3 ms·

What was the upside for men?

• etfb 13y ago
  They were doing what they were told, and would therefore get whatever benefits obedience brings. Whereas the women now had: - a bunch of male scientists leering at them [1]; - some photos in the hands of those scientists that could be embarrassing; - the possibility of those photos being stolen and distributed; - a strong sense that they have no right to privacy or dignity in the highly male-dominated Ivy League world. That last one would count as an educational bonus, at least. [1] I'm only guessing that the scientists were male here, but I think it's a safe bet. Even nowadays, but more so then.
  • yetanotherphd 13y ago
    So if it was such a bad idea for the women, why did they do it? When it is better for men to do what they are told than otherwise, you classify it as a benefit. When it is better for women to do what they are told than otherwise, you call it oppression. I'm trying to draw attention to this double standard. To be clear: neither the men nor women gained directly from having their photographs taken.
    • etfb 13y ago
      I don't honestly believe it's possible for someone to ask questions like that without a malicious purpose, so I shall refrain from engaging you henceforth. I pray that the women in your life, if you have any, can see what you are -- but I'm fairly sure it's obvious, so I'm not worried.
      • yetanotherphd 13y ago
        My purpose is to get people to question feminism and see outside a very narrow worldview in which women are always victims. In your case, I have failed. And the way you make this argument personal is really pathetic, although not surprising.