Jump to content

Sexism - It's a Real Thing


Recommended Posts

Also, I'm probably the guy who used the word blogger, which may not literally apply to Butcher. But it's no secret that there is a formula for driving viral views, and it's a legitimate technique for writers who need to promote themselves, which they all do. It's a tough business.

 

The unsettling feeling I got reading Butcher's piece was the number of personal but unattributed anecdotes she compiled that fit so perfectly into her share-friendly thesis. There is a long history of talented writers, male and female, who are later revealed to have made up most of their sources, believing that their fiction served the greater good. Maybe it does. But there was something too personal, too deliberate, and too cringe-worthy in Butcher's essay to make me think it was an honest (or researched) take on the bigger story. 

 

 

 

 

  • Plus1 3
Link to post

  • Replies 804
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I say this as a Christian: I'm done with any candidate that stumps on the Bible.    There's separation of Church and State for a reason. 

Holy f#&%. Do you really need to be held by the hand and walked through the last 35 years of the domestic economy and international order to understand that you are giving Donald Trump an almost c

Here is the quote:  "Oh, women's world cup?" and he said "Yep!  The men don't play until _________" and then we changed the subject...and the station.    You INFERRED that we changed it beca

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I've now been accused of being sexist against women about 5 times on this topic and it continues to be f'ing ridiculous. Because it was pretty much just me talking about it, with maybe one comment here and there by someone else.

 

I don't give a s#!t whether she's a man or a woman, and who referred to her as a blogger? I also don't give a s#!t that she's an award winning author, or whatever. Her writing here spoke for itself - the piece was awful. Loads of people think Freud was a great psychologist. I think he was a moron.

 

It seems pretty sexist to me to imagine that anyone who doesn't like the article and calls it overdramatic is doing so because the author is a woman. She doesn't need your protection.

I haven't accused you of being sexist once, and when you asked about it, I clarified this. I will clarify again. I took and continue to take exception to the suggestion that this must be fiction, which I again feel is baseless. I apologize for snapping at you, but I valued and appreciate the piece a lot, on a subjective level, and have been quite unhappy about the treatment it is getting.  I feel the treatment has been unfair - like the idea that it is objectively horrible, or objectively, plainly false, written by an author to which we should ascribe nefarious (she ought to have labeled it as fiction, which it clearly is!) or frivolous (she is just trying to get attention, a way we can talk about everything). I feel that the non-subjective nature of these criticisms reflected the way we too easily will regard the work of women which we don't like, and thus use as a rhetorical hammer to try to batter down its legitimacy wholesale. 

 

And yeah, women and men can both produce stuff that deserves going nuclear on them over; was this really it? Really? This? OK, fine. The people have spoken, and I must be the crazy one.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I haven't accused you of being sexist once, and when you asked about it, I clarified this. I will clarify again. I took and continue to take exception to the suggestion that this must be fiction, which I again feel is baseless. I apologize for snapping at you, but I valued and appreciate the piece a lot, on a subjective level, and have been quite unhappy about the treatment it is getting.  I feel the treatment has been unfair - like the idea that it is objectively horrible, or objectively, plainly false, written by an author to which we should ascribe nefarious (she ought to have labeled it as fiction, which it clearly is!) or frivolous (she is just trying to get attention, a way we can talk about everything). I feel that the non-subjective nature of these criticisms reflected the way we too easily will regard the work of women which we don't like, and thus use as a rhetorical hammer to try to batter down its legitimacy wholesale. 

 

And yeah, women and men can both produce stuff that deserves going nuclear on them over; was this really it? Really? This? OK, fine. The people have spoken, and I must be the crazy one.

 

The bolded is my biggest problem with your attitude towards anyone who has posted in this thread.

 

It's clear that you took the criticism the article received as a personal attack.  You then turned that perceived personal attack into somehow thinking anyone who criticizes it is doing it because of sexism or is a sexist.

 

Sorry, but that simply is an opinion that is going to be...and should be.....challenged.

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

So....just to be clear, in the last 6 months, I have learned on this board that we should not portray men in valiant brave rolls of war and we shouldn't portray women in sexual rolls.

I really don't know what sort of awesome blow you think you're landing in the culture fight here, but I hope you get a lot of +1s for it.

 

Also, it's "role".

--

@RedDenveryeah, I don't ultimately have very nice things to say about Hope Hicks. I think part of it is speaking to how overly quick we may be to bestow these lofty designations on people while being less critical of whether they deserve it, because we assume they do. So maybe we should just be a lot more careful with "wunderkind", in general. But with...say, Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, we have to push *back* on the common practice of referring to their savvy, to clear the record. Or like, this Jordan Peterson guy, or recent Harvard Fellow Sean Spicer. Whereas with Hope Hicks, if there's any pushing it should be in the opposite direction. The things she are doing is bad, but she's a capable person doing them -- which is scarier.

Link to post
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

The bolded is my biggest problem with your attitude towards anyone who has posted in this thread.

 

It's clear that you took the criticism the article received as a personal attack.  You then turned that perceived personal attack into somehow thinking anyone who criticizes it is doing it because of sexism or is a sexist.

 

Sorry, but that simply is an opinion that is going to be...and should be.....challenged.

I apologize for my "attitude", but your assessment is incorrect. I don't enjoy it when things I really loved get s#!t on, and I'm as guilty of anyone as snapping on occasion.

 

However, I will maintain that we react to things in gendered ways. We're socialized to. We all do it, by reflex. Take a step back and look at the big picture of women whose capabilities are under evaluated, whose motives are interpreted as ulterior or frivolous. Consider the deference we tend to afford men, by default. To point to Sen. Gillibrand taking a stand on Al Franken and say, "Gee, she's probably doing this to raise her political profile" is to react this way. To see a story (for example, the Aziz story) of a woman speaking out about her bad experiences and think, she's embellishing for dramatic effect. It bears pointing out. 

 

Where I and others, even in our calmest, disagree is whether oft-repeated criticisms that are in fact of a kind that is habitual and gendered, are merited in this occasion. I do not think they are. But surely, sometimes they are. 

 

And I want to really, really stress that the point of this exercise -- to point out common threads in criticisms such as "lying" (Roy Moore's accusers? Al Franken's accusers) or "seeking attention" (Stormy Daniels? Monica Lewinsky?) in bold, capital letters, and at nobody's convenience -- is to keep us shaken from defaults that *all* of us, naturally, hold. It's not to accuse you, personally, of being a sexist any more than "Before you go on with that line of argument, consider that we have a cultural habit of speaking this way about Black people" is telling you that you are racist.

 

But I do apologize for snippy language. I get upset sometimes. 

 

I wonder; a few pages ago I posted a litany of Twitter comments that can be approximately sorted into two categories: people saying thank you for expressing something I've been feeling, or thank you, this is making me think about myself; versus derisive or dismissive putdowns that at least to me didn't feel so dissimilar to what was being said here. To those who have nothing in common with the people in the latter group, doesn't it give you pause in the slightest that you're so in sync with them? No? I mean, if not, fine. I just thought that it would -- and also perhaps that although I seem to be the only one here who doesn't think this was awful, I'm clearly not the only one, anywhere, and I don't think those people are crazy, either. Do you all?
 

Link to post

4 minutes ago, zoogs said:

However, I will maintain that we react to things in gendered ways. We're socialized to. We all do it, by reflex. Take a step back and look at the big picture of women whose capabilities are under evaluated, whose motives are interpreted as ulterior or frivolous. Consider the deference we tend to afford men, by default. To point to Sen. Gillibrand taking a stand on Al Franken and say, "Gee, she's probably doing this to raise her political profile" is to react this way. To see a story (for example, the Aziz story) of a woman speaking out about her bad experiences and think, she's embellishing for dramatic effect. It bears pointing out. 

 

You have zero information to base this on in this thread.  You are assuming we are criticizing her writing because she's a woman....which is total BS.

 

To do so, you would need to show how individual posters reacted differently to a very similar type writing in a different way....which you haven't done and can't do based on what is here.

 

Instead, you jump to conclusions that we are all acting in sexist ways....which will be challenged....and should be.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, zoogs said:

To see a story (for example, the Aziz story) of a woman speaking out about her bad experiences and think, she's embellishing for dramatic effect. It bears pointing out. 

 

That's a horrible example. That woman has been deservedly castigated for her attempt to take a bad date and spin it into something nefarious.  Describing it as "the worst night of my life" is either a massive exaggeration or she's led an exceedingly sheltered life - never dated, never had sex she wasn't into, never lost a loved one, never been fired...

 

That line alone is a huge embellishment.  Imagine what kind of under-a-rock existence you must have for what sounds like a description of 40% of all dates throughout history being "the worst night of my life."

 

I think it is to your credit that you care about sexism to the extent that you do.  That others don't agree with you on some things doesn't mean they care less, it means they care different. There are many ways to combat sexism.  Allow some room in your worldview for those other methods. 

Link to post

Oh, ffs. I’m pointing out, factually, that these criticisms are of similar kind as the ones that are disproportionately used in response to women. If you’ve considered this and still think it’s the right response in this case, then fine. We disagree that it is.

Link to post
20 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I apologize for my "attitude", but your assessment is incorrect. I don't enjoy it when things I really loved get s#!t on, and I'm as guilty of anyone as snapping on occasion.

 

However, I will maintain that we react to things in gendered ways. We're socialized to. We all do it, by reflex. Take a step back and look at the big picture of women whose capabilities are under evaluated, whose motives are interpreted as ulterior or frivolous. Consider the deference we tend to afford men, by default. To point to Sen. Gillibrand taking a stand on Al Franken and say, "Gee, she's probably doing this to raise her political profile" is to react this way. To see a story (for example, the Aziz story) of a woman speaking out about her bad experiences and think, she's embellishing for dramatic effect. It bears pointing out. 

 

Where I and others, even in our calmest, disagree is whether oft-repeated criticisms that are in fact of a kind that is habitual and gendered, are merited in this occasion. I do not think they are. But surely, sometimes they are. 

 

And I want to really, really stress that the point of this exercise -- to point out common threads in criticisms such as "lying" (Roy Moore's accusers? Al Franken's accusers) or "seeking attention" (Stormy Daniels? Monica Lewinsky?) in bold, capital letters, and at nobody's convenience -- is to keep us shaken from defaults that *all* of us, naturally, hold. It's not to accuse you, personally, of being a sexist any more than "Before you go on with that line of argument, consider that we have a cultural habit of speaking this way about Black people" is telling you that you are racist.

 

But I do apologize for snippy language. I get upset sometimes. 

 

I wonder; a few pages ago I posted a litany of Twitter comments that can be approximately sorted into two categories: people saying thank you for expressing something I've been feeling, or thank you, this is making me think about myself; versus derisive or dismissive putdowns that at least to me didn't feel so dissimilar to what was being said here. To those who have nothing in common with the people in the latter group, doesn't it give you pause in the slightest that you're so in sync with them? No? I mean, if not, fine. I just thought that it would -- and also perhaps that although I seem to be the only one here who doesn't think this was awful, I'm clearly not the only one, anywhere, and I don't think those people are crazy, either. Do you all?
 

 

 

Have you ever seen a movie that you liked, but some of your friends didn't?
 

It's like that. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

That's a horrible example. That woman has been deservedly castigated for her attempt to take a bad date and spin it into something nefarious.  Describing it as "the worst night of my life" is either a massive exaggeration or she's led an exceedingly sheltered life - never dated, never had sex she wasn't into, never lost a loved one, never been fired...

 

That line alone is a huge embellishment.  Imagine what kind of under-a-rock existence you must have for what sounds like a description of 40% of all dates throughout history being "the worst night of my life."

 

I strongly feel the important takeaway here is that having sex you are not into, because the man is singularly focused on his own pleasure perhaps without being conscious of this habit of theirs, is extremely routine and this is a problem. In fact, this was a common takeaway from a community of people who responded very differently to the story, and feels, as I do, that making this a question of how much an unhappy woman deserves to be castigated for having an inexperienced reporter at a third-rate site publish her story is a misplacement of our attention. 

Link to post

1 minute ago, zoogs said:

 

I strongly feel the important takeaway here is that having sex you are not into, because the man is singularly focused on his own pleasure perhaps without being conscious of this habit of theirs, is extremely routine and this is a problem. In fact, this was a common takeaway from a community of people who responded very differently to the story, and feels, as I do, that making this a question of how much an unhappy woman deserves to be castigated for having an inexperienced reporter at a third-rate site publish her story is a misplacement of our attention. 

 

She should have said no. She did not say no, by her own admission. He did not lay his hands on her, he did not exert undue pressure on her professionally, he was a guy looking to get some.

 

He cannot, and should not, be required to read her mind. She, without being forced, engaged in multiple sexual acts with him.  That she did not like it or want it is only being said after the fact.  That is not his fault, and her going public in such a sensational way, with the quotes she provided, is entirely her fault. 

 

One could presume that she did not, at any time, want to do sexual things. She did, without being forced, and that is not his fault.

 

One could also presume that she was initially OK with doing those things, then later regretted it.  That is also not his fault. 

Link to post
7 minutes ago, zoogs said:

 

I strongly feel the important takeaway here is that having sex you are not into, because the man is singularly focused on his own pleasure perhaps without being conscious of this habit of theirs, is extremely routine and this is a problem.

Is this a complaint about bad sex, the selfishness of men, or the selfishness of human beings? How is this even sexism?

 

Newsflash: if you think having sex when you're not into it is a problem when you're single, don't ever get married.

Edited by RedDenver
  • Plus1 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Have you ever seen a movie that you liked, but some of your friends didn't?
 

It's like that. 

 

Yeah, maybe. It's not an episode of the Simpsons, though, and our disagreements aren't "hey I liked the big CGI things, you didn't like them, OK."

 

It'd be like if there were a movie that I thought added some really important stuff to our cultural conversation on feminism, and my good friend thinks it was trash that embarrassed and set back the feminist movement. So, the stakes feel more real here -- on both sides. In a way that most movies, or most essays or most articles, aren't. We can agree to disagree, nonetheless. That is fine.

Link to post

I'm just going to heavily, heavily disagree with:

 

- "It's like she's asking him to read her mind"

- "Why didn't she say no and leave"

- "Newsflash, this is normal, this is natural, get used to it"

 

and leave it at this. We are going to agree to disagree; I've gone over them in the past and I don't think I'm going to be making the case to anyone here, but maybe / hopefully these themes will come up in later discussions, eventually. 

 

Enthusiastic, sustained consent is not a difficult requirement to make sure you have met even if it is not one we are used to thinking of as a requirement.

Link to post
1 minute ago, zoogs said:

I'm just going to heavily, heavily disagree with:

 

- "It's like she's asking him to read her mind"

- "Why didn't she say no and leave"

- "Newsflash, this is normal, this is natural, get used to it"

 

and leave it at this. We are going to agree to disagree; I've gone over them in the past and I don't think I'm going to be making the case to anyone here, but maybe / hopefully these themes will come up in later discussions, eventually. 

 

Enthusiastic, sustained consent is not a difficult requirement to make sure you have met even if it is not one we are used to thinking of as a requirement.

 

The multiple times she engaged in sex acts without being forced should be construed as this.  Putting a person's genitals in your mouth repeatedly without being compelled is kind of the definition of sustained consent. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...