You, sir, have made a liar out of me. But I feel the need to point out the important difference here. What was actually said was that words without context have no power. Do you disagree with this?

EDIT - My apologies. I should really go to bed, and would if I could sleep. You are, of course, right in that vanblah's exact phrase was that 'words have no power.' However, as my original intent was to express what was said above, I stand by it. Words themselves, outside of context, are meaningless. It is the context that gives them weight.

our posts crossed, martian--i was adding that qualification as you were asking for it. kismet.

How strange. We double-crossed. I don't think that's ever happened to me before.

I didn't know we were talking about words out of context, but rather words in a very specific context.

Actually, I think it illustrates the point very eloquently. The words themselves have no power whether spoken or written (on a messageboard).

The writer has his/her intention and because a great deal of the social cues (emoticons be damned) this intention can be misconstrued.

The reader has his/her inferences and again because a great deal of the social cues such as body language and (here's the most important part) actually KNOWING the writer the information can be confused even further.

With regard to the TFP it's a little bit different ... some of the members here have built relationships with each other. Some people know each other in the physical world. But still ... we only have words (and emoticons) to go on and without the other cues they are essentially meaningless.

And I mean that. :)

I would say it's not simply "inability," it's unwillingness... but yes, otherwise we agree.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Seems somehow appropriate.

I saw that the other day and laughed pretty hard out loud. So true, so true! :)

Exactly ... when I read the OP I took it to mean a very generalized usage of the phrase. This was my own interpretation of the OP ... and is certainly not anyone else's interpretation.

The thread eventually steered toward a specific context.

I don't really think ANYONE would defend the usage of any phrase in an outright derogatory manner ... but the fact is the phrase is not ALWAYS derogatory.

If you are offended by someone you can always ask for an apology. I do it all the time ... well, not ALL the time; that would be a little sanctimonious. Chances are if you have been the recipient of an offending remark it was not the intention of the person to offend you. Of course, this is not ALWAYS the case ... there are jerks out there.

The whole "men can be pigs" argument has been done to death just as much as "women can be bitches." Frankly, I'm tired of it and both arguments do nothing but perpetuate the idea of inequality between the genders.

Vanblah, can I do my part of gender equality by calling you a bitch?

So when did this conversation go from the term 'I'd hit it' as some violent thoughts about women to 'I don't like guys who say crude things to women'.

As far as I can tell its a completely different topic.

As I've stated when I see a woman who is attractive to me, part of my mind starts thinking sexual things about said women. It can't be helped, and while I don't use 'I'd hit it' in personal thoughts the net effect is the same.

So I will ignore the 'crude men saying unwanted sexual things are bad' angle this post has gone because its really an uninteresting question, yes rude behavior is bad, and last I heard water is wet.

I will address the deeper issue of does our language betrays some inner feelings towards women, violent or otherwise.

To Jin's original premise, no, use of the term 'I'd hit it' does not somehow translate to thoughts of violence against women. Its just the current euphemism among the internet savvy youth to say 'I find her attractive and would like to have intercourse with her.' You could argue that sex itself is a violent act, with all this thrusting and penetration, but unless you are an ultra-feminist who thinks all sex is rape, it becomes a hallow argument as part of the requirement for violence is that it is not consensual. If you tie a woman up, put nipple clamps on her and poor hot wax on her ass its violence, unless you are at a BDSM event, in which case it could be thought of as loving.

So that leaves why. Why are young men prone to say something like “I'd hit it” apparently more than young women. Normally I'd go on some long evolutionary explanation, which would boil down to men are different than women in their approach to sex. If this is shocking to you, well my guess is you need to get out more. But lets get even more basic without getting into the old arguments of parental investment and genetic pay off.

Ask a woman to describe another woman, ask her to describe a man. Now ask a man to describe the same woman/man. I will be willing to bet that in most cases the woman will be far more descriptive of the characteristics than the man will be. In my own life I have come to an agreement with my wife on these things. She used to spend a good deal of verbiage describing the people at her work, she wanted to tell me about her day and what Mark said and what Sally did. I on the other hand just got back from a long drive from down town and often a long day of lectures. Its not that I didn't care about her day, I didn't care about details which to me were meaningless. So when she would get verbose about some new woman working there, I'd ask her the only question my brain needed to know about her appearance.

'Would I do her?'

She knows my tastes to a degree so the answer was either yes, no, or occasionally maybe. Were I 15 years younger I would probably be asking 'would I hit it?' but the intent would be the same. It would be to get the only piece of descriptive information I'd be interested in regarding someones appearance. Her height, weight, hair color, eye color, taste in clothes, makeup, perfume, way of walking, funny way she says 'chowder' all boil down to that one question. For men, I don't care at all, so unless the story directly needed a physical characteristic, it really didn't matter, and I didn't want to hear it.

Men are, as a rule, far less verbose on matters of appearance. I'm sure you will find plenty of men, some of them even straight, who care what color her skirt was, but most really just don't care.

Only if you mean it.

It's unfortunate, isn't it? The reason the racism thread become frustrating for all was that there is a definite segment of the population (on TFP and elsewhere) who justify to themselves that racism and sexism are gone. They think that just because they don't call people niggers and make them pick the cotton or because they don't demand the bitch stay in the kitchen, that neither racism nor sexism exists anymore. They call it "white guilt" - as if our reasons for creating programs for the disadvantaged comes from a "guilt" about what has happened to women and minorities in the past. That's so silly, because I don't need to feel guilty about the past - it still happens today.

They think that just because THEIR friends are black, or just because THEY treat women with respect that all people treat blacks and women fairly. RACISM AND SEXISM ARE NOT GONE. JUST BECAUSE WE AREN'T IN 1950 DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT STILL HAPPEN.

I see sexism every fucking day, and it bothers me because it happens to people I care about. You know, those people we mentioned earlier - wives, mothers and sisters. I care that they're still discriminated against, STILL told who they should be and what they should look like by the media, in 2008.

It makes sense to rationalize to yourself that sexism and racism are gone, because it allows you to continue participating in racist or sexist hierarchies, allows you to keep saying the same things you've always been saying, and it allows you to do be who you are without feeling bad about the direct effect it has on others. And really, it's simpler to think that what we say and how we say it has no effect, that racism and sexism are gone, and that people who take issue with the language we're using are the ones who need to lighten up. It actually takes EFFORT to change how we act and what we say, and most people just aren't up for making that effort. It's easier to live the way they've always lived.

I can understand justifying that "It's always been this way" and "I'm not racist or sexist so it doesn't exist", because I used to believe it too. The scary part is when you realize that it's still out there, that the things we say and do actually DO have effect on a sociological level.

To insist that what we say has no effect on others belays an obvious ignorance of sociology. Where do you think eating disorders come from?

If you only ever "compliment" women by saying "I'd hit that" in their precense because they're physically attractive, what does that teach them about their value? If the media and the citizenry value only physical attractiveness in women, then we end up with girls taught at a young age that the only way to get ahead is to be pretty, not to be interested in science in math, not to have a head on their shoulders, but to be pretty. Think about what your words teach people about themselves in relation to society, and you might see why constantly uttering or typing "I'd hit that" causes a problem.

As I said in my OP, and will repeat here, I'm not interested in censorship. I'm not interested in telling people what they can or can't say or do. What I asked, was "HOW can we get male bonding, camaraderie and self-esteem WITHOUT objectifying women"?

I'm not denying that it is effective or commonplace, only that it's not the best way to attain the stated goals.

So what exactly is this daily sexism you see that makes you so angry Jin?

I very rarely ask a stranger for an apology when they have offended me. In fact, I rarely ask for apologies from anyone because I don't really need them. Doesn't do anything for me - I can tell when people are sorry or not.

I have said things to men who make comments on some occasions when I was feeling particularly, uh, outgoing and the reactions are generally:
1. drive away real fast; :lol:
2. silence;
3. or, if they are with other men, laughter and continued 'male bonding.'
Once, once, I got an apology.

Perhaps guys aren't accustomed to being called on this and they're often embarrassed by it when they do. Which, I think, is responsible for some of the reactions here. To use a scenario that I've gotten from television, lol, maybe this could be compared to women being called on excessive shopping. This kind of behavior is something they feel entitled to and they're not prepared for someone to step in and say 'hey, that's not cool,' because it's embarrassing. And that's fine. Really. I slept really good last night, lol, but maybe they are the ones that need to lighten up a bit, 'cause I felt like the reaction to my initial comment was overly defensive.

And I agree that the men/women arguments are tiresome. In the entire scheme of things, I love most men. (Although, I have run up against my fair share of men I don't love.) But honestly, I've never become close to men who subscribe to an idea of 'what men do.' Just as I've never subscribed to the idea of 'what women do.' So these types of arguments do very little to answer my questions about why it goes on. To me the answer I am seeing here is basically the equivalent of 'just because.' And that's fine, but don't expect it to be the magic answer for me, because from my perspective there are alternatives. It is my opinion that this behavior is determined as much by expectations and stereotypes as it is by primal human urges.

It's tough because, as I was exploring in my second post, men objectify each other as well and turn on women as a deflection. Women won't get relief until we stop with each other first.

If that sounds touchy-feely and radical, then you see the scope of the challenge.

These are platitudes. That's what the discussion has become. People saying the same old thing over and over ... and all of it relatively empty.

This is not to say that people don't feel strongly about the subject because it's painfully obvious that they do. But where is the REAL CONSTRUCTIVE discourse?

All I have read so far is the same old back-and-forth arguing that I hear practically every day about these very subjects (men are pigs, women are bitches, certain groups of people are lazy or ignorant). But it comes across as "venting" rather than constructive.

We were just required to take a Sexual Harassment and Discrimination course at work. The focus was mainly on religious jokes in the workplace. The sad fact is, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO BE REMINDED THAT WORDS CAN BE OFFENSIVE. I find this incredibly sad ... especially at a liberal arts college. I hope I am not one of these people who need to be reminded.

Despite my belief that words have no power ... I realize that people will be offended by those same words. The thing is, if you can just fully believe that the words themselves have no power, that it's a source of empowerment itself. Be offended by the intention and call it out ... but don't be offended by the words themselves.

We should not ignore history ... that is a certain path to failure ... but we should also not be crippled by history. Certainly we should continue to discuss the problems of racism, sexism, poverty, health-care, environment ...

Regardless (irregardless? :) ) of your stance on these and MANY other subjects, we (as intelligent human beings) should be able to have a constructive conversation on them WITHOUT resorting to rhetoric and diatribes and platitudes. Let's get to the meat of these problems and come up with innovative ways to solve them -- rather than just perpetually harping on each other.

I assume that we are all intelligent because I have read other posts that seem to indicate it to be true.

As for me ... I believe that just about every one of these SOCIAL issues can be helped by education (in the home and in school). Teach children when it's appropriate to joke about things and when it's not. We certainly don't want to live in a humorless society. We don't want "thought police" we are entirely capable of policing ourselves ... IF we are given the proper tools to do so.

This is probably very true and is exemplified in UsTwo's description of the difference between how he and his wife describe people.

So when men stop competing with each other everything will be fine :thumbsup:

The obvious solution is castration at age 9.

I think Anne Rice covered this idea in Queen of the Damned.

Men certainly do objectify each other ... and I don't think they take it out on women as a deflection. I think that men, in general, objectify EVERYTHING. This is not to say that men are incapable of abstract thought. This is also not to imply that women are not capable of objectifying ... or that women only think in abstract terms.

A lot of this has to do with social conditioning and how we EXPECT people to behave. In the U.S. we expect that the genders behave in a certain way and so that inference has shaped our judgment. Whether or not the behavior is TRUE is beside the point. Depending on your experience you make it true or not.

Even the phrase "women won't get relief until we stop with each other first" implies that men are in control. The fact is the only thing that both genders need to STOP is how we think about each other.

Again, this is not saying that there is not a problem ... only that the solution lies on BOTH sides of the gender coin.

So irregardless (heh) of the span of human behavioral evolution we are now at a standstill that nothing short of mass castration will change. :lol:

I really don't know why I'm bothering, since I think this will fall on dead ears, or you're just using it as a ploy to frame me as a crazy liberal. It's hard to *demonstrate* modern day sexism in a forum, simply because most is nonverbally discriminatory, or verbally sexist (but not recorded). I will not deny that it has decreased, simply because it's become unpopular. If we can make it even less unpopular, it might continue to decrease.

You could tell me to lighten up (again) or tell me that these are all jokes. But if you were a little girl, say.. 8 or 9, what would this teach you about yourself? A child is easier for demonstrative purposes, but the "lessons" do not stop as we age. We're constantly learning our "roles" in society based on how our peers and our media present us.

http://280main.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/dolcead.png
http://pzrservices.typepad.com/adver.../sexist_ad.jpg
http://bp1.blogger.com/_Qy4iftwk5JM/...0-h/19erin.jpg
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/whoneeds.jpg
http://feministing.com/Violence%2B-%...x%2BAd%2B2.jpg

"He's a Stud, She's a Slut, and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know " -
http://feministing.com/missbimbo.jpg
I'll understand that these don't seem serious to you, simply because you don't take the issue of sexism or racism seriously. It doesn't exist to you, so naturally these won't be terribly effective.

Wow. Thank you, Jinn.

I can't find the whole video, but here's part of Dreamworlds II. It's worth watching.



And here's a preview of DW3.

Jinnkai: serial exaggerator.

"I'd hit it." is not some terrible symptom of sexism in society. It's a combination of sexual attraction and childishness. Sexism is hatred and intolerance. Can you see the difference?

If will and I agree on something, its either got to be right or horrifically wrong.

I'm putting the safe money on 'right' in this case.

I'm not equating the two, but it, like all other things you seem to think are innocuous, are parts of the whole. You seem to think that the only types of sexism are overt and obvious to the casual observer.

Out of curiosity, will, did you watch the videos?

Pretty much, and its womens fault too. If you have sex with the omega males more than the alpha males things could be different.

I really wonder why I ever bother to add my opinion to things anymore.....

I guess a female that doesnt have a problem with it doesnt merit discussion?

oh well

I fucked my share of omega males, thank you very much, and I gave birth to three women. So maybe we are all doomed. :lol:

Not yet, I've been on the phone all morning (I'm at work).

When I look at your posts, I see sexism very clearly, but those examples stand in contrast to "I'd hit it".

Shani's opinion always merits discussion!

Shani doesn't have a problem with it: discuss.

eh, sorry...I shouldnt have posted that, it just irked me my post was skipped over...dont mind me I just got news of a death in the family and Im upset

But did you have children with one? Thats the part that matters.

"I'd hit it" in rap songs:


You think Dexter has a sister?
Yea, I bet she smokin like chesnuts on an open fire..
I'd hit that, I'd hit that, I'd hit that.. I'd hit that.
*chanting* I'd hit that..

This is from one of the largest entertainment companies in the WORLD.

And this lovely little gem from "www.idhitit.org":

Of course, I did. Why else would I make that statement? But, of course, I was making a joke.

I'm all about the omega males... :thumbsup: and yes, we intend to reproduce.

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 ... except for this:

I'll assume you meant "less popular" rather than "less UNpopular."

However, anytime we marginalize a part of society we tend to create "underdogs." In this case, making it UNPOPULAR might make it trendy again and then it becomes mainstream again--with regard to the MEDIA of course ... I don't think it will ever be "trendy" to really degrade a person.

Like I said in previous posts ... I still think the ONLY cure for this disease is education ... and that both genders share an equal responsibility in that education.

To paraphrase a quote from someone I can't remember ... blast some sunshine on the subject and kill all the mildew.

From my OP:

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.

Of all the rap lyrics out there that are sexist, you go after "I'd hit that"?

Your priorities are all off.

Vanblah, I asked this question in post #43, didn't get much reply... I saw it as a positive way to try and change the conversation, at least on the male side:In fact, throughout my posts I have attempted to NOT group "all men as pigs," instead saying that I believe men are better than that. But many of those responding to this thread seemed to insist that they were, in fact, NOT above that level... and to quit expecting them to be any more advanced, so I'd better just lighten up and get over it. So I'd like to say that I think men deserve a lot more respect than they get re: this topic, but it seems that few *want* to rise to that level of respect/responsibility and act accordingly.

Just to clarify, I don't know anyone who doesn't say "I'd hit that" in jest. It's something goofy ass people do, like calling their friends "homies" or "playa". It's a topical satirical jibe at popular culture, if anything.

Forgive me fr coming in not reading much and adding my 2 cents.

"I'd hit that", "I'd tap that" and so on are just wrong, IMHO.

Unless you are into S&M love making should be just that. Yes, a truly good fuck may sometimes be needed, but violence is not necessary and should not have to be referred to.

You see a women you'd do, say, I'd do her. But to have to use violent words to describe an action of pleasure with a woman is kind of oxymoronic and shows little class, to me at least.

Actually, I'd have to say that it might be something that goofy ass *white* people do, perhaps to jibe and/or imitate popular *black* culture... but that's another topic altogether, eh?

So someone just trying to make conversation here shouldn't comment on anything, unless their priorities are up to your standards?

I find that rather elitist and very rude thinking.

You didn't need to comment or visit this thread.

//threadjack

Will, you CONSISTENTLY make the mistake of equating you and your peer group with the entire world.

The sheer existence of ONE person who does not use "I'd hit that" in jest, or one who is even thinking something non-hilarious when saying it acts as a counterpoint.

Just because you don't feel you're actively participating in racism or sexism, just because you don't think that anyone doesn't use it anything but jest, doesn't make it so. Not everything can be simplified to "intution" based anecdotes from your personal experience.

And as for priorities, I selected those because they were topical. I recognize that there are far worse lyrics, but they don't contain "I'd hit it," so they weren't as on-topic.

Do you see the sanctimony in that statement? "Men are better than that."

I know that you probably don't intend it to sound sanctimonious but it really can come across that way.

As well as the fact that it STILL puts the male gender in control: men have to change the way they act so that women don't get offended.

The fact is, change must happen on BOTH sides here. Men DO need to change the way they act with regard to women just as much as women need to change they way they RE-act to the male pattern of behavior. The reverse is also true: Women need to change the way they act and men need to change the way they RE-act to the female pattern of behavior.

Dude, you need to be giving women more credit than that. Having to live with the likes of us men for thousands of years has made them pretty damn resilient.

According to this thread ... no it hasn't.

Touche. Still, it's more about making fun of ourselves for not having a culture to speak of instead of making fun of another culture.
Whoa, whoa, stop the thread. I've offended Pan. Everyone can go home, sorry for ruining everything. :rolleyes:

When does the old Pan come back?
I was speaking more in reference to the topic of the whole thread. So far as racism goes in any part of any society, "Id' hit it" is quite benign. You demonstrated it above with the offensive Dolce, panties, jewelry, and condom ads, and then again by mentioning that rap lyrics are offensive. There are racist parts of our society and they need to be addressed. "Id' hit it" seems to be on the bottom of that list, though.

Why don't we do it this way:
Of all the ladies here on TFP, who here is MOST offended by "I'd hit it"? For whom is that simply the most sexist thing you could ever experience? And for whom is it simply either annoying or something you could care less about?

It is very commonplace in media, and I'm sure in the youth culture. But I rarely have heard it used in peer conversation. Most of my peer conversation tends to occur amongst colleagues, where such discussion is unprofessional and rarely happens, or amongst fellow parents at activities such as school/sports gatherings.

when I was younger we used similar terms, but employed the more crude work "fuck" for "hit". EG: "I'd fuck that" or " I would most definitely fuck that".

Of course this was all happening in dream land because there was no way that any girl that came under our scrutiny would ever give us the time of day. Maybe this is what generates such behaviour in the first place.

With regard to the "I'd hit it," phenomenon. It's actually a VERY small percentage of male bonding (there's also farting, cursing, drinking, fighting, sports, music, the list goes on).

It only seems to be huge because sex sells ... so does violence and any extreme form of behavior.

It's akin to the fear and sensationalized media reports about shark attacks every Summer. How many people go swimming in the ocean? How many shark attacks are there?

I agree that ANY number (of shark attacks or sexist behavior) is tragic, and yes ... unlike shark attacks to an extent ... we CAN work to change this mode of OUTWARD behavior. But men will most likely NEVER stop objectifying everything around them (not just women).

Cars for instance, it's not just a way to get from point A to point B ... its the cool factor. Men objectify cars just like everything else.

This may not apply to you (it certainly doesn't to me ... I could care less about cars ... in fact I ride a bike) ... but you get the point. I'm sure there are some things that you objectify ... if not women and cars. And I'll bet you had to WORK ON the "not objectifying women thing." I catch myself EVERYDAY furtively glancing at women around me and "sizing them up."

Cars are already objects. They don't need to be objectified. Women are humans. When they are objectified, they are de-humanized. You can't objectify an object.

Basically you're saying that because you don't perceive it to be a big concern, it isn't? I don't think its the biggest concern either, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore it because there are worse problems.

Why does this matter? Even if every woman on TFP said it wasn't a concern, that doesn't mean it isn't. I could find you handfuls of women who wouldn't think it was a problem at my local University. They've also don't think they have any option but to be a housewife. For them, the University is just a finishing school where they can meet their new "man."

Aberkok said it best..

No, I'm saying that a lot of people, even a majority it seems (see thread posts), don't seem to see this as a big deal, Jinn.
So you're only speaking on behalf of women who've taken a sociology class? I'm afraid you've lost me. We have a vibrant female community here on TFP, and you're (I think) trying to defend women. Maybe we should ask them if they think they need defending? I mean Shani has already said she didn't care, and Shani is important. MM said she found it a bit offensive, and Abaya did too, but they didn't mention how offensive it was in the grand scheme of sexism in our society.

You are correct, of course, but the sentiment is the same.

Also, from my favorite source the OED: <i> To express (something abstract) in a concrete form </i>

So, rather than cars ... I'll change my statement to the <i>idea<i> of cars.

Neither. As Jinn says, I see it (and lots of other less than admirable qualities in people) as symptomatic of a bigger problem. You really should watch the videos when you get home and try to imagine how 'i'd hit that' and other phrases and attitudes have trickled down (up?) into our popular culture and that by utilizing them you are still perpetuating and legitimizing the less than hysterical origins that they came from.

And vanblah, you are right that both men and women need to change how they are approaching and contributing to this problem. For the woman's part, I would think the biggest contribution they could make would be to stop allowing themselves to be objectified for money. That's not to say that women shouldn't be sexual and desirable, but somewhere along the line we sold away our right to control where and when we are seen as objects. Yes, this has always gone on to some extent, but somewhere along the line between pin-ups and wolf-whistles and today we lost our option to decide whether we want to play an active part in it or not because sexual objectification is so commonplace. The stimulation for the behavior is out there, everywhere. Therefore we have men today who see these habits as an entitlement and women, like me, who are kind baffled by it because we didn't see it coming. No pun intended.

This is in direct conflict with will's assertion that every guy he knows is doing it. Perhaps with the men you know and hang out with it is not commonplace, but within other groups it is virtually de rigeur.

Don't forget ngdawg said she likes it :thumbsup:

No, no, not every guy. Only a few, and only in jest.

Maybe a poll would be a good way to see to this. A poll with options for both men and women, and the extent to which they agree with "I'd hit it" being an offensive term. Incidentally, I just heard on BBC today that somewhere in the UK a construction company has banned wolf-whistling at women--and BBC asked a bunch of local women what they thought. Several said, "I'd love it! I haven't had that kind of attention in years!", but most said "Yeah, I don't like the PC police, but I like it even less when I'm looking to buy a new house and someone wolf-whistles at me." So, there is a variety of responses on the part of women to subjects like that, imagine.
In the grand scheme of sexism that I happen upon as a PhD student who interacts with Thai women most of the time (most of whom are in far more oppressive gender situations than I will EVER be)?... no, it is not hugely offensive, but it does instruct me on the character of people and who I choose to spend my time with.

However, in the grand scheme of, say, the Portuguese women who work in the canteen of the construction workers' site in downtown Reykjavik where I went to the other day, who most likely hears those kinds of comments on a daily basis, and has learned to NOT react to it in order to protect herself from further jabs and jeers?... yes, comments like these are no small thing. That's called learned helplessness, and is a form of oppression. From the brief conversation I had with one Portuguese woman about working there (in broken English), she's grown callous to the men's comments and tries not to pay attention anymore. So is that how women are supposed to "learn" how to react to this kind of behavior?

And every woman who's posted in this thread has posted nude pics of themselves here. All hail the rational irrationality of women.

And yet the vast majority of TFP thinks prostitution should be legal and its not a big deal. So which is it? Pretty much nothing says 'object' and 'money' like prostitution.

You want to remove that stimulation? Try a burka, and yet oddly in those cultures women have absolutely no status what so ever unless they are attached to a male, be it her father, her brothers, or her husband.

Instead of getting upset in the whole thing, embrace it. Women who understand sex and sex appeal are the powerful ones, use it to your advantage knowing mens nature instead of wishing men acted more like your girlfriends.

To quote a stripper I talked to a few years ago, 'Men are stupid.' From her perspective she was correct, the men she dealt with were stupid, and she would make over a $1000 a night for just having fun and dancing around while denying them sex.

You don't have to play a part of course, claiming you do is not true, I doubt many 'plain Janes' get objectified, so lose the make up, forget the hair style, go utilitarian, and bow out if its so bad.

We must have cross-posted... but yes, I can get behind this.

I posted a picture of my naked chest in Exhibition.

Simple misunderstanding.

Would NOT hit.

Now, I think you're being facetious but I can't really tell because of those missed social cues.

My answer to that is, "No." You can't take one example of one woman and apply it to the entire gender. In HER case it is the MEN who need to be educated ... and she probably needs some kind of esteem counseling at this point because of it.

Let's not confuse nudity and the nude body with objectification (as it is being referred to in this thread). It's true that some objectification is happening with those photographs ... it's inherent in taking a picture ... but that was not the INTENT behind most of those photographs.


With regard to prostitution and the commodification of sex ... there is a difference between exploitative behavior and selling sex as a commodity. IF the taboos around sex weren't so entrenched it might be possible to have better regulation of the sex industry ... and that includes everything from pornography to prostitution. As it stands now ... it's marginalized and guess what? It's rampant with exploitation because of it.

But that's probably a different topic.

Wow. I can't even think of anything else to say.

Don't get me started on the objectification of women in World of Warcraft.

Edit ... I started my post before you finished yours. Mine's not even funny anymore.

Sorry, I should have made it a lot more clear.

To be honest, I'm not even really defending people that say it. I think it's a little disrespectful. I just don't know why people are so bent out of shape about it. It seems so minor in the scope of sexism in the modern world. Why not have a thread about the glass ceiling? Or about disrespecting women in rap music? Or general objectification?
You say that now, but after you see it....

Sorry vanblah, I have a bad habit of editing 1000 times after I submit.

I've never posted a picture of myself nude here. I have posted pictures of myself in my journal and in a couple of threads in which I felt in control of the situation. And to be absolutely honest with you, I have considered posting nude photos of myself before but, call it kismet, everytime I get close to actually doing it I end up in one of these conversations and think better of it.

I develop this illusory conviction that I would be the one controlling it, but that's stupid. I have this silly notion that as a photographer, it would be considered an artistic endeavor and an expression of myself as a woman but I don't think this is the place for that. For me. Not speaking on the behalf of others. Everybody's got their own comfort level.

I see vanblah has addressed this nicely.

We can have threads about all of those things... but this one started first, so why not draw it out, like we do with any other thread on some obscure question/topic? Why the need to minimalize it?

Vanblah--yes, I was being facetious with that question. But the point I was trying to make is that I don't quite understand (sincerely) how you think women "should" be responding to that kind of treatment. I mean, for myself, I walked onto that construction site dressed as plain-jane as I could, got objectified in a way that made me sick, and then walked back off and went about with my PhD research, never having to deal with those louts again, and most certainly never having to work in the canteen with them as the Portuguese woman does.

But the fact that this one woman CANNOT walk away from a place like that, or doesn't have the self-awareness of how to do so (while preserving her job/work visa, as an immigrant in this country), and that she has to put up with that shit every single day until it beats all vestige of self-worth out of her... yes, that offends me at a human (not only sororal) level. I happen to be more privileged than her, so for me, it becomes just a minor offense of the type that Will keeps reiterating. But does that mean I should forget her, and all the other women who are stuck in those situations? Does that mean I should not mention her when these conversations come up? Of course not.

The problem is that yes, one cannot apply the experience of one woman to the whole gender... but the sad fact is that these experiences are still ALL too common for the vast majority of women, especially in non-Western countries. So I don't think it's completely out of line to bring up an example like this in a conversation about this topic.

But you're much, much, much prettier than willravel.

(Sorry, will.)

I posted ONE pic of my ass in my early days here, because I had never done anything like that before (in fact, had never been in any place LIKE this before, where it was even an option). I took it down because I felt like shit about it, once I acknowledged the attention-whoring aspect of the whole thing. I guarantee you that I never intend to post another picture like that of myself again--that's the personal boundary/standard that I had to learn, for myself.

lol, now it's my choice the Taliban or a perpetual Whitesnake video.

I love how you so conveniently sidestep any culpability on the behalf of men, here, there, everywhere. It seems like less a discussion than a provocation.

As far as prostitution goes, that is a personal transaction between two (or more) people. Obviously, I am referring to the objectification that occurs in our popular media.

And that's about the extent of a response I can muster for this post.

+respect

I agree with you on that ... and I think you agree with me that it's not fair to apply her condition to the whole gender.

Like I said, both genders have an equal stake in the education. And I also know that it's going to be harder for men to change their views than it is for women to change theirs.

I'm not saying that women need to stop being offended by it ... because it IS offensive. I'm paraphrasing what MM said ... women (in general) need to really stop putting their self-worth in the hands of men; ie. stop allowing themselves to be objectified. This is not to say that we shouldn't legalize prostitution or make pornography illegal. There is a balance.

The education issue with regard to women I'm talking about for starters is that it's not up to me (as a man) to grant you your self-worth.

I know that it can be tiring ... to hear offensive comments day in and day out ... that's where the education of men comes in. We (men in general) need to learn when the behavior is OK and when it's NOT. That seems to be the main problem.

I think we've got a good start ... but we can't expect change overnight.

And again ... we are talking about one aspect of human male behavior. I can list any number of human female behaviors that are "offensive" at least in my world view. I'm sure you can too. Humans have a LOT to work on.

I also agree with Ustwo and others that we need to lighten up as a whole ...

YES! I can agree with that. I think that's true, for women past a certain age. But when a little girl grows up in that environment, at what point is she supposed to learn that self-worth does not come from men (especially if her father is the type who WANTS his daughter to be that way, and her mother doesn't have an ounce of self-esteem, either)? Yes, once women hit high school age and later, they can take control of their self-worth (though of course many do not)... but by then, the damage is already quite deep, and many women have to do something like the self-esteem therapy that you mentioned earlier, to re-educate them on how to think about themselves. A lot of women just don't have the wherewithal to engage in that kind of reflexivity, for whatever reasons... they don't even know how to value themselves enough to do that. In their cases, where does it come from? Not from men, maybe.. but perhaps other women. I'd like to bitch-slap quite a few of my female friends who put up with this kind of sub-standard behavior from the men in their life, frankly. Right, but who's saying people are going to change overnight? I mean, these behaviors have been socially ingrained in us for millenia... it's a slow crawl out of that developmental hole. I expect change, but realistically, I know that maybe only my grandkids, or their grandkids, etc. will feel a real sea change in this sense. Definitely... just ask my husband about how much I dislike most women, for those same kinds of behaviors that make me dislike most men. I dislike most people, really. :)

However, I'm not going to lighten up. Most people around here know that about me. Just one of my character traits, at least when it comes to topics like these in a setting like this.

Awesome!

I used to dislike people ... back in my Goth(tm) days :p . And then I realized it wasn't true; I dislike most of the people I was around ... the other goth kids. I told myself that I disliked people ... and then I started meeting different people and realized that they weren't so bad. I'm not saying this is true for you ... just that I identify with what you are saying.

I dislike stereotypes ... and for some reason during that time that's all I saw. Stereotypes. But the more people I met the more I realized that those stereotypes are just really wrong. One example: a few rednecks that I met ... some of them actually liked and read poetry and didn't really mind my long purple and black hair. That's not typical redneck behavior and I realized that I could no longer dislike rednecks as a whole. Only AFTER I met someone could I dislike them.

When I moved to the South I expected nothing but racism and oppression. It's just not true. Sure it exists ... but I saw more racism (white vs. black) in the North Bronx than I do down here. Again, the examples down here tend to be extreme and therefore NEWSWORTHY.

I just couldn't live my life hating humanity anymore.

But I'm rambling. I'm not comparing my life to yours ... I'm just picking up on something you said.

As for little girls growing up in households with domineering fathers ... again, educate the parents. Of course, it's very easy to say it ... it's another thing entirely to actually DO it.

YES YOU ARE. Jeez.

jk

Hey, I don't hate humanity... I'm an anthropologist, after all. :lol: But I guess you might say I have a love/hate relationship with most of humanity, which gets more complicated the longer and more intense my work with various groups becomes. I try to leave a lot of room for people (and myself) to make mistakes and grow out of stereotypical behavior, but that doesn't mean that I am going to condone anything that goes against my personal values when I see it in front of me, you know?
Yeah, I agree with you, but I don't see ANY way of educating the parents, especially when they don't want to be educated (at least, most of those kinds of fathers don't). I don't see that as a very viable solution, really.

Humans, regardless of gender, do lots of things that I find to be offensive. Due to factors like migraine headaches and acute nausea, I can only handle talking about them one at a time.

And even though UsTwo is calling for lightness, I don't think his position can be characterized as 'light.' His position depends on other people 'lightening up' to conform to his viewpoint. That is not being 'light.' That is being manipulative.

No what I'm saying is the stimulation is NOT the issue. Take that away and you can still have full blown sexism, and we are not talking about the Taliban but a large swath of Islamic nations and on a smaller scale some Christian communities. There any stimulation like that gets you put in prison or worse in the Islamic nations and shunned from the small scale communities in the US. Yet sexism exists. thrives, is a cornerstone of these cultures.

I do not think there is culpability here. Men have always, and will always objectify women unless you modify men at a genetic level not to. This is not a pass for subjugating women, treating them as only sexual objects, but when I see a pretty one, I'm going to wonder what shes like naked no matter how great a person she is and how many PhD's she holds. You, as a woman are a sex object to men.

So its ok for a woman to sell her self for sex but not ok for her to advertise it? A woman can't use her body to help sell a car, or look sexy turning letters on a popular game show? To say prostitution is ok and then whine about a thin model on TV seems very hypocritical to me.

Obviously you can find some shocking things in the media, most likely designed to shock for attention, that are over the top, but that in itself does not mean there is a problem with the culture, it just means some add exec wanted to shock you ala abercrombie and fitch.

Well ... maybe educate future parents and then wait for the current crop to die off? Education is really the only viable solution going forward. Maybe not with regard to the current society.

I don't think legislation is the answer ... except in a few key areas where it's already happening ... if we over legislate this we are likely to end up with a society of criminals and victims. In fact, we are headed in that direction now. I have personally witnessed a lawsuit based on the fact that a male co-worker "allegedly" glanced at a female co-workers chest. He denies looking ... she says he "ogled" her. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between and yes ... this is an extreme example. This whole farce sets the entire process back IMO ... not to mention the strain on resources.

So what are the alternatives?

The media has been asked time and time again to tame the sexist behavior ... and yet they continue to interpret that as "don't show us teh boobies."

Ustwo has a point ... objectification is not going to go away ... from any perspective. People should be allowed to use their bodies to sell products ... it's when it becomes exploitative that we have problems.

It's certainly a slippery slope and I'm not sure how to control it other than by saying: "This is NOT real. This is a stereotype and you should not base your self-worth on this" (to both sexes).

Wow, 5 pages of posts in just over 24 hours. Well done.

I don't have much to add, other than that it's interesting to see you all hash this issue out. I think this is an important conversation to continue having.

I am not talking about sexism in general, but rather the saturation of the sexual objectification of women in our media and its effects on our culture. You are not really addressing my concerns with this post, rather you are talking around them. Now, normally, I might take the time to try and bring this around to meet the conversation that I am having, but I have been sitting here all day doing this and I've pretty much run out of steam.

I will say this, I think I'm a fairly rational, thoughtful person and it takes more than just a minimization of my thoughts to 'lighten up' or 'nuh-uh' to engage me in a serious discussion. This is not a summation of how I think about you overall, for I have seen you involved in discussions in which, even though I disagreed with you, I could see that you were really involved and talking about something that was important to you. And then, sometimes, it seems like you are involved just to tweak noses. This doesn't seem like one of those former instances. :)

True, as with all forms of old-school thinking (racism, sexism, etc). As I said, I can see it changing markedly by the time my grandkids, and their grandkids, etc roll around... as long as conversations like this keep happening, and people don't lighten up so much that they don't keep pushing for change, that is. This might work for adults, but not for kids. And that's the problem, again, at least for this generation. Kids don't have a very good system in place for distinguishing between what is real and not-real... and so these things get stuck in their brains, which requires a hell of a lot of work to get them unstuck.

Your point reminds me of the way my parents let me watch rented horror films at home (I was watching Psycho, the Exorcist, all the Freddy Krueger movies by the time I was 5 or 6)... they would offer "parental guidance" by telling me to hide my eyes behind my hands during scary scenes (never mind the sounds), or if I happen to peek and get scared, they would tell me it wasn't real... those were their actual words. "It's not real, don't be scared honey." Right. Off to bed I went, terrified of pretty much anything that went bump in the night, up until I was maybe 10 or 11 years old. I slept with a very bright nightlight in my room because I was so anxious about someone coming to get me (we lived in a very isolated house in the middle of nowhere, huge forest around us). No matter how many times my parents dismissed my fears, they only got reinforced every time they let me watch another horror film... until I was finally old enough to figure out that they really WEREN'T real, and that I didn't have to watch horror films anymore. However, I still hate being home alone at night. Probably always will.

(And now who's rambling, eh?) But just wanted to say, kids really don't know any better, at the time when parents would like to think that they do. We can't depend on the media to intervene, since they base their entire marketing strategies on people getting brainwashed by their crap.

Interesting thing is, in Iceland, nudity is something that most people don't blink an eye at... you see it all the time in ads, in a non-sexualized way (there was a huge billboard here, encouraging people to wear seatbelts, with both people fully nude and only wearing a seatbelt over them... no one cared). You grow up going to the local swimming pool where everyone in your gender gets naked to shower thoroughly before swimming (it's required, because they don't use much chlorine in the pools). Girls get to see all KINDS of bodies--let me say it again, ALL KINDS!!!--and I think it does make them a little bit less insecure about their bodies, than if all they're seeing are models on TV, etc. It's a more realistic, non-sexualized view of male/female bodies in general that I appreciate, here in Iceland.

Alright, done for tonight.

I find this conversation to be insulting.

1st off, you're insulting people who like being sexually expressive, seriously, fuck it.

What do you want? to change the fucking saying to "I'd hit her" ? because "her" isn't "it"? Then we're going into the fun lil violent sounding territory.

2nd off, lets just go ahead and ACKNOWLEDGE right now that girls being the subject of sexual desire is a role that they can participate in, no one HAS to be a model, a porn star, a stripper, or a prostitute, no one has to wear skimpy clothing, no one has to show any skin, in fact, fuck it, lets all move to israel.

3rd, a lot of the view points expressed in this thread (this is no longer just about the "i'd hit it" statement, lets not kid ourselves) are rather insulting to the members of TFP who've participated in the exhibition forum.


honestly, what is the problem here? hot guy with lots of money and big dong comes up and says "i'd hit it" to you, "oh teehee" it's a joke, you'll let it slide.

bum with tiny wang and scary looking features says the same thing? "omg sexual harrassment, unwelcome advance, pig! sexist!"

get over your labels. seriously.

be completely honest with yourself and admit you've probably let something from the opposite sex "slide" under your fem-dar because you had your own interests vested in them at some point.

1st, you just have to shatter the illusion that we're all equal, we're not. I'm better than you at some things, you're better than me at some things, and some people like me more than others, there is no level playing field for any of us and it has nothing to do with me being, white, or a male, or whatever sociology inspired classification you can wall me in to.

secondly, the fight for equality is useless, be it genders, races, social class, religion. all it takes is ONE person to be an individual, to have a varying mindset from the masses, and there you go, you are now inequal. Maybe very similar, but thats it.


Women have strengths that men do not, access to an entire sub culture that men do not.
Men have strengths the Women do not, access to an entire sub culture that Women do not.

thats just the way it is, it's genetic, it's biological, it's social, it's supply and demand, thats life, you can participate or not.
Some girls want the attention, some girls dont, some guys like "i'd hit it" some guys don't.

really, thats it, thats the end of discussion, live and let live.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xHCLdNfZIvA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xHCLdNfZIvA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Owned.

Really?

:)

The point I am making is not to infringe on anyone's desire to be sexually expressive. I whole-heartedly endorse our ability to be expressive in any way, shape or form. What I am talking about is when it's appropriate and when it's not.

Did you see the little back-and-forth that ngdawg and I had during the whole grammar nazi portion of the conversation? There is a time and place for it.

When a woman walks down the street and is the (unwanted) recipient of OVERT male sexual desire (ie, wolf whistles) then it becomes offensive.

It is certainly not a black-and-white issue (no reference to racism).

Ustwo, what's the point? I was talking about swimming pool shower rooms (the part you conveniently left out of my quote), and how they view all kinds of bodies there, in a non-sexual context... and how this helps counteract the usual images on TV.

My point was that Icelanders generally don't give a shit about nudity, at least not the way that a lot of Americans do... and that I think that's a healthy thing. I'm quite sure that this commercial didn't even register a blip on the radar screen for people here.

(Where the hell did you find that commercial, btw?!) :lol:

Waa, poor baby... it must be so hard for you to feel oppressed.. to feel like you can't be "sexually expressive" by saying "I'd hit it" whenever you want. I can't imagine complaining about doing something to make an inroads towards sexual equality. I guess it's too hard for you to compromise.

This is incredibly ignorant. Are women who are raped "participating"? After all, they must've done something to make themselves desirable. Women are subject to objectification and sexual language when it is NOT welcomed, encouraged or necessary. See Abaya's example above.

What kind of women do you know? Why the fuck should someone have to put up with someone harrassing them because they're rich? Surprise! Women deserve to be treated with respect.

There's a difference between equal ability and equal treatment. Think about it.

Do you know ANYTHING about equality? It has nothing to do with equating one another, and becoming clones of one another. It has to do with treating each other FAIRLY and EQUALLY.

And for the record, I agree completely with vanblah on this:

You might take a chance to re-read it before busting into a thread with guns-ablazing, all pissed off that someone is trying to infringe on your right to demean others, .. I CAN BE SEXUALLY EXPRESSIVE WHENEVER THE FUCK I FEEL LIKE IT, GOD DAMNIT! FUCK ANYONE WHO WOULD BE OFFENDED!

By the way, we aren't talking about equality within this context. Generally speaking, there are and always will be differences among the genders and the races.

I am certainly not advocating that we all be the "same." Only that we be TREATED equally with respect and dignity (and many other things that I hope we don't need to go into ... or do we?).

Okay, Jinn, adopting your posting style for a moment:
Have you ever asked yourself why you have to coddle women? Could it be because you actually believe that they are inferior and require your protection? All of this talk about "equality" is actually you being a big strong man, because without a man, women are defenseless. I guess it's too hard for you to admit to yourself that you yourself are sexist.

Seriously, you've gotta calm down. I've noticed that a good point was never made on a forum with BOLD WORDS. Usually they just mean SHOUTING or EMOTIONAL CONTENT that's NOT RELEVANT. It's actually just DISTRACTING. Not only that, but it's ironically disrespectful.

why do people put up with you?

maybe you really do have a stick up your ass, get off the internet you sad jaded man.

Okay dudes, chill out. I'm all for getting up in arms about discussion, but personal attacks are not cool.

I know, which is why i refuse to grace his little attack laced "response" with a serious one of my own, he's already got me pegged through and through as some sexist disrespecting uncompromising ignorant baby, why bother writing a real response to that level of douchebaggery? (oh i referenced a female hygene product, does this make me sexist? oh dear gods, lets psychoanalyze every little thing I type now.)