sorry, I call bullshit and rightly so. She has no idea what I teach my kids(by the way I hope fervently they grow up skinny just to avoid the crap I had to go through growing up.)
#269
come on can’t take a joke.
do you need to show how tight your sphincter is every time you post?
my gods (BG reference) lighten up.
i’ll say something though. Fathers/mothers do not raise their daughters properly in the sense that when they come across this type of prejudice, (comment regarding you should be married and have babies by now) typically they don’t know how to react. At 23 years old, I bet she just smiled and carried on. I would have done the same at that age. But i’m not 23 anymore and my reaction would be totally different now. I dare say that asshat captain would think twice about shooting his mouth off the next time. Its unfortunate that we don’t learn this until later in life.
Fuck, Kel – you’re just not getting it. You’re like the people a few months ago talking about how saying c*** was the same as saying fuck because they’re both swear words. This is not about fucking profanity. Will you at least try to address this (in your own mind – it’s been discussed far too extensively here)? I really do want to believe that you’re neither a sexist nor a misogynist, but you’re making it very difficult.
* Really? When? By whom? Because I’ve talked about sex extensively here and so have many men and we’ve not had a problem.
@#281 SC, OM
“Tiresome. And stupid.”
Tiresome and stupid is attacking others in an irrational and unreasonable way, including attempts to put words into other people’s mouths. Perhaps we all ought to calm down and not let our emotions get in our way.
@#297 jrock
Once again, another mis-characterization of shamwowmytounguehurts. He/she did not say that obesity solely determines a person’s character.
@#277 D. C. Sessions
“Yup. For instance, it can make an overweight person feel so shitty and rejected that the only comfort available is food.”
In Japan, punishment is by de facto shaming. Much punishment is not in the court of law, but in the eyes of others. Suicide is frequent in Japan.
10ch, thank you for your reasoned defense in spite of not agreeing with me.
Perhaps we all ought to calm down and not let our emotions get in our way.
Perhaps you ought to stop playing Mary Poppins, give your head a shake, and recognize bigotry when it drops its pants and waggles its ass at you.
Unfortunately the market dictates what is produced, even if it is idiotic, insipid sexist tripe.
My dad was complaining about the music he heard on the radio, about how it didn’t reflect his taste. I asked him to guess how many seventy year olds downloaded music (“what?” he asked) and what percent of the market share they held.
Yes, for every Mama Mia there’s seven Judd Apatow or Apatow clone male centered
filmsmovies. But really smart films account for a tiny share since people would rather see populist fantasies like Slumdog Millionaire over Gomorah; it doesn’t matter, people vote with ticket buying. Sex and the City and Mamma Mia were the chic flicks that brought in numbers that may change women’s clout, for what it’s worth, but many feminists hated those two films.I always cringe when it sounds like someone is suggesting affirmative action for women in media. I support talented and able people regardless of sex or gender, and hate traditional impulses to adhere to culturally designated roles. Let people be people. That said, I would feel great schadenfreude if a feminist would have punched Phyllis Schlafly in the face years ago.
and shamwow,
you’re a douche. I consider that immoral because that is a correctable behavior.
or maybe not….
I made a comment about Ann Coulter having sex with D’Souza. There was no sexism intended at all, it was nothing more than a stab at D’Souza – yet I was told what I really meant by other people who put connotations and inferences in which I did not make at all.
What am I not getting? Tell me where what I’ve said has completely missed the mark. Please enlighten me as to the shortcomings in what I’m saying, don’t just throw the words “wilfully ignorant” around as if they explain something.
Fuck off. Either you understand what was wrong with your earlier comments or you don’t. At this point, I don’t care.
@10ch.org #287
Exactly how did I mis-characterize her? She equated being overweight and having children as being immoral. She gave no other indicators of what might mitigate that immorality.
She may not have said that, but she didn’t have to. It’s bigotry and the idea that my weight has anything to do with my morality is ignorant. How I act, what I do, who I am means nothing? Apparently not, I’m fat and I’m immoral.
Never mind that I served my country(and yes I was in shape then), never mind that I had back surgery and was laid up for a long time and am still in constant pain, but still do what’s necessary to support my family. Never mind that I love my kids and my wife. I’m fat and I’m immoral. Nice to know.
Kel @ 211
But they still are informed by a male view. There’s always some people willing to work with the system, even if the system isn’t fair towards them, because people who don’t play by the rules usually get picked on. I mean, look at people like Ann Coulter, who once said that she thought women’s right to vote should be taken away because they happen to vote more Democratic than men in general. You can always find people willing to not change the system, because rebellion against the system is HARD. Doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing, though.
Some women do just give up and work the system. If you’re 20-something and conventionally attractive, and constantly dealing with bullshit about it, then there’s probably some temptation to give up and just go with it. Heck, if you’re anyone female, there’s temptation to buy into the bullshit. Fighting bullshit takes energy.
@Sniper 283
“Now try to think of what this means in practical terms. Think of fat people you actually know. Think about the kind of person who could write this shit. I don’t like to compare prejudices, but if you have to, put some other ‘lifestyle choice’ in place of ‘overweight’.”
Wait… I thought obesity was an ailment, not a lifestyle choice. You know, like high blood pressure. shamwowmytonguehurts may have put it in distasteful terms, suggesting that obese people are immoral, but really, I think that shamwowmytonguehurts meant to say that parents ought to try to lose weight while they are parents if they are obese. Is this… a bad thing?
Yes, it is very rude to call anybody obese, and say that they are immoral thereby, but I do not think that shamwowmytounguehurts is saying that obese people are inherently inferior, just that they are in an unfortunate state, like having high blood pressure.
@jrock #284
“Would you be alright if I rewrote her post inserting black/gay/woman/cross-dresser, etc.”
Not a proper analogy. I know what you are trying to get at, but this analogy is not proper. A more proper analogy is OCD, or autism, or high blood pressure.
Wow, I haven’t read every comment yet but I can’t believe the threads gotten all the way down here and nobody’s mentioned this weeks 30 Rock, wherein the ultra-handsome Mr. Ham (sp?) finds out he’s been living in a bubble all his life, where everyone is nice to him and he thinks that’s normal. Obviously not relevant to the original controversy, but I figured after tTIMc all the way up at #19, I figured it would at least come up.
My thoughts on the subject: a person, any person, who puts their photo up on the Internet and does not expect lots of boneheaded comments on their looks, frequent ad hominem references to their looks, or way-way over-the-top compliments on their looks is not thinking rationally themselves. Nevertheless, I understand Sheril’s position, and even more appreciated her comments addressing the ‘scandal’ that’s been ‘shaking’ the science blogosphere. I think the fact there’s so many people talking about it, and the 30 Rock episode, are both signs of society trying to come to grips with our specific mammalian nature.
I was just thinking last night that I’ve always been a little incredulous about the things we’ve learned about chimps in the last fifty years. I mean, seriously: speciation over a river, with the chimps on one side violent and territorial, and the chimps on the other screwing their brains out? It just seems all too clever, all too pat. There’ve been times it almost seems like proof that God set up all of nature just to teach us who we are. But that’s just a narrative. Projection – the mirror of imitation.
Kel @146 and 200
I find it funny that only 100 years ago, men would make women cover themselves because they found it indecent. Then the women’s rights movements happens and now women dress themselves, and suddenly we’re complaining how sexist we are that they wear such revealing clothing? It seems you can’t win on this issue.
I know this is going down a losing path, so I just want to say that men find women attractive in certain ways, and vice versa. It’s a shame that so much focus is on looks, but that’s the society we’ve built. We’ve gone from a state where it was obscene for women to show anything to a state where sexuality is flaunted quite openly. Yet it seems that no matter where we are at in this, there’s always going to be the complaint about men oppressing women – that misogyny is rampant in our culture regardless of what we do.
The state changes you mention both place the emphasis on how WOMEN must be responsible for the behavior of men. You seem to be saying that if women flaunt their sexuality, they deserve to get harassed. But women in burkas also get harassed. This is victim blaming, and really not far off from saying that some women deserve to be raped.
It is not ‘regardless of what you do’ but very much because of what you do, though you seem to be trying to understand.
. . .Why is it okay for me to be shallow when it comes to intelligence / personality and someone else not to be shallow when it comes to looks?
Because that type of preference, inner beauty versus outer beauty, is by definition NOT shallow.
Kel@211
There would be some aspects where that is true, but I would find it a bit incredulous to think that the women’s magazines that perpetuate these gender roles and push the barbie image of beauty are for the most part run by women. Cosmopolitan has a woman editor-in-chief for example.
Women can also be misogynist. Look at the recent comments from teen girls about how if Chris Brown did hit Rihanna that she ‘deserved it’ or ‘provoked him.’
Kel@244
I’m a firm believer in equal rights for women and I abhor sexist remarks and behaviour. Yet it feels like I’m digging my own grave on this because I believe that people resonate towards what they perceive is attractive.
I submit that your experience as a male has insulated you from the reality of the kind of harassment that women face every single day of their lives, regardless of how they dress.
Kel @261
Yeah, there is some pretty messed up shit going on. I’m just not convinced that it’s purely memetic, that there are underlying processes by which our brain works on which the memes build on. That if there weren’t an underlying process for which to act on, then the memes would easily fade away.
Maybe, except that our society and our gender constructs positively reinforce misogynistic behavior, though not everywhere. Kel, I do think that you might be close to getting it, and I could point you to some places that explain it better than I can, if you’re interested.
Wait… I thought obesity was an ailment, not a lifestyle choice. You know, like high blood pressure
Did you not notice my quotation marks? Look, if you really want to explore this further, google fat acceptance and knock yourself out. And if, in the future, you get the urge to defend some asshole who’s bashing a group of people (disabled, trans, albino, poly whatthefuckever) do a bit of reading before leaping in. That’s my advice, take it or leave it. You’ve trampled on my last nerve.
Never mind that I love my kids and my wife. I’m fat and I’m immoral. Nice to know.
jrock, I don’t know if you caught my earlier post in support of you, but thanks for loving and raising your kids. In my profession I meet way too many kids who don’t have that advantage.
“Either you understand what was wrong with your earlier comments or you don’t.”
My earlier comments are not relevant.
“recognize bigotry when it drops its pants and waggles its ass at you”
I do apologize for this, then, because I do admit, I do not see how it is bigotry. Could you please define the word “bigotry” and then show me how shamwowmytounguehurts fits it?
@jrock
“It’s bigotry and the idea that my weight has anything to do with my morality is ignorant.”
shamwowmytounguehurts was saying that it was immoral to cause others to be obese. I severely doubt that being obese causes those around one’s own self to be obese, and it may be ignorant, but how could this be bigotry?
@10ch.org #296
Thank you for your example. I guess the analogy would all depend on if you view it as a disease or an inherited genetic trait. For some food is an addiction and they have a love/hate relationship with it. This applies to any eating disorder. For others they are genetically predisposed toward it and must struggle with it for a lifetime. Either analogy stands as far as I’m concerned. The point is judging someone as immoral just by looks is wrong.
I wonder if we mightn’t have reason to object to characterizations like this in something like the same way we object to the dumb sexist comments:
“Sheril is one of a group of badass female science chicks that I absolutely adore.”
I recognize that this stereotype, and the elevation of the ‘badass scientist/skater/gamer/etc. chick’, is in some ways a sort of defense mechanism against the field’s inherent prejudices…and yet it seems like a different flavour of the same thing: making a noteworthy exception out of the person, treating her in terms of her possession of a sort of sexual capital, but in a deliberately affirming mode rather than a sleazy/creepy one. The stereotype of the ‘super kickass and sassy girl’ who not only has the looks but also the skills is absolutely everywhere, and I don’t like that she wouldn’t be as much of a ‘badass female science chick’ if she weren’t an attractive woman. It still smacks of objectification to me, even if it’s sort of well-intentioned.
Quite possibly, but I know what it’s like to be constantly harassed every fucking day of my life for years on end. And while one experience cannot transform to another, I can appreciate that women have a hard time of it in society. I agree that it’s a problem, I cannot truly empathise with that. The best I can do is empathise with those who have felt rejected, those who have been judged on their looks and behaviour – but no I do not know what it’s like to be a woman.
If you have anything, swing it my way. I’d be interested in reading it.
I don’t know anything about this particular situation. Were you told about what you “really meant,” or about the connotations of what you were saying? And again, by whom? With what responses? What was the context, and can you provide a link?
I was just saying to Emmet last night that I’ve never met an Australian whom I didn’t like, but this alleged post-sexist/if you’re-really-a-feminist-you’d-be-cool-with-it shtick is grating. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen you, personally, question your own remarks in any way.
It appears you’re not understanding the difference between profanity and derogatory insults, for one thing, or appreciating or elaborating upon the limits of your idea of “context.”
Oh yeah – That line was from one of the bloggers she links to: http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/2009/03/talk_science_to_me_baby.php
I’m not even super-convinced it’s a bad thing, on balance, but we should at least fret a little about reproducing that trend, I think.
@#299 Sniper
“You’ve trampled on my last nerve.”
You know, I never intended any offense to you, and although I may have been ignorant, the fact is that – I never intended any offense. And if you’re just going to be that way, I guess that’s fine with me.
@10ch.org
The definition of prejudice from an online dictionary(which includes the definition of bigotry in it.)
An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See synonyms at predilection.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
If you look at her posts you can see shamwow fits within the definition of prejudiced(bigoted).
Sniper, I did see your previous posts and thank you very much. I really appreciate your comments both to me and directed at Shamwow.
I was told that because I said it, it must mean that underneath I have a deep hatred for women. I have no idea what thread it was on, it was several months ago.
Quite possibly, but maybe that’s because you’ve only seen me post here. On an Australian music forum I’m on, I talk very differently on there. This is a different place and I have a different standard of how to talk. I do check my speech on here because I’ve found that some of the things I say are not socially acceptable on here. Thanks to those misogynist labels, I’m moving towards more gender-neutral insults. What would you like to see from me?
I poorly conveyed what I was trying to say in that other thread, and as such I’ve learned from it.
Well reading up from the last posts, I’m going to jump in and point out to BeccaStareyes that it is the competition between women for men that drives them to want to dress sexy. Your reference to ‘giving in’ because ‘fighting bullshit’ takes energy makes me think you are blaming the men who are attracted, rather than the women who do the attracting. It seems to me it’s wearing makeup and heels that takes energy.
Is it the male view that controls Vogue? I don’t think so. It is the women’s desire to cater to the male view that controls Vogue.
@ http://www.10ch.org
I didn’t say we couldn’t (nor shouldn’t) override the instinct. But the instinct is there. There is going to be a moment of “Hello Nurse!”, then rationality can take over again.
Where we end up having a problem is when guys can’t or won’t curb their instincts.
#307 jrock
Beholding this definition critically gives me a pause, and causes me to suspend my judgment. I do not want to prejudicially jump label someone with as grave a label as “bigot” without first “knowledge or examination of the facts.” I am not sure whether shamwowmytounguehurts is a bigot or not, but I do not want to jump to the conclusion that shamwowmytounguehurts is a bigot without proper examination of the facts – otherwise, it would be prejudice.
At #196, Wowbagger, OM wrote:
I’m not sure that I prefer communicating with people over the internet over face-to-face conversation, but I’ve developed some huge intellectual crushes on some of the posters here. It’s the attractiveness of their ideas and reasoning ability that makes me swoon.
Incoherent. I appreciated that you had enough intellectual humility to admit that you had been wrong, and I believed that your response further acknowledged that, but then you went back on it. If you were admitting that you were wrong, OK. If not, retracted.
You can fucking try. More than on a personal level – you can get involved with organizations that might broaden your horizons.
No – that’s not the best you can do, but you can start with that.
@#309 tmaxPA
“Is it the male view that controls Vogue? I don’t think so. It is the women’s desire to cater to the male view that controls Vogue.”
Of course it is the male view that controls Vogue. Women’s desire to cater to the male view is controlled by Vogue. Men, after all, are the ones doing the selection.
@jrock, I do not consider being obese a moral failing, I consider exposing impressionable children to correctable behaviors that cause harm in the form of increased risk of disability and premature death to be immoral. Obviously, the less control over one’s weight, the less moral culpability. I truly feel sorry for your chronic pain, and I understand that you have less control over your condition because one of the two main strategies for weight control, physical activity, is outside your capabilities.
@#313 SC, OM
“then you went back on it”
Then you are wrong. I did not go back on it. Who, now, is the bigot making prejudicial judgements?
Kel,
I remember at one point when I became aware I’d changed my opinion on the merits of political correctness, particularly in regards to language. For that, I needed the realisation that sexism is embedded in our very language, not just society, and that it is insidious.
Regarding insults, I like a little artistry. Better to insult someone on what you say or how you say it, rather than in the specific terminology.
@#310 Mobius
“Where we end up having a problem is when guys can’t or won’t curb their instincts.”
That, of course, is a societal problem, like all kinds of irrationality.
Kate@298:
See the problem is you’re going a couple degrees past rational here. The dispute isn’t whether ‘they deserve to get harassed’, but rather what constitutes harassment. If you’re saying a woman can flaunt her sexuality and demand that nobody react or respond to it in any way because even a compliment can be “harassment”, well, that’s just a little head trip. That’s one degree. Nobody is saying any women ever deserves to be raped . That’s two degrees.
I think you should back off of that kind of rhetoric, or else you’ll end up sounding like someone who is just really really angry that human beings are mammals.
@10ch.org #311
Point taken. However, by making a blanket statement about a whole group of people without taking into consideration individual circumstances found within that group she fits the definition. I had no preconceived notion of her, indeed I have nothing to go on except her posts. So all I can base my judgment on is what was said. To be prejudiced I would have to make a blanket statement based on no information. I have information she provided. If someone calls anyone immoral based solely on looks is prejudiced. We wouldn’t tolerate it if she directed that at any other group, so why are the overweight exempt from common decency?
http://www.10ch.org, shamwow, I wish you joy of each other and think you will be very happy together in Douchelvania.
what a complete waste of time
DLC @322, thanks for sharing. My irony meter needed calibrating.
And what is anyone to do with this? If some random person allegedly overreacts to one of your comments, I have to defend this in the abstract?
Well, yes. I only know what I know. I doubt it represents you as a person, but I have nothing else to go on…
That, quite frankly. And from that, more introspection.
@#321 Sniper
“I wish you joy of each other and think you will be very happy together in Douchelvania.”
And now you are on the level of petty insults. Please, you do not want to be there.
@#319 tmaxPA
“If you’re saying a woman can flaunt her sexuality”
I agree that for deliberately flaunting sexuality, it is ridiculous not to expect a response, but when it is not deliberate, then it is all very different. Wearing a mini-skirt, moreover, is not necessarily flaunting sexuality.
@#320 jrock
Remember, though, that the definition you provided for bigotry were multitudinous. Okay, you were not a bigot, but shamwow was not saying that being obese was immoral, but leading others to be obese was immoral. Once again, I do not believe that being obese leads others to be obese, but still, these are two different things.
314: I’m going to have to ask up front whether I’m supposed to read that as sarcasm. Thx.
I was hired three times by companies because I was a woman. Once because I was the one with the bigger boobs. The other two times because the company looked bad because they had no female scientists or engineers at all. All three times although I was senior management and I was forced to share an office with either the guy who speaks little english, the marketing gal or the new guy that wont last long. Everyone else, including most of the people I supervised, had their own office. The boob hiring position I found out about a few months after being hired. They wanted an attractive female to help the company image with clients (men). Luckily my looks were overshadowed by my caustic personality and it did not interfere with my job all the way to the day I erased all of the files on my hard drive and quit without notice. In every single job, graduate research position and internship I was approached by men, had comments made about my body or was talked down to by subordinates (“Honey I been driving this rig longer than you been alive!”). Like many women in science and engineering I finally got sick of the battle and left the workplace. The last straw was during my last job I was heavily pregnant with my first child and over heard co-workers and bosses discussing what the females at our office might look like naked, including me! I knew then I would never really have the respect in my field I had worked so hard to earn. No matter what I did I would always be female. My apologies to my mom and all the women from her generation that worked so hard to get me into the workplace. I will not urge my daughters to go into the sciences or engineering. The Pornography Culture pushed by marketers and big business in the last 20 years has set women back 100 years.
315: Yet you’d shame them to get them out of the public view because fat=bad, Shamwow.
You have no idea why any person you see on the street is fat. Defending your default behavior to all fat people just isn’t going to fly. It’s prejudice. You’re engaging in behavior you KNOW is harmful in order to make some sort of nebulously linked gains in general health. Where’s the link between fat shaming and a healthier populace?
@#326 tmaxPA
“I’m going to have to ask up front whether I’m supposed to read that as sarcasm. Thx.”
What, you don’t believe that males are the ones doing the selecting for female Vogue, and that somehow, females are able to control what males are attracted to?
Please be more specific.
Please explain. I assumed you were referring to yourself. I may have been wrong.
Wearing a miniskirt is not necessarily ‘flaunting sexuality’. But I’m hard-pressed to think of a context where it isn’t.
Where’s the link between fat shaming and a healthier populace?
There isn’t one, except in the minds of people who either don’t or can’t read.
But why should should we care why someone is fat? I know plenty of people who eat crap all day and could live on doughnut-and-bacon sandwiches all day and stay thin, but nobody gives a shit about their “lifestyles” (such a stupid, overused word). If somebody “overeats” it’s their damned business, not mine. If somebody has an metabolic disorder, or is on antidepressants, or comes from a fat family, or is fat for any damned reason at all, it’s none of my business.
Seriously, when was the last time you heard that people who engage in extreme sports shouldn’t reproduce? Has anyone here recently suggested that it is somehow to immoral to have children if you use porn, or watch crap TV, or smoke pot?
Here’s a suggestion: don’t like looking at fat people? You’re free to turn your fucking head. In fact, anyone who finds him or herself offended by the sight of fellow humans going about their business without harming others is completely and utterly free to turn their heads and look somewhere else.
Oh, and the first idiot who mentions “overconsumption” gets to turn all their electronic gadgets over to the deserving poor.
@#330 SC, OM
“Please be more specific.”
Please explain.
“I assumed you were referring to yourself. I may have been wrong.”
An example is a character from Antigone: Creon. Are people stubborn because of pride? I do not know modern psychology, so I cannot be sure, but at least this is what I guess for now.
@shamwow #315
Thank you for the clarification. I still don’t buy your argument. Yes, there are those that engage in self-destructive behaviors, but that isn’t limited to the obese. Making blanket statements about any group is wrong. Sophistic hair-splitting, saying obesity isn’t a moral failing unless you have kids, does nothing to ameliorate that fact. Obese are just like other parents, some are good, some are bad,(and for the most part we’re larger, ha).
While I agree that parents behavior can influence kids, well, show me someone who doesn’t have a fault or flaw that might possibly be passed on. And as I mentioned before, there is a lot more information on health and healthy lifestyles out in in the public domain than there used to be. Parents are not the only source of information or emulation for children. Schools, media, friends, all influence a child’s development. As for health problems and dying prematurely, well diseases are notorious for being completely oblivious to a persons body type. High blood pressure, which I do not have, is a better indicator of health problems. High blood pressure is not limited to the obese. My father, who happens to weigh about 150, has had multiple heart problems and high blood pressure. My mother is overweight, yet does not have these problems.
I probably won’t change your mind,but calling good parents that happen to be overweight immoral is wrong to me.
@#331 tmaxPA
“Wearing a miniskirt is not necessarily ‘flaunting sexuality’. But I’m hard-pressed to think of a context where it isn’t.”
One context, is, you know, wearing it. Miniskirts are clothes, and wearing them on every-day occasions, as… clothes (in the summer), is one such occasion.
10ch: laying on yet another layer of sarcasm doesn’t make your comment any more comprehensible or any more interesting. You need to learn the difference between engaging in conversation and just baiting people.
Feel free to restate your position if you’d like to discuss it.
Please define. Please explain the relevance to the original discussion. Please also list the acceptable responses to said “flaunting.” (If you think context is necessary…well, that’s part of my point.)
10ch @333: “Please be more specific.”
It means what it says.
To rephrase: To what do you agree, and why?
Wearing a mini-skirt is flaunting sexuality? Wow, no wonder women are so scared to play tennis or wear a skirted swimsuit.
You do realize that you’re debating exactly how much freedom women should be allowed, right? The assumption that women are public goods is right there.
I’ve never worn a miniskirt. So, no, it’s not just ‘clothes’. Pants are just clothes. A miniskirt is a particularly revealing item of clothing. We’re mammals, our attention is drawn to the sight of uncovered skin of potential mates. It is a display of sexuality. What you would call “flaunting”. A form of flaunting particularly enjoyed, apparently, by pubescent girls in small groups. Their parents don’t make them wear them, I’m pretty sure.
But of course sometimes they do. We are all aware of the “Catholic Schoolgirl Look”. When worn by an actual schoolgirl, it is not usually (I say not USUALLY) flaunting. Any other time? Of course it is.
@338 John Morales
“To what do you agree, and why?”
I think that I have made it clear, but, for all of this inquiring, if it is unclear, then I shall decline to answer this question. I do not feel any obligation to anybody here to make my position clear. Nor do I feel that anybody should care, but if anybody does care, then I say: it is your problem, because I do not care.
Congratulations on the abstract-comment/classics award. I did Antigone in acting class many, many years ago. What is your point, and how does it refer to your comments on this thread, if at all??
@10ch.org #325
You’re engaging in the same sophistic hair-splitting she is. She directly linked obesity with leading people(specifically their children) to obesity. Sorry, exposing impressionable children to “harmful correctable behaviors” that lead to an increased chance of disability or premature death. As I read it(and I’ll fully admit my bias)-If you are fat and have children then you are immoral.
Now I can also see that statement as including drug users, extreme sports(to use an example from above), drinkers, smokers, coal-mine workers, soldiers(who fit that increased disability and premature death criteria pretty well), etc. Are all of these people immoral as well? Each engages in harmful correctable behavior that leads to an increased chance of disability or premature death. If they are not, then why?
SC@337:
“If you think context is necessary…well, that’s part of my point.”
That’s all of my point. It isn’t just what ‘flaunting’ is that is context sensitive. What “harassing” is depends on context, too. And of course the two contexts are related. I was addressing someone else’s comments, not yours, though.
@332, Sniper, the vast majority of overweight people do not have a metabolic disorder. But millions have, as a result of their obesity, metabolic syndrome, a precursor to type II diabetes and a large risk factor for heart disease. The vast majority of overweight people are that way because they overeat and remain sedentary. Given an environment, 80% of the difference in weight is genetic, but that does not excuse personal responsibility because overeating and remaining sedentary are correctable, i.e., we have control over our environment.
I never said obese people shouldn’t reproduce. I already explained my position and I’m not explaining it again, so your insanity will just fester unchallenged.
If you can find me data showing that smoking pot and watching porn in private, or allowing children to watch ‘crap’ tv causes harm to the body or psyche, then I’ll consider those behaviors immoral too. (You won’t find any data)
You don’t have to do anything. I’m just saying that the word is overused here to a point that really shocks me.
Of course, I cannot expect you to know anything else about me.
Is this the place really for more introspection? I can appreciate that it’s needed, but really it doesn’t seem like much opportunity comes up – at least I don’t see an opportunity. I seldom argue from personal experience, because, well, it gets personal. So when I argue I’m trying to do it as if what I personally think doesn’t matter. And I find this a little bullshit, I thought I asked a legitimate question at #200 and #205 about judging people on their intelligence and how it’s different from judging someone on their looks. That was ignored yet people found time to attack me personally. Why?
@#340
“A miniskirt is a particularly revealing item of clothing. We’re mammals, our attention is drawn to the sight of uncovered skin of potential mates. It is a display of sexuality.”
So revealing any skin is “flaunting”? How ridiculous. So you are suggesting that anybody who shows her skin is automatically “inviting” others to judge her only by her looks. Ridiculous. By the way, you are implying that mammalian instincts should be the norm, and that we are all about finding potential mates. You know, we are not just any mammal, we are humans. We are sapient. We are not just about finding mates.
“Any other time? Of course it is.”
No, it is not. Exposure of the skin is not just for others to look at.
‘Kaaaay.
I won’t address shamwow directly, because hey, bigot, but in case anyone thinks for a second that the statements made in that last post were factual, they weren’t. It’s an asspull. Read the real science and consider what this:
“Given an environment, 80% of the difference in weight is genetic”
has to to with shamwow’s assertion that parenting while fat is immoral.
@#342
“What is your point, and how does it refer to your comments on this thread, if at all??”
Why do you care?
@#345 jrock
The you and I read it differently.
@#344 tmaxPA
I understand your point that if someone wanted to wear a miniskirt to expose skin for the sexual appeal, then it is reasonable to expect a response. However, it may just be the case that some people wear a miniskirt for other things, like, for example, just simple exposure to the air on a hot day. And IF people do wear a miniskirt for something else, and do not intend for it to have a sexual appeal, then it is not “flaunting sexuality.”
Sniper@359:
@Kel #346
I’ll give you my point of view on the questions you asked earlier. Judging someone by intelligence means that you’re looking beyond the superficial and should be commended for it. It means you have to do a little bit more than just look and say “Wow”. To get an idea of someone’s intelligence you have to be exposed to their thought processes in some manner, be it conversation, reading something they’ve written,or listening to them in some other context. Effort counts.
The assumption is only that when women are in public they are in public.
I very much look forward to reading a similarly nitpicky debate about exactly what men should wear in public, what messages they’re sending, and what negative reactions they should expect. Hey, nobody’s forcing to them to wear shorts in 90 degree weather.
OK – some relevant context-specific examples, please.
And you’ve defended this assertion not at all. I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
The question makes no sense.
Then do it.
No one has to make that opportunity for you. Stop being defensive. Examine your comments.
@#351 tmaxPA
“Because most women are not scared to flaunt their sexuality, you think that means it isn’t happening?”
I admit, this is a very complex issue, one about which I am uncertain, but flaunting or not, it is still inappropriate to judge someone solely on their looks, and “looks” are not always directly for the intention of sexual appeal.
My only thought is this: it is a subject that should be off-limits unless the blogger herself explicitly asks for comments.
Dare I say it, but it seems the women’s studies majors are running wild.
I’d complain about their original boilerplate rhetoric their and lack of useful research. I might bemoan the fact that good departments are suffering hiring freezes and staff cutbacks while they are allowed to exist, but I am not in the mood to deal with rank idiots shitting the contents of their minds into my email.
10ch:
Clear.
At the moment, I truly don’t.
Good night, all! Sweet dreams!
It’s interesting. More and more in this generation (I’m 22) I find that guys are caring less and less about appearance. Personally, I’ll only date girls who DON’T wear make-up and try and be pretty. It makes them seem as if they aren’t human, but instead some separate species.
On a side-note, I’m single and am looking for any nerdy tomboys who are interested in a Physics Major student. Anyone interested? =P
Hurrah for Libbie at #85!
This has happened to me, too, on a number of occasions. Complete strangers (all male) have walked up to me while I’m out shopping, on my way to an evening out, on my way to work – to tell me that I’m ‘ugly as fuck’ ‘should keep that face under a box’ ‘fucking arse faced’ etc. Politer men don’t say such things, instead pretending that I’m invisible.
Men, and the majority of women, have no idea what it is like to be ugly and female.
Oh no! Inadvertent double-jeopardy irony…
*dives under desk*
Damn. On the recommendation of someone on this blog, I bought an irony meter (ACME 1000). Now I know why they don’t come with even a 30-day guarantee.
#361:
I’m sure there is massive peer pressure to look pretty for women. Usually induced by the public who feels that that should be the case. However, most of my peers, are looking for women who aren’t interested in that sort of thing.
I’m actually having difficulty finding somebody right now, because all of the women who don’t care about being pretty (that I meet) have boyfriends.
Libbie and Tassie Devil,
Before I go to sleep, I wanted to thank you for sharing your stories. I’m so sorry that you’ve had to go through that, and I hope you’ve found or will find happiness. All the best to you both.
I just now caught the tail end of Kel’s discussion and don’t feel like following it from the beginning right now, so I apologize if I’m repeating anybody.
I agree that it is arbitrary to judge placing primary importance on appearance in potential partners as shallow while judging placing primary importance on intelligence to be less selfish and non-superficial. Both appearance and intelligence are wholly biological properties, both influenced by genes and environment. Both properties are desired because of the interest they arouse in the observer’s mind. But low intelligence is largely unchangeable throughout life whereas flawed appearance is amenable to intervention. Yet it’s somehow LESS unkind to reject a person based on a biological trait over which they have no control than over one which they do?
Kirshenbaum makes good points, but citing a few Internet commenters does not support her position.
jrock #352
That is exactly why 83% of Chemistry and Math majors are virgins >.< (agreement mode) Finding someone who is intelligent requires more than a quick glance to see if you're attracted to them. Sure, there's superficial signs (like wearing glasses) that make you think they're more intelligent, or maybe basing your judgment on how they dress, but ultimately it requires research and conversation. More than just seeing an attractive girl at the bar.
Yes, it is ridiculous that you would take my specific example and claim it covers any possible example. That’s one degree.
I’m suggesting nothing of the sort. That’s two degrees. I’m saying quite clearly that anybody who displays her looks is inviting others to judge her looks. Or, rather, is putting herself in a situation in which it is inevitable that her looks will be judged. Since people can, you know, see her.
Nobody ever said anything about “just”. You have a nasty habit of doing that. I am not implying that mammalian instincts should be the norm. I am pointing out that they are the reality. We are mammals. We don’t stop being mammals because we can conceptualize and use language. WE ARE JUST ABOUT SELFISH REPLICATORS, buddy. Wake up and smell the caffeine beverage. Normative is what we make it, but that doesn’t change our instincts.
And wearing a miniskirt is not “just” exposure of “the” skin.
You do understand that men don’t consciously decide when to be sexually attracted, right? We’re talking about what they do about it. If any mention or comment on the occurrence is considered harassment regardless of context, then you’re the one trying to make human nature transcendent over reality, not me.
If your excuse is comfort or any other thing, there’s no point to the miniskirt. The skirt is there as a display.
I think the trend I see in our conversation is that you see me as a brutish oaf (my bad) and I see you as desperately wishing that we weren’t mammals, and that women will not always be women, meaning the ones with the womb, and all that that evolutionarily entails. OF COURSE in any social context, we should all turn that off and ignore our instincts, and I say that with no sarcasm intended. But it is worth noting women have as hard a time turning it off as men do, this isn’t a matter of ‘instinctive sexism’. It is, rather, the simple fact that there are two genders. And in humans, they are not identical. In some mammals they are, so perhaps I gave you the wrong idea when I spoke of ‘mammalian instincts’. It appears to me as if women, of their own volition, have as much difficulty making gender-blindness normative as men do.
That said, there are still the remnants of a patriarchal society to deal with, and there does seem to be a noticeably strong strain of it in the sciences, which seems ironic, if not plain counter-intuitive. My ex-wife told me stories while she was getting her doctorate in cell & molecular biology that practically crippled me with anger. Many similar unconscionable stories are in the comments here. Akiko’s otherwise uncommented-on post at 327 is the stuff of nightmares as far as I am concerned.
So don’t get me wrong. I am not and never will try to excuse any man who doesn’t take women or a woman seriously because of gender or appearance. Those aren’t the examples we’re discussing, and if you’re going to say that Akiko’s experience means that Sheril was raped because miniskirts aren’t sexy, well, you lost me somewhere.
;-)
Judging based on anyone’s appearance is superficial. Intelligence has varying degrees, I’ll agree, but at least you have to do a little bit more than just look(unless telepathy has been discovered and nobody told me). And people, unless they have some sort of disability, usually suffer from ignorance, not lack of intelligence. Plus, I also haven’t followed the whole argument, so I don’t know what he exactly means by intelligent. Someone that can have an in depth coherent conversation, someone that has a doctorate degree, someone that has become respected and successful in a chosen field of academia? Exactly what is meant by intelligent in this context would be helpful.
Sorry for filibustering, but this is such a damn interesting discussion:
There’s been no such discussion here. You imagined it.
Hey, nobody’s forcing to them to wear shorts in 90 degree weather.
Suddenly it’s shorts? Then you concede the point, good.
I’m serious. Given today’s social norms, there is no time when skin-tight clothes are not acceptable. The skirt, from a decorative flounce to a miniskirt and beyond, is there as a display. A gender-specific display. I’m not faulting any women who wears a skirt, nor am I defending anyone boorish enough to react inappropriately. But I refuse to deny that it is a sexual display.
Troll mode: There’s a stink of consensus around here.
#368 Okay yes, appearance is by definition a superficial property, it stimulates the visual cortex and activates sexual arousal in a programmed way. And intelligence is multi-dimensional in an abstract sense, in that it allows for creativity and idea expression that can be appreciated in more various and less predectable ways. But it’s equally selfish to place emphasis on either trait in choosing partners, so the contempt that’s often directed at men who emphasize the shallower of the two is undeserved.
Final thought: it occurred to me when thinking about Vogue that female fashion might be much less about the ‘pick me’ kind of advertising and more about the ‘don’t waste my time’ kind of thing.
Before this one gets too big: Someone might have said this already, but I’m facinated by this stuff (appropriate male utterances) being talked about again.
Maybe it’s just the internet social circles I move in, but it seemed like politeness and feminism was pretty much dead about ten years ago. Coincidentally growing with the rise of the ‘Lads Mag’, we have the male self justification of the need for sexual self expression. At least that’s usually the defense given for cries of “cor, nice tits” (or “cor, what a dog!” for that matter) and things of that nature.
Women bloggers and academic feminists didn’t vanish in that time, but the mood of wider society sure seemed to change. I was at university twice between ’94 and ’05 and what was unforgivable objectification verging on sexual harrassment in ’94 was just something girls had to put up with in ’01. Being ‘uptight’ was out, and a guy who’ll throw you a line is just more in touch with his feelings than others.
I think all this man-psych stuff is horseshit, but plenty of others can take up that mantle better than me. It’s that shift which I find curious. I dunno if anyone else has noticed it. I hang around gamers mostly, and they, along with comic geeks, are among the worst for this kind of thing (I think girls would get better treatment from a combined union meeting of truckers, mechanics, stevedores and construction workers than they would at a gaming convention). So maybe my view is skewed there, but I saw a lot of unpleasantness be let slide seemingly because “it’s just what guys do” (and I feel as though from another planet about it at times. Never in my life have I felt the need to share my tastes in attractive women with my mates, or sit around bonding through rating nearby females against soft porn pictures in a “hot or not’ game, but apparently it’s de rigeur).
But in the last couple of years it’s shifted. Even in blokey haunts of mine I’ve started to see a lot more “Guys, grow up” sort of sentiments, from males!, at the appearance ‘babe threads’ and other such stupidity. More and more girls acting like they don’t have to put up with this crap (and here I think there were a lot of young males who really didn’t think there was anything wrong with what they were doing and didn’t give it a moment’s thought, so being told off is a real first. And that impression intruigues me greatly in light of how recently it was a pretty big deal).
Decorum is making a comeback.
Maybe the ‘Lads Mag’ philosophy is right and it’ll just mean “the men keep their porn in the garage and so take their drinks there, away from sensitive eyes of the womenfolk”, but it means the polite space is growing and that’s no bad thing if you ask me.
Oh, I forgot this bit: I wonder who the Nobel lauriate Kirshenbaum mentioned was? Whoever they are, they said pretty much the same thing my mum would have said to her. So that gave me a chuckle.
Muzz, maybe the novelty is wearing off, and the internet is Growing Up.
Anecdote: When I was 20 I started using a relatively unattractive photo of myself as my primary profile pic over on the social networking site I was using. Unsurprisingly, this led to a noticeable improvement in the quality of my online contacts, interactions and relationships.
Jeez. It’s like Patriarchy 101 in here. Thanks for carrying the load once again, SC! Time for a musical interlude?
I posted this on Sheril’s blog too (currently awaiting moderation):
“I don’t wish to condone the kind of behaviour you highlight here, but I would like to suggest an explanation. One of the remaining gender inequalities is that men are almost invariably expected to make the first move in initiating relationships. It’s one of the “tests” that a lot of women use when selecting a partner. If men don’t ask, they don’t get. I’m sure it must be both annoying and uncomfortable to be on the receiving end of unwanted propositions, but men who make such propositions are generally more sexually successful than those who don’t. Until that changes, the problem’s never going to go away.”
(Apologies if this has already been said – I don’t have time to read 376 comments!)
And the one sided comparisons, “Men don’t get this kind of treatment!” Yeah. Duh! And if they do, they LIKE it.
I know a lot of men tend to say this, but if you ask them how they’d react if an old/fat/dirty/unattractive to them in any way woman complimented, catcalled or came on to them you quickly get a very different response.
If you don’t want to, please stop and try to figure out why it is that you think it’s so important for that woman to be told your opinion on her appearance.
Excellent advice.
I’m coming into the conversation very late, but the discussion abouy miniskirts amused me. Especially the guys who talk about “instinctive” reactions to the sight of bare skin. That’s not instinct, it’s learned. For much of human existence, and still now in many “primitive” cultures, nudity is the norm. Men see attractive women, yes, but they also see their mothers, grandmothers, and sisters naked or nearly so. The sight of bare skin is not, itself, necessarily arousing. And based on cultural and historic differences about what’s considered attractive, clearly much of that is learned.
@75 True, I have had to stop using the mic as much during public debate in a chat room that I frequent. Suddenly the text changes to comments about my voice and not what I’m saying.
I’m also find it interesting that there is so much discussion about making allowances for men’s ‘natural instincts’ etc and not the other way around.
As a primitive Finn, I can attest to this…
So much confusion on what seems to me to be a very simple issue. Here is Frank’s FAQ on the topic.
1. Does one have to apologize for finding people of one’s preferred sex attractive?
Of course not. What is in your head is nobody’s business.
2. Are men hardwired to think of every women they see as a potential sex object?
Maybe so, maybe not. But they certainly are not hardwired to talk about every women they see as a potential sex object.
3. So why is it ok for a woman to comment on her own appearance, but not for me?
Because it is her own choice to comment on her own appearance. Duh.
4. So, do people have the right to comment on other people’s appearance?
Absolutely. It is called “freedom of speech”. But they will be seen as sexist idiots by all rational people who will in turn exercise their freedom of speech by calling them sexist idiots.
5. So why don’t women like my compliments?
Because sexist comments on other people’s appearance are not compliments.
6. So you think you can tell me what to do?
No, I’m just pointing out some obvious truths.
7. No, you really think you can tell me what to do, don’t you?
Since you insist, yes, I do.
@380
My voice is alternately called manly or sexy (it’s a deep voice for a woman.) Unsurprisingly, while one might on the surface seem an insult and the other a compliment, neither party who comments on my voice pays attention to what I am actually saying.
You want to flatter me, laugh at my jokes. Leave my vocal cords alone.
Some years ago, I read in New Scientist (yeah, I know it’s not everyone’s favourite at the moment) a mention of some study which, as I recall, showed that people of both sexes tended to show more skin when they were looking for a partner. However, this was an aside in an article on something else (I can’t recall what, or even when) and so the details were understandably sketchy; e.g., no mention of culture, age, or other factors. Whilst I vaguely recall the authour of the study was mentioned (as in something like “So-and-so’s study ‘Such-and-such’ found that …”), I’ve never seen/heard any further reference.
Does anyone have the foggiest idea what I’m talking about? (And I haven’t read all the comments, so if it’s already been mentioned, please accept my apologies.)
@Kseniya #375.
Yeah, with any luck. One of the interesting bits though is, from my own inferences anyway, that it’s as though an entire “generation” (not a genetic generation, but a sort of popular culture one about 7-10 years) grew up with “male sexual self expression” (let’s call it, being almost criminally charitable about it) almost completely off the chain. And so recently after my own almost polar opposite upbringing.
I sympathise with Gordy at #377, but ‘the onus being on the male’ doesn’t really stretch to guys passing lewd comment on every girl they see. That’s as much for the benefit of other males as anything else.
I wish people would look past the superficial fact that I am rich. It’s irritating when the first thing people remark about when they meet me is the Ferrari I drive. I’m offended when people make comments about my thousand dollar suits. I’m a person, damn it. Give me the respect I deserve.
I can’t help it that my parents bestowed on me countless millions of dollars, just as they couldn’t help inheriting millions from their parents; what am I supposed to do, destroy it all? I like being rich. Is it wrong to be so wealthy just because I didn’t do anything to earn it?
I ask you, how would you feel if poor people were always sniffing around you looking for a handout, just because you can afford to literally burn money? How would you feel if people assumed you were a snob just because you can buy a yacht with small change?
Certainly it makes attracting people easy, but you have to bear in mind that I don’t know whether they are attracted to me as a person, or just the superficial fact that I own ten luxury houses around the world. Imagine what that does to one’s self-confidence.
The grovelling managers of five-star hotels (who will cater for my every whim) are not interested in me as a person. They look at me and just see $$$$$$$. It’s so facile.
Anyway, I look forward to receiving lots of comments in sympathizing with my position. If any commenter does not express understanding, I shall just assume they are shallow, smelly paupers, probably living on government hand-outs. The fact that I earn more money every week than they will earn in their entire lives, doesn’t give them a reason to be jealous.
#378
That’s right; know your place, ugly men. Unless you look like Brad Pit, we attractive women don’t want to hear a word out of you. You should feel grateful that we allow you to even look at us, because we would really rather you didn’t; you see, we know what you’re thinking, even if you deny it.
Sauna to an outsider is so weird. And I was just in there with my girlfriend, still feels weird sitting around naked.
I’m always amazed when I find that there are people who think there’s not quite enough fat-shaming in the world already. Gee, given that fat people are told by everyone in society that they don’t deserve to exist, are financially penalized in numerous ways for being fat, and that diets plans are a dime a dozen and advertised everywhere you look, don’t you think that most of them would have done something about it by now if that were possible? Is the fact that 95% of all diets don’t work simply because fat people don’t want to be thin? Go read Rethinking Thin and then come back and spout off about how much you know about metabolism and how unhealthy and lazy fat people are. Meanwhile, this fat person with a fasting blood sugar of 82 and cholesterol of 145 would like to go get to her morning jog.
Carlie, in the eyes of beautiful/svelte/ youthful people, fat/ugly/old people are inferior beings who have no right to offend the attractive people by telling them how attractive they are. They should just wear burkas and keep quiet.
Oh, I have no desire to force people to think I’m attractive, I just want them all to stop telling me how unhealthy I am. By any health measure used, I’m perfectly healthy, and in fact healthier than much of the population. Just fat. I’d like to see how well shamwow’s heart and legs would do carrying around the equivalent of my body weight for a day – poor little muscles couldn’t handle it. Besides, the more studies are done on obesity, the more it turns out that those early studies showing comorbidity with other illnesses are chock-full of confounding factors. Fat people have any number of problems with the healthcare industry that result in worse health outcomes: insurance companies charge them more, so more are likely to go without health insurance and therefore health care, doctors ignore whatever symptoms the fat person has and say it’s all due to being fat so don’t find and treat problems proactively, doctors use the wrong sized equipment and come up with faulty readings (such as blood pressure cuffs), fat people put off going to the doctor because of the extreme fat shaming done to them there (see how well shaming works?), in some cases doctors have flat-out told patients to not come back until they’ve lost weight. That makes incipient problems balloon into major issues, and once the symptoms are so severe everyone has to admit there is a real problem it’s often too late (hello, stage 4 cancer). Then there are those annoying little studies showing that overweight people have longer average lifespans than underweight ones. If the fat person does try to lose weight, that has its own issues. Yo-yo dieting wreaks havoc on bodies for the long haul even after they stop the dieting. Going to the gym is nigh-impossible for any fat person who doesn’t have nerves of steel to put up with the stares and comments. Exercising outside invites drive-by comments; getting yelled at while walking/running isn’t a good motivator.
I’m sick and tired of being told that being fat is immoral and wrong and why don’t you just do something about it? and it’s OMG so unhealthy and so taxing our healthcare system, when that’s a bunch of bullshit.
OK, I might be acting like a whatever-the-name-for-somebody-who-doesn’t-have-the-gonads-to-take-sides-in-an-argument-is-called, but I’ll address both sides anyway.
Men-are-men-get-over-it:
Ummm, no. Men do not have to act like idiots, it’s their choice. Some scum can’t compliment a woman tastefully, at the right time and place. If they don’t want to be ‘scum’, then they can wait.
There isn’t a good excuse for it. I know that males shouldn’t feel guilty about being attracted, yes. But I think that what the feminist crowd are referring to is unwanted comments on their appearence, and too much weight on it. Both of those are unnecessary and unprofessional. Keep it out of the workplace and streets.
Could you say: “Fundamentalist bigots are religious fundamentalist bigots, it’s OK for them to act like morons and bash gays and anyone they don’t like.”?
I don’t think so.
Why-do-they-have-to-act-like-morons:
Well, yes, they do. But intelligent people don’t. So why are you blaming a nonexistent entity called ‘men’? Intelligent people do see women as people, with uses beside attractiveness (but remember intelligence/success is attractive if you’re not a willing moron). Intelligent people use the same scale for attractiveness as they do for success, taking into account intelligence, personality, and yes, looks, but giving it equal weight. Don’t tar us all with the same brush, appreciate that you’re found attractive (but read below), and ignore the idiots.
Also, you shouldn’t be flattered by stupid comments, but remember that most of the time it’s just pure, mostly harmless (ha) ignorance. Take Hanlon’s Razor into account.
I saw the ‘I-am-so-ugly’ posts above. I’ve never actually seen many ‘ugly’ people, and most of them can either ‘fix’ their appearence* (obesity, not saying it’s easy to fix), or are in their own attractiveness ‘game’ (old people)/not in any at the moment (also old people). But hey, I live in the UK, it’s a different planet.
Same with stupid people too. I don’t know any person that I can really call stupid beyond redemption. So I don’t really believe it. It’s just the unfortunate self-esteem/anorexia trap, and yes, it is set by the media, they’re just not doing it intentionally. Hanlon’s razor, again.
—
What I’m trying to say is, you’re both making sweeping generalisations, and that’s never good for an argument.
Oh, and be civilised if you refute my comments, it would be sort of annoying to try to craft a post not to offend anyone and do it anyway. I may or may not reply, anyway.
* I’m not talking about plastic surgery here, I’m talking about simple things like weight, hair and acne. Plastic surgery is completely unnecessary.
Not sure.
Check PubMed and type in ‘Lancet BMI’. Real large meta-analysis shows high bmi reduces your life. But true, pre-menopause women seem to be realtively resistent.
On the issue of fat I will just point out that gluttony is a sin and that saphic love is often, in my opinion, nothing more than an excuse for putting on weight.
As long as this kind of male behavior is part of a successful mating strategy (at least occasionally), it will continue. End of story.
Real large meta-analysis shows high bmi reduces your life.
But none of them have dealt with the other factors, is what I’m saying. It’s the old “correlation doesn’t imply causation” issue. Until the factors I mentioned (along with others) are unpacked and analyzed, it’s incorrect to say that fat=deadly. You can say that being fat in our society leads to health problems, but it may well be the problem isn’t the fat itself, it’s the way society treats fat people. Focusing on making fat people lose weight would then be missing the point by several leagues, and would never work. However, destigmatizing fat and removing barriers to proper health care for fat people (which includes not beating down their self-esteem to the point of them thinking “gee, I guess I might as well eat cake all day, then, since nothing else I do matters”) might end up with the result of fat people indeed having better health. But then they wouldn’t be getting properly punished for being fat, so can’t have that.
Did Pete just say that women become lesbians so that they can get fat? I…don’t even know where to start with that one.
Some of you commenting just don’t get it. When you compliment a woman you don’t know on her appearance, it just reinforces the idea that our bodies are constantly on display for men and they are somehow public works of art to be judged. It is especially offensive in a professional or academic setting, because we have something to contribute and all you can see are teh boobz.
Also, don’t get offended if we don’t respond well to your compliment. I’ve had some random guys on the street fly off the handle because they hit on me and I flipped them off. Sorry if you’re wittle feewings are hurt, but I was minding my own business and frankly don’t give a shit what you think about the way I walk, or whatever.
Our bodies are OURS, and if we didn’t ask your opinion, keep a lid on it. Kthx.
Amanduh,
Your MySpace tagline is “never be invisible” and yet you are concerned about people commenting on your visibility?
Ah, good ol’ Pete “total fool” Rooke living up to his epithet again.
As of 394 teh Petey is objectively a parody. If he believes himself to be sincere that is merely an effect of his false conciousness.
Yes, the term knee-roll does seem archaic. I believe I picked it up in reference to horses and ranching.
Yeah, the knee-roll is part of a saddle.
It’s part of an English saddle, which is not generally used in ranching.
Who uses saddle terms for clothing anyway? “Man, my butt crack is showing. Next time I’ll get pants that hit above the cantle”?
To be devil’s advocate briefly here: I hear women on this thread saying that they don’t want verbal comments on their attractiveness from strangers. It seems that one way of arranging that is by concealing that attractiveness – and that is what feminists in Islamic countries say when justifying veils and such things.
So this whole thread basically can be seen as an argument for veiling.
However, as a gay man, who greatly enjoys looking at men I have never met and whose intellectual credentials, whatever they may be, ALWAYS take a back seat in first impressions to their bodily hotness, I wouldn’t want men to veil up.
…but if all the straight men knew what we gay guys were thinking, many would probably start a new trend – “boy burkas” or something. My idea – I get 10%!!!
I have always found smart women the most attractive, often to the point of not being able to describe the physical appearance. Witness my blog stalking of Her Mollyness, SC (kidding, kidding).
For the record, have never had a stranger come up to me and compliment me on my appearance. If they did, would assume he/she was a little loony. However, I often make children cry. On the other hand, I apparently have a wonderful voice and have often had women on the phone compliment it, saying they would love to hear me talk all day. Most recently, this included my mortgage banker and a woman at the power company. Truth be told, I always find that a bit creepy.
Pete, you have slipped off the path again and are wandering around in the twilight. What on earth is the correlation between gluttony and Sapphic love? Also, have yet to hear from you about meeting for a drink in the UK. Busy, hiding, or fearful?
Ciao y’all
Pete,
Yes, in fact, I am concerned about people who think my body is their business. There are more ways than one to make an impact. If you think being visible means lookin hawt for random dudes on the street, you’re the one with the issue.
I understand this discussion is complex. Try reading more slowly, it might help you understand. Perhaps a visual aid would help, as well.
http://eighty1.net/images/misc/stopposting/STFU-Stop_Posting.jpg
Also, as long as I’m hijacking here: should we smile at strangers?
Ever? Why or why not? What if they think we are interested in their body?
…and, what if we are?
Inquiring concern trolls want to know.
To be devil’s advocate briefly here: I hear women on this thread saying that they don’t want verbal comments on their attractiveness from strangers. It seems that one way of arranging that is by concealing that attractiveness – and that is what feminists in Islamic countries say when justifying veils and such things.
Hope you’re being snarky. The problem does not lie with us–we should have the right to walk down the street unveiled. The problem is, of course, with the strangers “complimenting” us. If you think a woman is hot, good for you, just filter what you say.
Similarly, if I’m in Vent with you about to do a raid, and you hear me ask for fort, filter your urge to scream OMG A GIRL!!!1!11!! :D
Amunduh,
If I were to smile at you and compliment you on your looks while, say, the train are you really telling me you would be offended? Would you have the right to be offended? Can one reasonably distinguish between disparaging remarks and kind remarks or are they of the same phylum?
But, Amanda, sweetie, didn’t you get to the rest of my first comment where I said I’m a fag?
Care to rethink any or all of your hypothesis now?
Errr.. no it can’t. Or at least it only can in a very silly way. Claiming something is a problem ne supporting a given solution to it. You may as well say that claiming crime is a problem can be seen as an argument for a police state.
At a tangent, I’m always slightly surprised that hijab and the like isn’t more common as “forbidden fruit” fetish fuel in the way that nuns habits are.
Don’t tie yourself in knots trying to reach a predetermined conclusion. Vogue, Cosmopolitan, etc. push what they can convince women to buy — and the connection between that and what eventually connects to male tastes is at best tenuous.
There’s quite a bit in the sociology-of-gender literature about the dynamics of women’s fashion, and it doesn’t much resemble the simplistic model you’re trying to make the facts fit. Van Morrison was more nearly correct:
“And all the girls walk by
Dressed up for each other”
Women are not the limp puppets of the Patriarchy, and are quite capable of creating social structures to harm themselves and each other without continuing assistance from men. As $HERSELF puts it, “I don’t need any man’s help to fuck things up.”
Carlie, I couldn’t agree with you more! Good comments.
…nothing else to add, just thought her PoV should be supported.
No, actually, Amanduh, you’re right: I’m not advocating for veils, because I do think they are oppressive: both for the veiled AND for the horny guy dogs who wanna see it, man.
Yes, I do think we horny guy dogs have the right to see it, man.
And yes, men think about sex on average 10-12 times a minute, or so I’ve read.
It hasn’t been in a work situation, but I have had women not get the message I wasn’t interested. I guess I didn’t slap them down hard enough when they approached me.
It’s pretty damn annoying to get repeatedly approached at one of my usual activities when I’m not interested.
Rooke,
WTF?
That’s weird, even for you Pete.
And yes, men think about sex on average 10-12 times a minute, or so I’ve read.
Everyone’s read that. No one can cite it. I’m pretty sure it’s bollocks. If I start thinking about sex, I’ll be thinking about it for at least half a minute; thus if I thought about sex every 6 seconds I’d die with a backlog.
Matt Heath, the “forbidden fruit” thing is part of the justification pro-veilers cite in their attempt to sell us non-veilers on the veil.
By the way, there is absolutely (well, a small, vague, non-specific debatable bit about “modesty” in public) nothing in the Qur`an about veiling. Veiling is NOT Islamic, because it is a continuation of a pre-Islamic custom, which went real well with the culture of the Arabic-speaking peoples who were the first seedbed of Islam.
Matt, you mean you don’t think about sex 10-12 times a minute?
I certainly do.
To once again state what many others already have, shaming does not work. In small doses from close friends/family it can work, but in large doses from society, it will lead to mental illness and suicide/homocide.
But then again I guess that would solve the overpopulation problem. Ahh, the heck with it, too slow. Let’s just spread som germ that’ll take out all humans, shall we? FFS.
(yes yes, slippery slope. still infuriating)
Why can’t we just treat fellow humans like this: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ian_dunbar_on_dog_friendly_dog_training.html
We’re supposed to be even more advanced than dogs, so shouldn’t that in theory require less effort if we properly instil good values from a young age?
(Also, any people here who have problems losing weight [when the overweight isn’t because of medication or illnesses] might benefit from reading articles at stumptuous.com and read for instance the articles on scienceblogs that are about how the gut flora affects your body. Lots of useful info. Also, IIRC, a tiny amount of overweight is actually healthier than having no excess fat at all, unlike severe overweight or even downright obesity. I just wish I remembered where I read this.)
Actually, women are just as visual with regard to being attracted to the opposite sex, as evidenced by young women practically throwing themselves at rock stars and Hollywood actors. But unless men earn such privileged positions, a man’s physical sexuality is usually toned down for the purposes of cooperation with other men, which is what civilization is built on. A man’s ability to earn a living in modern society has superseded the more primitive sexual cues, which is why bozos like Rush Limbaugh (who hardly looks like Brad Pitt) can sit back and make value judgments about women based on appearance and not think of it as a double standard.
I’m not sure if I’m understanding that right. I thought the argument went “If women wear veils men won’t think about sex when they look them” not “If women wear veils men will let their imaginations take over and develop it into a kink”.
I have a problem.
I get really, really turned on by having women admonish me for sexism and lechery. What’s a poor guy to do?
Matt, people use both arguments.
dveej: Yes I do mean that. (Kind of wishing I used a pseudonym). I can’t even get my around the idea of thinking about sex and it not holding my attention for more than 6 seconds, so I could have separate occurrences of thinking about it that often. I don’t think I’m going into more details on this :) but I don’t think anyone has any reliable basis for that claim.
If I were to smile at you and compliment you on your looks while, say, the train are you really telling me you would be offended? Would you have the right to be offended?
Of course I have the right to be offended.
That line right there exemplifies everything you think about women. Not only is it appropriate to compliment a woman you don’t know on her looks, she has to smile politely and say thank you, because god knows we don’t have the right to be irritated by strangers not only constantly judging us but opening their mouths as if we asked for their opinion or give a damn about what they say.
Yes, I have the right to be offended when a stranger compliments me in that way. You have no idea how uncomfortable it would be to hear that and then sit through the rest of the train ride knowing that at least one person is looking at you, judging you, probably thinking nasty things about you and all you want to do is get home in peace.
Smiling can be done in many different ways. Creepy lecherous smiles should not be given to random strangers. Casual and impersonal happy smiles however are usually a good thing.
If you’re interested in their body, want to approach them (as opposed to giving them a mere smile and then getting on with your life) and you’re in a setting that doesn’t work as social lube, you’re a bit out of luck.
Pete Rooke, if you did that, what would your reason be? To make Amanduh happy? To get her attention? To try and get a date? To demonstrate to your friends that you’re straight?
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it would be the first one and you want to make women happy.
But now – I know it’s hard – try to stop concentrating on yourself and your intentions. You want to make women happy, but some women are saying this sort of comment does not make them happy: that, in fact, they find it offensive. You can’t tell from looking who’ll be flattered and who’ll be offended. Is your desire to say this more important than the possibility that you might give offence?
Unless a woman specifically seeks out your input on her appearance, or you’re in a position to know that she will find it flattering, err on the side of caution and assume she’s not interested in your opinion.
And if you’re still trying to come up with ways to get around this rule of thumb, maybe have a ponder about why it’s so damn important for you to be able to tell women you don’t know that you think they’re hot.
The veils debate is just reiteration of the good old Virgin/Whore dichotomy. Act like private property (Virgin) or we’ll treat you like public property (Whore). I’d rather not be property at all, thanks.
And how would one measure how often men think about sex? If I ask you to tell me how often you think about pink elephants in the next minute, you’re going to think about pink elephants a lot more than you usually would.
“think about sex 10-12 times a minute”
you guys can STOP?
Amanduh, exactly!! No woman should have to go through that thing of feeling that someone is staring at them and thinking sexy thoughts!
Maybe that’s an argument for an OPTIONAL veil – so women who suffer this sort of thing can escape it.
According to snopes the “men think about sex every 7 seconds” claim is false.
Feynmaniac, snopes may be right about the claim being false, but I know it’s true for at least ONE guy in this world:
MOI.
“think about sex 10-12 times a minute”
you guys can STOP thinking about sex?
Pretty facepalm that people have to read about it to realize it isn’t true. People busy working e.g. coding or whatever tend to need to pay attention to work. Or was the back of the head supposed to magically think about sex while one is wrapped up in project planning and whatnot. Even out of work there are so many things to think about.
WOOPS DOUBLE POST.
Yes I did reload the page.
How did we get from “Guys, shut the hell up ferfucksake” to “Maybe no one should smile at anyone and women should cover up!” exactly?
Muzz, I’m not for women being made to feel uncomfortable. But it’s a short step from “don’t talk about how you find me attractive” to “don’t look at me because you find me attractive – it might show on your face, and that would make me feel uncomfortable.”
Discuss.
@Amanduh & Ollybeth
I think this goes to the notion of being watched. Eye contact, gestures and body posture, or the rhythm and sound of the voice all provide an insight, in some sense, into our innermost depths – that which we hide away from others, projecting instead our cultivated facade.
Imagine the bond with another person who is facing you, watching you and communicating with you. And then finding that this attention is unwanted. So I probably agree with you in the end.
Sartre perhaps overstates the case but one certainly does feel as if they are, in some small way, experiencing the other’s consciousness when making eye contact. This must be the greatest deterrence against philosophical solipsism.
…Sooooo? Why is your sex obsession relevant? I doubt the issue was ever that “nobody is like that”, bell curve and all that, but rather that it isn’t the norm. It is extremely impossible to live in ways that escape all the fetishes and so on. Everything is someone’s fetish.
dveej 429:
That’s a dumb thing to say. That’s like saying “Well if she would only dress better, she wouldn’t have been raped”.
The onus is NOT ON THE RECIPIENT of the offensive behaviour, but on the person committing it.
As a gay man I’m sure you can understand that you don’t go up to random guys and flirt with them. Same principle applies here.
Eye contact, gestures and body posture, or the rhythm and sound of the voice all provide an insight, in some sense, into our innermost depths – that which we hide away from others, projecting instead our cultivated facade.
Sure, maybe I’m afraid you’ll see into my innermost depths.
Or maybe I just want to read or listen to music without some creepy guy looking me over. Srsly.
Justin, I agree: the onus should NEVER be on a woman for some guy’s being unable to control himself. (That was NOT what I was saying in #429, and if you read it more carefully, you’ll see that.)
Agreed. Just thinking it over during the 7 seconds you aren’t thinking about sex should make you realize it can’t possibly be true.
Amanduh, is it only “creepy” guys you want to prevent from looking you over while you read? Or all guys?
Would it be OK for me, a fag, to check out guys? Does my creepiness figure in to this equation: if I am not creepy, do I get to look?
dveej 441:
Were you being snarky? If so, FAIL.
So what exactly is your position on this matter? Should guys learn that they have social responsibilities to not act like jackasses? Or should women learn to suck it up?
I’m with the former myself.
dveej, that’s exactly what you said.
“Maybe that’s an argument for an OPTIONAL veil – so women who suffer this sort of thing can escape it. ”
See what you did there? You made it all about what the woman ought to do to avoid being leered at. Never did you mention that the man doing the leering oughtn’t to be doing it.
dveej, anybody who thinks it’s okay to hit on random strangers or stare at them is, in my book, creepy. I understand admiring attractive people. Do it in a subtle way and think about the feelings of the people you are admiring.
OK, Pete, that does it. You were showing occasional flashes of intelligence, moderation, and even humour that made me think there was hope for you. But this supreme piece of homophobic idiocy puts you in the same league as Banned Barb.
Go directly to the Dungeon, where I hope you have to subsist on a diet of toenail clippings. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. But do collect 200 IQ points. You need ’em all. Or just have a brain transplant with a slug. You’ll be more popular, I assure you. As someobdoy or other said, are you the alternative?
Not really. Pretty long step. Looking for too long at anyone unknown has traditionally been a hostile act. Combine that with baring your teeth and that’s a lot worse… A brief look and impersonal, polite smile isn’t really a problem normally, which is pretty different from this.
I have a hard time imagining myself responding to a compliment or advance with a gesture deliberately calculated to hurt the other person. Granted, I’ve only been overtly hit on a couple times, and I imagine the situation is different for a reasonably attractive woman.
Still, unless the advance is really tasteless, I don’t see the point in responding with something other than polite rejection (or reciprocation). I guess you could say that a guy deserves grief for having the audacity to volunteer interest in a woman he doesn’t know by offering a compliment on her physical appearance, so there is a certain amount of “justice” in responding as you do. But I doubt it does much good in actually reforming behavior or altering the social climate, and may be counterproductive (the guys you deliberately aggravate, if anything, may develop an even more resentful and sexist attitude towards women as a consequence of the exchange).
Feynmaniac and wanna-be-anon Matt: don’t you think about more than one thing at a time? Ever? The whole breaking down the minute into seconds spent thinking exclusively one thing kind of ignores those of us who can hold two thoughts or more simultaneously.
Pete the Rookie,
Something tells me people tried to avoid experiencing Sartre’s consciousness.
[Okay, that was a little mean]
dveej, anybody who thinks it’s okay to hit on random strangers or stare at them is, in my book, creepy. I understand admiring attractive people. Do it in a subtle way and think about the feelings of the people you are admiring.
Yup. I see lots of attractive men on the train or bus. I don’t spend my time ogling them. I may steal a few glances, but I’m not going to stare at them. And, if I feel the need to comment on how hot they are, I do it in a text message to one of my best friends that says something like “I love cute guys on the train!”
Is it really that difficult? The basic idea here is, “Don’t be an asshole.”
Robert Bell 449:
“Still, unless the advance is really tasteless, I don’t see the point in responding with something other than polite rejection (or reciprocation). I guess you could say that a guy deserves grief for having the audacity to volunteer interest in a woman he doesn’t know by offering a compliment on her physical appearance, so there is a certain amount of “justice” in responding as you do.”
I think that the main thing that irritates women is the fact that a lot of men just compliment women to show them that all they’re here for is to look good, and/or to make them feel uncomfortable to show who has the power in the situation. It has something to do with the power dynamic of the genders in todays society.
Obviously my understanding of this is imperfect, perhaps one of the women here can help me clarify?
The only sense that I repudiate that comment is in the fact that I mispelled “sapphic.”
I really do believe this to be the case. Google “lesbian chicken.” the first two links are videos on YouTube of fat people indulging in the aforementioned activities.
“I really do believe this to be the case. Google “lesbian chicken.” the first two links are videos on YouTube of fat people indulging in the aforementioned activities.”
Eww no. Don’t share your fetishes if you aren’t asked to please.
*misspelled
I have a hard time imagining myself responding to a compliment or advance with a gesture deliberately calculated to hurt the other person.
When guys are in a group on the street hitting on women, it’s less “I find you attractive and would like to get to know you” and more about power. I can catcall at you and control you, made you look, ha ha, what a hottie, hey where you goin’ baby? You gotta boyfriend?
Telling guys like these to fuck off usually sticks a spoke right in their Power Wheels.
See what I mean, objectively a parody.
I can definitely see that random complements to strangers can be considered confrontational, rude or an attack. I guess I would ask then, is the same to be said for initiating conversation with a stranger? I mean I hope not but chances are if someone tries to get to know you it is possible that they may find you attractive. Is this behaviour inappropriate? If so then under what circumstances is it okay to talk to random attractive strangers?
Actually I’m a terrible multi-tasker. I can usually just keep my thoughts on one thing at a time. However, that’s beside the point.
The claim that men think about sex every 7 seconds doesn’t appear to have a legitimate source and doesn’t appear to match up to reality. There probably are a few people who do it but average man almost certainly doesn’t.
RE: #425
The brush strokes are getting wide again here.
Thought experiment: you are on a train, and a woman near you admires your coat, asks where you got it.
Your reaction?
Now try mutations on this scene. Does it make a difference if she doesn’t ask where you got it? Does it make a difference if it’s your sweater instead of your coat? How about your shoes? (Paging Dr. Isis here.) Hair style? Change the scene to a man making exactly the same comments.
I’m guessing that most women would be pretty comfortable at one extreme and much less so at another — which suggests that “public comments by a stranger on your appearance” is a bit more nuanced than this conversation would indicate.
Wow, so complimenting someone on their appearance is “offensive behaviour” now?
Or is it only an offence if the recipient finds the donor physically unattractive?
Ladies,
Would you be offended is your favourite Hollywood hunk complimented you on your appearance?
I was always taught to accept compliments graciously. They are gifts, after all.
When guys are in a group on the street hitting on women, it’s less “I find you attractive and would like to get to know you” and more about power. I can catcall at you and control you, made you look, ha ha, what a hottie, hey where you goin’ baby? You gotta boyfriend?
Telling guys like these to fuck off usually sticks a spoke right in their Power Wheels.
Those who LOVED it when Miranda confronted the cat-calling construction workers in SATC raise their hands.
Rooke,
Oh Petey, I can’t stay mad at you.
Rrr, so a “brief, polite smile” is OK, but a lingering glance accompanied with an expression of pleasure would be offensive? How long differentiates these two? And what about a series of brief, furtive glances?
I’m not trying to be an a-hole here, but I really do think that there is a bit of a definition (some of which varies according to culture) problem between smiling at strangers and staring lecherously: the difference is in the eye of the beheld, it seems to me. That’s why I’m rabbiting on about this. You seem to think it’s all clear and easy to distinguish: I think we should think about these things, both because people shouldn’t have to be made uncomfortable and because people should have some right to look at others sexually and even maybe have some (small?) right to express admiration in a non-oppressive way (or maybe have clear rules of what constitutes oppressive compliments/staring).
Looking at strangers purely for the physical pleasure it affords one is, indeed, objectification. I think it is also natural, and there should maybe be some room for it, without hurting people or making them uncomfortable. People who think that ANY stranger looking sexually at someone is wrong are, I think, wrong.
This is a complex subject, but I wish people would discuss it a little so stuff might get … not resolved, but maybe … aired? I dunno…
Feynmaniac,
Sartre was a notorious womanizer.
DJ 459:
I think MAJeff said it best when he said the rule was “don’t be an asshole.”
Polite conversation is fine; “Hi, crappy weather eh?”
“Hey baby, you look hot!” is not.
Just a personal take on it, but not being someone who voluntarily gives out sexual signals, or looks for them in others, I find the whole thing rather baffling.
Clearly, there are a large group of people, male and female, gay and straight, for whom a large part of life is the casual glance at a stranger, followed by the realised possibility of sex. I can’t say that this is necessarily a bad thing – though that beautiful women, in particular, may find the attentions of leering men very unpleasant – it is just the way some people are.
I’m sure we all know people, and history is full of them, whose brains work at a frighteningly sexual level. They may not even be good-looking in a conventional way, but nonetheless they get a lot of sex, simply by relying on looking for it. (And btw, I am of course entirely talking about adult, fully-consensual sex)
It’s very odd, it’s not just confined to men, and it represents for me a part of human life that I, personally, will never understand.
Sigh.
@#455
Surely Lesbian chicken is chicken from the Isle of Lesbos?
Justin 467, that one is easy. Some more subtle interactions might be less clearcut, and are interesting enough to discuss, I feel.
No, I think privleging comfort in that way is a pretty big leap. I think we can call it a given that people’s interactions are always going to be a bit nebulous. The most well meaning smile in the world could come off as a sleazy leer if the light is bad or your lips stick to your teeth that one time.
This is much simpler than that: Males constantly rating women out loud to them, or each other, is a dumb thing to do and has well reported and quite plain repurcussions.
Yes some girls/women like it and court it. Yes culture has grown such in recent times that both genders accept this kind of expression and incorporate it. But enough reject it and find it unpleasant to be subjected to the ‘kindness of strangers’ all the time.
It’s not the gamut of behaviour we’re trying to police here. The “OMG you render courtship impossible!”, “What of my precious sexual feelings! They need an outlet!” “You shall return us to the repressed manias of Edwardian times!” that some are extrapolating from this is utter nonsense.
MH 462:
“Wow, so complimenting someone on their appearance is “offensive behaviour” now? “
Yes it is, if it’s a random person. How would you like it if I (a male) came up to you (I assume another male) and said “Wow you’re really hot!” without any pretext? What if I was really hot? Where would you imagine this conversation would go if you weren’t into it (like 99% of the time)?
dveej 465:
“Looking at strangers purely for the physical pleasure it affords one is, indeed, objectification. I think it is also natural, and there should maybe be some room for it, without hurting people or making them uncomfortable. People who think that ANY stranger looking sexually at someone is wrong are, I think, wrong.”
The rule I use when looking at hot guys:
DON’T LET THEM NOTICE YOU LOOKING! I think straight males should take that advice too.
AnthonyK,
I have already outed you as a misogynist on this thread.
@Justin #467,
Of course, I stated pretty plainly that I understood the “don’t be an a-hole” idea with regard to complimenting someone.
Frankly, I’ve never in my life just complemented a random stranger. If I find someone appealing I will make an effort to introduce myself and get to know them. I’m just curious if, knowing that people often introduce themselves because they find a person attractive, does this make that type of social interaction inappropriate? If so, then how to meet people?
Yes it is, if it’s a random person. How would you like it if I (a male) came up to you (I assume another male) and said “Wow you’re really hot!” without any pretext? What if I was really hot? Where would you imagine this conversation would go if you weren’t into it (like 99% of the time)?
In other words, how would he feel if you transformed him into “the woman” in that social setting?
Well, he was French.
Hmm depends on value of “think” I guess. If my mind wanders off from what someone is saying I can usually recover there words from my subconscious a few seconds later so that’s some form of multi-tasking but usually my lack of focus takes the form of one burst of thought followed by another.
MAJeff 475:
“In other words, how would he feel if you transformed him into “the woman” in that social setting?”
Indeed ;)
Dj 474:
“Frankly, I’ve never in my life just complemented a random stranger. If I find someone appealing I will make an effort to introduce myself and get to know them. I’m just curious if, knowing that people often introduce themselves because they find a person attractive, does this make that type of social interaction inappropriate? If so, then how to meet people?”
No one can tell your intentions unless you state them. If you want to strike up a conversation with someone you find attractive, more power to you.
All of the above?
Not defending inappropriate behavior, but there’s a judgment call indicated. Some inappropriate behavior falls into the “shit happens” category, and absent a reasonable expectation that a reaction will actually change someone’s behavior in a positive way, extinction [1] (or just dealing with it like the dogshit on your shoes) is probably the best plan.
Is that the way a perfect world would be? Of course not — but we don’t live in a perfect world and sometimes the best we can do is the lesser evil.
[1] Behavioral psych term of art. Bear in mind that sometimes the whole purpose of inappropriate behavior (think three-year-olds) is to draw a response.
If you’re busy with something, the many simultaneous thoughts usually mainly related to what you’re doing as well as more important things that quite impact your life.
Example of some likely simultaneous thoughts one might have if drawing an art piece. “Needs more blue” “5H” “More shadow” “(Hope grandma’ll get well)” “Meeting at five” “Less blue there”. The more automatic chores you do the less you’ll think of them and more about other random things. This still doesn’t mean anyone will spend a lot of time obsessing about other unrelated things when they’re focused on stuff that actually requires brainpower.
…Wait what, am I being called Matt? ಠ_ಠ
What. If so, you seriously fail at comprehending what anonymous means.
I would say “Thanks”! It’s been decades since anyone paid me a compliment, so it would be very much appreciated, even though I’m straight, and even if you looked like the elephant man.
It has no need to go anywhere. It takes two to have a conversation.
“Wait what, am I being called Matt? ಠ_ಠ ” I don’t believe so; I believe it was a reference me slightly regretting entering this particular conversation under my own name.
“I would say “Thanks”! It’s been decades since anyone paid me a compliment, so it would be very much appreciated, even though I’m straight, and even if you looked like the elephant man.”
And what if this started happening on a regular basis? Would you continue to be so very cheery about it? What if the men who complimented you was bigger than you? A group of men?
Would you start to feel uncomfortable?
As fascinating as this blog, and this thread, have been today, the Cafe is closing and I am hungry.
Pete, I notice you have ignored me again. So, the offer to meet for drinks is officially withdrawn. I was pretty sure you would not come through on it, sad, but expected.
This thread reminded me of what I taught both sons and daughters: treat others as people, do not expect them to know what you think, try not to be an asshole, but do not put up with others being an asshole to you.
Ciao and night y’all
Why the hell is it so important to you to have the right to talk to random attractive strangers, DJ? Are you that desperate for social/sexual outlets?
Why does what you want matter more than what the potential recipient of your conversational largesse wants?
As an introvert, I wish it were socially acceptable to wear a light or button which said, “Not interested in social discourse right now.” I’d just as soon not have to deal with the chat of store clerks either.
I am tempted to think there is in some cases a disconnect. That some males indeed think they are starting a conversation to get to know someone they are attracted to by paying them a compliment, instead of what they are in fact doing; alienating and hurting a stranger, ending the conversation.
I of course am just pulling this idea out of my posterior and have no evidence to support it.
:P
@plum grenville #485,
I get the sense you are attacking me for asking a reasonable question. Is it the use of the word “attractive”? I don’t use the term attractive to seperate groups, but rather to highlight my assertion that people find others attractive and then make an effort to engage in conversation. Please don’t take my honest inquiry as an invasion of your right to privacy, I respect that you may not want to meet people. But how to know that without as you say a light or button? I guess respectable, non combative discourse where one party indicates disinterest and the other acknowledges their wishes.
I’m not going to deny that excessive attention (of any type) can be threatening, but we’re talking about smiles and compliments here. If I was complimented on a regular basis, it might get a little tiresome, but I would see it as a downside to being attractive (as in that situation, I would assume that I was attractive). It certainly wouldn’t make me feel suicidal.
I’m sure Michael Palin gets tired at people quoting Life of Brian lines at him, but I bet he never tells them to fuck off.
“I am tempted to think there is in some cases a disconnect. That some males indeed think they are starting a conversation to get to know someone they are attracted to by paying them a compliment, instead of what they are in fact doing; alienating and hurting a stranger, ending the conversation.”
I think that may be true for the first time, but I would like to think that people learn from the reactions they get, what to do and not do in social situations. So a repeat offender is just being a jackass, whereas I would be more lenient with someone who’s just learning social interactions.
“I’m not going to deny that excessive attention (of any type) can be threatening, but we’re talking about smiles and compliments here. If I was complimented on a regular basis, it might get a little tiresome, but I would see it as a downside to being attractive (as in that situation, I would assume that I was attractive). It certainly wouldn’t make me feel suicidal.”
Ok, let’s throw in one more factor. Let’s say that there was a high incidence of straight men getting raped.
Would the dynamic change for you then? Even if it was just “smiles and compliments”? Especially in large numbers?
It’s not fair to expect everyone to live up to the standards of the Nicest Person Who Ever Lived
“straight men getting raped.”
Sorry just men. Forget the straight part.
Justin, are you really trying to say that a man shouldn’t smile at a woman because she might think he wants to rape her?
@ Justin #490,
Makes sense. Perhaps some individuals are receiving a poor education in social interaction? Or maybe they are just jackasses as you say. I don’t know, but it is an interesting question.
I’m sure Michael Palin gets tired at people quoting Life of Brian lines at him, but I bet he never tells them to fuck off
Public figure vs. private citizen.
Fail.
“Justin, are you really trying to say that a man shouldn’t smile at a woman because she might think he wants to rape her?”
No, what I’m asking you is how would you react if you took all these factors into account.
Ha ha, true.
Oh really? I guess I must be a misongynist then. If you say so. No point in arguing, is there?
Sorry everyone!
Pete, no one fucking cares what you think, period. Double period. You are an unwelcome presence here. Your inanity, the poor level of your intellect, as pointed out by numerous posters (and indeed, our saintly “boss”) and the repellent nature of your views, probably make you unwelcome everywhere, but doubly so on a blog where reason and wit are at a premium.
You are a lying twat. You come here for some wanky religious reason of your own, defending the word of God against infidels, or some such nonsense, presumably with the idea of getting a few more Jesus-beans to plant that heaven-bound beanstalk.
Your religious views mask an evil, anti-democratic, and, yes, misogynistic outlook on life – as evidenced, repeatedly by your defence of the worst and most out-dated aspects of Catholic doctrine.
You really are an appalling waste of proteins, a disgrace to thought, and of all the boils who infest Pharyngula, the one who most needs lancing.
Cordially, if misogynistically, yours
AnthonyK
Justin, are you really trying to say that a man shouldn’t smile at a woman because she might think he wants to rape her?
Of course he isn’t. However, if a woman does then engage in conversation with him, and he follows her off at the next stop and rapes her, it’s all her fault because everyone knows you shouldn’t talk to strangers.
Why do you people feel it’s necessary to be able to tell a woman you think she’s attractive? Why is your opinion so important to share? If you’re trying to strike up a conversation with a woman, there are a million better ways to do it. Bring up the weather, bring up local news, chat about how long the bus is taking to get here. Don’t talk about how hot you think she is. If you don’t want to talk, but just want to compliment her, in god’s name why? What service to humanity do you think you’re providing by sharing your opinion on how she looks? What reason do you have for wanting to do this?
DC, I think most of us are assuming complimenting a woman’s appearance means (in this conversation) comments about her body or comments of a sexual nature. Someone telling me my shoes are really cool is a little different. They may be attracted to me and trying to initiate conversation in a nonthreatening way, which I respect.