Everyday Sexism by Females

[Secret Chief]

I have one.

My wife was watching The Talk on TV and they were talking about domestic violence when Sharon Osbourne told a personal story of a time when she got mad at Ozzy and punched him so hard she fell down and hurt herself (cue uproarious applause and laughter from the audience). Imagine how different the reaction would have been if she had been a man telling that story about his wife.

Jeez.

 

[Secret Chief]

Now that females have become more visible, we can prove that we can **** things up just as badly. So, let's just keep trying to work together.

Tis often said (by persons of varying and all genders) that it'll be a long time till people would want a female Prime Minister again because the memory of Thatcher still sends a cold shiver down the spine.

 

[Secret Chief]

But.... but... but... your television doesn't completely suck... and... Stonehenge...




...Wait, I thought Britain's monarchy was constitutional, so the Queen has no direct political control.

You're right there's some decent stuff on British telly - House of Cards, Boardwalk Empire, The Bridge, The Returned...

(Stonehenge???!!!)

Yes Madge has no overt political control, but having a monarchy isn't exactly suggestive of a modern, egalitarian state is it!

 

[Riverwolf]

You're right there's some decent stuff on British telly - House of Cards, Boardwalk Empire, The Bridge, The Returned...

Sherlock. I also understand the new Dr. Who is good. (Though I'm not familiar with Dr. Who in general.) I also saw a modern Jekyll and Hyde show that I'm pretty sure was British that I liked.

But you've already listed more than what we've got in the US. We have Mythbusters. And Game of Thrones. ...and not really anything else.

Plus, BBC documentaries are the only ones worth bloody anything. (Yes, I'm American, but I don't swear in American, so I swear in British, instead. ^_^)

(Stonehenge???!!!)

Pagan. I, personally, regard Stonehenge as among the Most Holy Places.

Yes Madge has no overt political control, but having a monarchy isn't exactly suggestive of a modern, egalitarian state is it!

But the head is currently female. How does that work?

Is it still the case that a Queen can only be crowned if there's no male children of the current monarch?

 

[Secret Chief]

You did notice the TV shows I named are not British? Actually I think the US and UK both produce some good stuff, amongst all the drek.

Not really up on the rules of royals, being a staunch republican.

OK the Pagan thing I'll give you. Tis the isle of many groovy and pictish places.

 

[Riverwolf]

You did notice the TV shows I named are not British? Actually I think the US and UK both produce some good stuff, amongst all the drek.

No, I didn't, actually. I don't watch TV at all; I catch shows on streaming services or DVDs.

Not really up on the rules of royals, being a staunch republican.

Okay, then. I will admit to holding a bit of a romantic view of the idea of monarchy, but, again, that's probably just more grass that's greener in someone else's lawn.

OK the Pagan thing I'll give you. Tis the isle of many groovy and pictish places.

^_^

 

[dust1n]

News flash: People are dumb, and their lame attempts at humor often fail.

 

[Willamena]

I am a male in the UK; my perception is not a day goes by without me hearing casual sexist comments invariably from females.

I live in Canada, and I can't imagine that. What sorts of things do you hear?

 

[Secret Chief]

I live in Canada, and I can't imagine that. What sorts of things do you hear?

See Post #10.

 

[freethinker44]

Everyday sexism by females?

This entire essay.
Guest Blogger Starling: Schrödinger

 

[Drolefille]

Everyday sexism by females?

This entire essay.
Guest Blogger Starling: Schrödinger

She is describing a phenomenon, not arguing that women SHOULD treat men like rapists but describing why women do feel threatened when approached on the train, on the street, etc. She is describing this experience of being a woman to men who may not understand it. She then gives a list of rules that are pretty reasonable for anyone approaching any stranger but specifically those that are relevant to her personal experience.


What is sexist in your opinion about this post?

 

[freethinker44]

She is describing a phenomenon, not arguing that women SHOULD treat men like rapists but describing why women do feel threatened when approached on the train, on the street, etc.

Just because it's ingrained in culture doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Feminists should understand that more than anyone.

What is sexist in your opinion about this post?

"Never judge a book by it's cover", unless of course that "book" is a man, then it's OK to assume he's a rapist.

you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat. This means that some men should never approach strange women in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a woman cold. That doesn’t mean you’re doomed to a life of solitude, but I suggest you start with internet dating, where you can put your unusual traits out there and find a woman who will appreciate them.

Talk to a woman looking out a window? DON'T! You're oppressing her.

Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb... So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.

How about just assuming every man you don't know is a rapist until proven otherwise? That's the most sexist thing about this article. Just like how it would be racist to assume every black guy is a thief. Or assuming asian people are bad drivers. In fact, generalizations in general are just bad and deserve whatever "ism" is attached to them.

 

[Drolefille]

Just because it's ingrained in culture doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Feminists should understand that more than anyone.

So women feeling threatened when approached by a stranger is sexist? Or is it only if they're threatened when approached by a man? Because I'm not seeing any claims that women never feel threatened when approached by a non-male stranger.

"Never judge a book by it's cover", unless of course that "book" is a man, then it's OK to assume he's a rapist.

It doesn't say that. Do you treat the person in dirty clothes who smells of alcohol and stumbles while approaching you the same as the person in business attire moving briskly? Probably not, you assess the situation based on the signals you get. That's the same in any social situation. She's not saying "ooh you're uuuuugly so move on." She's saying "you may come off as particularly threatening because you have some pretty violent tats going on there."

Talk to a woman looking out a window? DON'T! You're oppressing her.

Over dramatization.
Looking out a window is a signal she is sending. That is all that paragraph said. If that signal is "leave me alone" and you ignore it then you're moving into threat territory because you don't respect her body language. It says nothing about "oppression." Dial it down a notch.

How about just assuming every man you don't know is a rapist until proven otherwise? That's the most sexist thing about this article. Just like how it would be racist to assume every black guy is a thief. Or assuming asian people are bad drivers. In fact, generalizations in general are just bad and deserve whatever "ism" is attached to them.

It does not assume that every man is a rapist, the whole point of the concept is to explain why men who are not rapists might wonder why their advances, particularly on a subway car, in a dark bus shelter, despite perhaps being perfectly appropriate in a well lit building or in a social setting are no longer appropriate or welcome.

This stuff here:

When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?

That's stuff that men may not understand that women deal with - are there women who don't get it or men who do? Yes. This article is not directed at them - and this is explaining her perspective to men not advocating all women take this perspective.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So women feeling threatened when approached by a stranger is sexist? Or is it only if they're threatened when approached by a man? Because I'm not seeing any claims that women never feel threatened when approached by a non-male stranger.



It doesn't say that. Do you treat the person in dirty clothes who smells of alcohol and stumbles while approaching you the same as the person in business attire moving briskly? Probably not, you assess the situation based on the signals you get. That's the same in any social situation. She's not saying "ooh you're uuuuugly so move on." She's saying "you may come off as particularly threatening because you have some pretty violent tats going on there."


Over dramatization.
Looking out a window is a signal she is sending. That is all that paragraph said. If that signal is "leave me alone" and you ignore it then you're moving into threat territory because you don't respect her body language. It says nothing about "oppression." Dial it down a notch.



It does not assume that every man is a rapist, the whole point of the concept is to explain why men who are not rapists might wonder why their advances, particularly on a subway car, in a dark bus shelter, despite perhaps being perfectly appropriate in a well lit building or in a social setting are no longer appropriate or welcome.

This stuff here:

That's stuff that men may not understand that women deal with - are there women who don't get it or men who do? Yes. This article is not directed at them - and this is explaining her perspective to men not advocating all women take this perspective.

It defies logic to suggest to women that they need to be more careful when going out, but then turn around and call them sexist if they feel fearful.

 

[Drolefille]

It defies logic to suggest to women that they need to be more careful when going out, but then turn around and call them sexist if they feel fearful.

You should be more careful! BUT NOT TOO CAREFUL! But more careful than that... look if you're assaulted you weren't careful enough but if you're rude to that guy who asks you out you're totally too careful and sexist.

 

[freethinker44]

It defies logic to suggest to women that they need to be more careful when going out, but then turn around and call them sexist if they feel fearful.

Taking precautions against a crime is completely different than assuming all members of particular group are criminals until proven otherwise. Besides, you yourself have said that the majority of rapes are committed by someone you know so there is no excuse to assume all strange men are trying to rape you when facts tell say otherwise.

Would you consider it sexist if someone assumed all women were gold diggers until they prove otherwise? Would you consider it racist if someone assumed all black people are going to steal from you until they prove otherwise?

I can't believe you don't understand how incredibly offensive this is. Rapists are considered the lowest form of human scum alive, even amongst other criminals and this article is making the argument that it is acceptable to assume all men are like this.

 

[freethinker44]

Another example of sexism by females: defending the idea that all men are rapists until proven otherwise.

 

[Drolefille]

Another example of sexism by females: defending the idea that all men are rapists until proven otherwise.

Again, that is not what the blog says. So tilt at the windmill all you want.

Also this demonstrates a lack of knowledge of Schroedinger's cat - we are not assuming that the cat is dead.

 

[freethinker44]

Again, that is not what the blog says.

That's exactly what it's saying.

Here is a good litmus test to determine how messed up this is.

This from the article:

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?

Now it seems relatively benign, maybe even practical, right? Wrong.

Here is the same thing said about another common stereotype:

So when you, a black man, approaches me, I have to ask myself: Will this man steal from me?

See how horrible and offensive it is? In fact, that it would seem completely valid when it is just directed towards men in general is sexist in itself, never mind the content which is also sexist.

 

[Drolefille]

Yeah I'm done trying to explain it to you.