I'm considering context, here. Look at the first picture on the website. This woman appears to have contributed her own photo to the site. She appears to have commented on her own photograph and feeds the "climate" of the site by commenting on the sex she had that night.
Read other comments. The majority are..."I want to get with that" type of comments. I don't construe these comments as disparaging, considering the CONTEXT of the material presented on this website.
I'd evaluate context differently, if I knew that the photographs were stolen and submitted without the knowledge of the featured women or those featured were underrage, as I've stated before.
Personally, I think the jury is out on the who actually submitted those photos. It's rather like "Girls Gone Wild" controversy, where video is captured of women while they're drunk and encouraging them to expose themselves or perform acts for the camera, and all unpaid and uncredited. I am suspicious of the source of these photographs.
Heather, I think it's more complicated than this. And I do believe that sometimes that which is interpreted as an "attack" isn't intended as an attack. Sometimes, harsh opinion stings and is internalized when it's not directed towards an indivdiual - but merely towards a blanket lable characteristic that someone might find objectionable.
I find it anti-feministic to demand that others stifle their opinion, even if it's objectionable to women or results in shame, in a general sense. Americans should be able to freely express their opinions.
Absolutely. I agree. But like others have noticed when I come across POV's that I don't are helping feminism progress toward true equality, I throw cat toys and tell them what I think.
However, when we begin to infringe upon rights, my opinions change.
Please don't construe my opinions regarding this Facebook Page as a support of ****-shaming. There's no way in hell I'd support a woman being verbally bantered for being raped, assaulted, or for making decisions that are in her best interest.
I appreciate that, and it's why I asked. I never saw you to be the type to do that given how long we've been here in various conversations with each other. I needed to wrap my head around your argument. Hence why I kept repeating my question. I believe your sincerity and have no doubts about your feminism.
But, I don't equate calling a woman who fits a particular stereotype and self-identifies as "****" - to be **** shaming - in the same sense as someone who has been verbally harassed because she was raped or chose to abort her baby.
I do support the right to criticize and protest as long as it does not cross boundaries that can cause a woman undue harm, but, not merely in the sense of offense.
Ah, I get what you're saying. When I was administrator here, and beyond, I always preferred to allow caustic speech and provocative opinions regardless of how much things might sting. As a matter of fact, the kind of folks I find myself liking personally the most are those who ARE rabble rousers, so to speak. It's a part of myself that I see in others, and I think it's cool.
My opinion expands the scope from the microcosm of personal experience for each and every woman to the macrocosm of culture. I think where you and I meet is somewhere in the middle.
Further, I don't object to women being able to dress as they want to dress or to live their lives as they want to live. But, women do need to acknowledge how their actions influence stereotypes and the larger picture of activism and equality.
I agree to a point. Many stereotypes are not the doing of women at all, but the subjective standards that others place on them for how they are to behave, look, talk, act, etc. I don't find it so much that women place themselves in those positions
wanting the attention, but that it just happens to fall under the cultural definition of what a "****" looks like.
Some women sexually objectify themselves, fueling the negative stereotypes that no single woman can eradicate on her own.
I'm not saying that women can't dress as they please and shouldn't be able to freely express without harassment.
But, a comment under a facebook picture that a woman submitted herself is hardly the type of FLAME comparable to a woman being harassed without any sort of provocation.
I'm hesitant to agree, but I understand that your position.
Agreed and great example.
I think you do raise a very good point here. You're right, as women we should be empowering each other to live as independently and confidently as possible. And I don't agree with the messaging that women "deserve all the negative attention they get".
I do not understand the woman who would self-identify as "****" or without qualm sexually objectify herself or identify her behavior as sexual but then take issue if others PERCEIVED her behavior in such a way.
I find that to be similar to all the people who find themselves in disastrous relationships and jobs and then wonder "why does this always happen to me?" I have the opinion that it's a choice in who one decides to surround themselves with in their close circle, and it's a choice in knowing what their personal boundaries are. Many times, IMO, people like them have not taken the time to truly examine their personal boundaries.
There's a hypocrisy to that type of mindset. That doesn't mean that she's not deserving of respect. Every human being is deserving of a basic level of humanitarian respect. And I do not believe that anyone has right to harm her or infringe upon her rights and safety BECAUSE of her choices.
However, if she chooses to place herself in situations where she's exploiting herself...she must expect that feedback, positive or negate will be par for the course. Realistic expectations are important. It might be beneficial for everyone to try to understand the psychology of others and their reaction to behavior and projections.
I don't take much issue with that. I would even add to your suggestion to go further and examine history, etymology, and the culture/politics in the local area as well as the state such behavior occurs in.
Perfectly reasonable.
There is a difference between attacking someone directly with comments in an unprovoked manner vs. expressing negate opinion in retort to that which an individual has presented themselves.
I'm of the mindset that provocation or not, attacking someone is something to avoid. Attack an idea, not resort to character assassination. I understand not everybody holds the same ethics that I do, but as long as I resort to mockery of ideas and concepts and positions, and not the people themselves, I've found myself settling in my ways and finding peace of mind and various life successes.
