There doesn't need to be a universal standard. I'm not saying that "all women should dress this specific way, and that's the best". I'm saying that the reactions of people around you to your choice of appearance can be predicted for any one social environment, and if you can predict what social environment you're going to be in, you can predict how people in that environment will react to your appearance, and this should all factor into how you choose to dress yourself for any individual situation.
My beef is not that girls are dressing revealingly, I really couldn't care less. I just feel that it's extremely unfortunate that our society dictates that girls should not take their own safety into account over whatever goals they are seeking to achieve by dressing revealingly. I'm saying that there's this pretty horrible pressure in society that girls ought to think first about what will make them look more attractive to men, and ignore the possible negative attention this could bring to them, and that's what I'm interested in combating.
There is also a lot of societal pressure on women to cover up by way of blaming them for harassment and other on the grounds that they were dressed too revealingly, often when they're actually not dressed revealingly at all. I think that's just as important to combat. I think that the idea that women have to make a choice between being attractive and being safe is also important to combat. And there does need to be some vaguely consistent standard because otherwise you dump them in a catch-22. They can't really know how everyone they're going to encounter will respond to their clothes but they're expected to know and take it into account in selecting them.
I'm not making expectations here, I'm giving advice. I'm not going to judge a woman and say she's an idiot if she decides to go into a seedy bar in a bikini, but I would definitely tell her that if she did so she'd get some pretty heavy ogling, and that she better not if she didn't want that sort of attention.
I totally agree with you that people who blame women for harassment are idiotic people. Likewise, people who decide that there's a specific sort of clothing that women should wear, and if they don't wear it they're "whoores" are idiots too (and probably old). There's a difference between saying that women should consider the possibility of a safety/attractiveness trade-off, and saying that all women should never show cleavage. Also, I think that the safety/attractiveness trade-off is very real in this society, and should be considered. I agree with you, however, that it shouldn't exist, and I'd be very open to discussion of ideas on how to remove it.
Ceasing to use extreme examples to build an argument that "she knew x would happen if she did y and she did y anyway so 'sucks for her'(someone's exact words)" would be a start.
There is also a lot of societal pressure on women to cover up by way of blaming them for harassment and other on the grounds that they were dressed too revealingly
So, can you show me the slew of court cases where a woman was found guilty of her own rape?
Why would I have to? Oh right, because you're an idiot. No thanks.
Well, Alkaline, some places are pretty hot. I'm almost certain my sister wore her smaller clothes in the 90-something degree weather we got back home because it was sensible. Sort of how like I wore shorts and sometimes *gasp* didn't wear a shirt at all.
Edit: Oh shit, and I made myself a target for child predators.
You know this is not what I'm talking about. When I refer to 'revealing' clothing I'm talking about clothing that is made in such a manner specifically for the purpose of being attractive to men. I am aware that there are practical reasons for wearing less clothing, regardless of what you think I'm not a complete idiot. However that has pretty much nothing to do with what we're talking about right now.
So wait wait. So tank tops are... not made to be attractive? Or are they, but they're sensible enough that a woman's not at fault if someone really gets off on shoulders and grabs her? Are short skirts and shorts particularly designed to divert the male gaze? If they aren't, does that mean girls get to wear heavy and uncomfortable clothing in the heat?
I mean, tell me an item of clothing that isn't designed for attractiveness. Maybe work clothes? Though god knows I like a woman in uniform...
Man, you're going out of your way to misunderstand what I mean. Sometimes I like to mince words too, but honestly man. Most people have some understanding of what features in clothing will engender a specifically sexual response in people commonly found in different environments. You're being an ass if you're trying to make me define specific lines of what's revealing and what's not, because you're missing the point. I'm suggesting that one should be advised not to go out of their way to look sexually attractive if they know they're going to be in an environment where having this aspect of sexual attractiveness may engender an unwanted response. I'm not suggesting that people ought to go out of their way to look unattractive, and I never said so.
Also, the woman's never at goddamn fault. I keep saying this. What I'm saying is society is at fault for creating this situation.
Ceasing to use extreme examples to build an argument that "she knew x would happen if she did y and she did y anyway so 'sucks for her'(someone's exact words)" would be a start.
To be fair, I would never say that and I think someone who would is an asshole.
Well, Alkaline, some places are pretty hot. I'm almost certain my sister wore her smaller clothes in the 90-something degree weather we got back home because it was sensible. Sort of how like I wore shorts and sometimes *gasp* didn't wear a shirt at all.
Edit: Oh shit, and I made myself a target for child predators.
You know this is not what I'm talking about. When I refer to 'revealing' clothing I'm talking about clothing that is made in such a manner specifically for the purpose of being attractive to men. I am aware that there are practical reasons for wearing less clothing, regardless of what you think I'm not a complete idiot. However that has pretty much nothing to do with what we're talking about right now.
So wait wait. So tank tops are... not made to be attractive? Or are they, but they're sensible enough that a woman's not at fault if someone really gets off on shoulders and grabs her? Are short skirts and shorts particularly designed to divert the male gaze? If they aren't, does that mean girls get to wear heavy and uncomfortable clothing in the heat?
I mean, tell me an item of clothing that isn't designed for attractiveness. Maybe work clothes? Though god knows I like a woman in uniform...
Man, you're going out of your way to misunderstand what I mean. Sometimes I like to mince words too, but honestly man. Most people have some understanding of what features in clothing will engender a specifically sexual response in people commonly found in different environments. You're being an ass if you're trying to make me define specific lines of what's revealing and what's not, because you're missing the point. I'm suggesting that one should be advised not to go out of their way to look sexually attractive if they know they're going to be in an environment where having this aspect of sexual attractiveness may engender an unwanted response. I'm not suggesting that people ought to go out of their way to look unattractive, and I never said so.
Also, the woman's never at goddamn fault. I keep saying this. What I'm saying is society is at fault for creating this situation.
Okay. That makes more sense than what I thought I was responding to. What I'd say to that is that it is, for a good portion of women, not attractiveness that is the most pertinent thing on their mind when thinking about what to wear. Often, it's comfort. Whether or not they end up looking attractive in what they find comfortable might be completely up to chance. Should my girlfriend be classed as "deserving it" because she looks hot in a t-shirt and jeans? Who gets to decide that a woman "went out of her way to be attractive" and when she just happens to be a good looking person or a person more comfortable in low cut shirts?
Well, Alkaline, some places are pretty hot. I'm almost certain my sister wore her smaller clothes in the 90-something degree weather we got back home because it was sensible. Sort of how like I wore shorts and sometimes *gasp* didn't wear a shirt at all.
Edit: Oh shit, and I made myself a target for child predators.
You know this is not what I'm talking about. When I refer to 'revealing' clothing I'm talking about clothing that is made in such a manner specifically for the purpose of being attractive to men. I am aware that there are practical reasons for wearing less clothing, regardless of what you think I'm not a complete idiot. However that has pretty much nothing to do with what we're talking about right now.
So wait wait. So tank tops are... not made to be attractive? Or are they, but they're sensible enough that a woman's not at fault if someone really gets off on shoulders and grabs her? Are short skirts and shorts particularly designed to divert the male gaze? If they aren't, does that mean girls get to wear heavy and uncomfortable clothing in the heat?
I mean, tell me an item of clothing that isn't designed for attractiveness. Maybe work clothes? Though god knows I like a woman in uniform...
Man, you're going out of your way to misunderstand what I mean. Sometimes I like to mince words too, but honestly man. Most people have some understanding of what features in clothing will engender a specifically sexual response in people commonly found in different environments. You're being an ass if you're trying to make me define specific lines of what's revealing and what's not, because you're missing the point. I'm suggesting that one should be advised not to go out of their way to look sexually attractive if they know they're going to be in an environment where having this aspect of sexual attractiveness may engender an unwanted response. I'm not suggesting that people ought to go out of their way to look unattractive, and I never said so.
Also, the woman's never at goddamn fault. I keep saying this. What I'm saying is society is at fault for creating this situation.
Okay. That makes more sense than what I thought I was responding to. What I'd say to that is that it is, for a good portion of women, not attractiveness that is the most pertinent thing on their mind when thinking about what to wear. Often, it's comfort. Whether or not they end up looking attractive in what they find comfortable might be completely up to chance. Should my girlfriend be classed as "deserving it" because she looks hot in a t-shirt and jeans? Who gets to decide that a woman "went out of her way to be attractive" and when she just happens to be a good looking person or a person more comfortable in low cut shirts?
That's still moot, though. First of all, I'd appreciate if you didn't use the term "deserving it" because it's absolutely terrible in every way and not at all what I believe. Anyway, I think you're too focused on the judging idea, there's no judging here, it's a suggestion. Whether or not a woman is going out of her way to look attractive is her own judgment, and I would suggest that women use their own better judgment in these instances as to whether or not they should go out of their way to look sexually attractive. I understand that there are benefits in making oneself look attractive, but there needs to be a weighing of these benefits against what possible bad could come in certain situations. I wouldn't suggest that more women dress to be attractive than dress to be comfortable, because frankly I have no freaking idea and that's incredibly variable between individuals. I'm just suggesting that there should be more pressure on each individual person to more consider that there are definitely instances where being more attractive is not worth the negative attention it brings to you.
Most people dress to feel attractive, not to attract perverts.
That's exactly true. My point is that there should be more effort to make people understand that in some instances dressing to feel attractive will attract perverts, and they should take that into consideration.
That's still moot, though. First of all, I'd appreciate if you didn't use the term "deserving it" because it's absolutely terrible in every way and not at all what I believe. Anyway, I think you're too focused on the judging idea, there's no judging here, it's a suggestion. Whether or not a woman is going out of her way to look attractive is her own judgment, and I would suggest that women use their own better judgment in these instances as to whether or not they should go out of their way to look sexually attractive. I understand that there are benefits in making oneself look attractive, but there needs to be a weighing of these benefits against what possible bad could come in certain situations. I wouldn't suggest that more women dress to be attractive than dress to be comfortable, because frankly I have no freaking idea and that's incredibly variable between individuals. I'm just suggesting that there should be more pressure on each individual person to more consider that there are definitely instances where being more attractive is not worth the negative attention it brings to you.
That's exactly true. My point is that there should be more effort to make people understand that in some instances dressing to feel attractive will attract perverts, and they should take that into consideration.
It's great to tout personal responsibility, but my point is that nothing that a sane person wears is designed to make them look unattractive. Dressing for comfort, which is what most sane people do most of the time, will produce an attractive outfit more often than not. Because people generally look attractive in anything that doesn't make them look like clowns. More to the point, no one can judge what every person who sees them today will find attractive. I like the way I look in button-downs, I think I look chubby in t-shirts. Should I be expected to weigh the opinions of strangers who might think I look hot in t-shirts?
And seriously, what is an attractive person supposed to do? Not leave the house without a disguise unless they want strangers giving them more attention than they'd like?
You're just creating a hypothetical where no matter what course a woman takes, you can kinda sorta maybe say they should have been more careful because hey some guys like big lips and she could cover them up if she didn't want to be accosted.
Furthermore, I seriously can't believe that Feral just spontaneously suspected everyone on the opposing side of the conversation of being sexist pigs.
Nope, I didn't.
My point was that the reasoning itself is sexist. That doesn't necessarily mean that you are sexist (although it doesn't necessarily mean you're not, either, and there are one or two posters I have my suspicions about). (Also: that you can't simultaneously claim that misogynism is so rampant that a woman needs to expect mistreatment if she wears certain clothes in public while simultaneously claiming that "men should not disrespect women" is a non-controversial statement. Those two ideas are at odds; unless you assume that Penny Arcade is its own cultural bubble completely disconnected from the outside world which is completely absurd.)
Sexist reasoning gives sexists ammo. By furthering the meme that a woman's clothing can or should or does define how she is treated, you're taking responsibility off the men and putting it on women. All the hedging in the world doesn't reverse that.
That's still moot, though. First of all, I'd appreciate if you didn't use the term "deserving it" because it's absolutely terrible in every way and not at all what I believe. Anyway, I think you're too focused on the judging idea, there's no judging here, it's a suggestion. Whether or not a woman is going out of her way to look attractive is her own judgment, and I would suggest that women use their own better judgment in these instances as to whether or not they should go out of their way to look sexually attractive. I understand that there are benefits in making oneself look attractive, but there needs to be a weighing of these benefits against what possible bad could come in certain situations. I wouldn't suggest that more women dress to be attractive than dress to be comfortable, because frankly I have no freaking idea and that's incredibly variable between individuals. I'm just suggesting that there should be more pressure on each individual person to more consider that there are definitely instances where being more attractive is not worth the negative attention it brings to you.
That's exactly true. My point is that there should be more effort to make people understand that in some instances dressing to feel attractive will attract perverts, and they should take that into consideration.
It's great to tout personal responsibility, but my point is that nothing that a sane person wears is designed to make them look unattractive. Dressing for comfort, which is what most sane people do most of the time, will produce an attractive outfit more often than not. Because people generally look attractive in anything that doesn't make them look like clowns. More to the point, no one can judge what every person who sees them today will find attractive. I like the way I look in button-downs, I think I look chubby in t-shirts. Should I be expected to weigh the opinions of strangers who might think I look hot in t-shirts?
And seriously, what is an attractive person supposed to do? Not leave the house without a disguise unless they want strangers giving them more attention than they'd like?
You're just creating a hypothetical where no matter what course a woman takes, you can kinda sorta maybe say they should have been more careful because hey some guys like big lips and she could cover them up if she didn't want to be accosted.
I think you're taking what I'm saying too far. The attractive person can't do anything about the fact that they're just naturally attractive, and they shouldn't try to. Like I said, you shouldn't go out of your way to look unattractive, but you shouldn't go out of your way to look attractive either if the benefits of looking more attractive aren't going to outweigh the potential dangers. Which is another important thing, I'm talking about doing so when you're going into situations where there are heavy potential dangers.
The most important thing though is that I'm not assigning blame here. My logic is supposed to be preventative, not to decide whether the woman was acting irresponsibly after the fact.
I don't personally disrespect women, but I am aware that there are other people out there who do.
Is it wrong for me to advocate that women protect themselves from those idiots, while at the same time I ALSO advocate that those idiots quit their disrespect?
(Also: that you can't simultaneously claim that misogynism is so rampant that a woman needs to expect mistreatment if she wears certain clothes in public while simultaneously claiming that "men should not disrespect women" is a non-controversial statement. Those two ideas are at odds; unless you assume that Penny Arcade is its own cultural bubble completely disconnected from the outside world which is completely absurd.)
I don't think those two ideas are at odds, the former describes something that is that shouldn't be, and the latter describes something that isn't that should be.
Though I should clarify, again, for the fifth time, that I don't think the first statement is grounds to judge someone on, or to lay blame for anything on.
Sexist reasoning gives sexists ammo. By furthering the meme that a woman's clothing can or should or does define how she is treated, you're taking responsibility off the men and putting it on women. All the hedging in the world doesn't reverse that.
My question is where are the sexists that we're giving ammo to in this discussion right now? What number of people are going to read this thread and think "a bunch of points were made that totally justify my sexist beliefs"?
Any other answer gives sexists a free pass, whether you intend it to or not.
Yeah, but I want to talk about the not-so-simple answer, which is what can we do to prevent men from disrespecting women. I think it's an important topic.
By react, are you reffering to a specific set of reactions, or ANY reaction at all?
Any reaction more severe than "Why hello good madame, fine day isn't it, may I just be so bold as to say that you are looking quite fetching today. May your day be sunny and pleasant, tah-tah!" is an increasingly bad idea.
--
Ajalkaline: Education. Including the national economic effect of being a shithead.
Including the national economic effect of being a shithead.
...What?
A good example of major dickery causing financial problems is how much potential societal growth we lost by treating 51% of the population as pets and maids. Modern dickery results in lots of money having to go to various psychological and safety programs, not to mention medical costs.
Including the national economic effect of being a shithead.
...What?
A good example of major dickery causing financial problems is how much potential societal growth we lost by treating 51% of the population as pets and maids. Modern dickery results in lots of money having to go to various psychological and safety programs, not to mention medical costs.
People being dicks is fucking expensive.
Ah, I understand what you mean.
What would you suggest, then? More cracking down on violent and domestic crime? I know personally I'd love to see the suspect capture and conviction rate for rape go up a hell of a lot. It's somewhat ridiculous, there's an enormously staggering likelihood that DNA evidence will be left with the victim, and regardless rapists continue to walk free. It just should be infinitely more straight forward than it ends up being.
I have to agree that education concerning gender inequality, sexual harassment, and domestic violence needs to be pushed much more heavily, but I couldn't say exactly how that should be gone about. How young is too young to start talking to children about this, or is the primary problem that you cannot possibly begin teaching them at a young enough age.
The thing that really bothers me is that there's still a significant portion of pop culture that actively denigrates women. I think you're all familiar with how "bitches" and "hos" have become increasingly more familiar to our society. How do you combat that sort of crap?
Education is the main issue. The rest will follow education, because until people are educated, they won't CARE enough to do anything else.
Because we're a money-obsessed culture, I would aim for the economic angle at this time. Empathy is a lot trickier to slip into the populace than greed.
The issue really has to be pressed as soon as parents are able to press the bad ideas on to children. Trick will be keeping zealots of it. You can't solve mysogyny by letting mysandronists give lesson plans.
Society as a whole needs to be made aware of how expensive it is to be bigoted so that the people who love money more than people will pay attention and stop spreading bigotry so much.
There is also a lot of societal pressure on women to cover up by way of blaming them for harassment and other on the grounds that they were dressed too revealingly, often when they're actually not dressed revealingly at all. I think that's just as important to combat.
Ah, so you acknowledge that both are equally important to combat, then.
There is also a lot of societal pressure on women to cover up by way of blaming them for harassment and other on the grounds that they were dressed too revealingly, often when they're actually not dressed revealingly at all. I think that's just as important to combat.
Ah, so you acknowledge that both are equally important to combat, then.
Good to know.
Considering your environment is also important to combat. There may be a makeshift weapon lying around, or some form of cover, perhaps a place to hide or a way to trip up your foe so you can run away.
Education is the main issue. The rest will follow education, because until people are educated, they won't CARE enough to do anything else.
Because we're a money-obsessed culture, I would aim for the economic angle at this time. Empathy is a lot trickier to slip into the populace than greed.
The issue really has to be pressed as soon as parents are able to press the bad ideas on to children. Trick will be keeping zealots of it. You can't solve mysogyny by letting mysandronists give lesson plans.
Society as a whole needs to be made aware of how expensive it is to be bigoted so that the people who love money more than people will pay attention and stop spreading bigotry so much.
I think you're taking what I'm saying too far. The attractive person can't do anything about the fact that they're just naturally attractive, and they shouldn't try to. Like I said, you shouldn't go out of your way to look unattractive, but you shouldn't go out of your way to look attractive either if the benefits of looking more attractive aren't going to outweigh the potential dangers. Which is another important thing, I'm talking about doing so when you're going into situations where there are heavy potential dangers.
The most important thing though is that I'm not assigning blame here. My logic is supposed to be preventative, not to decide whether the woman was acting irresponsibly after the fact.
See, that makes a bit more sense to me. But I still think that attempting to be preventative about something as fluid as what's seen as "attractive to men" is silly. I mean, first of all what is attractive to men is extremely variable. It also has a lot to do with your body, which isn't as easily changed as your clothes. Your prescription that women avoid specifically looking attractive for men simply invites speculation as to which women are being accosted despite their purity and which are being accosted due to their brazenness.
I understand that this isn't necessarily the intent, but I can't see any other real application of this line of reasoning. It's not going to be all that useful to women, seeing as how they don't know the tastes of all the people they might encounter and so cannot necessarily avoid being attractive to them. Asking women to protect themselves from other people's gaze is asking them to become mind readers. Worse, mind readers who need to learn new rules for every situation they enter. You present it as a simple sliding scale of "less-attractive/dangerous<
>more-attractive/dangerous". But that scale is constantly shifting, mostly invisible, and you're born near one or the other end without knowing which or what exactly you can do to go higher or lower. It doesn't seem like a helpful metric.
There might be specific situations where it's easier to apply that, but they're few and far between. It makes more sense to simply cover it all at once by saying "whatever your tastes, respect other people". Working this angle might seem overly indirect, but working it from the other direction does more harm than good in my opinion.
Edit: And yeah, I like Incenjucar's idea. Education that's presented as practical rather than something we do in spite of our best instinct is a really good idea. People too often associate "equality" with everyone taking a hit because of the damn commies.
Devils Advocate: So any preventative measure that isnt 100% effective should be ignored outright? Hooray for no more condoms, abstinence education is truly the only way to go. /devil
I dont think anyone is advocating conservative dress as a final solution, they are mostly advocating it as a protective preventative measure while we clean up this mess.
Unless the point of attacking them is that by women wearing khakis and burkenstocks with flanel shirts or pantsuits is actually setting back progress on combating mens entitlement issues with making women sexual objects.
Devils Advocate: So any preventative measure that isnt 100% effective should be ignored outright? Hooray for no more condoms, abstinence education is truly the only way to go. /devil
I dont think anyone is advocating conservative dress as a final solution, they are mostly advocating it as a protective preventative measure while we clean up this mess.
Unless the point of attacking them is that by women wearing khakis and burkenstocks with flanel shirts or pantsuits is actually setting back progress on combating mens entitlement issues with making women sexual objects.
Sensible reply: No, a preventative measure that is at best ineffective the majority of the time and at worst counterproductive over the short and long term should be avoided. See the temporary gas tax reduction thread for another example.
Example: Who says khakis and flannel won't make a woman look incredibly sexy? I just can't think of a situation where this supposedly easy to understand scale is easy to apply.
Devils Advocate: So any preventative measure that isnt 100% effective should be ignored outright?
No, any preventative measure that is impossible to quantify and creates a catch-22 should not be used to prescribe behavior, nor should the presence of such a preventative measure be used to ignore the existence of the original problem.
So you are saying that people who intentionally tone down their mode of dress in order to attempt to avoid unwanted attention are setting back progress?
If wearing more modest clothing is a catch-22 in that you need to wear ever more modest clothing, how is that not setting back progress on people being allowed to wear anything they want without fear of harrassment?
If wearing more modest clothing is a catch-22 in that you need to wear ever more modest clothing, how is that not setting back progress on people being allowed to wear anything they want without fear of harrassment?
Nope. It's a catch-22 because it creates the expectation that they control ogling by controlling their clothing even though controlling their clothing won't effectively stop ogling unless taken to an extreme. What you described isn't even a catch-22.
Posts
Ceasing to use extreme examples to build an argument that "she knew x would happen if she did y and she did y anyway so 'sucks for her'(someone's exact words)" would be a start.
In what language?
Man, you're going out of your way to misunderstand what I mean. Sometimes I like to mince words too, but honestly man. Most people have some understanding of what features in clothing will engender a specifically sexual response in people commonly found in different environments. You're being an ass if you're trying to make me define specific lines of what's revealing and what's not, because you're missing the point. I'm suggesting that one should be advised not to go out of their way to look sexually attractive if they know they're going to be in an environment where having this aspect of sexual attractiveness may engender an unwanted response. I'm not suggesting that people ought to go out of their way to look unattractive, and I never said so.
Also, the woman's never at goddamn fault. I keep saying this. What I'm saying is society is at fault for creating this situation.
To be fair, I would never say that and I think someone who would is an asshole.
Okay. That makes more sense than what I thought I was responding to. What I'd say to that is that it is, for a good portion of women, not attractiveness that is the most pertinent thing on their mind when thinking about what to wear. Often, it's comfort. Whether or not they end up looking attractive in what they find comfortable might be completely up to chance. Should my girlfriend be classed as "deserving it" because she looks hot in a t-shirt and jeans? Who gets to decide that a woman "went out of her way to be attractive" and when she just happens to be a good looking person or a person more comfortable in low cut shirts?
That's still moot, though. First of all, I'd appreciate if you didn't use the term "deserving it" because it's absolutely terrible in every way and not at all what I believe. Anyway, I think you're too focused on the judging idea, there's no judging here, it's a suggestion. Whether or not a woman is going out of her way to look attractive is her own judgment, and I would suggest that women use their own better judgment in these instances as to whether or not they should go out of their way to look sexually attractive. I understand that there are benefits in making oneself look attractive, but there needs to be a weighing of these benefits against what possible bad could come in certain situations. I wouldn't suggest that more women dress to be attractive than dress to be comfortable, because frankly I have no freaking idea and that's incredibly variable between individuals. I'm just suggesting that there should be more pressure on each individual person to more consider that there are definitely instances where being more attractive is not worth the negative attention it brings to you.
That's exactly true. My point is that there should be more effort to make people understand that in some instances dressing to feel attractive will attract perverts, and they should take that into consideration.
Absolutely.
And people need to remember that EVERYONE can see what they are wearing, not just themselves.
If you don't mind that, then sure, wear whatever the heck you like.
The issue is not what others can see but how they react to what they see.
And seriously, what is an attractive person supposed to do? Not leave the house without a disguise unless they want strangers giving them more attention than they'd like?
You're just creating a hypothetical where no matter what course a woman takes, you can kinda sorta maybe say they should have been more careful because hey some guys like big lips and she could cover them up if she didn't want to be accosted.
No it isn't.
We're all in agreement here that certain reactions are unjustifiable. That is a non-issue.
Nope, I didn't.
My point was that the reasoning itself is sexist. That doesn't necessarily mean that you are sexist (although it doesn't necessarily mean you're not, either, and there are one or two posters I have my suspicions about). (Also: that you can't simultaneously claim that misogynism is so rampant that a woman needs to expect mistreatment if she wears certain clothes in public while simultaneously claiming that "men should not disrespect women" is a non-controversial statement. Those two ideas are at odds; unless you assume that Penny Arcade is its own cultural bubble completely disconnected from the outside world which is completely absurd.)
Sexist reasoning gives sexists ammo. By furthering the meme that a woman's clothing can or should or does define how she is treated, you're taking responsibility off the men and putting it on women. All the hedging in the world doesn't reverse that.
In short, I don't care.
Simple answer: stop disrespecting women.
Any other answer gives sexists a free pass, whether you intend it to or not.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think you're taking what I'm saying too far. The attractive person can't do anything about the fact that they're just naturally attractive, and they shouldn't try to. Like I said, you shouldn't go out of your way to look unattractive, but you shouldn't go out of your way to look attractive either if the benefits of looking more attractive aren't going to outweigh the potential dangers. Which is another important thing, I'm talking about doing so when you're going into situations where there are heavy potential dangers.
The most important thing though is that I'm not assigning blame here. My logic is supposed to be preventative, not to decide whether the woman was acting irresponsibly after the fact.
It's the entirety of the issue.
If people did not react to appearance then appearance would not be a matter of controversy.
I don't personally disrespect women, but I am aware that there are other people out there who do.
Is it wrong for me to advocate that women protect themselves from those idiots, while at the same time I ALSO advocate that those idiots quit their disrespect?
By react, are you reffering to a specific set of reactions, or ANY reaction at all?
Though I should clarify, again, for the fifth time, that I don't think the first statement is grounds to judge someone on, or to lay blame for anything on.
My question is where are the sexists that we're giving ammo to in this discussion right now? What number of people are going to read this thread and think "a bunch of points were made that totally justify my sexist beliefs"?
Yeah, but I want to talk about the not-so-simple answer, which is what can we do to prevent men from disrespecting women. I think it's an important topic.
Any reaction more severe than "Why hello good madame, fine day isn't it, may I just be so bold as to say that you are looking quite fetching today. May your day be sunny and pleasant, tah-tah!" is an increasingly bad idea.
--
Ajalkaline: Education. Including the national economic effect of being a shithead.
A good example of major dickery causing financial problems is how much potential societal growth we lost by treating 51% of the population as pets and maids. Modern dickery results in lots of money having to go to various psychological and safety programs, not to mention medical costs.
People being dicks is fucking expensive.
Ah, I understand what you mean.
What would you suggest, then? More cracking down on violent and domestic crime? I know personally I'd love to see the suspect capture and conviction rate for rape go up a hell of a lot. It's somewhat ridiculous, there's an enormously staggering likelihood that DNA evidence will be left with the victim, and regardless rapists continue to walk free. It just should be infinitely more straight forward than it ends up being.
I have to agree that education concerning gender inequality, sexual harassment, and domestic violence needs to be pushed much more heavily, but I couldn't say exactly how that should be gone about. How young is too young to start talking to children about this, or is the primary problem that you cannot possibly begin teaching them at a young enough age.
The thing that really bothers me is that there's still a significant portion of pop culture that actively denigrates women. I think you're all familiar with how "bitches" and "hos" have become increasingly more familiar to our society. How do you combat that sort of crap?
Because we're a money-obsessed culture, I would aim for the economic angle at this time. Empathy is a lot trickier to slip into the populace than greed.
The issue really has to be pressed as soon as parents are able to press the bad ideas on to children. Trick will be keeping zealots of it. You can't solve mysogyny by letting mysandronists give lesson plans.
Society as a whole needs to be made aware of how expensive it is to be bigoted so that the people who love money more than people will pay attention and stop spreading bigotry so much.
Ah, so you acknowledge that both are equally important to combat, then.
Good to know.
Considering your environment is also important to combat. There may be a makeshift weapon lying around, or some form of cover, perhaps a place to hide or a way to trip up your foe so you can run away.
This angle is interesting.
I understand that this isn't necessarily the intent, but I can't see any other real application of this line of reasoning. It's not going to be all that useful to women, seeing as how they don't know the tastes of all the people they might encounter and so cannot necessarily avoid being attractive to them. Asking women to protect themselves from other people's gaze is asking them to become mind readers. Worse, mind readers who need to learn new rules for every situation they enter. You present it as a simple sliding scale of "less-attractive/dangerous<
>more-attractive/dangerous". But that scale is constantly shifting, mostly invisible, and you're born near one or the other end without knowing which or what exactly you can do to go higher or lower. It doesn't seem like a helpful metric.
There might be specific situations where it's easier to apply that, but they're few and far between. It makes more sense to simply cover it all at once by saying "whatever your tastes, respect other people". Working this angle might seem overly indirect, but working it from the other direction does more harm than good in my opinion.
Edit: And yeah, I like Incenjucar's idea. Education that's presented as practical rather than something we do in spite of our best instinct is a really good idea. People too often associate "equality" with everyone taking a hit because of the damn commies.
I dont think anyone is advocating conservative dress as a final solution, they are mostly advocating it as a protective preventative measure while we clean up this mess.
Unless the point of attacking them is that by women wearing khakis and burkenstocks with flanel shirts or pantsuits is actually setting back progress on combating mens entitlement issues with making women sexual objects.
MWO: Adamski
Example: Who says khakis and flannel won't make a woman look incredibly sexy? I just can't think of a situation where this supposedly easy to understand scale is easy to apply.
No, any preventative measure that is impossible to quantify and creates a catch-22 should not be used to prescribe behavior, nor should the presence of such a preventative measure be used to ignore the existence of the original problem.
MWO: Adamski
MWO: Adamski
Nope. It's a catch-22 because it creates the expectation that they control ogling by controlling their clothing even though controlling their clothing won't effectively stop ogling unless taken to an extreme. What you described isn't even a catch-22.