Sexual objectification

[Milk Sheikh]

Shalom,

Normally we talk of men objectifying women and thereby treating them like commodities rather than human beings. Plus it reinforces the power that one gender has over another - and as someone mentioned elsewhere, it is like a master-slave relationship.

But what if a woman objectifies another woman? Meaning, is objectification intrinsically wrong, or is it wrong only insofar as it reinforces the unfair domination of one gender over another?

Milk

[Lt. Ferret]

or when women objectify men.

[Hoplite]

or when women objectify men.
Oh, that doesn't happen. :rolleyes:

[Lt. Ferret]

Oh, that doesn't happen. :rolleyes:

pft you know how bad it is that women want me for my nice body, good cash flow, and education?


:crying: they dont love me for me.

[Tablo]

Whether or not women objectify men is not the problem since women are being systematically oppressed by men and not the other way around.

[Lt. Ferret]

no they arent.

[Ele'ill]

no they arent.

Really?

[Lt. Ferret]

Really?

Yep.

[RGacky3]

People get objectified all the time, if a plumbing fixes your toilet your objectifying him (treating him as a toilet fixing commodity), when your playing basket ball with someone, he's being objectified (a basketball playing machine), or whatever.

If you've ever had a one night stand, your both objectifying each other as sexual objects.

Now at the workplace, where you have that power dynamic that sort of sexual objectification becomes a problem.

A friend of mine at her work place, her and the other girls would feel uncomfortable becasue the boss would get too close and brush up, put his hands a little too far down and so on, once when it happened the girl said "Hey, why do you always do that? Why are you always brushing up against me?" Absolutely calm and straight faced, in front of everyone, the guy did'nt do it again. Point is, women are not powerless.

[Hoplite]

Whether or not women objectify men is not the problem since women are being systematically oppressed by men and not the other way around.
Erm, I'm gonna have to stick my hand up to that.

Ten or even five years ago, I'd have agreed with you. Now, I really cant.

I worked as a counselor for young children (Kindergarten age) and I left that job because my (female) boss decided she had issues with a man working with young children and all but accused me of being a pervert for voluntarily working there and of being "too interested" in the kids without any proof.

She couldn't legally fire me, but she found a way around that and stole four boxes of copier paper then blamed it on me. She gave a co-worker a raise to say she saw me loading the boxes into my trunk when I told her I was filing a complaint with the Department of Labor.

[RGacky3]

BTW, just to clarify my point, it is a FACT that women make less than men for the same work, it is a FACT that many women are abused in marriages, it is a FACT that in many situations women are treated differently or of less importance because they are women.

I absolutely realize that women face discrimination, however I also think that sexual objectification is a concept that is wronly placed by many leftists and feminists.


I told her I was filing a complaint with the Department of Labor.

Make the complaint.

That sort of stuff happens too, when its the other way around, but I would'nt consider that sexual objectification perse, chances are she just had a problem with you.

[Hoplite]

BTW, just to clarify my point, it is a FACT that women make less than men for the same work True


it is a FACT that many women are abused in marriages
It's also a fact that many men under-report abuse.


it is a FACT that in many situations women are treated differently or of less importance because they are women.
In some sectors, I'll buy that. On the whole however, I think most people, especially young people, dont really give a crap about gender differences.

I worked at several welding training facilities and in EVERY CLASS there was at least one female student. Not one single student, not one, had any problems with it. These were construction workers, welders, boilermakers, and electricians. As long as the girls pulled their own weight, did their work, didnt complain, and didnt expect to be treated differently, not one single male student gave them a hard time or even said anything.


I absolutely realize that women face discrimination, however I also think that sexual objectification is a concept that is wronly placed by many leftists and feminists. I think it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We TRY to find this kind of behavior so we do and our expectation of it means we're more likely to see it.

I agree that women are discriminated against and it goes without saying that that isnt right, but I think it happens a lot less and is a lot less prevalent than people think it is and it's a hell of a lot less socially acceptable than people seem to think it is.


Make the complaint.
This was almost five years ago. I didnt end up making the complaint because my evidence was basically what I'd seen and I knew it would be written off as me trying to save my own ass.

Add that to testimony from a model employee and any hint of misconduct around the kids and the decision would not have come down in my favor. Guy who works with children!? He must be a pervert! I hate people sometimes.


That sort of stuff happens too, when its the other way around, but I would'nt consider that sexual objectification perse, chances are she just had a problem with you.
Who knows what her problem was.

The OP was talking about the power that men supposedly have over women and I was disagreeing that it works that way strictly anymore. Any time you have a un-equal power relationship, there is going to be tension and the gender of the the participants doesn't matter as much as it used to.

[Viet Minh]

You cannot tackle discrimination if you go about it in a discriminatory way. For instance it annoys me that some feminist groups will not allow men to help them, purely on the basis of their gender. If they can not allow men into their club, why is it the same groups (rightly) complain about working men's (men only) clubs for example? Thats a seperate issue to womens rights in the workplace by the way, just to be clear. I'm not talking about Unions, just social clubs that are equivalent to womens social groups like the wri.

[RGacky3]

It's also a fact that many men under-report abuse.


Thats true, but the physical strength disparity does make a difference.


In some sectors, I'll buy that. On the whole however, I think most people, especially young people, dont really give a crap about gender differences.

I worked at several welding training facilities and in EVERY CLASS there was at least one female student. Not one single student, not one, had any problems with it. These were construction workers, welders, boilermakers, and electricians. As long as the girls pulled their own weight, did their work, didnt complain, and didnt expect to be treated differently, not one single male student gave them a hard time or even said anything.


Absolutely, thats generally my experience too, but other people have other experiences, and in many places its still a problem, but I agree, its getting better.


I didnt end up making the complaint because my evidence was basically what I'd seen and I knew it would be written off as me trying to save my own ass.


It does'nt matter, just the fact that the boss will have to go through the trouble and cost will make a difference, sometimes they'll back pedel just to get out of the trouble.


Any time you have a un-equal power relationship, there is going to be tension and the gender of the the participants doesn't matter as much as it used to.

Absolutely.

[hatzel]

Thats true, but the physical strength disparity does make a difference.

I'm a bit of a scrawny beggar, me, I don't think it would have to be superwoman to get the better of me in a show of strength :laugh: (There's actually a serious point there, if you look hard enough...)

[#FF0000]

Holy shit some of you people are stupid.

[#FF0000]

Erm, I'm gonna have to stick my hand up to that.

Ten or even five years ago, I'd have agreed with you. Now, I really cant.

I worked as a counselor for young children (Kindergarten age) and I left that job because my (female) boss decided she had issues with a man working with young children and all but accused me of being a pervert for voluntarily working there and of being "too interested" in the kids without any proof.

She couldn't legally fire me, but she found a way around that and stole four boxes of copier paper then blamed it on me. She gave a co-worker a raise to say she saw me loading the boxes into my trunk when I told her I was filing a complaint with the Department of Labor.

this reminds me that people should know that patriarchy is what feminism fights against and that patriarchy affects both men and women.

edit: not to mention that your individual experience with a person whose individual bigotry caused you problems isn't a sign of systematic oppression of men, champ.

[Tomhet]

Whether or not women objectify men is not the problem since women are being systematically oppressed by men and not the other way around.
Precisely, the key word here is systematically...

[#FF0000]

no they arent.

aren't you the guy that said that rape isn't a problem in the us military

[Ele'ill]

Erm, I'm gonna have to stick my hand up to that.

Ten or even five years ago, I'd have agreed with you. Now, I really cant.

I worked as a counselor for young children (Kindergarten age) and I left that job because my (female) boss decided she had issues with a man working with young children and all but accused me of being a pervert for voluntarily working there and of being "too interested" in the kids without any proof.

She couldn't legally fire me, but she found a way around that and stole four boxes of copier paper then blamed it on me. She gave a co-worker a raise to say she saw me loading the boxes into my trunk when I told her I was filing a complaint with the Department of Labor.

What does this have anything to do with the systematic objectification of women and an unjust patriarchal status quo?

[Ele'ill]

True


It's also a fact that many men under-report abuse.


In some sectors, I'll buy that. On the whole however, I think most people, especially young people, dont really give a crap about gender differences.

I worked at several welding training facilities and in EVERY CLASS there was at least one female student. Not one single student, not one, had any problems with it. These were construction workers, welders, boilermakers, and electricians. As long as the girls pulled their own weight, did their work, didnt complain, and didnt expect to be treated differently, not one single male student gave them a hard time or even said anything.


I think it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We TRY to find this kind of behavior so we do and our expectation of it means we're more likely to see it.

I agree that women are discriminated against and it goes without saying that that isnt right, but I think it happens a lot less and is a lot less prevalent than people think it is and it's a hell of a lot less socially acceptable than people seem to think it is.

Just some statistics to put things back into perspective

http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html

http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/23/us/us-finds-heavy-toll-of-rapes-on-young.html

http://www.womenminds.com/feminist-friday-must-read-statistics/

http://www.womensmedia.com/new/Lips-Hilary-gender-wage-gap.shtml

http://www.urbanministry.org/sexism-and-gender-discrimination-statistics

http://teenidentity.net/2010/11/01/the-sexual-objectification-of-women-in-media/












The OP was talking about the power that men supposedly have over women and I was disagreeing that it works that way strictly anymore

[Hoplite]

this reminds me that people should know that patriarchy is what feminism fights against and that patriarchy affects both men and women.

edit: not to mention that your individual experience with a person whose individual bigotry caused you problems isn't a sign of systematic oppression of men, champ. I understand that, however it's something that persists in a system that supposedly doesnt allow that sort of thing to happen because she's female.

From my own personal learning and experience, women are just as free to be dickish towards employees as men are.


What does this have anything to do with the systematic objectification of women and an unjust patriarchal status quo?
Do you get a bonus or something for using that many buzzwords in a sentence?

My basic point is I dont believe things are as bad as people seem to think they are. Call that whatever you want.

[Ele'ill]

Do you get a bonus or something for using that many buzzwords in a sentence?

It was accurate and also lyrical- not my fault that it was also painfully true.


My basic point is I dont believe things are as bad as people seem to think they are. Call that whatever you want.

I'll call it ignoring the statistics I provided.

[Viet Minh]

Just some statistics to put things back into perspective

http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html

http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/23/us/us-finds-heavy-toll-of-rapes-on-young.html

http://www.womenminds.com/feminist-friday-must-read-statistics/

http://www.womensmedia.com/new/Lips-Hilary-gender-wage-gap.shtml

http://www.urbanministry.org/sexism-and-gender-discrimination-statistics

http://teenidentity.net/2010/11/01/the-sexual-objectification-of-women-in-media/

So your argument is basically that because there are a fuckload of evil bastard men out there who will rape women that makes it okay for a female employee to automatically assume all men are sexual deviants? Or is there some more logical basis for your dismissal of Hoplites experience, other than 'all men are bastards'?

[Revolution starts with U]

Perhaps that the actions of one female don't justify the systemic objectification of women in an unjust patriarchichal status quo?
Do you read?

[#FF0000]

So your argument is basically that because there are a fuckload of evil bastard men out there who will rape women that makes it okay for a female employee to automatically assume all men are sexual deviants? Or is there some more logical basis for your dismissal of Hoplites experience, other than 'all men are bastards'?

Holy fucking shit did you read anything me or Mari3l said in this thread?

[Viet Minh]

Perhaps that the actions of one female don't justify the systemic objectification of women in an unjust patriarchichal status quo?
Do you read?

I really doubt he is attempting to justify the systematic objectification of women, or the unjust patriarchal status quo, if he is then I take back what I said and fuck him, he deserves worse treatment! Yeah I just caught the 'self-fulfilling prophecy bit' :rolleyes: I jumped to conclusions there sorry..

I was reading the thread as Mari3l dismissing an incident of anti-male sexism that wasn't the full picture.. I'll shut up now! :blushing:

[#FF0000]

I was reading the thread as Mari3l dismissing an incident of anti-male sexism that wasn't the full picture.. I'll shut up now! :blushing:

That isn't even accurate.

[RGacky3]

Wait, how does the fact that rape is still a problem = a patriarchal society?

Now the wage gap, that IS an indication, that economically women are discriminated against.

BUt rape is not an indication of that, thats criminal, and sexual objectification in the media, thats not discrimination, they are selling with sex .... to men.

[#FF0000]

Wait, how does the fact that rape is still a problem = a patriarchal society?

How does the fact that lynching is still a problem = a racist society???

[Revolution starts with U]

It's like being in 1840s america and seeing a free'ed black and saying "I dont think the problem is as bad as people say. I just saw a free black and he's doing fine."
It's ludicrous.

[#FF0000]

It's like being in 1840s america and seeing a free'ed black and saying "I dont think the problem is as bad as people say. I just saw a free black and he's doing fine."
It's ludicrous.

I don't know if it's that bad.

[Viet Minh]

That isn't even accurate.

I know, thats why I took back what I said, I didn't read the whole thing properly I just caught the tail end. Anyway sorry

[Ele'ill]

Wait, how does the fact that rape is still a problem = a patriarchal society?

Now the wage gap, that IS an indication, that economically women are discriminated against.

BUt rape is not an indication of that, thats criminal, and sexual objectification in the media, thats not discrimination, they are selling with sex .... to men.

So then you see no relation at all amongst what you've listed here?

[RGacky3]

How does the fact that lynching is still a problem = a racist society???

Theres a difference, lynching is directly related to racism, rape, is a man using his power for sexual gratification, thats not sexism, its not discrimination perse, you have a totally equal gender society they'll still be rape, because there are some men that will have urge and use their power against a woman.

[#FF0000]

Fun fact: Lynching had a pretty significant sexual aspect to it. Genital mutilation and pretty awful things were preeeeeeettttttyyyyyyy common.

[RGacky3]

So then you see no relation at all amongst what you've listed here?

I see a link between wage discrimnation and sexism.

Sexual objectification is just sex, and the use of it to sell products, women like sex too you know.

Rape, as long as its punished to the full extend of the law, I don't see as a product of sexism as much as a product of criminality.

Rape happens in societies with a highly sexual media, and those with not, it happens in societies with large wage disparancies and those with not.

The same goes for wage discrimination, it happens in societies with a lot of sexual media, and societies with not so much.

[RGacky3]

Fun fact: Lynching had a pretty significant sexual aspect to it. Genital mutilation and pretty awful things were preeeeeeettttttyyyyyyy common.


Jesus man, don't call that a fun fact.

[Skooma Addict]

What does this have anything to do with the systematic objectification of women and an unjust patriarchal status quo?

Women are not systematically oppressed though.

[Skooma Addict]

Now the wage gap, that IS an indication, that economically women are discriminated against.



Studies of woman’s wages that conclude women are discriminated against in U.S. labor markets are also misleading when they suffer from the bias caused by omitted information. The gap between male and female wages narrowed from about 40 percent in 1970 to about 24 percent in 2003. Claims that the 24 percent difference results from bigotry typically ignore the fact that as a group women are more likely to work part time, choose careers in lower-paying fields, work for government or a nonprofit, and have fewer years of labor market experience than men of the same age. These differences could all create a wage gap and may reflect choices made to accommodate family responsibilities. Researchers who adjust for standard factors such as education, experience, and line of work find no significant difference between the earnings of men and women who never married and never had a child.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Discrimination.html

[Skooma Addict]

aren't you the guy that said that rape isn't a problem in the us military

Ad Hominem.


Holy fucking shit did you read anything me or Mari3l said in this thread?

More like angry rants on your part.

[Revolution starts with U]

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Discrimination.html
utter bs. does he have any evidence women do actually choose these profs? on top of that does it say whether they chose those jobs freely or whether they had to becuz of bias?
I can tell you there are plenty of women who want to be mathematicians, scientists, and football players. But they can't because they won't get hired by the heads of these male dominated professions.


Ad Hominem.



More like angry rants on your part.

You're ugly and therefore your arguments are wrong.

[Skooma Addict]

utter bs. does he have any evidence women do actually choose these profs? on top of that does it say whether they chose those jobs freely or whether they had to becuz of bias?

I can tell you there are plenty of women who want to be mathematicians, scientists, and football players. But they can't because they won't get hired by the heads of these male dominated professions.Well given that feminists constantly make the assertion that women are oppressed and discriminated against, the burden of proof is on them. Also, the author of the article is a she, not a he.

Women generally make the same amount as men for the same job when we take everything into account.

Women can be football players, but who would want to watch women football. The top male athletes are more athletic than their female counterparts, which is why men's sports is more fun to watch. Do you think the reason women basketball players don't make as much as men is because of discrimination?

You are going to have to prove that the mathematics and science departments in universities discriminate against women. Also, women are more prominent than men in other professions. Are men discriminated against in these professions?

Also, Asians make more than white people in America. How do you explain this?

[#FF0000]

More like angry rants on your part.

The only thing I said that could be thought of as "angry" was the "Holy shit some of you people are stupid" thing.

Other than that, I just pointed out that y'all mistakenly assert that feminists think it's "evil men" or whatever silly stereotype.


Well given that feminists constantly make the assertion that women are oppressed and discriminated against, the burden of proof is on them

Not just women. Anybody. Are people discriminated against because of gender roles? I think that's a p. easy question to answer.

[Skooma Addict]

You still haven't explained why you believe women are discriminated against.

[#FF0000]

You still haven't explained why you believe women are discriminated against.

Income disparity?
Male Privilege? (This one's more cultural than economic, I think)
Rape Myth Acceptance?

Did you just skip all of Mari3l's sources?

[Skooma Addict]

Income disparity?Women earn the same amount for the same job, all things considered.

I assume you believe whites are discriminated against because they make less than Asians?



Male Privilege? (This one's more cultural than economic, I think)
Lol, ok? Idk what this means. You assuming your position is correct?



Rape Myth AcceptanceWhat is this? Most people know rape happens.


Did you just skip all of Mari3l's sources? I skimmed them. Didn't look into them much. Did you skip this?


Studies of woman’s wages that conclude women are discriminated against in U.S. labor markets are also misleading when they suffer from the bias caused by omitted information. The gap between male and female wages narrowed from about 40 percent in 1970 to about 24 percent in 2003. Claims that the 24 percent difference results from bigotry typically ignore the fact that as a group women are more likely to work part time, choose careers in lower-paying fields, work for government or a nonprofit, and have fewer years of labor market experience than men of the same age. These differences could all create a wage gap and may reflect choices made to accommodate family responsibilities. Researchers who adjust for standard factors such as education, experience, and line of work find no significant difference between the earnings of men and women who never married and never had a child.

[Viet Minh]

Other than that, I just pointed out that y'all mistakenly assert that feminists think it's "evil men" or whatever silly stereotype.

At the risk of making myself look stupider still, I have come across that attitude and thats what I was attemtping to comment on. Its like the question of racism by african americans, for a group to state categorically that black people are superior to white people is racist, whatever the history behind it, and its pointless to defend that. Likewise the very rare phenomenon of women discriminating against men (usually using the same stereotypes created to opress them) is sexist, and not only is it hypocritical to disregard this its counter-productive because its used by opponents of feminism to portray feminists as man-haters, thats where that stupid stereotype comes from. Now obviously the absolute priority is to address female needs because they are the ones being discriminated against and worse 99.9999% of the time, but it irks me if people think its impossible for any woman to be sexist, ever, because thats just not true. Nobody here said that, I'm just venting previous arguments I've had..
/rant :p

[brigadista]

[QUOTE=Skooma Addict;2051039]Well given that feminists constantly make the assertion that women are oppressed and diuscriminated against, the burden of proof is on them. Also, the author of the article is a she, not a he.

one woman

Women generally make the same amount as men for the same job when we take everything into account.

Do they? as you carry the burden of proof here by your own argument - prove it

Women can be football players, but who would want to watch women football. The top male athletes are more athletic than their female counterparts, which is why men's sports is more fun to watch. Do you think the reason women basketball players don't make as much as men is because of discrimination?

You give yourself away here :):)

[#FF0000]

Women earn the same amount for the same job, all things considered.

And yet, across the board, women of all colors and backgrounds are less well-off, financially, than men.


I assume you believe whites are discriminated against because they make less than Asians?


Not the same. Asians, first of all, are a tiny, tiny demographic. Secondly, if an Asian family doesn't come to America with wealth, the chances are they aren't about to climb the social ladder any time soon. Social mobility for Asian-Americans is pretty static, and white Americans have a far easier time climbing it than Asians do.

And like anyone else, how well-off any given Asian person might be is pretty heavily dependant on how wealthy and well-educated their parents were.


Lol, ok? Idk what this means. You assuming your position is correct?

Men and women are held to different standards, in a way that usually benefits men. Not being conventionally attractive, for example, harms women way more than men. For example, women who are obese tend to make less than women who are thin, and way less than men who are thin. Men who are obese make more than anyone, though.

Who knows.



What is this? Most people know rape happens.


Of course, and people think rape is a terrible thing, in theory. However, ugly myths about to who or why it happens, are way too common, and color people's perception of rape.

For example, there was a New York Times article about an 11 year old girl who was raped by some insane number of older men (up into the 20s, I think). The article was called out and ripped to shreds because, throughout the entire thing, the article kept talking about how the men were "drawn to the act" and never mentioning the victim at all, save for a quote that described how she was dressed up like she was trying to look older, and how she shouldn't have been hanging out with the men in the first place.



I skimmed them. Didn't look into them much.

wait a minute


Well given that feminists constantly make the assertion that women are oppressed and discriminated against, the burden of proof is on them

and then.


I skimmed them. Didn't look into them much.

:mellow:

[Skooma Addict]

Do they? as you carry the burden of proof here by your own argument - prove it

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11240.pdf

Go to the end with the tables and graphs if you don't want to read the whole paper.


You give yourself away here :):)

I don't understand, do you not believe what I said was true. You do not think the best male athletes are more athletic than the most talented female athletes?

[#FF0000]

At the risk of making myself look stupider still, I have come across that attitude and thats what I was attemtping to comment on. Its like the question of racism by african americans, for a group to state categorically that black people are superior to white people is racist, whatever the history behind it, and its pointless to defend that. Likewise the very rare phenomenon of women discriminating against men (usually using the same stereotypes created to opress them) is sexist, and not only is it hypocritical to disregard this its counter-productive because its used by opponents of feminism to portray feminists as man-haters, thats where that stupid stereotype comes from. Now obviously the absolute priority is to address female needs because they are the ones being discriminated against and worse 99.9999% of the time, but it irks me if people think its impossible for any woman to be sexist, ever, because thats just not true. Nobody here said that, I'm just venting previous arguments I've had..
/rant :p

Seriously, it doesn't matter what feminists do and if it makes them look like man-haters, because people don't care about what feminists are actually about and would rather talk about some dumb made up nonsense about it. There is absolutely no basis for this man-hating feminazi bullshit that I hear every fucking time someone brings up the topic of feminism.

[Skooma Addict]

And yet, across the board, women of all colors and backgrounds are less well-off, financially, than men.Which does not prove that they are discriminated against.


Not the same. Asians, first of all, are a tiny, tiny demographic. Secondly, if an Asian family doesn't come to America with wealth, the chances are they aren't about to climb the social ladder any time soon. Social mobility for Asian-Americans is pretty static, and white Americans have a far easier time climbing it than Asians do.

And like anyone else, how well-off any given Asian person might be is pretty heavily dependant on how wealthy and well-educated their parents were.Your argument was that since women make less, that is proof that they are discriminated against. Well whites make less than Asians, so by such logic whites are discriminated against.


Of course, and people think rape is a terrible thing, in theory. However, ugly myths about to who or why it happens, are way too common, and color people's perception of rape.

For example, there was a New York Times article about an 11 year old girl who was raped by some insane number of older men (up into the 20s, I think). The article was called out and ripped to shreds because, throughout the entire thing, the article kept talking about how the men were "drawn to the act" and never mentioning the victim at all, save for a quote that described how she was dressed up like she was trying to look older, and how she shouldn't have been hanging out with the men in the first place.
People think rape is a terrible thing in theory and they think it is a terrible thing in real life.



wait a minuteI am not going to read 5 sources right now. I can later. I see you have yet to address mine however.

[Viet Minh]

For example, women who are obese tend to make less than women who are thin

That in itself is not necessarily due to sexism however, there have been numerous studies which say overweight women are less confident than their male equivalent counterparts, that in itself is due to sexist portrayals of women and pressure to be thin and beautiful, but there are other factors too like poverty which can have a major impact on someones diet and excercise. I agree with the premise that women are discriminated against in society and in the workplace, I just don't think thats a major part of it. If anything attractive women are objectified and probably stereotyped as being stupid, although in certain jobs like sales they probably do have an advantage from their appearance.


I don't understand, do you not believe what I said was true. You do not think the best male athletes are more athletic than the most talented female athletes?

That also has some relationship to gender roles though, little girls are given little plastic ovens and dolls that pee themselves, boys are given footballs and guns.


men's sports is more fun to watch

I gotta disagree there! :D

3..2..1 B&! :blink:

[Che a chara]

Females are undermined more in society than males are. End of. :)

As for female on female objectification, I don't see how that would really be comparable to male on female objectification unless there was a role of authority or oppression. It's about females wanting to empower themselves in a male dominated world.

[Revolution starts with U]

If you don't know what the "rape myth" is it means you have done absolutely dick in serious research as it is one of the worst problems facing women in modern society.

(PS the rape myth is the "well she was asking for it" stance.... one I wouldn't be surprised to see you take)

[Skooma Addict]

Okay first of all, almost all of these sources are about rape. Nobody is denying that rape occurs.

However, my sources expose the fallacies contained in this link.


(http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.urbanministry.org/sexism-and-gender-discrimination-statistics)http://www.urbanministry.org/sexism-...ion-statistics (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.urbanministry.org/sexism-and-gender-discrimination-statistics)


Women working 41 to 44 hours per week earn 84.6% of what men working similar hours earn; women working more than 60 hours per week earn only 78.3% of what men in the same time category earn (Bureau of Labor Statistics, cited in Hilary M. Lips, "The Gender Wage Gap: Debunking the Rationalizations" (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/Lips-Hilary-gender-wage-gap.shtml)).

This is only the case when not all of the relevant considerations are taken into account.

None of the provided sources are convincing, as the argument is not that women are not raped.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11240.pdf

Go to table 9.

[Skooma Addict]

If you don't know what the "rape myth" is it means you have done absolutely dick in serious research as it is one of the worst problems facing women in modern society.

(PS the rape myth is the "well she was asking for it" stance.... one I wouldn't be surprised to see you take)

I don't know what you are talking about. Women are not blamed for being raped. This is why we put rapists in jail. I assume you knew this.

Now people will say "You shouldn't have worn a 4 inch skirt while walking alone in a back alley." In that sense she was "asking to be raped" in the same sense that a soldier charging by himself towards an enemy line of troops is "asking to be shot."

[Viet Minh]

Seriously, it doesn't matter what feminists do and if it makes them look like man-haters, because people don't care about what feminists are actually about and would rather talk about some dumb made up nonsense about it. There is absolutely no basis for this man-hating feminazi bullshit that I hear every fucking time someone brings up the topic of feminism.

I'm kind of new here, sorry if I'm drudging up old arguments. I'm not attacking feminists in any way I was just trying to make the point that anti-male sexism is wrong too. There was a guy I knew that dropped out of a hairdressing course in college because a number of the girls on the course, and even tutors, made fun of him for doing a 'womans job'. There might have been some homophobic element there rather than sexism per se, but still its not right. I'm not saying we should be marching the streets with banners about this but its a relevant issue.

[#FF0000]

Your argument was that since women make less, that is proof that they are discriminated against. Well whites make less than Asians, so by such logic whites are discriminated against.

Uh, no. One factor alone doesn't mean "CLEARLY DISCRIMINATION". The average Asian man makes more than the average white man. I'll give you that. But how large is the group of white men compared to Asian men?

Sort of skews the numbers, bro.

[#FF0000]

People think rape is a terrible thing in theory and they think it is a terrible thing in real life.

I would love to believe that is the case but you would be surprised how many people think being drunk, or dressed a certain way, or being flirtatious makes the woman who was raped culpable for what happened to them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Or happening to live in Germany circa 1945.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anyway, in regards to the OP:


Meaning, is objectification intrinsically wrong

I can't really think of any situations where it'd be right, can you? Pretty sure that it's always a negative phenomenon.

[Skooma Addict]

Uh, no. One factor alone doesn't mean "CLEARLY DISCRIMINATION". The average Asian man makes more than the average white man. I'll give you that. But how large is the group of white men compared to Asian men?

Sort of skews the numbers, bro.

There are over 10 million in America.

[#FF0000]

There are over 10 million in America.

Out of 300 people total, most of whom are white, or hispanic.

[Skooma Addict]

Out of 300 people total, most of whom are white, or hispanic.

10 million people is still easily a large enough number for accurate data. That is more people than there are in some countries.

[#FF0000]

10 million people is still easily a large enough number for accurate data. That is more people than there are in some countries.

You can compare the average out of a population of 10 million and 100 million.

This line of discussion doesn't even matter, since your premise is wrong anyway. Just because the average Asian American makes more than the average white American doesn't alone mean white Americans are discriminated against or that Asian Americans have privileged status.

[Viet Minh]

You can compare the average out of a population of 10 million and 100 million.

This line of discussion doesn't even matter, since your premise is wrong anyway. Just because the average Asian American makes more than the average white American doesn't alone mean white Americans are discriminated against or that Asian Americans have privileged status.

I think that was his point man. Lets just drop this anyway, I get the feeling Milk Sheikh is trolling us.. ;)

[hatzel]

I get the feeling Milk Sheikh is trolling us.. ;)

That's why he's been banned for trolling. Or...is he trolling us from beyond the (RevLeft) grave?! :ohmy:

But seriously I neither understand what Skooma's point has to do with this discussion, or how he can actually believe what he's saying...

[Thug Lessons]

You can compare the average out of a population of 10 million and 100 million.

What on earth are you talking about??


This line of discussion doesn't even matter, since your premise is wrong anyway. Just because the average Asian American makes more than the average white American doesn't alone mean white Americans are discriminated against or that Asian Americans have privileged status.

Yes, the relatively high income among Asians in America is specifically evidence of 'model minority' racism at work, not evidence that whites are being oppressed by the yellow menace.

[Skooma Addict]

Uh, no. One factor alone doesn't mean "CLEARLY DISCRIMINATION". The average Asian man makes more than the average white man. I'll give you that. But how large is the group of white men compared to Asian men?

Sort of skews the numbers, bro.

I can't tell what you believe. So you do realize that the average Asian makes more than the average white person? Or are you just denying the data because "the numbers are skewed."

I agree, just because one group makes more than another does not mean discrimination is taking place. Thus when people cite the income disparity between men and women as proof or institutional discrimination, that data is not sufficient to prove their point. Their cause if further discredited when it is pointed out that all things taken into account, women make about the same amount as men for the same job.

[#FF0000]

What on earth are you talking about?

I thought what I said was p. clear :confused:


I agree, just because one group makes more than another does not mean discrimination is taking place. Thus when people cite the income disparity between men and women as proof or institutional discrimination, that data is not sufficient to prove their point. Their cause if further discredited when it is pointed out that all things taken into account, women make about the same amount as men for the same job.

It's a good thing that feminism doesn't base everything on that one point. :mellow:

[Skooma Addict]

It's a good thing that feminism doesn't base everything on that one point. :mellow:

Not like their other arguments are any better. Especially if they are "Men's Privilege (which is just a restatement of their beliefs, not an argument)" and "The Rape Myth"

[Thug Lessons]

I agree, just because one group makes more than another does not mean discrimination is taking place. Thus when people cite the income disparity between men and women as proof or institutional discrimination, that data is not sufficient to prove their point. Their cause if further discredited when it is pointed out that all things taken into account, women make about the same amount as men for the same job.

Women in the US earn roughly the same amount for the same job as men do because they can sue if this isn't the case. However, they earn less than men on average because they are systematically shut out from the highest-paying jobs. This isn't limited to corporate executives and engineers, but at all levels. Look at the recent lawsuit against Wal-Mart by women who objected to the domination of management by men and their unwillingness to promote women. That's why those statistics are meaningful.

[Thug Lessons]

I thought what I said was p. clear :confused:

No I am entirely unclear on why you apparently believe it's impossible to compare populations of difference sizes. Do you nod your head in agreement when someone tells you that Sweden can support robust social democracy only on account of the fact that "it's a small nation"?

[Skooma Addict]

However, they earn less than men on average because they are systematically shut out from the highest-paying jobs.

Proof?

[Thug Lessons]

Proof?

Did you miss the following sentence where I alluded to one example of this? Or do you want to me Google the percentage of women in high-paying careers like upper management, engineering, natural sciences, etc?

[Skooma Addict]

Did you miss the following sentence where I alluded to one example of this? Or do you want to me Google the percentage of women in high-paying careers like upper management, engineering, natural sciences, etc?

I want you to prove that women are systematically shut out from higher paying jobs. Not that there are fewer women in engineering and the natural sciences.

[#FF0000]

No I am entirely unclear on why you apparently believe it's impossible to compare populations of difference sizes. Do you nod your head in agreement when someone tells you that Sweden can support robust social democracy only on account of the fact that "it's a small nation"?

I am having trouble communicating itt I think

[Thug Lessons]

I want you to prove that women are systematically shut out from higher paying jobs. Not that there are fewer women in engineering and the natural sciences.

In other words, you want to bury me in discovery. Sorry, that's not gonna happen, but if you have anything better than "Perhaps if black people didn't want to be overrepresented in prison populations they wouldn't choose to be criminals", then I can point you towards some interesting materials.

[Skooma Addict]

In other words, you want to bury me in discovery. Sorry, that's not gonna happen, but if you have anything better than "Perhaps if black people didn't want to be overrepresented in prison populations they wouldn't choose to be criminals", then I can point you towards some interesting materials.

Well I am not going to accept your assertion that women are systematically shut out of higher paying jobs just just because you said so.

I guess men are systematically shut out of being elementary schoolteachers and nurses.

[hatzel]

I guess men are systematically shut out of being elementary schoolteachers and nurses.

There are plenty of male nurses, for example. That's more of an internal thing, though, to be honest, that most men don't want to be nurses because it's (for some reason) considered a female vocation. It doesn't matter what women want to be, though, if they'll be blocked off on the other side. Men aren't kept from being nurses in the same way women are kept from high-paid positions...

[Skooma Addict]

There are plenty of male nurses, for example. That's more of an internal thing, though, to be honest, that most men don't want to be nurses because it's (for some reason) considered a female vocation. It doesn't matter what women want to be, though, if they'll be blocked off on the other side. Men aren't kept from being nurses in the same way women are kept from high-paid positions...

Proof?

[hatzel]

Proof?

Prove your claim that 'men are systematically shut out of being elementary schoolteachers and nurses'?

...yeah, didn't think so...:rolleyes:

[Skooma Addict]

Prove your claim that 'men are systematically shut out of being elementary schoolteachers and nurses'?

...yeah, didn't think so...:rolleyes:

I obviously wasn't being serious. I was saying that just because there are fewer men in those professions does not mean they are systematically shut out of them.

[Thug Lessons]

Well I am not going to accept your assertion that women are systematically shut out of higher paying just just because you said so.

I guess men are systematically shut out of being elementary schoolteachers and nurses.

That's not entirely inaccurate though. It's safe to assume that something as specific as career choice is more a factor of real world conditions than genetic fate.

[Skooma Addict]

That's not entirely inaccurate though. It's safe to assume that something as specific as career choice is more a factor of real world conditions than genetic fate.

So you think men are systematically shut out form being elementary schoolteachers?

[Thug Lessons]

So you think men are systematically shut out form being elementary schoolteachers?

I think historical explanations for gender, (and racial, national, and so on, for that matter), representation in different job roles are better than explanations based on individual decision-making or gender characteristics. They're all true in a sense, but historical explanations are the most informative.

[Viet Minh]

I would imagine there are prejudices against women for high-power positions, what do I know I'm at the bottom of the pile.. But its almost impossible to prove it either way.

The thing is I don't see what can be done about such issues, the law seems to protect womens rights for the most part. For instance in abortion, adoption, custody, maternity leave, equal opportunity in employment, beyond that of course there is still sexism, and it sucks but what can actually be done? I mean we can raise awareness of places there is inequality or oppression of course, but beyond equal rights in law what can actually be done to change societies perceptions? If I ever try to argue these things I just end up making the other person more adamant of their view.

Attitudes will change, it just seems to happen very slowly. My aunties husbands grandmother was one of the first women doctors here, its still not the norm but its far more common to see women doctors now. Actually not so long ago women were publicly ridiculed if they wore trousers, which seems unbelievable now so yeah things change.

[Lt. Ferret]

Anywhere I have seen the civil law involved, there is a pro-woman sexist bent. criminal law seems pretty neutral.

i dont believe there is some conspiracy anywhere to shut women out from anything. Society has its flaws, but we're talking the big scary capitalists here, aren't we? They want the best and brightest, not to go about shutting out highly intelligent or skilled women from the workforce because they are petty.

[RGacky3]

They want the best and brightest, not to go about shutting out highly intelligent or skilled women from the workforce because they are petty.

Open a history book.

[Tim Finnegan]

i dont believe there is some conspiracy anywhere to shut women out from anything.There's no "conspiracy anywhere" to keep the working class oppressed and exploited, either. These things are structural oppressions, not expressions of individual malice.


I mean we can raise awareness of places there is inequality or oppression of course, but beyond equal rights in law what can actually be done to change societies perceptions?
Educate people. Education is the foundation of all emancipatory struggle. You may not get far arguing with individual brazen misogynists- lord knows we've all tried- but they're not the ones that we're trying to win over.

[Lt. Ferret]

Open a history book.


I have a degree in Political Science, with minors in Sociology and History. I've opened a book or two in my time.

[#FF0000]

I have a degree in Political Science, with minors in Sociology and History. I've opened a book or two in my time.

I imagine you looking at the chapter in a sociology textbook that discusses structural sexism or something and you just wave dismissively at the page and go "NAAAH"

[Lt. Ferret]

Something like that.

[RGacky3]

I have a degree in Political Science, with minors in Sociology and History. I've opened a book or two in my time.

I does'nt reflect in your knowledge at all.

[Lt. Ferret]

Really? All you have are some really generic, baseless assumptions.

[Quail]

Now people will say "You shouldn't have worn a 4 inch skirt while walking alone in a back alley." In that sense she was "asking to be raped" in the same sense that a soldier charging by himself towards an enemy line of troops is "asking to be shot."
I hope this isn't your personal opinion.
A woman should be able to wear whatever she wants without being raped. The responsibility lies 100% with the rapist whether the woman was wrapped up head-to-toe in baggy clothing or wearing a skimpy top and short skirt.

[RGacky3]

Now people will say "You shouldn't have worn a 4 inch skirt while walking alone in a back alley." In that sense she was "asking to be raped" in the same sense that a soldier charging by himself towards an enemy line of troops is "asking to be shot."

Except a shooting a soldier in war is not only not illigal, its neccessary, its not like if you don't rape a woman she's gonna rape you instead.

[Lt. Ferret]

You never know.

[Tim Finnegan]

You never know.
Dude, not funny. http://forum.blu-ray.com/images/smilies/imported/unimpressed.gif

[Lt. Ferret]

I don't think being raped is funny and I want to prepare myself.

[Ele'ill]

Excellent posts in this thread, Ferret. Seriously, keep it up.

[Lt. Ferret]

Tell me more how you're oppressed.

Body image problems?

Because skinny girls in decent shape are considered attractive? How often are girls clawing and fighting over the fat short balding maladjusted computer gamer boy playing Runescape all day?


I'm short. It's a societal bias to value short males lower than tall males. Especially from a female perspective.

[Tim Finnegan]

Tell me more how you're oppressed.
You're a real gent, y'know that Ferret?


I'm short. It's a societal bias to value short males lower than tall males. Especially from a female perspective.
Tell me, have you ever encountered the phrase "sexism hurts everyone"?

[Ele'ill]

Tell me more how you're oppressed.

Body image problems?

Because skinny girls in decent shape are considered attractive? How often are girls clawing and fighting over the fat short balding maladjusted computer gamer boy playing Runescape all day?


I'm short. It's a societal bias to value short males lower than tall males. Especially from a female perspective.

I think that figure/skeletal structure, proportions, voice, complexion, mannerisms and social tendencies all play into attraction- or rather, should, unless something else is enforced.


http://www.healthyplace.com/eating-disorders/main/eating-disorders-body-image-and-advertising/menu-id-58/

[Lt. Ferret]

You're a real gent, y'know that Ferret?


Tell me, have you ever encountered the phrase "sexism hurts everyone"?


Cry about it. Sexism easily goes both ways and its not systematic.

[Ele'ill]

Look out everybody, Ferret has his blinders on.

[Tim Finnegan]

Cry about it. Sexism easily goes both ways and its not systematic.
Why must the former entail the latter? I would argue, in fact, that it is the very fact and form of sexism's structurality- the fact that it represents a social hierarchy based on not only on biological sex but on gender performance- is what makes it mutually damaging. Male sexism, an astute observer will note, generally takes the form of discrimination against those who are deemed insufficiently masculine, in effect directly scaling social status with masculinity. This is qualitatively (and, of course, quantitatively) different from the sexism experienced by women, and so to frame the two as merely two even sides of the same coin is to refuse an effective analysis of what even a cynic like yourself must acknowledge is a significant and unnecessary burden on the human species.

Case in point, you put me down by telling me to "cry about it", which is to say, engage in a stereotypical feminine expression of emotion and vulnerability. You pose this as weakness and as failure, in contrast, I can assume, to your own Sarah-dry cheeks. Thus I am a little pansy, thus I am your social inferior, thus you win the argument. Sexism: hurting women by posing them as failed men, hurting men by demanding a narrow and emotionally stifling range of behaviour at the threat of social exclusion, hurting everybody by keeping us mired in this archaic system of oppression, fear and collective self-destruction.

[Lt. Ferret]

So tell me, why is masculinity considered a good thing? I'm not opposed to masculinity. Why is it (if I may play devil's advocate) a bad thing to be bigger, stronger, aggressive, or anything else you may associate with masculinity?

[Tim Finnegan]

So tell me, why is masculinity considered a good thing? I'm not opposed to masculinity. Why is it (if I may play devil's advocate) a bad thing to be bigger, stronger, aggressive, or anything else you may associate with masculinity?
It's not. What's bad is to construct traditional masculinity as necessary, exclusive, and superior, which is to say, to demand the expression of this traditional masculinity from men, to limit its accepted expression to men alone, and then to base an entire social hierarchy around its expression.
You want to be the biggest, butchest, gruffest creature under the sun? More power to you. All I ask is that you give Mari3L the full opportunity to do likewise, and myself the opportunity to be every bit the mincing queen you are the butchosaurus, and everything in between. Then, and only then, can we even think about considering ourselves emancipated.

[#FF0000]

Now people will say "You shouldn't have worn a 4 inch skirt while walking alone in a back alley." In that sense she was "asking to be raped" in the same sense that a soldier charging by himself towards an enemy line of troops is "asking to be shot."

No one on this entire site is as good at saying astoundingly ignorant things as you are.

I'm kinda stunned by how silly you were throughout this entire thread. First, you barge in with absolutely no knowledge of the subject of feminism, which is fine, people can have opinions and they don't need to know everything. But not only that, you declare that gender discrimination is a myth, and then start demanding PROOF for everything, while ignoring a fistful of statistics and links and all this evidence that other people posted on the same page.

So in the future, don't rely on forum posters to sit there and teach you literally everything about feminism and sexism, or any subject. Especially when you've already made your mind up on it based on literally nothing.

Now let me explain why what you posted is stupid and wrong.

You state that wearing a 4 inch skirt and walking in a back alley is as sure to lead to someone being raped as running into a line of enemy fire.

This is very wrong because it assumes that women who wear shorter skirts or more revealing clothes are more likely to be raped, and that women who walk alone at night in dark alleys are more likely to be raped.

Neither of which are true.

How a woman is dressed, how young she is, how often she has sex, and whether or not she would be considered traditionally attractive have nothing to do with whether or not they can be affected by rape. It comes down to whether or not the rapist sees them as vulnerable enough to rape.

And it isn't like a woman who avoids dark back alleys will be cutting down their chances of rape either.

Rape most often occurs in the home, by someone the victim knows.

So, based on the facts and the statistics (that you can google yourself, just for fun), what you should have said was something like this.



"Now people will say "You shouldn't have been a woman while sitting at home and knowing a man" In that sense she was "asking to be raped" in the same sense that a soldier charging by himself towards an enemy line of troops is "asking to be shot."

And, well, when you say it like that in a way that reflects the realities of rape, it sounds like there's a fucking problem, right?

But, you know, there's a bigger point to be made here. What you said isn't uncommon thinking. Dare I say, it's common sense. And it's the sort of thinking that can seriously hurt women and men who are raped. Take this little blurb from the website of this UK group (http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/dress/#impact_tab).


The identification of women as ‘prey’, liable to be attacked on the basis of how they dress or as a result of all kinds of perfectly normal behaviour, is a reflection of women’s subordinate situation in society at large. The misogyny behind such depictions may not be apparent to most jurors, it is so taken for granted.”
[Sue Lees in Carnal knowledge: Rape on Trial; London, The Women’s Press, revised edition, 2002]


And, let's not be naive. We all know that it happens. Blaming the victim is all too common in the courtroom. Want specific examples? Just tell me how many. Otherwise, I just won't know when to stop.

You know, these discussions always make me think, exactly when did sexism in America stop affecting people? Was in at the turn of the 20th century, when women got the vote? Was it in the 40's when women were brought to the workplace out of necessity, when so many refused to go back to being housewives after the war was over? Did sexism start to wane in the years after Betty Friedman published The Feminine Mystique in 1963? Or was it in 1991, when the United States Supreme Court decided that rape within marriage existed, and that a marriage contract doesn't make a woman her husband's personal sex toy? Or did it come to an end just a couple of weeks ago, when the New York Times apologized for an article they published about a gang of grown, adult men raping a pre-teen girl, which was rife with lamentations about how "the boys would have to live with it forever", and "how could they be drawn into such an act", while the only mention of the victim was to mention how she pretended to be older than she was, and how she was dressed, with no mention of the death threats and harassment the victim and her family received when they went public about the attack.

When did sexism end, guys? Seriously, I'm asking.

[#FF0000]

Cry about it. Sexism easily goes both ways and its not systematic.

Man, I'd get your money back from whoever gave you that degree. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

[Lt. Ferret]

Man, I'd get your money back from whoever gave you that degree. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.


Yeah, I do.



Also, I'm not particular masculine besides the ability to grow a really *****in' beard.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, I do

No you don't or else you'd know that saying "SYSTEMATIC SEXISM ISN'T REAL MEN AND WOMEN ARE BOTH VICTIMS OF SEXISM FEMINISM IS DUMB" is a ridiculous thing to say.

[Lt. Ferret]

How would you know, where's your sociology degree?

[#FF0000]

I'd know because I've read a book. Having a degree in a field doesn't mean you can't be a tremendous dummy in that very same field.

[#FF0000]

also having a degree in sociology pretty much means that you have to be dense as a motherfucker and fluent in doublespeak, in my experience.

[Lt. Ferret]

Well, I'll be calling you Dr. soon then.

[RGacky3]

Tell me more how you're oppressed.

Body image problems?

Because skinny girls in decent shape are considered attractive? How often are girls clawing and fighting over the fat short balding maladjusted computer gamer boy playing Runescape all day?


I'm short. It's a societal bias to value short males lower than tall males. Especially from a female perspective.

That has nothing to do with sexism .... Its sexual attraction and its nature, and if you have a problem with it, you have a problem with nature.


It's not. What's bad is to construct traditional masculinity as necessary, exclusive, and superior, which is to say, to demand the expression of this traditional masculinity from men, to limit its accepted expression to men alone, and then to base an entire social hierarchy around its expression.
You want to be the biggest, butchest, gruffest creature under the sun? More power to you. All I ask is that you give Mari3L the full opportunity to do likewise, and myself the opportunity to be every bit the mincing queen you are the butchosaurus, and everything in between. Then, and only then, can we even think about considering ourselves emancipated.

Anyone can do whatever they want, but juts don't expect people to have sex with you if your not what they consider sexy.



None of this is sexism, sexism if when a secretary gets called toots everyday in the work place and does'nt get an ounce of respect, does'nt get a raise dispite competanse because she's a woman, is'nt taken seriously when in a serious discussion simply because she's a woman, thats sexism.

Sexism is not "society likes skinny girls, and that makes pressure on my to be skinny," No thats not sexism, no one cares if your not skinny, you just won't get laid as much.

[RGacky3]

I don't think being raped is funny and I want to prepare myself.


Yeah keep classy Lt Ferret.

[Summerspeaker]

That has nothing to do with sexism .... Its sexual attraction and its nature, and if you have a problem with it, you have a problem with nature.

As a transhumanist I absolutely have a problem with nature, but more than that I have problem with presumptuous claims about inherent human traits.

[#FF0000]

That has nothing to do with sexism .... Its sexual attraction and its nature, and if you have a problem with it, you have a problem with nature.

Anyone can do whatever they want, but juts don't expect people to have sex with you if your not what they consider sexy.

None of this is sexism, sexism if when a secretary gets called toots everyday in the work place and does'nt get an ounce of respect, does'nt get a raise dispite competanse because she's a woman, is'nt taken seriously when in a serious discussion simply because she's a woman, thats sexism.

Sexism is not "society likes skinny girls, and that makes pressure on my to be skinny," No thats not sexism, no one cares if your not skinny, you just won't get laid as much.

:mellow:

[RGacky3]

but more than that I have problem with presumptuous claims about inherent human traits.

Such as the desire for reproduction with a healthy and fertile mate? Thats not a human trait is a trait of nature, if you have a problem with it, pick it up with scientists.

[#FF0000]

Such as the desire for reproduction with a healthy and fertile mate? Thats not a human trait is a trait of nature, if you have a problem with it, pick it up with scientists.

Gacky

standards of beauty are social constructs

they have nothing to do with nature

if they did

no one would like skinny people.

stop being dumb

thanks

[Lt. Ferret]

we like skinny people because we can see they are physically fit, we can see their muscles flex, we can see that they are generally energetic, that their muscles are taut, not limp or saggy.

[#FF0000]

we like skinny people because we can see they are physically fit, we can see their muscles flex, we can see that they are generally energetic, that their muscles are taut, not limp or saggy.

and being fat used to be a sign of fertility.

[RGacky3]

Gacky

standards of beauty are social constructs

they have nothing to do with nature

if they did

no one would like skinny people.

stop being dumb

thanks

Your telling my stop being dumb .... After that post?

In a past thread I put up sceintific studies about how facial semmetry, certain facial features, and (on women) the general 7-10-7 hip weist ration is basically universal and cross cultural

[Tim Finnegan]

That has nothing to do with sexism .... Its sexual attraction and its nature, and if you have a problem with it, you have a problem with nature.
You really need to do a little reading into the historically and culturally variable nature of normalised attractiveness. Abbreviated version: 21st century white people are not the only ones with a legitimate opinion on what is and is not sexually attractive.


Anyone can do whatever they want, but juts don't expect people to have sex with you if your not what they consider sexy.
So you're proclaiming complete and total ignorance to the role of gender normativity in shaping the social status of the individual? You've never heard male effeminacy or female masculinity used as an insult? Or if you have, the power structures that these insults express flew clean over the top of your head?:confused:


None of this is sexism, sexism if when a secretary gets called toots everyday in the work place and does'nt get an ounce of respect, does'nt get a raise dispite competanse because she's a woman, is'nt taken seriously when in a serious discussion simply because she's a woman, thats sexism..
That's an expression of sexism, yes, but it's no more the structural basis than the sore is the disease. Unless when actually takes out a nice, big feminist scalpel and starts digging into that sore, you're never going to be able to extract whatever nasty little virus lies at the heart of it all.

(And, yes, I know that this isn't even remotely how medicine works, but it's such a satisfying metaphor, don't you think? ;))

[#FF0000]

Your telling my stop being dumb .... After that post?

In a past thread I put up sceintific studies about how facial semmetry, certain facial features, and (on women) the general 7-10-7 hip weist ration is basically universal and cross cultural

i am the guy who is shocked and surprised that some things are universal and cross cultural today in the age of mass media

[Lt. Ferret]

and being fat used to be a sign of fertility.


being fat was a sign of wealth, in some cultures.


but in most cultures the dudes were supposed to be muscley, and the women lithe and curvacious.

[RGacky3]

and being fat used to be a sign of fertility.

Back that up, it never did, statues in ancient rome and the such were not fat girls, they were girls that would still be considered attractive today (runway models are not considered most attractive by most men).

The only places where being somewhat larger was more attractive was society with very very high food insecurity.

[Tim Finnegan]

Back that up, it never did, statues in ancient rome and the such were not fat girls, they were girls that would still be considered attractive today (runway models are not considered most attractive by most men).
But, equally, their Celtic neighbours to the North liked great, strapping, fiery women who could throw a punch and down a pint. A coincidence, I wonder, that the Celts were relatively gender egalitarian for their time, while the Romans were horrifyingly misogynistic?

[RGacky3]

So you're proclaiming complete and total ignorance to the role of gender normativity in shaping the social status of the individual? You've never heard male effeminacy or female masculinity used as an insult? Or if you have, the power structures that these insults express flew clean over the top of your head?:confused:


You know why its an insult? Because women don't wnt to have sex with effeminate men, and men don't have to have sex with masculine women. Sorry.


You really need to do a little reading into the historically and culturally variable nature of normalised attractiveness. Abbreviated version: 21st century white people are not the only ones with a legitimate opinion on what is and is not sexually attractive.


No your right, but there are certain features that are biological and thus mostuly universal. Even if it was cultural, thats not sexism to find certain things attractive.


That's an expression of sexism, yes, but it's no more the structural basis than the sore is the disease. Unless when actually takes out a nice, big feminist scalpel and starts digging into that sore, you're never going to be able to extract whatever nasty little virus lies at the heart of it all.

(And, yes, I know that this isn't even remotely how medicine works, but it's such a satisfying metaphor, don't you think? ;))

It actually is a great metaphore, because I think sexual attraction is natural, you think its a sore, so your digging into some poor dudes liver thinking its a sore.


i am the guy who is shocked and surprised that some things are universal and cross cultural today in the age of mass media

Sexual attraction is an evolutoinary trait that takes more than a couple decades of TV to develop.

[RGacky3]

But, equally, their Celtic neighbours to the North liked great, strapping, fiery women who could throw a punch and down a pint. A coincidence, I wonder, that the Celts were relatively gender egalitarian for their time, while the Romans were horrifyingly misogynistic?

I bet they both like semetrical faces, strong feminine features, a 7-10-7 hip weist ratio and full breasts and ass.

What you described is not a physical trait, and could very well be cultural, but thats not what I'm talking about.

[#FF0000]

Sexual attraction is an evolutoinary trait that takes more than a couple decades of TV to develop.

I think you're greatly, greatly underestimating the effect of mass media.

[Tim Finnegan]

You know why its an insult? Because women don't wnt to have sex with effeminate men, and men don't have to have sex with masculine women. Sorry.
Firstly, that's an incredibly close-minded assertion for a leftist to make. Who are you to dictate the normal?
Secondly, why do you so casually assume that the sexual preferences necessarily precede the construction of gender? Given that these construction is demonstrably inconsistent throughout various cultures, would it not make more sense to reverse the order?


No your right, but there are certain features that are biological and thus mostuly universal. Even if it was cultural, thats not sexism to find certain things attractive.Some are, some aren't. If it all came down to a harsh, Darwinistic biology, then we wouldn't have queer people, would we?


It actually is a great metaphore, because I think sexual attraction is natural, you think its a sore, so your digging into some poor dudes liver thinking its a sore. Why are you conflating sexual attraction with sexism? :confused:


Sexual attraction is an evolutoinary trait that takes more than a couple decades of TV to develop.So I suppose the preference of Americans- of all races- for white, blonde faces is that black people are simply uglier? :rolleyes:


I bet they both like semetrical faces, strong feminine features, a 7-10-7 hip weist ratio and full breasts and ass.

What you described is not a physical trait, and could very well be cultural, but thats not what I'm talking about.
I'm pretty sure that being "big and strapping" are physical traits.

Oh, and as it happens, the Romans didn't care for full breasts. Thought they were uncouth.

[#FF0000]

So I suppose the preference of Americans- of all races- for white, blonde faces is that black people are simply uglier? :rolleyes:

Tim read my mind.

[Lt. Ferret]

wheres this study about white blondes? and if so, maybe it is, on an evolutionary level.

my wife is an arab and isnt blonde or white. and i think shes gorgeous. i tend to go for slim redheads with short hair and a slightly alternative fashion style. not relaly the norm. not really..NOT the norm either i guess.

[Tim Finnegan]

wheres this study about white blondes?
Turn on a television. It's really not hard to spot.


and if so, maybe it is, on an evolutionary level.Yeah, the African gene pool is just crying out for some squat, melanin-deprived snow-people like us. :rolleyes:


my wife is an arab and isnt blonde or white. and i think shes gorgeous. i tend to go for slim redheads with short hair and a slightly alternative fashion style. not relaly the norm. not really..NOT the norm either i guess.I'm talking in terms of dominant cultural norms. Obviously, these are not universal.

[RGacky3]

Firstly, that's an incredibly close-minded assertion for a leftist to make. Who are you to dictate the normal?


Its not closed minded its fact.

I'm not dictating, nature is, you have more testosterone as a male, you have more masculine features overall women will find you more attractive.


Secondly, why do you so casually assume that the sexual preferences necessarily precede the construction of gender? Given that these construction is demonstrably inconsistent throughout various cultures, would it not make more sense to reverse the order?


Because these sexual preferences are universal and cross cultural.

In what culture are effeminate men considered more attractive?


Some are, some aren't. If it all came down to a harsh, Darwinistic biology, then we wouldn't have queer people, would we?


Why not? It does'nt ALL come down to darwinistic biology but a whole lot of it does, (maybe it all does and stuff we presume as love or whatever, is just a biological function), queer people are the exception, not the rule.


Why are you conflating sexual attraction with sexism?

Your the one thats doing it.


So I suppose the preference of Americans- of all races- for white, blonde faces is that black people are simply uglier? :rolleyes:


First of all, any evidence that that is actually the case?
If it is, it probably has more to do with the historical context that white people have been the race in power, (there have been studies on this subject too.)

It could also be that most Americans ARE white.


I'm pretty sure that being "big and strapping" are physical traits.


Sure, but I was refering too "fiery women who could throw a punch and down a pint."


Oh, and as it happens, the Romans didn't care for full breasts. Thought they were uncouth.

Source? So they prefered sagging ones is what your saying?


my wife is an arab and isnt blonde or white. and i think shes gorgeous. i tend to go for slim redheads with short hair and a slightly alternative fashion style. not relaly the norm. not really..NOT the norm either i guess.

What you like is not an argument for anything.

[#FF0000]

First of all, any evidence that that is actually the case?
If it is, it probably has more to do with the historical context that white people have been the race in power, (there have been studies on this subject too.)

It could also be that most Americans ARE white.

do you think this has an affect on people who are not white

[RGacky3]

I want to see statistics first.

Also yeah, it probably does have an effect on people that are not white, but thats universally the case, if you live for decades in China, chances are Chineese girls will start looking good.

But I don't know if thats even the case, back it up.

[ChrisK]

Back that up, it never did, statues in ancient rome and the such were not fat girls, they were girls that would still be considered attractive today (runway models are not considered most attractive by most men).

Tribal fertility statues

[#FF0000]

are people on this site incapable of using google or something

[Thug Lessons]

do you think this has an affect on people who are not white

nWls3U7ZZ1E

[Tim Finnegan]

Its not closed minded its fact.

I'm not dictating, nature is, you have more testosterone as a male, you have more masculine features overall women will find you more attractive.
What, women are a monolithic (universally heterosexual?) bloc now? :confused:

Look, I'm not talking about some imagined post-gender future. People who sit outside of your norms exist right now, and not just queer people but straight people who just depart from your expectation. Any time you see a femmey guy walking hand in hand with a tomboyish girl? They're giving a hearty "fuck you" to your expectations. :p


Because these sexual preferences are universal and cross cultural.Even though a lot of them are demonstrably not...


In what culture are effeminate men considered more attractive?Japan, although you'll note I said "subculture", by which I meant emos, goths, etc.



Why not? It does'nt ALL come down to darwinistic biology but a whole lot of it does, (maybe it all does and stuff we presume as love or whatever, is just a biological function), queer people are the exception, not the rule. What about all those cultures in which what we consider to be queerness has been very much the norm? The evidence, if you investigate it, suggests that bisexuality is closer to any objective norm than any rigid heterosexuality.


Your the one thats doing it.How so?


First of all, any evidence that that is actually the case?
If it is, it probably has more to do with the historical context that white people have been the race in power, (there have been studies on this subject too.)That's what I meant, yes. Whites are the dominant ethnic group, so the own, culturally specific beauty standards are imposed on the populace at large. (And you may not realise this, but beauty standards in the US are, traditionally, more "whitey" than in Europe- specifically, a greater obsession with blondes- because of a compulsion to reaffirm the distinction between Northern Europeans and other ethnicities.)
And Northern European whites, specifically, hence the favouring of blue eyes, blonde hair, and other stereotypically "Nordic" features. Ever notice how Mediterranean noses are generally considered a negative feature in the US, and yet are- as you may expect- ubiquitous among the great beauties of Classical and Renaissance art?


Sure, but I was refering too "fiery women who could throw a punch and down a pint."That wasn't the only thing I said, though, was it. It's recorded that Celtic women were generally larger and more full-bodied than Roman women, and that the Celts liked it that way (while the Romans were terrified of them). They actually used to insult Roman noblewomen as being "half-women" or "children", seeing their physical and behavioural effeminacy (as we would understand) as unwomanly. How's that for contradictory values?


Source? So they prefered sagging ones is what your saying?They liked small ones. Source: find a Roman statue with anything more than a B-cup.

[#FF0000]

Its not closed minded its fact.

I'm not dictating, nature is, you have more testosterone as a male, you have more masculine features overall women will find you more attractive.


I don't think you talk to many women, man.

[Thug Lessons]

I don't think you talk to many women, man.

Women are attracted by pheromones.

[RGacky3]

People who sit outside of your norms exist right now, and not just queer people but straight people who just depart from your expectation. Any time you see a femmey guy walking hand in hand with a tomboyish girl? They're giving a hearty "fuck you" to your expectations. :p


They arn't MY norms, they arn't anything I care about, its the norms norms, from biology and society.

So stop calling the presentation of a certain type of look as attractive sexist, its not, because that sort of look is what a majority of hte poeple find attractive.


Even though a lot of them are demonstrably not...



I'm talking about the ones that are.


Japan, although you'll note I said "subculture", by which I meant emos, goths, etc.


Source on japan? I don't buy that.


What about all those cultures in which what we consider to be queerness has been very much the norm? The evidence, if you investigate it, suggests that bisexuality is closer to any objective norm than any rigid heterosexuality.


Sure .... But thats not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about physical traits that are generally found attractive.

One of which is signs of youth.


They liked small ones. Source: find a Roman statue with anything more than a B-cup.

They had firm, and full breats (a sign of youth and thus fertility).


I don't think you talk to many women, man.

I do ok, don't worry about me.

[Tim Finnegan]

They arn't MY norms, they arn't anything I care about, its the norms norms, from biology and society.
You previously claimed that all men like effeminate women, and all women like masculine men. This is demonstrably untrue. How, then, can these be universal biological norms?


So stop calling the presentation of a certain type of look as attractive sexist, its not, because that sort of look is what a majority of hte poeple find attractive.I really don't think you understand what I mean when I say "sexism". You seem to think it means some sort of active malice, which is something I actively reject.


Source on japan? I don't buy that. Look up the term "bishōnen".


Sure .... But thats not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about physical traits that are generally found attractive.

One of which is signs of youth.You just claimed that queer people are an exception to the laws of human behaviour, and I pointed out that our understanding of queerness is a culturally specific one. What does that have to do with youth?


They had firm, and full breats (a sign of youth and thus fertility).Yes, but they were hardly sporting G-cups, which is closer to the contemporary Western ideal.

[Thug Lessons]

Look up the term "bishōnen".

Bishies own.

[RGacky3]

You previously claimed that all men like effeminate women, and all women like masculine men. This is demonstrably untrue. How, then, can these be universal biological norms?


No I did not, they are biological norms, not totalities.


I really don't think you understand what I mean when I say "sexism". You seem to think it means some sort of active malice, which is something I actively reject.


No, women getting paid less for the same work is sexism, women not being respected is sexism.

Certain women not being found attractive, is not sexist.


Look up the term "bishōnen".


Unless its the norm in Japan, i.e. the usual, then your missing the point.


What does that have to do with youth?


Biologically, people find signs of youth (especially in females) and health attractive universally, that was my origional point.

What your talking about queer concepts and so on are besides the point.


Yes, but they were hardly sporting G-cups, which is closer to the contemporary Western ideal.

I would'nt neccessarily say that.

Look heres one of the studies I was talking about.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070523105948.htm
http://www.newsdial.com/relationships/dating/physical-attraction.html
http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/columns/drjim/2007/12-universallyattractive.html (check references)
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/nsfall01/FinalArticles/TheNatureOfHumanAttractio.html

(from the last one) "The nature of attraction also extends and transgresses gender and cultural barriers. While both sexes and all cultures do not share the exact attractions of the others there are many connections and correlations between them."

[Thug Lessons]

If you really believe all this human nature crap, you should probably be a conservative libertarian rather than a socialist.

[RGacky3]

If you really believe all this human nature crap, you should probably be a conservative libertarian rather than a socialist.

How so?

[Tim Finnegan]

No I did not, they are biological norms, not totalities.
But norms are social, not biological. Biology can merely have majorities and general tendencies, which is a different them altogether.


No, women getting paid less for the same work is sexism, women not being respected is sexism.

Certain women not being found attractive, is not sexist.You're talking in terms so simplistic and so sweeping that it's impossible for them to contain any substantial insight to structural sexism.


Unless its the norm in Japan, i.e. the usual, then your missing the point.For young men, it is, yes. "Metrosexuality", in our clumsy language, is the dominant aesthetic in Japan for young men.


Biologically, people find signs of youth (especially in females) and health attractive universally, that was my origional point.

What your talking about queer concepts and so on are besides the point.Fair point when it comes to youth (I may have gotten muddled there?), but you haven't really addressed my point about queerness. You can't claim that all sexual attraction is strictly biological at its core, and then wave away those who are objectively incompatible with individual Darwinism. (Collective Darwinism? Maybe not. Complex issue.)


I would'nt neccessarily say that.

Look heres one of the studies I was talking about.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070523105948.htm
http://www.newsdial.com/relationships/dating/physical-attraction.html
http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/columns/drjim/2007/12-universallyattractive.html (check references)
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/nsfall01/FinalArticles/TheNatureOfHumanAttractio.html

(from the last one) "The nature of attraction also extends and transgresses gender and cultural barriers. While both sexes and all cultures do not share the exact attractions of the others there are many connections and correlations between them."Ok, you've found broad cross-cultural tendencies. What does that actually mean, though? After all, humans have a cross-cultural tendency towards monarchism, as well, but I doubt that we'd claim that was biologically determined...

I think where we differ is that you appear to be digging for some fundamental human sexuality, which I don't think is particularly practical or useful. To treat sexuality as general biology distorted by culture, rather than individual biology interacting with culture, leaves you unable to properly address the complexity and variety of both innate individual orientations and of culture constructions of gender and sexuality.

Oh, and your first link? Contains this:

Knowing the cognitive mechanisms undergirding the relations between judgments of attractiveness and body cues is essential to understanding human evolution, Tassinary notes. For example, physical manifestations of “femaleness” differ across cultures. Western cultures may favor a smaller waist-to-hip ratio (the “hourglass” figure), while certain non-Western cultures have been found that favor a larger ratio (the “tubular” figure).Which would seem to be a pint against your position.

[Thug Lessons]

How so?

Because if human nature is so specific that it dictates standards of attraction, and the widespread similarity in standards of attraction across cultures is evidence of this, then you have pretty good evidence that capitalism is human nature as well.

[Skooma Addict]

Because if human nature is so specific that it dictates standards of attraction, and the widespread similarity in standards of attraction across cultures is evidence of this, then you have pretty good evidence that capitalism is human nature as well.

Lol

[Viet Minh]

I don't believe there's an inbuilt program of finding young women or men attractive, our 'mating instinct' is as old as sexual organs themselves, and long predates any concept of humanity.

Possesions exist to some extent in a lot of animals, where they claim territory, and for example after hunting the dominant male eats first. Capital is a societal construct, as evidenced by the case of a feral child named Peter.


During his life Peter never learned to talk, showed a complete indifference to money or sex, and was never seen laughing. However he loved music, and he was able to learn a number of menial tasks before he died in 1785.

http://www.damninteresting.com/feral-children

Interesting that neither of those have any interest in sex, its a hugely complicated issue (it could even be that they were molested) but I tentatively offer that as possible evidence that sexuality is not part of human instinct, further evidence of that is the large number of people who claim to be asexual.

[RGacky3]

Because if human nature is so specific that it dictates standards of attraction, and the widespread similarity in standards of attraction across cultures is evidence of this, then you have pretty good evidence that capitalism is human nature as well.

No you don't, considering theres been studies of that as well, that has shown that is not the case, capitalism does'nt serve a biological function as fundemental as reproduction.

Studies about that sort of human nature have been done as well and show that what you say is not the case.

I believe in science, look into it.

[Meridian]

Because if human nature is so specific that it dictates standards of attraction, and the widespread similarity in standards of attraction across cultures is evidence of this, then you have pretty good evidence that capitalism is human nature as well.
But human nature could not dictate anything, since, to the extent the term has any use, it is to describe human being(s).


I believe in science, look into it.
This ignorance which here seems common, that there is some great purveyor of truth known simply as "science", is aptly described by your sentence. There is little need of more 'belief'.

[RGacky3]

I was'nt refering to HUman nature in my previous posts, I was refering to biological factors that influence who we are attracted too, some which are universal.


This ignorance which here seems common, that there is some great purveyor of truth known simply as "science", is aptly described by your sentence. There is little need of more 'belief'.

Just quoting scientific studies.

[#FF0000]

I was'nt refering to HUman nature in my previous posts, I was refering to biological factors that influence who we are attracted too, some which are universal.

Just quoting scientific studies.

i don't know what it is but i've been running into a lot of people lately who just believe stupid shit that they should have been taught in a middle-school world cultures class or something.

biology isn't all there is to attractiveness

attractiveness has not been static throughout western history, let alone world history.

[Thug Lessons]

No you don't, considering theres been studies of that as well, that has shown that is not the case, capitalism does'nt serve a biological function as fundemental as reproduction.

Studies about that sort of human nature have been done as well and show that what you say is not the case.

I believe in science, look into it.

What sort of studies? Certainly not experimental studies, that's impossible or at least highly unethical, as it is with with standards of attraction. There's no way to provide proof positive either way on these questions with the scientific method.

[Rafiq]

Or happening to live in Germany circa 1945.

I don't get it

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't get it
He's referring to the widespread apologism for or denial of the huge number of rapes committed by Allied and Soviets soldiers against German women during the occupation of Germany.

[RGacky3]

biology isn't all there is to attractiveness


No but its a big part of it.


What sort of studies? Certainly not experimental studies, that's impossible or at least highly unethical, as it is with with standards of attraction. There's no way to provide proof positive either way on these questions with the scientific method.

They've done studies in human organization, anthropological studies, check out the book Sex at Dawn by Dr. Christopher Ryan.

As for attraction, they can track trends and general traits.

[Thug Lessons]

They've done studies in human organization, anthropological studies, check out the book Sex at Dawn by Dr. Christopher Ryan.

As for attraction, they can track trends and general traits.

The problem here is that trends alone are insufficient to explain how standards of attraction, or any phenomenon, arise. Correlation and causation are not the same thing.

[RGacky3]

The problem here is that trends alone are insufficient to explain how standards of attraction, or any phenomenon, arise. Correlation and causation are not the same thing.

If its universal and cross cultural they can find similarities, for example, if all of the characteristics are signs of health, youth, fertility or whatever.

[Thug Lessons]

If its universal and cross cultural they can find similarities, for example, if all of the characteristics are signs of health, youth, fertility or whatever.

Then you have a stronger correlation, not a transformation from a correlative study to a controlled experiment that produces empirical evidence. Regardless though, I'm skeptical that these results are nearly as universal as you want to suggest.

[Lt. Ferret]

who the hell says a G cup is the standard for beautiful women's breast sizes? jeez.

[Tim Finnegan]

who the hell says a G cup is the standard for beautiful women's breast sizes? jeez.
Maybe it's a British thing. Land of the Page 3 Girl, and all that...

[Lt. Ferret]

I'm a B or C cup guy, myself.

[daleckian]

Western feminism is inherently reactionary since it does little to fight for the rights of colored women or non-western women, and indeed, strengthens the white privileged relationship of white women to their non-white counterparts.

[Lt. Ferret]

explain.

[daleckian]

He's referring to the widespread apologism for or denial of the huge number of rapes committed by Allied and Soviets soldiers against German women during the occupation of Germany.

I wouldn't call it apologism or denial, just denial of the ridiculous figure of 2 million german women being raped. it sounds more to me like "see? we may have killed 6 million jews, but YOU RAPED OUR WOMEN which is inexcusable" scenario.

[Lt. Ferret]

yeah cool just dismiss 2 million rapes.

[daleckian]

yeah cool just dismiss 2 million rapes.

Look fool, you need to understand. Abortion was highly illegal and controlled in Nazi Germany. You couldn't get a legally sanctioned abortion for anything.

Unless, that is, you were raped by a "barbaric asiatic" Soviet soldier.

Did actual rapes happen? Of course. Were they punished when caught? Usually.

and this is documented that the abortion claims were the main way to measure rapes. read Erich Kuby.

[Lt. Ferret]

whatever, rape apologist reactionary.

[daleckian]

whatever, rape apologist reactionary.

So because I don't buy into russophobic, racist propaganda, and know about the historical reality of it, that makes me a...reactionary?

aren't you the one who said women aren't oppressed? who are you to talk? fuck you.

[Lt. Ferret]

what historical reality? you dont know shit about dick.

[RGacky3]

"see? we may have killed 6 million jews, but YOU RAPED OUR WOMEN which is inexcusable" scenario.

Yeah, raping women IS inexcusabel, tool.

[daleckian]

Yeah, raping women IS inexcusabel, tool.

way to take it out of context, fool. sound bites sound good when you don't include the other words I wrote.

[Ele'ill]

First of all, stop the name calling everyone.

[Tim Finnegan]

I wouldn't call it apologism or denial, just denial of the ridiculous figure of 2 million german women being raped. it sounds more to me like "see? we may have killed 6 million jews, but YOU RAPED OUR WOMEN which is inexcusable" scenario.
One would think that, given the context, we would refrain from throwing around the phrase "ridiculous figure" in regards to war atrocities.

[daleckian]

One would think that, given the context, we would refrain from throwing around the phrase "ridiculous figure" in regards to war atrocities.

It's a ridiculous figure because it's not true. it's Russophobic propaganda.

[PhoenixAsh]

It's a ridiculous figure because it's not true. it's Russophobic propaganda.


evidence to back that claim up?

[RGacky3]

way to take it out of context, fool. sound bites sound good when you don't include the other words I wrote.

So what context was I missing this is what you wrote

"I wouldn't call it apologism or denial, just denial of the ridiculous figure of 2 million german women being raped. it sounds more to me like "see? we may have killed 6 million jews, but YOU RAPED OUR WOMEN which is inexcusable" scenario. "

Did the women that got raped kill 6 million Jews? Is German women getting raped during the occupation not a big deal? Because the German Government killed 6 million Jews?

I'm not missing the context here.