Feminists sabotage yet another talk on men's equality

[New Edom]

It is a stumbling block, because it IS confusing. When Eve Ensler talks about the seduction of a minor by a grown woman in "The Vagina Monologues" that's an example of how feminist dialogue and art can lend itself to the confusion. (which btw is not something I am advocating, just to be clear--seduction of minors. No.)

I think we all know the evil of "man, she was asking for it." But the problem is that it is not really that simple. Taking the above case, is seduction rape? Because let's be honest, seduction isn't just an obvious "hey is this hot" "yes it is" "good let's do it". Seduction is also the overcoming of reluctance. And the idea of that is still choice. Now in Eve Ensler's play, what she is celebrating is the girl's choice to be seduced. But I feel pretty sure that if the seducer was a guy in such a story that it would not be received so well by feminists. People can say perhaps that this is about power imbalances, but let's go with another scenario. Older woman/youth? Is that a violation? Would that have been celebrated?

Or another example, the "My Short Skirt" part of her play. In this part, a young woman talks about the sexuality displayed by her short skirt as being about HER, having nothing to do with you. While it is fair to say that it is not an invitation to rape, as she declares--that's an unhelpful remark. It cannot have nothing to do with me, for example, because I can SEE it. Without having some idea of how I can appropriately react, it requires me to imagine what is appropriate, and that will cause further confusion.

And I think it comes down to that. Talk of consent, objectification, etc, is all actually either so precise that you can't imagine how to get there without being lovers to begin with or else it's so vague you have the same problem from the other end.

Do you feel compelled to react to everything you see? Do you go through life going, "Look, a blue car! A red car! Short skirt! Not so short skirt!"? The appropriate reaction is no reaction.

Wait a moment--are you saying that we should NOT have such discussions when talking about consent? Are you saying that people should never express attraction towards one another?

[Nailed to the Perch]

It cannot have nothing to do with me, for example, because I can SEE it.

The hell?

Do you hold this standard for everything? If a man passes you on the street in a wheelchair, is his wheelchair about you? If I eat a sandwich in the park, is my sandwich about you? If someone has brown skin, is their skin about you? If you go to the museum, are all the paintings there about you?

I can see millions of things every day. I am not so staggeringly narcissistic as to imagine that more than a very tiny percentage of things I see have anything whatsoever to do with me. Good grief.

[New Edom]

I was following until the Short Skirt part. What exactly is so confusing about wearing a short skirt and not wanting undesired sexual attention?

It's very important that women remember their public existence has to be centered around the fact that occasionally men feel ways about stuff and this automatically becomes your problem.

I actually believe that consent is too important a matter to just leave to the imagination. I believe it actually needs an informed understanding of how to ethically behave. It should actually be a discussion in part about how attraction works and how to deal with it ethically. Or do you disagree with that?

[New Edom]

It cannot have nothing to do with me, for example, because I can SEE it.

The hell?

Do you hold this standard for everything? If a man passes you on the street in a wheelchair, is his wheelchair about you? If I eat a sandwich in the park, is my sandwich about you? If someone has brown skin, is their skin about you? If you go to the museum, are all the paintings there about you?

I can see millions of things every day. I am not so staggeringly narcissistic as to imagine that more than a very tiny percentage of things I see have anything whatsoever to do with me. Good grief.

As I've been saying to the others, part of any discussion of sexual attraction has to be about how we can ethically respond to other people, and part of that is about attraction. The impression I get from feminists is that people (particularly men) are expected to asexual until some mysterious thing happens that develops into a sexual relationship.

Let's take the examples you used though. If someone has a different skin colour, then the ethical understanding I have is that I should judge that person according to their individual merits and not according to their skin colour. This is what we as a society have come to believe, and I believe it.

The sandwich? I may think "that looks good--I should go to Subway for lunch."

The wheelchair? I may think "Does that man need help crossing the street?"

If I see paintings, do I enjoy looking at them? Or do I find them pointless and confusing? And then what will I say if someone asked me "how was the gallery?"

So yes, those things do have to do with me, because I perceive them and must react. So what I'm pointing out is that while a woman's choice to put on a short skirt is her choice, I would also like to know how to react to it. I hope it is clear that I'm not just talking about seeing her casually, I'm talking about habitually seeing her or interacting with her. Obviously if I see her casually and she's attractive I'll admire her and then go on my way.

[Farnhamia]

Do you feel compelled to react to everything you see? Do you go through life going, "Look, a blue car! A red car! Short skirt! Not so short skirt!"? The appropriate reaction is no reaction.

Wait a moment--are you saying that we should NOT have such discussions when talking about consent? Are you saying that people should never express attraction towards one another?

Of course we can have discussions about consent. I was only addressing the "Short Skirt" section of your post. And yes, you can express attraction, but you should act like an adult. I realize that manners a soluble in alcohol, but it is not unreasonable to expect a certain amount of decorum.

[Russadonia]

No. It isn't a privilege to not have choice. Grown women are not children and should not be treated as such. Being "free from responsiblity" as a privilege, for whatever that may mean to you, does not cancel out the abuse women have suffered for millenia at the hands of men.

Women have had the privilege of being paid court to, being paid for, being held to a lower standard while being provided for. Now having said this: being a child in status is not something to be envied. You are terribly vulnerable; you are dependent upon the kindness of others, and if it is not there, have little defense against cruelty. Privilege is not always something good.

And I'm sorry but the one feminist I definitely agree with is bell hooks, who states that oppression affects more than just women, and that women have been party to both the oppression of other women and of men. It's not just about patriarchy being men abusing women. So when bell hooks talks about male privilege she emphasizes that it is not actually GOOD for men, but toxic, that it leads to death, abuse, and misery. You take the abuse that women have suffered at the hands of men, and I will gladly grant that but point out the abuse men have suffered as well. Suffering is not a zero sum game.

We are talking about a group of human beings that have for a very long time been mistreated, abused and objectified by another group of human beings. What you are attempting to do is absolve men of some of the responsibility of their actions by claiming that privilege is not always good (please further explain this, it makes no sense), claiming that some of the oppression stems from other women (which is a heirarchy that is the direct result of having to survive in a society controlled by men), and that male privilege harms men ( whats so harmful about a patriarchy to straight men?). Even if you don't mean to erase the responsiblities, you are.

This courting ritual which you describe is not a privilege. It is a form of slavery in which women must remain in the servitude of men, whether or not it seems evident to you. It is simply a ritual in which a women must prove herself a good wife and housemaid, and in the process give up herself.

It is also extremely insulting that you would think women are held to a lower standard while being provided for. This is not only a very lazy analysis, but just plain wrong. Women throughout history have had to work extremely hard and look great doing it to please men.

[Nailed to the Perch]

The hell?

Do you hold this standard for everything? If a man passes you on the street in a wheelchair, is his wheelchair about you? If I eat a sandwich in the park, is my sandwich about you? If someone has brown skin, is their skin about you? If you go to the museum, are all the paintings there about you?

I can see millions of things every day. I am not so staggeringly narcissistic as to imagine that more than a very tiny percentage of things I see have anything whatsoever to do with me. Good grief.

As I've been saying to the others, part of any discussion of sexual attraction has to be about how we can ethically respond to other people, and part of that is about attraction. The impression I get from feminists is that people (particularly men) are expected to asexual until some mysterious thing happens that develops into a sexual relationship.

Let's take the examples you used though. If someone has a different skin colour, then the ethical understanding I have is that I should judge that person according to their individual merits and not according to their skin colour. This is what we as a society have come to believe, and I believe it.

The sandwich? I may think "that looks good--I should go to Subway for lunch."

The wheelchair? I may think "Does that man need help crossing the street?"

If I see paintings, do I enjoy looking at them? Or do I find them pointless and confusing? And then what will I say if someone asked me "how was the gallery?"

So yes, those things do have to do with me, because I perceive them and must react. So what I'm pointing out is that while a woman's choice to put on a short skirt is her choice, I would also like to know how to react to it. I hope it is clear that I'm not just talking about seeing her casually, I'm talking about habitually seeing her or interacting with her. Obviously if I see her casually and she's attractive I'll admire her and then go on my way.

I note that in all cases, the reaction you supposedly "must" have is "thinking something to yourself until someone specifically asks for your opinion."

This seems like a perfectly adequate reaction to other people's clothing choices as well.

[New Edom]

Wait a moment--are you saying that we should NOT have such discussions when talking about consent? Are you saying that people should never express attraction towards one another?

Of course we can have discussions about consent. I was only addressing the "Short Skirt" section of your post. And yes, you can express attraction, but you should act like an adult. I realize that manners a soluble in alcohol, but it is not unreasonable to expect a certain amount of decorum.

Cool, I'm glad that's clear.

[Neo Art]

So what I'm pointing out is that while a woman's choice to put on a short skirt is her choice, I would also like to know how to react to it.

If you've made it to adulthood without knowing how to respond to the fact that a woman might be wearing a short skirt, I don't think anyone here is going to be able to help you.

[The Emerald Dawn]

So what I'm pointing out is that while a woman's choice to put on a short skirt is her choice, I would also like to know how to react to it.

If you've made it to adulthood without knowing how to respond to the fact that a woman might be wearing a short skirt, I don't think anyone here is going to be able to help you.

Personally, if I see a woman wearing a short skirt I have a mental 404 error until someone kicks my wheelchair.

[Ovisterra]

Do you feel compelled to react to everything you see? Do you go through life going, "Look, a blue car! A red car! Short skirt! Not so short skirt!"? The appropriate reaction is no reaction.

Wait a moment--are you saying that we should NOT have such discussions when talking about consent? Are you saying that people should never express attraction towards one another?

The point ->




Your head ->

[Russadonia]

The hell?

Do you hold this standard for everything? If a man passes you on the street in a wheelchair, is his wheelchair about you? If I eat a sandwich in the park, is my sandwich about you? If someone has brown skin, is their skin about you? If you go to the museum, are all the paintings there about you?

I can see millions of things every day. I am not so staggeringly narcissistic as to imagine that more than a very tiny percentage of things I see have anything whatsoever to do with me. Good grief.

As I've been saying to the others, part of any discussion of sexual attraction has to be about how we can ethically respond to other people, and part of that is about attraction. The impression I get from feminists is that people (particularly men) are expected to asexual until some mysterious thing happens that develops into a sexual relationship.

Let's take the examples you used though. If someone has a different skin colour, then the ethical understanding I have is that I should judge that person according to their individual merits and not according to their skin colour. This is what we as a society have come to believe, and I believe it.

The sandwich? I may think "that looks good--I should go to Subway for lunch."

The wheelchair? I may think "Does that man need help crossing the street?"

If I see paintings, do I enjoy looking at them? Or do I find them pointless and confusing? And then what will I say if someone asked me "how was the gallery?"

So yes, those things do have to do with me, because I perceive them and must react. So what I'm pointing out is that while a woman's choice to put on a short skirt is her choice, I would also like to know how to react to it. I hope it is clear that I'm not just talking about seeing her casually, I'm talking about habitually seeing her or interacting with her. Obviously if I see her casually and she's attractive I'll admire her and then go on my way.

Most women aren't going to chastise you for asking them on a date. You may get rejected. That is the most obvious place for a sexual relationship to start.

[New Edom]

As I've been saying to the others, part of any discussion of sexual attraction has to be about how we can ethically respond to other people, and part of that is about attraction. The impression I get from feminists is that people (particularly men) are expected to asexual until some mysterious thing happens that develops into a sexual relationship.

Let's take the examples you used though. If someone has a different skin colour, then the ethical understanding I have is that I should judge that person according to their individual merits and not according to their skin colour. This is what we as a society have come to believe, and I believe it.

The sandwich? I may think "that looks good--I should go to Subway for lunch."

The wheelchair? I may think "Does that man need help crossing the street?"

If I see paintings, do I enjoy looking at them? Or do I find them pointless and confusing? And then what will I say if someone asked me "how was the gallery?"

So yes, those things do have to do with me, because I perceive them and must react. So what I'm pointing out is that while a woman's choice to put on a short skirt is her choice, I would also like to know how to react to it. I hope it is clear that I'm not just talking about seeing her casually, I'm talking about habitually seeing her or interacting with her. Obviously if I see her casually and she's attractive I'll admire her and then go on my way.

I note that in all cases, the reaction you supposedly "must" have is "thinking something to yourself until someone specifically asks for your opinion."

This seems like a perfectly adequate reaction to other people's clothing choices as well.

Alright. But since the Warren Farrell thing and the recent thing were outbursts in part at least connected with anger about consent issues, I wonder then what from a feminist perspective an appropriate way to express attraction is?

[The Emerald Dawn]

I note that in all cases, the reaction you supposedly "must" have is "thinking something to yourself until someone specifically asks for your opinion."

This seems like a perfectly adequate reaction to other people's clothing choices as well.

Alright. But since the Warren Farrell thing and the recent thing were outbursts in part at least connected with anger about consent issues, I wonder then what from a feminist perspective an appropriate way to express attraction is?

"Hello, miss. I couldn't help but notice that you're alone here. I was wondering if I might buy you a drink, and we could talk for a while."

[New England and The Maritimes]

Alright. But since the Warren Farrell thing and the recent thing were outbursts in part at least connected with anger about consent issues, I wonder then what from a feminist perspective an appropriate way to express attraction is?

"Hello, miss. I couldn't help but notice that you're alone here. I was wondering if I might buy you a drink, and we could talk for a while."

This is seriously helpful to me. I need more words to put in my brain. I'm bad at this whole thing and just wanted to say that.

[The Emerald Dawn]

"Hello, miss. I couldn't help but notice that you're alone here. I was wondering if I might buy you a drink, and we could talk for a while."

This is seriously helpful to me. I need more words to put in my brain. I'm bad at this whole thing and just wanted to say that.

And that's just the introduction. There's a whole flowchart of material you have to work through once she answers.

[Samuraikoku]

"Hello, miss. I couldn't help but notice that you're alone here. I was wondering if I might buy you a drink, and we could talk for a while."

I thought "About what?"

Though that may be too far-sighted.

[The Emerald Dawn]

"Hello, miss. I couldn't help but notice that you're alone here. I was wondering if I might buy you a drink, and we could talk for a while."

I thought "About what?"

Though that may be too far-sighted.

"I notice that you have a law book sitting next to you, are you studying law, or is it just an interest?"

[The Truth and Light]

This is seriously helpful to me. I need more words to put in my brain. I'm bad at this whole thing and just wanted to say that.

And that's just the introduction. There's a whole flowchart of material you have to work through once she answers.

Hold up, no fucking way? Like there's a manual on this? Is there a gay version?

[Ovisterra]

"Hello, miss. I couldn't help but notice that you're alone here. I was wondering if I might buy you a drink, and we could talk for a while."

This is seriously helpful to me. I need more words to put in my brain. I'm bad at this whole thing and just wanted to say that.

I can give you a pretty endless supply of good lines.

Disclaimer: I'm not responsible for anyone, male or female, who may slap you because you uttered one of my lines.

[Samuraikoku]

"I notice that you have a law book sitting next to you, are you studying law, or is it just an interest?"

That's depending on context, but yes.

Analyzing the conversation topics I have, it's safe to say I should rely on context more than anything I can say.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I thought "About what?"

Though that may be too far-sighted.

"I notice that you have a law book sitting next to you, are you studying law, or is it just an interest?"

What if she doesn't have a law book sitting next to her? What then Mr./Mrs. Suave?

[New England and The Maritimes]

This is seriously helpful to me. I need more words to put in my brain. I'm bad at this whole thing and just wanted to say that.

And that's just the introduction. There's a whole flowchart of material you have to work through once she answers.

Could I have that? I would give you my arm and/or leg.

[Neo Art]

I note that in all cases, the reaction you supposedly "must" have is "thinking something to yourself until someone specifically asks for your opinion."

This seems like a perfectly adequate reaction to other people's clothing choices as well.

Alright. But since the Warren Farrell thing and the recent thing were outbursts in part at least connected with anger about consent issues, I wonder then what from a feminist perspective an appropriate way to express attraction is?

While things of this nature are going to vary wildly from culture to culture, location to location, and, indeed, individual to individual, I think the feminist movement as a whole would be overjoyed if everyone could at least internalize the answer to that question is "not rape"

Seriously, you think the feminist movement is, on the whole, worried about things like "teach men the exact proper precise way that it's appropriate to flirt with women". The feminist movement, on the whole, is more concerned with "don't rape them"

[Xsyne]

"I notice that you have a law book sitting next to you, are you studying law, or is it just an interest?"

What if she doesn't have a law book sitting next to her? What then Mr./Mrs. Suave?

That's why you carry a law book around with you.