On catcalling, enjoyment thereof, and writing about it.

[MysticWav]

I don't think you can create the apolitical by insisting it be so, but I think you can do a better job of figuring what is and is not political. The default stance these days seems to be "When in doubt, treat it as political." I'm merely suggesting we flip the switch to the other position.

(and yeah, SMBC is hilarious )

[Deepbluediver]

I am leery of the fact that so many seem to take emotion in a man as something that was forced upon him by women, rather than it simply being remorse during an emotional time in his life.

But apparently it's easy to force objectivization on women?

Women wear bikini's and that's alright, but a man can't wear a shirt with a woman in a bikini on it? I don't get the difference.

I should note that I'm thoroughly unconvinced by the insistence that we can create the apolitical by insisting it be so.

Can you explain that one differently? Use small words because I don't like read into things and make assumptions.

Also, I feel like today's SMBC is relevant.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3548#comic

Maybe my take on it is different, but if I had to place that comic on one side of the argument or the other, it seems to be in support of Matt Taylor. Why should women let men keep them down? They can do it all anyway and nothing a man says will discourage a female who really wants it, no matter the reason.

[crayzz]

But apparently it's easy to force objectivization on women?

Yes? Objectification isn't an emotion you feel, it's something someone else does to you. You can feel objectified, but's that's a matter of guessing at how someone thinks of you. I can objectify you right now, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. There's a question of whether there is harm in it: some jackass at the other end of the internet is just a jackass; the dude representing a major science organisation on international broadcast has a mite more influence in what notions he supports, accidentally or otherwise.

Anyways, my point is it bothers me that emotion in a man is taken as a grave offense; it fits to neatly in the regressive notion of men as stoic and emotionless.

I don't think you can create the apolitical by insisting it be so, but I think you can do a better job of figuring what is and is not political.

This might be worth it's own thread, but:

I wrote that, not because I think that's what you're saying, but because I've had this discussion before, and I know where this is likely going. How do we determine what is apolitical? Arbitrarily, usually by the insistence of the actor in question. This shirt is just a shirt, because the wearer didn't mean anything else,* never mind the history of sexualization and discrimination of women, particularly in STEM fields. That dead black kid is just a struggle with the police gone wrong, never mind the dozen young black corpses before him this year alone. This [act] is just and [act], totally separate from the surrounding culture that informs and is informed by our behaviour. The apolitical is a myth; there is only the political, and the less political; on international announcements, even the minutely political can become noteworthy.

The apolitical requires total separation: it can neither be influenced by nor influence the marketplace of ideas in any way, otherwise it is political (at least by the modern definition semi-detached from traditional politics (i.e. as I, and you by my judgement, use the term here and now)).

*He actually meant to say "I'm exuberantly wearing my birthday present because this is a happy moment," and even that supports cultural/political notions, and by necessity disavows their opposites. Everything is politics, it's just a matter of whether or not so many people agree that we don't think about it.

[Nepene]

Yes. She acknowledges that most women dislike it. And then tells men to go ahead and catcall. I mean, yes, all she says is for them to catcall at her. But it's a tad disingenuous to think she believed that the construction workers would be all "Oh, no, no fellows. We only have permission to whistle and hoot at Dorree Lowack."

I don't think people should be responsible for messages that they don't state, imply, or indicate they believe in.

[JustinReilly]

I don't think people should be responsible for messages that they don't state, imply, or indicate they believe in.

I inferred it, so I clearly believe that she implied it. Can you show me how it was unreasonable of me to have done so?

[Deepbluediver]

Oh man, I just had a weird experience where I found myself on the other side of this argument.

Apparently for trying to answer someone's questions regarding experiences of sexism from other players in a videogame I got accused of being a white-knight, was only doing it because I wanted sex, and claimed that I was just feeding an "attention w-word".

[Tem]

Oh man, I just had a weird experience where I found myself on the other side of this argument.

Apparently for trying to answer someone's questions regarding experiences of sexism from other players in a videogame I got accused of being a white-knight, was only doing it because I wanted sex, and claimed that I was just feeding an "attention w-word".

Some men can't even grasp the concept of being a decent human being with no reward whatsoever. It is alien to them. Thus, white-knight accusations.

[Nepene]

I don't think people should be responsible for messages that they don't state, imply, or indicate they believe in.

I inferred it, so I clearly believe that she implied it. Can you show me how it was unreasonable of me to have done so?

Since she said most women dislike it, I could easily infer the opposite.

You can infer almost anything you want from a reasonably long passage, I can't really say it's unreasonable for you to do so, but you inferring things isn't evidence.

[luislsacc]

Anyways, my point is it bothers me that emotion in a man is taken as a grave offense; it fits to neatly in the regressive notion of men as stoic and emotionless.

Correct me if I'm wildly wrong here, but the problem I seem to have with it isn't that he felt this very serious emotion, but rather because of its nature and its outside sources, being made to feel this way is wrong. In other words, it's okay for him to cry, it's not okay for people to make him cry. If you replaced the him's for her's, would the statement still hold? I'd say yes, if a woman, for some (any) reason was made to appear before the world and profess her attitudes and feelings as wrong while tearfully doing so, it would warrant some review to the events that drove her to it, righteous or not as though they may be.

As far as the voldeshirt goes, meh, he should be able to wear it without being forced to apologise. I equate attributing him the evils of opression on women the same as attributing the death of Richard Knight on Jamie ( before the whole twists in the last couple of months) - there's far too much disconnect between a man's singular action and a years old current of society to blame the latter on the former. The scope on his freedom of expression looking to be repressed seems very much larger than any effect he has on culture - one's rights end when another's begin, but bigger rights prevail over smaller ones. I don't know, maybe coming from a country where censorship was an actual, beating people up and torturing them in prisions, secret police and neighbour spying culture makes me value freedom of expression more than you'd think ideal. I'm actually curious on Tem's thoughts on the whole thing, as I believe she is german? At least I think she's mentioned working in Germany.

[Tem]

As far as the voldeshirt goes, meh, he should be able to wear it without being forced to apologise. I equate attributing him the evils of opression on women the same as attributing the death of Richard Knight on Jamie ( before the whole twists in the last couple of months) - there's far too much disconnect between a man's singular action and a years old current of society to blame the latter on the former. The scope on his freedom of expression looking to be repressed seems very much larger than any effect he has on culture - one's rights end when another's begin, but bigger rights prevail over smaller ones. I don't know, maybe coming from a country where censorship was an actual, beating people up and torturing them in prisions, secret police and neighbour spying culture makes me value freedom of expression more than you'd think ideal. I'm actually curious on Tem's thoughts on the whole thing, as I believe she is german? At least I think she's mentioned working in Germany.

Yes, I live in Germany, and I think the fact that nazi symbols are now verboten here is a good thing. As a matter of fact, I haven't even seen the voldeshirt yet, but I am sure, if so many people complain about it, they have a point. (I tried to google it just now, but apparently there is such a big market for sexist T-shirts, that I get links to shops, not links to articles about the shirt. Which ... is also interesting) Complaining, by the way, is not the same thing as censoring. He who does shitty things must accept that other people also have freedom of expression.
Must I remind you that the persecution of Jews in Germany could only happen because of the widespread antisemitism, and that the nazis reinforced the antisemitism by producing racist media in which they depicted Jews as animals?

Every genocide starts with the attitude that a certain group of people are not people, but objects. This shirt is but a tiny part of the whole picture. It doesn't directly harm women, sure, but it creates a climate in which women know that men don't give a shit about our personhood, and men know that they can get away with harming women, because, hey, women are just objects, right?


Edit: Found an article about the shirt: http://www.stemwomen.net/astronomy-sexi ... hirtstorm/ Read it, it's very interesting. Also, wow, that shirt is even shittier than I thought ... I thought it was women in bikinis, not underwear. And it is a women-as-decoration shirt - they are a pattern, not even standing upright on the shirtfront.

Please Tailsteak, can we have a picture of Lily in a men-as-decoration shirt? She's a misandrist, right? She would wear it. (I doubt it would help men understand, they lack over 2000 years of oppression, but ... hey, you can try.)