5 ms·

"What you are doing is reducing to a SEXUAL OBJECT one of the GREATEST SCIENTIFIC MIND THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN." - blah that is just his opinion. She's still a

by scrrr 13y ago

"What you are doing is reducing to a SEXUAL OBJECT one of the GREATEST SCIENTIFIC MIND THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN." - blah that is just his opinion. She's still a great scientist, even if some guys whistle. I think the author doesn't understand even half of whats going on. He thinks he's making the world a better place, but I think the opposite is true. Furthermore, I fear creating a world where such a behaviour, even if appropriate (but some might say, typically male), is completely outlawed, we will lose more than we gain. - I suspect that a world in which everyone is always politically correct and polite, would also be a world of hypocrites and liars. Not a desirable outcome. Let guys be guys, even if they behave like idiots sometimes.

maaarghk 13y ago
Spectacularly wrong. Either way you fail to notice that he DID let boys be boys, he simply educated them afterwards as to why they had been idiots. He didn't say it should be illegal or shit, he just changed those "lads"' perspectives on what it was they were participating in.
tomp 13y ago
I agree. Even as an opinion, it was probably wrong for the majority of men. Whistling doesn't "reduce" the woman to just a sexual object, it just points out that she is also a sexual object. I think a woman can be both beautiful and smart (and I think most men-loving persons would say the same for men), claiming otherwise seems plain ridiculous to me.
- pc86 13y ago
  How about we not treat women as objects at all?
  - brazzy 13y ago
    How about you unambiguously define what it means to treat women as objects?
    - runarberg 13y ago
      That is treat a human being like she does not have emotions. That is treat a human being like something that is an object. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectification http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectification
      - brazzy 13y ago
        > That is treat a human being like she does not have emotions. Why exactly do wolf whistles fall under this definition? > That is treat a human being like something that is an object. > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectification http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition
        runarberg 13y ago
        First, if you define women under the same criteria as objects, then you need to seriously reconsider your vocabulary. The world is different then Java™ will have you believe. In everyday language I talk about objects in terms of things that are not subjects. Subjects are characters --people and non-human animals-- that I attribute personality to, and can identify with. Objects are things that are not subjects. To objectify someone is, by definition, to treat a subject like an object. Heckling and wolf whistling is removing the characteristic of emotions from a subject. It is therefor treating a human being like an object. And, by definition objectifying.
        brazzy 13y ago
        > Heckling and wolf whistling is removing the characteristic of emotions from a subject. This is the only part of your statement that is not circular definition. And it is an unfounded assertion.
        runarberg 13y ago
        Can you explain where the definition gets circular so I can fix it, I'm sorry, but I can't find it. 1. An object is something that is not a subject. 2. A subject is a character, something I can identify with, something I can attribute some characteristic to. 3. To objectify is to remove from a subject the characteristics that makes it a subject.
- antimagic 13y ago
  And do you think that an intelligent woman is going to appreciate being wolf-whistled? (hint: she doesn't).
  - brazzy 13y ago
    How many have you asked? This one disagrees with you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3636135/Why-women-like-being-wolf-whistled-at.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3636135/Why-women-l...
    - tptacek 13y ago
      This is the dumbest thing I'll read all day.
    - antimagic 13y ago
      Oh, I bow before the philosophical might of a Telegraph article :/ As a female engineer, with lots of female friends that are lawyers, doctors, architects etc, I don't know a single one that appreciates being wolf-whistled in a professional context. Actually, we don't even appreciate it in a non-professional context. It usually generates a certain unease about physical safety, but at least in a non-professional context you can roll your eyes and attribute it to the fact that you're dealing with a neanderthal.
      - brazzy 13y ago
        > Oh, I bow before the philosophical might of a Telegraph article :/ I'd love to read a randomized survey, but in principle, a single counterexample invalidates a general claim. > I don't know a single one that appreciates being wolf-whistled in a professional context. Have you actually discussed this with all of them? > It usually generates a certain unease about physical safety Why? Because of the stereotypes that go with it? Would a stranger walking up to you and telling you that you're sexy be more acceptable or less? What if they said beautiful instead? Or is it that you (your friends? all women?) generally don't want men to show their interest in you unless you first have given your premission in some subtle way? It seems to me that all of this is stuff is way too individually different to make such broad, sweeping statements. Heck, it probably is different for the same person depending on what mood they're in.
marquis 13y ago
>Let guys be guys, even if they behave like idiots sometimes. Women do not expect adult men to treat them primarily as sex objects in an intellectual context: There is a time and place for sexualizing each other, and part of becoming an adult is learning context.
- k__ 13y ago
  > There is a time and place for sexualizing each other Is there? Is there such a time for real or is this just a society-thing some people thought of because they think it was "good"?
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    It's more fuzzy, but there definitely is a context in which sexualizing each other is OK. And vice versa.
  - tbrownaw 13y ago
    Of course there is. Unless you'd rather we go extinct?
    - k__ 13y ago
      Sometimes my bad english really gets me D: I wanted to imply the opposite. Is there a time to sexualize people? -> no there isn't, you can do it every second of your life without feeling bad, because everything else is just society/morale babbling etc.
      - marquis 13y ago
        I think that if we want civilization, which is to say cities, societies, arts, sciences: there is involved some repression on all biological levels. I would rather lie in the sun on the beach all day but I 'repress' this, so I can find meaningful achievement with my intellect. The same goes for sex: I decide to choose my partners. I can't think of any successful modern human community that survived long without repression.
jacobr 13y ago
By letting guys be guys, does that mean that the ones not whistling are not guys?
PavlovsCat 13y ago
I'm a guy too. I find all that "guys just being guys" crap incredibly obnoxious. It's good for nothing. Only the people infected with it think otherwise, or women with Stockholm Syndrome. Just as the OP wrote: "Where could we be now if we hadn’t repressed half of our society throughout our entire history?" We already lost so much, so how about cutting our losses, and doing away with the cavemen (which will become easier going forward, since the world kinda shifted from brawns to brains).
rjknight 13y ago
This isn't 'guy' behaviour, it is, to use a colloquialism, knobhead behaviour. The kids in the audience who actually wanted to learn something interesting about science weren't wolf-whistling. The people who are perpetuating that kind of behaviour are idiots with a stupid, narrow view of what it means to be male. These are the same people who will use 'geek' as an insult and think that if you don't conform to their idea of how to behave that you're not a 'proper' man. For the love of god I have no idea why you're trying to suggest that they might be right.
rmc 13y ago
> Let guys be guys Man people claiming "let guys be guys" are only interested in straight guys being straight guys, and tell us other guys to "not be so public" etc. Do you really support all guys being themselves? Even gay men, crossdressing men, effeminate men and straight butch guys?

by scrrr 13y ago

maaarghk 13y ago

Spectacularly wrong. Either way you fail to notice that he DID let boys be boys, he simply educated them afterwards as to why they had been idiots. He didn't say it should be illegal or shit, he just changed those "lads"' perspectives on what it was they were participating in.

tomp 13y ago

I agree. Even as an opinion, it was probably wrong for the majority of men. Whistling doesn't "reduce" the woman to just a sexual object, it just points out that she is also a sexual object. I think a woman can be both beautiful and smart (and I think most men-loving persons would say the same for men), claiming otherwise seems plain ridiculous to me.

pc86 13y ago
How about we not treat women as objects at all?
- brazzy 13y ago
  How about you unambiguously define what it means to treat women as objects?
  - runarberg 13y ago
    That is treat a human being like she does not have emotions. That is treat a human being like something that is an object. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectification http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectification
    - brazzy 13y ago
      > That is treat a human being like she does not have emotions. Why exactly do wolf whistles fall under this definition? > That is treat a human being like something that is an object. > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectification http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition
      - runarberg 13y ago
        First, if you define women under the same criteria as objects, then you need to seriously reconsider your vocabulary. The world is different then Java™ will have you believe. In everyday language I talk about objects in terms of things that are not subjects. Subjects are characters --people and non-human animals-- that I attribute personality to, and can identify with. Objects are things that are not subjects. To objectify someone is, by definition, to treat a subject like an object. Heckling and wolf whistling is removing the characteristic of emotions from a subject. It is therefor treating a human being like an object. And, by definition objectifying.
        brazzy 13y ago
        > Heckling and wolf whistling is removing the characteristic of emotions from a subject. This is the only part of your statement that is not circular definition. And it is an unfounded assertion.
        runarberg 13y ago
        Can you explain where the definition gets circular so I can fix it, I'm sorry, but I can't find it. 1. An object is something that is not a subject. 2. A subject is a character, something I can identify with, something I can attribute some characteristic to. 3. To objectify is to remove from a subject the characteristics that makes it a subject.
antimagic 13y ago
And do you think that an intelligent woman is going to appreciate being wolf-whistled? (hint: she doesn't).
- brazzy 13y ago
  How many have you asked? This one disagrees with you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3636135/Why-women-like-being-wolf-whistled-at.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3636135/Why-women-l...
  - tptacek 13y ago
    This is the dumbest thing I'll read all day.
  - antimagic 13y ago
    Oh, I bow before the philosophical might of a Telegraph article :/ As a female engineer, with lots of female friends that are lawyers, doctors, architects etc, I don't know a single one that appreciates being wolf-whistled in a professional context. Actually, we don't even appreciate it in a non-professional context. It usually generates a certain unease about physical safety, but at least in a non-professional context you can roll your eyes and attribute it to the fact that you're dealing with a neanderthal.
    - brazzy 13y ago
      > Oh, I bow before the philosophical might of a Telegraph article :/ I'd love to read a randomized survey, but in principle, a single counterexample invalidates a general claim. > I don't know a single one that appreciates being wolf-whistled in a professional context. Have you actually discussed this with all of them? > It usually generates a certain unease about physical safety Why? Because of the stereotypes that go with it? Would a stranger walking up to you and telling you that you're sexy be more acceptable or less? What if they said beautiful instead? Or is it that you (your friends? all women?) generally don't want men to show their interest in you unless you first have given your premission in some subtle way? It seems to me that all of this is stuff is way too individually different to make such broad, sweeping statements. Heck, it probably is different for the same person depending on what mood they're in.

marquis 13y ago

>Let guys be guys, even if they behave like idiots sometimes. Women do not expect adult men to treat them primarily as sex objects in an intellectual context: There is a time and place for sexualizing each other, and part of becoming an adult is learning context.

k__ 13y ago
> There is a time and place for sexualizing each other Is there? Is there such a time for real or is this just a society-thing some people thought of because they think it was "good"?
- Ygg2 13y ago
  It's more fuzzy, but there definitely is a context in which sexualizing each other is OK. And vice versa.
- tbrownaw 13y ago
  Of course there is. Unless you'd rather we go extinct?
  - k__ 13y ago
    Sometimes my bad english really gets me D: I wanted to imply the opposite. Is there a time to sexualize people? -> no there isn't, you can do it every second of your life without feeling bad, because everything else is just society/morale babbling etc.
    - marquis 13y ago
      I think that if we want civilization, which is to say cities, societies, arts, sciences: there is involved some repression on all biological levels. I would rather lie in the sun on the beach all day but I 'repress' this, so I can find meaningful achievement with my intellect. The same goes for sex: I decide to choose my partners. I can't think of any successful modern human community that survived long without repression.

jacobr 13y ago

By letting guys be guys, does that mean that the ones not whistling are not guys?

PavlovsCat 13y ago

I'm a guy too. I find all that "guys just being guys" crap incredibly obnoxious. It's good for nothing. Only the people infected with it think otherwise, or women with Stockholm Syndrome. Just as the OP wrote: "Where could we be now if we hadn’t repressed half of our society throughout our entire history?" We already lost so much, so how about cutting our losses, and doing away with the cavemen (which will become easier going forward, since the world kinda shifted from brawns to brains).

rjknight 13y ago

This isn't 'guy' behaviour, it is, to use a colloquialism, knobhead behaviour. The kids in the audience who actually wanted to learn something interesting about science weren't wolf-whistling. The people who are perpetuating that kind of behaviour are idiots with a stupid, narrow view of what it means to be male. These are the same people who will use 'geek' as an insult and think that if you don't conform to their idea of how to behave that you're not a 'proper' man. For the love of god I have no idea why you're trying to suggest that they might be right.

rmc 13y ago

> Let guys be guys Man people claiming "let guys be guys" are only interested in straight guys being straight guys, and tell us other guys to "not be so public" etc. Do you really support all guys being themselves? Even gay men, crossdressing men, effeminate men and straight butch guys?