6 ms·

Yes, I for one would have kept looking at the demo if it was Brad Pitt. But that's not the point. Sexism, in reality, favours men and hurts women. That's why a

Yes, I for one would have kept looking at the demo if it was Brad Pitt. But that's not the point. Sexism, in reality, favours men and hurts women. That's why an image of Brad Pitt is okay, whereas an image of Emma Watson is not okay! (and by the way, they are suggestive) Any argument that goes "But if we switched genders, then it would be fine!" is completely missing the point that we are still living in a de-facto patriarchy, where objectification of men is not even an issue. In any case, I found the choice of images immature and closed the website right away.

mycroft-holmes 11y ago
> Yes, I for one would have kept looking at the demo if it was Brad Pitt. That makes you the sexist in this instance.
- Jean-Philipe 11y ago
  Because I try to be sensitive to sexism and react accordingly, that makes me sexist?
  - mycroft-holmes 11y ago
    No, because you're treating each sex differently based on their sex.
- ahoy 11y ago
  You should have read the rest of the post before commenting.
  - mycroft-holmes 11y ago
    I did.
- ahoy 11y ago
  You should have read the rest of the post before commenting.
tjallingt 11y ago
> But that's not the point. Sexism, in reality, favours men and hurts women. That's why an image of Brad Pitt is okay, whereas an image of Emma Watson is not okay! (and by the way, they are suggestive) > Any argument that goes "But if we switched genders, then it would be fine!" is completely missing the point that we are still living in a de-facto patriarchy, where objectification of men is not even an issue. I'm talking about his co-workers reactions to said images (whether Brad Pitt or Emma Watson) not about sexism. As a matter of fact I don't see how the two are related at all, what in this scenario is sexist? But since you brought it up; I do not agree with you at all because I think sexism (or the "patriarchy" whatever you want to call it) hurts men AND women. Even if it might not be the same type of hurt or even have the same effects. I think the biggest problem for us as people (humanity) is when we start quantifying and differentiating between different types of "hurt". > In any case, I found the choice of images immature and closed the website right away. Pictures of an adult woman's face are immature? You say it is suggestive but I don't find them suggestive at all, does that mean I'm immature or not? Like I mentioned in my original post I don't understand the standpoint of OP and neither do I understand yours. What makes these images immature and what validates the OP's reaction that he wanted to protect his female co-workers from this imagery. Or did he try to protect himself from the reactions of his female co-workers to this imagery? Again none of this is meant to be taken as an insult or attack I would genuinely like to understand why you feel this way.
- Jean-Philipe 11y ago
  It's the fact that whenever there are sexy people as placeholders, it is always women and never men. That's sexism right there. We just got used to it.
  - tjallingt 11y ago
    > It's the fact that whenever there are sexy people as placeholders, it is always women and never men. That's sexism right there. We just got used to it Always and never are strong terms that I'm not sure of in this context but I understand and agree (to an extend), thank you for explaining :) As far as whether OP's reaction was justified I guess we'll have to agree to disagree or something... EDIT: Although I'm not sure that your "solution" to the problem (looking at picture galleries of hot males) is one that works... (just kidding)
zo1 11y ago
>"But that's not the point. Sexism, in reality, favours men and hurts women. That's why an image of Brad Pitt is okay, whereas" If seeing attractive women "hurts women", then by that you have to concede that the same happens to men when it comes to attractive men. Not only that, but "sexism" against men occurs on multiple levels in our society, so much so that we are actively blind to it, see your comment as well as below. >"Any argument that goes "But if we switched genders, then it would be fine!" is completely missing the point that we are still living in a de-facto patriarchy, where objectification of men is not even an issue." It's odd how you claim "defacto" patriarchy, then concede that this patriarchy allows the objectification of men to occur as a non "issue". The fact that it's okay in this society to objectify men but not women is not proof of patriarchy, if anything it's proof of "matriarchy" (if we borrow feminist-naming conventions). We are still far from true equality, and it is something we should strive for as an enlightened society. But to blatantly have double-standards while claiming systemic inequality is quite disingenuous.
- Jean-Philipe 11y ago
  I don't "claim" patriarchy, it's the reality.
  - Wintamute 11y ago
    It's not my reality. But it is your reality. Where does that leave us?
    - Jean-Philipe 11y ago
      https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2014/03/07/85457/fact-sheet-the-womens-leadership-gap/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2014/03...
      - Wintamute 11y ago
        Yep, I'm not ignorant of those kinds of stats, I just dispute the interpretation. Patriarchy is ideology not fact, and a divisive one at that. Its a narrow combative view of gender interaction that does more harm than good.
Wintamute 11y ago
> where objectification of men is not even an issue What about the objectification of men that calls them "warriors" and sends them off to serve their country as tools of the state? To get killed doing that? That sort of objectification isn't an issue? Or we only worry about the case where women have the freedom to pose in front of a camera and get paid for it if they want to?
- true_religion 11y ago
  I guess you could say that you can opt out of warrior identification fairly easily---just grow old. No one can really opt out of identification in terms of their beauty. Both men and women face the reality of being judged by their looks, but women bear the brunt of it due to cultural considerations. In some cultures, as women age they no longer have to deal with being judged as harshly on looks but in the West beauty is a point of interest deeply into a woman's middle-aged life at the least, and even people who are technically the age of grandparents like Hillary Clinton are judged on their looks.
  - Wintamute 11y ago
    Conscription was a reality for men about half a century ago, and could be again during a war. The laws are ready for that. Forced national service is a reality in many countries.

mycroft-holmes 11y ago

> Yes, I for one would have kept looking at the demo if it was Brad Pitt. That makes you the sexist in this instance.

Jean-Philipe 11y ago
Because I try to be sensitive to sexism and react accordingly, that makes me sexist?
- mycroft-holmes 11y ago
  No, because you're treating each sex differently based on their sex.
ahoy 11y ago
You should have read the rest of the post before commenting.
- mycroft-holmes 11y ago
  I did.
ahoy 11y ago
You should have read the rest of the post before commenting.

tjallingt 11y ago

> But that's not the point. Sexism, in reality, favours men and hurts women. That's why an image of Brad Pitt is okay, whereas an image of Emma Watson is not okay! (and by the way, they are suggestive) > Any argument that goes "But if we switched genders, then it would be fine!" is completely missing the point that we are still living in a de-facto patriarchy, where objectification of men is not even an issue. I'm talking about his co-workers reactions to said images (whether Brad Pitt or Emma Watson) not about sexism. As a matter of fact I don't see how the two are related at all, what in this scenario is sexist? But since you brought it up; I do not agree with you at all because I think sexism (or the "patriarchy" whatever you want to call it) hurts men AND women. Even if it might not be the same type of hurt or even have the same effects. I think the biggest problem for us as people (humanity) is when we start quantifying and differentiating between different types of "hurt". > In any case, I found the choice of images immature and closed the website right away. Pictures of an adult woman's face are immature? You say it is suggestive but I don't find them suggestive at all, does that mean I'm immature or not? Like I mentioned in my original post I don't understand the standpoint of OP and neither do I understand yours. What makes these images immature and what validates the OP's reaction that he wanted to protect his female co-workers from this imagery. Or did he try to protect himself from the reactions of his female co-workers to this imagery? Again none of this is meant to be taken as an insult or attack I would genuinely like to understand why you feel this way.

Jean-Philipe 11y ago
It's the fact that whenever there are sexy people as placeholders, it is always women and never men. That's sexism right there. We just got used to it.
- tjallingt 11y ago
  > It's the fact that whenever there are sexy people as placeholders, it is always women and never men. That's sexism right there. We just got used to it Always and never are strong terms that I'm not sure of in this context but I understand and agree (to an extend), thank you for explaining :) As far as whether OP's reaction was justified I guess we'll have to agree to disagree or something... EDIT: Although I'm not sure that your "solution" to the problem (looking at picture galleries of hot males) is one that works... (just kidding)

zo1 11y ago

>"But that's not the point. Sexism, in reality, favours men and hurts women. That's why an image of Brad Pitt is okay, whereas" If seeing attractive women "hurts women", then by that you have to concede that the same happens to men when it comes to attractive men. Not only that, but "sexism" against men occurs on multiple levels in our society, so much so that we are actively blind to it, see your comment as well as below. >"Any argument that goes "But if we switched genders, then it would be fine!" is completely missing the point that we are still living in a de-facto patriarchy, where objectification of men is not even an issue." It's odd how you claim "defacto" patriarchy, then concede that this patriarchy allows the objectification of men to occur as a non "issue". The fact that it's okay in this society to objectify men but not women is not proof of patriarchy, if anything it's proof of "matriarchy" (if we borrow feminist-naming conventions). We are still far from true equality, and it is something we should strive for as an enlightened society. But to blatantly have double-standards while claiming systemic inequality is quite disingenuous.

Jean-Philipe 11y ago
I don't "claim" patriarchy, it's the reality.
- Wintamute 11y ago
  It's not my reality. But it is your reality. Where does that leave us?
  - Jean-Philipe 11y ago
    https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2014/03/07/85457/fact-sheet-the-womens-leadership-gap/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2014/03...
    - Wintamute 11y ago
      Yep, I'm not ignorant of those kinds of stats, I just dispute the interpretation. Patriarchy is ideology not fact, and a divisive one at that. Its a narrow combative view of gender interaction that does more harm than good.

Wintamute 11y ago

> where objectification of men is not even an issue What about the objectification of men that calls them "warriors" and sends them off to serve their country as tools of the state? To get killed doing that? That sort of objectification isn't an issue? Or we only worry about the case where women have the freedom to pose in front of a camera and get paid for it if they want to?

true_religion 11y ago
I guess you could say that you can opt out of warrior identification fairly easily---just grow old. No one can really opt out of identification in terms of their beauty. Both men and women face the reality of being judged by their looks, but women bear the brunt of it due to cultural considerations. In some cultures, as women age they no longer have to deal with being judged as harshly on looks but in the West beauty is a point of interest deeply into a woman's middle-aged life at the least, and even people who are technically the age of grandparents like Hillary Clinton are judged on their looks.
- Wintamute 11y ago
  Conscription was a reality for men about half a century ago, and could be again during a war. The laws are ready for that. Forced national service is a reality in many countries.