The Feminist Thread

[allegro]

Here's an article that explains some of the details of the case, and gives perhaps a more hopeful perspective: http://groupthink.kinja.com/what-rea...ine-1760244144

This is very true and makes very good points, and it was difficult to pull up any 'REAL' data yesterday when doing a search because the Internet was rife with the other "stuff." Except this trial (and waiting FOR the trial to appear on the docket after both parties are ready and the court isn't totally booked with other cases) could take 3 years so that is probably why she wanted a prelim injunction. People online are suggesting things like Kesha releasing independent mix tapes and stuff, but that kinda stuff also violates her current contract. I still don't know why she chose THIS attorney instead of some high-class entertainment attorney, weird.

[KarenLeslie]

MOTIVE!!

Accusing a black man of rape so that he could be hung by a tree until dead because you want to impress your KKK boyfriend is a different motive than angry girlfriend accusing her ex-boyfriend of date-rape so that he can get into trouble and the worst that can happen is the case doesn't even get to trial.

I'm assuming you're aware of what's going on on college campuses, with young men being accused of rape with no due process and in some cases being expelled? You're talking about false rape accusations like they're something that can be treated as academic, and I don't understand that.

Also, do people understand that taking a more nuanced stance than "ALWAYS believe the victim!" is emphatically not the same thing as assuming the victim is lying? Because I think those two things are being conflated quite a bit. I would understand people being pissed at me if I was saying I assumed the victim was lying by default, but what I'm saying is closer to the opposite of that.

[Khrz]

There was a bit of confusion when it came to who should believe the accuser, most people (including me) thinking we were talking about the general public, while the other side was basically saying "always assume the accuser is being honest and straightforward", which obviously should be a given during the process.

[allegro]

I'm assuming you're aware of what's going on on college campuses, with young men being accused of rape with no due process and in some cases being expelled?

Yes, and that is why there has been a lot of argument as to why Title IX requires the schools to NOT to handle these matters on their own and for them to be handled by criminal experts - the legal system, police, etc. - and not by the schools, themselves. The schools do not have the ability to handle these matters, legally or fairly.

There was a bit of confusion when it came to who should believe the accuser, most people (including me) thinking we were talking about the general public, while the other side was basically saying "always assume the accuser is being honest and straightforward", which obviously should be a given during the process.

Well, yes, and there also has to be an emotional consideration given, here. This is a small community filled with human beings, not a giant group of anonymous drones like on reddit; here, we have people who have been sexually assaulted on this board, in this thread, so this is an emotional issue for them; and when they see the words "do not always believe the victim," it can make them physically ill, PTSD, so these kinds of discussions where we think we are having a broad discussion about anonymous people don't happen in a vacuum.

[KarenLeslie]

Yes, and that is why there has been a lot of argument as to why Title IX requires the schools to NOT to handle these matters on their own and for them to be handled by criminal experts - the legal system, police, etc. - and not by the schools, themselves. The schools do not have the ability to handle these matters, legally or fairly.

In total agreement with you here.

Well, yes, and there also has to be an emotional consideration given, here. This is a small community filled with human beings, not a giant group of anonymous drones like on reddit; here, we have people who have been sexually assaulted on this board, in this thread, so this is an emotional issue for them; and when they see the words "do not always believe the victim," it can make them physically ill, PTSD, so these kinds of discussions where we think we are having a broad discussion about anonymous people don't happen in a vacuum.

I'm glad you brought this up. I was not sexually assaulted (well some asshole tried in a Blockbuster once, but that's another story), but I do have OCD and anxiety disorder; I can be upset by things that are completely innocuous to most other people. But because my triggers (for lack of a better term) are highly individual, I just have to deal with it; I cannot ask, and do not expect, internet communities (or anyone other than close family) to be on the lookout for my emotional safety.

It's not that I'm callous to the feelings of people who have been sexually assaulted, but well...virtually everything is a trigger for somebody. And when phrases that don't have any malicious intent are supposed to be avoided because it may be upsetting, how are conversations supposed to occur?

[allegro]

It's not that I'm callous to the feelings of people who have been sexually assaulted, but well...virtually everything is a trigger for somebody. And when phrases that don't have any malicious intent are supposed to be avoided because it may be upsetting, how are conversations supposed to occur?

I don't know, and I'm not pointing specifically at you but instead at a few trolls that are the usual suspects, but I do think that we need to be mindful of people here in this community where this type of language is a trigger, as one has already indicated that this conversation has made him physically ill and he has nearly vomited. These people are our FRIENDS, not just forum members, and we generally respect each other in really trying not to hurt each other. We do the same by not name-calling with mental illness jabs, etc. These conversations are not SO important that we can't go elsewhere to have them in avoidance of hurting people, here. The Internet is very big and full of anonymous blind meaningless places, with plenty of places to have this conversation elsewhere without hurting certain members of this community.

[KarenLeslie]

I don't know, and I'm not pointing specifically at you but instead at a few trolls that are the usual suspects, but I do think that we need to be mindful of people here in this community where this type of language is a trigger, as one has already indicated that this conversation has made him physically ill and he has nearly vomited. These people are our FRIENDS, not just forum members, and we generally respect each other in really trying not to hurt each other. We do the same by not name-calling with mental illness jabs, etc. These conversations are not SO important that we can't go elsewhere to have them in avoidance of hurting people, here. The Internet is very big and full of anonymous blind meaningless places, with plenty of places to have this conversation elsewhere without hurting certain members of this community.

Ok, I do see you're point. I think it's a problem when places that are actually very big take the same approach, but that's my problem for another day. Anyway, it's not my intent to troll, so I'll stop replying here...unless someone calls me names or something, then I'll totally do the "I said that was going to be my last post BUT--" thing

[Mantra]

The thing is, I would be super interested in having a serious conversation about how to handle the difficulties of rape investigations and trials.

The vast majority of sexual assaults are not even reported, let alone tried and convicted. It would be great to see this situation improved and more perpetrators brought to justice, but obviously this would need to be done in a way that didn't erode due process or the presumption of innocence, etc, and didn't result in increased rates of false convictions. In another context, that could be a productive, illuminating discussion. I'd love to talk about that with a gang of smart, serious people who were capable of analyzing the process and considering the various scenarios. But in this thread it just feels like a lost cause. It's just so hard talk about anything seriously.

For example, I actually do think that "false accusation/conviction," in spite of being an incredibly rare phenomenon, is something to consider when we're talking about how to improve prosecution against sexual assault, and I too thought about the way that rape accusations were once widely used by white racists to justify the lynching of black men. I feel like this is a fairly reasonable thing to consider given that we live in the era of "the new jim crow," where the justice/prison system primarily functions as a means of disenfranchising black americans. But it feels impossible to bring that up in the middle of a thread where Wolfkiller is spewing toxic garbage like: "It will be so rad when we move past this fantasy of women rarely being lying psychopaths." Shit like that basically ruins the whole conversation, because, given how repulsive the statement is, I don't want to look like I'm even remotely "on his side" by bringing my own thoughts about the racist history. And that's a small example of why, in an ongoing sense, it's hard to be chill and thoughtful and open minded in this thread, because people are always saying crap like that, and it automatically plunges the conversation into war mode.

I would like to discuss this issue with a group of like minded people, where we all trusted each other and understood that everyone participating was "one of the good guys" and we understand that, even if we disagreed about this thing or that thing, we were all committed feminists who were simply trying to explore the nuances of this issue, all the for the sake of the same end goal, more or less. I wouldn't even care if anti-feminists came in to discuss something, as long as they could chill the fuck out while doing so. But this thread has been stuck in the same endless grind for years now, where it basically only exists as a never ending combat zone. There's always some crew of hostile anti-feminists who approach conversation with this antagonistic, overly-embattled mentality, and so of course the whole thing devolves into a three day bloodbath until the feminists can finally "restore order," after which everyone is burned out, so the thread activity just dies off until the next big raid a few weeks/months later. Rinse, wash, repeat. And it's fucking BORING. I want to have INTERESTING discussions, not a bunch of pointless fights that go nowhere because the other party doesn't actually give a fuck and has really only come here to talk shit.

[Lew]

@Mantra thank you!!! have been trying to calm down enough to articulate something similar. cosigned to the nth degree!

[Volband]

And, again, re this Kesha case, this wasn't solely about sexual abuse, this was also about emotional abuse, about control and exerting control, about fear, stuff like that, and whether or not a working relationship under a commercial contract was possible given all of those conditions. And somehow some bunch of lifeless nerds (both male and female) on a reddit group get all nutty about this and focus on: FEMINISM ZOMG. Like that is somehow the "real problem."

I hope you included the feminist group on the same site (reddit) which just went town on the producer because "omg Kesha cried </3" and other convincing reasons. Stupidity has no boundaries on either side.

I'm glad you brought this up. I was not sexually assaulted (well some asshole tried in a Blockbuster once, but that's another story), but I do have OCD and anxiety disorder; I can be upset by things that are completely innocuous to most other people. But because my triggers (for lack of a better term) are highly individual, I just have to deal with it; I cannot ask, and do not expect, internet communities (or anyone other than close family) to be on the lookout for my emotional safety.

It's not that I'm callous to the feelings of people who have been sexually assaulted, but well...virtually everything is a trigger for somebody. And when phrases that don't have any malicious intent are supposed to be avoided because it may be upsetting, how are conversations supposed to occur?

Holy shit, are you a girl? Marry me! You hit the nail on the head, tried your best to phrase it in the most PC way possible and all you got is two shallow facepalms, sending you the message that you still did not hit the "nice enough" bar, which ironically just strengthens your own argument.

You see, there's been a discussion here a while back about this thread being a safe place for some people, and I think it's justifiable. You should not tell others how to think about stuff in their own thread. You can trie to argue it, but if the response if a plain and simple no, then it's a no. And you will have nos because there are a dozen people here, so even (to bring back a lovely word) statistically speaking, someone will bound to have the complete opposite oponion to yours. And I dare to say, it's even needed to actually have a meaningful group to discuss stuff with; the wider the variety in thinking and viewing things, the more interesting discussions can emerge. If everyone would be parrotting the same thing, it would be pretty boring, right?

The problem is, these boundries are not treated equally at all. I can not, and frankly, would not ever tell someone who has been a victim of rape that they will participate in this discussion or else, or that they can not bring their own experiences to it. But somehow, it turned out to be "stop! can't you see you are hurting my friend here?!", bringing this whole thing to a pointless emotional level. To be fair, allegro contributed greatly already, so it's not like she tried to derail it from the start or anything, but eventually she did end up saying that. I would understand it if it was a real life conversation, but it's not. You can just not read the posts which are obviously related to this matter and do just fine. But no, someone was needlessly put in the spotline, guilt-tripping the shit out of the conversation. You want to go on? Sure, if you like to torture others..............

Why does it have to come to this? Everyone has at least one baggage, no one grew up with a crown on their head. It's part of the reason of having vastly different views: everyone was scarred in a different way, so we (more or less) have different priorities on what's a big deal and what's not. That's why some of us can talk about certain controversial topics with a cool as ice approach, while others are bound to make it more personal. In a way, it's beautiful, really, even if the events which lead to it were everything but that. However, I just don't understand when it is used as a shield and a mean to try to undermine a discussion from the very beginning.

And to come back full circle to the marrying you part, I just LOVE the rational approach you have about it and I wish more people would think the same way. No one is out to get you. Hell, maybe you are happy to talk about your problems. Now, I'm obviously not saying this in relation to Kesha's case, but anxiety and OCD sounds like stuff you might be relieved to know you could just get it out on the open and people would be all cool about it, which in return, would make you feel less self-conscious about it.

*stuff*

I like this post, because intentionally or not, it's shitting on both parties. Which is fair. What's not fair, however, is naming Wolfkiller as an example of someone who ruined the discussion. The guy might have his own style, but he called out things which needed to be called out. Of course, he made the mistake of adding an overly emotional ending to one of his post, and now all we remember how he is an ass. I understand that it would be neat if we were all gentlemen and gentlewomen, wearing tuxedos and lovely dresses, drinking our morning coffees while hitting up the "reply with quote" button, and using such marvelous sentences like "I see your point, and I must say, you presented it in the most delightful way possible. But, and I really hope I do not come across as offensive, I beg to concur on some of the points you brought up!" That would be some serious book-club shit, but that's a tad bit high standards if you ask me. Wolfkiller actually asked for a source on statistics, but no "serious discusser" could bother with it, but when he dropped a questionable sentence, suddenly everyone could find him with an "omg troll!!" message. Coins have two sides, and arguments could be made that if someone wants to be attacked, then he/she will be. As I said, it was faster to call Wolfkiller a destructive force, than actually back up the statistical claims which he requested.

But really, wait a week, interchange the names with Player 1, 2, 3 etc., put them in teams (Team A, B, C, etc.) and imagine this was all but just a social experiment. Then try to write a bio for every player based on their responses, and how (do you think) they approached the discussion. We truly had a mix of everything, and if we learned anything from this, is that you can't overcome a safe place. You could put players who could talk about this for a week without much drama in Group 1, and players who would just murder each other asap in Group 2. But the thing is, if you merge these, the result is not a discussion where tensions sometimes flare, but one where companionship triumphs, thus helping a "friend in need" gets higher priority than actually discussing stuff, and letting grown up people sort out their personal oppositions with other individuals.

Nevertheless, I still think we had a good run, and those of us who wanted to learn something, even if just some of the whys behind the other side's thinking, did so. There was no end on the horizon to begin with, we all knew we won't find THE truth or THE solution, but that's why such topics are much, much more interesting than things you can solve with math alone. Moral stuff also forces you to think outside of the box of "life is good, we all love each other, every and each one of us worth the same and deserves the same!" That's an easy, neutral, and untruthful thing to keep repeating, while not actually saying anything with depth.

[icklekitty]

I'm glad you brought this up. I was not sexually assaulted (well some asshole tried in a Blockbuster once, but that's another story), but I do have OCD and anxiety disorder; I can be upset by things that are completely innocuous to most other people. But because my triggers (for lack of a better term) are highly individual, I just have to deal with it; I cannot ask, and do not expect, internet communities (or anyone other than close family) to be on the lookout for my emotional safety.

It's not that I'm callous to the feelings of people who have been sexually assaulted, but well...virtually everything is a trigger for somebody. And when phrases that don't have any malicious intent are supposed to be avoided because it may be upsetting, how are conversations supposed to occur?

I'm a little horrified that people facepalmed you. This is why people hide their mental health problems and anxiety issues. I can completely empathise; I can no longer watch the news, I've blocked half of Facebook, and even a headline mention of some stories is extremely triggering and painful for me. I struggle to wrap my head around the pornographic way people around the world go into them, and often feel that being seen to do the right thing is far more important than actually doing the right thing, actually being empathetic, listening to the people who struggle and are in pain. I do agree a lot with your second paragraph. I think the people who worry about the minutiae of language are well-meaning, so I don't think they're bastards or wrong, it's just not the focus for me. I'm too busy with my nightmares and the fact that my reflection in the mirror resembles the face of pure evil to worry about this stuff; like you say "I just have to deal with it".


This doesn't have much to do with the current conversation in this thread but I wanted to say that I can identify with what you're saying. Feminism (or at least francophone post-structuralist feminism that I studied at uni) has always encouraged people to confront the horror of language rather than deny it. You need to get through it to surpass it.

[kel]

finally saw a production of the vagina monologues tonight. long overdue. really loved it.

[Lew]

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/588539573

i found this, and the ongoing commentary, to be interesting.

[Amaro]

I guess I'm curious about something, like if I'm missing something here. Seriously. So I'm posting this here and not in whatever the thread for being annoyed at something is called.

I didn't go out with some co-workers after work yesterday as I was way tired. I woke up this morning to the text below from a girl I work with, Rachel, who did go out with the co-workers. "You didn't miss much by not going out with us. After one beer I decided to school Peter about how he should stop referring to the women in the office as 'girls'...it didn't go over too well...I think." I woke up in such a good mood this morning before reading the text that it didn't set me off too much, but I'll admit it did some. I call all of the guys in the office "guys" (who make up a smaller portion of the office staff). I just don't typically use "man" or "men". And you see where I'm going with this... What is the matter? She has a track record for being super sensitive to this...kind of thing. I know I should just have a conversation with her about this stuff, as it comes up, but because I find it so childish I prefer to ignore it. I still haven't responded, because it's a nice solo Saturday (really good moods are hard to come by for me), and I just dunno about this? Before sharing some examples, I'll get one thing out of the way that comes to mind--she has openly said she's voting for Hilary purely because she's a woman.

Example 1) I gestured a "c'mere" to Rachel with my index finger from behind my desk as she was walking down the hallway in front of where I sit, and she accused that of being some kind of misogynistic thing.

Example 2) Rachel offered to make my cup of coffee as I was covering the front desk one time (not my actual station as in Example 1), which I can't leave unattended (it's a small family owned staffing agency and I'm the only designated backup to the front desk). She is an Account Representative, and in Sales, so she's generally walking about the office, never sitting at her desk in the back for more than 30 minutes (comes into the office for 1 1/2 hours at the front end and back end of each day). She did say it was a one-time thing, but I didn't think much on that. A bit extreme to say that, as we're borderline friends, let alone as co-workers who get along. (Keep in mind, she always helps herself to my creamers in the fridge, and I don't make a stink about it. We laugh about it, actually.) 1-2 months later, I have to cover the front desk again, and even though a new guy I was training happened to be at the front desk, I ask Rachel "Hey, Rachel, can you do me a favor?" and she already knows it's going to be about the coffee. I didn't think to ask the new guy for no reason other than I didn't think about it. (He's new? i.e. I'm not used to the extra body there. I was facing the front desk computer and Rachel walked in front of me?) Almost 2 hours later I read a text from her asking something like "Hey, this is just a social situation question... Why didn't you ask Zack to get you the coffee?"

I think I recall her vaguely talking about a bad relationship with a guy or her father or father figure, I really can't say 100%, but beyond this possible context, and even so, this is all very nerve racking.

[playwithfire]

So, the Hillary thing is pretty cringe-inducing to me, so I don't really feel like your coworker and I have the same perspective on this.

A thing I think everyone should do, which is trickier than it sounds and I certainly don't do perfectly, is to assume positive intent. So, trying to do that here.

While *you* would probably do the "c'mere" thing to anyone, or ask a known coworker to make you coffee vs. a new person, behavior like that can and does sometimes come from sexist thinking patterns in the workplace. The amount of women who can attest to having things like making the coffee, or planning a party, or grabbing lunch, or domestic stuff fall to them in the workplace due to their gender (that link being from Jezebel is irrelevant, the stories are pretty infuriating) is pretty significant. So, I can understand a woman feeling defensive about that.

I'm really fortunate, that despite working in software, I work in a place with really thoughtful people who don't do this shit. But if someone asked me to do something like that, I may think about it for a second. And then I'd assume positive intent, but like, that awareness is there.

Re: your last comment. I wouldn't assume it's a previous poor relationship with a man thing, that assumption itself is potentially a little problematic. I'd chock it up to her being a very defensive person (maybe not always fairly), but that perhaps some of that defensiveness is a reasonable reaction to the lived experiences of women.

Fwiw, I would be pretty not-keen on a male coworker referring to me and my female coworkers as "girls." "Guys" is so much more gender neutral (though I try to stick to y'all since it's still not always well received by everyone), and like, that term doesn't exist in a vacuum. Like maybe he doesn't mean anything by it, but there are plenty of sexist folks who have talked down to their female colleagues with that language, and unless someone can read their intent/context, it can be received badly.

[Lew]

personally, i loathe being referred to as a girl. i am almost 44 years old. i am a woman.
using "guy" or "guys' is not the same as saying "boy".
i don't think many men would like being called "boys".
as to the coffee thing: yeah, i get why she questioned it. it doesn't sound much like she was upset, just curious, based on the way you worded it...
look, there are so many little insidious gender based inequalities that just don't seem to want to exit the collective unconscious or conscious. so, though it may seem innocent enough her offering to get you a coffee vs you asking for one, i can get why it may irk her...and you.
honestly, i would look more at what my reactions to her were based on rather than what you speculate may be why she reacts the way she does. literally. if this were me, i would be looking at everything she does that bothers me and then determine what it is about ME and my experiences and perspective that has me reacting to her.

[Khrz]

Counterpoint though, in a work environment where the age ranges between 25 and 60, I find it okay to refer to the male and female population as "the boys" and "the girls".
I'm almost 40, wholeheartedly agree that I'm a man, not a boy, and I speak to women, regardless of the age (yeah, I very rarely chat with teens, not much of this around me), but referring to a group in a light-hearted manner as "boys" and "girls" doesn't really bother me. Individually it's a big no-no, but otherwise, whatever...

[Khrz]

Edit : that point really didn't deserve to be posted twice

[Lew]

Counterpoint though, in a work environment where the age ranges between 25 and 60, I find it okay to refer to the male and female population as "the boys" and "the girls".
I'm almost 40, wholeheartedly agree that I'm a man, not a boy, and I speak to women, regardless of the age (yeah, I very rarely chat with teens, not much of this around me), but referring to a group in a light-hearted manner as "boys" and "girls" doesn't really bother me. Individually it's a big no-no, but otherwise, whatever...

ok, lol, i will grant that as a collective reference it is not as "irksome". ;p

also: it seem to me that men and women are becoming more sensitive...does this mean that we are all *thinking* more..or *reacting* more? just curious what y'all think.

[theimage13]

does this mean that we are all *thinking* more..or *reacting* more? just curious what y'all think.

I think the former can lead to the latter.

I grew up making sexist jokes. I thought they were funny as shit. I admit that I was a dumb teenager and I didn't put any thought into the history of oppression.

But now, I'm working with grown ass men. Married, grown as men. Who make comments like "thank god for yoga pants" or "mmmm, yes please" when an attractive woman walks by. And it pisses me the fuck off. More than I can even put into words. The guys smile or laugh or make it out to be some sort of light hearted comment, or they'll even try to justify "married doesn't mean I can't look".

Holy fuck. Is this really what men are like? Is this what we've always been like? Is this the gender that most women have to put up with?

In my teens, I might have been right there with those guys. But no. Hell no. No fucking way would I ever get behind that kind of talk now. So to answer your question, thinking more about this kind of stuff has lead to reacting more to these situations.

[Khrz]

I think the former can lead to the latter.

Same, I used to make sexist jokes ironically until I realized that 1) : to be aware that they're ironical you first have to know me fairly well and that 2) : just because it's ironical doesn't make it inoffensive. I guess I just thought that being ironical made it automatically funny. I still think sexist jokes can exist, but they have to be actually funny, they need a good context and a great humor. Being outrageously sexist isn't a joke in itself in our society, sadly (same for racist jokes, etc : they can be funny, the problem is that they're not outlandish enough in our society to just work as is).

And I'd love to be able to say that it's a generational thing, the old guard still being stuck in its old sexist, smutty manners, but it's not. It's just like you said @Lew , some think about it, some just don't care and keep on.

[Lew]

yeah, i am finding that a) my sense of humour has definite shades of judgement at times...against humans in general, lol...and b) that having had kids has made me drastically re evaluate what i thought was "ok" my whole life (in terms of behaviour, language choices, humour...fuck, just everything.)
i would also love to say it is a generational thing, particularly because i am now fighting with my father over behaviour, language choices, humour etc and trying to get him to understand that it is not enough to expect the kids to not pick up on modelling...they don't buy into the old "i am an adult, so i can'.

in some ways it is mind blowing how much humans have changed in the last 30 years...in some ways it is mind blowing how much humans HAVEN'T changed, too.

ugh. sorry. i came on here to weigh in with something seemingly profound, and am instead tongue and brain tied. rah. love you all.

"y'all" is my favourite way to refer to collective humans. yes, love that it is gender free.

and yes, it is amazing to think "is this how men are?" buuuuuuuuuuut...just as amazing at times to think "holy fuck, is this how women really are???". two way street, for sure, just different architecture and feel on each street... ;p

[Sarah K]

I advocated for one of my friends to fuck my other friend. She did. It was good, so then she recommended him to another friend.

Then, last night, he said "SJW" and "misandry". As a poly, queer, POC, that blows my mind. But anyway... Now I feel terrible for suggesting that my friends fuck him. Grr.

[Khrz]

Then, last night, he said "SJW" and "misandry

So I might be biased, because I tend to find that deciding that some words are bad is just silly. But what is it about SJW ? Where are we at about that ? Does it describe people rightfully concerned about social injustices ? Does it describe people who need to scrutinize everything in order to find a good reason to be outraged ? Are we actually going deeper and describing the person using the term as a backwards hardcore hillbilly ? I'm completely lost.
Same with misandry. It's a thing. It's not an actual social issue, merely an attitude or a posture most of the time and I personally don't care, but it does exist. Obviously, compared to the consequences of misogyny, misandry is a fucking joke and any person using it seriously instantly loses all credibility.

But I guess, like everything, it depends entirely on the context of the conversation and on the actual use of those words, and that you weren't so much angered by the words than disappointed by how they came in the conversation...

[Sarah K]

It was re: this tweet that we were discussing

#MasculinitySoFragile that it's more important to teach women to reject men politely than it is to teach men to accept rejection peacefully

I hate that hashtag, as well. But I think the message is relevant. He was like WHY NOT BOTH? And I agree with that. But the problem is that both are not taught. Or, if young boys ARE taught to handle rejection peacefully, they sure as shit are not retaining that information in their adult lives. I think the key words in the tweet are "more important".

I don't mind SJW when used in a joking context... I use it all of the time. I asked him to clarify if he was using those terms in a humorous manner, or if he was being serious, and he never answered. So I'm just assuming that he meant them in a serious manner. I don't think any of us were outraged and I don't think that he is a hillbilly. It was just really, really disappointing coming from him. As a person who himself faces all sorts of barriers and obstacles in life, it just seemed out of left field to me. I plan on discussing it further in person, as all of our responses were pretty long. I think a lot can get lost in walls of text.

[Khrz]

I plan on discussing it further in person, as all of our responses were pretty long. I think a lot can get lost in walls of text.

Indeed, it's really hard to convey the nuances and subtleties of an actual conversation via text, and when you actually can it generally requires a vocabulary that make you sound condescending, just by using it.
But you pretty much answered my stupid question, to which I already knew the answer : it depends on the context and the person using it.

[Sarah K]

Alternately, I just had a facebook interaction with my little sister's boyfriend about using "The Friend Zone". It ended with him acknowledging that he was "not in the friend zone, just denied".

YES <3 <3 <3

I love it when these conversations can be productive. He and my sister are super young. But he legitimately seems to care about her and love her a lot. And he's willing to evaluate what we say to him. I'm happy for her.

[Lew]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b016f37897554a

wonderful <3

[cashpiles (closed)]

But now, I'm working with grown ass men. Married, grown as men. Who make comments like "thank god for yoga pants" or "mmmm, yes please" when an attractive woman walks by. And it pisses me the fuck off. More than I can even put into words. The guys smile or laugh or make it out to be some sort of light hearted comment, or they'll even try to justify "married doesn't mean I can't look".

Holy fuck. Is this really what men are like? Is this what we've always been like? Is this the gender that most women have to put up with?

Men are highly visual in terms of sexual attraction. Men cannot help but feel attraction when they see a woman wearing clothing that flatters and reveals her figure.

There is no on-off switch. You could say that this is a curse for both men and women. It's a curse because men can't turn it off and a lot of women FUCKING HATE it when a man sees them in that way.

Men CAN however control what they say.

But here's the social experiment I have in mind: men should find the behavior or way of dressing that turns on women uncontrollably and then see what happens.

Also, I think even if you're married you will look at other people sometimes. Men and women both do it. If you see a sexy hunk of a man in some movie (ie: Avengers), you will enjoy looking at him. Both sexes do this. It doesn't matter if you're married or not.

[botley]

Yeah but the undercurrent of masculine aggression in vocalizing these desires is the problem. Being attracted is *never* the problem, and yet it gets the biological imperative defence every. Single. Time.

Be a polite, civil person. For fuck's sake.