Are all men pigs? Or are women secret swines as well?

[gloomy-optimist]

Iiii still think I'm going to side on the side of the realists rather than the righteous thinkers.

I mean, a woman is not made to be oogled. But then, there are times where, if you are going to wear something, you must realize that you are accenting certain parts of the anatomy that are associated with certain things (namely sex, in this situation). Yeah, you could sit there and say, "I don't have to change the way I dress because guys are pigs," but the fact of the matter is, you're a responsible adult, and if you are going to wear something that is sexually provocative, then you need to take responsibility for the fact that you are doing so. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, the wear something more modest -- you don't have to be half-naked to be look great.

Now, if you are dressed fairly decently (no great amount of cleavage -- many women don't realize just how low some shirts are), then you have every right to put your fist down. However, your choice of clothes is a statement and, whether you like it or not, it is YOUR choice. It's not up to the world to change it's mindset -- if you don't like it, then well, sorry, but it's up to you to change because the world isn't going to change it's reaction to you, for you.

A woman, whether she likes it or not, realizes this and has to own up to it. Pointing fingers doesn't really work

 

[Wyote]

The whole issue here is that women have the desire to dress "sexy" because they get some sort of self affirmation out of it.

If you think about the very innocent - children. What is appropriate for them to dress in? Why is it inappropriate for them to wear what some adults wear? Why do we dress differently than children? Men often do it to assert dominence, status ect. Women often do it to assert sexuality, virility ect. They both attempt to indicate self importance within society. Telling a woman she can't dress sexy is like saying she is not important, which is a fallacy. This is why women feel entitled to wear whatever they want. It also doesn't help that so much more importance is placed on how a woman looks.

Men don't really feel anything about the way they dress. They just understand that wearing a suit and tie gets respect.

 

[pogo_<3]

I think that most women dress "sexy" because they are constantly put under pressure by society to do so. With all of the flawless figures in magazines that ae printed off daily, its a huge slap to the ego to see such perfection. Even naturally beautiful women and men are viewed as "Average" because of the expetations we are provided with.

 

[Eniko]

if you don't like it, then well, sorry, but it's up to you to change because the world isn't going to change it's reaction to you, for you.

Very practical thinking. But what about the implications of saying what essentially amounts to "the world won't change, so you better change yourself"? If everyone thought like that black people would still be slaves, women still wouldn't be able to vote, and gay people across the globe would still have to hide their sexuality for fear of violence.

Thinking like that works only on the short term, just like "it's not my problem" style thinking works on the short term. But in the bigger picture thinking like that isn't practical any more. It perpetuates the problem and in doing so becomes part of the problem.

The whole issue here is that women have the desire to dress "sexy" because they get some sort of self affirmation out of it.

This makes it seem like women do this because it's something they want to do for themselves. Unfortunately it's again not quite that simple. Try being a woman who doesn't pay attention to looking pretty for a while and you'll notice that it's not that women do this for themselves, it's that not doing it will make society around you basically start invalidating your gender.

Even something as simple as deciding you're no longer up to the task of spending an hour a day plucking your freaking eyebrows will make people act like you're less of a woman, less feminine, even less of a person deserving respect. What do you think happens to people who take that to the extreme?

People get this idea that just because women can wear pants and men can't wear skirts that women who don't put effort into maintaining their femininity (and by that society means "looking pretty") are accepted. They're not, they're harassed and diminished just as much as effeminate men.

It's not about getting affirmed. It's about getting horribly diminished if you don't do it.

 

[Wyote]

I totally agree with you Eniko. My statement still stands however. It is self affirmation forced upon people by societal standards. Some women do want to do it for themselves, but they would not have that want if it weren't for societal standards... which are obviously all f-ed up.

 

[Koba]

Very practical thinking. But what about the implications of saying what essentially amounts to "the world won't change, so you better change yourself"? If everyone thought like that black people would still be slaves, women still wouldn't be able to vote, and gay people across the globe would still have to hide their sexuality for fear of violence.

Thinking like that works only on the short term, just like "it's not my problem" style thinking works on the short term. But in the bigger picture thinking like that isn't practical any more. It perpetuates the problem and in doing so becomes part of the problem.

At the risk of seeming arrogant (if I haven't managed that already), I am going to quote myself, and then I'm going to outline a mistake I believe some of you are making.

[SIZE=Default]
That same person could still make an argument that the fact that some men consistently act that way in that situation is a negative and restrictive thing for women, but that should have absolutely nothing to do with how she personally dresses, because how she personally dresses will not stop a from implying b. (Edit: It may be that her experience with how she personally dresses gives her an insight and starts her thinking this way, but the righthinking response is to move into a more system oriented/abstract outlook, and then to apply that system outlook in individual situations. In turn leading to a greater abstract understanding... This is an example of empirical knowledge leading to rational knowledge, and then back to empirical knowledge.)[/SIZE]

I say that the rational knowledge she reaches should lead back into empirical knowledge, but I also say that it shouldn't be the basis of how she dresses, which was where the empirical knowledge began in the first place for many women. So what gives? It's like I'm arguing against her way of taking action and then saying she needs to take action, which is roundabout defeatism.

Firstly, I think there are actually two pieces to the rational knowledge here. One that I mention is that it is a restrictive thing for women, it limits their opportunities and what they they can do. We could say that this is "negative" for women, even oppressing them in a way in the sense of limiting their freedom. The second piece, then, is that women and the allies of women should oppose this limitation, not for moralistic reasons, but because they have an interest in expanding rather than limiting the freedom of women.

All this is very different than saying "A woman should be able to dress how she wants," because it's on the basis of scientifically looking at the way men and women interact and drawing a conclusion, rather than going off morals, principals, and subjective feelings in the guiding role.

So the next empirical bit doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how the origional woman personally dresses. The next task for her is to say to herself "How can this be opposed?" Dressing in a way that is perceived as slutty isn't really going to oppose it anymore than dressing in a way that is perceived as modest will oppose it. No matter how a woman dresses, she is playing into people's perceptions, so changing personal styles of dress isn't going to fix things.

I do think there is a way for women to oppose this, although I'm not entirely sure what it is. I could offer some ideas if you wanted, but I would rather you women offer some ideas to me about how women could be in a less limiting environment and what people can do to lead to that. Then, if I'm convinced that it will offer more freedom for women, as a would be ally of women I could support you in it. Once we try to do whatever this is, that's where the empirical experience comes into play again, and that's the path to progress and change.

In the mean time, gloomy optimists post applies. Take responsibility for how you dress in your personal life, no matter how you dress. Otherwise you're muddling issues.

 

[Bored Now]

I

 

[Creon]

Why is it that for some time now every initially interesting discussion turns into a fight?

Disappointing, to say the least.

 

[WickedPod]

I think that women can be pigs and men can be gentlemen. It depends on the person and the situation. I can be a pig - if I see a dude I find attractive in a sexual way, yes, I will imagine dirty things. I don't imagine future children - I only imagine the process. If I go out and I'm wearing something revealing, I don't get pissy b/c some guy whistled at me or called me "Titties". I don't believe that dressing provocatively gives anyone the right to touch, though. I've been grabbed in places by men that shouldn't be touched unless I'm letting you or telling you to and I wasn't even dressed in anything but a work uniform. At the same time, I know some men (not many, but hey, give them a break) that aren't whistlers, butt-slappers, or ogglers. I know men that look without staring and would never introduce themselves to a woman by saying "wow, those are some nice tits". I also know women that stare at men's packages. Also, women generally use sex as a means. Not necessarily the act of sex, but putting the idea of it into men to gain something. Whether it's money, jobs, gifts, etc - manipulation of any kind. There is a large population of women that do that and do it regularly. They aren't considered pigs, though. Which is pretty unfair to the male population.

As far as sex in the media, I think it goes too far nowadays. I'm by no means a prude, but it gets weird when you're watching TV with your parents or your child and one of those KY commericals comes on that gives us an image of what a woman feels when she orgasms and I so don't look forward to having explain that image to my son in the future. And there have been moments where I've had to explain stuff to my prude mom. But, in general, we literally buy into that advertising. As long as that continues, so will the envelope-pushing. That, and lots of times I honestly laugh my butt off over dirty jokes and such that I hear/see on TV.

With all that said - I'm pretty much with Gloomy-Optimist. We all have to take responsibility for what we wear. Not children, but adults. If we dress matronly, then people will view us that way. If we dress "slutty", then people may view us this way. It works the same for men. A guy can wear a t-shirt with the sleeves cut off and ratty jeans and be a successful businessman, but will most likely be viewed as a dirtbag loser. It doesn't at all make it right, but we know that people always judge a book by its cover. What I like to do is I dress however I want, do my makeup however I want, and wear my hair however I want. If someone doesn't like it or thinks it says something about me that is untrue, I just don't care. If they take the time to get to know me even a little bit, they'll know I'm not at all the way they originally perceived me.

 

[Koba]

[SIZE=Default]Why is it that for some time now every initially interesting discussion turns into a fight?[/SIZE]

I do not consider myself to be having a fight, and I will not interpret criticism of my actions or ideas as evidence of a personal attack, unless I'm specifically given reason to.

I

 

[Ookami]

"Some women do want to do it for themselves, but they would not have that want if it weren't for societal standards... which are obviously all f-ed up."

I disagree with this statement. I believe even if women were not constricted by social standards there would still be some that wanted to dress pretty and act pretty, because that's who they are.

"The problem with assuming the worst is that you stop looking for culprits" I'm surprised no one has brought up the point that maybe, just maybe, women are to blame for the high social standards on other women.

Here is my theory. Back in the cave no women tried to look pretty, until one day. A cave women found a way to fix her hair. She was looked at oddly by all the other women, but all the guys flocked around her. She loved the attention, but this made the other women jealous and feel worthless. So they did their hair too, and then another women found a way to paint her face, and again all the males flocked to that women, and again the standards for women grew.

The point I'm trying to make is that you need to stop assuming guys are doing it on purpose too. We've been effected by the social standards as women just as much and now our minds want what they want. I'm telling you that if the first women who dressed up wouldn't have then guys wouldn't have the high standards they do today. Also, guy's feel pressured to look thin and tone too. :/ Idiots. Though I would like to be tone for myself. I think I look good that way.... ignore that it's a sidetrack.

There will always be men, women, even animals, that want to be better then everyone else. It's how some human brains work. I know that I want to be better then everyone else at something. I just haven't decided what yet

 

[Koba]

[SIZE=Default]
I disagree with this statement. I believe even if women were not constricted by social standards there would still be some that wanted to dress pretty and act pretty, because that's who they are.[/SIZE]

Why do you assume it's because of "who they are" that they want it and not their social environment? What do you base this on? We know the social environment exist, but "human nature" isn't testable.

 

[Ookami]

Why do you assume it's because of "who they are" that they want it and not their social environment? What do you base this on? We know the social environment exist, but "human nature" isn't testable.

I never said I didn't believe it was the social environment NOW, but you've got to think, How did it get to this point? That would be Human Nature's fault.

 

[Koba]

[SIZE=Default]I never said I didn't believe it was the social environment NOW, but you've got to think, How did it get to this point? That would be Human Nature's fault.[/SIZE]

Not necessarily. I see the social environment stemming from economic relations, which are also something we can test. This is actually a very complex topic, but is more useful than taking a "human nature" outlook that doesn't seek to investigate material conditions. Human nature can logically explain it too, but that doesn't make it the most scientific approach.

 

[chaotic_lion]

Boy, the girl who started this thread...rules.

 

[Hinsoog]

I really do find it helpful to be aware of the evolutionary perspective when thinking about this sort of thing. It may not immediately seem related, but I think it's relevant and useful in considering this. Now, first I want to say that the results of the studies that make up the theories in the evolutionary perspective are challenging to say the least, but I think that they are useful. Anyway, I'll start with the seemingly easy one, men, and then go on to women, which might seem surprising, and just as initially disturbing.

The basic idea is that we've evolved traits that will naturally motivate us to mate and reproduce with success, including the success of the offspring.The studies show, across time and culture, that males' attraction is indeed based on physical traits...

Afterall, in mating, these desired physical traits are ideally supposed to be linked to the health of the female and traits that are advantageous to the actual bearing the child and then caring for the child. Of course, sizeable breasts, a healthy figure, and curvy hips spring to mind. All that can be directly related to being advantageous in mating and caring for a child. It's ugly, it's animal, but it's there...

Ok, so the basic male attraction theories are pretty interesting, and you can take it pretty deep. Then there's what makes up a women's actual physical attraction as discovered in numerous studie... Women's attraction is indeed different that a man's. Women are attracted to status and wealth...... I know, it's hard to swallow, but, like I said, that's what the studies show across time and culture. The data is strong. The basic idea is that status and wealth are advantageous in successfully mating because that provides the greatest chance for the offspring to also be successful, which of course is vital in successful mating.

Anyway, from my perspective, that is just as animal, and initially ugly-seeming as a male's attraction even though it is different. Perhaps we can also take comfort in knowing that it's all for what amounts to being the most noble cause of them all... For being in the best interest of the children and their success.

Here's the thing, that's all challenging, but outside of my idea about how it's about the best interest of the children, I also take solace in the fact that there is mounting evidence that there are other traits that contribute to successful relationships that therefore are being shown to perhaps be linked to the actual attraction... That's good news, because then our near and dear personality typing has all kinds of weight...

So yeah, I think this is not just relevant, but important when mulling this over.

 

[Bored Now]

Why is it that for some time now every initially interesting discussion turns into a fight?

Disappointing, to say the least.

::shrug::
I wasn

 

[Creon]

::shrug::
I wasn

 

[Koba]

::shrug::
I wasn’t fighting. I wasn’t even debating seriously. I’ve had fiercer, nastier debates with my boyfriend about Jethro Tull than this. Debating and disagreeing is like my third favorite pastime. It is ALL love over here! I have mad respect for Koba in general or I wouldn’t have even bothered, to be honset. He’s proven to be more than gracious, fair, kind and mature and if I came across argumentative it’s because I’ve been a wise-ass salty broad in at LEAST half of my posts, I’d wager. That’s just me and I’m glad Koba didn’t take any offense because there was zero intended.

I just usually don’t disagree with people. Ha, I KNOW not to get into debates around here, then. Further, I’m glad everyone in the world doesn’t think like me. It would make life a bit crap, really. I like celebrating differences a lot better than falling prey to groupthink.
Sorry took me so long to respond, I was busy (Go LAKERS WOOOOOOOOOO) and my connection was/is being assy. And I feel like crap anyway so if I’m laying low for a minute, I’m not sulking. Hee. I don't really have anything to add, I just wanted to be clear that I WASN'T trying to be offensive or anything and I apologize if I came of badly.


Can we hug it out now? :uppy eyes::

I'm going to go lay back down now......

Actually, I'm terrified of having a personal confrontation with someone, so I think I've gotten decent at reading people, and bailing myself when I decide the conversation is hopeless. You were doing some of the things that people do when they're about to have a personal confrontation with me, but you were doing many things they don't do, so it doesn't surprise me that you can come in and say this.

The fear of a personal confrontation (or even an ongoing one) is the only thing that bothered me about your post. Criticism is a good thing! Without it, free thought cannot exist.

Probably many people on this forum would be very upset if you posted to them in that style, but as I'm not them, don't feel bad about it. You already have the ability to take a step back when you feel the need, which many people can't do.

If anything, you should feel fairly good about yourself now, for your ability to challenge ideas and to take a step back when you need to.

 

[TaylorS]

I’m going to have to call bullshit on your claim that you have never in your life witnessed a man oogling a woman. If that is true then you might be completely oblivious to your surroundings. So you’ve never been at a restaurant and seen a patron staring at the waitress’ ass? You’ve never seen a woman walk past a man and watched his head turn to stare at her ass after she’d passed? You’ve never seen a guy talking to a woman and noticed how he was obviously staring at her breasts instead of looking her in the eye. You’ve never had a male friend comment on someone’s great ass or tits or body or whatever? I find that very hard to believe.

Also, to suggest that men’s clothing is entirely utilitarian and not at all revealing is false as well. You’ve never seen a guy wearing a tank top and shorts? A woman who dresses that way is “asking for it” but a guy is just “doing his thing.” You act like wearing a spaghetti strap t-shirt is some kind of subversive act. It’s not. It’s just comfortable and cute. Children wear them, does that mean they deserve to be oogled by pedophiles because everyone knows that child molesters exist? Blaming women for the reactions of men is backwards thinking designed to shift the blame from the men who oogle to the woman who is victimized. You went shopping with your friend and couldn’t stop looking at her breasts so the problem obviously must lie with her because otherwise you might have to take personal responsibility for your fixation.


Was I confused? Hmm.

Confused, not so much. Bored, anxious to be elsewhere, and distracted; indeed! I’ll concede that I misread something you said the second time around. I apologize because it seems I gave you entirely too much credit. The behavior of those cat-calling cretins is only half the problem. Your quiet judgment is just as aggressively presumptuous as any creep honking their horn. You’re just quieter about it out of some misguided attempt at civility. My eyes glaze over when people pretend their judgments and knee-jerk reactions are somehow based in fact and supported by logic. I have to work on the whole ‘being baffled by bullshit’ portion of debating. Gets me every time! Thank you for the clarity, it’s been more than enlightening. My bad. You were kind of contradicting yourself...
[FONT=&quot]
“I judge the way everyone does everything. Nothing is beyond me critically looking at it.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“And I'm not someone who goes around judging or putting other women down.”[/FONT]


I took you at your word by observing the second sentence when the first statement is actually a more accurate portrayal of your thought process. Again, my bad. Not your only contradiction, just the easiest to point out.


Nevertheless, it doesn’t take away from my original point that it’s silly to expect the woman minding her own business to govern her decisions based on the hypothetical reaction of judgmental people. I suppose we should chastise school girls for wearing uniforms when creeps leer at them. A woman will be sexualized by men simply for the fact that she possesses a vagina. Period. The way she dresses has nothing to do with it. People sexualize nuns, nurses and librarians for God sake. It ain’t the uniform, it’s the mindset. I understand the biological impulse to do so, but if we’re to be better than animals, you have to take the opportunity to think with more than that. And take some personal responsibility for the depth, or lack thereof, of your own thoughts. If it’s all about clothing choices, why are their instances of rape and violence against women in countries where women practice a much more modest form of dress AND behavior? Do you understand what I’m saying? If a damn burqa can’t prevent rape, it ain’t the burqa. It’s the mindset of the rapist. And the quietly judgmental who sort of accept the responses of the rapist as, not reasonable, but preventable.

And I’m glad you brought up civil rights. By your x, y, z logic, if people didn’t want water hoses and dogs turned on them (Y), they should NOT have marched for their rights (X) because they KNEW what the reactions that the racists and the quietly judgmental complacent would have been. I’m glad THEY didn’t see it that way too. It seems a lot of behavior in your world is dictated by presumption, preemptive judgment, and falling in line with societal norms. Neat trick. Let me try it on for size...


*I’m* going to practice your brand of logic and assume that we’ll not see eye to eye on this, ever. Honestly, I don’t have enough interest in, or respect for your point of view (when it comes to this subject) to continue the discussion. I’m really starting to question *my* INFJ status because I notice this trend towards totalitarian judgment that I don’t particularly relate to. Like at ALL. “I think things are this way so people should behave this way.” That doesn’t seem inclusive of all the possibilities. Have fun with that. Makes for a lonely and oppressive world, in my opinion (just OPINION). I’m not trying to be dismissive, so I apologize in advance if it comes off that way. I just don’t care that much and think my time is better served by “agreeing to disagree.” ::shrug:: But thanks for the discussion. It has given me a lot of food for thought and I’ve learned a great deal. If I’ve made any mistakes in ignorance, I’ll remain blissfully unaware, I guess. Presumption and ignorance are constant bedfellows and great lovers and I really want to see how ig’nant I can get. HA!

This guy thinks this is an excellent post! I don't think you need to question your being an INFJ because of this. To be honest I behaved the same way and used the same misogynist rationalizations people in this thread are using before my friend was raped, that is when I finally "got it". It's been 2 1/2 month's since my friend was raped and she's still scared of being in public by herself because she fears that every guy she doesn't know who comes near her might rape her. Given that 1 out of every 4 women will be sexually assulted, abused, or molested in some time in their lives I can't really blame the over-the-top "all men are rapists" rhetoric of certain feminist acedemics.