Women objectify women too

[Neo Art]

I'm not retarded, nor am I socially inept, nor am I autistic, or idiotic, or unfriendly, or creepy, or chauvinistic, or black. (You see what I did there? It was a joke, you see.)

The last word in your list instantly invalidated a number of the claims you made earlier in the sentence.

I just feel the desire to point out the hypocrisy in condemning what a person looks like because "They're a potential rapist!" whilst simultaneously decrying people for judging folks based on what they look like.

Where, precisely, is anybody condemning anyone for what they look like because "they're a potential rapist!"?

If you genuinely think that this is what's happening in this thread then really I'd recommend going back and reading from the start again.

Does that cross look heavy to you?

[Cannot think of a name]

Who the hell uses "cracking" anyway?

In my experience, people who move frame by frame, are made out of clay, and have a very resourceful dog as a companion.

[Northern Dominus]

Enormous headlights

Junk in the trunk.

Pretty Pussy

Massive dick

Goddammit NA, now I have to really dig into the innuendo bag here to top that...

[Tahar Joblis]

Define "seized". Do you mean, "reported"?

And exaggerated, yes. It's normal for scientific research to be either:

(A) Completely ignored by the media.
(B) Seriously overblown by the media, with its implications exaggerated.

This falls under (B).

Well, then, peer as you present yourself, duplicate the study to dispute the findings.

Wouldn't be worth shit on my CV in my field.

And they might be the result of a dark wizards spell...'suspect' 'might' 'may' 'wonder'...I'm not interested in your daydreams.

Yeah, well, if you intend to make a mountain out of a molehill, you should be aware of the serious methodological questions left hanging after you actually read the study.

Have you read the actual study yet? If not, do that before you reply to me again, please.

Nor is this passing mine.

Then think about it more carefully.

This is an identification task. You're staring at one image for a few seconds, then after another moment of blank screen, you're shown a pair of similar images and asked to identify which is which.

If set A of images display more intrinsic variation - or more intrinsic variation in their parts - then the fact that set A is more easily identified, or more easily identified by parts, means absolutely nothing about how we look at men and women. It just means the set of images is more or less uniform. And this is a major methodological issue; especially considering the older study cited, which showed that men and women's chests and waists are attended to at similar rates.

This one is testing recall and doing so by comparison; the intrinsic levels of similarity between images need desperately to be controlled. That's hard to do, and the only effort made by the researcher is to dress all models in "dark pants and a tank top," never minding the gendered differences exhibited by typical pants and typical tank tops. The researcher probably also picked a set of models she deemed of similar levels of attractiveness, which probably involved a restricted variation in body types; which in turn may not have restricted the male and female field of models similarly.

[Neo Art]

Who the hell uses "cracking" anyway?

In my experience, people who move frame by frame, are made out of clay, and have a very resourceful dog as a companion.

?

[Dempublicents1]

This argument also is basically predicated on the assumption that women can't tell the difference between a guy staring out into space, and a guy staring at them.

Here's a tip, my fellow males.

yes, they can.

Seriously. I'm one of the most clueless people in the world and I usually assume no one is looking at me at all, but even I can tell when I guy is seriously checking me out.

[Northern Dominus]

In my experience, people who move frame by frame, are made out of clay, and have a very resourceful dog as a companion.

?

Wait wait....I got it!

Nice cakes!

...that sucked didn't it?

Okay um...

Bodacious boobies!

Wait that's been done before hasn't it?

Dammit...

This argument also is basically predicated on the assumption that women can't tell the difference between a guy staring out into space, and a guy staring at them.

Here's a tip, my fellow males.

yes, they can.

Seriously. I'm one of the most clueless people in the world and I usually assume no one is looking at me at all, but even I can tell when I guy is seriously checking me out.

Really?

Cause I wasn't...no really, I wasn't. I was...um...checking for knots in the wall behind you?

[Cannot think of a name]

In my experience, people who move frame by frame, are made out of clay, and have a very resourceful dog as a companion.

?

It has been my understanding that rather than frame by frame, he slinks.

[Cannot think of a name]

(B) Seriously overblown by the media, with its implications exaggerated.


Yeah, well, if you intend to make a mountain out of a molehill, you should be aware of the serious methodological questions left hanging after you actually read the study.

Your argument is hinging on an ill-defined and largely subjective notion of 'overblown' and 'exaggeration' relying on a rather lazy and hipsterish notion of 'the media' as monolith.

It sounds sophisticated, but it is tantamount to an old man in a recliner yelling "CROOKS!" at the tv when the news comes on.

This is an identification task. You're staring at one image for a few seconds, then after another moment of blank screen, you're shown a pair of similar images and asked to identify which is which.

If set A of images display more intrinsic variation - or more intrinsic variation in their parts - then the fact that set A is more easily identified, or more easily identified by parts, means absolutely nothing about how we look at men and women. It just means the set of images is more or less uniform. And this is a major methodological issue; especially considering the older study cited, which showed that men and women's chests and waists are attended to at similar rates.

This one is testing recall and doing so by comparison; the intrinsic levels of similarity between images need desperately to be controlled. That's hard to do, and the only effort made by the researcher is to dress all models in "dark pants and a tank top," never minding the gendered differences exhibited by typical pants and typical tank tops. The researcher probably also picked a set of models she deemed of similar levels of attractiveness, which probably involved a restricted variation in body types; which in turn may not have restricted the male and female field of models similarly.

A lot of those 'mays' and stuff again, but nothing in there that would account statistically for the differences.

[Tahar Joblis]

(B) Seriously overblown by the media, with its implications exaggerated.


Yeah, well, if you intend to make a mountain out of a molehill, you should be aware of the serious methodological questions left hanging after you actually read the study.

Your argument is hinging on an ill-defined and largely subjective notion of 'overblown' and 'exaggeration' relying on a rather lazy and hipsterish notion of 'the media' as monolith.

The media isn't a monolith, but most media sources don't know very much about science works and most reporters writing articles about a scientific article don't know very much about the subject being studies.

I'm not the only one to complain about that. It's kinda inevitable, between ignorance and the profit motivation tied to sensationalism.

A lot of those 'mays' and stuff again, but nothing in there that would account statistically for the differences.

No, that would account for the differences. They're fairly modest differences at the margin of statistical significance; any significant difference in the diversity in the appearance of male vs female models would mean the study was simply finding that rather than a real effect.

[Cannot think of a name]

Your argument is hinging on an ill-defined and largely subjective notion of 'overblown' and 'exaggeration' relying on a rather lazy and hipsterish notion of 'the media' as monolith.

The media isn't a monolith, but most media sources don't know very much about science works and most reporters writing articles about a scientific article don't know very much about the subject being studies.

I'm not the only one to complain about that. It's kinda inevitable, between ignorance and the profit motivation tied to sensationalism.

Finding others who think so is not an indictment. Sorry man, in fact that attitude requires company so that the generalization and plea to common knowledge can work its magic. But, you cannot rely on a perceptual tendancy to universally invalidate a singular object within. Especially when the standards are so vague.

A lot of those 'mays' and stuff again, but nothing in there that would account statistically for the differences.

No, that would account for the differences. They're fairly modest differences at the margin of statistical significance; any significant difference in the diversity in the appearance of male vs female models would mean the study was simply finding that rather than a real effect.

To borrow a term you are fond of, you are making your own little mountain out of a molehill and still not sufficiently explaining how that selection accounts for the differences. Other than to accidentally validate the study in the process...

[Tahar Joblis]

Finding others who think so is not an indictment.

I can't think of a single professor or graduate student I know who has commented on science coverage in the news media and hasn't had the same conclusion. That's a big sample.

In the mean time, have you actually read the study yet? By the fact that you haven't said anything sensible about it yet, I'm guessing the answer is no. Go do that. Read through it. Carefully. Then go review what I've had to say about why the study is probably flawed. If they don't address an issue while spending that much time repeating themselves, they didn't think about the issue or control for it.

[Cannot think of a name]

Finding others who think so is not an indictment.

I can't think of a single professor or graduate student I know who has commented on science coverage in the news media and hasn't had the same conclusion. That's a big sample.

Yeah...maybe you shouldn't have erased the next part of that statement...

In the mean time, have you actually read the study yet? By the fact that you haven't said anything sensible about it yet, I'm guessing the answer is no. Go do that. Read through it. Carefully. Then go review what I've had to say about why the study is probably flawed. If they don't address an issue while spending that much time repeating themselves, they didn't think about the issue or control for it.

Not surprisingly, I find differently.

Uh huh! Uh uh!...we look like jackasses at this point.

[Tahar Joblis]

Not surprisingly, I find differently.

You have not read the study? Still? Stop wasting time.

[Cannot think of a name]

Not surprisingly, I find differently.

You have not read the study? Still? Stop wasting time.

yes.

"WELL?"

"I'm not seeing it."

"It's right there."

"No it isn't. And your methodology for discounting it sort of feeds into the findings."

"No it doesn't."

"Yes it does."

There, I saved us like half an hour.

[Xeng He]

None of it is actually of any relevance to the discussion.

Blasting loud music in an apartment with thin walls, presumably with neighbours =/= wearing clothing that may be considered by some to be provocative.

One of those things is okay, one of those things is not.

I'll leave it up to you to decide which (hint: I've said already that one is okay).

I'm not even going to bother explaining to you why these things are different, but I'll give you a clue - the neighbours, who are definite and not the same as a random and numerically indeterminate selection of the public.If you can't make the relatively simple logical steps to figure it out from there then I'm going to assume that this discussion is pointless as you're clearly not capable of keeping up.

1. So you've met every person that lives in your apartment building? You must really get around...
2. Plus, and more importantly, you the human, at least, should know that people's desires and comfort zones aren't the same in every situation. One day Neighbor A might have a headche, or Neighbor B might be studying for some test or any of of a million likely reasons they wouldn't want to hear it on a given day. So even if you did know the people around, nothing would be definite.
3. I notice that you didn't actually address my first question, since you and I know that "dressing a manner some might consider provocative" and "dressing in a manner both you and a specific, intended target consider provocative" aren't the same. Care to do that? Or am I the one who's going too fast?

[Tahar Joblis]

This argument also is basically predicated on the assumption that women can't tell the difference between a guy staring out into space, and a guy staring at them.

Here's a tip, my fellow males.

yes, they can.

Seriously. I'm one of the most clueless people in the world and I usually assume no one is looking at me at all, but even I can tell when I guy is seriously checking me out.

My experience as a man is that some women confuse blank staring for staring at them; and that they can also easily mistake why they're being stared at. Glares and ogles are easily mixed. (Is that a stain, or is that supposed to be there? Are you intentionally stepping on my foot, or can you really not feel it with those giant platforms? You said what? Are you the person I can smell from over here, on the other side of the aisle in the subway?)

Women at bars very often confuse being friendly and polite with sexual interest. (You may have heard that complaint from women of men, as well, but it happens the other way as well.) Sometimes it's obvious that you're being checked out - when you can see where the eyes are going and where they linger - sometimes it isn't. Mistakes happen; some women are really good about interpreting body language, others are quite clueless. I can be polite and distant for two hours with a drunk barfly failing to realize I think she's physically unattractive and smells awful, and that I'm just being a polite and friendly person whose patience has not yet been exhausted.

The idea that women intuitively know how to interpret male behavior is traditional but incorrect stereotype; though IME, they've generally paid more attention to trying to learn the subject than men have on interpreting female behavior. Lots of "creepy" men are perfectly harmless; lots of non-"creepy" men aren't. Most people are more likely to notice the guy with Asperger's as "creepy" than to notice a sociopath as "creepy." I'm pretty sure that the latter will seem creepier to someone who really understands both.

Most of us - male and female - think we're both more observant than we are, more subtle than we are when we don't want to be noticed, and less clear than we think we are when we think we're passing on subtle cues. I'm probably not an exception to that rule, either, but I'm observant enough to have caught plenty of mistakes. They do happen at a not-infrequent rate, and women are IMO more likely to make a presumption of sexual attention from non-sexual attention than vice versa when dealing with men.

[Tahar Joblis]

You have not read the study? Still? Stop wasting time.

yes.

Then show me where they talked about controlling for what I said they didn't control for.

No?

They didn't?

Then that's a flaw in the study that needs to be addressed if you want me to take it seriously even for fashion design, and there's a long bloody lack of empirical justification for saying the results of the study are actually relevant to anything else.

[Cannot think of a name]

yes.

Then show me where they talked about controlling for what I said they didn't control for.

No?

They didn't?

Then that's a flaw in the study that needs to be addressed if you want me to take it seriously even for fashion design, and there's a long bloody lack of empirical justification for saying the results of the study are actually relevant to anything else.

Wouldn't this hinge on my buying your premise?

[Xeng He]

For my replies up to this point, Occupied Deutchland pretty much ninja'd me.

Thus...

No, rape culture doesn't work that way.

Also, telling people to not do things because they affect somebody's comfort is the basis of society. If we can teach people not to be racist, Holocaust-deniers, anti-Semites or any other kind of bigotry that as a society we implicity agree is beyond the pale and unacceptable, why not teach men to not do things that are sexist?

Because, for one thing, it isn't as implicit.

Like the blog itself said, body language is pretty important in these sorts of interactions--if a woman conveys lack of interest, lack of interest isprobably her emotional state. I have never thought that to be an unfair assertion.

But what if a woman, through her body language, conveys interest? According to the logic of that blog, that conveyance goes above even what she actually says.

For another, saying "hi" to women (and the like) is prety much required at some point to avoid whole greater barriers of awkwardness.

I repeat: one argument I've frequently seen come up in feminist discussions is that a key stumbling block to us moving gender relations forward is that men don't do enough to police their gender and speak up when other people step out of line. (They brought up a study that most men hadn't been taught anything about how sexual assault is wrong in school. I can vouch for this: whatever "sex education" I had was pitifully, pathetically minimal, but not once was there a mention of sexual assault. AIDS, yes. Rape, no. Does that seem right to you? I'm a reminded of a sign I've seen by a participant at a SlutWalk: "Instead of teaching women not to get raped, teach men not to rape.") Thus, we're stuck in that part where women have to waste too much of their time trying to somehow explain their microaggressions to men who already have the privilege of not having to experience them, and said men tend WAY too often to overreact, whine about being personally attacked and treat it like an attempt to invalidate their rights. Result, impasse. Whose fault is the impasse? Sadly, a lot of time it's because of certain men being intransigent, bloody-minded, stubborn, recalcitrant, etc.

I don't understand why "if she says stop, stop" is insufficient for this purpose, however. It's pretty easy for women to do...

[Tahar Joblis]

Then show me where they talked about controlling for what I said they didn't control for.

No?

They didn't?

Then that's a flaw in the study that needs to be addressed if you want me to take it seriously even for fashion design, and there's a long bloody lack of empirical justification for saying the results of the study are actually relevant to anything else.

Wouldn't this hinge on my buying your premise?

No, it just hinges on being familiar with the sorts of things that can throw off psychological studies.

[Nadkor]

1. So you've met every person that lives in your apartment building? You must really get around...

In what way is this relevant?

And really gets around? Really?

2. Plus, and more importantly, you the human, at least, should know that people's desires and comfort zones aren't the same in every situation. One day Neighbor A might have a headche, or Neighbor B might be studying for some test or any of of a million likely reasons they wouldn't want to hear it on a given day. So even if you did know the people around, nothing would be definite.

People have moods. Well observed.

In what way is this relevant? I mean, unless you actually think that people's moods not being "definite" means that the people themselves are not conceptually "definite" (in contrast to a random sample of the general public; a distinction I think I made fairly clear when I said "the neighbours, who are definite and not the same as a random and numerically indeterminate selection of the public"), which is just a preposterous misunderstanding of the whole thing.

This would not surprise me.

If you live in an apartment, know that you have thin walls, and have neighbours (may be classed as a definite group - your neighbours - regardless of whether you have met them), then you should be aware that regardless of what your neighbours' moods might be at any given time they probably do not want to hear your your music. As such, you should limit the volume to a range that is audible to you, but is not likely to be audible in neighbouring apartments.

I mean, seriously. This whole thread is like having to explain the basic rules of human social interaction to a group of visiting aliens or something.

3. I notice that you didn't actually address my first question, since you and I know that "dressing a manner some might consider provocative" and "dressing in a manner both you and a specific, intended target consider provocative" aren't the same. Care to do that? Or am I the one who's going too fast?

I'm assuming that by your "first question" you mean this:

1. So what's your attiitude on women who dress in a particular way for the express purpose of attracting someone? That's directed.

From relatively early on in the thread (page 4 was my first mention of it) I have been quite clear on this.

Indeed, I already specifically cited this as a reason why I might wear what you would call "provocative" clothing.

Do try to keep up, there's a good boy.

[Nadkor]

But what if a woman, through her body language, conveys interest? According to the logic of that blog, that conveyance goes above even what she actually says.

What the shitting fuck.

"I know she said 'no', but her body language said yes so I went ahead anyway".

What is it with people in this thread and using the actual logic and excuses that those who commit sexual assault and rape use?

And then everyone acts so shocked when women express a level of apprehension about encountering strange men?

The blog explicitly speaks of body language as a way to gauge whether a woman might be open to your approaching her. It then goes on to explicitly say that if her body language is receptive and you do approach her then she might still say "no". If this happens then you leave her alone.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

Body language = useful as a guide for deciding whether you should approach a woman in the first instance
Actual language = infinitely more important than body language, to the point of overriding it, once you've approached that woman

Fucking hell.

[Tahar Joblis]

But what if a woman, through her body language, conveys interest? According to the logic of that blog, that conveyance goes above even what she actually says.

What the shitting fuck.

"I know she said 'no', but her body language said yes so I went ahead anyway".

What is it with people in this thread and using the actual logic and excuses that those who commit sexual assault and rape use?

And then everyone acts so shocked when women express a level of apprehension about encountering strange men?

The blog explicitly speaks of body language as a way to gauge whether a woman might be open to your approaching her. It then goes on to explicitly say that if her body language is receptive and you do approach her then she might still say "no". If this happens then you leave her alone.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

Body language = useful as a guide for deciding whether you should approach a woman in the first instance
Actual language = infinitely more important than body language, to the point of overriding it, once you've approached that woman

Fucking hell.

Some body language speaks pretty loudly; even if, short of someone jumping on top of you and breathing out "no" just before going fishing around for your tonsils with their tongue, you should treat the "no" as being a rejection, there is that case to consider. No absolutes, not quite.

That said, there's a big difference between being socially persistent (asking someone out for a date again the next day or next week) and rape. Some women [and men] like to play "hard to get" and believe in turning someone down temporarily a few times. It's perfectly fine to keep trying to persuade someone until you're told to buzz off, but as long as you're polite, up-front, and they don't seem to be upset by the inquiries, you're in the clear.

There's a big difference between spending some time trying to convince someone that "no" wasn't the answer they wanted to give and committing rape. In some circumstances, repeated rejection is part of the traditional method of courtship, and that's just the way things work.

Which is also why, if you mean "No, and go away," you shouldn't forget to omit the second part of that sentence, because most of us reading this do come from cultures where it's traditional for women to string out several rejections first while "testing" a man. [And, of course, never approach the man herself. The scandal! Which means that men may reflexively reject a woman advancing on them a time or two before they're really sure what's going on.] "You leave her alone" is a nice modern idea, but unfortunately, it's not very compatible with the very traditional game of playing "hard to get," which remains a popular strategy.

"You don't fuck her unless she changes her mind," however, is golden.

[Luw]

I prefer smaller breasts .
Men aren't very attractive if you think about it. The few who are, are generally androgynous.