Hey guys and gals, My name is Hapiel, I am new here and I hope this discussion is here in the appropriate place! I have had many discussions recently with my feminist (ex)girlfriend. We are both not experts in preventing discussions from escalating but I have definitely learned a lot from her arguments and different points of view. Today I read a discussion between two people about sexism. There is a sexual image on an art site, and a women suggests that the artwork is sexist. A man replies that it is not sexist but sexy, which is the start of a long discussion.. You can read it here if you like, from bottom up, the comments by neofotistou and RAV. This discussion bothered me as it looks very similar to many of the conversations I had with my ex. She suggests something is sexists I suggest that this does not necessarily mean it is wrong She arguments that the whole society is sexist and wrong (to which I partially agree) and suggests that in order to fix that we need to prevent sexist communication/images/whatever is the topic. I argue that this feels like 'over reacting' and that this leads to censorship on things I and other people might enjoy She claims I am not aware of my privilege and should not be hurt by a little censorship. It is unfair to stay at my opinion because I am a white male and do not know what it is like. Now this is also exactly what happens in the discussion I linked to above. I wonder, how do you people feel about sexism. Is sexism by definition bad? Is objectification by definition bad? And in such a discussion, what should one do or say? (besides of course making an effort to keep it a civil discussion and not an emotional one) Thanks for your advice and ideas! About my opinions: I agree that male are priviledged in many way that women are not, and among others this problem needs an active community of feminists to fight for their cause.
I'm glad she's your ex cause she sounds like a little bit of a whacko. Feminists and atheists bahhhhh fuck there's so many better things to occupy or social life with as if you'd let something so insignificant waste your time. To hell what anyone thinks, leave 'em to their own burdens.
Thanks for your reply. I wonder if it looks insignificant because I am a white male or because it actually is a problem made bigger than it should be. At least in western Europe there is not much to complain about right? But if I say that out loud I get reminded that 5 - 30% of all women get raped which is a good excuse to take things serious... right? (I can not find any source backing up 30% but I have been told numerous times) :?
Any type of objectivication is bad. People are people first; man,woman, gay, straight etc later. Every person has the right to be treated as an equal!!!! Equality is the only way!!! Sexualisation through images,text, speech etc is part of life but it doesn't mean that you have to buy into it.
I very much agree. But what if you want to draw an image of a 'sexy woman' as linked to in the top post? He definitely succeeded in objectifying, that is: We don't care about her or her feelings (she is fictional anyway) but we all agree that she is what society considers 'sexy'. So is the above example bad too? There is no person on that canvas, only an artist behind it. No harm was done to anybody. The only reason why I can see this is bad is because it makes objectifying in real life easier. It promotes seeing women in general as sexual objects. But even in real life objectification does not need to be bad right? Of course, people first and I make an effort to treat everyone equal in the first place. However, if they then show traits from categories I am familiar with, such as 'being feminist', I will treat them as I remember other feminists (or in this case my ex) wanted to be treated. I for example will not make the same jokes I might make around other people. Feminism is just an example. Replace with gay black artist hippy father woman anything Of course I could be wrong and too quick in my judgement of categorization and I am open to change it all the time, but should I really ask from on the start: Hey, can you appreciate if I make this or that joke? Do you enjoy talking at all? You just spoke English, can I assume that if I talk English to you you understand me? Some objectification, categorization and assumptions can make dealing with people that you don't know very well much easier right? Imagine if you had to reinvent all rules of communication again with every single person you meet... Of course, this only goes to some extend and it is easy for your categories or assumptions to be flawed which leads to discrimination. But that is not avoidable, right?
I don't think it's sexist. Sexism to me means discrimination by gender. Drawing someone attractive or making fun of someone who is not considered attractive is not attack on a certain sex but on people's appearance. There are a lot of posters with male models, you can see man advertising underwear, erotic photography, etc. Is that sexist too? Objectifying people can not be sexist if it is done to both sexes. And that clearly is the case.
If the woman in the picture may be called over weight, it's sexist because it depicts a woman in a negative light. If she is rail thin, it's sexist because it sets an unrealistic precedent for feminine beauty that leads to low self esteem. If the woman in the picture has a full bust it's sexist because it sets an unrealistic precedent for feminine beauty that leads to low self esteem. Yet all these forms are those of women. Dose being a feminist mean no longer celebrating being a woman? Rut if you look ate Renaissance paintings, women are thick, thin, curvy and slim, but if they are nude, they are depicted as goddesses, if clothed as saints or queens. are these long dead ladies objectified or oppressed, perhaps, but they are also worshiped and carefully preserved in museums around the world. They are the models that make us care about the master painters they posed for. Lucas Cranach the Elder rendered St. Judith with such care that the weave of the cloth over her bust had been detailed in on the painting where she holds her sword high beside a man's severed head, but she is also attractive, so perhaps we should burn it. If we expect women to embrace themselves as perfect the way they are I wonder how hiding examples of female beauty achieve this. Should we women not be embracing and celebrating our diverse and wonderful shapes? Do I lack credit when speaking up for MY rights because I happen to have a pleasing shape? Must I hide the beautiful form that my genetics have offered me from the world for my intellect to count? Should I feel ashamed if I receive a compliment on my appearance? I am a woman. I am beautiful. My form is small and curvy and no less glorious than my sister's that is plush and plump, nor any less then my grandmother's that is long and slim. If we expect all of these forms to be remembered as wonderful, concealment is not the way to do it.
the point though is, if you really thought people were equal and adjusted your behavior to match - you would not have to have different behavior around anyone. You would be treating everyone as decent people - this is the REAL point behind feminism
However, people are rarely truly equal. I am not good with math, and in that way I am less than an accountant. The accountant may not be any good at sewing, and in that way, I could be greater. I can not run a marathon, so I am less then someone who can, but I can walk 2-6 miles, so greater than someone who can't. The list goes on. There is always someone you are better than and someone you are less than. Though yes, we are all human, if I see a goth, I will expect they have a different field of interest then someone who is not given the visual signals they have displayed. If I see a star of David, I will expect the person wearing it is jewish. There are jokes I find funny that some people will take great offence from, but by watching how a person displays their views will help me to be a decent person by holding my tongue.
I think you actually did touch on this in not so many words, but I thought I would clarify it in a different way; that is to say people are not equal in ability but are equal in their dignity as human beings. (I'm often tempted to extend that inherent dignity to other creatures as well.)
Fair enough. I often wonder if cats are in fact smarter than I am. On the other hand, the don't have opposable thumbs.... so perhaps it balances to about equal.
Hapiel, from your description I would think that your ex is more of a misandrist than a feminist. What it appears to me that she is so vehemently against is the objectification of female sexuality which is predominantly sourced in the thoughts of men, therefore as the thoughts of men are lecherous and impure then it invalidates the purity of any form of public exposure. I never quite understood the word feminism as a definition of equal rights when its own source is gender specific. I'm not trying to dispute women's rights and I do think that fair treatment for all is the only just way but I don't consider myself a feminist.
no such thing, just like "reverse racism" it takes being a member of an entrenched power structure to be able to hold someone down and discriminate. Yes womyn can be mean to men, but they have no power to implement anything about it just like POC can be mean to white people but that does not mean they can do anything as a structured people to "keep them down" https://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/no-such-thing-as-misandry/ http://raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1024893033,80611,.shtml
If as a word it doesn't exist then howcome it even has a definition that you are disputing? Because people want to believe it doesn't exist is not an applicable argument to disprove it. Those links are to blog type sites and project authors views rather than actual facts. Any kind of hate can exist in thought; it needs no power structure or to even be reflective of actual occurance. Hate is a perception not an entitlement.
wow , talk about sophistry - I did not say the WORD did not exist (simply because a person says a word and you hear them use it does not make the idea valid), I said what the sound made by the word has no real meaning try reading the articles before commenting next time
And that makes so much more sense. Words are simply sounds with attributed values garnered by perception and structured for language and context. So how is the word real but the sound of the word have no meaning?
wow- I am not doing anything to ignore any point but actually but rather trying to decipher the logical conclusions of it. I am also not resorting to name calling or displaying my intolerance of anyone else. I am open to conversation or debate but I will not resort to argumentative tactics for the sake of emotional hostility.
