A lot of atheists who were once religious talk about their de-conversion as a metaphorical opening of their own eyes. Of course, those who find religion often feel the same way: “I once was blind but now I see.” This is an obvious way of describing what happens when you have a sudden realization that changes your entire outlook on life.
It would be wonderful if those who experience that change took as a lesson the fact that there may always be something big and obvious about the way the world works, that we may be missing. But instead it seems as though it’s more common that once someone has their particular realization, they assume that now they’ve got it all figured out.
What I think many of them – atheists and theists alike – are missing is the way our (Western) society functions, particularly for people other than themselves. There’s a great webcomic called Sinfest that used the Matrix as a metaphor for someone having just such a realization:
You should go read them all, at least starting with the above comic. It’s got a badass feminist on a trike in place of Morpheus, a demon who’s lost her faith, and a former sex-pot who tries to show others what she can now see:
I bet a lot of atheists would relate to that comic if you replace words like “damsels in distress” and “hey dollface” with, say, “blasphemy is a sin” and “evil atheist.” They’d understand that these are messages that become a part of our culture and get unknowingly parroted by those who can’t see religion’s sometimes damaging impact on those of us who lack belief and value free speech. These atheists would never argue that those ideas are okay because religious people evolved to espouse them and they just can’t help it.
But many of those same atheists do make that very argument about the impact of the patriarchy, and many of them, like the male character in the above comic, are blind to the messages we all receive constantly, every day, about how men and women should behave and be treated.
Once you know what to look for, it’s scary how uniform and consistent some of the messages are. Here are some of the commercials that aired during the Super Bowl last night, one of the most-watched television events of the year:
An ad telling us that women will have sex with men in exchange for flowers. A naked woman is literally a billboard used to get attention from men in order to sell Internet domain names. Dream women are naked and available for sex with men. A woman is a car that enjoys being gawked at.
This is what we talk about, when we talk about “objectification.” The ads literally turn women into objects that have no emotion or personality aside from wanting to pleasure men. These are not exceptions – these are the rules that society plays by. It wasn’t a coincidence that all these ads were created by different agencies for a wide variety of products using the exact same message – it’s because each of those ads is a part of the patriarchy that is marketed to the patriarchy that reinforces the patriarchy.
These are the rules that children are taught, and they are the rules that we follow when we sexualize every girl and woman, regardless of her age or desire to be seen as an object. They are the rules that these men are following when they debate whether “slutty” women should be raped or simply completely devalued.
A few days ago, I saw the rules in effect on Jessica Ahlquist’s Facebook page. You may remember Jessica – she’s the 16-year old who went to court to get her public high school to remove a religious banner. She posted a funny photo of her face on her page:
Amongst the comments, there was this:
“You should like the Sexy Atheist page, so you can post it there. It may be an exercise in narcissism, but it’s fun :-P”
I took a look at the Sexy Atheist page (which the commenter linked to in a follow-up), and it’s exactly what it sounds like: people posting photos of themselves and others commenting on how sexy they are, amongst links to the usual atheist memes here and there. Here’s the main profile pic, a naked Statue of Liberty:
Who knew that Lady Liberty was hiding a stereotypically perfect Western body under all those robes? Anyway, I took a look at what was on the page. This is my absolute favorite, which makes me laugh every time I look at it:
I picture Kenneth at the mall, hand up against a wall at the Gap, telling a mannequin how hot her tits are. “You’re the quiet type, aren’t you? Naughty girl.”
Anyway, the photos that were uploaded by actual people were all obviously meant to be “sexy,” in the way that we all define “sexy,” and the comments went along with it. Things like this:
Here’s a whole photo album, with every sexy photo accompanied by dozens of comments like (these are all direct quotes from men): “Wow, I would like to give her some loving, oh yeah! Say my name baby, who’s your daddy!” and “does my boobs look big in this… (elfish princess)” and “You would look killer if you did not wear so much foundation…” and “Someone is getting fucked!” and “?:fapfapfap:” and “Oh my, I do love Asians. Yummy!” and “She looks legal age, or at least a jailbait… But she so fucking hot. Specially in that pose.” Those last two were in response to an Asian girl on a bed holding a teddy bear.
Not all the comments are directly sexual, but the vast majority are, so we can take a good guess as to what sort of reception 16-year old Jessica might find were she to take this man’s suggestion that she upload her own photos – adults would tell her how hot her body is and how much they’d like to date, marry, or have sex with her.
Which, for the women who want that, is fine. I mean, “fine” in that it appears as though many of them, men and women alike, are playing by (and thereby reinforcing) the rules of the patriarchy, which state that women should derive their self-esteem from presenting their bodies for men to judge. But that small bit of trouble aside, adult women have every right to upload photos of themselves anywhere they’d like for any reason they’d like and they should never be shamed for it.
But for those who do not want or need validation from others concerning their looks and sexual availability, it can be distressing to get these nonstop messages that they should (literally) submit. And it’s especially distressing to see a teenager encouraged to sexualize herself.
That’s why another awesome teen, Rhys Morgan, spoke up immediately on Jessica’s Facebook page:
Rhys: Jesus Christ, she’s 16.
Telling her to join a “Sexy Atheists” page is the height of creepiness.Steven: It’s not an explicit page, and there’s a lot of good info that’s shared on there, as well as funny pictures.
Steven: (i.e., you’re taking the “sexy” part a bit too seriously)
Rhys: Great, but telling a 16 year old girl to post photos on a group called “Sexy Atheists” is really fucking creepy. Perverse, even.
This is the point where all the adult men watching should have realized that Rhys was absolutely right. Steven should have apologized to Jessica and thanked Rhys for pointing out his mistake before things truly got out of hand. Instead, Steven doubles down and he’s joined by other men who say even worse things:
Jason: Indeed. And they’ve had others post on there that I’ve been able to tell them I’ll tell them they’re sexy in a couple years. :P
Imagine how blind to reality one has to be to make a statement like that. Because these are mostly atheists, I’m going to keep making analogies to religion, so imagine this was someone saying, “I tell the kids that they can start shunning infidels in a few years.” Imagine how you feel when you see documentaries about adults smiling when little kids start speaking in tongues at Bible Camp.
Now imagine someone telling your teen daughter that in a few years, she’ll be ready to be objectified. Don’t be angry . . . Jason is just following the rules.
Rhys continues to confront the apologists who fall over themselves attempting to justify their suggestion that Jessica offer herself up for sexualization. They resort to calling Rhys an immature kid, because he’s a teen. Like Jessica. PZ Myers sums it up perfectly on Twitter:
Old people who simultaneously condescend to teenagers, calling them “immature” and out of their depth…while in the same thread they suggest that teenagers ought to pose for a sexy atheist page, so they can leer over them.
Ophelia Benson also weighed in on the thread, pointing out that the problem isn’t just about Jessica’s age:
Even apart from her age – it is so fucking condescending to tell a woman to post her pic on a “sexy” anything page when the pic is not about sexy – it’s a very droll enactment of the emoticon. Jessica knows how to make the shape of a D – that’s some talent!
Once the apologists realize that there are many people who feel the comments are inappropriate and that they’re not going to win the fight, they start complaining that people were “white knighting” for Jessica:
Okay, can we quit the white knighting?
Jessica’s cute. Very cute. We know this. Whether or not Stephen’s comment/invitation was appropriate isn’t really important here (at worst it’s awkward, imo). I think Jessica can handle this herself pretty well if she thought it was that bad; the whole reason we’re here is because we know she’s an extremely capable person.
After it was pointed out to him that there is nothing wrong with friends sticking up for one another and calling out inappropriate behavior, this person later apologized and retracted his statement. Others continued to insist that only Jessica could have an opinion on the matter.
While Jessica’s opinion matters a great deal, particularly in a case that concerns her own Facebook page, it is remarkable to me that people insist we should never help defend one another. Put yourself in Jessica’s position – thrust into the spotlight for doing something very brave, pissing off religious fundamentalists, finding support in an atheist community, and then having members of that atheist community say things that make you deeply uncomfortable. Do you ask them to stop? Do you ask them to stop, after seeing other women vilified and bullied again and again for doing the same thing?
To Jessica’s infinite credit, she eventually did:
Well isn’t this lovely. My opinion: [there] are better and more appropriate ways of telling someone (in this case, a 16 year old), that they look nice. Thank you to Rhys for pointing this out and thank you to everyone else for backing him up.
I messaged Jessica and asked her if it was okay that I write about this. She said it was fine, and also told me that after she posted that, one of the men in question apologized to her. I’m not sure who exactly, but that’s why I’ve blocked out their names in the screenshots.
I hope those men feel truly pathetic today for fighting so hard to make a teen girl uncomfortable, and for forcing her to step in and tell them herself, directly, that they were being inappropriate.
As upsetting as I found that thread, I also see in it a lot of hope for the future. Both Jessica and Rhys are teens with keen minds and a compassionate, progressive outlook that can only serve to make the atheist and skeptic communities better, if they stick with it. And I hope they do stick with it, despite those who have yet to see.
Cue the whiny backlash comments in 4,3,2…
But seriously, with people like Jessica and Rhys who freaking get it, I have hope for the next generation, because goodness me are the current crop of adults skating on the hopeless line. I mean, really? That was the best complement they could have given her?
Hehe, I’m part of a group in which geeky atheist boys and proud neckbeards bear (almost) all.
It’s a community group that arose out of one of the larger atheist Facebook groups – and it was done partially to mock the Patriarchal objectification Rebecca speaks of. However, since then it’s taken off into quite a popular and sexy counter community.
One thing it’s taught me is that sexy sharing is okay if it’s respectful. However, as Rebecca points out, most of it degrades a woman down to her “fuckability”, sad.
Anywho, if anyone wants to see geeky skeptic guys doin their thang, let me know and I can arrange an invite (Facebook banned us as an open group).
That sounds absolutely hilarious and you deserve a gold star.
Oh, I already gotten plenty of them from the group ;).
The more I read about Jessica Ahlquist, the more I am impressed by her. I can’t imagine having that kind of bravery and self-confidence at her age.
I also really appreciate your putting this into a broader context. I think most people are able to see how creepy it is to tell a 16 year old that she’s sexy, but many of those people miss how the same behavior is still creepy for adults as well. I rarely read comments on tech blogs anyway, and I never do so when a woman is interviewed. Regardless of the actual topic of the interview, if there’s a picture of a woman, many of the comments will be devoted to whether or not she’s “hot.”
Why is it “creepy” to tell a 16 year old that she is sexy?
Spain’s age of consent is 13. Denmark’s age of consent is 15. Estonia 14; Finland 16; France 15; Germany 14. England and Wales 16. Most of Europe is in that range.
Canada and much of the US is 16, but some major population centers like California and New York are 17 and 18, so maybe that is where the more prudish or conservative sexual mores come from.
Age of consent means the society has concluded that the person has the capacity to deal with actual sexual intercourse and other sexual activities. Certainly, being suggested to come to “Sexy Atheist” board and look at stuff like a green naked Statue of Liberty would be less extreme than actual sexual consent.
So, while Ahlquist is American, not European – Rhode Island – which I think is where she is from – has an age of sexual consent at 16. So, she is old enough to choose for herself whether to have sex with men. So, if the society allows her to choose to have sex, presumably it allows her to field suggestions to view and contribute to a Sexy Atheist message board.
While, of course, everyone’s sense of “creepiness” is purely a subjective matter, and there is no such thing as “objective” creepiness, I think that some of the reactions here seem a bit, well, let’s say ultra-conservative on the issue of sexuality. She’s 16 – she is an intelligent, smart, educated, capable woman, who we all know can stand up and fight for her legal rights and stand up to an overwhelming majority pitted against her – surely, she can field a request to contribute to the “Sexy Atheist” message board?
But why should she HAVE to field a request to join a “sexy atheist” group IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPROPRIATE CONTEXT WHATSOEVER?!
Moreover, your pedantry on issues of age of consent as opposed to, oh I dunno, basic human decency, is making my creep meter go off in a major way!
Yeaaah, my “subjective” creepy meter just went “DING DING WE HAVE A CREEPSTER!” Because wow, just wow.
I don’t see why treating a 16 year old as something more than small child is “creepy.” She has the right to choose to have sex, and is granted the legal authority to decide who, what, where, and when she has sex. This implies, rationally, the legal authority to field requests for same. Here, we’re not talking about requests for sex, per se, but a request that she post an image of herself at a “Sexy Atheists” forum.
I have no doubt that Ms. Ahlquist has the character and fortitude to field such a request. She has shown herself to be a strong young woman who stood up against an entire town, and fought for her legal rights. A dope on the internet asking her post a picture of herself is a small affair for her.
I think we all can recall being 16. Were we such withering flowers?
Yeah, mine too. I mean, yeesh.
Re: Fensterbaby
It’s not “treating a 16-year old like a small child”, it’s having some sense of social decency. Surely you realize that it’s not always appropriate for one person to make sexual comments to another, even if they are both over the age of consent? For instance, it wouldn’t be appropriate for a teacher to make sexual comments to a student, because the teacher is in a position of power over the student. Similarly, an adult is in a position of power over a 16-year old – they may not be able to hold anything over them, but they have more rights and responsibilities than a 16-year old, and thus they hold a higher “position” in society.
I think we all can recall being 16. Were we such withering flowers?
Given that I was 16 slightly less than two years ago, I believe I’m in a perfect position to address this question. Short answer: Yes. It’s not that sex freaked me out, or that I would have swooned away if someone on the internet told me I was sexy. But if that someone was an adult? It would have been massively awkward, to say the least. I’d be wondering what they meant by it – whether they were just trying to compliment me, or whether they were trying to hit on me – that is, trying to start something. I’d be wondering if I should respond, how I should respond, what they were expecting me to do. I’d be wondering if they knew I was 16, if they hit on me because of that. I’d be, in short, creeped the fuck out.
Why should she have to field a request? Well, I guess it’s an internet forum open to people to comment freely and pretty much request whatever they want — unmoderated or loosely moderated message boards are like that. And, if a forum is really going to be a free discussion, then distasteful and “creepy” opinions and suggestions are going to be involved.
Anyway – I can’t help your creep factor. But, it doesn’t have to be made about me. My point was only that cultural mores and customs don’t create objective standards from which we can point judgmental fingers and say “You have gone beyond the bounds of decency!” My point was that matters sexual have been and are subject to a very shifting array of cultural and legal standards. My citation to the age of consent was basically to illustrate the point that if the cultural consensus is that a girl of 16 has the ability to accept offers for sexual intercourse (which in Rhode Island she apparently does) from adults, then certainly a request to post a picture is not quite as serious. Maybe you don’t see it that way – but, I do.
If you’re implying something about me personally, be advised that I wouldn’t make nasty comments to anyone on the internet, because I’m pretty tame on these issues. I also haven’t dated, or tried to date, a 16 year old girl since I was 18, so hopefully that reduces your “creep alert” a bit.
“. And, if a forum is really going to be a free discussion, then distasteful and “creepy” opinions and suggestions are going to be involved.”
Wow, really? A free discussion includes sexist remarks to a 16 year old girl?
I don’t even know where to being with you. You seem to have no understanding at all of what we’ve been talking about.
A woman, of any age, should not have to filter sexual comments just because she posts a picture of herself. And if you think it’s totally okay to do that, you are part of the problem. A big part of the problem.
I also left out that it’s not creepy for another 16 year old to call a 16 year old sexy (assuming appropriate context), but my larger point was in fact that I find this behavior of commenting on a woman’s attractiveness irrespective of context problematic for all women, adults included. Age of consent laws don’t affect my main argument.
To make my point a little clearer: it’s not inherently creepy for one teenager to call another teenager sexy in the appropriate context, like if the two are dating. It is creepy to come across a picture of a woman of any age and go straight to “sexy” when the context has nothing to do with attractiveness.
Call me a prudish sex-negative backward American if you want (you’d be wrong about everything but the American part), but using age of consent laws to justify older people perving on a teenager is fucking creepy. I don’t give a rat’s dick if some lawmakers somewhere said it’s ok to for 16 year olds to give consent to sex with whomever they want, it does not make adults sexually objectifying a much younger person OK.
It’s always creepy as hell when jackasses like that assume that just because something’s legal, it’s therefore right and moral.
No no. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that. There are many things that are legal that I think are creepy. I was trying to place some perspective on the discussion, that is all, and I think that what is legal is certainly relevant to a discussion of what our culture objectively finds seriously creepy.
I will say again that what is creepy is a purely subjective analysis, and some people think that it’s creepy for even adults to interact in a sexual manner. We generally, though, find that once a person is an adult over the age of 18 that there isn’t going to be advance protection against people saying creepy things. One person’s creepy is not another person’s creepy, and as a society it’s not feasible to decide the issue in advance.
My suggestion here is that on this topic, even a person of age 16 and up is likewise capable of fielding these kinds of inquiries. And, while many people may feel the inquiries are creepy, many others don’t. I pointed out that as a consensus, the people of Rhode Island have decided that not only can a 16 year old field a request to post her picture on the Sexy Atheist forum, but that she is competent to field overtures for actual sexual intercourse.
That is not to say that I think it’s a good thing to hit on 16 year olds – that isn’t something I’ve done since I graduate high school. However, unlike some, I don’t presume that others cups of tea are objectively wrong — like the show Lost’s Doug Hutchison married 16 year old singer Courtney Stodden.
Creepy? Maybe so. They seem happy, and she’s perfectly capable of handling the situation, at least as far as anyone has shown thus far. Would asking her to post her picture on a forum be off the charts?
And, that is your view of it. There are quite a number of other people who aren’t particularly incensed by 16 year olds dating or interacting sexually with persons over the age of 21. A 20 year old and a 16 going on 17? Maybe – according to my rulebook, that’s not too bad. But, in my view, the difference between someone who is 21, or 25 or 30 and a 16 year old, in terms of life experience, etc., is too great. So, I think they generally should date and interact with persons over 20 ish.
That being said, I don’t pretend that my morality must be everyone’s. Is Mr. Hutchison from the show “Lost” a creep for marrying Courtney Stodden (she was 16)?
And we should remember that the extension of childhood is a fairly recent concept. Being 16 was, not too long ago, plenty old enough for sexuality and marriage. Cultural norms are just that, cultural.
“Is Mr. Hutchison from the show “Lost” a creep for marrying Courtney Stodden (she was 16)?”
Uh. Yes. Yes it is. Have you actually seen those two interact?
Wow. You really seem to think it’s okay to sexualize women just because they happen to be women. You are part of the problem.
The presumption that any woman who happens to be in possession of a body will be both thrilled and excited at the thought of internet strangers oogling her body is, in all cases, uniformly creepy. Age of consent doesn’t enter into it.
It’s not incumbent upon women (particularly minors) to accept sexualized attention until and unless they explicitly forbid it. “Sexy until proven otherwise” is pretty messed up.
I don’t think that is it at all. I think it’s just that in an internet open forum, lots of different things can be said because of a lack of moderation. Asking a question like “will you post your picture at Sexy Atheist” doesn’t presume that she wants to post her picture. It’s not a presumption – it’s a question. She may not, and if she doesn’t, then we know she doesn’t want to. She may be thrilled, and she may go there and post the picture.
If you’re making stupid arguments, at least get your facts right. In Germany the age of consent is 14 only with people under 18, and I think that is true in some of the other countries you mention as well.
Personal attack.
It’s now a personal attack to point out that your augments are stupid AND uniformed? Uh, no.
Wow, yes, and the marriageable age in some countries is 12 and 13! What’s with the rules, all of Western civilization?! Lighten up!
Thing is, there is a difference not only in age but maturity that is wholly inappropriate. Yes, Jessica is a mature and well-spoken young lady, but older guys should also know better – where is the responsibility for them? Seems you’re more concerned that we let Jessica “field” these requests herself than you are that people are actually making them to begin with.
Imagine if every picture you posted of yourself was followed up with someone asking you to join some group where people objectify your appearance. Post a picture of yourself with a book – people say LOL TAKE UR SHIRT OFF. Post a picture of yourself with your dog – people say OMG UR SO HAWT. Post a picture of yourself making a silly, cute face – OMG GO POST YOURSELF TO THIS PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN GET AROUSED.
Welcome to being an attractive woman on the internet where similar actions by men wouldn’t get the same response!
Taking age out of the equation, THAT is fucking creepy. Context, man.
I certainly respect your opinion on this, which is a legitimate view.
So, what do you suggest be done about it?
Have you been paying attention at all? Also, you need to take responsibility for yourself and ask yourself why you seem to be okay with apologizing for and shrugging off this type of behavior.
Weird argument about age-of-consent.
Sort of like saying: “as an atheist I’m really tired of having belief shoved at my kids and hope for a future where this matter is personal, not socially accepted conversational trade”
and hearing: “Well, but Catholics have confirmation at 13. So your kids are clearly old enough to go to hell.”
Point completely missed.
Look, I understand many of your points (also made in the posts below), and completely agree that “creepy” is not a good description of the Sexy Atheists comment, and that mixing in the “she’s only 16! that’s perverted!” bit doesn’t help either.
But.
Do you happen to be European? :-) I am, and I didn’t see what was meant by a lot of this “women being reduced to objects” stuff… growing up in the 80ies/90ies in central and western Europe, I saw absolutely no problem with interacting with people in a respectful way and treating them as equals, and at the same time acknowledging that we’re both sexual beings, too.
An appreciative comment on someone’s looks can be meant and taken as a friendly aside, and not as an attempt to reduce someone to an object. In the 80ies in Hungary, women routinely wore fishnets to work and were taken seriously as professionals who happen to like how their legs look, instead of being seen as sluts who want to distract men with sexual thoughts. Lots of women would go to the beach topless and nobody would pay more attention to them than bikini-wearing ones. Girls had short hair and were encouraged to play with cars and trains and Lego.
A lot of this is not typical any more, and possibly never was in some places (such as the US). Notice how in comment on news articles with a woman, usually half the posts ignore what she actually said and judge her solely based on her looks. Notice how it’s become a popular way of reacting to something a woman posts to speculate about ways of raping her. Notice how it’s again ok to say “girls can’t do X because it’s their biology”, with X absolutely basic things ranging from maths over parking cars to doing politics. Notice how a woman has to choose between being a pretty, somewhat stupid and submissive “attractive woman” or a smart and successful but thereby threatening “shrill feminists”.
This regression is hardly noticeable in academic, left-oriented circles, and most pronounced in pools of idiots such as youtube comment threads and MRA forums, but sadly the general population is sitting closer to the youtube end of this spectrum.
So when you see a comment that says “I think you’re pretty” in a more or less crude way (and let’s admit it, asking to see sexy pics of someone is a pretty crude way), you as a guy may see this as a way of something nice and not too different from making a compliment on intelligence, eloquence or any other skill, but for the woman, it’s likely to be yet another of those comments from random guys who completely forget about her being an actual person and only see her in terms of them wanting to use her genitalia.
Of course one may speculate about why this backlash in women’s equality happened and what factors contributed… My money is on religiosity and prudishness in the US (which is then happily adopted around the world), and how islamic fundamentalists’ claims that the West “allows” its women to be slutty are partly accommodated, among others, but that’s just my 2 cents.
The point is: Your attitude is sane and logical, only it’s based on a world that’s very different to what women encounter on a more or less daily basis. I wish you were representative of men’s behaviour towards women, but you’re not.
>>> Why is it “creepy” to tell a 16 year old
>>> that she is sexy?
It isn’t necessarily creepy to tell a 16 year old she’s sexy. If, say, she posted a picture of herself posing in her bathing suit with a comment “Check out my news duds!”, then I’d suppose that we could say she wanted to appear sexy and comments to that effect would be non-creepy – providing the comment stayed reasonably non-criminal and came from someone near her own age.
Of course, if she’s posting a funny, clearly non-sexual picture of herself, then some guy telling her she’s sexy and should post sexy pictures of herself is pretty creepy.
Not “posting a list of international ages of consent” creepy, but pretty creepy all the same.
YOU are creepy. If you don’t understand why, that’s why.
Wow what a creepy fuck you are. There are no words, you are a creepy person and you SHOULD be ashamed, because you really, really need to learn how to not be creepy.
You know, it would be a lot easier for me to ignore the Patriarchy if you wouldn’t put all of those examples of blatant sexism and objectification right next to each other like that.
If they were spread out a little more in time, I could ignore each of them in turn as the kind of thing that rarely happens anymore.
Ha, sorry about that! I should probably post a unicorn chaser.
Always conclude with a unicorn chaser.
… Wow. People are creepy. And good on Morgan for calling them out on it. More people need to confront this behavior. It’s not white knighting to insist that everyone be treated as a human being rather than an object.
Great post. I’m sorry I clicked on the videos…well the Adriana Lima video-that vase is GORGEOUS!
it’s no surprise, none at all,to know sexism is alive and well in our community. It will continue to rear it’s ugly head until enough people say NO…consistently. I’m saddened to see Danica the race car driver has still decided to subject herself to objectification but the socket is Jillian Michaels. She portrays herself as a ball buster on TV but this commercial.. .she looks as if she was preparing the girl to be sold. Maybe we can learn a thing or two from our youth and grow the hell up.
(I met with you and had dinner with you at Tam7 ‘Becca. Nice to meet you again).
Yes, this was a bit sickening. I dare you to be-fan Erin Andrews’ Facebook page. Go on, I dare you. The poor girl might post, “Go Packers” and the sleeze just starts pouring forth. It is truly disgusting that some men evidently believe that publicly stating, “Wow, I love your tits” somehow endears them to a lady.
Saying anything even remotely sexist or sexual to a six-freaking-teen year old girl is just . . . Well, I miss being able to wish people to hell for that kind of stupidity.
On behalf of all men, I’m so sorry.
There is no ‘patriarchy’, and your examples are just false dichotomies. I assumed that as feminists, you would know the definition of patriarchy by heart. But I will relay the definition to you, to clear any misunderstandings.
Patriarchy:
1. A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
2. A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
We can see that point #1 is not true today (In most countries). Men are not the head of the household. In fact, it is society (Got that? Society, not patriarchy, is responsible for stereotypical gender roles.) that paints men as the clueless husband, while the woman is the all-knowing mother. Not only that, but more and more children these days are being brought up by single mothers, without a father at all. Add to that, children and wives no longer have to take the last name of the father. And descent is traced through both lines of the family tree.
Point #2 is also not the case. Women are not excluded from positions of power. We should all remind ourselves that equal opportunity =/= equal outcome. Every woman has the same chance as men to inherit a position of power. And in politics, women actually make up the majority of voters.
As skeptics, I expect you to look at the facts. It is clear that the lot of you are so biased, that you will consciously ignore the facts the prove otherwise. By definition, the patriarchy does not exist. The sexism and stereotypes you see everyday are a result of society. A society that both men and women are responsible for.
so, that’s 9 comments from the original post to the first piece of mansplaining.
Who had 9 comments in the sweepstakes?
As a feminist, can you please tell me how you can justify the use of a gendered insult? (Mansplaining)
Do you know what mansplaining means? It is also used toward women who also try to mansplain (lookin’ at you, Michelle Bachmann).
There are lots of insults that are used for more than just their main purpose. Calling a straight man a “fag” is still an insult towards gays.
Yes, but…in all fairness, it is gendered “mansplain.” It’s a portmanteau of “man” and “explain.” It is not different in character than saying “chick logic” or “woman logic.”
And, it is used quite often – I’ve seen it – against any man who voices an opinion that isn’t shared by the person using the term.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not telling you not to use it. I just think to rationalize it as not a sexist term can’t be justified, in my opinion. It is a sexist term. It’s saying that something is a “man explanation” and is therefore to be discounted.
You cannot even begin to compare “Fag” to “mansplain”.
Furthermore, you cannot be sexist toward men. Sexism can hurt men, but you cannot be sexist toward the opressor. Oppression doesn’t work like that.
Men haven’t been oppressed since the beginning of time. Women and minorities have.
This is a fantastic skit by the always fantastic Louis CK. It has to do with race, not sexism, but it’s slightly related (because white MEN have it good, man). You just can’t say anything that will offend or oppress the group of people who have oppressed minorities, including women, since the beginning of time. Again, oppression doesn’t work like that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
Of course, that doesn’t mean you can’t be a dickwad to a man, and I’d say just calling a man a mansplainer JUST because he’s a dude is a pretty dick thing to do, but it’s not sexist.
No, fenster, it is not used “against any man who voices an opinion that isn’t shared…” I posit that actually you are socialized to be unaware of how said man is behaving in a condescending, belittling manner, where such attitudes are much clearer to those who are on the receiving end of them.
Moreover, read up on the discussions of privilege and then you will see that it is not AT ALL equivalent to demeaning women’s logic. Here’s a quick explanation:
Using “chick logic” not only uses the trivializing, sexualized term “chick,” but it also implies that women, by the fact of their biology, are not capable of using actual logic. It also bashes people who have historically been marginalized from education and continue to be deprecated in popular media about their intelligence, for socially-constructed disadvantages over which they have little to no control.
In contrast, “mansplain” means that a person is exploiting their socially-established (usually) gender privilege in a thoughtless, self-entitled, belittling way. It is holding people who are in positions of power or assumed social advantage accountable for the way they are treating others. This is especially important because, by virtue of their privileges, their attitudes and examples can have far-reaching effects on society.
To make this very simple:
Belittling the marginalized for their disadvantages = bad.
Holding the privileged accountable for their actions/attitudes = good and necessary for progress and equality.
I can’t seem to reply to the actual post I want to reply to. I don’t know if it’s locked or if it’s just a limitation of the software (too many nested comments?) If I’m doing something wrong someone please let me know. (Yes, I’ve read the comment policy.)
Anyhow, I never said “mainsplaining” was sexist or reverse sexism or anything like that. I said it was insulting. If you have to explain why it’s *not* insulting every time you use the term to the uninitiated then that to me is enough evidence that it is an insulting term. It’s a pejorative term with the word “man” in it. And not by happenstance either, by design. It doesn’t matter to me if you use the term against women too. I still find it insulting.
You can tell me I need to examine my privilege and I won’t deny it. I’m doing my best to do more listening than speaking, to learn something new rather than reinforce old biases. But what I’m hearing is that I’m not allowed to feel insulted because of A, B, and C, and that sounds like exactly the kind of condescending explaining that “mansplaining” is supposed to embody.
djp, you’re not being “insulted.” You’re being held accountable for your privilege. It’s the privilege that’s being attacked, not necessarily you (unless of course you are exploiting that privilege to treat others badly, which it doesn’t seem that you, personally, are doing). I know it’s uncomfortable to have privilege challenged, but that doesn’t mean it’s an “insult”–it just means that critically examining our self-perception as to how we believe we are versus the effects of how we act in the world can be deeply unsettling. However, that’s a necessary stage to go through to actually deal with systemic injustice in the world.
And, the fact of the matter is, with systemic systems of privilege, privileged people inflict their privilege on others even if they’re VERY committed to social justice. It’s a whole mess of assumptions, snap judgements, biases, cultural narratives, etc., etc. that we’re not even AWARE we’re engaging in. I know I’ve caught myself in some ridiculously racist assumptions over the years, when I had no idea I was doing it at the time. So, I’ve learned never to be offended when people talk about “Shit White People Say”–I know I’ve done enough stupid things in my time. Instead of trying to silence the criticism, I consider myself reminded to examine my own habits to make sure I’m not part of the problem. I have been before, and I will be again, I know, despite my best efforts.
So, djp, odds are you’ve mansplained, and will mainsplain again. In fact it’s staggeringly unlikely that this is not the case. Please understand that this is not a personal fault–men are socialized to do this from infancy, and certainly all through your schooling and adolescent/young adult social interactions. It’s just one of those nasty things that even though you’d never intentionally do it, it can happen without you meaning to. But, when you see or hear the term “mansplain,” please consider the twinge you feel as a reminder to make sure you’re part of the solution, not as being “insulted.” But, it needs to give that twinge because it needs to remind you that yes, even you, might mansplain.
And, consider that when people (you or others) mansplain, others are being harmed and having their opinions/intelligence devalued, and addressing the behavior and its roots in gender socialization are essential to solving this problem. I understand where you’re coming from, and believe me I know how much it can hurt to have to examine privilege, but it’s really important that we not place our comfort above naming and solving a problem.
No, sorry, Mike, mansplaining is not a “gendered” insult–it is a criticism of male privilege, and how men are socialized in our society. Acting in a way that bullies or demeans someone based on your privilege is in fact wrong, and we’re not going to pretend that this gender-related privilege isn’t gendered, just for the sake of your fee-fees or other denialism.
That, and women can also mansplain. Michelle Bachmann is amazing at this. As is Sarah Palin. And don’t get me started on Anne Coulter! Women can be sexist/misogynist as well. It’s not just a problem with men; it’s a problem with society.
I think people see “patriarchy” and assume it’s ONLY about men, when it’s not. It’s about a sexist/patriarchal SOCIETY, which includes everyone.
Gay people can be highly sexist! And it’s not just a republican/conservative thing, either. Isn’t Chris Matthews (of MSNBC) known to be kind of a sexist dolt, for instance?
Yes, in every sense of the word, mansplaining is a gendered insult. And you feminists continue to use it.
Mansplaining: The fact or action of explaining something in a condescending or self-justifying manner, originally and especially of a man to a woman.
It’s is sexist.
Still can’t seem to reply exactly where I want to, so I apologize for this being in the wrong place.
Anyhow, please don’t misunderstand, I’m not trying to deny that mansplaining as a thing (as it is defined by the feminist community) exists, nor am I trying to defend myself against the accusation of having done it. Shit no, I know I’ve done it. The very first time someone explained to me with specific examples what the term actually meant, I was like “Oh. Yeah, shit, done that. Many times. Whoops.”
That’s my real point–someone had to explain it to me in detail first. I know, that’s true of most things in life. Nobody is born just knowing things. But the term seems easy to understand on the surface, and I’d wager most people seeing the word for the first time come to the same conclusion I did at first–that it has something to do with the act of explaining while male, and somehow this is bad in and of itself. Well no, it actually doesn’t have anything to do with being male at all, when you get down to it. It’s about “explaining” from a position of privilege, generally in an attempt to silence the “complainer”–white feminist women do it to black feminist women disturbingly often, I’m told. The term got its name because men hold the lion’s share of the privilege, and are in position to do it the most.
But if it’s not really about being male, why does it still carry that name? It seems like a needlessly confusing and inflammatory word to use when the entire subject of privilege and systemic sexism is already such a huge minefield to navigate for the uninitiated (meaning, basically, white males.) At every point there is a new and legitimate concern to stop dismissing and start taking seriously, and each one is a new potential drop-out point, a point where it would be all too easy to stop trying to navigate through this minefield you didn’t even know was there yesterday and instead head back to your comfort zone of being white and male and straight and not having to deal with any of this if you don’t choose to. I agree that feeling uncomfortable (to say the least) is part of the journey, or the awakening if you wish to call it that. It couldn’t be otherwise. You can’t navigate this minefield without stepping on mines and getting some new pre-conception or prejudice you didn’t even know you had blown to shit. It just seems to me like this is an unnecessary mine.
Anyway, I’m getting long winded and terrified that I’m just engaging in more mansplaining without even realizing it (wouldn’t be the first time, won’t be the last.) I did see some of the comments down-thread about how this shouldn’t even be the focus of the discussion, and I agree that it’s a minor point, but it just seems like a minor point that keeps coming up and has an easy fix. I do try to use each new point where I feel challenged as a chance to examine why I feel uncomfortable, and whether I’ve got a legitimate concern or I’m just trying to unconsciously protect another piece of privilege that I don’t want to let go of just yet. This one just keeps coming up and poking at me over and over, though.
djp, I really do respect the fact that your posts have been thoughtful and seem sincere. On the one hand, I’m not comfortable with the idea that whether or not white, straight, cis males are comfortable should be the limiting factor in our discussion. On the other, I’ll offer you this: don’t try to take a necessary word away, propose a new one and make an argument for why you think it encapsulates the problem better, and then hope it will catch on.
I want to think that I’m not suggesting you stop using the term just because it upsets men, but rather because in needlessly upsetting some men before they’re “ready” to understand the term (which frankly can’t be understood until you understand privilege, which is a far larger hurdle) the community will be alienating potential allies.
I say “want to think” because I’ve not yet convinced myself I’m not just butt-hurt about the whole thing. I suppose I will ruminate on that for awhile. Also, I felt I very cleverly avoided offering up an alternative term because frankly I can’t think of one just yet. But you saw through that rather quickly, huh? It’s almost like I’m not the first one who ever thought of this. Tomorrow perhaps I will rediscover solipsism and go annoy some philosophers with my grand insight. I’m still not convinced I’m wrong, mind you, but I’m at least less convinced that I’m right.
it’s a gendered insult because it deals with a gendered concept. Or is your new claiming that any acknowledgement of gender is antifeminist?
The patriarchy doesn’t just deal with gender and gender alone, though. MANY women are part of the patriarchy, as I have pointed out several times. Mansplaining has more to do with the patriarchy than it does with men.
I’d say he’s purely trying to say that immediately reaching for a gender-based term to effectively devalue the comment that was made feels like a hypocritical reaction coming from a feminist (i.e. someone who actively campaigns for equality between both genders).
That said, you’re absolutely right in saying that Mansplaining isn’t just a term, it’s a phenomenon. And one that will one day hopefully be a thing of the past.
As a man, could you please answer on behalf of every man on some arbitrary definition or question? Maybe you could start by answering on behalf of every single man that ever did something bad to every single woman.
If this sounds ridiculous to you, then you have just figured out how ridiculous you sound to the rest of us.
This is a response to spinooccipital: you said, “I posit that actually you are socialized to be unaware of how said man is behaving in a condescending, belittling manner, where such attitudes are much clearer to those who are on the receiving end of them.”
Well, we can all posit what others have been “socialized” to believe. Maybe you’ve been “socialized” to not see the term “mansplaining” used indiscriminately, against any man voicing a contrary opinion.
In my experience, it is a denigrating term, designed specifically to belittle and discount an argument. If it isn’t that, then why not just call it an “explanation?” Why the “mansplain” term at all?
And, of course, your response is dismissive of my experience. Just because you haven’t seen “mansplain” used in a sexist manner doesn’t mean that many men are not confronted by the sexist usage all the time.
Why don’t you do a bit of googling to learn about socialization? The vast majority of us reading this understand this concept–you don’t, so we’re not going to waste our time educating you, especially given your piss-poor reading comprehension.
And another thing DO NOT use the language of marginalization (“Denying my experience…”) to uphold privilege. It’s a shitty thing to do.
And, by the way, the reason you’re probably annoyed with “mansplaining” is that you refuse to except that YOU ARE A PRIME EXAMPLE of the reason “mansplaining” exists–you know nothing about the topic, you post long, pseudo-authoritative rants that contain no insight and oversimplify complex concepts appallingly, and yet you insist that you should be taken seriously. This behavior is entrenched in your male privilege AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO CALL YOU ON IT.
MikeFromCanada,
You stated exactly zero facts in your post. Instead you gave us a giant double scoop of condescension sprinkled liberally with definitions and unsupported assertions. If your going to demand that people “look at the facts”, you might try providing some.
Wrong on both accounts, and I hope I am the first to say “fuck off!”.
You’re an apple. I’m not going to bother proving it, you just are.
Good thing a man came in to explain to all the silly wimminz what REAL TRUE PATRIARCHY (that doesn’t exist) is.