Ustwo

Lighten up.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

aberkok

Oh I know...as has been mentioned already, there's nothing wrong with sexual thoughts, or even expression of these thoughts in the right way. I also know that both men and women do it. But the "Idhitthaterati" is a very specific group. That's what I'm talking about.

Will... when I say "there's a history" I don't mean to put too fine a point on "history." Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that we live in a culture in which men are not the dominant half of the population, at least (and this is a big "at least") when it comes to objectification of the opposite seks [sic]? How do the things we say reinforce or steer clear of said culture?

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Willravel

Martian speaks well on my behalf. Yes, men and women are different. Ours are on the outside, for example. Still, both men and women objectify others sexually at least to some degree.

Seriously, the TFP women will have to tell us what I thought I heard in passing regarding elephants that was sexual in nature.

mixedmedia

Yes, I take issue with the expression because I think it is disrespectful and, in some instances, threatening to a woman. Certainly you can understand this on some level. Perhaps it's similar to how some men will get very upset when other men make comments about their wives, or their sisters or their mothers. It's a visceral reaction, not an assumed, snobby one.

Listen, I have dealt with this all my life. I've even heard grown men make comments about my own daughters when they were as young as junior high. Now they are grown and they deal with it. I have an eight-year-old daughter and no doubt in 4-5 years I will start to hear comments made about her. But none of us are about to throw ourselves down on the pavement and pitch a fit about it. The question was asked and I expressed myself honestly. As far as I'm concerned I've said my piece and someone doesn't like it, then, pfft. So what.

****************************************
I was about to post this when I saw Martian's response so I went back and responded, but I want to say it and it's a pretty fitting end to a conversation that I consider over. For my part.

Aberkok and roachboy, thank you.

Willful ignorance of history and its ongoing effects on the present seem to be very popular these days. The more I argue on this board, the more I realize that my arguments 99% of the time, revolve around respect, due propriety, compassion and an understanding of disadvantaged or vulnerable viewpoints. These things form the core of my ethics and inform almost all of my opinions. Therefore when I hear, you know, things out of the mouths of people that are lacking in these principals, I get very upset, because I know in my heart it's not right.

But anyway, blah, blah, blah, I'm going to bed now. Night.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Martian

"Willful ignorance of history" is a pretty strong accusation. Am I correct in thinking that what you're stating is that willravel, myself and others are intentionally ignoring historical repression of women in order to attempt to defend our fellow men?

I believe that history serves a very useful purpose. At the same time, I don't think it does any good to continually hold onto the past. There comes a point where you have to draw a line between 'learning from history' and 'holding a grudge.'

Now, I'm not saying sexism doesn't happen; I'm certainly not so naive as all that. By the same token, I believe in leading by example. I believe in equality and for that reason I endeavour in all things to treat women as equals. While this means that I find acts of outright chauvinism to be morally reprehensible, it also brings me into conflict with the feminist crowd on occasion, as I don't believe in holding the past against the present. Feminism creates a barrier and barriers are counter-productive to a goal of actual equality. Or that's how I see it, anyway.

I don't make excuses, not for myself nor for any idiots you may encounter. aberkok mentions 'Idhitthaterati,' which is an interesting concept but not one I can condone. Behaviour engaged with the sole intent of making a woman uncomfortable is inexcusable (as would be the reverse), but this is not the same thing as an off-hand remark. This is why I am continually stressing proper social context. Saying something like that on the street probably isn't appropriate, whereas in a bar or other social setting it may be okay.

Again, if you're looking for an explanation for such a group, I suspect you're looking in the wrong place. As none of the men here seem to belong to it, we can't really tell you why these guys do what they do.

I don't think the analogy of family members really holds up, because it's a different situation. My intuition on the matter is that men aren't comfortable having members of our immediate family objectified in that way because we're not comfortable with thinking of our family members in a sexual context; or, in the case of a wife or significant other, we're not comfortable in many cases with other men thinking of them that way. If a guy makes a comment about my sister being hot, it forces me into a situation where I have to think of my sister in a sexual way, which needless to say is something that I'm not the slightest bit comfortable with. If someone makes a comment about my wife or girlfriend, I'm forced to acknowledge that other men think of her that way. While personally I'm not sure I'd have a huge issue with that, for many men it crosses the boundary by forcing them to acknowledge that other men think of their wives in a sexual context and that they thus have competition. Neither of these are comfortable situations, which is why they're taboo. I don't think they have anything to do with a woman's reaction.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

ktspktsp

I noticed but I didn't want to look like a grammar Nazi so I bit my tongue .

Charlatan

Interestingly this thread, at times, sounds a lot like the recent thread that talk about racism.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

abaya

One more time, since it seems like a few of you missed it in my post #43.

I don't care about objectification--IN THE MIND. I don't care about people having sexual THOUGHTS about others. Got it?

I care about when it gets expressed among a group of people as a form of "bonding," because I'd like to believe that men (and women, if such behavior goes on among their groups as well) are better than that. However, I can tell you that I have been standing in front of several large groups of one gender or the other recently--and you'd better believe it's not the women chattering about how they want to "hit" the male members of our research team. Never. But the revolting tone of the comments made by the groups of construction workers, right in front of me--about me and other female members of our research team--it made me fucking sick.

Yes, I am a social scientist, and I recognize the behavioral patterns and causes if I step back and look at them from the outside, simply observing and writing down the patterns of this group of people. I would recognize the same patterns if I had to step back and study a remote culture, for example one that practices female circumcision or sex-selective abortion. I would understand how and why such practices persist in their own context.

BUT, just because I understand how behavior works, does not mean I have to condone that behavior. I know WHY my high school male students used the word "gay" every other word--that did not stop me from nailing them every single time the word was used in my classroom, to the point of issuing detentions if they failed to pay attention to the rules of respectful language in my classroom.

I will not tolerate disrespectful language, and I will not apologize for having standards of how people around me should conduct themselves in terms of being respectful.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Plan9

How many gray hairs does JinnKai have, anyway?

Does that stick happen to have a chicken puppet on the end of it?

...

Thread: Just another case of women being unable to accept any form of compliment as positive.

Puppies and sunshine? Too pussy.
Rough 'n tough? Too abusive.
Dr. Phil speak? Too patronizing.
From the heart? Too realistic.

There is no happy medium because... well... uhm... t...
*Crompsin randomly interjects Pig's earlier reference of jackin' his manbat to Auld Lange Syne's "Happy New Year"*

Reminds me of a line from that lunch we had recently...

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

mixedmedia

I'm not holding onto the past. You're taking my remark into an unintended context. I was responding to aberkok's conversation with will about gender inequality. I am not saying that my argument is resting on the historical oppression of women, but to say that it has no impact on this issue is, in my opinion, willful ignorance.

Charlatan is right, this conversation is very much like the dialogue about race.

I did not say that the reactions are the same, I said they were similar in that they are visceral reactions as in immediate, negative, emotional reactions. And I take it that forcing YOU into a situation where you are forced to think about your sister having sex is wrong? But my argument has no merit? Interesting.

I'm with abaya in that this is all about respect. You can talk 'til your blue in the face about respecting a woman's equality, but as long as you're okay with every woman around you being available for 'male bonding exercises' and 'childish fun' (as long as they aren't your sister, of course) then it's all just blah, blah, blah.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Xazy

Do girls never talk amongst themselves about which guys they would want to be with in a theoretical hypothetical way?

abaya

Most likely some women do, yes... though I've never seen it happen in the direct vicinity (earshot) of the male in question, as happened to me with the large group of male construction workers talking about me and my colleagues in a professional setting. We were giving an introduction for a national survey of immigrants from the university; I dressed in conservative, figure-obscuring clothes (in anticipation of the construction crowd), and we were not encouraging these people in any way. They continued jeering and nudging each other with their elbows as we we were speaking. So no, in my experience I have never seen or heard a group of women behave this way in any kind of professional environment.

Also, I have never heard a group of women talk disrespectfully about an attractive male in my presence, but that may be because I try to not be around people who have a habit of speaking disrespectfully. So perhaps some women do talk about "hitting that" or wanting to fuck a random guy on a regular basis, but I find it distasteful and those are not people that I want to become friends with, nor do I encourage their behavior.

Case in point. I went to a play last week in Iceland where Gael Garcia Bernal (of Motorcycle Diaries and other Spanish-language movie fame) was playing a role where he dropped his pants and waved himself around, the full monty. My friend and I were sitting in the 4th row. We observed that he was attractive (once again, MM is right in that when a male is flashing his naked body in front of us, there is more chance of commenting on their attractiveness), but we did not whoop and shout and say, "I'd hit that, baby!!". We did not even say it to each other after the play. Or any other time. Yes, he was attractive. Did that mean we needed to talk about fucking him? No. I would not have spent time with a friend who wanted to talk in that manner.

Instead, we spent the next 3 hours "bonding" by talking in detail about a whole host of other things (relationship dynamics, TV shows, politics, languages, movies, more relationship analysis, living in other countries, jobs, music, frustrations with life in general, etc), none of which included which guys we had thought about fucking lately. Is that such a difficult standard to uphold? I am not saying that guys are supposed to talk about the same things that women do--hardly. But when the conversation drifts to which women you'd like to fuck--again, WHY encourage it? Why not hold yourselves to a higher standard, as I asked earlier (and which only Jinn replied to)?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

roachboy

but wait----it seems to me that the discussion is happening upside down: i didn't have the impression that the op was about the justification of one's inner fuckwit frat boy and whatever investments various boys operating with various conception of what being-a-boy means (many of which read to me like some strange parody), but rather about the expression "i'd hit that"--which is strange, if you just look at the words--you know--what they say---and then think from there about effects of this motor of banality and bonding that appears to be the or a shared inner fuckwit frat boy in erasing the strangeness from that strange little expression.

and so it seems to follow: the inner fuckwit frat boy only sees what it wants to see, being a fuckwit and having no choice, and the puppeteer of that inner fuckwit frat boy, having some affection for this presumably because it, like watching sports or reading field and stream or being interested in machinery, is a device that enables "men" to communicate with each other---all of which presupposes that you buy an entire mythology of what being-male as a gender role entails--some caveman thing, i don't get it.

the maybe interesting thing about the thread then is the extent to which it is an extended performance of the nature and effects of a particular conception of male-ness or masculinity (i suppose) as a gender construct.
or
what the "hale fellow well met" gender role requires or exacts as a price at the level of reflexivity.

either way, it is curious to read the thread as an extended theater of problems that arise from a particular conception of masculinity or "being a boy."

being-a-boy as central to the manly man:
it's kinda funny if you think about it.
but that may make it difficult to be a manly man: careful you don't emasculate yourself by actually thinking about what you write.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

mixedmedia

Well, to be honest, I don't really hang out with big groups of women in bars, but if I did and that was the way they were behaving, I'd feel they were being eh, what's the word again, stupid.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Martian

This is the last I've got to say on the matter, because going in circles makes me dizzy. It has occurred to me, however, that much of the seeming vitriol present here stems from what appears to be a disconnect in the argument itself. Nobody has and nobody will defend inappropriate behaviour. What follows, then, is quibbling over what precisely constitutes appropriate behaviour.

I didn't state or even intend to imply that you were 'holding onto the past.' This is, in fact, precisely why I'd asked you to clarify; I was unclear regarding your stance here.

Accepting the proper place of the past events is a tricky business at the best of times. I'm all for learning from past mistakes, but I'd rather avoid having to atone for the sins of my father. This was the general statement I was trying to make and was not intended as a specific attack against anyone.

I've clearly offended you and for that I apologize. On the other hand, it's simply not in my nature to hide myself or lie about who I am. I like looking at attractive women. Sometimes I have lascivious thoughts about them, and sometimes I choose to express that. The form it takes is dependent entirely on the company I find myself in.

Actually, this is precisely what I don't get.

As stated above I am a fairly simple man and believe in honesty in all things. It's a high standard that I set for myself and I do strive towards it at all times. I am fully capable of recognizing that there are certain thoughts that are appropriate to voice in certain contexts that may be inappropriate in others. This is basic etiquette, and is not a difficult concept.

On the other hand, I fail to recognize the difference between thinking something sexual and saying it. The words, after all, are merely an extension of the thought, which exists regardless of whether or not it's expressed. These thoughts are a part of human nature and need to be handled tactfully, but repressing them completely seems somehow dishonest to me.

I would not tell a woman who I'd just met that she had great tits. It may be true, but it's not appropriate. I may tell her that she looks lovely. At it's core, these are really the same thing, in that I am expressing an appreciation of physical beauty. How I choose to express it depends largely on my audience, and therefore the social situation I find myself in. The words themselves are more a product of environment than thought process, which remains largely the same regardless of who I'm speaking with. I would go so far as to contend that any man who makes such lewd comments to a woman is suffering from nothing more than a failure to understand proper social boundaries, which judging by your above statements would seem to be something we agree on (though I'm loathe to assume it and will of course be open to any contradiction on the matter).

And really that's what I'm getting at here. The thoughts are normal and the words are just words. Some guys are ill-mannered and as a consequence choose the wrong ones, but they're not inherently harmful. The thought processes behind them may be, but of course it's ludicrous to think that we can paint half the Earth's population with the same brush.

And that really is all I have to say about that.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

ShaniFaye

I read some of this but I stopped when it went into a grammar discussion.

I was trying to remember what we said way back in my day....and I cant for the life of me remember saying anything other than "I'd fuck him nine ways from Sunday" lol

I have no problem with I'd hit it......I dont say it....I still use the nine ways from sunday phrase. If someone were to say that about me now....I'd probably kiss their feet. I have no problem thinking or saying it about other men (or women for that matter) that I see randomly.

Maybe I dont see it as sexist because I do it myself, I can think of several people around here "I'd hit", and to answer the question that was asked earlier about allowing the phrase in the exhibition forum....if it were accompanied by some other compliment as well, I'd have no problem with people being allowed to use it. Using it alone does not do justice to the person that put the pictures up (IMO)

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

abaya

Yes. Bolding mine, for emphasis. People don't usually take kindly to having their worldview--their sense of "entitlement" to talk and behave in whatever manner they feel is justifiable--questioned.

I encountered this same knee-jerk reaction when dealing with both high school and college students, particularly when teaching anthropology and cultural relativism. "I reserve the right to be disrespectful and rude towards people from different backgrounds, even in my class papers that you're grading me on! Don't you dare take that right away from me, and don't punish me for it, either!" Yeah, right. Welcome to the real world.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

mixedmedia

#1 I am not vitriolic. I am expressing myself plainly and honestly.
#2 You have not offended me.

Well you responded to the part of my post that was actually directed toward someone else and then made a statement about 'not holding a grudge.' Which prompted me to clarify what I meant because I am not holding a grudge.

No need to apologize for anything. Really. I don't know what I said that gave you the impression I am being vitriolic.

And this is fine. I've stated before, it is not the 'casual user' that I have a problem with, lol. It's the guys you are modeling in a humorous way that I am talking about. BUT, that said, I think there is an underlying dynamic of exploitation going on that you guys don't want to admit is there unless it is someone talking about a woman you care about. Then that is TABOO. And the taboo, the boundaries, are created by you (the guys) for your own purposes. The actual women walking around out there only serve as material for you. (Within the context of these 'male bonding' scenarios that we are talking about. Not as a general outlook on women.) At least admit that, and we can dispense with the 'you should be flattered' nonsense, lol.


Honesty is important, but just as important is dealing with the consequences of the words that come out of your mouth.

And I disagree that the words are inherently harmless. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Yes, it is ludicrous to paint half the population with the same brush, as you say. Context and intent are not the same from man to man.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

vanblah

I think we've moved into the area of "intent." What is the intent behind the phrase ...

If my wife walks out of the shower and makes some overtly sexual movement toward me and I say, "I'd hit that." She would be happy to hear it.

If I'm walking down the street with a group of guys and a random woman walks past me and I say, "I'd hit that." She would have EVERY right to be offended and I'd have every expectation of receiving her ire.

If I'm among a group of friends of mixed gender and the phrase is used with regard to one of the men or women in the group the results could be somewhere in between the two scenarios above.

It's intention that causes the problem. And it's the misreading of social cues that lead to problems.

In most societies there are certain "rules" that are followed. When the rules are broken the results can be funny ... but oftentimes at the expense of someone's dignity. I have a serious problem with that. I've been known to indulge in a little schadenfreude sometimes ... it's human nature. But somewhere along the line we went from happy little accidents to outright meanness. I don't care for it anymore at all.

But here's the real deal ... words have absolutely no power. We choose to give them power. The phrase, "I'd hit that," actually ANY PHRASE or WORD means absolutely nothing out of context.

So arguing about these kinds of things is sort of pointless unless you define the context. Is it scenario A or scenario B ... or something else altogether?

roachboy

it is a little strange to read an argument on the order of "words have no power" on a messageboard.
just saying.

and i dont think the argument works if you push at it seriously. chaos ensues. maybe it will here too, who knows?

this even though i understand the point you are trying to make.

but there is a context which seems operative in this thread:
it is what is being defended
a specific mythological construction of the manly man.
and what is being performed is the collective inability to relativize that construct.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Martian

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.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

roachboy

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

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Martian

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

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

mixedmedia

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

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

vanblah

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.

abaya

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

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Martian

Seems somehow appropriate.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

abaya

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

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

vanblah

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.

The_Jazz

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

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

vanblah

Only if you mean it.

Jinn

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.

__________________
"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

Ustwo

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

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

mixedmedia

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;
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.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

fresnelly

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.

__________________
Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

vanblah

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.

mixedmedia

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

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Ustwo

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

The obvious solution is castration at age 9.

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

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

vanblah

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.