Feminism redux - please read first post of thread

[Stannisaurus]

You know, I can't see how you do. One is reciprocal, the other is not. Which is the basis for the original statement. If it is mutual and reciprocal, given by both parties, then it is a completely different thing altogether from something that is forced upon you by someone else. The latter is a one way street.

Non-reciprocal behavior would includes (for example) a guy telling in public an unknown woman that she is pretty. So either you also consider that the same thing with catcalling or you have to add another criterion to judge catcalling as unacceptable.

One that is obvious to me is that catcalling is "obscene" (for lack of a better word).

Those two (non-reciprocal and obscene) are enough to reject catcalling as an acceptable behavior which means that the whole "not approval" thing is obsolete and unhelpful as a criterion since it is found in pretty much any public affection.

So, I am really not sure how you came to your conclusions. I cannot apply any logic that will make reciprocal = forced.

I cannot apply any logic that will make anything I said imply that reciprocal=forced...

[DanteGabriel]

Am I missing something here? A major difference between PDA and cat-calling is there is a prior relationship. If I attempt to kiss or hold hands with a random stranger on the street, I'd expect a highly antagonistic reaction. Likewise, if I see a friend of mine across the street and call out to her, "Hey, lookin' good!" then it is probably going to be met with a positive reaction, or at least not the kind of reaction that a random stranger cat-calling her would get.

I don't see how one can possibly find PDA and catcalling at all comparable.

[TerraPrime]

I don't see how one can possibly find PDA and catcalling at all comparable.

That is because you're missing the element here:

Not that I am claiming that catcalling is best categorized as "public affection".

See? He didn't say that catcalling is properly a type of public affection, but he's making the comparison any way. But I bet he's waiting for the gotcha moment you're providing! ;-)

The error you have here, Dante, is you're treating this like a genuine engagement of discussion rather than just harranging a thread by skirting the lines of permissible content, i.e., trolling. He's posted enough stuff to hide behind the shield of posting on topic but really, there's nothing of susbtance to his objection and is best characterized as arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Stannisaurus]

Except that the comparison I am making is derived by the logic of your post... with which I disagree.

But hey, if it makes you feel any better to consider this as trolling, go ahead :dunno:

I have sufficiently explained my position

[Tempra]

Am I missing something here? A major difference between PDA and cat-calling is there is a prior relationship. If I attempt to kiss or hold hands with a random stranger on the street, I'd expect a highly antagonistic reaction. Likewise, if I see a friend of mine across the street and call out to her, "Hey, lookin' good!" then it is probably going to be met with a positive reaction, or at least not the kind of reaction that a random stranger cat-calling her would get.

I don't see how one can possibly find PDA and catcalling at all comparable.

I might be off base but I think he is drawing a parallel between how a woman (or guy) would feel after witnessing PDA/catcalling based on the following TP statement:

Hidden behind those catcalls is the judgement that the other women do not meet approval, yes?

If so, do the reciprocal/forced or prior relationship distinctions change how a woman would feel after witnessing a PDA? Isn't a man kissing a woman an implicit judgment that other women do not meet his approval? I think the comparison feels strained because the original statement is a bit wonky.

[Stannisaurus]

If so, do the reciprocal/forced or prior relationship distinctions change how a woman would feel after witnessing a PDA? Isn't a man kissing a woman an implicit judgment that other women do not meet his approval? I think the comparison feels strained because the original statement is a bit wonky.

Yes, that's more or less what I am saying.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

That doesn't make sense to me. Seeing a strange man and a strange woman kissing is not itself a rejection of other persons. It is simply a display of the affection that those two hold for each other. There really isn't a parallel to catcalling which (1) is a display of power (ie, cat caller makes cat called listen no matter what) and (2) is not mutual.

[Tempra]

That doesn't make sense to me. Seeing a strange man and a strange woman kissing is not itself a rejection of other persons. It is simply a display of the affection that those two hold for each other. There really isn't a parallel to catcalling which (1) is a display of power (ie, cat caller makes cat called listen no matter what) and (2) is not mutual.

But seeing a strange man catcall a strange woman is a rejection of other persons? Why? Because the man catcalled X instead of Y? That may not be what TP meant but I can see why Stannisaurus followed up the way he did.

To be clear, no one has denied that a catcaller exercises power over the catcallee; the disagreement is over what effect catcalling (and PDA) has on bystanders.

Edit:

The observation made in the article that the objectification would have been non-invasive and not at all oppressive if it had been done in silence (i.e. without the part where "I see you and reduce you to sexual object" part being announced) is interesting.

Isn't that just ogling? You don't find a guy undressing you with eyes to be "invasive"?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I've got less of a problem with staring. Sure, staring is rude in our culture, but it is more democratically rude somehow. (Mind you I have been made uncomfortable by staring before but still).

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

The protracted back-and-forth about whether action X is sexual harassment against women or not, and then, what-about-the-men, is tiresome and unuseful in the context of this thread. If people want life-coaching tips on how to behave properly around most women, go start a new thread and ask for help. Let's move the discussion back to feminism, and not How Men Should Behave To Avoid Being Considered A Creep 101.

Also, people should know that on average, 97.2% of whataboutthemenigitis is off topic in this thread.

[/mod hat]

[MerenthaClone]

TerrorPrime, on 14 May 2014 - 4:24 PM, said:

Also, people should know that on average, 97.2% of whataboutthemenigitis is off topic in this thread.

Meningitis is a serious medical condition that can affect everyone. :p

Related to the barbie discussion a while ago, have http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/sex-positivity-critical-analysis/

Do I make my own choice every day about whether or not I want to put on make-up? Yeah. And can it be empowering for me to make a choice for myself? Sure.

But do I come to the conclusion to buy mascara in a vacuum? No.

So can I ever know for sure whether or not I’d still make the same decision under different circumstances? No. I can’t.

The same goes for sex.

A friend of mine who is also in the not-quite-sex-positive camp recently brought up to me at a party the concept of bimbofication, which is a fetish involving women playing up the bimbo stereotype – from her looks (long, blonde hair; large breasts) to her personality (ditzy, man-pleasing, sexually available).

The question that my friend presented was: “What do you think of this?”

And at its core, that’s awesome. If you want to do that, cool. You’re an adult. Do what makes you happy. I want people to lead healthy, satisfying sex lives. If extensions and high heels do that for you, rock on.

But on the other hand, I think it’s fair to go a step beyond that. Because I am curious about understanding why certain preferences exist: What messages are we receiving from society at large that are telling us that this is preferable?

Much more in the link.

[deleted01]

I really enjoyed the first page or so of this thread. Although interested, I've always been nervous about posting in these threads, mainly because of how they can end up. But I'm glad this one seems to be more on-track.

Lyanna (I think) made the point of why we dress the way we do, and it really made me think about my own decisions. I tend to stick with t-shirts and leggings, and feel extremely uncomfortable in anything considered to be "feminine". Dresses, skirts, heels, they're all out for me. I think I make this decision so that I wear what makes me feel comfortable. Dressing smart would mean a pair of black trousers or leggings, a nice top/shirt and a blazer or cardigan. The downside of this is that on the rare occasion that I do "dress up", I get comments that are phrased as compliments, but actually come across as insults. Such as "oh you look really nice when you make an effort!" or "you should dress girly more often!". I've been mistaken for a lesbian, and had it used as an insult (because being a lesbian is the worst thing in the world :rolleyes: ), and when friends demand that I put on a dress to go out of an evening, I don't go out.

That aside, I still wear make-up, paint my nails and do my hair, and I enjoy doing so. I like experimenting. The earlier discussion about pink and "girly" things also made me think. I personally hate it when people put you into boxes. What's wrong with wearing men's t-shirts with bright pink socks? Why can't I like make-up and Disney films, while still enjoying action films and reading certain novels. I like knowing my way around my car in the same way I enjoy knowing my way around a kitchen.

I think that, as a woman, people often expect you to justify your decisions. I don't think you should have to answer to anyone - but understanding why you make certain decisions, such as the clothing you wear, is very important, and I'm glad I read the post(s) that raised this question.

[TerraPrime]

Nice link. I like this part:

The argument is that just because it’s empowering for you personally doesn’t mean that it does women on the whole any good. So then the question becomes what is feminist, then? Your personal empowerment? Or the lifting up of a community?

The truth is: There isn’t actually an answer here. There are a million other details to take into account, and there’s always the argument that any woman who is personally empowered is empowering women on the whole.

This scans true for me.

I think feminism exists on multiple levels. First, I see it as an introspective tool to guide my own investigation of my sexuality. Second, it is a lens through which to see the world and analyze my relation to the rest of the world. And finally, it is a political movement that impacts millions of women and men.

This is why sometimes it is impossible to talk about feminism because even feminists tend to conflate the different levels of feminism at work.

But more to the content of that linked article, it is indeed a tricky question but not a new one, really. Feminism has been dealing with variations of this since inception, e.g. what is the proper feminist reaction to stay-at-home mothers? Or, does empowering women to make their own life choices include accepting that some will choose to be subservient to her husband?

And I think the answer is also largely the same here - feminism in general doesn't seek to shame women into abandoning those choices, nor does it wish to impose a single standard of behavior for all to follow. However, what I would like to see, at least, is that we make sure that every woman who decides to take those options are (1) aware that other options exist, (2) be receptive to the notion that these options are morally and ethically equivalent, and (3) be able to make the final decision free of excessive social pressure. This means, for instance, that a 19 year-old girl groomed by her Christian fundamentalist relatiives to think that women's role is to be her husband's aide and follower is probably failing the test on whether her decision should be accepted in the feminist analysis. On the other hand, a 26 year-old woman who has already worked a few years and who is aware of examples in her life of women who are not stay-at-home mothers deciding that she would rather spend time taking care of her children and her husband is probably doing just fine, and her decision should be respected.

I think the same applies to the sex-positive, or 3rd wave-ish feminism thing, too, like the recent case of Miley Cyrus and the foam finger incident. Are women choosing to be in these roles doing so out of a field of choices that are equally accessible? Or are they doing so because it is one way of finding power in a male-dominated landscape of sexuality? This is even more frought with peril when we delve into BDSM scenes with women as the submissives. It's a real tangled mess of power, gender, culture, transgression, and self-actualization. So the author of the linked article (Melissa Fabello) is definitely right in saying that the process is not about finding a single right or wrong answer, but about the useful interrogation of the factors in these considerations.

[1918me]

Meningitis is a serious medical condition that can affect everyone. :P

Related to the barbie discussion a while ago, have http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/sex-positivity-critical-analysis/

But do I come to the conclusion to buy mascara in a vacuum? No.

So can I ever know for sure whether or not I’d still make the same decision under different circumstances? No. I can’t.

The same goes for sex.

A friend of mine who is also in the not-quite-sex-positive camp recently brought up to me at a party the concept of bimbofication, which is a fetish involving women playing up the bimbo stereotype – from her looks (long, blonde hair; large breasts) to her personality (ditzy, man-pleasing, sexually available).

The question that my friend presented was: “What do you think of this?”

And at its core, that’s awesome. If you want to do that, cool. You’re an adult. Do what makes you happy. I want people to lead healthy, satisfying sex lives. If extensions and high heels do that for you, rock on.

But on the other hand, I think it’s fair to go a step beyond that. Because I am curious about understanding why certain preferences exist: What messages are we receiving from society at large that are telling us that this is preferable?

Much more in the link.

This does seem to be an important problem for modern feminism. While it is certainly important that we should all have the freedom to make our own lifestyle choices, I can definitely understand how it is at least as important to understand the underlying motivations behind them. It does seem to relate back to the discussions on the first few pages of this thread, and many decisions can almost be seen as a kind of balancing act (e.g., if you buy your daughter a barbie, are you allowing her freedom of expression, or are you perpetuating a damaging set of values about womanhood?).

I liked the example in the article about "bimbofication." It seems that this is obviously something that any adult should be allowed to engage in, but at the same time, there is a strong chance that the desire to do something like this stems from the cultural perception of (and value of) women-as-sex-objects. However, as the author of the article impresses the importance of being cognizant of the social causes of this kind of behavior, I feel that as long as one understands why they make the decisions that they do, then there is no harm in engaging in them.

If someone wants to dress in makeup, act in such a way, etc., then I think that's completely fine, but I do feel that the motivation for that kind of behavior should stem from a place of personal empowerment and desire. The genesis of those kinds of motivations may be a little difficult to determine at times, of course, but I think the main thing to keep in mind is that it's not the behavior that really counts, but whether one is doing it for herself - or even for other people, if that's a strong part of her motivation - or because society in general expects it. Perhaps that's a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it, but that's all I've got :dunno:

[Sparrowyn]

Nice link. I like this part:

This scans true for me.

I think feminism exists on multiple levels. First, I see it as an introspective tool to guide my own investigation of my sexuality. Second, it is a lens through which to see the world and analyze my relation to the rest of the world. And finally, it is a political movement that impacts millions of women and men.

This is why sometimes it is impossible to talk about feminism because even feminists tend to conflate the different levels of feminism at work.

But more to the content of that linked article, it is indeed a tricky question but not a new one, really. Feminism has been dealing with variations of this since inception, e.g. what is the proper feminist reaction to stay-at-home mothers? Or, does empowering women to make their own life choices include accepting that some will choose to be subservient to her husband?

And I think the answer is also largely the same here - feminism in general doesn't seek to shame women into abandoning those choices, nor does it wish to impose a single standard of behavior for all to follow. However, what I would like to see, at least, is that we make sure that every woman who decides to take those options are (1) aware that other options exist, (2) be receptive to the notion that these options are morally and ethically equivalent, and (3) be able to make the final decision free of excessive social pressure. This means, for instance, that a 19 year-old girl groomed by her Christian fundamentalist relatiives to think that women's role is to be her husband's aide and follower is probably failing the test on whether her decision should be accepted in the feminist analysis. On the other hand, a 26 year-old woman who has already worked a few years and who is aware of examples in her life of women who are not stay-at-home mothers deciding that she would rather spend time taking care of her children and her husband is probably doing just fine, and her decision should be respected.

I think the same applies to the sex-positive, or 3rd wave-ish feminism thing, too, like the recent case of Miley Cyrus and the foam finger incident. Are women choosing to be in these roles doing so out of a field of choices that are equally accessible? Or are they doing so because it is one way of finding power in a male-dominated landscape of sexuality? This is even more frought with peril when we delve into BDSM scenes with women as the submissives. It's a real tangled mess of power, gender, culture, transgression, and self-actualization. So the author of the linked article (Melissa Fabello) is definitely right in saying that the process is not about finding a single right or wrong answer, but about the useful interrogation of the factors in these considerations.

I've read the article by Melissa Fabello and that hits home!

I think that's why I have a problem with the more extremist elements of Feminism. The notion that if you're not completely with us, then you are against us. I think it's also the reason that some women, those who have earned their stripes in the workplace and in their personal lives, consider themselves to be feminists, if they have kids instill those beliefs in their children, etc... have moved away from the feminist movement.

Hillary Clinton is in the news again.

The only political campaign I've ever contributed money to was when Hillary Clinton was running against Obama during the Democratic Nomination process. I was surprised at the time, that some feminists looked down on her for being the stereotypical "good wife", and didn't vote for her on that alone. Seemed rather ridiculous to me.

I'd be interested to know how the women on this thread view Hillary Clinton.

Personally, I hope she runs in 2016.

I'll support her again... but will feminists?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Just to clarify, are you trying to say that "those women who have earned their stripes", which grammatically is equivalent to "all women who have earned their stripes" are moving away from feminism? So feminists are, by definition, the ones who haven't/won't?

[Sparrowyn]

Just to clarify, are you trying to say that "those women who have earned their stripes", which grammatically is equivalent to "all women who have earned their stripes" are moving away from feminism? So feminists are, by definition, the ones who haven't/won't?

No, that is not what I said.

This is exactly what I said... "I think it's also the reason that some women, those who have earned their stripes in the workplace and in their personal lives, consider themselves to be feminists, if they have kids instill those beliefs in their children, etc... have moved away from the feminist movement."

You can be a feminist, that is hold those values which feminism espouses, and not be involved in the feminism movement.

[MinDonner]

So basically the word "those" shouldn't be in the sentence?

[Sparrowyn]

You can put the word "those" anywhere you want.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Sparrow, I'm having trouble parsing the sentence myself. Are you trying to say that women with successful careers who also have children have moved away from identifying themselves as feminist? Or are you saying that those women, who themselves may identify as feminist inculcate feminist values in their children who then reject the label? Something else?

As a woman with a (very) successful career in a (very) male dominated profession who also happens to have three children, I can only say that I have become more feminist and more comfortable identifying as such the further I get along in my career. Children don't figure in that except that I wish to be sure my daughters and son have the maximum opportunity available to them.