Girls aren't the only ones hurt by being objectified

[Aerozord]

This is just something that really bothers me, the objectification of men. With how vocal people are about women being treated as pretty things to gawk at I wish they'd be aware enough to not do the same.

No this isn't me being satirical. I personally feel like crap because of how often I see women openly gushing and drooling over unrealistic appearances of males. Sometimes the same women that complain about men only caring about looks. That if I dont have this perfectly fit body I'm not worth a second glance. Objectification isn't a female only issue, so stop acting like it is.

/rant

[Kim]

Beauty standards are shitty, but they aren't objectification.

Yes, they apply to both men and women, but they are much more strict on women with much more toxic and harmful results.

For every man with an eating disorder, there are two women with one. (http://www.anad.org/news/eating-disorder-population-by-gender-in-each-state/)

That's just among adolescents.

Objectification is the way people are perceived not as human but as objects or as means toward an end. How men view women as tools for their sexual satisfaction and other wants, thus contributing to the epidemic of rape and abuse of women. Which yes, does happen to men as well, but the majority of the time that men are raped and abused it's by men.

Sexualized women are quite often perceived as tools. Sexualized men are still quite often perceived as people. And there's research that backs that up! (http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/05/25/490528/study-women-are-objects-men-are-people/) Another link (http://netnebraska.org/article/news/unl-study-says-we-view-women-sexual-objects-and-men-people).

Let's not even get into the degree to which women are bombarded with objectified women simply for using the internet. Play now my lord! Eager ladies are waiting for you! Tits! Ass! Disclaimer: This Is A Game Advertisement

But then jackasses just write it off as sex sells. But if it's as simple as that why aren't they marketing to women's sex drives?

If you wanna complain about beauty standards, that's a perfectly valid thing to be upset about. I agree with tearing them down. They're bullshit and gross and terrible.

What I dislike is that rather than try and start some meaningful conversation about a serious issue, your thread opening is just how nobody cares about your manpain.

And when your thread is about how nobody cares about your manpain, you aren't exactly asking for a worthwhile conversation in the first place.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

What I dislike is that rather than try and start some meaningful conversation about a serious issue, your thread opening is just how nobody cares about your manpain.

Smooth, kim. Real smooth.

[Bells]

I think it's fair to say that the grounds are quite uneven on that battlefront... but yes, guys are targeted to. And not just by women. There is also culture of Men objectifying men... shit goes deeper.

Truth be told... we have layers of shit underneath every facet of mankind. Some more, some less... but everybody gets a slice.

[Marc v4.0]

This isn't objectification, it's just plain ole unrealistic body standards. Objectification is a completely different concept as Kim so nicely and neatly laid out.

Society at large defines a women as A Thing To Be Acquired and Possessed(objectification) and tells men They Have To Look/Act Like This (unrealistic body standards) in order to do so.

If we're going to have this conversation, we should start it off right by not obfuscating together two completely different concepts as the Same Thing when They Are Not.

[Solid Snake]

Aero: I personally simultaneously feel empathetic towards your personal struggles with being considered 'unattractive' or 'undesirable' as a relational partner, while also believing that you're essentially taking a deeply personal, individualistic issue and trying to blow it open into a social justice commentary that really is inapplicable contextually to said struggles.

No feminist who's arguing vehemently about women being objectified as a significant societal problem is trying to downplay or minimize the fact that everyone's got their own life stories and their own personal struggles. That's something I struggled with too, because upon hearing a lot of social justice criticisms for the first time, my reaction was "But I'm not like those men you're criticizing, so why are you labeling the privileged group as just 'men', as if it's applicable to every guy?"

There were two things that were really goin' on beneath the surface when I'd make that objection. The first was that I was in active denial of my own, at times involuntary, at times subconscious participation in the very elements of objectification I'd consciously condemn. We're all shaped and molded by the society we live in, and I absolutely was more misogynistic than I believed I was; it was just very 'subtle' in its execution. Perhaps more insidiously, however, often when I'd make those initial angry claims about "not being like those men [feminists are criticizing]", I'd often catch myself objecting less because I really identified with the women and more because I secretly or subconsciously wished I was one of those men. I think that's a harder thing to talk about, how those of us who are less-fortunate members of an otherwise still privileged class would probably still be sorely tempted to take advantage of said privilege if ideal circumstances to do so materialized.

So, yes: Just because 'men' in our patriarchal society generally are in ideal positions to objectify and dehumanize women doesn't mean that every man individually could wield that power. I guess I'd just be careful to ensure that many of your personal gripes about being 'unattractive' or 'undesirable' aren't really ways of expressing a hidden desire to be one of those men at the top of the totem pole, and to be in a position where you could be the one who's objectifying.

[Kim]

One thing I do wanna throw out is that there probably is a degree to which men are objectified but I would wager that that extent is almost entirely along racial lines. i.e. I can't see white men being objectified to any statistically worthwhile amount but I would be DAMN surprised to find out black men aren't objectified a lot. Tho even there I expect its worse for black women, cuz I'm certain its worse for black women than white women. But AFAIK studies on objectification haven't taken race /and/ gender into account and that's a shame.

[Solid Snake]

I'm probably an average to below-average guy in the looks department, honestly, but I'm genuinely struggling to identify a single time in my life where I've truly been objectified.
There have certainly been moments where I've been rejected and 'treated poorly', in my own opinion, by women I've expressed interest in, but even then I've always been treated as a human being, just like, not the kind of human being they'd want to date.

And Donald Sterling was definitely objectifying the (athletic) black men who played basketball for team he own[ed], that was kind of disgustingly fascinating to listen to.

[Aerozord]

this is what I'm talking about, the moment a white male talks about being treated poorly by society people dog pile on them about having the audacity to dare imply that I am in any way dehumanized. So fixated on needing a group to blame they instantly reject the notion that they have any issues themselves.

Because heaven forbid someone imply that women can be shallow, abusive, and treat men as mere objects to lust after.

[Solid Snake]

You may well be in a position where you're being treated poorly by society, Aero, but I just don't think you're being treated poorly because you're white and/or male.

[Inbred Chocobo]

So, I'm going to take a moment to address Objectification from both aspects, and take a look at the idea of how objectification occurs and why it happens. Personal feelings aside that had caused this thread to generate, I wouldn't mind peering into the idea of objectification of people in general, and why it occurs.

Generally, when we refer to Objectification, we are referring to specifically Sexual Objectification. Basically say we see someone as a sex object, something to release primal desires and end of story. When women experience Objectification, generally it is this class of Objectification that is experienced. Considering societal and cultural views that we have as a human race over sex in general, being viewed as a sexual object suddenly also imposes a large amount of viral and hateful views on a person, all because of a desire.

Thank you to Kim for linking studies that already show already some of the differences between attractive members of both genders, and we already see how Objectification differs. Particularly, what is interesting about the articles is how people perceive the opposite gender. What do you hear about women as they are discussed? Their hair, their dress, how she composes himself, a large amount of topics are always focused on her appearance. That right there is objectification, and we only have to turn on the news channels to see it readily available. What gets dangerous about Objectification here is that we treat it so much ingrained in society, so part of the normal, that it causes incredible amounts of problems. This really is a big problem, in thinking about a person on how they look, how they appear, and judging someone like this causes incredible amounts of internal torment in that person. It is literally something so ingrained in society its hard to recognize as a problem.

So let us take a look at Objectifying men. Particularly, Sexual Objectification, since that is what we have been looking at that women go through. What is interesting is that if you saw watch something like a red carpet watch and an attractive male comes on. While the words like attractive and handsome are thrown around, they never get into a particular perspective. For example there won't be focused discussion on how that tie matches the jacket and his shoes are just to die for. In fact, the standard dress for a man is simple and almost unchanging. You want to shock the red carpet, you wear something like an orange suit. That is as far as crazy dress goes for men, for women, look at Lady Gaga to get an idea.

Men aren't perceived, even on our highest levels, the same way. Even if we are extremely attractive, and girls take a look at a sexual level, the judgement qualities and what is asked is far far different than what objectification happens in women. What really is considered amazing in a man that pushes him is a certain charm, a personality that goes with the person, a state on how he acts, a cool guy. For a woman, personality can range all over the place, no one cares, she just has to have great bobs.

So yes, Men can be Objectified, but do not think for an instant that it is anything comapred to the Objectification of Women.

[Bells]

So yes, Men can be Objectified, but do not think for an instant that it is anything comapred to the Objectification of Women.

So, allow me to ask this...

Does this nullify the legitimacy of the complaint of an individual?

If we speak levels, both sides have some. But it is quite obvious that women are waaaaaaay more targetted. But... does that make someone who suffers on the other end of the spectrum less valid? Less worthy of sympathy?


Maybe it's a ''Micro Vs Macro'' correlation, i don't know... what comes to mind is the ''How can you feast at home when there are starving children in africa?!" argument ... i don't claim it to be legitimate, to be honest i would not be able to tell you who valid the comparison would be.... it just came to mind.

[phil_]

Well, Bells, Aero started this topic about how women holding him to an unreasonable concept of beauty makes him feel bad, and it makes him feel worse when people act like objectification only happens to women and he'd like that to stop. Problem is, the "acting like only women are objectified" being done is "discussing the objectification of women." And this happens a lot, people asking that discussion of the objectification of women cease because that's acting like men aren't objectified. It happens so often four people ahead of me already had thought out statements on the matter ready to go. But, in reality, discussing the objectification of women isn't acting like men aren't objectified: it's discussing the objectification of women.

To borrow your starving children in Africa metaphor, the request that people stop acting like men aren't objectified (when, again, all that's happening is that women are being discussed) is akin to "Why are we talking about starving kids in Africa, I haven't had anything to eat in hours!" Which, on a micro level of, say, conversation on a road trip would be acceptable; but on the macro level of "things we're allowed to talk about" really isn't.

[Solid Snake]

Well, Bells, Aero started this topic about how women holding him to an unreasonable concept of beauty makes him feel bad

...I'm just not sure whether I believe this is actually what's happening, as opposed to what Aero believes is happening.

Like, are women in Aero's life treating him solely as a sexual object, giving him a 'subpar' rating, and then discarding him in totality as a person and not just as a potential sexual partner solely on a perceived lack of sexual utility? If so, then yes, that's objectification.

But often when men talk about being "objectified" they're really just referencing being upset that women they like don't find them equally attractive. Which actually becomes misogynistic in a sense because the complaint is that men feel they 'deserve' or are 'entitled' to be desired.

It's rare in the context of our patriarchal power structures in society for women to be able to judge a man as 'unworthy' based solely upon physical appearance and then to completely minimize or negate any other compelling contribution as a person the man could make. Despite the fact that I am not incredibly physically attractive, for example, I know that men and women see in me a self-made identity as an intelligent, over-analytical lawyer who's accomplished a fair deal in terms of an education. A woman with the exact same credentials as me would not be viewed by many men in a similarly well-rounded way with the same strengths and accomplishments, unrelated to appearance. That's the problem of objectification that applies in a vastly disproportionate sense to women.

And the fear is that men often want to hijack that language of objectification and apply it to circumstances where they're really just complaining that women who DO value those men as people nonetheless view them as 'unattractive' or 'ugly' or 'undesirable.' And yes, there's a healthy conversation to be had there about unrealistic standards of beauty, but that's not the same conversation as one about objectification.

---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------

Like, please tell me you all can see this: The problem with objectification in a sexual context is "the act of treating a person solely as an instrument of sexual pleasure."

When I read Aero's complaints it strikes me that he's complaining about not being viewed as a potential instrument of sexual pleasure at all by women who he wishes would desire him in that way, which is, y'know, kind of the opposite of the problem of sexual objectification, in which women [and maybe really attractive men too] are just reduced to a walking, talking set of sexual organs designed for others' pleasure.

[Kim]

snake's post is good and i like it

[Seil]

u3PgH86OyEM

DareLondon set up a hidden-camera experiment to see how strangers would react to seeing domestic abuse for ManKind’s #ViolenceIsViolence campaign.

A couple (portrayed by actors) in a London park get into a heated argument and things begin to get out of hand. The man begins to physically abuse his “girlfriend.”

Onlookers immediately notice and take action. One woman even walks up to the guy yelling, “What’s wrong with you?”

More women gather around, and even threaten to call the police.

Then the situation changes. The actors re-create the same scenario, except this time the woman is abusing the man.

This time, bystanders react a little differently…

No one even attempts to help the guy, and people seem more entertained than anything.

As the dispute carries on, the video reveals a rather surprising statistic:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u59/Poetisch/enhanced-23869-1400871707-1_zps6135264e.png

[phil_]

And that's something worth discussing, Seil, but we don't need to stop all discussion of objectification of women in order to discuss double-standards of domestic violence, nor does discussing one belittle or prevent discussion of the other. This is a very important thing to understand if you're going to get into social justice issues without going into full-on, "nothing is getting through here" defense mode as a het cis white male etc.

[Kim]

If Seil's statistic is accurate, which is something I'm currently looking into, then it is a serious problem and one worth discussing. It is, of course, a natural side-effect of patriarchal ideas about gender. When society is taught that Men Are Strong And Women Are Weak, or that Men Are Dominant And Women Submissive, violence against men by women will be seen as less of an issue because Men Are Strong And Women Are Weak. It's part of why ideas of strength and its relationship to gender need to be dismantled. Patriarchy hurts men and women, it's just that the men are unintended victims. Of course, that is a different discussion than sexualization and objectification, but whatever.

I would like to see more about this particularly statistic, tho. In particular, how they gathered their information and what factors may have influenced the results one way or another. I am not a statistician tho so unless I hear from folks who know better I will treat this statistic as valid in this thread until shown otherwise.

[shiney]

You may well be in a position where you're being treated poorly by society, Aero, but I just don't think you're being treated poorly because you're white and/or male.

Yeah I'm gonna ^^THIS here. 'Cause, this.

Typed up a bunch more. Deleted it. No need to pile on here because people have already said everything I was going to. I sympathize with you, but I also agree with Snake. As a white male the term 'privilege' annoys me because to me, it feels like I am being judged because of what my peers do, but that doesn't change the fact that I as a white male don't have to put up with the BS that literally every single human being who is not both white and male do.

[Inbred Chocobo]

So, allow me to ask this...

Does this nullify the legitimacy of the complaint of an individual?

If we speak levels, both sides have some. But it is quite obvious that women are waaaaaaay more targetted. But... does that make someone who suffers on the other end of the spectrum less valid? Less worthy of sympathy?


Maybe it's a ''Micro Vs Macro'' correlation, i don't know... what comes to mind is the ''How can you feast at home when there are starving children in africa?!" argument ... i don't claim it to be legitimate, to be honest i would not be able to tell you who valid the comparison would be.... it just came to mind.

I guess the point here that I am trying to convey is that trying to push is that trying to make this comparison.

"I know those African children are starving, but I forgot my lunch today and man I am hungry."

[synkr0nized]

So no one's going to take a pause from semantics to give Aero words of encouragement?



People of any and all genders are often hypocrites, Aero. We all certainly have things that appeal to us, at varying levels, about physical appearance, and unfortunately often these desires can overshadow intent or, in less generous terms, take center stage despite what people say out of the other side of their face. That doesn't mean it will always happen, and that doesn't mean that it will always happen to you / among your potential relationship partners.

Sometimes it's nice to look even if it's not realistic. I was recently dating someone that had a list of celebrity/athlete partners that she'd go on about, but I was never judged on a similar scale, if you get what I mean.

[Solid Snake]

So no one's going to take a pause from semantics to give Aero words of encouragement?



Aero: I personally simultaneously feel empathetic towards your personal struggles with being considered 'unattractive' or 'undesirable' as a relational partner,

Really, we're only objecting to Aero using inappropriate terminology to describe a phenomenon that is completely normal and absolutely human. Namely, we all want to feel attractive and desirable, and I don't think anyone who's been arguing 'semantics' objects to the notion that we feel a fundamental desire to be loved.

When Aero starts using language that suggests that he's choosing to view this a gender issue where all women everywhere are part of 'the problem' in collectively rejecting him, that's where it becomes problematic.

It's subsequently possible to empathize with Aero's real underlying issue, while seeking to deter him from mis-defining what that issue actually is. If anything, that 'tough love' approach ultimately helps him in his quest to find love. If he ditches a lot of the attitude that would, if unchecked, lead to bitterness towards women, he'll have a much easier time actually relating to the first one he meets who he'd be truly compatible with and who'd reciprocate affection.

[Kim]

I guess I'm just not too sympathetic to a guy calling women hypocrites because they dislike being sexually objectified but aren't physically attracted to him.

Why would I offer encouragement to that?

Like, it he wanted to talk about beauty standards getting him down? I'd be sympathetic. Gee Aero I'm sorry beauty standards got you down.

He doesn't want to talk about that tho. He wants to call women hypocrites for talking about guys we think are hot and not being attracted to him.

EDIT: I might also suggest that if you're a person who calls women hypocrites for "drooling" over guys they find attractive and not wanting to bone you cuz you aren't physically fit, perhaps your issues with finding romance aren't as much about appearance as you seem to be assuming.

[McTahr]

this is what I'm talking about, the moment a white male talks about being treated poorly by society people dog pile on them about having the audacity to dare imply that I am in any way dehumanized. So fixated on needing a group to blame they instantly reject the notion that they have any issues themselves.

Because heaven forbid someone imply that women can be shallow, abusive, and treat men as mere objects to lust after.

Unless a white male has for decades/centuries/whatever has suffered systemic oppression, marginalization, and dehumanization, their individual, statistically insignificant day-to-day suffering will not be as socially noteworthy as that of other, less privileged groups.

Bad stuff happens. That's what bad stuff does.

Bad stuff happening does not equate with an entire culture built around dehumanizing half the population.

Please, if you've been hurt, seek out a good friend* and talk it out. And if you've been hurt, maybe wait until the hurt passes to wade into social issues.

*A good friend who is at least remotely socially conscious and not of any particular awful X-ist group.

[RawBot]

I think Aero is frustrated that women get cheered on and he is alone with what he thinks is a similar burden.

I'm sorry it sucks Aero. I think you'll become less unhappy if you don't "crystallise" around this difficulty and try to blame people, yourself or the vague notion that is Society. It might also help to further realise how we don't need looks or muscles/boobs to be successful with the opposite gender, and how it's more about the image and impression we convey :)


That said, this thread, no, the forum itself gives a cool insight into an aspect of American culture that I rarely experienced first hand. It barely exists at all in my own culture even though we're not that different. I can see both good and bad coming from this aspect that I'd rather not name until I pinpoint it with more certainty... It seems related to the weight of communities on individuals, not unlike what many are calling out in this thread.

What's even more fun is that I'm already quite familiar with American culture(s) and as I said, my own culture is among the closest to yours that you can find in the world, yet, I can still be struck :)
No wonder Russian, Indian, Japanese, Arabian cultures look so odd to us, and no wonder many among us Occidentals downright condemn or admire certain cultures altogether just because they came across certain oddities.

Sorry I diverged from the topic more than I intended. Feel free to create a separate thread or PM me if you want to go on or something.

[synkr0nized]

EDIT: I might also suggest that if you're a person who calls women hypocrites for "drooling" over guys they find attractive and not wanting to bone you cuz you aren't physically fit, perhaps your issues with finding romance aren't as much about appearance as you seem to be assuming.

If you are directly addressing me (though I never said anything about drooling or omg they aren't having sex with me): The hypocrite comment and the last part of my post are not at all connected. My intent was to show that it's pretty normal to have physical attraction to particular body types and the like, and that it doesn't require that one snubs everyone that they meet who does not necessarilly fit into that mold.

The "hypocrites" element stems from how easy it is to say one thing and not realize you are doing the opposite, at least on some level. It's pretty common across various facets of life.

[Marc v4.0]

I think it's really pretty clear she was still referring to Aero there, since he was the one doing exactly that thing as described.

Honestly, given recent events I'm not sure how anyone could think this topic was just a super great idea. It's only a few words away from 'girls only want jerks' territory.

[Tev]

I thought Cracked covered this like two years ago... (http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html)

[synkr0nized]

I think it's really pretty clear she was still referring to Aero there, since he was the one doing exactly that thing as described.

Honestly, given recent events I'm not sure how anyone could think this topic was just a super great idea. It's only a few words away from 'girls only want jerks' territory.

I did use "hypocrites", and was worried I came across quite differently from how I had intended or thought I did. So I felt it was worthwhile to check and clarify, though upon re-read now I worry that my post might seem passive aggressive or something, so bleaugh. But anyway, I figure it can't hurt to clarify since my original post was brief, poorly constructed, and likely easily interpreted a few different ways.

[shiney]

Some people second-guess themselves. synk seventeenth-guesses.

synk. Don't seventeenth-guess. Don't be that guy.

[Krylo]

20 guess minimum.

[RawBot]

I thought Cracked covered this like two years ago... (http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html)
The last part is fun!

But it's such an overboard generalisation. The viewpoint described applies to some males indeed, but definitely not all or even most of us.

Isn't that called the animalisation of men ? I guess it's better than being an object though :D

[Bard The 5th LW]

The last part is fun!

But it's such an overboard generalisation. The viewpoint described applies to some males indeed, but definitely not all or even most of us.

Isn't that called the animalisation of men ? I guess it's better than being an object though :D

Bro did you just legit say "Not all men" in a totally unironic context.

[RawBot]

So you trigger to those words ? :p

That context is fine since it has nothing to do with sexism, but concerns how a man thinks men think. Well, I say he is wrong. I could eventually argue that internalizing his description may not help fix the rape culture. Fortunately his article as a whole dismisses this last concern.

[Red Mage Black]

So, now I'm going to make a claim, but first, I'm going to confirm something for the rest of you (Kim, Snake, Marc, Bard, etc.):

You guys are absolutely right. Men aren't nearly as sexually objectified as women. I can't argue against this. However, men are objectified by wealth. As money machines so to speak. It's kind of funny that we talk about objectification based on marketing and society though, because women spend 88% of the money earned, in total, in the United States. Which means that women have the power to control what is marketed and what isn't. Companies put out to the demographic that earns them the most cash. So, the question here is, why haven't women changed this yet? If you can answer without using Patriarchy, Manosphere or any other buzzwords that don't make sense and I don't care to know, you get bonus points. I can make them up too and say what meanings they have.

Another question I pose is, how do we allow free agency, the right to choose what one does with their own body and get rid of the objectification of both sexes at the same time? I have my own answer to this question, but I want to hear others opinions on it.

This post is just an interim while I compile bigger argument.

[Solid Snake]

women spend 88% of the money earned, in total, in the United States.

Citation needed

[Red Mage Black]

Citation Given (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ekaterina-walter/the-power-of-women_1_b_2908812.html)
And if the fact it was also written by a woman isn't enough for you, you could always look up spending habits from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

[Kim]

Does the citation you give address the fact that as sexism relegates many women to the roles of stay-at-home moms, they are of course going to do much of the spending since they'll be the ones buying groceries and other necessities for the house? That's part of the consumer spending market. Even the not-stay-at-home women are often relegated to shopping for many household necessities. Cuz gender roles.

And, if men feel they are objectified by wealth, the easy solution to this would be to stop skewing the system such that women consistently make less than men for doing the same work. That women are denied many of the upper jobs. The women who defy this of course always being white, because patriarchy intersects with white supremacy.

And when it comes to making money, the Huffington Post reports that the 2012 ranking of the 500 largest corporations in the United States includes a record 18 firms helmed by female CEOs, up from 12 companies in 2011.

Furthermore, the reason women are not catered to despite spending the majority of the money is that many of these business, companies, etc are controlled by men who cater to their own demographics, who prioritize their own interests, and who do their damnedest, usually unintentionally, to drive women from these spaces.

If you're going to argue women are objectifying men according to wealth you'll have to provide evidence other than spending. You'll have to provide info as to what women are spending that money on, vs men. Even that doesn't equate objectification. You would then have to prove that there is dehumanization of men based on this. That there is a culture of objectifying men according to wealth. Because who is spending the money doesn't reflect the psychological aspects.

Follow-Up: Even if your claim that women objectify men according to their wealth is true (the implication being that women feel entitled to the wealth of men), I'm curious what abuses this contributes to. We already know what abuses men objectifying women's bodies encourages, because rape and other forms of abuse often come from a place of the man feeling entitled to the woman's body.

[Ryong]

But that link says nothing about a study and the link in it to what you'd think would be a study also just throws "over 80% of the consumer economy" in the exact same way.

[Fifthfiend]

So no one's going to take a pause from semantics to give Aero words of encouragement?


Of course not he's a man, he don't need encouragement for his feelings he needs derision for his ~manfeels~

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

What I dislike is that rather than try and start some meaningful conversation about a serious issue, your thread opening is just how nobody cares about your manpain.


For real, fuck you

---------- Post added at 07:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

Like kim literally says that male objectification doesn't happen and that men are always forever treated as real-ass people for reals in the same breath as telling him his feelings aren't real and don't matter

listening to shit like this is why i let crazy bitches give me nervous fucking breakdowns

[Kim]

But that link says nothing about a study and the link in it to what you'd think would be a study also just throws "over 80% of the consumer economy" in the exact same way.

This is also true. If your citation doesn't actually source its info it isn't a particularly useful citation.

[Satan's Onion]

Christ almighty, why is it we can't have nice things? I'm locking this for the time being because our nosedive into Shitburgh has broken the speed of sound and us staffpeople need to confer to figure out how to pull up.

[Fenris]

For real, fuck you

Dude I know you're goin' through a rough time right now and all that but seriously that's never been An Okay Thing To Do.

Just wanted to make that abundantly clear while we're hashing this thing out upstairs.

[McTahr]

The current mod consensus is thus:
We dislike the possibility of intolerance and the like forcing the path of the debate through rulings. Currently this thread will be re-opened for discussion following these caveats:
1) Do not bring personal history or personal issues into the discussion.
2) Be T-Rexcellent to one another.

If these cannot be followed, especially #2, we'll have to ask you to move on to other subjects.

Fifth, we understand that you are going through some stuff, and we know that there is history behind this. We want you to have a welcome space on the nets, however, we kindly ask that history remains in history.

If there are any further questions, please direct them to Krylo, our PR extraordinaire.

[Kim]

So, on the subject of Seil's earlier thing about intimate partner violence here is an interesting link (http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/Pages/measuring.aspx). Kit found it and I'm still reading through it but basically it talks about the troubles with existing statistics for intimate partner violence and what some of their statistics are.

Of note...

The studies that find that women abuse men equally or even more than men abuse women are based on data compiled through the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), a survey tool developed in the 1970s. CTS may not be appropriate for intimate partner violence research because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics; it also leaves out sexual assault and violence by ex-spouses or partners and does not determine who initiated the violence.

A review of the research found that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90 percent of "systematic, persistent, and injurious" violence is perpetrated by men. BJS reports that 30 percent of female homicide victims are murdered by their intimate partners compared with 5 percent of male homicide victims, and that 22 percent of victims of nonfatal intimate partner violence are female but only 3 percent are male. Researchers that use city- and State-generated databases for analysis, however, attribute 40–50 percent of female homicides to intimate partners. This discrepancy likely results from omission of ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends from the Federal Supplementary Homicide Reports that are used by BJS. Ex-boyfriends account for up to 11 percent of intimate partner homicides committed by men, and ex-girlfriends account for up to 3 percent of intimate partner homicides committed by women.

Many researchers agree that better measurement tools are needed to determine how intimate partner violence fits within the context of coercive control. How the victim perceives the violence is another factor (for example, within some intimate partner relationships, the victim may not perceive a particular type of abuse as battering and may not report it as such).

TL;DR: The 40% statistic is likely way off, but what the actual statistic is is debateable just because we're lacking the proper tools to measure this stuff accurately and meaningfully.

[Aerozord]

I want to say I have not been following this. I quickly saw where this was going and with all the crap in my life right now I didn't want to have to defend myself.

Though I popped back in to give a very simple elaboration of a poorly written opening post heavily influenced by depression.

My only point was this. Objectification is not as simple as "men are objectifying women" its "everyone is objectifying everyone". Our culture has plenty of problems on all sides with how it views relationships and sex. I just wanted to say we shouldn't lose sight of this by making blanket statements blaming all the problems on one group while acting like another is completely innocent and never does the same.

[Kim]

I understand you having a lot of crap going on in your life and needing to vent, and I sympathize with that. I just don't particularly like men calling women hypocrites for being guilty of one thing and complaining about an entirely different issue. I appreciate you acknowledging the opening post was poorly written.

As I'm pretty sure I said earlier, if beauty standards got ya down, I sympathize. I really truly do. We're all subject to beauty standards, and these standards are so wrapped up in -isms they're a fucking Christmas present of garbage.

But that's still different than objectification. Women actually do contribute to objectification, too. (Objectification of women, and also objectification according to race and even trans status) But you gotta lay the blame at the one's primarily responsible. Industries run by and catering to straight men are the prime sources of this objectification. It becomes uncritically consumed by the audience, and that consumption feeds the machine that continues this system.

When women are objectified, it is done for straight men. It is done primarily (but not exclusively) by men, most of them straight. So when you talk about objectification, yes, people are going to blame men, because men are the ones responsible on both ends. The ways women contribute are a form of internalized misogyny, which is a symptom of the root problem.

As for beauty standards, I feel like while they are more strict for women, they are more even-handed in terms of gender than the issue of objectification (at least for cis folks). Still, these beauty standards benefit certain groups over others. i.e. Culture at large considers me ugly for perceived masculine traits. The only way in which that culture deems me attractive is as a fetish object for straight men.

Additionally, our beauty standards are very white centric. Where making black women more palatable to our culture at large involves lightening their skin with photoshop. Where the beauty of black people is often centered around exotifying them.

This stuff intersects, too. I'm "ugly" because I'm trans and I don't pass as cis, but as a fetish object I'm considered more attractive than many others on account of being white and skinny. So, even tho I'm trans I still benefit a lot from thin privilege and white privilege.

Which doesn't invalidate anybody feeling down about personal appearance or wanting to tear down beauty standards or being upset at people uncritically indulging beauty standards, but I think in any discussion about beauty standards this shit is important to keep in mind.

[Aerozord]

But that's still different than objectification. Women actually do contribute to objectification, too. (Objectification of women, and also objectification according to race and even trans status) But you gotta lay the blame at the one's primarily responsible.

No, you lay blame on everyone contributing. Just because you are not part of the demographic you deem responsible does not make you immune to blame. If you are a woman and are being sexist, its still wrong. You are still part of the problem. Likewise just because women are the primary victims doesn't mean men cant be victims too.

I do not group people together like that. Specific men are objectifying women, not all men are responsible. Just because not all men are responsible doesn't mean there aren't men at fault.

I apply the same to women. Specific women are objectifying men, not all women are responsible. Just because not all women are responsible doesn't mean there aren't women at fault.

[Inbred Chocobo]

My only point was this. Objectification is not as simple as "men are objectifying women" its "everyone is objectifying everyone". Our culture has plenty of problems on all sides with how it views relationships and sex. I just wanted to say we shouldn't lose sight of this by making blanket statements blaming all the problems on one group while acting like another is completely innocent and never does the same.

Now that is a good point. I meant only to imply that the objectification of men and women are different, and what most people interpret as objectification is really Sexual Objectification, which that lies primarily on women. Definitely not only men objectify, its simply not as prevalent.

Though Sexual Objectification is certainly not the only type of objectifying. People being seen as a source of income, or money, I would imagine is seen all the time. Not only do we have issues with objectification, we also have different kinds of objectifying to intermix. With this plus this being a sensitive topic for some, this can definitely lead to hurt feelings.


However, I kind of want to explore women objectifying men, simply because its a lesser known quantity. Let's take a look at someone that inspires feminism. Marilyn Monroe.

Here is what is interesting about Marilyn Monroe, a whole conversation could be started was that was she actually a feminist or was she actually just a sex object and showed what damage could be done by the male gaze. However, the people that pose that she was a feminist make an interesting proposal that we will examine.

One of the contributing reasons she was such an icon was because the life she had was one she built. She was abused as a child, lived in orphanages, and through all of that she built a life of wealth and acting, using her sexuality to be liberating and empowering. She didn't shy away from her sexuality, she embraced it and used it for herself.

So does that mean she was used and an object, or was she strong and empowered?

Let's take another look at something completely different. So, we all know about Girls Gone Wild, in which people go out, viewing young girls and encouraging them into lewd acts. There was something interesting though, as when people apart of this, both crew and the ladies involved, this was never viewed as derogatory, never actually turning girls into sex objects. They argued that this was women taking control over their own sexuality, they were the ones that decided who they were, both sexual identity and not, and chose what to do with it. This was not them being forced into sex objects, and being railed into certain roles, but instead taking charge, and choosing for a moment, for whatever personal reasons, they could be this way.

Does that mean these women were objectified, or does it mean because they chose to take charge of their own sexuality, they are in fact rising above it?

You can't have a person without some kind of sexual identity. Whether they are homosexual, extremely promiscuous, completely virgin and untouched, that is ultimately a part of who they are. A woman being in charge and choosing what she does with her sexuality is a part of her. It is not the only part, this should always be remembered, but you do just as much harm to ignore it completely as you would to define her completely from it.

I could very well see this line of thinking making women view others as objects as well. This as we stand now is certainly not the case, but if we don't consider it, could we potential be encouraging women to simply start objectifying men as a way to promote feminism? If we are, is that certainly the best way to go about it?

Well, its a thought anyway.

[shiney]

I guess it's more like, column A is not equal to column B in terms of volume or quantity [of objectification] but I don't think anyone really felt like the reverse didn't happen. Just that you don't often hear about women glorifying the murder of men because they couldn't get laid.

No comments from the peanut gallery please. :p

[Kim]

The thing that Aero's arguing would require that all actions be devoid of context. In a world without context, a single man judging a woman based on her looks is no worse than a single woman doing the same.

Except we live in a world where our actions do have context. Where what we do, and even what we don't do, reflects and reinforces aspects of our society.

Even assuming that women objectifying white men according to appearance happens, which would specifically be women dehumanizing men according to physical traits, it is inarguable that the scale on which that happens is dwarfed by that of the objectification of women.

If Aero wants to argue men and women are objectified the same amount in our society, then this is simply a discussion I do not have the emotional energy for, and would gladly tag someone else in to address this grievous error of judgment.

So, in our society, in which it is the norm to objectify women according to physical appearance, that objectification is being primarily perpetuated by men and for men. What is important to note is that men benefit from it. What this means is that even if you yourself are not directly perpetuating something with your actions, you can still benefit from it.

When men as a whole are called out for this, it is because men as a whole benefit from this status quo. Women who perpetuate this sexism do deserve to be called out, but not as a whole. Individually. Because while those who do are doing something shitty, their doing so does not benefit women as a whole. At best, it benefits those specific women, and quite often those benefits can be lost in an instant at the whims of society at large.

This is how sexism works. The status quo is beneficial to men, because it has been created by men and is being perpetuated by men. That is why we call it patriarchy. Simply failing to contribute doesn't negate this. You must actively fight against it, and even as you do so you are still experiencing benefits of the system you must fight.

This is how it is for all forms of oppression. I benefit from structural racism in our society, so when black people or other people of color speak up about white people as a whole, I shouldn't go, "Not all white people!" I shouldn't go, "But some of us are trying to change it!" I especially shouldn't go, "Well Chappelle made jokes about white people and racism hurts everyone and you shouldn't blame all white people for racism." I should sit down, shut up, and recognize the voices of those hurt by oppression that I benefit from.

Even if a black person says prejudiced shit about white people or about me because I'm white, I don't experience any meaningful harm because of it, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to call that racism, because that hypothetical prejudice is not part of institutional oppression.

[Red Mage Black]

However, I kind of want to explore women objectifying men, simply because its a lesser known quantity. Let's take a look at someone that inspires feminism. Marilyn Monroe.

Here is what is interesting about Marilyn Monroe, a whole conversation could be started was that was she actually a feminist or was she actually just a sex object and showed what damage could be done by the male gaze. However, the people that pose that she was a feminist make an interesting proposal that we will examine.

One of the contributing reasons she was such an icon was because the life she had was one she built. She was abused as a child, lived in orphanages, and through all of that she built a life of wealth and acting, using her sexuality to be liberating and empowering. She didn't shy away from her sexuality, she embraced it and used it for herself.

So does that mean she was used and an object, or was she strong and empowered?


Correction, Marilyn Monroe was not a feminist and believed both sexes needed the other. I could dig up some of her quotes if you'd like.


Let's take another look at something completely different. So, we all know about Girls Gone Wild, in which people go out, viewing young girls and encouraging them into lewd acts. There was something interesting though, as when people apart of this, both crew and the ladies involved, this was never viewed as derogatory, never actually turning girls into sex objects. They argued that this was women taking control over their own sexuality, they were the ones that decided who they were, both sexual identity and not, and chose what to do with it. This was not them being forced into sex objects, and being railed into certain roles, but instead taking charge, and choosing for a moment, for whatever personal reasons, they could be this way.

Does that mean these women were objectified, or does it mean because they chose to take charge of their own sexuality, they are in fact rising above it?

You can't have a person without some kind of sexual identity. Whether they are homosexual, extremely promiscuous, completely virgin and untouched, that is ultimately a part of who they are. A woman being in charge and choosing what she does with her sexuality is a part of her. It is not the only part, this should always be remembered, but you do just as much harm to ignore it completely as you would to define her completely from it.

I could very well see this line of thinking making women view others as objects as well. This as we stand now is certainly not the case, but if we don't consider it, could we potential be encouraging women to simply start objectifying men as a way to promote feminism? If we are, is that certainly the best way to go about it?

Well, its a thought anyway.

So then, where do we draw the line in softcore/hardcore porn and advertising between expressing sexuality and objectification?

The thing that Aero's arguing would require that all actions be devoid of context. In a world without context, a single man judging a woman based on her looks is no worse than a single woman doing the same.

Except we live in a world where our actions do have context. Where what we do, and even what we don't do, reflects and reinforces aspects of our society.

Even assuming that women objectifying white men according to appearance happens, which would specifically be women dehumanizing men according to physical traits, it is inarguable that the scale on which that happens is dwarfed by that of the objectification of women.

So you acknowledge it, but since it's "not as much" it doesn't matter or that it would only ever happen in a world without context or both? You see, this is what one of the problems of feminism is which only offers relief to the needs of the some and completely ignores the plight of the other and while doing so, allows the other to willingly decline. Egalitarianism is the only way to go. Your movement has already been poisoned by the rad fems who have painted your movement in a negative light. Women's Studies courses only continue this trend. If you need proof, check out the CAFE protest on YouTube. This is why some women don't even want to associate with you people.


If Aero wants to argue men and women are objectified the same amount in our society, then this is simply a discussion I do not have the emotional energy for, and would gladly tag someone else in to address this grievous error of judgment.

Or that you just don't want to do the work to prove him wrong.


So, in our society, in which it is the norm to objectify women according to physical appearance, that objectification is being primarily perpetuated by men and for men. What is important to note is that men benefit from it. What this means is that even if you yourself are not directly perpetuating something with your actions, you can still benefit from it.
Implying:
"You may not have been at the scene of the crime as it happened, but the fact you're associated to the suspect by sex and race means you're guilty of it, too."

Is that what you mean?


When men as a whole are called out for this, it is because men as a whole benefit from this status quo. Women who perpetuate this sexism do deserve to be called out, but not as a whole. Individually. Because while those who do are doing something shitty, their doing so does not benefit women as a whole. At best, it benefits those specific women, and quite often those benefits can be lost in an instant at the whims of society at large.

Which is actually a complete and total crock. Because the justice system and all forms of it, Politics, Social Security and Healthcare favor women. The only thing men excel at now is business and economics.

As for your earlier statement about Domestic Violence towards men being "way lower" than 40% is also a crock. Hell, that was your guess towards it and I'm sure you think it's absolute.


This is how sexism works. The status quo is beneficial to men, because it has been created by men and is being perpetuated by men. That is why we call it patriarchy. Simply failing to contribute doesn't negate this. You must actively fight against it, and even as you do so you are still experiencing benefits of the system you must fight.


1. I've already stated this above. Law, politics, social security and healthcare favor women.

2. Once again, implying guilt by association to sex and race.


This is how it is for all forms of oppression. I benefit from structural racism in our society, so when black people or other people of color speak up about white people as a whole, I shouldn't go, "Not all white people!" I shouldn't go, "But some of us are trying to change it!" I especially shouldn't go, "Well Chappelle made jokes about white people and racism hurts everyone and you shouldn't blame all white people for racism." I should sit down, shut up, and recognize the voices of those hurt by oppression that I benefit from.

This is at best hypocritical and at worst patronizing.


Even if a black person says prejudiced shit about white people or about me because I'm white, I don't experience any meaningful harm because of it, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to call that racism, because that hypothetical prejudice is not part of institutional oppression.

Again:
At best: Hypocritical
At worst: Patronizing

Prejudice is prejudice, no matter how you look at it. There is no 'hypothetical' about it. Anyone hating anyone solely based on race is racism.

By the way: This is the woman who wrote about the statistic of >80% of women spending. Yes, it's more than groceries. It involves real estate just as well. (http://www.trendsight.com/content/view/40/204/) And... Women own or co-own almost half the businesses in America(Check pg.36). (http://www.womenable.com/userfiles/downloads/2013_State_of_Women-Owned_Businesses_Report_FINAL.pdf) So, what is this about women having no control over anything business related?

Now it's your turn to cite the claims you've been making before I go any further. You are not excused from the burden of proof.

[rpgdemon]

Or that you just don't want to do the work to prove him wrong.

So what? She said she doesn't have the emotional energy to do it, and you're not entitled to a description of why. You're acting entitled, as if Kim is being some lazy jerk, because she does not have the emotional energy required to dig into a hard personal subject at your command.

Also: If you truly think that she's just too lazy to make her entire argument, then you've already proven that she's right. You believe she has an argument, and that it would make her point, based on what you said. You're just using an ad-hominem attack in order to try to directly hurt Kim.

This is an emotionally draining topic for me as well, especially when we get into the subject of abuse, and no, I don't owe you shit in terms of talking about it. I'm just stepping in to defend Kim from what's ostensibly a personal attack.

[Kim]

Holding off on reading RMB's post but yes I don't want to do the work to prove Aero wrong should his belief be that particular avenue of discussion. I have limited energy. I have a life outside this forum. I don't have a limitless font of time and energy to pour into discussions here, and even if I did I feel that that one would be particularly long, tiresome, and ineffective. I'm choosing my battles because I care more about my emotional health than proving someone wrong on the internet.

[Aerozord]

I just dislike the implication that since I am a white hetrosexual male, that any hate, prejudice, or inequality directed at me is inherently ok and that, how did you put it kim? Is "intellectually dishonest" for me to say that it hurts me.

Trust me thats something I'm used to, being treated like garbage and everyone saying its ok because I'm "the privileged majority". Now excuse me, I have to go beg my family for money to pay off my massive student loans because my unemployment was denied.

[Marc v4.0]

Honestly I think a lot of people are getting just straight up emotionally drained trying to make any valid point at all stick, and after a few years only just reading these arguments and only being, more recently, shortly involved..ugh.

Just thinking about typing out a reasoned and researched response that is just going to get ignored or subjected to selective reading, picked apart and every little bit taken out of context as is possible to further terrible arguments, just makes me so fucking tired.

I can't imagine what's it's like dealing with that feeling for Kim, but I can certainly communicate to you how it makes me feel, sitting in the same room with her while it happens and helping her deal with the aftermath.

I'd just rather not be banned again.

[Solid Snake]

I just dislike the implication that since I am a white hetrosexual male, that any hate, prejudice, or inequality directed at me is inherently ok and that, how did you put it kim? Is "intellectually dishonest" for me to say that it hurts me.

Like, you've been skirting around this issue for a while, so can I just ask you one question?
Can you actually give us a **concrete example** of this presumed hate or prejudice you're experiencing?

Because I'm seriously like 99.99% sure that the prejudice you may actually be experiencing in life may well feel real and vibrant and awful to you, but it's also probably not prejudice that stems from you being white, male, or heterosexual.

Therefore, you're really only 'guilty' of trying to make this a social justice issue when it's really just a personal issue of people [women] not liking you, Aerozord, for a variety of reasons that may well be legitimately shitty but that probably aren't in any way related to your gender, race or sexuality.

[Kim]

I didn't say it's intellectually dishonest to say that it hurts you. You're entitled to feeling hurt. I specifically said it'd be intellectually dishonest to call prejudice against white people racism. Likewise, I repeatedly stated throughout that I sympathize with your feeling crummy, especially with feeling crummy about beauty standards.* I'm just saying it's intellectually dishonest to compare the objectification of men that you perceive with the objectification women experience as tho they are the same thing.

*Marc is proven correct that my posts will not be read in full.

I understand you having a lot of crap going on in your life and needing to vent, and I sympathize with that. I just don't particularly like men calling women hypocrites for being guilty of one thing and complaining about an entirely different issue. I appreciate you acknowledging the opening post was poorly written.

As I'm pretty sure I said earlier, if beauty standards got ya down, I sympathize. I really truly do. We're all subject to beauty standards, and these standards are so wrapped up in -isms they're a fucking Christmas present of garbage.

[Krylo]

Correction, Marilyn Monroe was not a feminist and believed both sexes needed the other. I could dig up some of her quotes if you'd like.That's what feminism is.

The idea that is is anything else is coming from groups that want to fracture it because their feelings are hurt by saying they have privilege, and is often done by echoing things no feminist has said for over a decade, and that no feminist who has ever been taken seriously in the movement has ever said, to make feminism seem awful.



So then, where do we draw the line in softcore/hardcore porn and advertising between expressing sexuality and objectification?One word: Agency.

If a woman has agency in expressing her sexuality, if she is acting as a human being who is sexual in nature, it is not objectification. If she is acting purely as an object for the sexual gratification of others, where her personality, wishes, and thoughts either do not matter or matter only in so much as they are more sexually appealing to the viewer, then it is objectification.



So you acknowledge it, but since it's "not as much" it doesn't matter or that it would only ever happen in a world without context or both? You see, this is what one of the problems of feminism is which only offers relief to the needs of the some and completely ignores the plight of the other and while doing so, allows the other to willingly decline. Egalitarianism is the only way to go. Your movement has already been poisoned by the rad fems who have painted your movement in a negative light. Women's Studies courses only continue this trend. If you need proof, check out the CAFE protest on YouTube. This is why some women don't even want to associate with you people.I'm going to say it because no one else can without getting in huge trouble:

You're being dumb.

Like you haven't even read anything that's been posted here or elsewhere about what feminism is. It's the only way to explain this.

Except I know you have. I've seen you do it. I've seen you bring up this exact same argument time and time again and every time we explain to you that the stuff that affects men poorly: 'can't hit a lady', 'men can't cry', 'men have to pay', 'men have to earn the money'.

All of these things are rooted HEAVILY in the gender roles that are precipitated on the idea of men as superior. Being the 'breadwinner' is, in society, seen as a point of pride. Something MEN do to support their families, who need the man to help them. Men can't hit women because women are weaker than men. Men can't cry because showing emotion is for women and things for women are viewed in society in a negative light--EVEN when done BY women.

Yes, this means that women, also, can't cry. Sure society has more flex room on a woman crying but terms like 'flighty broad', 'emotional women', and accusations of women being irrational etc. all go to prove the point I'm making here.

Emotion is bad for men to show because emotion is always bad. We accept it in women because, as a society, we see women as inferior, and they just can't help it.

As for your earlier statement about Domestic Violence towards men being "way lower" than 40% is also a crock. Hell, that was your guess towards it and I'm sure you think it's absolute.Except she listed actual statistics. With a link.

This one: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/Pages/measuring.aspx

And before she had that link she specifically stated she wanted to look into it because it was hard to believe, BUT would take it as truth until she saw conflicting information.



By the way: This is the woman who wrote about the statistic of >80% of women spending. Yes, it's more than groceries. It involves real estate just as well. (http://www.trendsight.com/content/view/40/204/) And... Women own or co-own almost half the businesses in America(Check pg.36). (http://www.womenable.com/userfiles/downloads/2013_State_of_Women-Owned_Businesses_Report_FINAL.pdf) So, what is this about women having no control over anything business related?

Now it's your turn to cite the claims you've been making before I go any further. You are not excused from the burden of proof.Did you read this?

Like, really?

Because it's all handwaving and bullshit. "Oh men have veto power on the house, but only women have the power to say yes, and saying yes is 90%" "And give me a minute while I horribly contort these car purchase facts to exclude anything that's not a car, and anything that's not a new car sale, nevermind most vehicle sales are used. . ."

But you know, never mind that veto power is actually considered the most powerful ability to have in every other context in society, or that this wasn't a study done, just 'ask a realtor'.

Also, your second link is broken.


Conclusion: Your numbers are bad, your ideas are bad, you're taking things said by people who are wrong at face value, and you need to stop.

[Solid Snake]

All of these things are rooted HEAVILY in the gender roles that are precipitated on the idea of men as superior. Being the 'breadwinner' is, in society, seen as a point of pride. Something MEN do to support their families, who need the man to help them. Men can't hit women because women are weaker than men. Men can't cry because showing emotion is for women and things for women are viewed in society in a negative light--EVEN when done BY women.

Let me just add that all these things Krylo mentioned are also great examples of how patriarchy and its standards hurt men, we'd objectively be living in a far greater society if men could cry when they wanted to and if men didn't always have to be breadwinners in every family and if expressing emotion wasn't always seen as a sign of weakness.

(...Well, the exception is hitting women, though I'd rather prefer to believe we should live in a society where no one can hit anyone.)

But if you find these standards objectionable in any way because men are held to some higher or less realistic, idealized standard than women...then your problem is actually still with patriarchy, not with women. These aren't matriarchal standards or standards that women abuse against us, they're standards that men created and men enforce because by and large they keep men in positions of dominance and control.

[Red Mage Black]

I'm just sick and tired of this sounding like some kind of goddamn sex war. This has to do with the people up top, not on the bottom. Your average Joe is not the one exploiting women. So, I have to wonder why some feminists and I'm pointing at Women's Studies now, like to accuse the man on the street of being a potential abuser and anyone who doesn't actively go against them, an apologist. Why men and only men need to be told to stop raping. Your average Joe already knows it's wrong and just saying the words "Stop Raping" is not going to stop those perpetrating the crime, but that isn't the subject here.

Long story short: This has more to do with class than sex/gender/race/etc. Ever wonder why rich people don't say anything about oppression? Exploitation of the poor is a sport for them.

[Marc v4.0]

It is the 'average joe' that commits these actions. If it were so isolated, so concentrated on such a very specific subset of people that were easy to identify and see coming...

I mean, who the fuck do you think commits these acts? Only the rich? Only the advantaged? Poor people can't assault or rape or discriminate? Middle class men don't do these things? Your 'unaverage' person? What are you even saying anymore??

[Kim]

Your average Joe already knows it's wrong and just saying the words "Stop Raping" is not going to stop those perpetrating the crime, but that isn't the subject here.

Here is a thing (http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html)

Societal Attitudes Supporting Rape

- A survey of 6,159 college students enrolled at 32 institutions in the U.S. found the following: (ref 4)

· 54% of the women surveyed had been the victims of some form of sexual abuse; more than one in four college-aged women had been the victim of rape or attempted rape;

· 57% of the assaults occurred on dates;

· 73% of the assailants and 55% of the victims had used alcohol or other drugs prior to the assault;

· 25% of the men surveyed admitted some degree of sexually aggressive behavior;

· 42% of the victims told no one.

- In a survey of high school students, 56% of the girls and 76% of the boys believed forced sex was acceptable under some circumstances. (ref 5)

- A survey of 11-to-14 year-olds found:(ref 5)

· 51% of the boys and 41% of the girls said forced sex was acceptable if the boy, "spent a lot of money" on the girl;

· 31% of the boys and 32% of the girls said it was acceptable for a man to rape a woman with past sexual experience;

· 87% of boys and 79% of girls said sexual assault was acceptable if the man and the woman were married;

· 65% of the boys and 47% of the girls said it was acceptable for a boy to rape a girl if they had been dating for more than six months.

- In a survey of male college students:

· 35% anonymously admitted that, under certain circumstances, they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it (ref 6,7).

· One in 12 admitted to committing acts that met the legal definitions of rape, and 84% of men who committed rape did not label it as rape.(ref 6,7)

- In another survey of college males: (ref 8)

· 43% of college-aged men admitted to using coercive behavior to have sex, including ignoring a woman's protest, using physical aggression, and forcing intercourse.

· 15% acknowledged they had committed acquaintance rape; 11% acknowledged using physical restraints to force a woman to have sex.

- Women with a history of rape or attempted rape during adolescence were almost twice as likely to experience a sexual assault during college, and were three times as likely to be victimized by a husband. (ref 9)

- Sexual assault is reported by 33% to 46% of women who are being physically assaulted by their husbands.(ref 10)

Who is average joe, RMB?

Because whoever he is, his attitudes don't reflect that state of things.

Yeah, people know, "Rape is bad". Which is why very few of them admit to themselves they committed rape. Rapists tell themselves it isn't rape to take advantage of a drunk girl. Rapists say it isn't rape to use coercion to get a girl to have sex with you. Rapists tell themselves it's only rape if it's violent. Rapists decide it wasn't rape cuz the girl didn't struggle enough.

Why men and only men need to be told to stop raping.

Because the overwhelming majority of rape is men raping women, and most rapes of men are committed by other men. Yes, women can do rape. Which is why it's important for us to address the mentalities that lead to the excuses people make for abuse. However, it would be absurd to pretend that rape is not a heavily gendered crime.

[Solid Snake]

I'm just sick and tired of this sounding like some kind of goddamn sex war.

The irony in this statement is that you've made this a 'goddamn sex war' by internalizing criticism of patriarchy as an attack on men.
...When, if anything, patriarchy actually hurts men too. In addition to everything Krylo and I have already touched upon, patriarchy also prevents men from being able to identify with and relate to 50.8% of the human population as fellow human beings. I think that might explain why Aero's really experiencing rejection to a far greater extent than 'objectification' or discrimination as 'white', 'heterosexual' or 'male' ever could.

And so the greatest irony of all may well be that the people who've seemed harshest with Aero in this thread are actually the people who are trying to help him the most. For Aero's part, he just doesn't like the ramifications of the conclusions that are being reached, because life is often too complicated to just skirt by blaming others for our own misfortunes.

[Red Mage Black]

You know what? I'm going to stop saying anything, starting with this post and no, I don't need you to say, "I think that's a good idea," because I already know it is. As a note, because I'm feeling way too high strung for this now and I need some time to think about this stuff.

[Fifthfiend]

Let me just add that all these things Krylo mentioned are also great examples of how patriarchy and its standards hurt men, we'd objectively be living in a far greater society if men could cry when they wanted to and if men didn't always have to be breadwinners in every family and if expressing emotion wasn't always seen as a sign of weakness.

your thread opening is just how nobody cares about your manpain.


See, this is what I'm getting at:

It ain't the patriarchy.

It's just that people don't care.

[Sweet]

Oh look, my first post. It's going to be long, because this has been a lot to slog through.

I know that personal experience was not really meant to be drawn into this again but since Aerozord already dragged his baggage back in, I figure this is fair game:

I am a female in the South. Let me tell you how I am perceived.

I am quiet, therefore I must be stuck up. I am talkative, therefore I must be a gossip. I am a blonde, so I must be stupid. I have black hair and pale skin, so I must be a goth. I am a redhead so I must be a slut. I wear loose shorts so I must be a lesbian. I wear tight jeans so I must be trying too hard. I wear makeup so I must have something I want to cover up. I don't wear makeup so I must not care about my appearance. I choose to drink so I'm asking for it. I don't drink so I'm an uptight bitch. I have a take-charge personality so I'm really bossy. I'm intelligent so I'm a know-it-all.

And all of this is just what is judged off of surface level.

I work in the tech sector, which is male dominated. When at work, if I don't laugh off a sexist joke, I'm a killjoy and a prude. My coworkers feel entitled to ask me about my sex life, or sometimes just to speculate about it. My clothing choices are much more strictly regulated than my male colleagues. I have had customers insinuate that I got my job "on my back" and that I cannot do my job as well as a male can despite the fact that I am actually the only one on my entire team to hold a degree in Computer Science.

Yes, I believe that men can be objectified. Yes, I agree it is bad. Do I think it is to the same degree of severity and harm as women are?

No, because it's not.

RedMageBlack, you seem to like numbers. Here's some for you:

1 in 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. Compare that to 1 out of 33 for American men.

Girls 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

An average of 60% of these assaults will never be reported to police. Why? Because out of 40 rapes reported to police, 10 will lead to an arrest. 8 will be prosecuted. Only 3 will spend a single day in prison.

I have been assaulted 3 times in my lifetime. None of them were reported. The first time I was victimized, I was 12 years old. When my mother found out what had been done to me, she angrily demanded of me what I wanted her to do. She told me no one would believe me. I literally wore a winter coat year round for two years after that because I felt like I had to hide my body or I would be assaulted again.

This is the result of objectification. And maybe to some it's more "interesting" to look at a different side, but if you want to look at the most victimized population, it's not men.

Here's the source of my numbers, if you want it:
http://www.rainn.org/statistics

[Premmy]

Sweet, you seem like a smart person and Your post is pretty cool, but this whole thread is just going to get worse, very soon. I hope this does not discourage you from posting here as it's always nice to get new people and new ideas in.

[Kim]

Don't worry, Sweet is tuff and she has people takin care of her.

[Red Mage Black]

I've seen that statistic enough and I've already seen the rebuttal for it. I've seen cases of slaps on the wrist, like that recent case where the guy exploited the girl's sexual history against her and I've seen the same of female on male with the same results. It makes me wonder if the laws need a revision, if it's society that needs revision, but trusting people to take the law into their own hands always ends up in a bad way, but also that the prison system needs a serious overhaul(Norway has it right in my opinion).

As much as I'd hate to leave a bad impression on a new forumer, it seems I'm already too late. So, do I really have anything to lose by posting the rebuttals? I really didn't want to come back in here, but maybe if I post it, people will gain at least some insight into the things that have colored my mind in bad shades.
Rebuttal:
It's kind of big, so I had to link it after hosting it. Mainly because the bigger the image, the more lag I'd have after posting it. I couldn't find the post to it... on what looks like tumblr? I'm not sure about the site it's from. (http://oi58.tinypic.com/2e1dug4.jpg)

Incidents of Stuff (That has Sources in the picture):
Warning, this picture has a particularly nasty one in it. The guy isn't dead, but an NSFW warning all the same. Though it is a reminder of what happens when people take the law into their own hands and don't have all the facts. I don't really know who he is suppose to be or what case it refers to. All the same, vigilante justice isn't the answer in all cases. (http://oi57.tinypic.com/fjq4h4.jpg)

I can sympathize with you though, Sweet. It's not something I like to remember. The only thing that reinforces my will is hearing how my mother didn't let it stop her from living her life and that's why I envy her. It hurts the most when it's your own family and the fact my grandfather didn't spare his grandkids the same pain. (Both my aunt and mother were victims before us.) I never said anything to anyone. Not even my mother. She doesn't even know to this day and thinks it was only my sisters. I've never brought it up because I don't want to feel like I'm just begging for sympathy or attention.

But can anyone understand my anger? What it's like to have your first brush with feminism be the rad fems saying that it's either impossible for it to happen to men or that it doesn't matter because women have it worse? Especially when I had already been paranoid of telling anyone before because I didn't think they'd believe me? Well, he's been dead for the last 7 years, so it feels like it doesn't matter anymore. Maybe this will lend further insight to people.

[Kim]

I'm sorry radfems didn't believe you. That's fucked up and to be honest radfems are garbage.

Those who identify with that phrase tend to be second wave feminists, if I recall correctly and while phases are important to growth and development of groups and ideas, most second wave feminists today are fucking garbage. Overtly misogynist toward any women who embrace femininity, hateful towards trans people (in fact responsible for actively making it harder for us to get gender confirmation surgery), and they have a burning hatred for sex workers. Not all second wave feminists, but I generally write off anyone who identifies with the term radfem for this reason, as do many other feminists. I believe in the idea of radical feminism, it's just the term is predominantly controlled by shitheaded bigots.

Hell, when people like Cathy Brennan say rape applies exclusively to penis-in-vagina sex, they're hurting both men and women with that argument. Trivializing other forms of sexual abuse and erasing the existence of abuse both men and women experience.

Anyway, feminism's history and the fact that radfems haven't been scuttled off the nearest deck is why I don't actually require other folks to identify with the term feminism or the feminist movement.

I just don't like when people use their dislike of certain brands of feminism to ignore the fact that there's a lot of modern feminism is on-fucking-point. Discussions of rape culture, the importance of intersectional feminism rather than the kind that radfems practice, being sex positive.

As a victim of abuse as a child, I sympathize with what you went through, RMB.

I also sympathize with having shitty experiences with radfems, because Cathy Brennan is constantly trying to drive trans women to suicide or otherwise ruin our lives.

But that's not an excuse to defend patriarchy on account of not liking it when people criticize men for the shit that men benefit from and are primarily responsible for. I'm not even saying you mean it as an excuse, but you do this all the time, and from what I recall almost every time there's backlash for it you bring your childhood history into it, seemingly as a defense.

I'm not asking you to embrace modern feminism, but I would at least like it if you weren't so dedicated to constantly arguing with it.

[Red Mage Black]

I'm not even going to argue with this, because by all accounts of our history so far, you're right. I'm not even going to go into threads with these kinds of topics anymore because they bring up far too many bad memories for me. All I can do is apologize. A thousand times over if I must. I just don't have it in me.

I will mention though, Cathy Brennan isn't the only one you should worry about. Far more, like you mentioned and ones that have even become famous for their hatred, give a bad name to feminism.

[Osterbaum]

I didn't read anything in this thread as dogpiling on Aero or anyone else. From my perspective it seemed like everyone responding was being pretty level headed and non-confrontational, just trying to correct some assumptions and debate some terminology etc. At least at first.

This has to do with the people up top, not on the bottom.
It has to do with a lot of people (all the people, really) on a lot of different levels and categories of opression. Maybe you would want to read more on intersectionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality).

Also, another link (http://libcom.org/library/refusing-wait-anarchism-intersectionality) on intersectionality I'm leaving here specifically for Kim (though obviously anyone is welcome to read it) because of her expressed interest in anarchism (which is what opposition to all hierarchies basically is).

I'm sorry radfems didn't believe you. That's fucked up and to be honest radfems are garbage.
Fucking TERFS at least are garbage.