On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Jernej Zajc wrote:
> Your militant stand seems to stand on your way of clear sight.
> Please don't take this as offense. You are evidently not
> overexaggerating but rather seeing evil in a suggestion that
> was not offered as good one or the right one or any ultimate
> solution.
Let me get this straight
Original poster complains about behavior that we can mostly agree is bad
(and if you don't, you should attack whether or not that behavior is bad,
not the original poster's name)
You post a response ('change your name') that (at least one of the
following, perhaps more)
1. blames the original poster ('if you chagned your name, it
woudln't happen')
2. suggests that the complained about behavior is okay, without
giving any reason as to why
3. suggests that the behavior should be ignored, which would be
rather hypocritical, since you are not ignoring other behavior that isn't
nearly as 'bad' (i.e. this discussion), or downright
*IF* the original poster had said or implied that the problem was personal
(i.e. that the behavior scared her personally, or otherwise was a problem
in more than a general way) your advice would have been appropriate. Since
the post was a condemnation of the behavior of others, *not* a 'help me
please', your advice was out of line. On top of that, your advice was
rather typical of people trying to blame women for their problems -- it
really isn't that much of a jump between 'change your nick' and 'change
your clothes' (which btw, doesn't work, no matter what the damn myths say)
both answer to the same attitude -- that the person complaining is somehow
responsible for the inappropriate behavior.
Now how, exactly, does my 'militant' stand stand in the way of 'clear
sight'?
> More about it in reply to Ingrid.
I read it. I think you're missing somethign important, which is that your
responses, whether or not they are *meant* to sound hostile and boorish,
are coming off that way. Don't be too shocked that they are being reacted
to in that way.
> You didn't give me even one.
I'm a bad person to ask. I hate language.
'chick' is a slang word for female...whether it has connotations of age or
degredation is up for debate.
> What is dyke? IIRC it is a word for a lesbian? It's hard
> to discuss colloqial connotations of words in slang of a
> foreign language.
true enough
> Dunno; I haven't seen this on any list I am on. If I was,
> I'd unsubscribe, or, if the list would suit me really well
> otherwise, propose that list needs a moderator.
I've seen it on moderated lists (it depends on the moderator, of course).
Since I don't know what lists you are on, I cannot comment on why you
haven't seen it.
> After three such posts people got angry (mostly men,
> women ignored him) and he was warned. He has been quiet
> since.
It took three.
I could argue that on most lists, three off topic posts of any type would
get me grouched at..especially really stupid off topic posts...but I would
probably be picking nits.
> > > What about ignoring it? I experienced it also from women and if
> > > ignored, it sorted itself out. And no it is not happening
> > > constantly at all :-) It's very rare, actually.
> I was talking about the same thing only in opposite
> direction. Female to male. Got it? It IS rare, at least
> according to my experience and that was what I was
> talking about. Read it all before you complain.
I did read it all. 'And no it is not happening constantly at all' seems
pretty clear to me...
> Re: guy on bus: raising a voice in public shows that such
> idiots often are also incredible cowards.
Yes, and also shows that fellow busriders will look at you like you are
nuts, usually. there have been exceptions.
> I know what you mean, but how many people know nowadays
> that swastika used to be a symbol of sun, and how many
> people know that direction of "rotation" is different?
very very few
> But you are mixing apples and oranges anyway. Symbols
> have been abused countless times in history since they
> are a little bit more abstract than pictures of scantily
> clad women. Aren't they?
Yes and no. There's two separate premises going on here -- the first is
that pictures of scantily clad females (and this is a rather symbolic use,
if you think about it) have been historically used to 'mark' male
territory...the second I'm not sure I can sucessfully defend yet (largely
because it only sounds like it's defined, it's not) has to do with why
that particular tactic works.
BTW, the display of porn, nudie pics, girly calendars, etc has been upheld
in court as creating a 'hostile work environment' at workplaces in sexual
harrassment and discrimination suits in the US...this is germane here, I
think.
> Just for a speculation, cross used to be symbol of
> penetration in some cultures. Did you know that?
Somewhere in the back of my head. I havne't played with symbols in a long
time...
> The premise about such pictures "marking male territory"
> is yours not mine. Where did you get it from?
Note above comment about hostile work environments.
It's also been mentioned by several other people.
It might actually get better defined if we could talk about it without
having to defend the idea from random attacks and insinuations that it
didn't exist.
> Also I don't see much difference between someone's home and
> public display. If it was disrespectful it would have been
> in either case, no difference here.
It's pretty simple. If it's in your home, it's your territory, you can
mark it however you'd like. Heck, if you want to paint it puke green and
write 'fuck you' all over the walls, far be it for anyone (except perhaps
the landlord) to stop you -- however, that woudln't go over well in a
public place.
> IIRC it was US/Canada border (or some airport on the way,
> I don't know). Search PC Magazine about it if you want to
> know more.
hmm..I'd guess heading into canada, based on some of the stuff I've heard
has had trouble getting in there, but I woudln't know for sure...
> I was not _blaming_ information society, not every remark
> is blaming. I'm not as fast to blame someone/something as
> you seem to be.
'That's information society for you' is not a statement of blame?
Maybe the problem really is cultural here...
> Generally it's inappropriate and I'd say because of the
> (subconscious) historic influence of Catholic Church here,
> not because of objectifying of models. (Most people do not
> bother to think about it as deeply as you, which is pity).
true enough
> But that's not the point. You are comparing a website that
> not even has a company standing behind it with work
Yes and no. I never said that themes.org should be subject to the same
*legal* responsibilities...the comparison was to show that there was some
precedent for claiming that pin-ups were different from netstats or jpegs
of puppies.
> informal sites compare to informal atmosphere in some
> garages where some mechanics indeed do have pin-ups on
> walls. Don't compare apples to oranges.
Actually, I don't see a reason why legally there would be a difference
between pin-ups at sun and pin-ups at the local garage -- in fact, most of
the cases I've read about (only a handful, and I don't know how
representative they are, but the important point here is that they exist)
have been at least in part about coworkers and equals having pin-ups in
'personal' spaces (office space or locker space) -- not management and not
'company' <- reception and whatnot, space.
> If you look on pin-ups as an objectification of human on the
> picture it is indeed disrespectful. My point is not everyone
> looks at it your way and you don't seem to be aware of that
> fact.
Actually, I'm *very* aware of that fact. The problem is (and has been, and
I'll admit to having done it a few times) every time the damn issue comes
up, it gets shut down -- usually by the knee jerk 'censorship' issue (I
should know, I managed to shut it down that way three times in one forum
over about six months before someone [a good friend, actually] sent me a
*really* nasty email on the subject that made me rethink) -- I've actually
got some hope right now because this time it's at least only getting
noised out. There's not a whole hell of alot of screaming this time.
> If you can't accept that pin-ups can not be looked at as
> objectification then please be honest and write down that
> the subject is simply not debatable for you. Either give
> some grounding or say it loud and clear that it is not
> debatable for you. I'll accept it and respect it more
> than clinging to the same unconvincing groundings. Maybe
> you did tell it but I misunderstood you?
Yes and no. So far the only thing that I can totally say for sure is that
there are some pictures which are objectifying. One of these days, the
conversation might get beyond that point, if it ever gets a chance to get
beyond the
yes-sexism-exists-no-we-aren't-talking-about-banning-porn-or-even-restricting-it
stage.
It really doesn't help that your 'attacks' (you say you werne't, and you
do sound genuinally confused, but your approach on previous posts was
taken as attacking and by more people than just me) were all over hte map
-- sexism isn't that bad/why don't you just ignore it/some poeple are that
way/ etc etc
So we haven't really spent a heck of a lot of time actually getting to
discuss the original problem, here.
> There are some women I respect very much and what they do
> is just ignore stupid remarks, comments etc. In case of
> lower salary they fight as I would, and in case of
> touching they respond with a slap in the face which they
> have a right to.
Slaps in the face aren't very effective when dealing with attackers. And
while I'll grant, the vast majority of inappropriate touchers would
probably not use force, it's really difficult to tell which are which, and
by the time I *can* tell, in the past I've been ridiculously deeply in
trouble.
If it were *just* about the occasional stupid remark, I'd be a lot more
chill...it's also about a constant threat of violence...and I do believe
that the fact that my not-boss (long story, he tells everyone he's my
boss, but he's not) stole my idea and thinks he's going to get away with
it because I'm just a kid, and female at that, and the fact that if I want
to walk down broadway at 3 in the morning I have to be a hell of a lot
more careful and aware than a guy would are related...
> It is possible to deal with all this stupidities without
> agonizing about it. There are stupidities above sexist
> comments that can offend much more so don't come up with
> me not knowing what I talk about because I'm not female.
I won't say you don't know what you're talking about because you're male.
I might say you dno't know what you're talking about because your words
don't show it...
In theory, just about everyone should get this, because everyone has been
a kid, and kids are notoriously oppressed -- on the other hand, we are so
steeped in the 'okayness' of this that we tend to ignore it (we as adults
in the U.S., primarily, though I'm told that other industrialized
countries do it to greater or lesser extents)
> Where is the offense?
> I was said such things to my face that people kill for. If
> you want to offend me you will have to try harder.
Okay, at least you aren't as obviously hypocritical as some of the folks
who have said that to me :)
> Clearly I would be guilty of offense if I let it offend me.
> It would be _me_ who would *let* it offend _me_, right?
Yes and no. I guess it depends on whether words can be used as weapons.
My stopgap belief on that is that they can, based on teh fact that I watch
it happen. It's possible that in a perfect world you would be right,
however, I'm worried about what's going on in this one right now (this
will probably get answered aroudn the time I figure out why it's wron gto
kill...no, that's not as insane as it sounds, honest)
> People that are most eager to change everything usually
> never question what's wrong with their idea that drives
> them to change the environment.
Why is it wrong to wish a safer world? Why is it wrong to want to do my
part in pushing the world into being a more respectful place in general?
This is where I'm coming from. In part the reason this whole debate has
gotten here is because of...hmm...the standard paradigm -- usually when
one ends up arguing porn on the net it's because of some CDA like way of
censoring stuff. Usually anti-porn folks are anti-sex, anti-nature,
anti-life people. So the knee jerk reaction is to automatically answer to
the standard concerns -- cry censorship, assume the definitions, etc. And
I don't know enough about how to circumvent that yet. I'm not sure if
anyone does, and if they do, who would. It's an understandable reaction, I
get it.
> If you let me to
> demonstrate the principle in your case, you consider
> pictures of scantily clad women objectifying women and
> thus want to eliminate them from public places which are
> not marked "adult". What you fail to see is that such
> pictures are not necessarilly objectifying and therefore
> not necessarily disprespectful. Was I clear enough?
Not exactly.
I've already mentioned that clothing or lackthereof is not the criteria
I'm talking about. If we can agree that there *are* pictures which
objectify people, then we have something to work from. I also haven't said
I wanted to eliminate anything. I'm still back on defining what the
problem is, and then discussing what should be done about it. You're
already fighting against it and I don't even know what I'm fighting on
this front.
> If you find the cause of something bothering you
> (objectivisation of human being) you have much more chance
> to comprehend that not all pictures are objectifying and
> at the end that it it _the_viewer_ that objectifies them.
> Save yourself a pain and recognize your point of view and
> its consequences.
and those consequences are?
> It is you objectifying/seing objectified women in pictures
> and not me.
Okay. But just because you don't see something doesn't necessarily mean
it's not there.
> Mostly I think it's the fame and the money. Playboy's
> 'playmates' (a playmate is some kind of model of the month)
> have some kind of a celebrity status among teenager boys
> (and some eternal teenagers :-) ).
fair enough. I don't think anyone was debating playboy models' motives..I
wasn't..didn't even mention 'em
> I'm not saying that sexism is not present here; obviously
> there's less of it than it seems to be in the USA according
> to posts on this lists. It seems to be pervasive in all
> Western cultures, though.
One might argue most world cultures...there are few exceptions even
outside the western hemisphere
> Question is, why people liking pictures of scantily clad
> women are considered fair game for bashing and SF readers
> are not. Because it's disrespectful, you'll say. But again
> it's only your aspect of it. Don't push it to everyone.
Actually, I was speaking of women as fair game for bashing. So far I
hadn't bashed the folks who looked at such pictures (except to say that
they were being disrespectful, which isn't *bashing* by my
definition..criticism, yes)
> If you want a hen to lay golden eggs you must also hear its
> cackling. World is not perfect.
I usually knock the moderation up to +2ish. makes my life easier. But it's
not that I want to shut folks up, it's that i want folks to understand the
harm that these attitudes cause..there's a difference
> This makes their stupid comments not a bit more justified.
justified in terms of making them more correct -- you are right
however, in terms of making them worth my concern, it does...
> If you understand roots of something you may be able to
> deal with it better. Mind you it was a speculation not a
> grounded fact.
I spend a good bit of time trying to fidn the roots of things
> Yes, you definitely attract it. Noone else saw such a density
> of scantily clad women on themes.org :-)
I think it was just really bad timing. It was several weeks ago.
> Am I? What's the difference between such and album cover and
> a picture of a scantily clad woman?
how many times do I have to say it, *it's not about the clothes*
> I am enjoying the debate. You should too. It's just a debate
> not hardwork of saving the world.
Yes and no. A fair chunk of it is just that I quit smoking and for the
next week or so I'm going to be dealing with the panic attacks from hell.
that's life.
> So which viewer is one of the loudest on this list? Vinnie! :-)
:P
Vinnie
--
a safe place for all of the pieces that scatter
learn to pretend there's more than love that matters - e saliers
Obligatory pathetic website at http://george.he.net/~drachen
GAT d? H- s---:+ !g !p au+ a- w+++ v++ C++++ UL++++ P+ L++ !3 E--- N+ K++
!W M V po--- Y++ t+ 5 jx R G' !tv b+++ !D B e* u** h-- f+ r n---- z?
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
