4 ms·

I am very curiuos, what will happen when even thinking about woman as sexually attractive will be a crime, let alone any chance of showing her that.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
michaelchisari 15y ago
That's a slippery slope fallacy. I grew up around feminists, and I can guarantee you, that is not where equality leads.
- cosgroveb 15y ago
  And before everyone starts bashing feminism by lumping them all in with Dworkin and the most extreme examples, please try getting to know one first. Their views are usually pretty reasonable.
  - mootothemax 15y ago
    Their views are usually pretty reasonable You make it sound as if feminists are some kind of weird cult ;) But your basic point is true: just because a woman is a feminist doesn't mean that she thinks all penetrative sex is rape, such as Dworkin believed.
    - rimantas 15y ago
      You know, we are near the situation when asking a girl out for a cup of coffee is perceived as an atempt to rape.
      - jat850 15y ago
        We're not at all, really, and that type of hyperbole is extremely unproductive.
      - owenmarshall 15y ago
        "Asking a girl out for a cup of coffee" isn't perceived as an attempt to rape. Flirting with a woman in an environment where they feel uncomfortable -- say, oh, for example, early in the morning in a confined space -- isn't perceived as an attempt to rape, but it does make the flirter an insensitive jerk at best.
      - mootothemax 15y ago
        You know, we are near the situation when asking a girl out for a cup of coffee is perceived as an atempt to rape. Honestly, if that is a regular problem for you, I would suggest you work on your interpersonal skills.
      - diolpah 15y ago
        We are not 'near' that point. The Rebecca Watson incident clearly demonstrates that we are already there.
        michaelchisari 15y ago
        1. Woman does a presentation where she talks about objectification of women in a male dominated social group. 2. Woman gets hit on in an elevator in a foreign country after leaving a bar at 4am. She declines. 3. Woman mentions incident as a "What Not To Wear" style off-hand comment in a video blog about the conference, before going on to more important things. 4. Richard Dawkins flips his shit. 5. Some men think this situation means politely asking a woman out for coffee will get you accused of rape.
        owenmarshall 15y ago
        Seriously? RW said that being hit on in an elevator @ 4AM made her feel uncomfortable. That's it, and if people were able to muster up a shred of empathy and think "gee, if this makes people feel uncomfortable, I shouldn't do it", elevatorgate wouldn't have happened. Instead, men came out of the woodwork left and right trying to defend their right to flirt on women in any situation, irrelevant of how it might make the woman feel.
    - Joeboy 15y ago
      In the interest of fairness it should probably be pointed out that Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her work.
      - michaelchisari 15y ago
        As much as I disagree (strongly, at points) with a lot of Dworkin's work, she really has become a sort of punching bag for anti-feminism. She isn't nearly the caricature that her detractors make her out to be.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - mootothemax 15y ago
        In the interest of fairness it should probably be pointed out that Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her work. Which is fair enough. At the same time, she did write things like: Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women Or: A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth--literature, science, philosophy, pornography--calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate") the boundaries of her body. Personally I think she was backpeddling, but please have a read of what she wrote: http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/dworkin.html http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/dworkin.html
  - king_jester 15y ago
    Getting to know one? Why not be one?
    - cosgroveb 15y ago
      Sure. I consider myself a feminist insofar as I believe all people should be treated equally, with respect and dignity.
- rimantas 15y ago
  Excuse me? I did not said a word about feminism nor about equality. Actually, knee-jerk reaction to my post without even trying to understand what I mean is pretty good indicator where we are headed, I am just curious how will that end.
  - rimantas 15y ago
    Now that's funny. So you think I did say something about feminism and equality? Citation, please.
wisty 15y ago
Here's a tip - most laws are reasonable. Besides, no-one is likely to accuse you of harassment unless they actually feel harassed, and want to really screw you over. Are we talking about a boss frequently asking an employee on a date, despite the power difference, and the employee saying no several times? A co-worker making crude and embarrassing remarks, using sleazy pick-up lines, pulling pranks, and other crap? Or is it like asking someone, "hey, so ... would you like to go on a date sometime? I'm free this Saturday, would you like coffee" once or twice. One of these things is not like the others. You are allowed to ask a co-worker on a date, in most jurisdictions. Even if you aren't, you are only likely to be accused of anything if someone feels really pissed off at you. You aren't allowed to behave in a way that is making someone feel harassed.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  You aren't allowed to behave in a way that is making someone feel harassed. You don't think it's a problem that the definition of legal behavior is dependent on another person's feelings?
  - wisty 15y ago
    I think that in practice, you don't need to be psychic. I think the judge will ask "would a reasonable person know this behavior, in this context, would be likely to cause offense?". The reason for it being dependent on the other persons feelings is that you can't just say "sure, I know she's a prude, but most women wouldn't take offense to that". Like I said, the law tries to be reasonable. Will a judge or jury say "Your behavior was that of a reasonable person, and there's no way you could have known that asking her out would cause a flashback to (whatever), but it's her feelings that matter, not yours"?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

michaelchisari 15y ago

That's a slippery slope fallacy. I grew up around feminists, and I can guarantee you, that is not where equality leads.

cosgroveb 15y ago
And before everyone starts bashing feminism by lumping them all in with Dworkin and the most extreme examples, please try getting to know one first. Their views are usually pretty reasonable.
- mootothemax 15y ago
  Their views are usually pretty reasonable You make it sound as if feminists are some kind of weird cult ;) But your basic point is true: just because a woman is a feminist doesn't mean that she thinks all penetrative sex is rape, such as Dworkin believed.
  - rimantas 15y ago
    You know, we are near the situation when asking a girl out for a cup of coffee is perceived as an atempt to rape.
    - jat850 15y ago
      We're not at all, really, and that type of hyperbole is extremely unproductive.
    - owenmarshall 15y ago
      "Asking a girl out for a cup of coffee" isn't perceived as an attempt to rape. Flirting with a woman in an environment where they feel uncomfortable -- say, oh, for example, early in the morning in a confined space -- isn't perceived as an attempt to rape, but it does make the flirter an insensitive jerk at best.
    - mootothemax 15y ago
      You know, we are near the situation when asking a girl out for a cup of coffee is perceived as an atempt to rape. Honestly, if that is a regular problem for you, I would suggest you work on your interpersonal skills.
    - diolpah 15y ago
      We are not 'near' that point. The Rebecca Watson incident clearly demonstrates that we are already there.
      - michaelchisari 15y ago
        1. Woman does a presentation where she talks about objectification of women in a male dominated social group. 2. Woman gets hit on in an elevator in a foreign country after leaving a bar at 4am. She declines. 3. Woman mentions incident as a "What Not To Wear" style off-hand comment in a video blog about the conference, before going on to more important things. 4. Richard Dawkins flips his shit. 5. Some men think this situation means politely asking a woman out for coffee will get you accused of rape.
      - owenmarshall 15y ago
        Seriously? RW said that being hit on in an elevator @ 4AM made her feel uncomfortable. That's it, and if people were able to muster up a shred of empathy and think "gee, if this makes people feel uncomfortable, I shouldn't do it", elevatorgate wouldn't have happened. Instead, men came out of the woodwork left and right trying to defend their right to flirt on women in any situation, irrelevant of how it might make the woman feel.
  - Joeboy 15y ago
    In the interest of fairness it should probably be pointed out that Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her work.
    - michaelchisari 15y ago
      As much as I disagree (strongly, at points) with a lot of Dworkin's work, she really has become a sort of punching bag for anti-feminism. She isn't nearly the caricature that her detractors make her out to be.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
    - mootothemax 15y ago
      In the interest of fairness it should probably be pointed out that Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her work. Which is fair enough. At the same time, she did write things like: Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women Or: A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth--literature, science, philosophy, pornography--calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate") the boundaries of her body. Personally I think she was backpeddling, but please have a read of what she wrote: http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/dworkin.html http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/dworkin.html
- king_jester 15y ago
  Getting to know one? Why not be one?
  - cosgroveb 15y ago
    Sure. I consider myself a feminist insofar as I believe all people should be treated equally, with respect and dignity.
rimantas 15y ago
Excuse me? I did not said a word about feminism nor about equality. Actually, knee-jerk reaction to my post without even trying to understand what I mean is pretty good indicator where we are headed, I am just curious how will that end.
- rimantas 15y ago
  Now that's funny. So you think I did say something about feminism and equality? Citation, please.

wisty 15y ago

Here's a tip - most laws are reasonable. Besides, no-one is likely to accuse you of harassment unless they actually feel harassed, and want to really screw you over. Are we talking about a boss frequently asking an employee on a date, despite the power difference, and the employee saying no several times? A co-worker making crude and embarrassing remarks, using sleazy pick-up lines, pulling pranks, and other crap? Or is it like asking someone, "hey, so ... would you like to go on a date sometime? I'm free this Saturday, would you like coffee" once or twice. One of these things is not like the others. You are allowed to ask a co-worker on a date, in most jurisdictions. Even if you aren't, you are only likely to be accused of anything if someone feels really pissed off at you. You aren't allowed to behave in a way that is making someone feel harassed.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
You aren't allowed to behave in a way that is making someone feel harassed. You don't think it's a problem that the definition of legal behavior is dependent on another person's feelings?
- wisty 15y ago
  I think that in practice, you don't need to be psychic. I think the judge will ask "would a reasonable person know this behavior, in this context, would be likely to cause offense?". The reason for it being dependent on the other persons feelings is that you can't just say "sure, I know she's a prude, but most women wouldn't take offense to that". Like I said, the law tries to be reasonable. Will a judge or jury say "Your behavior was that of a reasonable person, and there's no way you could have known that asking her out would cause a flashback to (whatever), but it's her feelings that matter, not yours"?