View Single Post
Old 04-03-2008, 09:45 AM   #138 (permalink)
Jinn
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanblah
OK, Jinn. You've shown us examples of sexism in the Media. And I am NOT denying that it happens outside of the media as well ... as in EVERYDAY life. But you have YET to offer any constructive method for "fixing" the problem ...
From my OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
WHY is this an aspect of socialization for men? I'd like to keep this civil, so please avoid telling me it's because men are pigs or because all we do is think about sex.

In my own novice sociological opinion, it has developed as a way for men to boost their self-esteem by implying that the woman in question would actually ALLOW him to have sex with them, or that they could MAKE the woman have sex with them. Both are foregone conclusions in the usage of the phrase, cleverly ignoring the fact that she'd have to accept your advances in order to "hit it." As my girlfrend eloquently replied to someone's usage of the phrase, "Would SHE "hit" that? Probably not, asshole!"

I think it also serves a purpose for men in bonding, allowing them to feel closer to one another by acknowledging that they'd both like to "hit that", and thereby share a common interest and perception of beauty.

If you agree with my interpretation, how can we encourage these two things (increased self esteem and male bonding) without simultaneously objectifying women and excusing sexual violence?
The reason I haven't offered a solution is I don't have a damned clue, other than to avoid these types of expressions. I started this thread with the express purpose of discussing ways to encourage without objectifying, but that's not where it ended up, obviously. I erroneously assumed that the majority of posters would agree with my premise that "I'd hit it" has an effect like I described. That's where I was wrong. It was evidently much more interesting to discuss whether "I'd hit it" was offensive, rather than what we could use in its stead.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Last edited by Jinn; 04-03-2008 at 09:49 AM..
Jinn is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360