INDIAN AD TURNS THE MALE GAZE BACK ON ITSELF AND IT'S AWESOME

[redqueen]

Prominent Asian film school Whistling Woods International released a YouTube video on Monday, exactly one year after the horrific rape case in Delhi that became international news and drew global attention to violence against women in India, that turns the tables on men who ogle women in public. The film shows four scenarios where women are subjected to the ever-pervasive male gaze while going about their daily lives, whether talking with friends or just riding the bus. But then a reflective surface, be it sunglasses or a necklace, turns these gazes back on the men themselves.

The video is great, both in its very realistic – and uncomfortable – portrayal of men staring at young women, and also in the message it is trying to send, namely “You look ridiculous and creepy, and we can see you.” All too often, not just in India but all over the world, it seems that men looking at women in public places somehow think they are watching a display, as though women exist on a television screen. When, of course, in reality, women can see the people staring at them just fine, and those stares can make us feel not only uncomfortable and objectified, but downright unsafe. And yet the underlying idea that women going about their lives are putting on some sort of detached performance persists.

According to the video description on YouTube, Whistling Wood International wanted to make an ad empowering women as part of the celebration of 100 Years of Indian Cinema. Hopefully it has a big impact, and not just in India. It’s the sort of message that needs to be heard everywhere.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/11005-indian-ad-turns-the-male-gaze-back-on-itself-and-its-awesome

Here's hoping for ever increasing awareness in 2014!

[LumosMaxima]

1. I loved that.

Thank you for posting it.

[Matariki]

2. Love the music in that!

[BainsBane]

3. K&R

[Iggo]

4. Kicked and rec'd.

[LeftyMom]

5. That's brilliant.

[PDJane]

6. Wow! Really, really, well done...and powerful.

[xulamaude]

7. The 'mirror' idea is

spot on.

Rec'd of course.

[niyad]

8. k and r--thank you for sharing this very powerful piece.

[BainsBane]

9. In the other thread on this video

We were just told: "If you don't want to be looked at, stay home." Could there be a clearer confirmation of the fact that the point of such behavior is to control public space?

[Sheldon Cooper]

331. lol

[seabeyond]

348. quit slut shaming women. against du rules. nt

[Ace Acme]

360. I wasn't shaming anyone.

Just pointing out the obvious and asking for some common sense.

[seabeyond]

363. that is EXACTLY what you are doing. the women that dress like THIS is ASKING for it.

slut shaming

[Number23]

457. Did you miss that one of the women in the ad was wearing full face and body covering?

Does that mean any damn thing to you at all? And wearing SHORTS means that women want to leered at?

And I noticed that your account was Flagged for Review so I'm not sure when you'll be able to respond.

[Old and In the Way]

376. Yeah, leave the slut shaming to the pros...

the ones who own the DU franchise on this subject matter. If you should happen upon a female, such as you describe, avert your eyes and quickly cross the street.

[BainsBane]

395. Rape and murder are just hysterical

What a card.

[Old and In the Way]

404. Ah, we've gone from male gazing to rape and murder!

Well played BB! I do believe that you've hit the HoF trifecta with this post.

[BainsBane]

408. Yeah, because that is the point of this ad

Perhaps you've heard about the gang rapes and murders in India? The filmmakers are showing exactly how dangerous the culture that justifies such behavior is, yet here we have a few members insisting those women deserve what they get for wearing shorts and tank tops.

[Old and In the Way]

410. Might be the point of the ad, but clearly wasn't the point of my comment.

But don't let that stop you from insinuating that I think rape and murder is hysterical.

[BainsBane]

416. Well, I encourage you to think about context

Think about WHY such an ad would be made in India. Think about what the point is.

[Old and In the Way]

420. I encourage you to not make unfounded comments on what I have not said.

'Kay?

[BainsBane]

422. like "leave the slut shaming to the professionals"

Those kind of unfounded comments?

[Old and In the Way]

434. Seems to be a very popular phrase, used almost exclusively by certain HoFers.

As a male, I think I stopped using the term 'slut' about the time I hit puberty. But I find it interesting that so-called feminists here on DU have no problems accusing others of "slut shaming".

Why is that? Maybe you can explain why it's referred to as "slut shaming" instead of a more value-neutral accusation. such as "female shaming"? And, if the female in question has no problem with her appearance and reaction she gets...why label it as 'shaming' at all? Do a certain subset of women get to define these terms for all women?

If you disagree, please look in this thread as to who is employing the phrase here.

[BainsBane]

436. You just used it

YOU. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4218219 So did the guy you jumped into defend. Apparently now if I wear shorts and a tank top, that makes me a "slut." His words, not mine. Your words, not mine. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4218219

[Old and In the Way]

446. OK, you got me.

Now, in the interest of fair play, please admonish others in your group about using the same phrase in their comments.

[BainsBane]

454. Actually context matters

There is a decided and clear difference between shaming women for what they wear and drawing attention to the fact someone is doing it.

As for "my group." It's me and my dog here right now: no football team, coffee klatch, or knitting circle. Just me. I'm one person, a unique human being. That really should not be such a hard concept to grasp.

[Old and In the Way]

459. So the term "slut shaming" is OK, as long as it is used to club a perceived misognyst?

Have I got that right? Fascinating.

[BainsBane]

460. It is not a term I typically use

but as in everything else in life, context matters. You might note that Skinner himself used the term in Pab's tombstone message. You could always take it up with him.

[BainsBane]

386. Oh, you mean we should dress like this?

Why is that? Are you insinuating that men are by nature predatory and can't control themselves unless women cover up? I would think many men here would find such an assertion highly insulting.

[CrispyQ]

390. It's clear we need another video

that portrays overweight women & the shit they put up with. Let me tell you, as one who has been there, many of you guys don't behave any better with unattractive, overweight women. Some of these comments were made by people I didn't know, or hardly knew.

"Maybe you shouldn't eat dessert."

"Whoa, cover that up! We don't want to see that."

"Does your husband mind that you're fat?"

"You'd be pretty if you just lost weight."

"Are you sure you don't want to super size that?" said with a sneer.

I've never heard anyone make comments like the above to men.

Now that I'm 50 pounds thinner I have to deal with the other shit. From shit to shit, it doesn't change. We are judged by how we look.

[CFLDem]

458. True story.

[SouthernLiberal]

10. Very good video.

And if we start to think we are better here in the US than India, I saw a really cheerful song on a county music station all about how all the guys are looking at a girl, but this one guy really wants her, and of course, it is her fault because she looks good.

You can see it on YouTube if you care to:

[Ace Acme]

328. And how much effort did she put into looking that good?

My college girlfriend's room-mate used to spend an hour primping before she'd go out to the cafeteria for breakfast. And she was 18.

[seabeyond]

11. and men. we have had many conversations about this. you tell us. biological. cant be helped.

Last edited Mon Dec 23, 2013, 12:03 AM - Edit history (1)

so the fuck what. your right. gonna do this. we have told you how we feel, and you do not give a fuck. yes... point. you look this much of an ass. so, as you cheer your right, you dna, your fuckin awesomeness... this is what you look like to women.

[Demo_Chris]

34. What the heck? Seriously, are you okay?! nt

[seabeyond]

37. what the heck? seriously, wtf are you talking about?!

[Demo_Chris]

44. Your post is incoherent. Is everything okay?

[seabeyond]

46. ya demo, lilke you would be the one i would be looking to if everything was not ok. whatever. nt

[Demo_Chris]

49. Your dislike for me aside, I remain concerned. nt

[xulamaude]

53. I don't know if you have a certain dislike

for me, but I understand seabeyond just fine.

Maybe you could exert yourself to attempt to understand her rather than dismiss what she has to say,

And pretend concern for her (mental??) well-being.

[seabeyond]

55. the person who alerted on me did not have a problem. the jurers who almost hid the

post did not seem to have a problem. thank you X

[Demo_Chris]

56. I have no negative feelings for you or for SEA...

I don't have any negative feelings towards anyone here. This is not some righteous nonsense, I just don't pay a lot of attention to the names on posts.

And no, I am not pretending concern as a means of dismissing what she has to say. I am concerned because she is writing as if she is drunk or seriously screwed up.

[xulamaude]

58. "drunk or seriously screwed up"

Nice. So kind.

You must have missed where I said that I understood what she was saying just fine.

Maybe it's you who has the comprehension problem.?

[seabeyond]

60. sigh... my name is seabeyond. i had a glass and half of red wine, oh.... 5 hours ago.

i admit.

[Demo_Chris]

97. Well, I am TRYING to be nice...

This is what I am talking about. This is a quote:

"and men. we have had many conversations about this. you tell us. biological. cant be helped. so the fuck what. your right. gonna do this. we have told you how we feel, and you do not give a fuck. yes... point. you look this much of an ass. so, as you cheer your right, you dna, your fuckin awesomeness... this is what you look like to women."

Are you seriously trying to suggest that this is normal and that the problem is with me?

In any case, I was concerned. I still am, but that's okay.

[seabeyond]

98. telling a man to go up to strange hot women and offer them 50 for a bj concerns me. hmmm,

which is more concerning.

and do not say you do not remember. two, three days ago, i linked to it

[Tuesday Afternoon]

103. he did what?

face/palm

[geek tragedy]

270. linky goodness

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4196161

scroll all the way through--all quotes are that DU poster's

[Tuesday Afternoon]

284. Thank you for the link and after doing some reading in the other thread I feel

I must apologize for the behaviors/words of several men from GC&RKBA. I shouldn't be surprised but, I am.

I am also now firmly convinced that there are several Libertarians posting in that group and in these GD Feminist Threads.

They are not Democrats. I bet my bottom dollar on it.

[geek tragedy]

300. Maybe some of that, but also just because someone is a Democrat or left-leaning

on economic issues does not make them enlightened on gender issues. The correlation isn't all that strong.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

306. that group is not an economic group

it is a 2A group and they are applying the same argument for their guns they are applying to their porn using 1A. It has been very enlightening to me as a Female Gun Owner.

[geek tragedy]

310. The Gungeon has had its share of banned users over the past year or so. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

318. I am referring to old time DUers who have been posting here for years.

I thought they were 2A Democrats but, I am starting to wonder especially since reading their contributions in the other thread regarding the Male Gaze. They have taken a decidedly Libertarian stance on the feminist issue. I am not impressed with my colleagues and actually ashamed of their comments. Their ignorance is showing. I hope they can be educated on this subject because that would be the difference between being ignorant and being stupid. I will owe the HoF group a huge mea culpa if this continues.

I have argued long and hard in the group when I see sexist remarks about guns as penis envy.

Terms like gun humpers, gun nuts, etc. I would call it out.

[geek tragedy]

320. It's both surprising and unsurprising how 'liberal men' can sound like Ayn Rand worshippers

when it comes to situations or things that give men boners.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

322. Yes, let me just say I am underwhelmed and leave it at that. -

I hope they continue to read and join in these discussions. Perhaps we can actually watch enlightenment occur.

[Jester Messiah]

330. "Perhaps we can actually watch enlightenment occur" ?

What a shockingly arrogant statement.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

334. About Jester Messiah I advocate violence. the end.

[Jester Messiah]

356. I do, in fact.

If you're not willing to get your hands dirty, you are insufficiently devoted to your cause, in my estimation. Now, pray tell what that has to do with your arrogant presumption that your position is the only enlightened one?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

359. you're cute ... maybe we will get to keep you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4217305

[Jester Messiah]

362. D'awww, look who doesn't have an argument.

"Perhaps we should be wrapped in ribbons and adorned with flowers, so cute are we two."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

370. just not engaging you. no need for me to do this. read the thread.

or don't.

enlightenment is yours for the taking (or not)

walk your path how you choose.

it is your path after all.

peace.

[Jester Messiah]

373. Oh don't mind me, I'll just be over here checking my "privilege."

But do bear in mind, those who don't engage don't prevail.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

383. does it bother you that I don't mind you?

why would I want to prevail you of your path?

do you seek to prevail me of my path and if so Why?

[Jester Messiah]

387. Would it bother you if I said no?

I do find so-called Social Justice Warriors to be endearingly self-absorbed though. I mean, every single one should have the words "It's not about you" stenciled on the insides of their eyelids, but you're harmless enough. I really just want to tousle your hair and give you a pat on the back. Go on now, ya little scamp!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

391. this series of your posts is utterly offensive.

[Jester Messiah]

396. Taking offense is basically the SJW official pastime.

Gods forbid if the day ever came that you couldn't find something over which to be offended. I suppose you'd have to make up some new activity which constituted otherkin-shaming or non-privilege-checking. Which would also be patently ridiculous and of great entertainment value to people who can actually cope with reality.

[seabeyond]

478. are you feeling better today? you know what? i got 'er done.

tomorrow. the food.

[Sheldon Cooper]

293. Holy shit.

Is there any good reason why that poster is still permitted to be here? Can anyone answer that?

[geek tragedy]

297. Becaues men harassing women is not considered a violation of DU community standards.

Neither is overt misogyny.

TOS technically doesn't allow that stuff, but that's honored in the breach.

[Sheldon Cooper]

302. I read in another thread that DU could use some women administrators.

Since we know that's not going to happen, it's too bad the men who own this site do not have daughters. I understand that the ones who have children have only sons. I think, for some men, it takes having a daughter for them to finally 'get' the message.

[geek tragedy]

304. Took having a bad-ass militant feminist wife for me. Someone who would actually

point this stuff out, fully understanding that I was clueless about a great many things.

As a general rule, men who claim to understand women are the least informed.

[msanthrope]

490. I was called 'dear' persistently in a thread....even after I asked to not be called that. I was

mocked for raising the issue, and the poster refused to apologize for using sexist, condescending language, instead citing 'freedom of speech.'

That poster was seabeyond.

So let's not accuse the admin of tolerating anything that one of DU's finest does not do herself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024073698

[seabeyond]

315. this poster told us no ick, shame, value judgment on men buying schoolgirls soiled panties from

vending machine. when i told him what that fantasy is about, you know, fucking children, he demanded i delete. thru out i was civil arguing why i would feel ick, shame the men and hold value judgment. respectfully. my post was hid.

his telling us not to shame men, or feel ick, or hold value judgment stayed.

an example that calling out the vulgar gets hid. protecting the vulgar stands.

[1StrongBlackMan]

323. Wow ...

I went to the link, and all I can say is wow.

From this "hunting" advice (to a man on how to get a woman):

Stop CARING so damn much, stop liking them and worshipping them. Fuck that, if they want to be treated well they can damn well earn it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=386327

I suspect that guy has some serious hate issues with females!

[BainsBane]

425. Because the way to find a life partner

Is offering women fifty for a BJ.

I'd say your assessment is accurate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

439. Yeah ...

it's certainly better than showing the object of your attraction/attention that you actually might care about them or like them ... without them having to ... you know ... earn it (whatever that means)!

But I guess I'm just old-school, that way.

[BainsBane]

442. There you go again

Acting like you actually like women and truly love Mrs.1StrongBlackMan.

[Matariki]

470. LOL - it's like a parody of Tom Cruise's pitiful sleazeball character in Magnolia

[xulamaude]

104. Again, I say that I understand seabeyond just fine.

I doubt she needs nor appreciates your 'concern'.

[Ino]

149. It makes sense to me.

Some may think you got the gist of it from the get-go and are just pretending to be concerned so you can ignore the message as totally nonsensical. But just in case you really are confused, let's reword it a bit...

Men, we have had many conversations about this. You tell us it's biological, can't be helped. We have told you how we feel, and you do not give a fuck. You look like an ass. So while you cheer your right to leer, your DNA, your fucking awesomeness... this is how you look to women.

[seabeyond]

152. i am gonna take you along with me, on my trip posting thru out du. your posts of my post...

is like, way fuckin more awesome, then my posts of my posts. lol

go at it haus.

no, really. that was fun.

[redqueen]

158. I doubt there are many who honestly can't understand your posts.

I understood perfectly well what you meant, and that alert is ... not fooling anyone.

[seabeyond]

161. thank you redq. lots of people talk to me. about what i actually post. i have to ASSume, they are

getting what i am saying. lol

thanks

[EOTE]

273. I generally tend to lend more credence to posts which don't need to be translated into English first

When posts need interpreters, I can safely ignore pretty much all of its contents.

[seabeyond]

274. personal insult for no better reason than, just cause. nt

[EOTE]

290. Not an insult of any kind. Just an observation.

I'm not going to spend a good amount of time analyzing a post when it needs to be translated first. I tend to think that posts which don't need to be translated first have far more valuable information from the get go anyway.

[treestar]

256. I found it clear.

Sums up the arguments of a certain faction.

[seabeyond]

259. thank you tree

lol. i hear this comment often at the end of an argument after a stream of posts where they clearly understand what i am posting. yet, their argument fails so they end with a comment like this. but... sometimes i wonder about me. so each person that has stated they understood what i wrote, means something to me. thank you

[1StrongBlackMan]

312. I have no problem understanding what you mean ...

But maybe I just speak seabeyondian ... that or, I just agree with much of what she writes.

It seems there is a inverse correlation between agreeing with a post (or, moreso, the post writer) and being able to understand the post.

[seabeyond]

317. and you 1strongblackman, thank you. i appreciate it. and...

[geek tragedy]

262. Yes and yes. nt

[pintobean]

192. This thread is a re-post

of a HOF thread where the OP included a mockery of a typo.

"The Asian film school Whistling Woods is concerned with another kind of "slipper slope" (sic)."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125532778

The typo:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024211281#post1

[ismnotwasm]

245. That is unkind and unnecessary

Apologize.

[seabeyond]

250. ya, well. i have gone from man hater to mentally unstable. another poster below. and the men are

allowed.

[Demo_Chris]

261. Apologize for my genuine concern? No, sorry, I prefer to maintain what little soul I have left. nt

[ismnotwasm]

283. No your disingenuous attempt to portray concern for the posters well being

I'm sure you are more than familiar with her posting style. And to suggest she is impaired is very rude.

Apologize. A much better way to soul gaze

[Demo_Chris]

308. I was actually concerned...

I would like to believe that someone might be concerned about me if I suddenly began posting randomly punctuated disjointed streams of semi-consciousness -- though perhaps that is too much to hope.

In any case, I am glad that everything is alright with her and I wont apologize for caring. It seems that some people here take this forum debate stuff VERY SERIOUSLY -- seriously enough to forge alliances and craft strategies and monitor who is posting what and to whom. For these few it's not a discussion, it's a fucking WAR. But I think that's over the top. This is a discussion forum for Democrats, and even when we disagree on an issue or position we are all supposed to be comrades. That's how I see it anyway.

[Sheldon Cooper]

313. Your transparency is apparent.

[ismnotwasm]

325. You are still being disingenuous

Apologize for insulting Seabeyond.

[LanternWaste]

294. I imagine you may even think many people believe that allegation...

"genuine concern..."

I imagine you may even think many people believe that allegation...

[NCTraveler]

338. Seriously...

You are a passive aggressive asshole.

"as if she is drunk or seriously screwed up"

[Tuesday Afternoon]

365. and condescending.

[DLevine]

195. Made sense to me. Are you sure you're ok? nt

[scarletwoman]

42. I can't believe I had to do jury duty on your post - and even worse, that 3 jurors

agreed with the alerter.

It was a 3-3 tie, which makes me really ashamed for DU:

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

If anyone on DU spoke to women this way, the post would be hidden and rightly so.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Dec 22, 2013, 07:49 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I very much hope that ADMIN (SKINNER) takes a close look at whether there is a pattern of hostile alerting on seabeyond's posts.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: yeah, i'm with the alerter on this one. Keep this kind of vitriol in HOF.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Screw you, alerter. When men are raped to death by women, maybe you might have a point. Until that extremely unlikely event, you can just stuff it.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: This woman should be banned. She is the most hateful poster here at du. Be gone!
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

I was juror #3.

[seabeyond]

45. wow. hm. i am really kinda stumped on this. ok. i have been gettin lottsa alerts.

i appreciate you letting me know.

[scarletwoman]

48. I don't always agree with you, but I damn well recoginze a vendetta when I see it.

And I thought you should know. I think you ought to be able to say whatever you want to say. If someone wants to challenge one of your posts with a post of their own, fine. But I will never agree with anyone trying to shut you up altogether.

[seabeyond]

52. thank you scarlet. i know we are not the best of pals. that would be integrity, i recognize

and appreciate. and value a lot. thank you. i am glad you told me. i can respect that.

[chervilant]

194. Or, chase her away from DU...

IMHO, those who cry the loudest are seeing themselves in our mirror.

[BainsBane]

197. as well as silence others

who would question male privilege. If you don't tow the line, we'll come after you too, is the clear message.

[chervilant]

207. This saddens me,

and I'm appalled to see it among DUers.

[Matariki]

473. You really should expand your jury blacklist.

I think the candidates for that have mostly made themselves obvious. And keep fighting the good fight.

[seabeyond]

475. thank you. and the women made me late last night. wooosh, was it work

really, didnt even put a dent in it. but, tis cool. it is done. i had never used the thing in the past

[seabeyond]

477. and...

[BainsBane]

196. Did you alert on those juror comments?

Some of them have made clear they are not capable of serving as fair jurors.

Concern with objectification, degradation of women, and rape is not hate. Rather, insisting that there is something wrong with those concerns signals a profound lack of concern for the basic human rights of women to move through public space without fear of predation. Seabeyond's point is there being a sexual predator is not biologically inevitable in men. It is instead an aberration. That is made evident by the fact that the majority of men know how to behave appropriately.

The Indian film group has made this ad because the country has an epidemic of rape that KILLS women. They know that the behavior described in these ads is part of rape culture and in fact leads to the same hostile views of women that motivates rapists and killers. That anyone can watch this video and think it has anything to do with shared physical attraction among people is worrisome. This kind of hostile sexualized treatment of women in public is a clear effort to control public space and keep women in their place, as clearly demonstrated by the comments that women who don't want to be ogled and harassed should wear burkas or stay in their home. No man who has an interest in a relationship with a woman behaves accordingly. This film shows the behavior of sexual predators, not people interested in getting to know one another. That some can't can't recognize that basic fact is frightening.

So congratulations to those whose level of enlightenment on gender issues lags behind Indians. They seem to be quite proud of what they have made themselves into. More importantly, thank you to the majority of men in this country and in India who understand that women are equal human beings to be treated with value and respect. The now 74 recs compared to a few handful of complainers shows where the majority of members fall on this issue.

[geek tragedy]

263. misogynist thug tactics via the jury system. nt

[CFLDem]

12. If I saw my gaze reflected back at me

I'd just use it as an opportunity to brush my hair right and make sure I don't have food on my face.

Staring is creepy but nothing wrong in enjoying something beautiful in good taste.

[seabeyond]

13. at her expense? really? your right proceeds a womans right to wakl in public without being made

to feel as if she is there for your entertainment? it is all about you?

[LeftyMom]

14. "something beautiful"

There it is right there folks. Close the thread, this genius made our argument for us.

[seabeyond]

15. a THING. yup. and we all see when we are being seen as a THING. and no. not a compliment, do not

like it.

very good lefty. yes

[KitSileya]

189. I especially like the "some*thing* beautiful"

It really illustrates the poster's view of women.

(Do I need a sarcasm tag?)

[Matariki]

474. Yep. Some THING. Sums it up, doesn't it?

Thought I'd break it down, in case the person in question is dense enough to miss your point.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

16. what's your metric to determine a stare from *winky wink* enjoying someTHING

In good taste, of course.

So? How do we measure the discrete differences between a "creepy" stare and a pleasurable tasteful stare?

Stopwatch?

Count the drops of drool that lands on the woman's chest? Less than 5 and it's within the bounds of tasteful?

Turgidity? Less than 1/4 erect and it was tasteful?

[CFLDem]

20. It's situational and dependent upon social intuition.

Can't really define it in discrete terms. It just is what it is.

[chervilant]

212. "It just is what it is."

While you may think your point is valid, you should understand that your objectification of women ("something beautiful) is offensive, and that your attitude is the sort of thinking that underpins the ubiquitous rape culture, and violence toward women.

If you are interested in learning about rape culture and violence toward women, please read the following:

Against Our Will (Brownmiller)

The Best Kept Secret (Rush)

Ending the Silence (Thorne-Finch)

Blaming the Victim (Ryan)

These would be a good start. You might also want to view "The Bro Code," which is an excellent documentary.

[xulamaude]

17. Thread suck. :)

[bettyellen]

19. she is a thing, huh?

[CFLDem]

21. All people can be things in certain regards.

I'm not sexist, men can be things, too. It's just all part of the human mating ritual.

Some people should really learn to let their freak flag fly.

[bettyellen]

22. Yeah, I don't know anyone who considers themselves a thing, so don't try that crap

too far from home. and why you think it has anything to do with sex or being freaky holds absolutely no interest for me. bizarre.

[CFLDem]

24. Hmm... We must be on two different wavelengths.

And I think that's awesome. Whatever floats peoples boats and all that.

[seabeyond]

25. that is a fail. because you do not consider others. or how your behavior interferes

with another. really what you are saying, is... whatever floats your boat and fuck others.

[CFLDem]

28. Please enlighten me

as to what gives someone the right to control what another person thinks of them?

That's really the crux of the matter. If a person is attractive, I'm briefly and discreetly checking them out.

Anyone who doesn't admit to occasionally engaging in the same behavior is either asexual, has some inner demons to deal with, or full of it.

[seabeyond]

30. "checking them out." checking them out for what? if they are fuckable? what are you checking out?

if they will do? what?

[CFLDem]

35. What do you think?

Please do tell, should a person first get permission from another person in order to get enjoyment from the sight of each other's bodies?

[LeftyMom]

39. Let's try this angle: do you think women appreciate you staring at them?

Because if your behavior in public is half as charming as it is on this thread I'm amazed you don't get a significant share of your daily caloric intake from pepper spray.

[MuseRider]

419. LeftyMom, this has to be one of my all time favorite responses EVER!

I saw it this morning and have been getting a chuckle out of it all day. I am going to remember this one and use it if you do not mind. I can always say, "As a friend of mine, LeftyMom says..." if you like. It was that funny to me. Honestly, thank you. XO

[NuclearDem]

51. Alright, yeah, that was REALLY creepy.

[seabeyond]

54. all i can think with the way he talks is has watched so much porn, pornifies women on the

street he comes across. all bodies is for him to make into his porn. and this is what so many women are feeling today and so disgusted. all fuckin day long. we go out into public and men feel they have the right to make us their porn.

and there is absolutely the difference in a man that looks at us as people and men looking at us as their porn. we know it, see it, feel it. treat me like a person and my response will be with warmth. treat me like a thing, your fuckin porn... and scorn.

what is really bad is i had one man, when meeting him eye to eye, would not look away. was angry. angry for calling him out with my eye contact. how dare i. that one.... was truly uncomfortable.

[CFLDem]

72. That's a nice journey through the strawman patch

blaming porn and all.

Still doesn't answer the question at hand:

Should a person first get permission from another person in order to get enjoyment from the sight of each other's bodies?

[Dorian Gray]

487. Well

that's just creepy.

[CFLDem]

75. I agree.

A society that legitimizes thoughtcrimes is very unnerving.

[countryjake]

138. Should people listen when other people tell them they don't like being ogled?

[LanternWaste]

198. I imagine many, many creepy guys ask themselves that very question in order to better rationalize th

I imagine many, many creepy guys ask themselves that very question in order to better rationalize their actions.

[MineralMan]

208. Checking them out?

You're digging the hole you're in deeper and deeper. Checking them out for what? Suitability for your extraordinary attentions?

You are not, apparently, getting this at all. As a man, I'm capable of admiring someone's appearance, but that doesn't demand staring or a leer. Ever. And I'm not "checking them out" for anything. I'm not that arrogant.

[seabeyond]

209. "I'm not that arrogant." yes. this. we all look at people all the time. we notice all kinds of

things about all kinds of people.

and ya. that is the feel. so friggin arrogant to think that person has an iota of a part in this strangers life.

[CFLDem]

218. Really?

so friggin arrogant to think that person has an iota of a part in this strangers life.

I would say your numerous assumptions and gross generalizations demonstrate otherwise.

[seabeyond]

228. i would say the difference is the person that has experienced this unwanted attention for a couple

or more decades and the man that has not experienced this at all.

again, the arrogance.

[CFLDem]

215. What do you mean by admiring someone?

[MineralMan]

225. Recognition of someone's appearance is almost instantaneous.

It doesn't require more than a glance in passing. In some cases, the reaction might even be "Wow! What a beautiful woman." And then you move on to other things in your day. Anyone who ventures out of his or her own house is likely to see dozens, if not hundreds, of people. A few of those people are likely to catch one's eye. But that's the extent of it, or should be.

When I was a small child, my mother taught me that staring at people, for any reason, was impolite, unless they are at a podium speaking or something. Children stare, until they learn that staring is impolite, and then they stop doing that. The difference between a stare or a leer and someone catching your eye is striking.

I don't stare at people. I notice them. If I don't know the people I notice, that's the end of it. Do I sometimes think a particular person is good looking or even beautiful? Of course, but I don't stand there, slack-jawed, and imagine that they are anyone but some passing stranger.

One day, when I was working at my father's auto repair business, a bunch of guys were standing around with cups of coffee, early in the morning. The business was near the local high school, and kids were walking by on their way to school. One of the men who regularly showed up for coffee in the mornings said this: "Would you look at the ass on that one?" I was getting my tools ready to start the work day. My father said, "J.B. - That's your daughter."

The guy with his coffee was so intent on looking at the "asses" of the high school girls walking by that he didn't even recognize his own daughter. That pretty much says it all, as far as I am concerned. That is what is being discussed in this thread. That is the objectification that is being talked about here.

If you find yourself thinking "what a nice ass," look up. You're leering.

[CFLDem]

229. Thank for the explanation.

I agree.

[seabeyond]

233. and this would be another issue we women have. we say it over and over and over. are ridiculed,

dismissed, attacked, snarked at.

a man says it, and the man says.... thank you

perpetuating a culture for all of us to live in.

[CFLDem]

241. His explanation was polite, understanding, and articulated.

Characteristics very few of your responses contain, IMO.

[seabeyond]

248. and every other women that you replied to. us mean, nasty women. just shut the fuck up and stand

still so you can "check us out" in all your entitlement.

you think there may be a reason for that?

[CFLDem]

279. Again with the assumptions and hyperbole

and gross generalizations.

Try taking that chip off of your shoulder. You'll find it makes walking with your head up a lot easier.

[seabeyond]

282. chip on the shoulder? and i suppose i should own it, cause you give it to me? nt

[CFLDem]

343. You not only own it, you bought the T-shirt, too.

And you send me a postcard of it with each over the top, stereotyping, assumptive response.

[seabeyond]

346. ah, more insults. personal attacks. cause you behavior fails. nt

[CFLDem]

350. You should trust the truth

Seabeyond, warrior princess. It will set you free.

[seabeyond]

351. warrior princess... you are coming off immature now. nt

[seabeyond]

231. another thank you. and how about a woman that walked into the shop, with that group of men with

coffee, spending their time enjoying the young asses walking by. and how did they shift their focus to that one, single, alone woman that walked into the shop to get her car repaired. how many of us women have had to walk into that atmosphere knowing damn well what the men are thinking. when all we want to do it get our oil changed.

thank you for your post.

[MineralMan]

244. When someone came into the shop, those guys were almost always gone.

My father treated every customer alike, as a customer. The morning coffee guys were there for half an hour in the morning. Mostly, the talk was about cars or whatever. But no woman who came into that shop was ever treated any differently than any guy who came in to have his car worked on by my father.

His pointing out to that guy that it was his daughter's "ass" he was leering at was typical of what he would do. You didn't find my Dad leering at teenaged women walking by. He was working. The guy in question actually knocked off that kind of "banter" following that incident. Lesson learned, I guess.

[seabeyond]

252. i wasnt referring to your father. he sounds stand up. my father. where i learned to expect respect

but, you do know what i am talking about. when a woman walks into a business, with this mentality of group of men. and how uncomfortable an atmosphere it is for a woman. you know that, because your father made sure it did not happen in the environment that he controlled. and ya... i get that from a lot fo men.

i worked in my fathers business, a male oriented business. he was the boss. he controlled the behaviors and expectations. it was NEVER a hostile environment for women. he simply would not allow it.

i value and respect that man. but it also tells me it can be done. any environment that is llowed to be hostile to women, is due to the lack of control of the men around.

[MineralMan]

258. My father cleared out the morning coffee crowd by opening time every day.

They were there from about 7:30 -8 AM only. Once the shop was open, things were all business.

Mostly those coffee guys just stood around exchanging insults, a phenomenon that is extraordinarily common in such workplaces. I've never really quite understood it, but can join in when needed in the insult exchange. But when things went over the top, my father always had a pointed way of putting a stop to it.

[seabeyond]

260. good for him. good for you. i totally get it. i grew up with it. makes life clear. nt

[xulamaude]

26. Thread suck.2 nt

[BainsBane]

86. The only thing that surprises me

Is that it took so long and that there aren't more of them. There is a reason I posted this in HOF rather than GD.

[xulamaude]

89. As 'they' like to (not) say:

[chervilant]

220. You are sexist...

(Just reread your posts herein, and the responses to them.) Recognizing that you are could be the first step in learning how not to be.

[CFLDem]

222. So because I'm not an androgynous robot

who asks every person I respectfully admire for their permission to do so, I'm sexist?

ROFLOL


Thanks for starting the holiday cheer early!

[chervilant]

230. That you don't recognize your sexism

is merely a fraction of your presenting issues, per your posts to this OP.

(You are not amusing, or cute, or erudite, despite your multiple insipid efforts.)

[CFLDem]

232. Oh I know. I'm dead serious.

And I don't really think it's sexist since my opinions on the matter isn't biased towards any sex.

[chervilant]

281. You have my sincere condolences. n/t

[CFLDem]

345. The feeling is mutual. nt

[NCTraveler]

342. Maybe the problem is we don't understand what you are saying.

So to be fair to you, what do you mean by "respectfully admire " "things"? "Things" being women. Pretty ones of course.

[seabeyond]

234. classic. the poster attacks dimisses all comments from women. ONE man posts, and he thanks for the

info. i think if we peruse down to other men that have made comments we will probably see a respect in his reply to the men posters. as he snarks, dismisses every woman. ya.... i think you called it correctly

[Sheldon Cooper]

238. I was just going to comment on that!!

Deride all the women, but humbly thank the guy. It's so fucking obvious!

[seabeyond]

240. classic. that is all that can be said. in the face obvious. perfect example of

what we talk about.

classic

[Sheldon Cooper]

242. It's so funny, and all they do is deny deny deny.

[Matariki]

480. Me too. So damn obvious. Glad he was called out on it.

[laundry_queen]

23. It's not just staring that's creepy.

Take this post, for instance.

[NuclearDem]

27. Women are beautiful things to be enjoyed.

Ladies and gentlemen, rape culture in a nutshell.

[CFLDem]

29. No, people are beautiful things to be enjoyed.

[seabeyond]

31. i have been around a lot of good looking men, and i am around a lot of good look young men now,

that my boys are in the upper teens. and i gotta tell you. i do not think i have ever looked at a man as " beautiful things to be enjoyed." seriously. i can recognize attractive. but i have never seen another human being as " beautiful things to be enjoyed."

[Bonobo]

65. That's kind of creepy. nt

[seabeyond]

67. uh... grabbin' heart, you got me. geez, with you all shootin your arrow with your snickering

gotchas. what a fuckin hoot.

[Bonobo]

79. Reasonably certain that if I posted about my teenage daughter in that way

it would elicit a response of "creepy".

[seabeyond]

84. you would be labeled a creep for NOT seeing them as " beautiful things to be enjoyed."

[UtahLib]

100. You know what I find creepy?

Someone who seems to have an uncontrollable grudge filled urge to attack you at every opportunity.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

108. it really is getting to be very obvious that sea is being alert stalked. and Yeah, it is creepy.

[UtahLib]

165. It seems obvious to me that some people are judged much more harshly than others.

As uncomfortable as I am with judging, I'm thinking my sense of fairness is good enough reason to change my willingness to serve on a jury option to yes.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

172. you are a member of the community, yes. kind of like a civic duty is how I look at it ...

I wish it was modified/tweaked ... not sure how. I kind of think the accused should know their accuser like in real life. meh.

it is what it is.

but, yeah ... give it a go.

interesting concept/experiment.

[seabeyond]

182. oh do. i am really fair when on jury. it is... like, integrity. that is way more important than

hiding someones post on du, i do not like

[Little Star]

301. With out a doubt she is being alert stalked....

and I hope the admins look into it. She doesn't deserve this kind of treatment. She is one of the absolute nicest people on DU.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

305. agree.

I probably deserve what is happening to me but, sea does not. She just absolutely does not. The amount of time she spends on this board LISTENING, trying to understand, educating, debating and at the end of the day to say ... Cheers to very ones she has been "battling" the most and it is sincere. Nothing fake about her. She genuinely cares about the ones who she has been heatedly debating.

[seabeyond]

319. so i say out loud... i think i am nice, too. sons look at me, lol.

ah little star. i do like hearing your voice. even when it is not saying i am nice. i think you are awfully nice, too.

#Happy%20holiday%20glitter

i think i have sent you a card, but just in case i have not.

[NCTraveler]

347. +1 nt

[JI7]

116. it's only creepy because you are looking at it a certain creepy way which it is not

[FBaggins]

203. "Good looking" ?

Hmmm?

[seabeyond]

205. hmmm?

[FBaggins]

236. Just seems an odd double standard.

See any other combination of "good" with a gerund. "Good skiing" means perfect conditions for skiing. "That BBQ is good eating" means that it's pleasurable to eat. Good sailing or surfing makes you want to sail or surf.

If they're "good looking" then they are pleasurable to look at. Similarly... "attractive" means that you expect others to be attracted to them.

[seabeyond]

239. fuckin for real? my boys are good looking. so, what does that mean? do tell.

[FBaggins]

251. Already answered.

You think that others will take pleasure in looking at them and will be attracted to them.

Some people are attracted to character, compassion, hard work, intelligence, etc. But at least your boys are easy on the eyes, eh?

[seabeyond]

254. lol

[Old and In the Way]

265. He's pointing out your obvious double standard in your post.

What's so difficult for you to understand? You find your son's young friends "good looking" - attractive. Sounds like you are objectifying them. Had any guy written your post about his daughter's friends being "good looking", you be accusing him of eyeball rape.

[seabeyond]

269. yes. i get where you men are TRYING to go. your FAIL is in that i am NOT sexualizing the dudes

a HUGE obvious that you men want to gloss over as if it is not significant. though, that would be the whole point on the issue.

[NCTraveler]

352. These individuals see sex in everything.

They can't even understand that saying your boys are good looking is not sexualizing them. They are so shallow that the words "good looking" automatically means there is something sexual behind it. They don't get that you can say that and not ogle or get turned on. They are truly flawed in their manner of thinking.

[seabeyond]

355. you know nc. as i am sitting here wondering about being called a creep for saying good looking,

when obviously the issue is sexualizing, and these men seriously do not see the difference, i was absolutely going to creepy on this. isnt that a fuckin hoot.

i think you explain it better.

but truly odd

i thought the first poster would get the stupid in the comment. right over his head and the next two or three.

[NCTraveler]

375. I am really sick of some of the things aimed at you here.

On a side note, and I know you are aware of this, your posting style is unique. It is also very clear and to the point. At a minimum, two individuals in this thread should lose their posting privileges for their extremely personal attacks. Following you for a while now because you are willing to teach and listen. I always know, if you say something and I don't get it, all I have to do is politely ask you to clarify. You have always been generous with your time. At this point, it is time for me to start calling some of them assholes, as I did upthread.

[CrispyQ]

421. +1!

This:

I always know, if you say something and I don't get it, all I have to do is politely ask you to clarify. You have always been generous with your time.

[seabeyond]

433. thank you. i gotta get outta of my house.

more snow on the way?

[CrispyQ]

467. No more snow.

Predicting mid 40s for Xmas & almost 50 on Friday! Whoot!

Is your boy home for the holidays?

[seabeyond]

469. oh he is. he is home. has been for a week. the world is right again... lol. AND

i got my shopping done.



my son had mentioned possible snow christmas. maybe it is headed straight across. we are not always dependent on colorado, ya know.

hugzzz.

[seabeyond]

432. tahnk you nc. that really is the intent if a person really wants clarification. but then, i am

often asking for clarification. and honestly, i appreciate it every time i am given it. i love to be proven wrong in my assumptions.

[seabeyond]

271. are you really arguing if a man says my daughter is good looking someone would call him a creep?

is this really your mens position?

[Old and In the Way]

369. The whole point of your incessant fixiation on eyeball rape/pornification/patriachy/misogeny

is to assign labels to approx. 1/2 of all DU members while judging their motivations. Yet, you apparently can comment on your son's buddies and have no problem noting their "good looks". Gee, that sure sounds like you are guilty of the same type of objectification that you apparently have no problem in assigning to all male members of this board.

Best get that mote in your eye looked after...

[seabeyond]

374. then you do not listen well old. whole point of all these conversations is stress the sexualizing

the women with your look. that is THE whole point. that was in the original post that you are ALL responding to in outrage. that you do not get the very simple point that it is not in a look, it is in objectifying, sexualizing, wanting to hit it... making IT a thing, that seems to fly all the way over each one of your mens head.

what a fuckin tough concept that is.

[Old and In the Way]

377. word salad, served with a side of hypocrisy. nt

[seabeyond]

378. ya. the quaint mens group diss of me. pathetic. lame. old.

[Old and In the Way]

382. In other words, "I'm a victim!"

As predictable as the tides...

Still should get that mote looked at, though.

[seabeyond]

393. do i look sound or feel like a victim? hell no. i will point out your stupid ass games every

single time.

[Old and In the Way]

413. Forgetting what you post is clearly a feature.

Whatever, seabeyond, keep pornifying the rape culture eye-gazers while you objectify good looking boys!

[seabeyond]

414. keep refusing to understand what the issues are so you can continually present a strawman.

[CFLDem]

415. To be honest you do

at least 4/5ths of the time.

[seabeyond]

431. link or it didnt happen. throwing out unfounded accusations

[CFLDem]

437. Oh noes

the pot is calling the kettle black!!1!1!

Literally 80% of your posts make wild assumptions about what other people think, or do in their personal lives, or stereotypes an entire sex just to serve a sexist agenda.

[seabeyond]

451. you made a specific statement. most of my posts are strawman. link... that is not wild assumptions

bout personal lives.

that is a flat out statement that is provable by a link to a post i strawman. i mena. since the vast majority of my posts are strawman. it should not be a problem for you to link to my strawman posts.

[Gravitycollapse]

33. This is called commodification. To reduce the human body to something that is consumed.

To objectify. To eliminate personhood. To view another person as merely a means of personal satisfaction.

It's brilliant if your idea is to cancel out female autonomy. Not so brilliant for women.

[seabeyond]

36. i am wondering if he thinks we ought to just stand there. before him. let him run eyes up and down

turn and again, allow the eyes up and down. maybe open our mouths so he can see how healthy our teeth are... i mean wtf?

and ya. i get it. i have had decades of merely being 'beautiful things for men to enjoy". i know exactly what they are doing. they feel a fuckin ownership for the brief moment they allow themselves to reduce the woman to a thing.

look them in the eye, and they will look away or get angry.

do the same to a man, with the same look, and they are as, if not more uncomfortable and run away.

it is a fuckin game for the pathetic men so they can take ownership of a woman for that moment and feel dominant over.

rah

[Gravitycollapse]

40. The disparity between seeing someone as physically attractive and the male gaze is vast.

The male gaze is a sort of team effort. All of the men around a normatively attractive women collectively participate in the reduction of her person to something akin to a piece of meat. And they all salivate and pat each other on the back. Maybe, if she's far enough away, they turn to each other to discuss various parts of her body as if they are separate from the rest.

"Her ass is amazing" etc...

It's a game to men. But it's also a true means of self affirmation; a continuous reconstitution of the male machismo around the breaking up of the female body into bits and pieces to be consumed.

[CFLDem]

47. Women do the same thing, too.

It's just much more discreet in comparison, since the sex ratio encourages men to peacock their sexuality.

[Gravitycollapse]

50. Well, two points need to be made here...

The first is that the indiscreetness of the male gaze is fundamentally important. So to argue that it's simply a difference of visibility is to miss an important point.

The second is that the group nature of the male gaze, its seeming ability to unify men who are complete strangers to one another, distinguishes it definitively from female commidification of male bodies. The goals are not the same and neither are the methods.

[Threedifferentones]

296. Gravitycollapse, IMO yours is the most important point in the thread.

The word's "male" and "gaze" obviously have distinct, literal meanings. But, when they are combined in this context, "male gaze" takes on a different and much more significant meaning than simply "a man looking."

The male gaze is a social phenomenon, and (I imagine, being male) to a woman it is not so much about any one man being attracted to her body, but rather how men collectively fixate on her body, ignoring her personality and thoughts, thereby making clear (by implication at least) that she is an object to be pursued and not a person to interact with on equal footing.

Given this concept of the male gaze, it is clear that what bothers a woman is not that any given man might "check out" her curves as she goes about her day, but rather that men in general think of her solely as a physical body to be used, instead of as a person they can relate to.

One guy staring at you on the bus is a creep acting creepy.

It is a part of life that people become aware of who they are attracted to via sensations of lust and arousal. Since lust and arousal are generally perceived as pleasurable sensations, it is natural that people will look more frequently at those other they find attractive.

But innumerable men leering day after day, and talking to one another as if women lack personality, agency and serious thoughts, seems like a conspiracy.

Further evidence of that conspiracy is that you don't hear gay men heckling other men in daily life, even though they are presumably just as horny as us heterosexuals. Why not? Because while a gay man may lust after my body as if it were an object he would like to possess, he does not have a million cultural hints telling him that it is okay to ignore my thoughts and feelings. Indeed, a gay man who is admiring my ass would probably be quite concerned about my reaction if he chose to express those sentiments in public, while the men in the ad clearly do not care one bit about what the women think or feel.

It is fair to call that conspiracy patriarchy, or at least a part of patriarchy. While politics and gender dynamics are more complicated than simply saying "down with patriarchy," in general that seems like a fine place to start.

[seabeyond]

321. good post. nt

[CrispyQ]

448. Outstanding post, particularly this:

Because while a gay man may lust after my body as if it were an object he would like to possess, he does not have a million cultural hints telling him that it is okay to ignore my thoughts and feelings. Indeed, a gay man who is admiring my ass would probably be quite concerned about my reaction if he chose to express those sentiments in public, while the men in the ad clearly do not care one bit about what the women think or feel.

[Matariki]

481. +1 for you and Gravitycollapse

great, well written, cognizant posts. Wish I wrote that well.

[CFLDem]

43. Assumptions assumptions

on top of gross generalizations and stereotypes to serve a sexist agenda.

I happen to be of the camp that think it's acceptable for individuals of any or no gender to decide if other people are attractive to them. If they want to take a passing glance to do this, more power to them.

As for myself, look me in the eye, and I'll say hello, maybe even ask you how your day is going.

[CFLDem]

38. Nice bait and switch.

Start out with a sensible definition, end the statement with a biased (ie sexist) conclusion.

Eliminating personhood cancels people of all sexes' autonomy since both sexes (and inter-sexes) are people.

[Gravitycollapse]

41. Here, right now, we are talking about the commodification of the female body.

Hence, my discussion revolves around that premise.

However, no, there is no unification between the commodification of the male body and the female body. The rules are generated by men for men to use against the female body. While we do objectify the male body to a certain extent, it pales in comparison to the male gaze.

[seabeyond]

344. you are going thru out these threads slut shaming women. knock it the fuck off. that is about one

thing we ALL agree is not acceptable, slut shaming women.

how dare you. who the fuck do you think you are. men get their ass kick off du for slut shaming females. not much else. but they do for slut shaming.

[Ace Acme]

361. I'm not shaming anyone. nt

[seabeyond]

366. yes. you are. they dress like this so they ask for it, deserve it.

[Ace Acme]

371. So you deny that women deliberately present themselves as eye candy

... when they spend all that money on their hair, their skin, their nails, their clothes, and pump up their calves with very expensive and impractical shoes?

Why do they do that? Is it an abstract expression of the freedom and power to do so, with no thought as to any purpose?

Is it just conformity to what other women do, with no thought as to any purpose?

Is it just a competition among women, on the order of who has the biggest hat, and men are a complete non-factor?

[seabeyond]

380. defining them as eye candy is your issue. quit slut shaming. nt

[BainsBane]

392. Why do you think they do it?

Because they want to be raped? If they dress like that, they deserve it? You realize this video is fighting against cultural ideas that result in the rape and murder of women.

[elias7]

488. Why do you think they do it?

The "because they want to be raped" is an inflammatory straw man, and kind of a non-responsive response.

But the question stands, and I'm curious about people's non angry responses.

[redqueen]

154. "This is called commodification. To reduce the human body to something that is consumed.

To objectify. To eliminate personhood. To view another person as merely a means of personal satisfaction."

This this this this this.

Women's bodies have been utterly commodified. We are objectified so constantly that most people don't even see it. It's just considered 'normal'.

[countryjake]

168. Just watch one hr of tv to see it. Xmas commercials are the worst. nt.

[redqueen]

178. Fiat ads are some of the worst IMO.

There are examples in many types of ads.

[CrispyQ]

462. Those little cars are so damned cute,

I don't understand the need to use women the way they do. Mini Cooper doesn't do it. If I were going to buy a new car, I'd go with the Cooper over the Fiat because of the commercials. And if I do buy a Mini, I will send a copy of my receipt to Fiat & tell them why I chose the Mini over their car.

[Ace Acme]

381. But who are those commercials aimed at?

Do sexy TV commercials induce men to gift the women in their lives with presents that are not appreciated?

Or do sexy TV commercials induce women to desire things?

The sexiest magazine ads I've ever seen are in women's magazines.

[Texasgal]

418. So if I stood there

glaring at your crotch you wouldn't find that uncomfortable?

[CFLDem]

423. It depends

are you at least as attractive as Aidy Bryant?

[Texasgal]

426. ??

Can you answer the question?

[CFLDem]

428. Well you were using yourself in the scenario.

But in general I would not find it uncomfortable. In fact I would probably chat you up.

I do enjoy that Texas twang

[Texasgal]

456. Ofcourse you wouldn't.

Why did i know this already?

[Gravitycollapse]

32. I don't think you understand the premise of the male gaze.

Just a hunch.

[Major Nikon]

62. He's not the only one

Laura Mulvey, who has no education or experience in psychoanalysis came up with the pseudo-psychoanalytical model for the male gaze. I'm not sure too many others in this thread understand the premise either as it pertains to how women are portrayed in the media rather than men leering at women on the street as a simple reading of the term suggests.

Notably absent in 3rd wave feminist theory is objectification. This is not by accident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_wave_feminism#Other_issues

[Gravitycollapse]

77. The male gaze is one of those terms that has outgrown its original meaning.

It is exists as the insistence that the female body be available to men at all times. Be it in film or at the grocery store. It has a marked effect on the way women conduct themselves and this is an important part of social control of subjugated classes by dominant groups (similar in nature to the metaphorical and literal Panopticon). Which is discussed more generally in terms of "The Gaze" in psychoanalysis. I must admit, however, that I am not a psychoanalyst and I hold no degree in psychology.

Third Wave Feminism has been lead astray, somewhat. While the feminist movement, like all such movements, always existed within the mechanisms of social power, it seems to me that third wave has made too many attempts to abandon the fringe in order to better embrace a less abrasive image. Which hasn't gone well.

[Orrex]

409. I know a whole bunch of Third Wave Feminists who'd be surprised to hear they've been led astray

Third Wave Feminism has been lead astray, somewhat. While the feminist movement, like all such movements, always existed within the mechanisms of social power, it seems to me that third wave has made too many attempts to abandon the fringe in order to better embrace a less abrasive image. Which hasn't gone well.

They would also take issue with your characterization of the movement, I suspect.

[Gravitycollapse]

468. It's perfectly acceptable for them to take issue.

Although, I stick to my opinion of the movement. However, I think every wave has its strong points. I just don't agree with the underlying philosophy of the third.

I think we've been too quick to move past the second wave.

[seabeyond]

479. 3rd diverted. fourth is coming on strong. the are more badass than any 2nd. they are

young, smart, educated and loud.

[Gravitycollapse]

482. Yes, I suppose you are right. The 4th wave is coming.

I guess my friends and I fall under this new wave.

[LittleBlue]

57. Oh no, you just defended the MALE GAZE

Seriously though, a peek at beauty is nothing unnatural. Everyone does it, get over it.

[xulamaude]

59. Good heavens - the Cleavah is strong. nt

[LittleBlue]

63. Welcome to DU

Your account is less than a month old and already has over 500 posts, half of them in one group.

Unusual activity for a brand new member.

[xulamaude]

73. Just downright... crazy...

right?

Truth is stranger than fiction. For women anyway.

[opiate69]

74. I suspect "welcome back" is more apropos for that one.

[xulamaude]

80. "welcome back" ?

What would you mean by that?

[BainsBane]

91. Oh, they probably think you are the dreaded Iverglas

They insisted I was she for nearly a year, despite at least three IP checks and the fact Skinner has my real name due to the fact I'm a star member.

[Bonobo]

94. Sock puppet is pretty tough to deny in this case.

And in your case, we KNOW you had a sock puppet.

[opiate69]

95. inveigle, er, rather iverglas is FAR from being our only serial troll around here, dear.

[BainsBane]

102. No, really?

5 months on MIRT and I never figured that out?

Pab had hundreds of incarnations.

[xulamaude]

99. Ah yes, the dreaded

feminazi Overlordess.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

115. I know iverglas. You are no iverglas. I will take that bet.

[xulamaude]

118. I'll agree with that!

I'm no iverglas to be sure.

But we are:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

120. We are cool. Me and You. Did not mean it to sound otherwise. Just that like with

Baines I said the same thing and her style is a lot closer than yours. iver hung out in the gc&rkba forum, too. Which is why Baines resembled iverglas.

You might very well be a zombie which is fine, too from what I have been given to understand.

As long as you do not "cause trouble" under the new name all is fine, copacetic.

[xulamaude]

122. Chill Tuesday. All is well. :)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

135. cool beans.

one point:

if a person's motivation is for staring at a Thing rather than appreciating another human being then that is where I take issue.

the dehumanization of the act/intent.

If they can't say Hello or acknowledge in some way that they are dealing with another human then there is a problem.

[Upton]

101. I have to admit it crossed my mind..

However, a further reading of your posts indicated a style that, while similar to Iverglas, lacked her wit, intelligence, and downright devious nature. You're more of a poor man's version...

[opiate69]

107. snork!

[xulamaude]

109. That'd be: 'poor woman's version'

right?

[seabeyond]

117. that is fuckin' funny. lol.

stole from baines

[BainsBane]

124. It seems now even my gender is in question.

I guess I'm just not ladylike enough to be real woman.

[xulamaude]

128. Poor man, poor woman,

what's the big diff?!

[BainsBane]

129. Okay, if I'm a poor man

Does that mean I don't have to get anymore infernal mammograms? Cause I really hate them.

[xulamaude]

131. C'mon, you just hate somebody else having to

PAY for them.

[BainsBane]

134. Wouldn't I be then be the one hating to pay

for cancer screening for mere wimenz?

[xulamaude]

137. Oh noe! You strained my lady brainz!

[seabeyond]

141. i dont shop.

[BainsBane]

146. It's a joke, dude

[seabeyond]

153. bah hahahaha. LUV the gif. love it. so much, i am running into other room to show son. nt

[BainsBane]

160. Get him to set up your jury blacklist

While you're at it.

[xulamaude]

150. OMG. LOL. Poor MAN has nothing to do with gender...

MANkind has nothing to do with gender.

What about HUMANkind? That have anything to do with gender?

[seabeyond]

157. ya. i thought that funny, talking this out with a bunch of feminists, lol.

[BainsBane]

88. No need to speculate

The usual crowd has already tried to get her tombstoned multiple times. Skinner is well aware of her status.

[opiate69]

491. Oops.

[BainsBane]

492. So what was the offensive post?

That led them to PPR her? When multiple requests for IP checks led to no action?

[opiate69]

493. No idea. I imagine it need not have even been a post.

She could have let something slip in a DU Mail, or maybe elsewhere on the web even. In any case, good riddance to bad rubbish.

[BainsBane]

494. "bad rubbish"

meaning a feminist?

She didn't need to let anything slip. She was clear she had been here before from the beginning.

[opiate69]

495. No... "bad rubbish" meaning "repeat troll".

As per EarlG's PPR message
I'll thank you in advance for ceasing to willfully misinterpret my posts.

[BainsBane]

496. It wasn't wilfull

and since you took a clear dislike to her before that message, I am not convinced it was a misinterpretation.

[BainsBane]

498. xulamaude is not iverglas

I don't know the names of all the former evil feminists, but I know she was not iverglas.
I saw nothing bigoted from xulamaude. Contrast that with some active members who repeatedly make bigoted comments. The difference is that there is tolerance for bigotry against women because we don't count as equal human beings. The same goes for racism and Islamophobia, which too many find as perfectly acceptable.

[BainsBane]

500. I thought that stuff about the other website was a reference to Iverglas

That's what you all are going on about. if there is an active website where feminists currently get together, I would like to know about it. Seems like it would be conducive to actual progressive thought. I also know xula is not Helen Reddy because I email Helen from time to time. I have no knowledge of the other former members you referenced.

[BainsBane]

502. like that FB page

Where a certain individual in this subthread congregated with banned members to call for the PPRing of an active DUer. It is interesting.

I don't really care what someone's zombie name was. She behaved perfectly appropriately while she was here, but she did commit the heresy of believing women are equal human beings whose lives have value, which explains the grave dancing.

[BainsBane]

505. You have no way to know that

Since you don't know what her previous name was. I don't know. I don't know how you could.

[opiate69]

504. Oh, that again???

[BainsBane]

506. Oh, well. It's an "affiliated" DU page

That's why it's full of right-wingers and trash talk about Skinner.

[BainsBane]

509. I had no idea you were on there

but now everyone does. I happened to have come across it while on MIRT and we were dealing with the hundreds of trolls Pab created.

[BainsBane]

510. What if. . .

You don't actually have any stalkers at all? Could you cope? Or would that be too terribly traumatic?

[BainsBane]

513. You may want to work on that

Because people don't talk about you nearly as much as you seem to think they do.

[BainsBane]

515. The odd part is you think folks are talking about you

and stalking you.

[BainsBane]

518. okay

(I believe you).

[WorseBeforeBetter]

106. You were alerted on...

seriously.

I suspect "welcome back" is more apropos for that one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4215602

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calling out a new member is against the rules.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Dec 22, 2013, 09:21 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I've seen hosts do the same thing... particularly our troll-hunting friend from Canada (insert ROFL smilie here). Until this rule is enforced equally, leave it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: 500 posts is not a new member. Not in terms of welcoming or not welcoming them anyway.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Suggesting a user has had an account before, is not calling out...
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[opiate69]

110. lmao.. well.. someone won't be alerting for a day.. thanks!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

111. Yeah, that's why I shared.

I don't see many 0-6 sweeps.

[opiate69]

114. now I'm glad I re-upped my star today and added a few to my blacklist.

[BainsBane]

126. Wow, thanks for pointing that out

I need to add someone back to mine. Last I looked he had 0% chance of serving on a jury.

[seabeyond]

143. damn. i forgot to do mine. gotta get on it first thing in the morning. so many.... lol nt

[BainsBane]

147. Add that one for sure

don't wait until the morning. Woman, you court disaster.

[seabeyond]

159. pssst

where do i go. how do i find this.

[LanternWaste]

303. Always a relief to have one's petulance validated by others.

Always a relief to have one's petulance validated by others.

[BainsBane]

132. Although that wasn't my alert

It violates community standards to call someone a zombie or sock. The appropriate action if one has concerns is to PM the administrators.

[MineralMan]

275. Uncalled for. Some people are prolific posters.

See my profile. In 90 days, I've posted over 2000 times. And I've maintained that pace on DU just about forever. The amount of time someone has been on DU and the frequency of posting is not really a point of polite discussion. What you think is unusual is irrelevant, really, in my opinion.

For example, you've been here for a long time, but don't post very often. I've seen other posts from people who have implied that such behavior is that of a mole who comes here to provoke. Now, I don't think that's true at all, because I know lots of people on DU who don't post very often, but who clearly are just reticent.

Drawing conclusions from posting frequency and time on DU is petty, in my opinion. Perhaps addressing the points raised by a poster is more useful. Perhaps.

[sheshe2]

18. The message is indeed powerful!

Think. Reflect. Act.

Thank you for this excellent video, redqueen.

[Logical]

61. Some woman who agrees with this post explain to me....

What level of looking is too much?

Because I do notice and look at pretty women. And I think women do notice men.

This whole topic is confusing.

Are NFL cheerleaders ok to gawk at?

[LeftyMom]

66. Two rules of thumb:

1. Noticing versus staring. Staring at anybody is rude.

2. Would women engage in the same behavior toward men? If they did would it seem strange or comical?


Having cheerleaders at football games is tacky and anachronistic and as a female fan it certainly gives me the impression that my fandom (and it's a decades long, well-established fandom, complete with season tickets) is something of an afterthought to the league. I'd rather see more of that time go to more interesting and less sexist diversions- the Niners have a drumline at their home games they're fantastic, in addition to being co-ed and appropriately dressed for the weather.)

Don't gawk at anybody.

[Logical]

68. Your definition of staring is what? nt

[LeftyMom]

69. Oh come off it, you're not a freshly landed alien. You know what staring is.

[Logical]

71. I am serious.....

Watching an attractive woman for 15 seconds? As she walks by? Unknown to her.

Do women do that to men? My wife says sometimes.

[LeftyMom]

76. Would you do it if it were known to her?

If some dude were looking at your wife like that would you be miffed? Would she?

Better yet, how would you feel if men looked at you like that? Especially if they were bigger and stronger than you and you had to worry a bit if they were just a bit creepy or might be actively harmful?

[Logical]

82. I see your worry....

I have noticed Guys checking out my 20 year old daughter many times, but did not automatically get mad or worry they were a rapist. Maybe I should.

I honestly wonder if mental science has proved men who look at women too long tend to be dangerous.

[Gravitycollapse]

90. "Maybe I should." - You should and you shouldn't.

The history of "daddy's girl" is inescapably Freudian. Protection of a daughter by a father often exists as nothing more than the need to assert sexual ownership of a woman by one man which is then transferred to another man. Hence, the asking of the father by the would-be husband for the daughters hand in marriage. It's all very incestuous.

However, you should be mad that men are actively, or passively I suppose, reducing your daughter's autonomy by making it impossible for her to exist in public view without immediately being realized as a sexual object.

[Logical]

96. Well, they do not know her at that point, so all they see is is a person...

Walking by. The whole topic is difficult. It would be much better if everyone looked the same. Or I guess if men just stop being attracted to pretty women.

[Gravitycollapse]

105. They don't see a person. They see an object. A receptacle.

To see a person one must assume an independent identity and will.

It's not a matter of attraction, either. The issue is how male power utilizes and abuses attraction. It morphs sexuality into the removal of human identity in favor of -mindless- production and consumption.

[seabeyond]

112. " beautiful things to be enjoyed." this is the difference. from the youngest of age boys are taught

that girls, women are presented to them to be enjoyed. a poster said it well. " beautiful things to be enjoyed." you grow up being taught this is womans role to you. you are conditioned a life time being told women merely are " beautiful things to be enjoyed.". so any woman that comes in eye sight to you are there to provide you with " beautiful things to be enjoyed.".

women are not raised this way to view men. never. we are not conditioned to go around seeing men as " beautiful things to be enjoyed.". we are not entitled thru out life being presented with men as " beautiful things to be enjoyed.". so we see them as a person.

but a man sees women as " beautiful things to be enjoyed."

women get tired of going out of their house and continually running into the entitlement of " beautiful things to be enjoyed.". i am not here for you to enjoy. my body, my being is not a gift to you. you do not get to own me as a " beautiful things to be enjoyed." even if it is for 15 sec.

you want to know the difference? it is not a tough one. see a woman as a person and you are not looking her as " beautiful things to be enjoyed."

it really is not that tough. you men are not entitled to ownership of strange women walking down the street even for that 15 sec

[Logical]

121. I agree I don't own you....

But not sure that is what men want to do. I don't. And do not expect you to look pretty for me. Or anyone.

Do any women like being noticed by men because they are attractive? I don't mean cat calls or wolf whistles, but looked at because they are pretty? 5%? None?

[xulamaude]

127. Not directed at me, but

I never "liked being noticed" by men because it was really hard to tell if it was because I was "pretty" (am I "pretty"?!) or if it was just because I was there and female.

[Logical]

130. I imagine that is not enjoyable....

This whole topic makes me want to rethink things.

[xulamaude]

133. Good. Thinking is good. nt

[seabeyond]

136. for those moments, with that look on the face, that is exactly what you are doing. her body is yours

in your mind. and when we look at you and see that look, we know that is what you are doing. it is old. in the grocery store i look up and there the look is from the man across the way. I get out the car and another from the man over there. all the fuckin time.

and there are a lot of men that just go thru their fuckin day not reducing a woman to your position for those moments. it is so night and day clear, that look. i talk to everyone when i am out and about. i am friendly to men all over the place. i will not crack a smile at a man that does that to me. in the past, younger, more intimidated, unsure, inexperienced, i simply lowered eyes, or looked away and let him look. do your thing, get 'er done. i do not lower my eyes or look away any more

i do not need, want or desire a mans validation about my looks. it is none of your business.

just as you, a man, do not need, want, expect women to validate you as a human being, by your looks.

i suppose the woman raised with the belief that her looks is all of who she is in a culture that pushes that at women continually, probably needs it. and maybe the young girl thinks it is nifty the first handful of times. i do not speak for all women. but obviously, it is a big enough issue with women there is a psa about it. we have talked repeatedly on du about it. the women in this thread are all over it.

so you tell me? do we women really need, want, desire, you men to decide whether we look "good' enough for you, thru out our days.

[Logical]

200. I would bet you are wrong on as many as you are right on....

I seriously doubt you can read every mans 'look' anymore than men can read every woman's look or smile or laugh.

Maybe bad experiences have jaded you, which makes sense. Experiences can change the way people look at things.

[seabeyond]

202. thank you for taking it to personal. cause it is not like men do not regularly take it to personal

here on du.

maybe it is the opposite. maybe i have always surrounded myself with decent men. maybe that is why i so clearly recognize the creeps, sexists, is cause all my life i have been around good men.

forget actually thinking about how men are conditioned to seeing woman as a thing. women are not conditioned all their life to see men as a thing.

forget the fact that for a couple decades we women experience this.

it must be because i am jaded. ya. that makes sense

and in india, the people that made the psa are simply jaded. ya, there is the ticket.

and all the women on this thread are only jaded.

see

now, you are free to continue an obnoxious behavior interfering with a womans right to walk in your space without your perusal of her value, for you, without thought or concern.

jaded? man hater?

[Logical]

206. Funny, I can tell ANY disagreement with you means I took it personnel.....

And am a creep.

You are 100% perfect at reading every look you have ever gotten? Wow, amazing!

And if anyone says different we are angry? Classic!

Imagine if a man posted that they can tell by the looks from a woman what they are thinking and what they want! LOL, I can imagine the reaction from you! I would never assume I could figure it out based on a look, no one should.

Way too cynical for me!

[seabeyond]

210. "Maybe bad experiences have jaded you" that is NOT taking it to the personal?

[Logical]

211. No, just an observation. how does that make me sound angry? nt

[seabeyond]

213. you totally created "make me sound angry". where did that come from. yes. you took it to

personal. clearly. and though sittin right there, saying i must be jaded, you ignore the fact you had the need to take it to personal.

i am talking the issue. but you ignore that.

men taught to see women as a thing from young. men taught womens value in their looks. men taught owning a womans look is their right. men taught that it is tied to their masculinity.

women not taught this about men

experiencing it since about 12.

gives me a MUCH better clue than you. you think?

that is talking about the actual issue. which you ignore. to take it to me personally. about me being jaded.

[Logical]

214. Ok, and if I said I could read all women's looks your reaction would be??? nt

[seabeyond]

237. again. i repeat. women see this from about 11 or 12 yrs old. do you get that? do you understand

the impact this has on who a woman is? how she internalizes this? how it changes who we are as people?

decades of seeing this from men. a clear cut... some men do, some men do not.

if we are not experts on it, who is.

[Logical]

246. Ok, your position is clear! It will help with future posts you make! nt

[Ace Acme]

384. Right. Women are not taught to value men's looks. They're taught to value their money. nt

[seabeyond]

397. on. now the golddigger thing? women are becoming more and more financially independent

now that they are allowed to go to school and have a career. men are getting more and more angry at a womans independence. this would be the exact opposite of what you are professing that is very similar to mra talking point. all women are prostitutes one way or another.

go there dude. i dare you

[LanternWaste]

314. Much as one might imagine that an absolute lack of experience allows

"Maybe bad experiences have jaded you..."

Much as one might imagine that a lack of experience allows many to pretend they actually know of what they are talking about, regardless of how it may unknowingly advertise their character.

[Notafraidtoo]

188. Its not complex.

If you are staring at a woman because of her looks she is nothing more then a sexual object to you and you are being inconsiderate to her. women are not objects, and as a male who obviously has grown up in a situation where this is acceptable you will need to seriously self examine yourself to fix not only your rudeness, but to learn to accept women as and equals that is if you even care which i am guessing you likely don't but i hope i am wrong.

I know you will probably say " But i do accept women as equals" and my answer to that is not if random strangers who happen to be women are sexual pleasurable objects for your enjoyment.

I am a man, I don't stare, I am straight, its not hard when you really consider that those around you are people just like you who don't want to be your eye candy. Why would anyone want to be rude to another human being in public seriously, you are saying they are less valuable than you and don't deserve common courtesy.

[redqueen]

329. Excellent post. Thank you. nt

[Ace Acme]

354. If they don't want to be eye candy, why do they present themselves as if they do?

I don't wear tight, revealing clothes. Why do they? Who demands that they do so?

[seabeyond]

358. more bold and empowered in your slut shaming. your posts need to be addressed. nt

[Ace Acme]

364. Are you denying that women present themselves as eye candy in public? nt

[seabeyond]

367. that is how YOU define them. that is YOU saying they deserve what they get. they ask for it.

[Ace Acme]

385. I'm asking if they're not asking for it. There's a difference.

I want some rational explanation for why they put so much energy and money into their appearance if they don't want their appearance to be noticed.

But all I get from you is the claim that it's a taboo question.

So is that behavior just a mystery? There's no answer for why they do it?

Are they hypnotized by the mass media and they do it without thinking?

Are they competing with their woman friends in some kind of derby?

Are they simply exercising an abstract right to put time and money into a pointless activity?

[seabeyond]

399. i gave you the info below, right off the bat. and you continued post after post of slut shaming,

now you are working toward gold digger and mra talking point all women are prostitutes one way or another.

i wont be taking your posts lightly any more.

[Old and In the Way]

398. You are not allowed to make this observation!

Because, apparently, that's "slut shaming". But, that's kind of weird, isn't it? Have you made a statement that this female is a slut because she dresses sexy? No...it's the person accusing you of "slut shaming" that's calling her a slut. Which is a really interesting tell, IMHO. So, whenever you see a female dressing sexy, think slut...but don't slut shame! Leave that to the pro's!

[seabeyond]

403. no. he has made a statement that she is asking for it. that would be slut shaming. you do not need

to call a woman a slut to slut shame her. to say her dress is her asking for it is exactly what slut shaming is.

[Old and In the Way]

407. Did he call this sexy women a slut? Or did you?

You're cramming your word salad down his throat.

[seabeyond]

411. did you ignore what i posted, you know, the post you replied to? ya. you did

[Old and In the Way]

417. Simple question....who used the term "slut shaming"?

You or him? That would be you. You defined this woman as a slut. Otherwise, you'd have said "female shaming". Understand the difference? You are the one making a moral judgment of the person, based on her appearance.

[BainsBane]

430. He did

Look at his hidden post.

[Old and In the Way]

444. read it.

OK, you got me...he said the "s word". Had the poster said "dress in a provocative manner"...does the larger point he/she makes, not stand ? And that still doesn't explain why it's OK for your group to use the term "slut shaming" in your rhetorical toolbox.

[BainsBane]

449. The larger point is that you don't like how "my group" speaks?

That's only the larger point in your little world, not in reality. The larger point is that women are entitled to dress how they like without facing harassment or assault.

[Old and In the Way]

461. Sorry, this is an anonymous posting board.

I have no idea what your gender is or anyone else on DU for that matter. Maybe someday, we'll all meet at a DU social and we can sort it out IRL then.

[BainsBane]

464. No, I may not have control over a lot of what goes on

but that will not be happening.

[Old and In the Way]

472. Of course not.

I would imagine all of the posters identified with HoF would be a no-show. People always talk tough when they they are posting anonymously. Most people who can't relate to the real world are like that on the net.

[BainsBane]

485. What could possibly be wrong with me

Not to want to associate with someone who posts something like this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024221456


You continue to have trouble treating people as individual human beings. I, on the other hand. know that you are a unique person, unlike any other. Your issues are entirely your own.

[gollygee]

465. Maybe it's comfortable. Maybe they're following a fashion trend.

Maybe they simply like the way it looks. MAYBE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Assuming they're doing it for you is arrogant.

[Old and In the Way]

471. You sound like seabeyond.

Don't take that as a compliment, though.

[gollygee]

476. Shall I say what you sound like?

I won't because I know you're trying to drag me into something you can alert on.

[xulamaude]

83. @ "better yet"... Go L Mom! :)

[Warpy]

81. Ask yourself this one simple question

"How would I react if a man was looking at me like I am looking at this woman?"

That should do it.

[Logical]

85. Why not a man or a woman? Because men might be violent? Nt

[xulamaude]

87. My guess? 'I'd be flattered of course!!'

[Ace Acme]

388. I would just ignore it. That works for me. nt

[BainsBane]

169. It's confusing, really?

You haven't figured out how to look without making a woman feel uncomfortable? Men don't ogle because they are attracted to a woman. It's an act of dominance to assert power, to claim public space. If someone is interested in a woman, they won't ogle because he knows it creeps her out. So you look without being obvious about it. I don't know how any man can reach adulthood and not figure something like that out.

[Shandris]

64. I'm guessing that 'The Male Gaze (c) (tm)' is...

...the new name given to creepy leering? What, only men can do it? Or all men do it? Which is it? I mean, you wouldn't just broadly stereotype an entire gender on something some do...right?

Oh, it's neither? Then I think I'll stick to something a bit more properly named, since words mean things and all that. A good video about The Creepy Leer.

(Yes, I know what the Male Gaze Theory is. There's even a degree of validity to it, even though I think it's horribly named. However, since we're taking such time to do our level best not to categorize everyone into huge sweeping generalizations, I think I'll continue that trend no matter who the recipient is.)

[BainsBane]

93. It's more polite than saying "creepy perv," I suppose

[Shandris]

119. I guess that could be, and probably easier to talk about in a scientific...

...or academic setting. My personality profiles always say I try to be too specific with words sometimes, and I guess that's true. I know it infuriates my friends.

But those -were- some skeevy-looking guys, I'll give them that for sure!

[redqueen]

167. If you're familiar with the concept of the Male Gaze, I don't know why you seem to be confused.

Or why you're using (c) and (tm) in order to mock it.

(Just kidding. I have a pretty good idea.)

[Shandris]

191. I'd hope you have a good idea why!

I mean, I did clearly spell out the reason why in clear, unambiguous terms. It's incredibly poorly named, and words mean things. Many of the more salient points are accurate (although not all, imo), and I point that out as well.

[redqueen]

326. LOL, no. You threw out strawmen and pretended the issue is the same for men and women.

"What, only men can do it?"
Strawman argument #1. No one said that.
Are you implying that you think there is anything CLOSE to parity in this?

"Or all men do it?"
Strawman argument #2. A super double extra stupid one, too.

"Which is it? I mean, you wouldn't just broadly stereotype an entire gender on something some do...right?"
Pathetic.



(If anyone reading this sad waste of an attempt at discussion remembers that list of tactics ism posted the other day, here's a most excellent example.)

[Shandris]

484. On second thought, I'll drop my original response to you.

This is too big a thread to waste my time with you and your false beliefs about me, my intentions, and what you -think- I'm doing with some 'tactic'.

Have a Merry Christmas.

[Catherine Vincent]

70. I agree 100% with this video.

And as most say, looking and staring are two different things. Men can't help to look at attractive women. Look, but show some respect. Though I think the woman with the tattoo just above her arse, should expect men (and women) to look. Why did she put it there in the first place? That scenario, imo, was a bad example.

[redqueen]

171. Just about everyone can almost always control where they look.

Yes, just about everyone looks at people, and we are all capable of not staring.

No matter what the person is wearing, if they have body mods, flashy jewelry, eye catching hairstyles, etc.

Looking is one thing. Staring is rude.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

438. Good point per showing some respect.

My first impression of the scooters at the traffic light is why didn't the guys say hello or give some other greeting instead just staring? That's what I would have done.

I'll share a bit of personal experience of have the tables turned. When I did my army basic training my platoon was getting outfitted at a supply depot. There was a platoon of WACs (Women's Army Core as it was known back then) just behind us seated in chairs lining the hallway. We had to exit through this hallway. As we were scrutinized by these women and some of them made comments about our appearance.

There was definitely nothing shy about them but that's not my point. Personally I found it a somewhat awkward situation to go through.

[Bonobo]

78. Female idealization of men

"If the male form of objectification is degradation, then perhaps the female form, as demonstrated by the Harlequins, is idealization. Both forms ignore the totality and integrity of the other person in favor of a disassembling of parts, an appropriation of fetishized qualities or attributes (physical in the male version, emotional in the female); both generate a fantasy that, based in real-life desires and unconscious fears, can only be oppressive to an actual person."

-Chick Flicks: Theories and Memories of the Feminist Film Movement
by B. Ruby Rich

[treestar]

268. I would agree that in the romance novels and soap operas

The men are always handsome. It's funny because we are told we care only about money or stability. But in reality, we like looks more.

I was in a court one day and a handsome man was there (an unusual sight around here). I made an effort though, not to look at him too long. Figuring he gets too much of that.

[Bonobo]

92. The funny thing is that this is a misunderstanding of the concept of "Male Gaze".

It is not about "men ogling women" as such. That is a rather simplistic misunderstanding of it.

It is, as a theory, more about how the perspective of media is all seen through the filter of mens' perspective.

In the case of the male gaze, the perspective is always male, and we are all forced to look at the world through men’s eyes: the male gaze is an exercise in forced-perspective and is a mansplanation of the highest order, where a male-centric perspective is normalized and a female-centric one is made literally impossible. Through this forced male-perspective, we are made to see things that benefit men in a positive light unconditionally because from a male perspective, things that benefit men are positive unconditionally. Similarly, we are made to perceive things that harm women as positive, because men’s power increases as women’s decreases, and if you are a man this is a positive thing.

[opiate69]

123. heh.. good catch..

I had considered pointing that out, but wasn't sure I felt like getting the pile-on treatment.. not surprised though that they can't even get their own theory right!

[xulamaude]

145. "the pile-on treatment"

Turn about is fair play.

Isn't it?

[opiate69]

151. ...

Because you've seen it happen soooooo much on your 30 or so days here, amirite?

[xulamaude]

162. Always remember that

anyone with an internet connection can view DU for years and years and years.

'You're not posting in a vacuum you know'.

[seabeyond]

163. opiate will post the same picture for the next 6 months or until a post is hid. pit bull'ish.

i think most all the guys have posted in this thread, so should be pretty safe on any alerts while in this thread. ohhhh, my.

[opiate69]

170. ...

[opiate69]

164. interestingly enough...

And now, maybe I'm an oddball, but... if I find a website that I enjoy enough to want to spend time "lurking" for "years and years and years", such that I become familiar with many of the posters and cliques, and there are no financial or other barriers to joining, well.. I just bite the bullet and join. Long before I actually bother spending "years and years and years" there...

[Marr]

253. That's what I thought-- I'd always heard it used in reference to writing. /nt

[ismnotwasm]

288. From the same article

The above image, which is a panel taken from the comic All Star Batman And Robin, the Boy Wonder juxtaposed with the script written by author Frank Miller (released in the director’s edition of the comic), illustrates the way that the male gaze works in a concrete way. When Miller says, “We can’t take our eyes off her” he is speaking directly of his presumably male audience, and the follow up (“Especially since she’s got one fine ass.”) says loud and clear that her sexualized portrayal is for the pleasure of the envisioned heterosexual male viewer. In essence, Viki Vale’s character is there to reassure the readership of their hetero-masculinity while simultaneously denying Vicki any agency of her own outside of that framework. She is the quintessential watched by male watchers: the writer/director (Frank), his artist, and the presumed male audience that buys the book.

As illustrated in the above examples, the term has applications outside of the framework that Mulvey initially imagined. Although it is most easily illustrated in places where creator intent is clear (or, in Frank Miller’s case, blatantly stated), creator intent is not actually a prerequisite for a creation to fall under the male gaze. Nor does the creator and/or the audience have to be male, nor does the subject of the gaze have to be unhappy with the result. In the end, the simplest way to describe the male gaze is to return it to its roots of the female model/actress/character being looked at by the the male looker.

And, well, if you’re still confused you can go read this Dinosaur Comic about it. It gives an overview of the subject in 6 panels, placing it in the humorous context of talking dinosaurs! And everyone knows things always make better sense when they’re put into context by talking dinosaurs.

[lapfog_1]

113. Worldwide cosmetics sales reached $170 Billion

"Worldwide Cosmetic Market
If you look at the entire worldwide cosmetic industry, sales reach about $170 Billion dollars a year. It’s distributed pretty uniformly around the world with ~$40 billion in the Americas, ~$60 billion in Europe, ~$60 billion in Australia & Asia, and another $10 billion in Africa. The Western world spends a bit more per person but India and Asia are quickly catching up."

source http://chemistscorner.com/a-cosmetic-market-overview-for-cosmetic-chemists/

[BainsBane]

140. Your point?

[Vashta Nerada]

125. So...it's wrong to check out women now?

Is it wrong to look at men that way too?

I guess it's not Christmas unless we shame an entire gender.

[BainsBane]

139. Surely by your age you've figured out the difference

between looking and staring? If not, that's a problem.

[Vashta Nerada]

144. I have.

It was a general question.

Edited to add those guys were creepy in the video.

[BainsBane]

148. Ogling isn't about attraction to someone

It's meant to intimidate. No guy who is really interested in a woman ogles her because he knows it creeps her out. Now he'll look but will do it in a non-creepy way.

The same goes for attraction to men, I would guess.

[Vashta Nerada]

181. If a woman or man ogled me, I'd like it.

But of course I don't think it has happened to me before.

But I can see how it can make others uncomfortable, after putting some thought into it.

[BainsBane]

185. If you had gone through your whole life

with that happening, starting at age ten, you would feel differently, trust me.

[Vashta Nerada]

186. I suppose I would.

[Gravitycollapse]

156. Let's not be obtuse here. We are not debating the premise that sexual attraction exists.

We are discussing how such an attraction is exploited to assert power.

[demmiblue]

155. K&R

[Upton]

166. I've got a sure cure for "Male Gaze"..

[redqueen]

173. So if we don't cover up, we're asking for it? nt

[Upton]

175. Asking for what?

Many, many women dress not only for men but for other women. The same thing can be said to a lesser extent for men.

I don't see anything wrong with me, a heterosexual male, checking out a pretty female. It's part of the courting dance and the relationship between the genders..

[redqueen]

180. A pretty "female". Perfect.

Two outstanding examples from you in a row. Well done.

Believe it or not, the world is not your singles club, and most women aren't interested in your attempt at a "courting dance".

[Spider Jerusalem]

183. And many women dress for themselves, shockingly.

Because dressing in a certain way makes them feel confident and attractive. There's a lot of cultural baggage around that, but it's not any different to a man wearing a sharp suit and a pair of freshly-shined shoes. Doesn't mean that they're doing it for anyone other than themselves, though.

[seabeyond]

184. thank you. i keep being told i am dressing for everyone in the world and never is it myself.

thank you. i specifically dress for myself. i want to look nice, but it is my own personal nice, not another. and it is for me.

yes. and maybe a first step for men would be to quit continually telling us women we dress for them and other women.

[MineralMan]

219. 'checking out a pretty female?'

Really. What is it exactly that you're "checking out?" Suitability to be a sexual conquest to add to your count? And "pretty female?" I guess since you don't actually know the person you're "checking out," that person doesn't exist as an actual person, but only as a "female."

We reveal much with the words we choose, unconsciously, when we write. Much.

[CFLDem]

224. Say MM

is this "checking out" different from your "admiring"?

[MineralMan]

226. Read my reply to your other post. Yes. There is a real difference.

[chervilant]

227. You might benefit by acknowledging that

you are a sexist heterosexual male.

For some enlightening, and instructive reading, try:

Against Our Will (Brownmiller)

The Best Kept Secret (Rush)

Ending the Silence (Thorne-Finch)

Blaming the Victim (Ryan)

These would be a good start. (You might also want to view "The Bro Code," which is available online.)

[BainsBane]

174. Yes, that is the point

Just like the guy who said if you don't want to be "seen," don't leave the house. It's about controlling public space and controlling women.

[Gravitycollapse]

176. Your post is oddly apropos in its threatening demeanor.

Which is reflective of someone who speaks of things he does not understand.

[Upton]

177. I fail to see any threatening demeanor in my post..

but you let your imagination run wild. Reading your posts it's obvious you have an active one..

Btw, I find it rather odd the way you as a male come on here and try to speak for all women..

[Gravitycollapse]

179. I realize you fail to see the threatening demeanor of your post. That's the point.

You fail to see it because you fail to fully understand what you're actually saying.

The need to hide the female body in some cultures is, at its core, born of the same need to expose the female body in ours. Which is more to the point I made up thread that sexuality is merely a tool for asserting male authority. The goal is total male access to women. Despite your best effort to understand, you miss the fact that things like the hijab are not meant to suppress male control or lust but are actually a symbol of men doing to women whatever they please.

[BainsBane]

190. He understands

perfectly well, and he means exactly what he said.

[Soundman]

199. Its a losing battle you can not win,

Here is my thoughts on the matter, not that they matter though.

Posting the same tired unverifiable talking points does no make them true. It is a theme I keep seeing regurgitated over and over here. It's not about sex it's about this, that, blah, blah, blah. I am around thousands of men a year. The setting is usually in a bar where people are liberally inebriated. I can't remember one time hearing a guy say I want to dominate that xxxxx, or any such tripe. I do hear the stereotypical remarks of I'd like to tap that, etc. That is the typical conversation at the urinal. I hear it every night.

Based on my decades upon decades of observations I would say a lot of guys like sex...a lot.. They like sex all the time, they seem to like variety. They would probably have sex all day everyday with multiple partners if they could. They don't want sex with unwilling partners, they want unbridled no limits fun. I would say based on my observations a large portion of the male population is monogamous due to lack of opportunity and the associated guilt.

I am sure there are low t guys with extra doses of estrogen that don't see this. In my world travels I have found that those who are vehemently against something more than likely are hiding something. And it usually has something to do with his or her unusual fanaticism.

Sorry if that doesn't fit their paradigm but it is what I see on a daily basis when people have less inhibition. Not too mention, 54 percent of woman admit to having an affair so I'd say the feeling is mutual among normal people.

[seabeyond]

201. men are all that, women are not. you are gonna teach your granddaughter not to give it away, but

men want it all day long just cause they are all that and that is cool, cause they are men after all. tapping it... saying tapping it, a thing. it is just a man being a man and btw...

women fuck around on their partner as much as men.

brilliant.

[Soundman]

217. No, not really.

I will try in a way that isn't degrading to teach her this; Men are dogs, they will lie to you and do just about anything to get in your pants. Some men will even assault you. As a man I have never seen a test I can apply to know who those men are. If you find yourself in a situation that makes you uncomfortable get away from it as fast as you can. When you find the right mate, you will know it. You will have a settled feeling when you are around them. That's kind of the gist of what I hope to impart. It evolves and she is only three. So I may change my opinion by then.

No men aren't all that. They are what they are though. And I was just repeating what I hear on a daily basis.

I have to ask you the same question that you got asked earlier, are you okay? I have read a lot of what you say here, and your, I don't know, syntax? Seems off. You are normally far more articulate.

[seabeyond]

243. "are you okay?" ah. questioning my mental stability. what a man....

[MineralMan]

221. No, you know, I think you're wrong.

A number of years ago, I was the oboist in a semi-pro woodwind quintet. We played together as a group for eight years. During that time, the horn player, a woman 15 years younger than me, and I found ourselves mutually attracted to each other. Lots of flirtation went on between us.

I was married, and she was single. After one of our rehearsals, the horn player told me that we ought to just go somewhere and have some fun. Now, that was a very enticing suggestion, for sure. Given the flirtations we had both been engaging in, it would have been easy enough to have done just that.

Instead, we talked about it. I explained that I was really a monogamous guy, and that I really couldn't do that. We both admitted that we were attracted to each other and that in another time and another place, we'd probably be off somewhere together. So, we never did do anything more about the attractions. We continued flirting with each other, but recognized that it was just a matter of mutual attraction that was fun and harmless. The attraction remained, of course.

I think you're wrong about men being monogamous for lack of opportunity and guilt. That may be true for some. For others, it's more a matter of personal principles. That doesn't mean that attractions do not exist. It's what one does about those attractions that makes the difference.

The horn player went on to get married and have three kids with a man she fell in love with. We're still exchanging Christmas cards and an occasional newsy email. I haven't seen her for a couple of decades. If I did, I'm quite sure we'd still flirt with each other.

[Soundman]

235. You raise a question

I feel you have conflicting statements. You say on one hand you had a mutual attraction. So I am taking that as, I am attracted to you. You didn't act on this attraction because you are monogamous, otherwise? I feel you kinda prove my point. You can't help the being attracted to part, but you do have a choice about how you react to it. Some dogs are more evolved than others .

[seabeyond]

257. exept you do what is typical male and ignore the womans sexuality. she was equally attracted.

how does that make the man exclusively the dog and the womans sexuality irrelevant? how do you differentiate the genders when both behaviors are the same. mutual. why is the man a sex fiend and the womans sexuality insignificant.?

[MineralMan]

264. No conflict at all. The attraction was mutual between that woman and

me. I wasn't the one that suggested getting together for a little sexual play. She was. People are attracted to whom they are attracted to. That's a constant. If attractions are mutual, which really can't be known without some time spent, then what to do about them can become a question.

For some, any mutual attraction is likely to end up with shenanigans. For others, commitments may set limits. I'm one of the others. I'm monogamous. Now, in my lifetime, I've been serially monogamous, but monogamous throughout.

Casual flirtation doesn't count, really, as long as it's limited. When it begins to be more serious, then a chat is in order. If, as in my case, one of the people has some sort of reason not to take it beyond flirtation, two things can happen. Either the flirtation has to end or it can continue with the recognition of the limitations.

Musical groups and theater groups are commonly associated with mutual attractions between people who may or may not be in other stable relationships outside of the group. In both, people are working closely together, have respect for the others' talents or capabilities, and often meet for rehearsals and the like. I have performed with many musical groups, and there are always couples flirting with each other. Shared interests and proximity sort of leads to that. Keeping it within bounds or not is a matter for the individuals. Little romantic associations are a commonplace in such groups. Usually, they are self-limiting.

[Soundman]

280. A can't disagree

With anything you said. You can't control who or what you are attracted too, you can only control how you react to that attraction. I don't mean that in an accusatory way, more as a saying type thing.

[geek tragedy]

266. Girly men? Really? This post belongs on a cave wall, not a progressive discussion board.

Based on my decades upon decades of observations I would say a lot of guys like sex...a lot.. They like sex all the time, they seem to like variety. They would probably have sex all day everyday with multiple partners if they could. They don't want sex with unwilling partners, they want unbridled no limits fun. I would say based on my observations a large portion of the male population is monogamous due to lack of opportunity and the associated guilt.

I am sure there are low t guys with extra doses of estrogen that don't see this. In my world travels I have found that those who are vehemently against something more than likely are hiding something. And it usually has something to do with his or her unusual fanaticism.

[Soundman]

272. Your words not mine.

Please stop putting your spin on my words and telling me that is what I mean. You do this consistently on this board and it is very unbecoming.

Perhaps if you truly cared about others opinions and why they say what they say you could ask them to clarify that which you don't understand. Never mind you have Devine insight. So how's the traffic going to be today when I head out to my doctors appointment?

[geek tragedy]

277. Um, "low t and heavy doses of estrogen" is pretty clear on its face nt

[seabeyond]

285. that ole emotional estrogen.... nt

[Soundman]

292. I am willing

To let you enlighten me as to why some men have a low sex drive and are more asexual than others? It is my understanding in general this was attributed to testosterone and estrogen levels. If I am wrong, by all means tell me.

[geek tragedy]

298. You were talking about the desire for multiple partners, etc.

Monogamy is not induced by elevated estrogen levels in men.

[Soundman]

311. There you go again

Putting words into another's mouth, very off putting. To me desire is a conscious decision, attraction is not. I am talking about attraction and acting (or not) on that attraction.

[treestar]

276. You don't have to be that way

this is the age old argument of: I can't help it, my DNA says I have to treat women like this, and if they don't like it, that is too bad, as it is hard wired.

You forgot to add the complaints that women objectify you as to your monetary success.

People are all different, and other men are not necessarily the same as you. Everyone's DNA is different, apparently.

[Soundman]

287. Nah,

My DNA tells what I am attracted too. My consciousness? Tells me how to react. No woman has to like anything about me.

Do woman in general objectify men in this manner?

I am just making statements based on my experience and I have a lot of it. Doesn't mean my interpretation is 100 percent correct.

[treestar]

291. Then it doesn't have to be generalized to other men then does it?

I usually see it as, I know it's wrong to do this, so I'll claim I can't help it due to male DNA, and that means all other men must be like me.

Yet other men may treat women more kindly and more as people, and yet they have male DNA. So it is a choice you have control of.

[Soundman]

299. I have to admit that

I don't understand what you are saying here.

[seabeyond]

289. the fact he totally dismisses, ignores the womens sexuality, you know, the one he is doing it with,

says it all.

[ismnotwasm]

307. You're anatomical biochemistry needs a little work

"Sex all day with multiple partners" would that be like every day? Or just weekends. Sound like you could get a little raw after a while.

[Soundman]

316. You have a valid point,

Anatomically speaking. Nature always finds a way to keep things in line.

[MerryBlooms]

445. With all the legislation either passed or proposed this year to limit women's reproductive rights,

I think your post could easily be taken as threatening.

[LeftyMom]

187. That's actually a physical artifact of male gaze, not an antidote.

The ancient Romans built border walls. Hadrian's wall is probably the most famous, but there were others. The walls didn't exist to stop ingress and egress from the empire, they existed to funnel and control that access for military and tax purposes. They had regularly spaced gaps for trade and travel.

Which is a funny way of saying that extremely concealing clothing, chaperones, restrictive social rules etc are walls but they're walls with gates. That outfit doesn't exist to protect that woman from the male gaze, it exists to limit the number of men who are allowed to claim her as an object and to increase the power and control of those who can.

And as a practical matter, men in societies where women have everything else is covered still creepily sexualize women's eyes, and their voices, and how they smell. People who want to reduce women to "7 out of 10, would bang" find a way.

[redqueen]

333. "People who want to reduce women to "7 out of 10, would bang" find a way."

Exactly. This is so not about what women wear, if we put on makeup, how long we take to get ready, etc.

[ismnotwasm]

286. That doesn't work either

Nice try.

[DLevine]

193. Awesome video. Thank you. nt

[MineralMan]

204. Excellent video. Thanks for posting it. nt

[yardwork]

216. Rec

[davidthegnome]

223. The Male Gaze...

I think that the last time I actually stared at a woman was several years ago - and in my own defense, I don't think I realized I was staring. I was at a restaurant with my sister and my parents, and a Waitress working there had the most beautiful eyes. When she asked for my order, I apparently didn't catch on, as I was kind of lost her eyes. My sister abruptly let me know that I was being "real subtle", by elbowing me in the ribs. I turned twelve different shades of red and apologized profusely. She blushed, but she also had a very warm smile. I don't know if she was flattered or offended, but I hope it was the former - as the latter was not my intention.

I think part of the problem for men is understanding what sort of gaze is appropriate, and what isn't. In my mind, if you meet a woman's eyes and smile, you're not leering. If, on the other hand, you turn to stare at her butt as she walks away from you... or, if, during conversation, you can't keep your eyes from drifting to her breasts... well, I suspect that's the sort of male gaze that makes women uncomfortable. Our culture generally finds both types of looking normal, and has a difficult time telling the difference between the two. It is rather more subtle, and subtlety is, generally speaking, not a concept most Americans are terribly familiar with.

It's somewhat more confusing for men. We don't have the same parts, not really. We aren't as appealing - our bodies aren't quite as graceful or lovely, generally speaking. I believe that many of us are simply enchanted by women, admiring grace of form and beauty as opposed to leering and thinking dirty thoughts. Yes, both types of looks occur frequently, but I expect that one is very often mistaken for another. We live in a culture that seems to link sex and violence together, that often mistakes honest affection for predatory hunger.

Men are, stereo-typically speaking, objectified in a very different sort of way. We are expected to be strong, to keep our emotions hidden, or to give the appearance of simply not having any. So many in this age admire men for great feats of physical strength or violence, this is clear in television, in media, in the... under-currents of society as a whole. We are not seen as simply human beings with our own strengths and weaknesses, who also bleed and cry and are, in truth, probably more emotionally vulnerable than most women.

As a man with three beautiful sisters, I have often had to explain to my friends the difference between respectful admiration and perversion. Most of them didn't get it - and probably still would not. These are the sorts of men that view their wives as possessions, that have hungry, predatory looks in their eyes as they watch women on the dance-floor, that deliberately and coldly view women more as something to hunt and pursue than as human beings deserving of respect. I feel that they lose great opportunities and the potential for real affection as they twist something that should be mutually lovely into something that is more... a hunter looking down the barrel of a rifle at a deer.

I am very much a man who admires beauty, in all of it's many forms. I am not a man who would ever deliberately make someone else uncomfortable, as I am a very nervous and shy person by nature. That said, I do feel that my admiration has often been misread as juvenile leering, when it is instead an open, honest expression of awe. It is sad that we live in an age where a woman must attempt to decipher the stare of random men and wonder... are they admiring her hair, or planning to follow her home?

Our gender has earned this suspicion. We might change it tough, through improving our education, our understanding, and, overall, the simple knowledge that women are human beings just like us.

I suppose I've ranted enough for one post... but let me say simply, that a man gazing at you is not always a bad thing. Some times it is a look filled with respectful admiration.

[seabeyond]

267. good post but a couple things. you say women are appealing, men not so much. that is something

i recognized early in life. people telling me the reason we objectify women is their body is beautiful, a mans not so much. sure a good way of making sure objectifying women is pervasive, accepted and do nto do it to men. i never understood that concept that literally everyone was saying to me. personally, i do not think the womans body even a little compares to the beuaty of a mans body. i feel the same to a mans body, as you do to a womans. but, look how society has conditioned us to not see it in that manner.

might ask yourself why

and what that does to us in society. how it effects us.

another point i would like men to truly get, understand, think about. women start getting this "appreciation" from about 12. and it goes on for decades. ask your self how a woman will internalize this. that she is always "on" when she walks out in public to be at the beck and call of every man to decide how attractive she is, how worthy she is. that her looks has anythign to do with a stranger. that he has any part in her world. and yet, for decades, we are continually being judged by the outside world by stranger our value, thru out looks.

how would you feel as a man, if every moment of your day, in a public environment, you knew your role was to entertain men with your looks.

how do you think that would effect you as a person.

for decades

[davidthegnome]

309. You make some good points.

To me, women are beautiful - certainly more beautiful than men. Yet to someone who admires men in the same way, the shoe is on the other foot.

As to societal conditioning and why we might see things this way... well, I believe it has to do with money. Sex sells more than anything else on earth - with the possible exception of drugs. Television producers, politicians, commercial advertisers, restaurant owners, employers in general, nearly everyone who wishes to promote or sell something tends to take advantage of this. Ultimately, I feel that it is greed that promotes this view, this backwards societal conditioning that suggests to us that our most attractive features pertain to our bodies, and not our hearts, minds and souls.

I have always sort of seen myself as being on display when I go out in public. I am generally very nervous as to how I appear, and what others may be thinking of me. I am a person who is very analytical, very introspective, and extraordinarily careful. Perhaps this is for the simple reason that I wish to be liked, desired - even loved. Is it my physical appearance that is most important in this regard? Of course not. Yet it is the first thing that will be noticed, how I look, rather than what is in my mind or heart.

I do wish, very deeply, that our society was more enlightened, more willing to view the higher aspects of humanity as deserving of our praise and admiration. Yet, I must live in the world that I am in, and the world that I live in tends to be superficial, shallow, judgmental... harsh - unforgiving of perceived flaws, especially physical ones. This particular world leaves me lonely and often jumping at shadows.

How I do feel - how this society effects me as a person... it has brought me to the conclusion that the best thing for a deeply sensitive, introspective, careful man, is to withdraw. My nature makes me a rarity, not just to the world at large, but especially in a conservative area where men are expected to appear, behave, and act a certain way. I am often perceived as weak, feminine, overly emotional, or, as they call it today.. "emo". My philosophical views, my tendency for getting lost in thought, or for being willing to be vulnerable, are not, not at all, desirable traits in a man in this society.

When I am not working, I tend to live my life very quietly. Vicariously through my favorite novels and films. I love my family. I try to make a difference politically and socially, when and where I can. Overall though, I prefer my books to the real world, and quiet nights at home as opposed to being on display for a night club.

I like myself, most of the time. I do not live in a world though, where someone such as me is terribly likeable to the masses. Some men have insulted me with taunts that suggest I am very feminine. I have always found such taunts to be the highest form of flattery.

[seabeyond]

324. thank you for this post. was a fun post.

i appreciate your sharing.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

335. Thank you for this post.

especially this part:

I do wish, very deeply, that our society was more enlightened, more willing to view the higher aspects of humanity as deserving of our praise and admiration.

especially on the heels of Jester's comment to me above.

Thank you.

Thank you for being you.

[CrispyQ]

406. This, & not just men.

it has brought me to the conclusion that the best thing for a deeply sensitive, introspective, careful man, is to withdraw

Enjoyed both your posts.

[ismnotwasm]

278. It's not that hard to figure out

There's a big difference between an admiring glance, which can include a smile, a nod or a bit of harmless flirting and a creepy proprietary gaze as depicted in the video. And in groups of men it's worse, because women are taught to fear. Rape prevention programs have a number of suggestion that teaches us to watch our surroundings. I flirt you flirt everybody flirts, but flirting is not what's happening here.

Another example

Although short in this PSA the look is certainly not respectful desire--even when you take the dialogue out

Another one



And a rather common one although this is not in the US, again, this is a proprietary look from the male to the female

Here's another rather interesting picture; the shot has a women-- we can't see her head, just her body-- in a short red dress suggesting to these workers that this woman "wants" this kind of attention-- but does she? How would they know? Because of what she's wearing? Again a proprietary measure of sexual entitlement

[redqueen]

336. None of it is polite or considerate.

Women aren't paintings on walls, or cars at auto shows, or anything else that is on display for either kind of appreciation.

A brief smile and glance is polite. Anything else, even an "open, honest expression of awe", is really just a reminder of what is considered to be the most important thing about us. If you really must have a few seconds longer to look at her, for goddess's sake say something and talk to her. She's a person.

Just treat women as people. Not art. Not porn. Not prey.

We are people.

Why this simple fact is so everloving hard to get across is really infuriating.

[CFLDem]

424. Thank you for that.

[davidthegnome]

427. A poor choice of words on my part.

I never deliberately stare at anyone. I certainly wouldn't want to make someone feel like they are on display - as I hate feeling that way myself.

Yes. We are all people - but people can be beautiful, and their beauty can indeed inspire all kinds of art, from painting to poetry. This is not to imply that anyone is an object on display, merely to suggest that open admiration can be given with both respect and consideration.

I have always been a somewhat socially awkward person. I can talk to people, but it is difficult for me to talk about my feelings out loud, perhaps this is the fear that anything I say will be mis-interpreted. I find that, personally, I am much better at expressing my feelings or thoughts through writing. It takes me a long time to be able to open up to someone, to trust them enough to speak out loud about how I feel. This is a form of art, but it isn't to suggest that women are paintings on a wall, porn, or prey.

It is never my intent to offend or objectify. If I have done so, or do so unwittingly, and someone makes it clear to me, then I will always offer a sincere apology and behave differently. Yet I am human, some times I will stare without thinking about it - as in the case I mentioned above. If no one ever looked at each other, even, on occasion, stared, then it is quite possible that we would all be running into walls and grunting all day. Which, come to think of it, does remind me somewhat of high school.

[Aerows]

247. Try being a young gay attractive woman

When I was first dealing with my sexuality, deal with men that hit on you all of the time, but you never get the attention of women around you, because that is what you want. Talk about mixed messages.

That's why it is so funny to me that people think being homosexual is a choice. I would have *PRAYED* to be straight given the men that threw themselves at me. But I wasn't, and I had to endure familial rejection and everything else.

[ismnotwasm]

295. ...

And we haven't even gotten into heteronormativity.

[Orrex]

400. Obviously, you should have chosen not to be attractive. Duh.

What a crappy situation for you!

[whatchamacallit]

249. "Hey creep, quit staring at my Tramp Stamp!"

I do get and relate to the message, but the bit with the prominently displayed body art was a bit confusing IMO. Fire away...

[Ace Acme]

332. Exactly. "Quit staring at the cleavage I have so carefully wrapped up and put on display."

Men's tank tops aren't cut that low. There's no reason to cut them that low.

[seabeyond]

337. for like a decade i did not buy any new tops or pants because the ONLY thing out there were tops

created too small for a reason, and pants too low for a reason.

you might want to address culture, society, our corps that manipulate our girls and women in this manner. but then, you would have to get beyond the self serving perspective and actually educate yourself on how all this is created and why.

quit blaming the women.

[whatchamacallit]

341. I agree with the notion that women should be able to wear whatever they want

and not have it regarded as an invitation to harassment. That said, I think the ad would be more effective without the tattoo bit. If either sex chooses to make a part of their body a visual showcase, they are asking for people to look at it.

[redqueen]

357. Nobody is "asking" for anything based on their clothing choices.

You could make the case that uniforms are "asking for" recognition of the status of the person wearing the uniform... outside of that, no.

You could also possibly argue that they are inviting appreciation of the decoration itself. Do you think the man was admiring the tattoo, or her backside?

Even if someone has an amazing tattoo, I still wouldn't stare at them. Know why? Because staring is rude.

Even if some people are indeed hoping to he treated like an object, no one ever has the right to decide for someone else that that's what thyre doing, and act accordingly. Not in any way, shape, or form.

[whatchamacallit]

368. That woman is indeed making a statement

Why else bother to get a tattoo with a known social connotation, that only others can see, and dress so it can be seen?

[redqueen]

372. Wow.

Just... wow.

Good company you're in with the blaming, there. Good job. Enjoy yourself and happy holidays.

[whatchamacallit]

379. Hey redqueen

honestly I'm not blaming. I like the ad and agree with the message, but as it's focused on unwanted looking or "gazing", I thought that one example was murky given the woman's apparent effort to highlight that section of her body.

[redqueen]

394. Ok let me ask you this. What if they'd shown women on a beach?

Are women in bathing suits also "inviting attention"?

They're wearing clothing which "presents" (shudder) their cleavage ... and which shows their backsides, which they can't see.

So are their bathing suit bottoms for men? How is anything a woman wears an exception?

Yes, a lot of what we do is intended to make us look attractive. Centuries of having our looks define us has an effect. That does not mean that ANY of it is by default FOR men, even if some women are indeed seeking attention. That doesn't mean all women are. It's rude behavior.

I think the lower back tattoo was essential. And they could have used a beach scene, too.

[whatchamacallit]

412. I see your point

Last edited Mon Dec 23, 2013, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe we can agree that certain appearance choices we make do invite looking, just not the obnoxious, salacious gazing depicted in the video. Still, if a guy had a belly tattoo of a big arrow pointing to his junk, and wore his shirt unbuttoned to display it, would he be blameless for the looks he got? (Lol, sorry for the absurd example).

[CFLDem]

429. I agree they definitely needed to add a beach scene.

[seabeyond]

435. ah. now you have just taken off the mask and going around purposely trying to be offensive. so mad

man

[CFLDem]

440. Actually I was positively supporting

RedQueen's excellent suggestion that a beach scene is a great setting to drive home the point of this commercial.

Once again I refer to my 4/5ths argument regarding your posts.

[redqueen]

441. Are you admitting it's rude to stare, or are you just being rude? nt

[CFLDem]

443. I've always admitted that staring is rude.

It's only because of people pulling a Seabeyond that my sentiments have been twisted otherwise.

[redqueen]

447. Well it looked upthread like you were rationalizing it,

so I wasn't sure how to interpret that ambiguous statement.

As for sea, she's not responsible for anyone else misinterpreting anything you have posted.

[CFLDem]

452. No I rationalized glancing.

Which we have established is socially acceptable behavior.

[redqueen]

453. The men in the video aren't doing that, though.

So I'm not sure why that'd be brought up.

[gollygee]

466. People can get whatever tattoos they want

and it has nothing to do with you. She might just like the way it looks.

[seabeyond]

349. more slut shaming. i see you go into another thread to continue your slut shaming. against du rule

got it yet?

[BainsBane]

405. Yeah, I really need to cut these things off to keep men from ogling me

It's all my fault for growing large breasts. Funny, what you say sounds a lot like what a caver said, that because of my body I am "asking to be be raped."

[treestar]

463. She didn't put it on display

You're proving the very point here. She likes that top. She gets to wear it. It's passing judgment to say she's not allowed to wear that top without getting her boobs stared at.

The word "display" gives it away. She's not on display.

[redqueen]

339. Can you name any body art on men that's referred to with a slur aimed at his enjoyment of sex?

Perhaps you might consider the politics of that term.

And leftymom's point above. Even when women are veiled, their eyes are sexualized.

This has nothing to do with how women are dressed.

This is about how men treat women... though both men and women love to blame women's clothing for men's behavior.

[whatchamacallit]

353. You're right, the slang term for that particular adornment is demeaning

my point is more about inviting attention, not harassment, attention.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4217987

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

450. Oddly enough it was a woman who first alerted me to the term "tramp stamp".

[treestar]

255. Gorgeous people in that

I could see staring at those young men. But the idea is really neat.

[deaniac21]

389. When I get one of "those" looks

I simply turn them into a newt.

[santroy79]

401. pretty dumb

[BainsBane]

402. 107 recs so far

and a couple of members who think women should wear burkas or stay in the house if they don't want to be harassed.

[closeupready]

455. I love that. 'Look at yourself, you pig.' K&R

for my friend, redqueen.

[Ash_F]

486. That was very well done and a powerful message. /nt

[Mc Mike]

489. +1 rec. Thanks, red. nt.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

512. Zombie threads. Gotta love them. I would say I looked at around 40 women today

maybe more. I tried to keep my gaze shorter than 1 second per.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

521. Lol. Damn big ears. I gazed at her longer than a second.

"do these ears make my breasts look small?"

[oberliner]

520. You aren't supposed to look at a tattoo?

That one doesn't seem to belong with the others.