Jump to content


Sexism - It's a Real Thing


Recommended Posts

Just now, Landlord said:

I typed out something really long and then deleted it because I knew how it wouldn't be heard in the way it was intended.

 

 

At the end of the day, zoogs' linked columns and tweets I do agree with a lot. Reality is - we do not teach consent well. Our actions betray our definitions of it, and our true beliefs about it fall short of what we claim it to be.

Agree.  And....what I take from the op-ed that I posted is that this education needs to be had on both sides.  That's not a horrible, disgusting male dominated world view.  It empowers women to teach them to speak up and communicate what they want.

Link to comment

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/1/16/16894722/aziz-ansari-grace-babe-me-too

 

The Aziz Ansari story is ordinary. That’s why we have to talk about it.



 

A woman publicly known as Grace went on a date with actor and comedian Aziz Ansari in September. What happened between them is at the center of the latest debate around consent, sexual assault, and the #MeToo moment.

 

...

 

Despite a growing conversation around enthusiastic consent, most everything in American culture still tells men that they should be pushing for as much sex as possible at all times. The idea that men have more sexual desire than women still goes unchallenged, leading too many men to believe that a lukewarm yes is all they’re ever going to get, because women don’t like sex that much anyway. Boys learn at a young age, from pop culture, their elders, and their peers, that it’s normal to have to convince a woman to have sex, and that repeated small violations of her boundaries are an acceptable way to do so — perhaps even the only way.

 

Another take I appreciate. The response to these type of stories in the news has to be, "Wow, we're all kind of f'd up. That's scary and sad. I've done things like that!" rather than, "What kind of a foreign, different-than-me, sinister villain does someone have to be to do something like that?"

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

While I somewhat agree with what you are saying, to me reading the full account she expressed multiple times to various degrees of clarity that she did not want to have sex. No one wants to just come out and tell someone they like "I don't want to have sex with you" so you try and signal that to them indirectly. She said "woah wait a minute" when he went to get a condom. She stopped physically responding and kissing back. She said "maybe next time" when he asked where she wanted to have sex. She was running away from him and trying to keep her distance. Yet Aziz keeps going. At some point yes you would think she should say enough is enough but it isn't that easy is it? She is in his environment and already uncomfortable. That isn't an easy environment to speak your mind. Idk she tried and he didn't care really to acknowlege that. Yes she could have tried harder and I suppose she put herself in that situation but aren't these the same tired excuses we make? 

I agree that in this case Aziz was being relentless and should have slowed things down. But you left out that this was also after having oral sex, so it's not like she showed little to no interest - she clearly was interested in some amount of sexual activity. There's some middle ground here, where he could have listened more and she could have been more direct. I kind of feel like when we say that her trying harder is the same old excuse, it removes some amount of agency from the women. Women can and should feel empowered to speak out and be more direct in these situations.

Link to comment

3 minutes ago, Landlord said:

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/1/16/16894722/aziz-ansari-grace-babe-me-too

 

 

 

 

Another take I appreciate. The response to these type of stories in the news has to be, "Wow, we're all kind of f'd up. That's scary and sad. I've done things like that!" rather than, "What kind of a foreign, different-than-me, sinister villain does someone have to be to do something like that?"

Great post!

 

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I agree that in this case Aziz was being relentless and should have slowed things down. But you left out that this was also after having oral sex, so it's not like she showed little to no interest - she clearly was interested in some amount of sexual activity. There's some middle ground here, where he could have listened more and she could have been more direct. I kind of feel like when we say that her trying harder is the same old excuse, it removes some amount of agency from the women. Women can and should feel empowered to speak out and be more direct in these situations.

Women have a part in the change as well and being more empowered in these situations can help move things along. But I also think its difficult for women in the moment because their trust has been broken already. How can they trust the man will react in a good way to what they have to say? Calling a guy out for inappropriate behavior is the right thing to do but sometimes doing that in the moment can be terrifying for alot of reasons. 

Link to comment

If that's what I meant I would have said "it's possible you are wrong that Mika represents all feminists". I just want to place that article and all the FEMALE FEMINIST CRED it repeatedly tries to claim for itself in context. I don't know if I have the capacity to respond to it in full. It was awful. Not all of it, to be sure. Soothing language, reasonable points, all used to serve up terrible conclusions. Like, no, I'm not surprised that Aziz sent a pleasant text to her the next day, I'm horrified. He must've known by the end of the night but there he is, trying to make sure he still keeps that possibility of sealing the deal open. Why on earth wasn't his text: "So about last night, I'm really sorry"? Why is *her* response cast as the villainous one here? 

 

Quote

The insidious attempt by some women to criminalize awkward, gross and entitled sex takes women back to the days of smelling salts and fainting couches.

 

This is a gross take, Mika. 

 

Anyway. Here's another response: 

 

What I like is that it emphasizes there's no need to cast Aziz as a "bad" guy, because then we'll get bogged down in defending or attacking one man's honor. The entire point is that this is a normal thing, which doesn't simultaneously make it worth defending the way "normal" often is.

 

A last comment about "which feminists", I would suggest that there are better places to read for the pulse -- which isn't monolithic, and is worth learning about -- than NYT or Atlantic op-eds by women who cast aside the silly "hosannas" of "young" feminists with a dismissive wave of hand. It's not that the outlets are bad, but these are places where such views will find a home because of their prominence. I say "young", by the way, because they're definitely not always young but this is routinely the way they're presented so as to try to diminish the weight of their opinions. One journalist, I forget who, was identified by name in one of these categories and pointed out on Twitter that she was in fact over 40. There's something heavily gendered about "what do silly young women know", and I wouldn't call leaning on that "the feminist thing to do", Mika.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, zoogs said:

If that's what I meant I would have said "it's possible you are wrong that Mika represents all feminists". I just want to place that article and all the FEMALE FEMINIST CRED it repeatedly tries to claim for itself in context. I don't know if I have the capacity to respond to it in full. It was awful. Not all of it, to be sure. Soothing language, reasonable points, all used to serve up terrible conclusions. Like, no, I'm not surprised that Aziz sent a pleasant text to her the next day, I'm horrified. He must've known by the end of the night but there he is, trying to make sure he still keeps that possibility of sealing the deal open. Why on earth wasn't his text: "So about last night, I'm really sorry"? Why is *her* response cast as the villainous one here? 

 

 

This is a gross take, Mika. 

 

Anyway. Here's another response: 

 

What I like is that it emphasizes there's no need to cast Aziz as a "bad" guy, because then we'll get bogged down in defending or attacking one man's honor. The entire point is that this is a normal thing, which doesn't simultaneously make it worth defending the way "normal" often is.

 

A last comment about "which feminists", I would suggest that there are better places to read for the pulse -- which isn't monolithic, and is worth learning about -- than NYT or Atlantic op-eds by women who cast aside the silly "hosannas" of "young" feminists with a dismissive wave of hand. It's not that the outlets are bad, but these are places where such views will find a home because of their prominence. I say "young", by the way, because they're definitely not always young but this is routinely the way they're presented so as to try to diminish the weight of their opinions. One journalist, I forget who, was identified by name in one of these categories and pointed out on Twitter that she was in fact over 40. There's something heavily gendered about "what do silly young women know", and I wouldn't call leaning on that "the feminist thing to do", Mika.

To be clear, Mika did not write the op-ed.

So...what I'm getting from this discussion is.....we should have an open discussion about this....but only allow in people we agree with.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Women have a part in the change as well and being more empowered in these situations can help move things along. But I also think its difficult for women in the moment because their trust has been broken already. How can they trust the man will react in a good way to what they have to say? Calling a guy out for inappropriate behavior is the right thing to do but sometimes doing that in the moment can be terrifying for alot of reasons. 

I don't think women need to call out bad behavior or even be confrontational (unless they want to be), but I meant that they can and should be more direct with their intentions and interest. For example, the woman in this Aziz situation could have said, "I'm not interested in intercourse" or "I'm not interested in intercourse tonight" or some other variation that clearly states what she wants to happen. Or even "It's late and I'm going home".

 

Her part of the story that bothers me is when she says she gave him body language clues - that's where we get into mind reader territory. I wish we could get away from consent/non-consent based on such indirect communication that's easily misunderstood. It's fine to give indications via non-verbal signals, but don't rely on that - use your words when the signals are clearly not working. And then use more direct words. And then direct action (aka leave).

Edited by RedDenver
Link to comment

Wow. How did I get that wrong?  I saw her name somewhere. I'm sorry.

 

Anyway: it was Bari Weiss! Of course it was. This makes even more sense. I remember name from the last time she penned a roundly-savaged op-ed about 'Believe All Women' in November. That was definitely responded to, a lot, if you want to dig into that. It was also popular fodder for those who didn't want to buy into all this #MeToo stuff. 

 

In the interests of carrying this beyond Aziz, since it really should be not just about him. This from Marie Claire:

 

 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I don't think women need to call out bad behavior or even be confrontational (unless they want to be), but I meant that they can and should be more direct with their intentions and interest. For example, the woman in this Aziz situation could have said, "I'm not interested in intercourse" or "I'm not interested in intercourse tonight" or some other variation that clearly states what she wants to happen. Or even "It's late and I'm going home".

 

Her part of the story that bothers is when she says she gave him body language clues - that's where we get into mind reader territory. I wish we could get away from consent/non-consent based on such indirect communication that's easily misunderstood. It's fine to give indications via non-verbal signals, but don't rely on that - use your words when the signals are clearly not working. And then use more direct words. And then direct action (aka leave).

I agree with what you posted here.  

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I don't think women need to call out bad behavior or even be confrontational (unless they want to be), but I meant that they can and should be more direct with their intentions and interest. For example, the woman in this Aziz situation could have said, "I'm not interested in intercourse" or "I'm not interested in intercourse tonight" or some other variation that clearly states what she wants to happen. Or even "It's late and I'm going home".

 

 

 

Yes, please, for the love of God, we need to be able to create a world where women are empowered to exercise their agency. That's part of the solution we have to be working towards - how do we encourage and equip women to be able to say no, to not give in to pressure, and to not leave it up to the good intentions of a man not to be assaulted or humiliated? Not because "they were asking for it" or it's their fault. So please don't get that twisted. Rather because the only thing you are only ever in control of is your own actions. It's incredibly dangerous to trust your own well being to someone else - especially if it's a stranger who wants to have sex with you. 

 

Mixed signals aren't consent, but don't assume that somebody knows that. I'm trying not to frame this as a burden of responsibility on women, but rather on all of us, to give them a world to live in where they have an easier time clearly communicating and not allowing what they don't consent to. It's hard stuff, man.

Edited by Landlord
  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...