Spring Break
Concerning lookers and gawkers: Back off fellas
Abstract:
Guys, I don't know if you've noticed, but the women you see every day are in college. They have more important things to be thinking about than checking out the dudes on their way to class. But, dudes, it seems like y'all don't have anything better to do.
I am one of the 10,000 women on campus whose attention, every day, is pulled in two different directions - caught between following our own train of thought and trying to keep that one vital piece of information for the chemistry midterm in our minds, or dealing with the barrage of lookers, gawkers and sneak-peekers....
- Displaying 1 - 48 of 48
Brainwashed
posted 11/03/09 @ 6:15 PM PST
Dear Apologist for Patriarchy,
"Please do not assume females are superior to males in this regard. Girls simply show their sexual needs in different ways than guys."
If you mean by not raping men, than yes, we show our sexual needs differently than men.
Solidarity with women and men who stand against Patriarchy!
"Please do not assume females are superior to males in this regard. Girls simply show their sexual needs in different ways than guys."
If you mean by not raping men, than yes, we show our sexual needs differently than men.
Solidarity with women and men who stand against Patriarchy!
adm
posted 11/05/09 @ 11:41 AM PST
Originally posted byanon1987
I find it slightly troubling that you believe that all the girls on campus are "above" this kind of thing, that we all have "better" things do to than worry about male gawkers, which is implied as every male on campus. Yes, many girls are so concentrated on their classes that they try to tune every other distraction out. And some are your "typical" college student, just like many of the males, with typical raging hormones. Please do not assume females are superior to males in this regard. Girls simply show their sexual needs in different ways than guys. And you also make it sound as though every guy that you pass on the sidewalk stops mid-sentence and commences drooling, or pulls out his cell phone for a shot up your skirt. Give me a break.
I find it completely troubling that a female, if you are a female, would stoop so low as to not think more highly of yourself and your abilities to be "above" men in this regard. Do you ask yourself why you like this attention, if that's your aim or argument? Do you wonder why you feel the need to hinder your academic abilities and have "nothing better to think about"? Common ladies....your in college for a reason, start using your brain power for academic reasons not for husband hunting!
Chris
posted 11/03/09 @ 1:28 PM PST
Two pretty simple points:
The entire world does not revolve around you, and every guy on campus is not checking you out 24/7. Get over yourself.
And your giant insult to males everywhere is just that. Girls check guys out too. It's a natural part of being a 20-something-year-old. Everyone everywhere is judging you, whether you like it or not, and pretending you're here with z zen-like focus on studying only is both preposterous and obviously a lie.
Whine whine whine.
The entire world does not revolve around you, and every guy on campus is not checking you out 24/7. Get over yourself.
And your giant insult to males everywhere is just that. Girls check guys out too. It's a natural part of being a 20-something-year-old. Everyone everywhere is judging you, whether you like it or not, and pretending you're here with z zen-like focus on studying only is both preposterous and obviously a lie.
Whine whine whine.
get a clue
posted 11/03/09 @ 6:08 PM PST
"get over yourself" wow. You really don't have a clue what it's like to be a woman in our society. Let me break it down for you.
1. every 1/3 of us have been SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY A MAN
2. the majority of assaults come from MEN THAT WE ALREADY KNOW
It might be hard for you to realize what it's like to walk through campus as a women, but try to place yourself there. Where men blatently size up your body like it's their job.
It may seem harmless to you but it's not to me. It's a threat. To me, this is a prelude to men's sexual violence against women.
"Everyone everywhere is judging you, whether you like it or not, ..."
Judging? You can judge someone's character, intellect, or maybe their sense of decency. I think what you meant to say is that you think that you have the right to size up women's bodies- reducing us to a bunch of parts. Well, you don't.
So, well said Rachel, BACK OFF.
1. every 1/3 of us have been SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY A MAN
2. the majority of assaults come from MEN THAT WE ALREADY KNOW
It might be hard for you to realize what it's like to walk through campus as a women, but try to place yourself there. Where men blatently size up your body like it's their job.
It may seem harmless to you but it's not to me. It's a threat. To me, this is a prelude to men's sexual violence against women.
"Everyone everywhere is judging you, whether you like it or not, ..."
Judging? You can judge someone's character, intellect, or maybe their sense of decency. I think what you meant to say is that you think that you have the right to size up women's bodies- reducing us to a bunch of parts. Well, you don't.
So, well said Rachel, BACK OFF.
montesireland
posted 11/05/09 @ 2:25 PM PST
Originally posted byChris
It's a natural part of being a 20-something-year-old.
Instead of responding so emotionally, and attempting to dismiss these ideas and discredit the author...Why don't we instead re-think our ideas of what is considered to be "natural"? How do we construct our paradigms of what "natural" male behavior is... is it to gaze at women? to gawk? to heckle? to harass? to assault? to rape?
I would urge all of us to listen, and try to think more deeply, about what the writer is urging us to do here - to engage in conversation around ideas of what 'men' are "supposed" to do... and what 'women' are "supposed" to do... and how do these stereotypes - and discrepancies - hurt & harm (women specifically)? Can we engage in activities that are also a "natural" part of the human experience, that do not malign women?
ak24/7
posted 11/03/09 @ 2:20 PM PST
Anon: It's called "internalized oppression" when a member of an oppressed group claims to want or deserve negative treatment. That is part of what makes the whole oppression thing work: it's no big deal; it's normal; stop seeing trouble where there is none. So when you suggest that a good portion of women "don't mind" being evaluated for eff-ability, and even participate in the evaluations, you miss the point.Plus, as Chris kindly demonstrates, if you speak out against the dominant paradigm you are likely to be ridiculed for whining.
Chris: Have you ever paid attention to these dynamics intentionally? If you sat in front of the library, or stood near a high foot-traffic area, you may notice a few things. Yes, a lot of folks are preoccupied with phone calls, papers, etc. How about the rest? What are the guys looking at? Where do the ladies train their eyes? The phenomenon is observable if you care to look. It happens to me every day on campus. Dudes sitting at tables or on benches, and just walking by giving the women that walk by elevator eyes. Women almost never meet the gaze of these dudes. They look down, or zone out ahead, or fidget. Most women may not even realize what they are doing, the same way men don't consciously think about what they are doing and how that makes a person feel. That can make it pretty uncomfortable when someone calls out boorish behavior in a letter to the editor, huh?
Chris: Have you ever paid attention to these dynamics intentionally? If you sat in front of the library, or stood near a high foot-traffic area, you may notice a few things. Yes, a lot of folks are preoccupied with phone calls, papers, etc. How about the rest? What are the guys looking at? Where do the ladies train their eyes? The phenomenon is observable if you care to look. It happens to me every day on campus. Dudes sitting at tables or on benches, and just walking by giving the women that walk by elevator eyes. Women almost never meet the gaze of these dudes. They look down, or zone out ahead, or fidget. Most women may not even realize what they are doing, the same way men don't consciously think about what they are doing and how that makes a person feel. That can make it pretty uncomfortable when someone calls out boorish behavior in a letter to the editor, huh?
Robert
posted 11/04/09 @ 12:31 AM PST
Originally posted byak24/7
Anon: It's called "internalized oppression" when a member of an oppressed group claims to want or deserve negative treatment. That is part of what makes the whole oppression thing work: it's no big deal; it's normal; stop seeing trouble where there is none. So when you suggest that a good portion of women "don't mind" being evaluated for eff-ability, and even participate in the evaluations, you miss the point.Plus, as Chris kindly demonstrates, if you speak out against the dominant paradigm you are likely to be ridiculed for whining.
Chris: Have you ever paid attention to these dynamics intentionally? If you sat in front of the library, or stood near a high foot-traffic area, you may notice a few things. Yes, a lot of folks are preoccupied with phone calls, papers, etc. How about the rest? What are the guys looking at? Where do the ladies train their eyes? The phenomenon is observable if you care to look. It happens to me every day on campus. Dudes sitting at tables or on benches, and just walking by giving the women that walk by elevator eyes. Women almost never meet the gaze of these dudes. They look down, or zone out ahead, or fidget. Most women may not even realize what they are doing, the same way men don't consciously think about what they are doing and how that makes a person feel. That can make it pretty uncomfortable when someone calls out boorish behavior in a letter to the editor, huh?
Word
Saul
posted 11/03/09 @ 3:46 PM PST
We are not different than animals. The luscious pheromones put out by a lively healthy viral woman will grab a man's attention beyond his scripted role of college student no matter how he tries to block his animalistic urge to mate and procreate.
The Goddess embodied in a gorgeous ripe woman is to be revered. Do you really want men to shut down our natural predisposition to appreciate a woman's body? We are programmed to be stimulated by women. To stifle that is to suppress our life force.
The Goddess embodied in a gorgeous ripe woman is to be revered. Do you really want men to shut down our natural predisposition to appreciate a woman's body? We are programmed to be stimulated by women. To stifle that is to suppress our life force.
Amanda Kraus
posted 11/05/09 @ 12:41 PM PST
Saul,
You are insulting your own gender with these statements. To say that men cannot control their actions is not only offensive, but grossly inaccurate. Subscribing to this myth puts your sisters, female friends, and mothers in danger, and giving men excuses to perform harmful acts. I doubt this was your intention, but please spend a little time and think about this.
You are insulting your own gender with these statements. To say that men cannot control their actions is not only offensive, but grossly inaccurate. Subscribing to this myth puts your sisters, female friends, and mothers in danger, and giving men excuses to perform harmful acts. I doubt this was your intention, but please spend a little time and think about this.
Miranda
posted 11/03/09 @ 5:48 PM PST
I believe that you bring up an amazing fight... men keep your googly eyes to your friggin' selves... I don't feel like between my classes that wiping the drool off my body is something that I should particularly have to do. And to the individual who commented "whine, whine, whine"... how about you get subjected to complete harassment in these types of way for your body... and other your body... Until women aren't seen as an objectified sexual object, we can whine all we want. If someone is interested in another based on their looks alone, then they really should check into why they are receiving an education anyways...because if your here for 1st impression/outward appearances, you will be disappointed, for I'm sure most women care more about what's going on inside, then the external.
Zivi Loeb
posted 11/03/09 @ 7:17 PM PST
Hi Rachel,
I'm so glad you have shared this article. I find the contents quite provacative and found myself having a number of reactions to it. Having lived in Italy for a semester abraod, I can certainly relate to the irritation of continuous harrasment. It wasn't the staring so much that was hard to deal with, but the confrontations and barage of compliments, men professing their undying love to me as I walked down the street to get to class. This happened on a daily basis. I had men calling to me like I was a stray cat! (I was also only 19 and not very empowered in my body or experienced in the world that are men). Moving back to the U.S. I felt like the men here were really conservative (bordering on asexual) in comparison. I found myself having a hard time even meeting any men. I found myself missing aspects of Italy where people come right up to you and want to talk about life and liturature and food! It is where the expression "to go out is to come home" rings with truth. I'm not saying we need to take comfort in staring men and that there aren't safe boundaries we can create for ourselves. I just want to share a vastly different angle to all of this.
I'm not bothered by stares - not in the least. What people think in their own head is their business. I don't make it mine. So long as they are not up in my face or trying to grope me, I could care less what they are doing with their eyes or their minds. It sounds like that is mostly what you are experiencing - the stares. I would say, make a game of it. Why not even enjoy it? Or, just ignore it. When you are an old lady you might miss the attention. I take care of an elderly woman with Alzheimers and she is always talking about how no one looks at her anymore because she is old. The female body is beautiful and deserves to be recognized. I love to watch women and appreciate and take in their beauty. I see nothing inherently wrong with that. We can't ever know what people are thinking and feeling on the inside, so why not think the best, instead of the worst, so long as we know we are safe. Or just laugh at it because it is rediculous and absurd.
I find myself asking the question - what is negative attention? What makes attention negative as opposed to positive? Is it not largely our own internal projection? Life is what we make of it and how we internally cope is crucial. If it is in our face all the time, we need to adopt a new paradigm. A model that reflects our own values strongly and isn't effected by what other men do with their eye balls.
Men are just as vulnerable as we are (if not more so). If these men are as you say, "on autopilot, mindlessly consuming all of our shapes, sizing up our various parts" that is your experience and may not be the case for others (men and women). If we can assume that this is what these men are doing, it is largely due to the fact that they have been socialized to sexualize women and are conditioned to believe that we are sexual objects through their upbringing and mass media. Hopefully some of their college education will shake up this old and outused model. If it is ignorance, let us shine our light on it and illuminate these fools with our sharp intellects and communication skills. We need not be angry at them. Our ability to connect with one another as human beings with both feminine and masculine attributes combined, is vital to the healing that needs to take place between both men and women. How can we heal the gender battle and be constructive in bridging a deeper awareness of one another?
I find that a side debate to this could be on the topic of voyeurism and ethics. Voyeurism is defined as "an obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects". Is this "bad"? People are who they are and they are going to do what they do. I see staring as relatively harmless and not all too aggresive either. And as I mentioned earlier, in the right context, and when it is tasteful, I like to observe and appreciate the beauty of a woman fully as well as recognize her power. I want the beauty of women to be appreciated, but I don't want them to be exploited as a result of that attention.
Is their staring mindless? Your description of "a gauntlet of what look like slobbering zombies intent on consuming anything of me they can get their eyes on" is haunting. Why not laugh at it?! Oppression starts internally within the psyche. It starts by giving power to certain beliefs. How can we experience the world in a way that empowers us? We don't have to be afraid! Laugh in the face of oppresion!
In Italy, I was afraid and disempowered. Here, I feel empowered to speak my mind and love my body fully. If someone is staring at me, I stare at them too - sometimes I'll smile or say hello or engage in dialogue. I find I can be more intimidating that way. I like to play with my edge of over power. Sometimes I enjoy being stared at. I never assume anything, especially something that might spoil my day. What would be the point of that? If there is a sexual vibe, I can usually pick up on it (as most of us do, being sensual energetic beings)and create boundaries that work for me. Standing up to oppression involves empowering ourselves though a deeply inward journey and cleaning up our own fears, insecurities, and anger that are a result of social and familial conditioning. When we are free, men who are confused and like to see us as something we are not can go to hell. They don't even need to exist for all I care. And if they do exist, let's help educate them by standing up for ourselves in our every moment of what feels right for us.
Thankyou for taking a stand in your article. I do strongly feel that it is important for these kinds of topics to be openly discussed. Sexism is sneaky and subtle and how we deal with it is complex and varies with each individual. It is very personal and I greatly appreciate your boldness and putting yourself out there. Bravo!
I'm so glad you have shared this article. I find the contents quite provacative and found myself having a number of reactions to it. Having lived in Italy for a semester abraod, I can certainly relate to the irritation of continuous harrasment. It wasn't the staring so much that was hard to deal with, but the confrontations and barage of compliments, men professing their undying love to me as I walked down the street to get to class. This happened on a daily basis. I had men calling to me like I was a stray cat! (I was also only 19 and not very empowered in my body or experienced in the world that are men). Moving back to the U.S. I felt like the men here were really conservative (bordering on asexual) in comparison. I found myself having a hard time even meeting any men. I found myself missing aspects of Italy where people come right up to you and want to talk about life and liturature and food! It is where the expression "to go out is to come home" rings with truth. I'm not saying we need to take comfort in staring men and that there aren't safe boundaries we can create for ourselves. I just want to share a vastly different angle to all of this.
I'm not bothered by stares - not in the least. What people think in their own head is their business. I don't make it mine. So long as they are not up in my face or trying to grope me, I could care less what they are doing with their eyes or their minds. It sounds like that is mostly what you are experiencing - the stares. I would say, make a game of it. Why not even enjoy it? Or, just ignore it. When you are an old lady you might miss the attention. I take care of an elderly woman with Alzheimers and she is always talking about how no one looks at her anymore because she is old. The female body is beautiful and deserves to be recognized. I love to watch women and appreciate and take in their beauty. I see nothing inherently wrong with that. We can't ever know what people are thinking and feeling on the inside, so why not think the best, instead of the worst, so long as we know we are safe. Or just laugh at it because it is rediculous and absurd.
I find myself asking the question - what is negative attention? What makes attention negative as opposed to positive? Is it not largely our own internal projection? Life is what we make of it and how we internally cope is crucial. If it is in our face all the time, we need to adopt a new paradigm. A model that reflects our own values strongly and isn't effected by what other men do with their eye balls.
Men are just as vulnerable as we are (if not more so). If these men are as you say, "on autopilot, mindlessly consuming all of our shapes, sizing up our various parts" that is your experience and may not be the case for others (men and women). If we can assume that this is what these men are doing, it is largely due to the fact that they have been socialized to sexualize women and are conditioned to believe that we are sexual objects through their upbringing and mass media. Hopefully some of their college education will shake up this old and outused model. If it is ignorance, let us shine our light on it and illuminate these fools with our sharp intellects and communication skills. We need not be angry at them. Our ability to connect with one another as human beings with both feminine and masculine attributes combined, is vital to the healing that needs to take place between both men and women. How can we heal the gender battle and be constructive in bridging a deeper awareness of one another?
I find that a side debate to this could be on the topic of voyeurism and ethics. Voyeurism is defined as "an obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects". Is this "bad"? People are who they are and they are going to do what they do. I see staring as relatively harmless and not all too aggresive either. And as I mentioned earlier, in the right context, and when it is tasteful, I like to observe and appreciate the beauty of a woman fully as well as recognize her power. I want the beauty of women to be appreciated, but I don't want them to be exploited as a result of that attention.
Is their staring mindless? Your description of "a gauntlet of what look like slobbering zombies intent on consuming anything of me they can get their eyes on" is haunting. Why not laugh at it?! Oppression starts internally within the psyche. It starts by giving power to certain beliefs. How can we experience the world in a way that empowers us? We don't have to be afraid! Laugh in the face of oppresion!
In Italy, I was afraid and disempowered. Here, I feel empowered to speak my mind and love my body fully. If someone is staring at me, I stare at them too - sometimes I'll smile or say hello or engage in dialogue. I find I can be more intimidating that way. I like to play with my edge of over power. Sometimes I enjoy being stared at. I never assume anything, especially something that might spoil my day. What would be the point of that? If there is a sexual vibe, I can usually pick up on it (as most of us do, being sensual energetic beings)and create boundaries that work for me. Standing up to oppression involves empowering ourselves though a deeply inward journey and cleaning up our own fears, insecurities, and anger that are a result of social and familial conditioning. When we are free, men who are confused and like to see us as something we are not can go to hell. They don't even need to exist for all I care. And if they do exist, let's help educate them by standing up for ourselves in our every moment of what feels right for us.
Thankyou for taking a stand in your article. I do strongly feel that it is important for these kinds of topics to be openly discussed. Sexism is sneaky and subtle and how we deal with it is complex and varies with each individual. It is very personal and I greatly appreciate your boldness and putting yourself out there. Bravo!
Zivi Loeb
posted 11/03/09 @ 7:20 PM PST
Hi Rachel,
I'm so glad you have shared this article. I find the contents quite provacative and found myself having a number of reactions to it. Having lived in Italy for a semester abraod, I can certainly relate to the irritation of continuous harrasment. It wasn't the staring so much that was hard to deal with, but the confrontations and barage of compliments, men professing their undying love to me as I walked down the street to get to class. This happened on a daily basis. I had men calling to me like I was a stray cat! (I was also only 19 and not very empowered in my body or experienced in the world that are men). Moving back to the U.S. I felt like the men here were really conservative (bordering on asexual) in comparison. I found myself having a hard time even meeting any men. I found myself missing aspects of Italy where people come right up to you and want to talk about life and liturature and food! It is where the expression "to go out is to come home" rings with truth. I'm not saying we need to take comfort in staring men and that there aren't safe boundaries we can create for ourselves. I just want to share a vastly different angle to all of this.
I'm not bothered by stares - not in the least. What people think in their own head is their business. I don't make it mine. So long as they are not up in my face or trying to grope me, I could care less what they are doing with their eyes or their minds. It sounds like that is mostly what you are experiencing - the stares. I would say, make a game of it. Why not even enjoy it? Or, just ignore it. When you are an old lady you might miss the attention. I take care of an elderly woman with Alzheimers and she is always talking about how no one looks at her anymore because she is old. The female body is beautiful and deserves to be recognized. I love to watch women and appreciate and take in their beauty. I see nothing inherently wrong with that. We can't ever know what people are thinking and feeling on the inside, so why not think the best, instead of the worst, so long as we know we are safe. Or just laugh at it because it is rediculous and absurd.
I find myself asking the question - what is negative attention? What makes attention negative as opposed to positive? Is it not largely our own internal projection? Life is what we make of it and how we internally cope is crucial. If it is in our face all the time, we need to adopt a new paradigm. A model that reflects our own values strongly and isn't effected by what other men do with their eye balls.
Men are just as vulnerable as we are (if not more so). If these men are as you say, "on autopilot, mindlessly consuming all of our shapes, sizing up our various parts" that is your experience and may not be the case for others (men and women). If we can assume that this is what these men are doing, it is largely due to the fact that they have been socialized to sexualize women and are conditioned to believe that we are sexual objects through their upbringing and mass media. Hopefully some of their college education will shake up this old and outused model. If it is ignorance, let us shine our light on it and illuminate these fools with our sharp intellects and communication skills. We need not be angry at them. Our ability to connect with one another as human beings with both feminine and masculine attributes combined, is vital to the healing that needs to take place between both men and women. How can we heal the gender battle and be constructive in bridging a deeper awareness of one another?
I find that a side debate to this could be on the topic of voyeurism and ethics. Voyeurism is defined as "an obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects". Is this "bad"? People are who they are and they are going to do what they do. I see staring as relatively harmless and not all too aggresive either. And as I mentioned earlier, in the right context, and when it is tasteful, I like to observe and appreciate the beauty of a woman fully as well as recognize her power. I want the beauty of women to be appreciated, but I don't want them to be exploited as a result of that attention.
Is their staring mindless? Your description of "a gauntlet of what look like slobbering zombies intent on consuming anything of me they can get their eyes on" is haunting. Why not laugh at it?! Oppression starts internally within the psyche. It starts by giving power to certain beliefs. How can we experience the world in a way that empowers us? We don't have to be afraid! Laugh in the face of oppresion!
In Italy, I was afraid and disempowered. Here, I feel empowered to speak my mind and love my body fully. If someone is staring at me, I stare at them too - sometimes I'll smile or say hello or engage in dialogue. I find I can be more intimidating that way. I like to play with my edge of over power. Sometimes I enjoy being stared at. I never assume anything, especially something that might spoil my day. What would be the point of that? If there is a sexual vibe, I can usually pick up on it (as most of us do, being sensual energetic beings)and create boundaries that work for me. Standing up to oppression involves empowering ourselves though a deeply inward journey and cleaning up our own fears, insecurities, and anger that are a result of social and familial conditioning. When we are free, men who are confused and like to see us as something we are not can go to hell. They don't even need to exist for all I care. And if they do exist, let's help educate them by standing up for ourselves in our every moment of what feels right for us.
Thankyou for taking a stand in your article. I do strongly feel that it is important for these kinds of topics to be openly discussed. Sexism is sneaky and subtle and how we deal with it is complex and varies with each individual. It is very personal and I greatly appreciate your boldness and putting yourself out there. Bravo!
I'm so glad you have shared this article. I find the contents quite provacative and found myself having a number of reactions to it. Having lived in Italy for a semester abraod, I can certainly relate to the irritation of continuous harrasment. It wasn't the staring so much that was hard to deal with, but the confrontations and barage of compliments, men professing their undying love to me as I walked down the street to get to class. This happened on a daily basis. I had men calling to me like I was a stray cat! (I was also only 19 and not very empowered in my body or experienced in the world that are men). Moving back to the U.S. I felt like the men here were really conservative (bordering on asexual) in comparison. I found myself having a hard time even meeting any men. I found myself missing aspects of Italy where people come right up to you and want to talk about life and liturature and food! It is where the expression "to go out is to come home" rings with truth. I'm not saying we need to take comfort in staring men and that there aren't safe boundaries we can create for ourselves. I just want to share a vastly different angle to all of this.
I'm not bothered by stares - not in the least. What people think in their own head is their business. I don't make it mine. So long as they are not up in my face or trying to grope me, I could care less what they are doing with their eyes or their minds. It sounds like that is mostly what you are experiencing - the stares. I would say, make a game of it. Why not even enjoy it? Or, just ignore it. When you are an old lady you might miss the attention. I take care of an elderly woman with Alzheimers and she is always talking about how no one looks at her anymore because she is old. The female body is beautiful and deserves to be recognized. I love to watch women and appreciate and take in their beauty. I see nothing inherently wrong with that. We can't ever know what people are thinking and feeling on the inside, so why not think the best, instead of the worst, so long as we know we are safe. Or just laugh at it because it is rediculous and absurd.
I find myself asking the question - what is negative attention? What makes attention negative as opposed to positive? Is it not largely our own internal projection? Life is what we make of it and how we internally cope is crucial. If it is in our face all the time, we need to adopt a new paradigm. A model that reflects our own values strongly and isn't effected by what other men do with their eye balls.
Men are just as vulnerable as we are (if not more so). If these men are as you say, "on autopilot, mindlessly consuming all of our shapes, sizing up our various parts" that is your experience and may not be the case for others (men and women). If we can assume that this is what these men are doing, it is largely due to the fact that they have been socialized to sexualize women and are conditioned to believe that we are sexual objects through their upbringing and mass media. Hopefully some of their college education will shake up this old and outused model. If it is ignorance, let us shine our light on it and illuminate these fools with our sharp intellects and communication skills. We need not be angry at them. Our ability to connect with one another as human beings with both feminine and masculine attributes combined, is vital to the healing that needs to take place between both men and women. How can we heal the gender battle and be constructive in bridging a deeper awareness of one another?
I find that a side debate to this could be on the topic of voyeurism and ethics. Voyeurism is defined as "an obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects". Is this "bad"? People are who they are and they are going to do what they do. I see staring as relatively harmless and not all too aggresive either. And as I mentioned earlier, in the right context, and when it is tasteful, I like to observe and appreciate the beauty of a woman fully as well as recognize her power. I want the beauty of women to be appreciated, but I don't want them to be exploited as a result of that attention.
Is their staring mindless? Your description of "a gauntlet of what look like slobbering zombies intent on consuming anything of me they can get their eyes on" is haunting. Why not laugh at it?! Oppression starts internally within the psyche. It starts by giving power to certain beliefs. How can we experience the world in a way that empowers us? We don't have to be afraid! Laugh in the face of oppresion!
In Italy, I was afraid and disempowered. Here, I feel empowered to speak my mind and love my body fully. If someone is staring at me, I stare at them too - sometimes I'll smile or say hello or engage in dialogue. I find I can be more intimidating that way. I like to play with my edge of over power. Sometimes I enjoy being stared at. I never assume anything, especially something that might spoil my day. What would be the point of that? If there is a sexual vibe, I can usually pick up on it (as most of us do, being sensual energetic beings)and create boundaries that work for me. Standing up to oppression involves empowering ourselves though a deeply inward journey and cleaning up our own fears, insecurities, and anger that are a result of social and familial conditioning. When we are free, men who are confused and like to see us as something we are not can go to hell. They don't even need to exist for all I care. And if they do exist, let's help educate them by standing up for ourselves in our every moment of what feels right for us.
Thankyou for taking a stand in your article. I do strongly feel that it is important for these kinds of topics to be openly discussed. Sexism is sneaky and subtle and how we deal with it is complex and varies with each individual. It is very personal and I greatly appreciate your boldness and putting yourself out there. Bravo!
Brian Krichevsky
posted 11/03/09 @ 10:28 PM PST
I don't know if any of you caught today's "Letter to the Editor", but I did, and I was a little bit dismayed. Let me explain.
First, we must meet the author, Rachel Brinker, a senior at OSU studying (surprise, surprise!) Women's Studies. The letter she wrote today titled, "Concerning Lookers and Gawkers - Back off Fellas", is a hostile attack at the male population on campus, urging us to "back off" from lewdly checking out females as they walk by. She says dealing with "the barrage of lookers, gawkers and sneak- peakers" is – get this - affecting women around campus in a negative way, wasting their time because it's drawing their attention away from much more important and adult like things they are otherwise thinking about. Yeah right - what world are you living in? I'm pretty sure most girls at this school are more worried about which frat or bar they are going to on the weekend than any adult topic I can think of. She also asserts that the male population has "nothing better to do" with their time than check out girls.
(This may or may not be true)
There was even a part during her nonsensical rant where she wrote, "...on my five-minute walk to class, I'm forced to walk through a gauntlet of what looks like slobbering zombies intent on consuming anything of me they can get their eyes on in the five seconds it takes for us to pass each other."
And it was here where I stopped, because yes, we may be slobbering zombies who constantly check out girls, but I'll tell you one thing: we at least have enough sense to check out the good looking ones. And God knows that total is not 10,000 at this school as she later argues in her letter. I bet it's closer to 500 and I'd also bet my life savings Rachel Brinker isn't one of them.
How do I know?
Well first – and I've thought this through - there simply couldn't possibly be a girl out there who would be compelled to write a letter to her college newspaper because she is sick of all the attention she is getting from guys? That is just impossible. To be fair most girls who get this much attention from guys have no interest in such things as reading and writing anyway, but really what kind of absurd logic is that? Your upset because your getting attention from the opposite sex? The single most important thing we all strive for in life? I've heard some awful arguments in my day, but wow that is beyond dumb.
And secondly - and more convincing - I did what guys do when they want to know more about a girl: I looked her up on facebook. And get this: she doesn't have one! And even more telling than that is she has a feminist blog...which she regularly updates! Hmm, yeah, let me think about this. A girl more concerned with feminism than her social life; who writes angst filled letters to the school newspaper castigating sex; who doesn't have one picture of herself on the Internet...Yeah that sounds exactly like every hot girl I've ever met. Sign this one up for a bikini shoot; I think we have a winner.
This is good too: Midway through her self righteous tirade she says this gem:"The level of visual consumption of female bodies on campus is so high, women are forced to give at least some energy and thought to it, everyday."
And I'm like yeah, I don't know about you Rachel, but I think it's pretty damn normal to give thought to guys and sex everyday. Not all of us out there are asexual freaks. See most women I know enjoy thinking about guys and sex. It's natural. We're social, sexual people. You put 20,000 college ages people together and of course people are going to be checking each other out. It's part of being a normal functional person.
But I draw the line when she takes the the liberty of asserting herself as the spokesperson for all 10,000 women on campus. If I were you girls I'd be pissed! All 10,000 sad female victims of this onslaught of male attention we keep throwing your way. What a pity!
Answer me: Is there one rational, straight, mentally stable girl on this campus who can honestly tell me she wants less attention from guys? Is there one who would be happy knowing that finally - oh finally - no guys will be checking her out as they walk around campus? Seriously? We all know women love attention. God didn't invent push up bras, fake tanning, and miniskirts - Women did! No girl just inexplicably gets attention from guys. This isn't a scene from a "She's All That" movie.
But let us not get to sidetrack or we might forget really what is going on here. It may not seem like it, but her whole letter isn't actually about how good looking women are sick of guys checking them out. It's about how loser women are sick of getting no attention themselves. There's a difference here and we must not forget it.
She was right about one thing though, and that is that yes guys look at girls. A lot. It's what we do. It's in our genes. But Rachel must have been confused; not only did she fail to mention the liveliness in which women check out men, but she clearly misinterpreted her own situation. I'm pretty sure guys weren't staring at her in lust because she looked good, they were staring at her in horror because she looks like some sort of farm animal. Someone needs to tell her this.
I don't know about everyone else, but that letter made me sick and it wasn't just because I'm a guy. If I were a girl I'd be pissed too; the last person I'd want expressing my sentiments is a bitter and disillusioned feminist. Statements from retards like her may help explain why women today still make 70 cents to a man's dollar. It's something to think about.
Lastly if she thinks her letter is going to deter us guys from checking out girls, she has another thing coming. Nothing in this world can deter a man from checking out a girl. Nothing. Ladies if no guys are checking you out, it's not because some piggish feminist told us not to. It's probably because you don't look so good.
It's as simple as that.
First, we must meet the author, Rachel Brinker, a senior at OSU studying (surprise, surprise!) Women's Studies. The letter she wrote today titled, "Concerning Lookers and Gawkers - Back off Fellas", is a hostile attack at the male population on campus, urging us to "back off" from lewdly checking out females as they walk by. She says dealing with "the barrage of lookers, gawkers and sneak- peakers" is – get this - affecting women around campus in a negative way, wasting their time because it's drawing their attention away from much more important and adult like things they are otherwise thinking about. Yeah right - what world are you living in? I'm pretty sure most girls at this school are more worried about which frat or bar they are going to on the weekend than any adult topic I can think of. She also asserts that the male population has "nothing better to do" with their time than check out girls.
(This may or may not be true)
There was even a part during her nonsensical rant where she wrote, "...on my five-minute walk to class, I'm forced to walk through a gauntlet of what looks like slobbering zombies intent on consuming anything of me they can get their eyes on in the five seconds it takes for us to pass each other."
And it was here where I stopped, because yes, we may be slobbering zombies who constantly check out girls, but I'll tell you one thing: we at least have enough sense to check out the good looking ones. And God knows that total is not 10,000 at this school as she later argues in her letter. I bet it's closer to 500 and I'd also bet my life savings Rachel Brinker isn't one of them.
How do I know?
Well first – and I've thought this through - there simply couldn't possibly be a girl out there who would be compelled to write a letter to her college newspaper because she is sick of all the attention she is getting from guys? That is just impossible. To be fair most girls who get this much attention from guys have no interest in such things as reading and writing anyway, but really what kind of absurd logic is that? Your upset because your getting attention from the opposite sex? The single most important thing we all strive for in life? I've heard some awful arguments in my day, but wow that is beyond dumb.
And secondly - and more convincing - I did what guys do when they want to know more about a girl: I looked her up on facebook. And get this: she doesn't have one! And even more telling than that is she has a feminist blog...which she regularly updates! Hmm, yeah, let me think about this. A girl more concerned with feminism than her social life; who writes angst filled letters to the school newspaper castigating sex; who doesn't have one picture of herself on the Internet...Yeah that sounds exactly like every hot girl I've ever met. Sign this one up for a bikini shoot; I think we have a winner.
This is good too: Midway through her self righteous tirade she says this gem:"The level of visual consumption of female bodies on campus is so high, women are forced to give at least some energy and thought to it, everyday."
And I'm like yeah, I don't know about you Rachel, but I think it's pretty damn normal to give thought to guys and sex everyday. Not all of us out there are asexual freaks. See most women I know enjoy thinking about guys and sex. It's natural. We're social, sexual people. You put 20,000 college ages people together and of course people are going to be checking each other out. It's part of being a normal functional person.
But I draw the line when she takes the the liberty of asserting herself as the spokesperson for all 10,000 women on campus. If I were you girls I'd be pissed! All 10,000 sad female victims of this onslaught of male attention we keep throwing your way. What a pity!
Answer me: Is there one rational, straight, mentally stable girl on this campus who can honestly tell me she wants less attention from guys? Is there one who would be happy knowing that finally - oh finally - no guys will be checking her out as they walk around campus? Seriously? We all know women love attention. God didn't invent push up bras, fake tanning, and miniskirts - Women did! No girl just inexplicably gets attention from guys. This isn't a scene from a "She's All That" movie.
But let us not get to sidetrack or we might forget really what is going on here. It may not seem like it, but her whole letter isn't actually about how good looking women are sick of guys checking them out. It's about how loser women are sick of getting no attention themselves. There's a difference here and we must not forget it.
She was right about one thing though, and that is that yes guys look at girls. A lot. It's what we do. It's in our genes. But Rachel must have been confused; not only did she fail to mention the liveliness in which women check out men, but she clearly misinterpreted her own situation. I'm pretty sure guys weren't staring at her in lust because she looked good, they were staring at her in horror because she looks like some sort of farm animal. Someone needs to tell her this.
I don't know about everyone else, but that letter made me sick and it wasn't just because I'm a guy. If I were a girl I'd be pissed too; the last person I'd want expressing my sentiments is a bitter and disillusioned feminist. Statements from retards like her may help explain why women today still make 70 cents to a man's dollar. It's something to think about.
Lastly if she thinks her letter is going to deter us guys from checking out girls, she has another thing coming. Nothing in this world can deter a man from checking out a girl. Nothing. Ladies if no guys are checking you out, it's not because some piggish feminist told us not to. It's probably because you don't look so good.
It's as simple as that.
Eric Hill
posted 11/04/09 @ 8:07 PM PST
Originally posted byBrian Krichevsky
I don't know if any of you caught today's "Letter to the Editor", but I did, and I was a little bit dismayed. Let me explain.
First, we must meet the author, Rachel Brinker, a senior at OSU studying (surprise, surprise!) Women's Studies. The letter she wrote today titled, "Concerning Lookers and Gawkers - Back off Fellas", is a hostile attack at the male population on campus, urging us to "back off" from lewdly checking out females as they walk by. She says dealing with "the barrage of lookers, gawkers and sneak- peakers" is – get this - affecting women around campus in a negative way, wasting their time because it's drawing their attention away from much more important and adult like things they are otherwise thinking about. Yeah right - what world are you living in? I'm pretty sure most girls at this school are more worried about which frat or bar they are going to on the weekend than any adult topic I can think of. She also asserts that the male population has "nothing better to do" with their time than check out girls.
(This may or may not be true)
There was even a part during her nonsensical rant where she wrote, "...on my five-minute walk to class, I'm forced to walk through a gauntlet of what looks like slobbering zombies intent on consuming anything of me they can get their eyes on in the five seconds it takes for us to pass each other."
And it was here where I stopped, because yes, we may be slobbering zombies who constantly check out girls, but I'll tell you one thing: we at least have enough sense to check out the good looking ones. And God knows that total is not 10,000 at this school as she later argues in her letter. I bet it's closer to 500 and I'd also bet my life savings Rachel Brinker isn't one of them.
How do I know?
Well first – and I've thought this through - there simply couldn't possibly be a girl out there who would be compelled to write a letter to her college newspaper because she is sick of all the attention she is getting from guys? That is just impossible. To be fair most girls who get this much attention from guys have no interest in such things as reading and writing anyway, but really what kind of absurd logic is that? Your upset because your getting attention from the opposite sex? The single most important thing we all strive for in life? I've heard some awful arguments in my day, but wow that is beyond dumb.
And secondly - and more convincing - I did what guys do when they want to know more about a girl: I looked her up on facebook. And get this: she doesn't have one! And even more telling than that is she has a feminist blog...which she regularly updates! Hmm, yeah, let me think about this. A girl more concerned with feminism than her social life; who writes angst filled letters to the school newspaper castigating sex; who doesn't have one picture of herself on the Internet...Yeah that sounds exactly like every hot girl I've ever met. Sign this one up for a bikini shoot; I think we have a winner.
This is good too: Midway through her self righteous tirade she says this gem:"The level of visual consumption of female bodies on campus is so high, women are forced to give at least some energy and thought to it, everyday."
And I'm like yeah, I don't know about you Rachel, but I think it's pretty damn normal to give thought to guys and sex everyday. Not all of us out there are asexual freaks. See most women I know enjoy thinking about guys and sex. It's natural. We're social, sexual people. You put 20,000 college ages people together and of course people are going to be checking each other out. It's part of being a normal functional person.
But I draw the line when she takes the the liberty of asserting herself as the spokesperson for all 10,000 women on campus. If I were you girls I'd be pissed! All 10,000 sad female victims of this onslaught of male attention we keep throwing your way. What a pity!
Answer me: Is there one rational, straight, mentally stable girl on this campus who can honestly tell me she wants less attention from guys? Is there one who would be happy knowing that finally - oh finally - no guys will be checking her out as they walk around campus? Seriously? We all know women love attention. God didn't invent push up bras, fake tanning, and miniskirts - Women did! No girl just inexplicably gets attention from guys. This isn't a scene from a "She's All That" movie.
But let us not get to sidetrack or we might forget really what is going on here. It may not seem like it, but her whole letter isn't actually about how good looking women are sick of guys checking them out. It's about how loser women are sick of getting no attention themselves. There's a difference here and we must not forget it.
She was right about one thing though, and that is that yes guys look at girls. A lot. It's what we do. It's in our genes. But Rachel must have been confused; not only did she fail to mention the liveliness in which women check out men, but she clearly misinterpreted her own situation. I'm pretty sure guys weren't staring at her in lust because she looked good, they were staring at her in horror because she looks like some sort of farm animal. Someone needs to tell her this.
I don't know about everyone else, but that letter made me sick and it wasn't just because I'm a guy. If I were a girl I'd be pissed too; the last person I'd want expressing my sentiments is a bitter and disillusioned feminist. Statements from retards like her may help explain why women today still make 70 cents to a man's dollar. It's something to think about.
Lastly if she thinks her letter is going to deter us guys from checking out girls, she has another thing coming. Nothing in this world can deter a man from checking out a girl. Nothing. Ladies if no guys are checking you out, it's not because some piggish feminist told us not to. It's probably because you don't look so good.
It's as simple as that.
Wow. As a male and feminist, I find this response icky, threatening, and generally unsavory. Go back into the cave.
kara
posted 11/04/09 @ 9:43 PM PST
Brian,
The point of the letter was to generate thought and discussion. These are ideas we are talking about here, not a specific person. You blasting the author up one side and down the other is totally uncalled for. In fact I can not believe the editor actually posted your comments to the website. Totally inappropriate in my opinion. Yes I believe in free speech, but you attacked her personally and said hurtful things about her personally which goes far beyond your obvious disgust of her ideas. Apparently your argument was too weak to stand by itself, you needed to tear down the author first.
Your comment about how women shouldn't be upset by getting attention from the opposite sex because its "the single most important thing we all strive for in life?" is ludicrous. Not all attention is good, and guess what, its up to the person getting the attention to decide what he or she thinks is good, NOT YOU. Certainly not all women mind gawking and drooling, but some do and you can't just insist that it doesn't bother them, or it shouldn't bother them, when it does. Does this mean you personally have to control your "gawking" behavior towards women, no, it doesn't, but the whole point here is for you to consider the possibility that your actions, yes YOURS, might make someone else uncomfortable. And that is not so controversial. You can't tell someone else how they should feel.
Finally, a note to all who will post, lets try to keep this friendly, lively, but friendly.
The point of the letter was to generate thought and discussion. These are ideas we are talking about here, not a specific person. You blasting the author up one side and down the other is totally uncalled for. In fact I can not believe the editor actually posted your comments to the website. Totally inappropriate in my opinion. Yes I believe in free speech, but you attacked her personally and said hurtful things about her personally which goes far beyond your obvious disgust of her ideas. Apparently your argument was too weak to stand by itself, you needed to tear down the author first.
Your comment about how women shouldn't be upset by getting attention from the opposite sex because its "the single most important thing we all strive for in life?" is ludicrous. Not all attention is good, and guess what, its up to the person getting the attention to decide what he or she thinks is good, NOT YOU. Certainly not all women mind gawking and drooling, but some do and you can't just insist that it doesn't bother them, or it shouldn't bother them, when it does. Does this mean you personally have to control your "gawking" behavior towards women, no, it doesn't, but the whole point here is for you to consider the possibility that your actions, yes YOURS, might make someone else uncomfortable. And that is not so controversial. You can't tell someone else how they should feel.
Finally, a note to all who will post, lets try to keep this friendly, lively, but friendly.
Sam
posted 11/05/09 @ 12:42 AM PST
Originally posted byBrian Krichevsky
I don't know if any of you caught today's "Letter to the Editor", but I did, and I was a little bit dismayed. Let me explain.
First, we must meet the author, Rachel Brinker, a senior at OSU studying (surprise, surprise!) Women's Studies. The letter she wrote today titled, "Concerning Lookers and Gawkers - Back off Fellas", is a hostile attack at the male population on campus, urging us to "back off" from lewdly checking out females as they walk by. She says dealing with "the barrage of lookers, gawkers and sneak- peakers" is – get this - affecting women around campus in a negative way, wasting their time because it's drawing their attention away from much more important and adult like things they are otherwise thinking about. Yeah right - what world are you living in? I'm pretty sure most girls at this school are more worried about which frat or bar they are going to on the weekend than any adult topic I can think of. She also asserts that the male population has "nothing better to do" with their time than check out girls.
(This may or may not be true)
There was even a part during her nonsensical rant where she wrote, "...on my five-minute walk to class, I'm forced to walk through a gauntlet of what looks like slobbering zombies intent on consuming anything of me they can get their eyes on in the five seconds it takes for us to pass each other."
And it was here where I stopped, because yes, we may be slobbering zombies who constantly check out girls, but I'll tell you one thing: we at least have enough sense to check out the good looking ones. And God knows that total is not 10,000 at this school as she later argues in her letter. I bet it's closer to 500 and I'd also bet my life savings Rachel Brinker isn't one of them.
How do I know?
Well first – and I've thought this through - there simply couldn't possibly be a girl out there who would be compelled to write a letter to her college newspaper because she is sick of all the attention she is getting from guys? That is just impossible. To be fair most girls who get this much attention from guys have no interest in such things as reading and writing anyway, but really what kind of absurd logic is that? Your upset because your getting attention from the opposite sex? The single most important thing we all strive for in life? I've heard some awful arguments in my day, but wow that is beyond dumb.
And secondly - and more convincing - I did what guys do when they want to know more about a girl: I looked her up on facebook. And get this: she doesn't have one! And even more telling than that is she has a feminist blog...which she regularly updates! Hmm, yeah, let me think about this. A girl more concerned with feminism than her social life; who writes angst filled letters to the school newspaper castigating sex; who doesn't have one picture of herself on the Internet...Yeah that sounds exactly like every hot girl I've ever met. Sign this one up for a bikini shoot; I think we have a winner.
This is good too: Midway through her self righteous tirade she says this gem:"The level of visual consumption of female bodies on campus is so high, women are forced to give at least some energy and thought to it, everyday."
And I'm like yeah, I don't know about you Rachel, but I think it's pretty damn normal to give thought to guys and sex everyday. Not all of us out there are asexual freaks. See most women I know enjoy thinking about guys and sex. It's natural. We're social, sexual people. You put 20,000 college ages people together and of course people are going to be checking each other out. It's part of being a normal functional person.
But I draw the line when she takes the the liberty of asserting herself as the spokesperson for all 10,000 women on campus. If I were you girls I'd be pissed! All 10,000 sad female victims of this onslaught of male attention we keep throwing your way. What a pity!
Answer me: Is there one rational, straight, mentally stable girl on this campus who can honestly tell me she wants less attention from guys? Is there one who would be happy knowing that finally - oh finally - no guys will be checking her out as they walk around campus? Seriously? We all know women love attention. God didn't invent push up bras, fake tanning, and miniskirts - Women did! No girl just inexplicably gets attention from guys. This isn't a scene from a "She's All That" movie.
But let us not get to sidetrack or we might forget really what is going on here. It may not seem like it, but her whole letter isn't actually about how good looking women are sick of guys checking them out. It's about how loser women are sick of getting no attention themselves. There's a difference here and we must not forget it.
She was right about one thing though, and that is that yes guys look at girls. A lot. It's what we do. It's in our genes. But Rachel must have been confused; not only did she fail to mention the liveliness in which women check out men, but she clearly misinterpreted her own situation. I'm pretty sure guys weren't staring at her in lust because she looked good, they were staring at her in horror because she looks like some sort of farm animal. Someone needs to tell her this.
I don't know about everyone else, but that letter made me sick and it wasn't just because I'm a guy. If I were a girl I'd be pissed too; the last person I'd want expressing my sentiments is a bitter and disillusioned feminist. Statements from retards like her may help explain why women today still make 70 cents to a man's dollar. It's something to think about.
Lastly if she thinks her letter is going to deter us guys from checking out girls, she has another thing coming. Nothing in this world can deter a man from checking out a girl. Nothing. Ladies if no guys are checking you out, it's not because some piggish feminist told us not to. It's probably because you don't look so good.
It's as simple as that.
Of course, this will get bashed by feminists who are still thinking of how to respond. Unfortunately for that pathetic lot, this is spot on.
I'm guessing Rachel doesn't indeed receive the attention she claims she does. After all, that's what feminists have become nowadays, shaming the truly remarkable women who invented real feminism. The putative feminists of today are merely masochistic, pathetic women who scrutinize virtually every facet of society in order to gain attention that they can not otherwise receive owing to their ugliness, morbid obesity, or the dreadful combo of the two.
Sean Creighton
posted 11/05/09 @ 10:40 AM PST
Originally posted byBrian Krichevsky
I don't know if any of you caught today's "Letter to the Editor", but I did, and I was a little bit dismayed. Let me explain.
...
Lastly if she thinks her letter is going to deter us guys from checking out girls, she has another thing coming. Nothing in this world can deter a man from checking out a girl. Nothing. Ladies if no guys are checking you out, it's not because some piggish feminist told us not to. It's probably because you don't look so good.
It's as simple as that.
What compels you to spread this ignorance? I question the value of free speech each time fraudulent information gets portrayed as truth.
The attention that some men give when they stare at women isn't what women want. Simply because those stares are reducing women to objects of sexual desire, opposed to complete persons. It may be "natural" as you claim for men to do this. But such a claim is similar to saying it is "natural" to defecate in your pants or fail to brush your teeth. What separates us from our natural tendencies is the ability to use our imagination in an attempt to evaluate multiple variables at once, not reduce ourselves and others to one single variable, which to you, is sexual gratification.
Why get an education if you simply cannot control yourself or perceive yourself as this natural creature? Just retreat to the woods and exercise your natural impulses there. We have transcended such primitive exertions.
So, next time "think things through," think about the ignorance you might be spreading. You are the reason women make 70 cents on the dollar.
The most attractive part of anyone's body is their brain, it attracts more than any physical organ. You may not get this being a young kid who interprets the world in terms of T&A. Gravity will take care of those physical components and you may be left a 60 year old man who sits in his window staring at young girls all day.
Amanda Kraus
posted 11/05/09 @ 12:33 PM PST
Oh Brian,
Your ability to prove Rachel right in many aspects is applauding and I'm sure she thanks you for it. I doubt I'll touch on everything I'd like to reply to you (though Eric Hill summed it up nicely). One point: you are a male who is not looking to create allies with your female counterparts, but instead are perpetuating the myths that put your women in danger, especially on college campuses. Assuming that they like attention and want attention, and male biology makes them gawk, allows for people to say things like "he couldn't control his sexual urges and that's why he raped her", or "dressing like that, clearly she WANTED sexual attention, she was asking for it." This may seem like a stretch to you, but it's a slippery slope my friend, and you are sliding down it.
In one of the statements that you "thought about" you imply an attractive girl doesn't like to read or write, that is an absolutely disgusting and inaccurate. What are girls doing here then? Yes, there are girls here who enjoy going out to bars, and to parties with their friends who may or may not be in fraternities, but to imply that these girls are unintelligent, and additionally make up the majority of the female population on campus has been backed up with no fact or even educated opinion, only your hope that you can prove this young woman wrong to make you feel it is okay to be the oppressor.
I'm not mad at Rachel at all for, as you say, trying to represent all women like you say I should be(though a letter to the editor is a personal commentary, and she never claimed to be able to read the mind of every woman on campus). I know some great guys on campus who offer a friendly smile, but aren't staring at a woman's chest while they do it, and these men aren't mentioned by her (but I am certain she knows they exist). I have, however, also witnessed and experienced many of same type of men Rachel talks about, and though you say they have a right to look, she also has a right to feel uncomfortable, to not like it, and voice her opinion in a public forum.
Also, if you are complaining about her wrongly representing all women on campus, you are guilty of the same problem. You say if you were a girl you would feel the same way? How do you know that? You have not lived in a woman's world or experienced her hardships. And I am insulted for you assuming you know how I feel, or how I should feel. You insult her for being a feminist, a word I feel you misinterpret to mean man-hater or another negative misinterpretation, but what is wrong with a woman trying to make the best for herself. Are you upset because she is not afraid to voice her opinion? Does this intimidate you that you may be losing footing? That she is not silenced by your masculine presence? What are you afraid of?
Although I have left many points out I find myself stooping a bit to make this one that has no bearing on Rachel's argument, but for the imagined impact it will have on you.. I need to make it. It was pointed out to me who Rachel is, and she is a gorgeous girl that walks across this campus confidently. She does not appear to need you, or anyone's, approval so your "farm animal", "retard", "ugly" comments I'm afraid are incorrect, and likely more disappointing to you, won't impact her in the least.
Your ability to prove Rachel right in many aspects is applauding and I'm sure she thanks you for it. I doubt I'll touch on everything I'd like to reply to you (though Eric Hill summed it up nicely). One point: you are a male who is not looking to create allies with your female counterparts, but instead are perpetuating the myths that put your women in danger, especially on college campuses. Assuming that they like attention and want attention, and male biology makes them gawk, allows for people to say things like "he couldn't control his sexual urges and that's why he raped her", or "dressing like that, clearly she WANTED sexual attention, she was asking for it." This may seem like a stretch to you, but it's a slippery slope my friend, and you are sliding down it.
In one of the statements that you "thought about" you imply an attractive girl doesn't like to read or write, that is an absolutely disgusting and inaccurate. What are girls doing here then? Yes, there are girls here who enjoy going out to bars, and to parties with their friends who may or may not be in fraternities, but to imply that these girls are unintelligent, and additionally make up the majority of the female population on campus has been backed up with no fact or even educated opinion, only your hope that you can prove this young woman wrong to make you feel it is okay to be the oppressor.
I'm not mad at Rachel at all for, as you say, trying to represent all women like you say I should be(though a letter to the editor is a personal commentary, and she never claimed to be able to read the mind of every woman on campus). I know some great guys on campus who offer a friendly smile, but aren't staring at a woman's chest while they do it, and these men aren't mentioned by her (but I am certain she knows they exist). I have, however, also witnessed and experienced many of same type of men Rachel talks about, and though you say they have a right to look, she also has a right to feel uncomfortable, to not like it, and voice her opinion in a public forum.
Also, if you are complaining about her wrongly representing all women on campus, you are guilty of the same problem. You say if you were a girl you would feel the same way? How do you know that? You have not lived in a woman's world or experienced her hardships. And I am insulted for you assuming you know how I feel, or how I should feel. You insult her for being a feminist, a word I feel you misinterpret to mean man-hater or another negative misinterpretation, but what is wrong with a woman trying to make the best for herself. Are you upset because she is not afraid to voice her opinion? Does this intimidate you that you may be losing footing? That she is not silenced by your masculine presence? What are you afraid of?
Although I have left many points out I find myself stooping a bit to make this one that has no bearing on Rachel's argument, but for the imagined impact it will have on you.. I need to make it. It was pointed out to me who Rachel is, and she is a gorgeous girl that walks across this campus confidently. She does not appear to need you, or anyone's, approval so your "farm animal", "retard", "ugly" comments I'm afraid are incorrect, and likely more disappointing to you, won't impact her in the least.
Steve Carmantaga
posted 11/12/09 @ 2:18 PM PST
Originally posted byBrian Krichevsky
I don't know if any of you caught today's "Letter to the Editor", but I did, and I was a little bit dismayed. Let me explain.
First, we must meet the author, Rachel Brinker, a senior at OSU studying (surprise, surprise!) Women's Studies. The letter she wrote today titled, "Concerning Lookers and Gawkers - Back off Fellas", is a hostile attack at the male population on campus, urging us to "back off" from lewdly checking out females as they walk by. She says dealing with "the barrage of lookers, gawkers and sneak- peakers" is – get this - affecting women around campus in a negative way, wasting their time because it's drawing their attention away from much more important and adult like things they are otherwise thinking about. Yeah right - what world are you living in? I'm pretty sure most girls at this school are more worried about which frat or bar they are going to on the weekend than any adult topic I can think of. She also asserts that the male population has "nothing better to do" with their time than check out girls.
(This may or may not be true)
There was even a part during her nonsensical rant where she wrote, "...on my five-minute walk to class, I'm forced to walk through a gauntlet of what looks like slobbering zombies intent on consuming anything of me they can get their eyes on in the five seconds it takes for us to pass each other."
And it was here where I stopped, because yes, we may be slobbering zombies who constantly check out girls, but I'll tell you one thing: we at least have enough sense to check out the good looking ones. And God knows that total is not 10,000 at this school as she later argues in her letter. I bet it's closer to 500 and I'd also bet my life savings Rachel Brinker isn't one of them.
How do I know?
Well first – and I've thought this through - there simply couldn't possibly be a girl out there who would be compelled to write a letter to her college newspaper because she is sick of all the attention she is getting from guys? That is just impossible. To be fair most girls who get this much attention from guys have no interest in such things as reading and writing anyway, but really what kind of absurd logic is that? Your upset because your getting attention from the opposite sex? The single most important thing we all strive for in life? I've heard some awful arguments in my day, but wow that is beyond dumb.
And secondly - and more convincing - I did what guys do when they want to know more about a girl: I looked her up on facebook. And get this: she doesn't have one! And even more telling than that is she has a feminist blog...which she regularly updates! Hmm, yeah, let me think about this. A girl more concerned with feminism than her social life; who writes angst filled letters to the school newspaper castigating sex; who doesn't have one picture of herself on the Internet...Yeah that sounds exactly like every hot girl I've ever met. Sign this one up for a bikini shoot; I think we have a winner.
This is good too: Midway through her self righteous tirade she says this gem:"The level of visual consumption of female bodies on campus is so high, women are forced to give at least some energy and thought to it, everyday."
And I'm like yeah, I don't know about you Rachel, but I think it's pretty damn normal to give thought to guys and sex everyday. Not all of us out there are asexual freaks. See most women I know enjoy thinking about guys and sex. It's natural. We're social, sexual people. You put 20,000 college ages people together and of course people are going to be checking each other out. It's part of being a normal functional person.
But I draw the line when she takes the the liberty of asserting herself as the spokesperson for all 10,000 women on campus. If I were you girls I'd be pissed! All 10,000 sad female victims of this onslaught of male attention we keep throwing your way. What a pity!
Answer me: Is there one rational, straight, mentally stable girl on this campus who can honestly tell me she wants less attention from guys? Is there one who would be happy knowing that finally - oh finally - no guys will be checking her out as they walk around campus? Seriously? We all know women love attention. God didn't invent push up bras, fake tanning, and miniskirts - Women did! No girl just inexplicably gets attention from guys. This isn't a scene from a "She's All That" movie.
But let us not get to sidetrack or we might forget really what is going on here. It may not seem like it, but her whole letter isn't actually about how good looking women are sick of guys checking them out. It's about how loser women are sick of getting no attention themselves. There's a difference here and we must not forget it.
She was right about one thing though, and that is that yes guys look at girls. A lot. It's what we do. It's in our genes. But Rachel must have been confused; not only did she fail to mention the liveliness in which women check out men, but she clearly misinterpreted her own situation. I'm pretty sure guys weren't staring at her in lust because she looked good, they were staring at her in horror because she looks like some sort of farm animal. Someone needs to tell her this.
I don't know about everyone else, but that letter made me sick and it wasn't just because I'm a guy. If I were a girl I'd be pissed too; the last person I'd want expressing my sentiments is a bitter and disillusioned feminist. Statements from retards like her may help explain why women today still make 70 cents to a man's dollar. It's something to think about.
Lastly if she thinks her letter is going to deter us guys from checking out girls, she has another thing coming. Nothing in this world can deter a man from checking out a girl. Nothing. Ladies if no guys are checking you out, it's not because some piggish feminist told us not to. It's probably because you don't look so good.
It's as simple as that.
Wow, spot on, I completely agree with you. Also, females have the right to dress how they want, if they want to dress to get attention, they will. If they don't want attention, it is very easy to dress in a fashion so they will not get this undesired attention from "slobbering males".
Poorly constructed argument
posted 11/20/09 @ 11:12 AM PST
To Brian's response: this is a typical poor argument that merely boils down to character assassination. Persuade us using logic so others can consider your argument.
Besides, your assessment of a person you've never met couldn't be more wrong. Rachel is gorgeous, both in a conventional and non-conventional way, inside and out, Facebook profile or no.
Besides, your assessment of a person you've never met couldn't be more wrong. Rachel is gorgeous, both in a conventional and non-conventional way, inside and out, Facebook profile or no.
Chris
posted 11/04/09 @ 9:50 AM PST
You just have a built-in defense against someone pointing out you (the author, obv) are whining; stretch a minor psychological defense mechanism too far.
The fact remains that while you may observe some guys checking girls out all the time, that is STILL a small sample size, and for every guy at a table near the MU there are a hundred in the library, West eating, in their rooms, and in class, doing other things. You remember the times you've seen people do this because you're making an effort to, while the majority of guys who aren't acting that way get lost in your memory, another basic psych principle; you aren't the only one who's taken 101. Attempting to berate an entire gender for what a minority do, and the same minority of your own gender do, it obviously absurd.
Try changing the behaviors of hormonally-imbalanced teens and college students and see what happens. Like their parents, you too will fail in your futile efforts. Might as well complain that the sky is blue and winter is cold. Quit wasting your time on this and perhaps spend some more reading your radical feminist philosophy.
The fact remains that while you may observe some guys checking girls out all the time, that is STILL a small sample size, and for every guy at a table near the MU there are a hundred in the library, West eating, in their rooms, and in class, doing other things. You remember the times you've seen people do this because you're making an effort to, while the majority of guys who aren't acting that way get lost in your memory, another basic psych principle; you aren't the only one who's taken 101. Attempting to berate an entire gender for what a minority do, and the same minority of your own gender do, it obviously absurd.
Try changing the behaviors of hormonally-imbalanced teens and college students and see what happens. Like their parents, you too will fail in your futile efforts. Might as well complain that the sky is blue and winter is cold. Quit wasting your time on this and perhaps spend some more reading your radical feminist philosophy.
Leah
posted 11/04/09 @ 1:07 PM PST
I think that you brought up an interesting issue you. I truly do not find myself being judged as much from men as I do from women, that lovely thing we call horizontal hostility. All though men may be gawking you for your body they do not care about the clothes I do not think as much as the full body image. On the other hand women are more harsh because they are not gawking but judging, ALL THE TIME!!!
Zivi Loeb
posted 11/05/09 @ 2:50 PM PST
Originally posted byLeah
I think that you brought up an interesting issue you. I truly do not find myself being judged as much from men as I do from women, that lovely thing we call horizontal hostility. All though men may be gawking you for your body they do not care about the clothes I do not think as much as the full body image. On the other hand women are more harsh because they are not gawking but judging, ALL THE TIME!!!
What is the purpose of all of these generalizations!? Why do we need to purpetuate these illusions? Women can be harsh and so can men. Men and Women can both be pigs. Why the battle with gender? We are only purpetuating on old paradigm. EVOLVE! Please!
I was really especially discusted in reading Brian's response. It just kept getting worse and more sad as I read on. It doesn't even warrant a response and frankly should be taken out. It is absolute trash and is a prime example of human beings who are toxic, reactive, perpetuating abuse, and incapable of healthy and non-violent communication. It has not right to be in here. Rachel was sharing her experience with us and inviting us to disagree by posting our (hopefully thought out) responses in the spirit of constructive criticism. Constructive! These opportunities can become stronger catalyst for deeper understanding through non-violent and constructive communication. Maybe you need to look up what that means before attempting to reply in such a reactive and insulting manner. Sounds like a nerve might have been struck...
There were a few valid points you brought up, but unfortunately they were clouded over with your poorly thought out argument, unintellible perpetuation of ignorance, and clear demonstration that you do not understand women any better than you understand men. I found it insulting, sad, and discusting. May healing happen and may some divine Goddess who has far more patience than I do, take pity on you and illuminate your many viels of ignorance.
anon1987
posted 11/04/09 @ 4:51 PM PST
Wow, it seems Brian understands women more than the author of the letter.
Newsflash: "checking people out" doesn't lead directly to rape! Is that some kind of joke? Seriously?
Also, please quote where I said girls "don't mind." Really, I missed that.
I didn't realize that men showed their sexual needs by raping women... I thought that just demented, mentally ill men who want power (which is what I thought rape was about) raped women. Oh well, you learn something new every day!
-Brainwashed Apologist for Patriarchy
Newsflash: "checking people out" doesn't lead directly to rape! Is that some kind of joke? Seriously?
Also, please quote where I said girls "don't mind." Really, I missed that.
I didn't realize that men showed their sexual needs by raping women... I thought that just demented, mentally ill men who want power (which is what I thought rape was about) raped women. Oh well, you learn something new every day!
-Brainwashed Apologist for Patriarchy
Ryan (>'')>
posted 11/05/09 @ 7:51 AM PST
Sam and Brian are defensive. Their feathers are puffed and sized up against a simple discussion regarding human nature, as if they are guilty of a darker crime.
I appreciate Zivi's comment, especially the international angle. When I was in Germany I remember clubbing in Munich and the women were honest to the "conservative American." One girl said "look I get it, you think I'm cute. I think youre cute too. So lets stop talking and dance." In America we have so many rules of engagement for women that, for me, it detracts from dating all together. American girls are so hard to understand >_<;
I appreciate, again, Zivi's comment about how women should fight back with wit. Allowing someone to gaze at you and cause discomfort won't be resolved until you take actions to point it out. What guys do, what women do, what society does has remarkable correlations to dynamic reactions and interactions. Thats why we sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Or sometime "sporadic actions" has a lot more understanding than we notice.
I believe it is human nature for men to gaze at a lovely female form and that engagement can have a positive or negative response on the female. If the gaze is taken negatively then please let us know. If you enjoy the looks from the individual than please let us know. COMMUNICATE because assuming makes an ass out of you and me.
Brian. I feel I need to communicate my disgust towards your response. When you attacked a individual you sunk lower than the nematodes at your feet. You projected stereotyping with the belief that feminists are nazis, facebook is for anyone thats worth mentioning, and anyone who speaks up about social dilemmas is ugly. Mud slinging doesn't affect Rach. but it certainly shows a sample of the personal disrespect you tarnish yourself with. YOU FAIL@!
Thanks for the discussion Rach!
I appreciate Zivi's comment, especially the international angle. When I was in Germany I remember clubbing in Munich and the women were honest to the "conservative American." One girl said "look I get it, you think I'm cute. I think youre cute too. So lets stop talking and dance." In America we have so many rules of engagement for women that, for me, it detracts from dating all together. American girls are so hard to understand >_<;
I appreciate, again, Zivi's comment about how women should fight back with wit. Allowing someone to gaze at you and cause discomfort won't be resolved until you take actions to point it out. What guys do, what women do, what society does has remarkable correlations to dynamic reactions and interactions. Thats why we sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Or sometime "sporadic actions" has a lot more understanding than we notice.
I believe it is human nature for men to gaze at a lovely female form and that engagement can have a positive or negative response on the female. If the gaze is taken negatively then please let us know. If you enjoy the looks from the individual than please let us know. COMMUNICATE because assuming makes an ass out of you and me.
Brian. I feel I need to communicate my disgust towards your response. When you attacked a individual you sunk lower than the nematodes at your feet. You projected stereotyping with the belief that feminists are nazis, facebook is for anyone thats worth mentioning, and anyone who speaks up about social dilemmas is ugly. Mud slinging doesn't affect Rach. but it certainly shows a sample of the personal disrespect you tarnish yourself with. YOU FAIL@!
Thanks for the discussion Rach!
Laia
posted 11/05/09 @ 9:40 AM PST
Thank you Rachel for bringing up this point. I'm tired of being seen as a potential conquest first and a person deserving of respect second (if at all). It's a travesty that I won't be taken seriously as a graduate student and future professional if I don't conceal every aspect of my body that might distract the male gaze. I've actually known a couple of men who are able to control their hormones, and I wouldn't trade their friendship for the world. Popular culture would have us all believe that we are slaves to our hormones and there's nothing to do about it, but popular culture is often wrong about most everything, and it is definitely wrong about this.
And in response to an earlier comment about women not having their picture on the internet, there is a simple reason for this. We are aware of the abuse that such images are subject to by the males of this species, and we're actively choosing against that abuse. I do not exist in this world to be your masturbatory aid, men. It's time for you all to grow up.
And in response to an earlier comment about women not having their picture on the internet, there is a simple reason for this. We are aware of the abuse that such images are subject to by the males of this species, and we're actively choosing against that abuse. I do not exist in this world to be your masturbatory aid, men. It's time for you all to grow up.
terrified
posted 11/05/09 @ 12:53 PM PST
Rachel,
The responses your post has garnered are absolutely terrifying. I want to respond to them angrily for example when Brian writes something along the lines of: to be fair women getting attention from guys aren't interested in reading and writing.. and respond with "to be fair, you seem to be typing with your head up your ass which might explain this blabber of words you call logic that appeared on the screen." I know this doesn't make progress and this is an argument it is hard to take the rational side on because the people replying angrily, blaming biology, assuming you to be unattractive, and all feminists unattractive, are not going to be listening, their selective hearing doesn't allow for it. What needs to be addressed next is how we can change these attitudes. Not all men will take in movies like Tough Guise, attend a Women's Studies class, read a feminist publication.. how can we reach these men (in addition to making sure they can't make more little boys just like that will spread this hate they release into society.... joking...)?
The responses your post has garnered are absolutely terrifying. I want to respond to them angrily for example when Brian writes something along the lines of: to be fair women getting attention from guys aren't interested in reading and writing.. and respond with "to be fair, you seem to be typing with your head up your ass which might explain this blabber of words you call logic that appeared on the screen." I know this doesn't make progress and this is an argument it is hard to take the rational side on because the people replying angrily, blaming biology, assuming you to be unattractive, and all feminists unattractive, are not going to be listening, their selective hearing doesn't allow for it. What needs to be addressed next is how we can change these attitudes. Not all men will take in movies like Tough Guise, attend a Women's Studies class, read a feminist publication.. how can we reach these men (in addition to making sure they can't make more little boys just like that will spread this hate they release into society.... joking...)?
montesireland
posted 11/05/09 @ 2:43 PM PST
I will repost here what I posted on the WC blog:
We are, perhaps, giving more credence to some (quite mediocre, patriarchal) arguments than need be... Instead of giving credibility to the fallacious ad hominem attacks of certain responders, we might ask him/them instead:
why? how so? what makes you think that way? what (in your life experience) has influenced your (misinformed) ideas? can you argue your point in a way that engages IDEAS without attacking the AUTHOR, sir? what makes you feel so strongly, or why are you having such a strong/emotional reaction to the piece?
We need to begin to situate *misogyny* as strange, not the other way around... Ideas of justice (for all genders) are NOT strange. When one engages and perpetuates hegemonic rhetoric, yes, it can be deafening - but it is often a small group speaking with a loud "microphone."
We are, perhaps, giving more credence to some (quite mediocre, patriarchal) arguments than need be... Instead of giving credibility to the fallacious ad hominem attacks of certain responders, we might ask him/them instead:
why? how so? what makes you think that way? what (in your life experience) has influenced your (misinformed) ideas? can you argue your point in a way that engages IDEAS without attacking the AUTHOR, sir? what makes you feel so strongly, or why are you having such a strong/emotional reaction to the piece?
We need to begin to situate *misogyny* as strange, not the other way around... Ideas of justice (for all genders) are NOT strange. When one engages and perpetuates hegemonic rhetoric, yes, it can be deafening - but it is often a small group speaking with a loud "microphone."
Kelsey Johnson
posted 11/05/09 @ 4:56 PM PST
In response to Rachel Brinker's Forum regarding "lookers and gawkers" and the comments that followed:
Rachel, I think you bring up an important issue about the objectification of women and their bodies, and how that can ultimately lead to a perception of women as "not fully human". I think that what you were alluding to is the importance of viewing women AND men as full beings, not simply a part of the whole (refer to Martin Buber and his essay Ich and Du). When someone is not considered fully human, it may be easier for an abuser to abuse them or a harasser to harass them, because they are not viewing that person holistically, with feelings, ambitions, family, and so forth. So the issue brought up by Ms. Brinker is important because it reminds us that we are all human and that by identifying our imperfections and biases we can (and should) be working towards justice and equality as well as recognizing our interconnectedness.
I would also like to comment briefly about the ways in which both Ms. Brinker and Mr. Kirchevsky relayed their rather (for lack of a better word) extreme messages. If our goal is to have a meaningful discussion about important social issues, it is important not to over generalize and/or make unwarranted attacks on large groups or individuals. Although these methods may be instrumental in stirring up conversation and sometimes crucial in gauging society's outlook on the matter, we must also acknowledge (however unwillingly) the impact that such harsh generalizations and personal attacks have on the community members you are trying to impact.
If feminists (of all genders) wish to attract more people either as allies or members, I don't believe that making claims that all guys are "just on autopilot, mindlessly consuming all of our shapes, sizing up our various parts without even really thinking about what you (they) are doing" is prudent. First, it assumes that all men are heterosexual and staring at women and two, it can illicit an unfortunate reaction of "defense" by those men who already identify as feminist and those who do not. Furthermore, personal attacks by Mr. Kirchevsky that assume the feminist writer looks like a "farm animal" and that "hot girls" do not "read and write anyway", are not only Sexist and Lookist, but unproductive. And while you both have the right to expression, whether that manifest itself in frustration or even anger, I think it is also important to take into consideration how society will react to writing and views that that are narrow and half-hazard.
Rachel, I think you bring up an important issue about the objectification of women and their bodies, and how that can ultimately lead to a perception of women as "not fully human". I think that what you were alluding to is the importance of viewing women AND men as full beings, not simply a part of the whole (refer to Martin Buber and his essay Ich and Du). When someone is not considered fully human, it may be easier for an abuser to abuse them or a harasser to harass them, because they are not viewing that person holistically, with feelings, ambitions, family, and so forth. So the issue brought up by Ms. Brinker is important because it reminds us that we are all human and that by identifying our imperfections and biases we can (and should) be working towards justice and equality as well as recognizing our interconnectedness.
I would also like to comment briefly about the ways in which both Ms. Brinker and Mr. Kirchevsky relayed their rather (for lack of a better word) extreme messages. If our goal is to have a meaningful discussion about important social issues, it is important not to over generalize and/or make unwarranted attacks on large groups or individuals. Although these methods may be instrumental in stirring up conversation and sometimes crucial in gauging society's outlook on the matter, we must also acknowledge (however unwillingly) the impact that such harsh generalizations and personal attacks have on the community members you are trying to impact.
If feminists (of all genders) wish to attract more people either as allies or members, I don't believe that making claims that all guys are "just on autopilot, mindlessly consuming all of our shapes, sizing up our various parts without even really thinking about what you (they) are doing" is prudent. First, it assumes that all men are heterosexual and staring at women and two, it can illicit an unfortunate reaction of "defense" by those men who already identify as feminist and those who do not. Furthermore, personal attacks by Mr. Kirchevsky that assume the feminist writer looks like a "farm animal" and that "hot girls" do not "read and write anyway", are not only Sexist and Lookist, but unproductive. And while you both have the right to expression, whether that manifest itself in frustration or even anger, I think it is also important to take into consideration how society will react to writing and views that that are narrow and half-hazard.
Laughing
posted 11/06/09 @ 1:01 AM PST
http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=Brian+Krichevsky&o=2048&init=ffs#/profile.php?id=11513869&ref=search&sid=1239050277.2451402201..1
Check out Brian's Facebook:
Exihibit A: slobbering Zombie
(check it soon, he'll probably change the pic once he sees this)
Check out Brian's Facebook:
Exihibit A: slobbering Zombie
(check it soon, he'll probably change the pic once he sees this)
Laughing
posted 11/06/09 @ 1:21 AM PST
http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=Brian+Krichevsky&o=2048&init=ffs#/profile.php?id=11513869&ref=search&sid=1239050277.2451402201..1
Has anyone checked out Brian's facebook pic?
It's perfect: sketchy goatee, tongue out, drink in hand.. you can almost smell the cheap cologne
Exhibit A: slobbering zombie
(check it soon, he'll probably change it when he sees this)
Has anyone checked out Brian's facebook pic?
It's perfect: sketchy goatee, tongue out, drink in hand.. you can almost smell the cheap cologne
Exhibit A: slobbering zombie
(check it soon, he'll probably change it when he sees this)
Amanda Kraus
posted 11/06/09 @ 9:02 AM PST
Oh Brian,
Your ability to prove Rachel right in many aspects is applauding and I'm sure she thanks you for it. I doubt I'll touch on everything I'd like to reply to you (though Eric Hill summed it up nicely). One point: you are a male who is not looking to create allies with your female counterparts, but instead are perpetuating the myths that put your women in danger, especially on college campuses. Assuming that they like attention and want attention, and male biology makes them gawk, allows for people to say things like "he couldn't control his sexual urges and that's why he raped her", or "dressing like that, clearly she WANTED sexual attention, she was asking for it." This may seem like a stretch to you, but it's a slippery slope my friend, and you are sliding down it.
In one of the statements that you "thought about" you imply an attractive girl doesn't like to read or write, that is an absolutely disgusting and inaccurate. What are girls doing here then? Yes, there are girls here who enjoy going out to bars, and to parties with their friends who may or may not be in fraternities, but to imply that these girls are unintelligent, and additionally make up the majority of the female population on campus has been backed up with no fact or even educated opinion, only your hope that you can prove this young woman wrong to make you feel it is okay to be the oppressor.
I'm not mad at Rachel at all for, as you say, trying to represent all women like you say I should be(though a letter to the editor is a personal commentary, and she never claimed to be able to read the mind of every woman on campus). I know some great guys on campus who offer a friendly smile, but aren't staring at a woman's chest while they do it, and these men aren't mentioned by her (but I am certain she knows they exist). I have, however, also witnessed and experienced many of same type of men Rachel talks about, and though you say they have a right to look, she also has a right to feel uncomfortable, to not like it, and voice her opinion in a public forum.
Also, if you are complaining about her wrongly representing all women on campus, you are guilty of the same problem. You say if you were a girl you would feel the same way? How do you know that? You have not lived in a woman's world or experienced her hardships. And I am insulted for you assuming you know how I feel, or how I should feel. You insult her for being a feminist, a word I feel you misinterpret to mean man-hater or another negative misinterpretation, but what is wrong with a woman trying to make the best for herself. Are you upset because she is not afraid to voice her opinion? Does this intimidate you that you may be losing footing? That she is not silenced by your masculine presence? What are you afraid of?
Although I have left many points out I find myself stooping a bit to make this one that has no bearing on Rachel's argument, but for the imagined impact it will have on you.. I need to make it. It was pointed out to me who Rachel is, and she is a gorgeous girl that walks across this campus confidently. She does not appear to need you, or anyone's, approval so your "farm animal", "retard", "ugly" comments I'm afraid are incorrect, and likely more disappointing to you, won't impact her in the least.
Your ability to prove Rachel right in many aspects is applauding and I'm sure she thanks you for it. I doubt I'll touch on everything I'd like to reply to you (though Eric Hill summed it up nicely). One point: you are a male who is not looking to create allies with your female counterparts, but instead are perpetuating the myths that put your women in danger, especially on college campuses. Assuming that they like attention and want attention, and male biology makes them gawk, allows for people to say things like "he couldn't control his sexual urges and that's why he raped her", or "dressing like that, clearly she WANTED sexual attention, she was asking for it." This may seem like a stretch to you, but it's a slippery slope my friend, and you are sliding down it.
In one of the statements that you "thought about" you imply an attractive girl doesn't like to read or write, that is an absolutely disgusting and inaccurate. What are girls doing here then? Yes, there are girls here who enjoy going out to bars, and to parties with their friends who may or may not be in fraternities, but to imply that these girls are unintelligent, and additionally make up the majority of the female population on campus has been backed up with no fact or even educated opinion, only your hope that you can prove this young woman wrong to make you feel it is okay to be the oppressor.
I'm not mad at Rachel at all for, as you say, trying to represent all women like you say I should be(though a letter to the editor is a personal commentary, and she never claimed to be able to read the mind of every woman on campus). I know some great guys on campus who offer a friendly smile, but aren't staring at a woman's chest while they do it, and these men aren't mentioned by her (but I am certain she knows they exist). I have, however, also witnessed and experienced many of same type of men Rachel talks about, and though you say they have a right to look, she also has a right to feel uncomfortable, to not like it, and voice her opinion in a public forum.
Also, if you are complaining about her wrongly representing all women on campus, you are guilty of the same problem. You say if you were a girl you would feel the same way? How do you know that? You have not lived in a woman's world or experienced her hardships. And I am insulted for you assuming you know how I feel, or how I should feel. You insult her for being a feminist, a word I feel you misinterpret to mean man-hater or another negative misinterpretation, but what is wrong with a woman trying to make the best for herself. Are you upset because she is not afraid to voice her opinion? Does this intimidate you that you may be losing footing? That she is not silenced by your masculine presence? What are you afraid of?
Although I have left many points out I find myself stooping a bit to make this one that has no bearing on Rachel's argument, but for the imagined impact it will have on you.. I need to make it. It was pointed out to me who Rachel is, and she is a gorgeous girl that walks across this campus confidently. She does not appear to need you, or anyone's, approval so your "farm animal", "retard", "ugly" comments I'm afraid are incorrect, and likely more disappointing to you, won't impact her in the least.
Paul
posted 11/06/09 @ 12:06 PM PST
I'll admit I look, but I look at everyone. Unless I'm fidgiting with something or checking my phone I look at everyone. Young, old, ugly and beautiful. I am also looking at their faces and their eyes. I don't know why, but I see a face and look at their eyes. Maybe it's because I have poor eyesight and movement catches them.
On a side note my looks are never malicious unless you cut me off in traffic or almost run me down. I have so many things going on you have no idea about. So when I'm looking at you don't assume anything. I could be remembering that I forgot to do something at work, a funny joke I remembered, or something my kids did to make me smile.
Yea I look, but I might see a friend I haven't seen in years and to me it doesn't mean a thing.
Let the flames begin because I know someone will have a problem with this.
On a side note my looks are never malicious unless you cut me off in traffic or almost run me down. I have so many things going on you have no idea about. So when I'm looking at you don't assume anything. I could be remembering that I forgot to do something at work, a funny joke I remembered, or something my kids did to make me smile.
Yea I look, but I might see a friend I haven't seen in years and to me it doesn't mean a thing.
Let the flames begin because I know someone will have a problem with this.
montesireland
posted 11/06/09 @ 6:04 PM PST
Paul, thank you for your (very reasonable) comments here... I am not sure why it is you expect to be lambasted for your thoughts ;), but let me say this: the reason what you wrote is actually interesting (versus blatantly sexist) is that it doesn't seem to have come from a place of pure defensiveness, nor from a place of sexist 'dismissal' of the writer or her arguments. So (I speak only for myself when I say), more of this type of commentary can actually FURTHER good discussions on this issue, instead of trying to *shut down* discussion like certain other folks have attempted to do here.
I will allow others on this board to address what you said about whether or not looking at women/or everyone is malicious, sexist, etc. I think you bring up some ideas that can be a 'point of entry' to discussing what *really* is at the heart of this post - misogyny and sexual terrorism. Are there different types of looking/gazing/gawking? (Are there ways of looking at someone that are not [as] objectifying? How might that look?)
The question remains: DOES *intention* actually matter if the effect is still the same (on the person/woman/victim)? We've all been taught this, 'it's the thought that counts' right?... BUT then again, we've also been taught 'actions speak louder than words' and I believe it's important to understand that when women feel uncomfortable - or even more so, unsafe - when men *gawk* ... how do we address the behaviors of those who are making someone else feel unsafe?
Originally posted byPaul
I'll admit I look, but I look at everyone. [...] I am also looking at their faces and their eyes. I don't know why, but I see a face and look at their eyes.
I will allow others on this board to address what you said about whether or not looking at women/or everyone is malicious, sexist, etc. I think you bring up some ideas that can be a 'point of entry' to discussing what *really* is at the heart of this post - misogyny and sexual terrorism. Are there different types of looking/gazing/gawking? (Are there ways of looking at someone that are not [as] objectifying? How might that look?)
The question remains: DOES *intention* actually matter if the effect is still the same (on the person/woman/victim)? We've all been taught this, 'it's the thought that counts' right?... BUT then again, we've also been taught 'actions speak louder than words' and I believe it's important to understand that when women feel uncomfortable - or even more so, unsafe - when men *gawk* ... how do we address the behaviors of those who are making someone else feel unsafe?
Chris
posted 11/06/09 @ 7:25 PM PST
Originally posted byPaul
I'll admit I look, but I look at everyone. Unless I'm fidgiting with something or checking my phone I look at everyone. Young, old, ugly and beautiful. I am also looking at their faces and their eyes. I don't know why, but I see a face and look at their eyes. Maybe it's because I have poor eyesight and movement catches them.
Quit trying to kiss the feminists' asses. We know, you get lost in their eyes. Whatever. Go read Twilight some more.
Perhaps people are being defensive on this board because they were called slobbering dogs, and were being told what to do? What reaction does one expect when a writer attacks 49% of the population?
To "Husband-Hunting girl": people can walk and chew gum at the same time. NOBODY has academics on their mind 24/7, so don't pretend you do, or anyone else should. You say "Husband Hunting" as if when a girl notices that a guy is attractive, she automatically wants to marry him, and you use it in a derogatory way. You're being sexist towards your own gender as well. You don't want people to be equal, you just want everyone to act the way YOU want. You're dictator without any power, a tyrant without a kingdom. Thank God for that.
NOTHING you do or say is going to change anyone's minds. You're writing to a small paper, or on a blog, complaining to a small number of people who either obviously already agree, or disagree, with you. Nobody cares what you think, you're just causing more arguments and tension.
I like how you complain about personal attacks, then you go off and do THE EXACT SAME THING! Don't act like you're above someone one minute, then act the same way the next, hypocrite.
If you don't want to be seen, take online classes. You can even take your tests in your PJs! If you insist on going to a large, PUBLIC university, people are going to look at you and judge you. You made a choice to come here, now live with the consequences. AND STOP WHINING.
anon1987
posted 11/06/09 @ 6:12 PM PST
(Sorry, quote feature wasn't working)
"I find it completely troubling that a female, if you are a female, would stoop so low as to not think more highly of yourself and your abilities to be "above" men in this regard. Do you ask yourself why you like this attention, if that's your aim or argument? Do you wonder why you feel the need to hinder your academic abilities and have "nothing better to think about"? Common ladies....your in college for a reason, start using your brain power for academic reasons not for husband hunting!"
I simply do not think women are any better than men in this regard. It's absurd to think so. Maybe we're not as obvious about it (actually, I'm pretty sure that's the case), but YES, women check out men just as much, and if you don't believe so, you're in your own little world.
Hinder my academic abilities? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that my classes had to be on my mind 24/7, and to think about anything that wasn't related to academics was "hindering" myself. I work hard, study, and do my homework. I get good grades. Sometimes, college students do things that don't relate to class! GASP.
I'm not "husband hunting." We're all here for an education, first and foremost (including guys, Rachel). I didn't realize giving any thought to the opposite sex was disturbing to some people.
"I find it completely troubling that a female, if you are a female, would stoop so low as to not think more highly of yourself and your abilities to be "above" men in this regard. Do you ask yourself why you like this attention, if that's your aim or argument? Do you wonder why you feel the need to hinder your academic abilities and have "nothing better to think about"? Common ladies....your in college for a reason, start using your brain power for academic reasons not for husband hunting!"
I simply do not think women are any better than men in this regard. It's absurd to think so. Maybe we're not as obvious about it (actually, I'm pretty sure that's the case), but YES, women check out men just as much, and if you don't believe so, you're in your own little world.
Hinder my academic abilities? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that my classes had to be on my mind 24/7, and to think about anything that wasn't related to academics was "hindering" myself. I work hard, study, and do my homework. I get good grades. Sometimes, college students do things that don't relate to class! GASP.
I'm not "husband hunting." We're all here for an education, first and foremost (including guys, Rachel). I didn't realize giving any thought to the opposite sex was disturbing to some people.
try a little harder
posted 11/07/09 @ 8:50 AM PST
Originally posted byanon1987
(Sorry, quote feature wasn't working)
"I find it completely troubling that a female, if you are a female, would stoop so low as to not think more highly of yourself and your abilities to be "above" men in this regard. Do you ask yourself why you like this attention, if that's your aim or argument? Do you wonder why you feel the need to hinder your academic abilities and have "nothing better to think about"? Common ladies....your in college for a reason, start using your brain power for academic reasons not for husband hunting!"
I simply do not think women are any better than men in this regard. It's absurd to think so. Maybe we're not as obvious about it (actually, I'm pretty sure that's the case), but YES, women check out men just as much, and if you don't believe so, you're in your own little world.
Hinder my academic abilities? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that my classes had to be on my mind 24/7, and to think about anything that wasn't related to academics was "hindering" myself. I work hard, study, and do my homework. I get good grades. Sometimes, college students do things that don't relate to class! GASP.
I'm not "husband hunting." We're all here for an education, first and foremost (including guys, Rachel). I didn't realize giving any thought to the opposite sex was disturbing to some people.
Anon,
The backdrop to all of this is a societal mindset that women are weak, less than, sexual objects, useable, or necessary to satisfy male sexual needs (hello Brian, Chris, Sam, and Saul). And that's exactly what happens. A third of women in the U.S. have been sexually assaulted by a man. I am one of the millions. Most likely time frame for the sexual assault to take place- high school through college. Check.
Demanding the right to look at whatever body or body part you want to because you're a man (whether you think that YOU are personally harmless or not) is one more daily example to me, as a women and a survivor of sexual assault, that I am not safe. And Anon, I am making an assumption here, but it would completely floor me if you have ever made a man feel physically or sexually unsafe or fear for autonomy over his body or actions by the way that you looked at him.
Men, I know that many of you are safe. Many of you would never consider performing a sexual act with someone who is unable to consent to it. I know that it can be hard to be held accountable for men's sexual violence against women. So, be an ally- take part in standing against sexism and patriarchy. The next time you see an inebriated women being sized up by a friend or stranger at a party, do something about it. Call a cab, find a friend of hers, stop it. The next time you hear a peer on campus talk about a women's body in a highly sexualized way, tell them that they're disgusting.
For all of those taking part in this thread who will likely dub me a man-hater, you've got it all wrong. My partner is a man and a feminist. I would count many of the male posters on this page as friends, should I meet them. I do not hate all men, I just fear what some of them are capable of.
ERic Hill
posted 11/08/09 @ 7:54 AM PST
[QUOTE id="cfb9d9a7-0409-41f8-8b7c-82d3736fb821"](Sorry, quote feature wasn't working)
"I find it completely troubling that a female, if you are a female, would stoop so low as to not think more highly of yourself and your abilities to be "above" men in this regard. Do you ask yourself why you like this attention, if that's your aim or argument? Do you wonder why you feel the need to hinder your academic abilities and have "nothing better to think about"? Common ladies....your in college for a reason, start using your brain power for academic reasons not for husband hunting!"
Bravo. You have articulated the concern better than anyone else in this forum. Thank you for this. Hopefully some of the men who are getting their feathers ruffled here (for reasons I can't quite fathom) will learn something about this. Well said.
I simply do not think women are any better than men in this regard. It's absurd to think so. Maybe we're not as obvious about it (actually, I'm pretty sure that's the case), but YES, women check out men just as much, and if you don't believe so, you're in your own little world.
Hinder my academic abilities? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that my classes had to be on my mind 24/7, and to think about anything that wasn't related to academics was "hindering" myself. I work hard, study, and do my homework. I get good grades. Sometimes, college students do things that don't relate to class! GASP.
I'm not "husband hunting." We're all here for an education, first and foremost (including guys, Rachel). I didn't realize giving any thought to the opposite sex was disturbing to some people.
"I find it completely troubling that a female, if you are a female, would stoop so low as to not think more highly of yourself and your abilities to be "above" men in this regard. Do you ask yourself why you like this attention, if that's your aim or argument? Do you wonder why you feel the need to hinder your academic abilities and have "nothing better to think about"? Common ladies....your in college for a reason, start using your brain power for academic reasons not for husband hunting!"
Bravo. You have articulated the concern better than anyone else in this forum. Thank you for this. Hopefully some of the men who are getting their feathers ruffled here (for reasons I can't quite fathom) will learn something about this. Well said.
I simply do not think women are any better than men in this regard. It's absurd to think so. Maybe we're not as obvious about it (actually, I'm pretty sure that's the case), but YES, women check out men just as much, and if you don't believe so, you're in your own little world.
Hinder my academic abilities? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that my classes had to be on my mind 24/7, and to think about anything that wasn't related to academics was "hindering" myself. I work hard, study, and do my homework. I get good grades. Sometimes, college students do things that don't relate to class! GASP.
I'm not "husband hunting." We're all here for an education, first and foremost (including guys, Rachel). I didn't realize giving any thought to the opposite sex was disturbing to some people.
FGF
posted 11/08/09 @ 10:34 PM PST
Brian, that was an insightful and well-articulated commentary with a personal touch. It cut right through a cocoon of self-righteousness protecting the truth which is, apparently, too painful for most here to accept. Well done!
GN
posted 11/10/09 @ 10:43 AM PST
This thread astonishes me. The myopic responses of people like Chris, Brian, Saul, Sam, etc., show nothing more than their own egocentric view of the world.
Sure, I don't think anyone will argue that we all check each other out from time to time. What these men don't seem to understand is that when being checked out is excessive and intrusive, this can be perceived as threatening.
Brian, Chris, et. al., try to imagine that you lived in a world where anytime someone looked at you you were afraid that they wanted to beat you up. Sure, most people looking at you might only be "checking you out", but how would you know? You wouldn't. You'd be afraid, or at least uncomfortable with everyone who looked at you. Now, try to imagine taking that to another level. Sexual assault is a far more intimate violation than just being beaten up.
Part of living in society is trying to consider the lives of those around you.
Final thought: Rachel said, both in her title and in the final sentence of her letter, "Back Off". If we think about this a moment, she did not say "Stop". The applicable definition of "Back Off" in this instance is "To become less aggressive". So, this request is not that everyone stop checking each other out. It is simply to make such activities less blatant, intrusive even threatening. Take it down a notch.
Sure, I don't think anyone will argue that we all check each other out from time to time. What these men don't seem to understand is that when being checked out is excessive and intrusive, this can be perceived as threatening.
Brian, Chris, et. al., try to imagine that you lived in a world where anytime someone looked at you you were afraid that they wanted to beat you up. Sure, most people looking at you might only be "checking you out", but how would you know? You wouldn't. You'd be afraid, or at least uncomfortable with everyone who looked at you. Now, try to imagine taking that to another level. Sexual assault is a far more intimate violation than just being beaten up.
Part of living in society is trying to consider the lives of those around you.
Final thought: Rachel said, both in her title and in the final sentence of her letter, "Back Off". If we think about this a moment, she did not say "Stop". The applicable definition of "Back Off" in this instance is "To become less aggressive". So, this request is not that everyone stop checking each other out. It is simply to make such activities less blatant, intrusive even threatening. Take it down a notch.
Steve Carmantaga
posted 11/12/09 @ 2:36 PM PST
Originally posted byGN
This thread astonishes me. The myopic responses of people like Chris, Brian, Saul, Sam, etc., show nothing more than their own egocentric view of the world.
Sure, I don't think anyone will argue that we all check each other out from time to time. What these men don't seem to understand is that when being checked out is excessive and intrusive, this can be perceived as threatening.
Brian, Chris, et. al., try to imagine that you lived in a world where anytime someone looked at you you were afraid that they wanted to beat you up. Sure, most people looking at you might only be "checking you out", but how would you know? You wouldn't. You'd be afraid, or at least uncomfortable with everyone who looked at you. Now, try to imagine taking that to another level. Sexual assault is a far more intimate violation than just being beaten up.
Part of living in society is trying to consider the lives of those around you.
Final thought: Rachel said, both in her title and in the final sentence of her letter, "Back Off". If we think about this a moment, she did not say "Stop". The applicable definition of "Back Off" in this instance is "To become less aggressive". So, this request is not that everyone stop checking each other out. It is simply to make such activities less blatant, intrusive even threatening. Take it down a notch.
"Brian, Chris, et. al., try to imagine that you lived in a world where anytime someone looked at you you were afraid that they wanted to beat you up."
What world do you live in where you have to be scared of every single person you pass on the street? Have you really met so many absolutely horrible people to where that is a necessary fear? I see hundreds of girls every day walking through campus that are proud, strong people, and don't mind the attention, and are not scared of every person they pass. Believe it or not, a majority of guys are not bad people.
Paul
posted 11/10/09 @ 12:25 PM PST
In response to Chris. Why would I kiss anyone's ass? I never said I stared into people's eyes either. If any of you guys on here knew my ex-wife, then you would be wondering why I'm not jumping on the woman bashing bandwagon. In essence I don't care about these stupid games you play. As for Twilight... Never read it, never seen it, but you seem to be a big fan. You remind of those people who whine and there is no point to it. I expressed my own observations about my own behavoir and you think it's pandering.
carl
posted 11/10/09 @ 2:09 PM PST
Now I am really afraid to ask a girl out. I might get labeled as sexual offender...
Concerned
posted 11/10/09 @ 2:21 PM PST
Schizophrenics often suffer from deluded fantasies that everyone is watching them. Perhaps, Miss Brinker, you should consider getting some professional help?
Fonzie
posted 11/10/09 @ 4:44 PM PST
This is the most non-related to reality article I have read on the Barometer so far.
I was kind of curious to see what the heck you look like, cause you made yourself look like you are a really hot girl who dresses up really sexy. But unfortunately I couldn't get to see your face.
Anyways, the idea of generalization here seems to overcome the reality. The way you write is just something that doesn't seem to be part of the reality you live on. You say going to the Chemistry class, while you are a liberal study major. You say that guys always do that, not mentioning that it could be a few, not to mention that some of them actually could be gay, something you as a liberal major should be aware of. Some of the guys on the other hand have a girlfriend and can manage not to pay attention of other girls as they go through the traffic. Anyways, what you have said is impossible to really apply in the way you have expressed and the level of bias on this article is unmatchable.
The lesson here is that people like you who have extremist ideas of any kind should be reconsidered twice before been given the microphone. Freedom has its limits, and extremism is always showing one side as being totally fair and right while the other one as wrong and unfair.
I was kind of curious to see what the heck you look like, cause you made yourself look like you are a really hot girl who dresses up really sexy. But unfortunately I couldn't get to see your face.
Anyways, the idea of generalization here seems to overcome the reality. The way you write is just something that doesn't seem to be part of the reality you live on. You say going to the Chemistry class, while you are a liberal study major. You say that guys always do that, not mentioning that it could be a few, not to mention that some of them actually could be gay, something you as a liberal major should be aware of. Some of the guys on the other hand have a girlfriend and can manage not to pay attention of other girls as they go through the traffic. Anyways, what you have said is impossible to really apply in the way you have expressed and the level of bias on this article is unmatchable.
The lesson here is that people like you who have extremist ideas of any kind should be reconsidered twice before been given the microphone. Freedom has its limits, and extremism is always showing one side as being totally fair and right while the other one as wrong and unfair.
Eric Hill
posted 11/11/09 @ 6:25 AM PST
Is it just me or has this thread devolved into a series of "male bonding" and stem-brained grunts? I guess the best way to prove a point is to allow the troglodytes to come down from the trees and out of the caves in order to beat their manly chests and throw their verbal feces at upright passersby. Good job, men; you've managed to display all of the ugly, stupid, and backward sentiments that show why the patriarchy is still alive and well. It truly makes one proud to share a gender with all you evolutionary U-turns.
Michael Flyger
posted 11/11/09 @ 7:30 PM PST
Let me applaud a great conversation. Objectification of women is indeed a social problem and one that I think is worth fighting. Things aren't always so clear for certain situations--and probably they won't ever be crystal clear because we're not talking about absolutes.
In the end I'd love to see a more mature culture where sexuality isn't goverened by puritanical prudery. In order to reach this point, however, we need equality of empowerment. Some individuals have reached this point where others haven't--and socially we're not close.
This topic leads to a lot of confusion for people for many reasons. I'd like to point out a few.
1) People are both social and individual creatures. Social behavior is what we're talking about here--social respect. However individual choice allows women and men to choose forms of interaction that may differ from yours. The crux is where we get into areas of consent--these can't be resolved in any absolute way but this is the important interface.
2) We are a biological species. Our instincts drive a lot of our motivations. There's little we can do at this point to modify them. However, as a social species we can strive for cultural practices that encourage control of impulses and harm of others. Better still is learning to embrace the desirable aspects of our instincts while minimizing the undesirable.
3) We always need to be careful when we push individual morality into the social level. The crux is the concept of consent--and clearly non-consensual impositions on others (preaching OR harassment) is clearly unethical. Where we don't get to make edicts is where people have consented--no matter how we may not like the behavior.
4) Violence against women is a social-level problem. It isn't an individual choice. Objectification is a more complex problem--and some of it is very very instinctual not just for men but also for women. Women have been dressing / decorating to compete for status with other women for ... a long, long time. There isn't a clear slippery-slope between objectification and rape but the hidden social pressures can also be damaging.
To wrap up: Rachel's request is at the most general level to be admired. Women want social dignity and respect--they are, after all, people too. I would caution against being oversensitive to the casual looks and glances. But I'd rather see men try harder to be respectful than to condone a one-sided social-sexuality.
In the end I'd love to see a more mature culture where sexuality isn't goverened by puritanical prudery. In order to reach this point, however, we need equality of empowerment. Some individuals have reached this point where others haven't--and socially we're not close.
This topic leads to a lot of confusion for people for many reasons. I'd like to point out a few.
1) People are both social and individual creatures. Social behavior is what we're talking about here--social respect. However individual choice allows women and men to choose forms of interaction that may differ from yours. The crux is where we get into areas of consent--these can't be resolved in any absolute way but this is the important interface.
2) We are a biological species. Our instincts drive a lot of our motivations. There's little we can do at this point to modify them. However, as a social species we can strive for cultural practices that encourage control of impulses and harm of others. Better still is learning to embrace the desirable aspects of our instincts while minimizing the undesirable.
3) We always need to be careful when we push individual morality into the social level. The crux is the concept of consent--and clearly non-consensual impositions on others (preaching OR harassment) is clearly unethical. Where we don't get to make edicts is where people have consented--no matter how we may not like the behavior.
4) Violence against women is a social-level problem. It isn't an individual choice. Objectification is a more complex problem--and some of it is very very instinctual not just for men but also for women. Women have been dressing / decorating to compete for status with other women for ... a long, long time. There isn't a clear slippery-slope between objectification and rape but the hidden social pressures can also be damaging.
To wrap up: Rachel's request is at the most general level to be admired. Women want social dignity and respect--they are, after all, people too. I would caution against being oversensitive to the casual looks and glances. But I'd rather see men try harder to be respectful than to condone a one-sided social-sexuality.
- Displaying 1 - 48 of 48
anon1987
posted 11/03/09 @ 1:12 PM PST