That is certainly one way to view it. Another is that most people are women, so women’s perspective can be assumed as the default in any topic.
If people have sincere personal problems with a participant in a group discussion, I think that it is best dealt with through real moderation. Otherwise it looks more like staging a popularity contest to decide who should be allowed to voice an opinion.
Whether or not a post is on-topic depends upon the content of that post - not upon the person who posted it, or what one supposes they know about that person outside of the immediate discussion. For a board which deals so much with countering authoritarianism, it would be a shame if we ourselves were unable to handle civilized dissent. I think there is more to be gained by celebrating difference and diversity of opinions. With the exception of tolerating intolerance itself.
That’s all I intend to say about that! I am interested in the topic, as it is relevant to my daily life. It directly impacts my interactions with others, my family’s interactions with society, employment, education, law.
Again, that makes much more sense than the way the question was originally framed.
While I do think the author missed the point of the original post, the discussion which followed was still on topic; in that the comment reflects the kind of obtuseness which is all too common when dealing with the idea of objectification and why it can be such a detrimental problem.
Welp, I’m glad we got that sorted then. So now that no women anywhere in the world are being treated like second-class citizens, I guess all us feminists can go do something else now.
Oh, was that too sarcastic? Maybe it’s just that my lifetime of experience as a woman is the total opposite of your statement. And maybe I’m just tired of my experiences being ignored because you’d rather live in your bubble than believe the women who tell you what their lives are like.
Burkas, lady. We’re talking burkas. You in? Because I know a guy. High quality. Very reliable. Anything you need- Niquab? Chador? Tell him I sent you, he’ll give you a good deal. Fix that whole “objectification” thing in no time flat.
Let’s do a word count on this thread and see how many are from dudes.
I had about 40. But, like at least 4 of them were “I” or “a”, so I kinda want to count it as like 35.
Oh, if only that were true, what a different world it would be.
It would seem, therefore, that the solution is not within women but within men.
Go figure; how bou da?
Four from me, but that’s after I got two comments memory-holed.
To me, this is like climate change. It’s settled science. It’s not what women need to do, but what men need to do. The conversations I really want to see are:
How best should we go about educating men? Obviously there are levels of men out there: from the out and out rapist, to the blatantly sexist, on up to feminists and people who view women as complete equals in all ways and don’t often give this stuff a second thought unless its in their faces. So, how do we educate men at all cognitive levels on this?
How do we correctly raise our daughters in this mean old world?
Separately, and related to #1, how do we correctly raise our sons in this mean old world?
That question was asked a few times under a different wording in the original thread and it proved to be conflictual.
False dichotomy much? The point is about treating women like people, not objects to satisfy your urges. It’s pretty plain and simple.
How do you equate saying that scenarios can be framed from different perspectives as invalidating any of them? I did start by affirming @chgoliz’s input. Is it some sort of contest where only one of us can be relating a valid perspective? Having different experiences or views in no way implies discredit or disbelief. And it certainly does not entitle anyone to personally blame a respectful interlocutor for their frustrating experiences. I am here to openly discuss a societal issue, not to represent or challenge a polarized “camp” position.
What I think gets contentious is the balance between accepting that injustice happens now, and strategies of what to do about it. As can be readily seen when bigots defensively complain that those who point out that racism or sexism occurs are “the real bigots.” But it is also true that how we conceptualize a problem frames what we are able to do about it in the future, and that internalizing a harmful consensus is a great risk. For example, consider the simple semantics between saying that “Women need for their equal worth to be recognized”, and “Women should have equal worth.” It sounds nitpicky, but they have completely implications.
My (perhaps unpopular) thinking is that framing the solutions this way further bakes the problems into society. It is using “good sexism” to counter “bad sexism”, rather than simply dispensing with sexism as a model for social organization. I think that the only effective way to go about it is to dispense with sex and gender roles. Respecting people is independent of anyone’s sex, or race, or species.
I agree that reducing/eliminating the societal trend of encouraging and rewarding selfish compulsive behaviors is crucial to this process. And people need to re-think their economic models also, because a culture which reduces everything to a market worth is inevitably going to find sneaky ways to commoditize desire, sexuality, and even lives. Participatory economics and politics encourage participatory sexuality. Just as many current exploitive economics and politics encourage exploitive sexuality.
The problem isn’t that your idea is bad. The problem is in implementation. If you’re talking implementation with groups who already think like you do, then there is no need to implement as the solution is already at their fingertips. But if you’re talking 'murika America, and people of all walks, who maybe are not as familiar with a less differentiated socialization structure, then there is no way you can reach em by telling them to dispense entirely with genderfication. They won’t hear it. I would like the solution. I would like women politicians, doctors, police, CEOs, etc., to be just as common as men. Similar to how I would like non-white people to have access (real access, not putative AKA Trumpian access) to any kind of job or life they want to lead.
Anyways, that’s why I framed it as three separate questions. Because I believe for where the USA is, right now, it pretty much is three separate questions. Or people will not receive it. They can barely receive any facts at all, so maybe I’m still wishfully thinking on gender bias issues.
Although I do see your point that doing away with gender roles would be the best route. I’m just not so sure how to implement it in a way that is actionable by the community at large. Educate me if I’m off base on that, please.
Unless, of course, one is intent upon going out of one’s way to not understand, because then that would mean facing potentially unpleasant truths that contradicts one’s own personal mythology.
I would urge you to read Martha Nussbaum, and her explanations of objectification, wherein there is no “glossing.” We most often think of objectification in terms of attraction, but the two are actually separate. Turning someone into an “object” has very little to do with desire, but rather with power structures. The corrosive nature of patriarchy is that we (and I mean all of us) don’t fully appreciate the invasive nature of its sway.
I would further say that the premise of this thread is inherently faulty insofar as attraction is not “versus” objectification.
Agreed; it’s totally possible to be physically attracted to another person without objectifying him or her.
I’m not keen on all of this side topic splitting off. By removing these elements of the discussion from their original context, one runs the great risk of weakening them, making them seem more inconsequential.