Jump to content

Sexism - It's a Real Thing


Recommended Posts


  • 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

No, not "oh, god."  Not unless you're willing to entertain the idea that she's exaggerating the story, because if not, you're not giving equal respect to both genders in this situation, which is what you're vociferously demanding we do in the rest of this thread. 

 

We cannot right the wrongs of sexism by giving immediate credence to any accusation made by any woman against any man.  We must soberly address the facts on a case-by-case basis.  Trampling the rights of Aziz Ansari is not a path to gender equality. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, zoogs said:

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.

This is a VERY difficult requirement to meet. How in the crap do I even ascertain "enthusiastic" consent? And how do I prove that my partner was "enthusiastic" after the fact?

 

And how does that work in a relationship? What if I'm not in the mood, but I love my wife and have sex with her because she's "enthusiastic"?

Link to post

The suggestion that Aziz needed to do a lot better than repeatedly badger her into first date sex she was clearly not comfortable with is not trampling on his rights, it is not an affront to gender equality. You dropped "enthusiastic" in your response, which was a necessary call. And you should probably drop "sustained" as well, if the events of the timeline are to be accepted.

Link to post
1 minute ago, zoogs said:

The suggestion that Aziz needed to do a lot better than repeatedly badger her into first date sex she was clearly not comfortable with is not trampling on his rights, it is not an affront to gender equality. You dropped "enthusiastic" in your response, which was a necessary call. And you should probably drop "sustained" as well, if the events of the timeline are to be accepted.

What? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Having sex with him multiple times is the very definition of "sustained".

Link to post

3 minutes ago, zoogs said:

The suggestion that Aziz needed to do a lot better than repeatedly badger her into first date sex she was clearly not comfortable with is not trampling on his rights, it is not an affront to gender equality. You dropped "enthusiastic" in your response, which was a necessary call. And you should probably drop "sustained" as well, if the events of the timeline are to be accepted.

 

You're taking her word for this. Aziz doesn't agree with that description, felt it was consensual, and was shocked (and apologetic!) when she, after the fact, told him she wasn't into it.  By his candid texts, he was shocked that she later felt the way she felt. 

 

This is not gender equality. The bold is sexism.  You cannot take one person's word as gospel and disregard the other person's take because of their respective genders.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
Just now, RedDenver said:

This is a VERY difficult requirement to meet. How in the crap do I even ascertain "enthusiastic" consent? And how do I prove that my partner was "enthusiastic" after the fact?

 

And how does that work in a relationship? What if I'm not in the mood, but I love my wife and have sex with her because she's "enthusiastic"?

 

Guys, it is just not that hard.

 

Start with worrying less about having to prove to some third party whether or not your partner was enthusiastic. If there's actually doubt in your mind, maybe it's not the time.

 

If you really want to and are happy to do this, then it's fine. I imagine you would agree that a hypothetical relationship where the woman is really demanding about it and takes what she wants all the time with no regard for her partner's wishes, then it would be a hell for that poor guy. (Why doesn't he leave? He should leave, right?)

 

I mean, if you really love your wife and your wife really loves you, then you're both being extremely considerate of each other's wishes, which is the opposite of the scenario outlined here. Aziz messed up. Not in a he should go to jail kind of way, but for a guy who passed himself off as this super sweet, super sensitive, extremely woke feminist writing cute books on modern love, it's ... a good reminder that everyone can revisit some of their assumptions.

Link to post
1 hour 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.

 

 

You have multiple times, just not using the word "sexist." No matter how many times you say it, I didn't use gendered insults and I'm not sure anyone else did either. And you thought it more likely that I of all people was making a gendered insult rather than saying what I actually thought about the writing and nothing I've said will change your mind.

 

 

Disallowing someone to critique something based on what they see as its merits because the person being critiqued is female makes it a lot harder for that person to do their job. And maybe to get jobs. It also projects weakness on them.

Edited by Moiraine
Link to post
Just now, knapplc said:

You're taking her word for this. Aziz doesn't agree with that description, felt it was consensual, and was shocked (and apologetic!) when she, after the fact, told him she wasn't into it.  By his candid texts, he was shocked that she later felt the way she felt. 

 

This is not gender equality. The bold is sexism.  You cannot take one person's word as gospel and disregard the other person's take because of their respective genders.

 

Yes, the question does come down to whether or not we believe her recount of the events.

 

It's inaccurate that Aziz has disputed her timeline. What he said was that it -- the events of the undisputed timeline -- had seemed OK to him, and he was surprised to learn that she had another perspective. He also said that he took her concerns to heart. 

Link to post

Most of what was described in that account is typical in someone playing hard to get. And it's a lot less of a turn on if the guy stops pursuing every 3 minutes to ask "are you sure it's okay?" Especially if a partial blow job has already been given.

 

This may or may not be personal experience talking...

 

She gave every indication that night that she wanted a sexual encounter. And he stopped.

Edited by Moiraine
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

You have multiple times, just not using the word "sexist." No matter how many times you say it, I didn't use gendered insults and I'm not sure anyone else did either. And you thought it more likely that I of all people was making a gendered insult rather than saying what I actually thought about the writing and nothing I've said will change your mind.

 

 

Disallowing someone to critique something based on what they see as its merits because the person being critiqued is female makes it a lot harder for that person to do their job. And maybe to get jobs.

Ugh. You are of course the last person I actually would think is sexist. I hope you do know that.

 

"I don't believe her" is not an insult, but it -- the concept of not believing something claimed to be true -- is a way of dismissing what someone says that is, factually, more often and more easily used on women than on men. This is all I mean by gendered putdowns. You, again, think that nonetheless it applies. I do not.

 

You are allowed to critique, but I am suggesting that the "not real" claim needs a lot more support.  I mean, I still feel this way. You think the story sounds far-fetched and I can understand that, but there's nothing that indicates this wasn't drawn from her own personal experiences. So I think we need to be a lot more careful before leaping to all the criticisms that follow from "author made up stories to embellish her essay"....but, fine, you do not.

Link to post
14 minutes ago, zoogs said:

 

 

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.

 

Let's not be so quick to judge the less enthusiastic, who willingly bring partners to orgasm because it makes them happy. 

 

Every night, millions of people come like racehorses while their partner is already thinking about that piece of cake in the kitchen, the game about to start on TV,  or perhaps someplace else they'd rather be. 

 

"Consent" means both parties signed up for it. Satisfaction is never guaranteed. 

 

If "enthusiastic" is a requirement, our legal system will be clogged for centuries. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
6 minutes ago, zoogs said:

 

Guys, it is just not that hard.

 

Start with worrying less about having to prove to some third party whether or not your partner was enthusiastic. If there's actually doubt in your mind, maybe it's not the time.

 

If you really want to and are happy to do this, then it's fine. I imagine you would agree that a hypothetical relationship where the woman is really demanding about it and takes what she wants all the time with no regard for her partner's wishes, then it would be a hell for that poor guy. (Why doesn't he leave? He should leave, right?)

 

I mean, if you really love your wife and your wife really loves you, then you're both being extremely considerate of each other's wishes, which is the opposite of the scenario outlined here. Aziz messed up. Not in a he should go to jail kind of way, but for a guy who passed himself off as this super sweet, super sensitive, extremely woke feminist writing cute books on modern love, it's ... a good reminder that everyone can revisit some of their assumptions.

The idea that it's not hard is purely wishful thinking and fails practicality when applied to the real world because you're asking everyone else to make an extremely subjective judgment about what happened between two people. Take the Aziz instance. How does Aziz prove or even just explain that she was "enthusiastic"? He's saying she was into it and she's saying she wasn't. Now what?

 

Also, you're assuming that everyone understands the concept of "enthusiastic" the same. What if I think she's enthusiastic but she doesn't? Unless she flat-out tells me, there's absolutely no way for me to know.

 

And what you're not seeing in my hypotheticals about relationships is that the relationship, moods, outlooks, etc. are dynamic. Sometimes I'm not feeling it, sometimes she's not feeling it, but we make sacrifices for each other because we love each other. "Enthusiasm" is a stupid way to view or judge these things once you understand that human relationships and interactions aren't as simple as you'd like them to be.

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...