Feminism

Seeing the Patriarchy

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

“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:

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:

idiot hits on spambot

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:

Woman in Bed with Gun

 

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.

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.

Rebecca Watson

Rebecca is a writer, speaker, YouTube personality, and unrepentant science nerd. In addition to founding and continuing to run Skepchick, she hosts Quiz-o-Tron, a monthly science-themed quiz show and podcast that pits comedians against nerds. There is an asteroid named in her honor. Twitter @rebeccawatson Mastodon mstdn.social/@rebeccawatson Instagram @actuallyrebeccawatson TikTok @actuallyrebeccawatson YouTube @rebeccawatson BlueSky @rebeccawatson.bsky.social

Related Articles

461 Comments

  1. 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?

    1. 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).

  2. 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.”

    1. 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?

      1. 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!

        1. Yeaaah, my “subjective” creepy meter just went “DING DING WE HAVE A CREEPSTER!” Because wow, just wow.

          1. 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?

          2. 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.

        2. 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.

          1. “. 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.

      2. 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.

        1. 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.

      3. 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.

        1. It’s always creepy as hell when jackasses like that assume that just because something’s legal, it’s therefore right and moral.

          1. 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?

        2. 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.

          1. “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.

      4. 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.

        1. 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.

      5. 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.

          1. It’s now a personal attack to point out that your augments are stupid AND uniformed? Uh, no.

      6. 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.

        1. I certainly respect your opinion on this, which is a legitimate view.

          So, what do you suggest be done about it?

          1. 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.

      7. 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.

      8. 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.

      9. >>> 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.

      10. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. … 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.

  5. 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.

  6. (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.

  7. 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.

    1. so, that’s 9 comments from the original post to the first piece of mansplaining.

      Who had 9 comments in the sweepstakes?

      1. As a feminist, can you please tell me how you can justify the use of a gendered insult? (Mansplaining)

        1. Do you know what mansplaining means? It is also used toward women who also try to mansplain (lookin’ at you, Michelle Bachmann).

          1. 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.

          2. 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.

          3. 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.

          4. 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.

          5. 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.

          6. 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.

        2. 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.

          1. 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?

          2. 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.

          3. 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.

          4. 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.

          5. 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.

        3. it’s a gendered insult because it deals with a gendered concept. Or is your new claiming that any acknowledgement of gender is antifeminist?

          1. 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.

          2. 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.

        4. 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.

        5. 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.

          1. 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.

    2. 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.

      1. This seems a little stereotypical of you. How does me being a man have to do with anything? Seems a little sexist.

        1. Your being a man has to do with the fact that you are used to male privilege, and you are abusing your privilege to act like an unthinking, condescending, intellectually incurious troll. It is not “sexist” to point out that you are using the privileges of maleness to which you are accustomed to bully others and act like your opinions and needs deserve to be foremost.

          1. What about women who deny the patriarchy? They have zero male privilege and yet they still call fallacy. The fact that I’m a man does not mean I have no right to comment on subjects such as this. And I figure skeptics would ignore my gender, and instead read the arguments I present.

          2. Women benefit from the patriarchy. That’s nothing new. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, or that it’s somehow a positive thing.

          3. Or rather, some women can benefit from the patriarchy. I didn’t mean all women. Or, they think they benefit, or they think it is the “only way”. But just because people are stuck in their old ways, doesn’t mean it’s right or positive.

          4. Women who deny the patriarchy get tons of support and approval from patriarchal men. They get in-group privilege so that, like Phyllis Schlafly, they’ll never be as influential and powerful as the men, they will still get lots of creature comforts and social advantages from those in power.

            And no one said that “as a man you have no right to comment….blahblahblahwhinewhinewhine,” so you can drop that ridiculous strawman right now. You’ll notice lots of male-identified screen names have been welcome in this discussion and have been contributing thoughtfully. You, on the other hand, have been a pompous, denialist ASS. It’s your denialism, assholery, and general refusal to consider others’ lived experience, coupled with your long history of behaving like an ass on this site, that makes you unwelcome here, NOT your gender. Your gender is fine. Your BEHAVIOR is shitty to the utmost degree.

            And don’t play that “I would hope you’d ignore my gender” bullshit on a post that deals with GENDER ISSUES. Especially when the “arguments” you want us to evaluate have in fact been thoroughly debunked on their face, and when they are basically a whole steaming pile of argument from ignorance and privilege about gender issues.

    3. Can’t you see how all of these examples are things that can directly or indirectly support a “A system of society… in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.”? You are sooo close! You even almost say it in the last couple sentences.

      1. Can you expand on this, or make it a little clearer? I’m afraid I don’t quite understand your point.

        1. Then you can go out and educate yourself for your intellectual deficiencies, instead of expecting us to drop everything & explain 2+2=4 over and over again, especially when you have a long history of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “lalalalalalalalala!!!!”

          1. Isn’t that the equivalent of the old saw, “Well, if you don’t know already, then I’m certainly not going to explain it to you.”

            Unfortunately, the convention generally is that people advancing an assertion bear the burden of proving it. If someone doesn’t understand you, then it’s not a proper form to suggest that they go out and do research or study until they find their way to the conclusion you are suggesting is inescapable.

            You ought to just clear it up for him.

          2. fensterbaby:

            No, it isn’t like that at all. It’s more like walking up to a discussion of Calculus and demanding that everyone stop and explain multiplication to you first. This is a long and complex subject with a lot of history, and it is your responsibility to give yourself a basic education in it, not anyone else’s. The response hasn’t been, “If you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you.” The response hasn’t been, “Go out and research until you agree with me.” The response has been, “I can’t teach you about integrals until you understand basic math.”

            It’s not that difficult to give oneself a basic grounding in this or any topic. We live in a world with Google, and if you’re reading this, Google is a couple of keystrokes or clicks away. Simply reading the discussion here should provide one with an ample selection of keywords to use in one’s search. But if one is unwilling to do the requisite homework before engaging in discussion, one will find no better outcomes in life than those that tactic provided in school.

          3. @Rebel 16:

            Well put! Thanks for going over all that so I don’t have to :-)

            And fenster…seriously…”You ought to”?!?!?! Wow, what a privileged asshat!

    4. @Mike

      Here’s the first two paragraphs from Wikipedia:

      “Patriarchy is a social system in which the male gender role as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. The female equivalent is matriarchy.

      Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, and economic organization of a range of different cultures. Patriarchy also has a strong influence on modern civilization, although many cultures have moved towards a more egalitarian social system over the past century.”

      Did you see that second paragraph that starts out saying how the patriarchy manifest itself in SOCIAL, legal, political and economic organization of a range of different cultures?

      Now let’s cover your comment about both men and women being responsible for our society. You’re right, both sexes are responsible for it. Responsible for it being a hierarchy. Whomever is on top is the one that comes out the best.

      Now I’ll introduce a word called Kyriarchy. This word means that society takes into account not just sex but also race, social status, class and several other aspects in order to decide who ends up on top. After all, white women have more privilege than women of color and it’s easy for white women to forget that what they’re fighting for may not be what women of color want to fight for. Same goes for poor white people who can’t afford to drive to the polling station as compared to the rich white dude who gets a helicopter ride to one.

      As a skeptic, you really should be more skeptical of your own “facts.” After all, opinions aren’t facts.

      1. “and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property.”

        Fathers hold no authority over women. And authority over children and property are shared. This wiki post is already proving the fallacy of our so called patriarchy.

        “It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, ”

        Yes, but in society, there is also female privilege. And men aren’t ruling because they are men, they are ruling because they chose to. Any woman can go to university, take politics or business, and have the same chance as any man of making it into a position of power.

        “and entails female subordination.”

        Where exactly are the females being subordinated here? There is no entailed female subordination, therefore this definition on wiki is already proving you false.

        “Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage”

        This is no longer the case.

        So are you going to even admit there is no patriarchy?

        1. Just because there’s nominal legal equality DOES NOT MEAN there is functional equality. If you want to think about father’s having authority, let’s think about the shocking rates of domestic violence in this country. Let’s think about the millions of women living where they’d be shunned if they didn’t take their husband’s name. Let’s think about the fact that women are disproportionately expected to give up/postpone their careers (and face vicious social condemnation if they don’t!) for the sake of childcare. Let’s think about the fact that childcare costs so much that many women can’t AFFORD to make enough to equal the cost of childcare even if they really want to go back to work. Let’s think about the fact that women are expected to relocate for their husband’s career but husbands typically refuse to do the same for their wives.

          Actually try to make a case for what you think is “female privilege,” and I’ll show you that it’s really just condescending crumbs.

          Moreover, I’ve ALREADY SHOWN YOU many of the examples of how women are discriminated against in trying to reach a position of power, so your assertion that women aren’t in power just because they don’t want to be is absurd and denialist.

          Female subordination has to do with us having a much more difficult time to achieve professional success. It has to do with us receiving gender-based threats on a regular basis. It has to do with us being unable to walk down many streets or take public transportation without harassment. It has to do with our culture telling us that if we don’t look a certain way, we’re worthless. It has to do with rape and other violent crime against us being minimized or simply never investigated or prosecuted. It has to do with vicious verbal and professional attacks if we speak up for ourselves when we are mistreated. It has to do with our bodies being treated as public property. It has to do with major political parties trying to force us to be pregnant against our wills, even to the point of allowing doctors to withhold lifesaving care for pregnant women. It has to do with our accomplishments being brushed off as “tokenism.” It has to do with major religious movements with followers in the millions refusing to allow women to be leaders or even low-level priests or ministers, and telling their congregations that a woman’s place is to be subservient to men and to devote herself to the household.

          Note that your source said “Many”–not all–patriarchal societies have a pattern of male inheritance. It was never posited as essential. Moreover, our society held this as the norm until QUITE recently–do you think that just because this was formally abolished all other trappings of patriarchy magically disappeared?

          1. Seconded. Absolutely fantastic. May I copy and paste this for other threads (with attribution here)?

        2. It’s sad that so many skeptics don’t get the concept of Patriarchy. The fact that there are stereotypes like MEN = Do’ers WOMEN = Caregivers is the best evidence I can think of that the Patriarchy is a real problem.

          @Mike if your still trolling this article: Try putting yourself in our shoes: Why do we really disagree with you? Try thinking about the feminist issues brought up in these stories and try to think “If I were So-And-So why would this bother me?”

    5. PLEASE IGNORE THE TROLL.

      Mike, I like how you recently tried to pretend that you weren’t interesting in trolling every single feminist/gender/sexist-related article at Skepchick. You sure fooled me, man! (/s)

      Do you just hit refresh over and over until something about gender/sexism/feminism comes up? Why are you so intent on trying to prove that you’re ignorance is somehow correct? It’s getting tiring. I think it’s time for you to get a new hobby. Maybe a new subject matter, elsewhere.

          1. Thanks Rebecca – MikeFromCanada’s presence on previous epic thread derails is already well-documented, should anyone care to look. He’s no great loss!

    6. “As skeptics, I expect you to look at the facts.”

      Also, I’m really tired of this bullshit. “As a skeptic…” “You aren’t a real skeptic…”

      Stop wagging your tiny dick around.

      1. I’m amazed at your choice of words- isn’t this exactly the kind of talk that the post is about, using sexually demeaning insults based on deviation from the ideal body type?

        Imagine if you read a comment (even one to an obviously annoying troll) that dismissed a woman by referring to her ‘tiny tits.’

        Don’t prove the troll’s point!

        1. Next time Ill just say “tiny brain” because in the end that’s really what I meant. But, yes, you are right. So point taken!

      2. Nice. He gets banned after being told to fuck off, called a mansplainer and being ridiculed for possibly being born with a smaller than average penis.

        Interesting.

        1. @saopaulobrasil is that you?

          The reason I ask is because you are not the first person to think that MfC was treated too harshly recently. Yes, he seems like a resonable person but there is one word that you are missing. HISTORY; Mike from Canada has one as a MRA (though he denies it) that comes here to derail any discussion about woman’s issues. His very first post on this thread was off topic and asserted that the patriarchy doesn’t exist. I can not think of anything more derailing on a feminist blog.

          So there you have it. MfC was a troll plain and simple and you are starting to take non-personal remarks as personal (someone said you made a stupid argument, not a personal attack) the next step for spb was to ask that his account be deactivated. Please don’t go there.

    7. Mike, did it ever occur to you that maybe, in academic discourse, concepts are slightly more nuanced and thoughtful than a dictionary definition? Would you try to limit a discussion of, say, “capitalism” to only how it was defined in a particular dictionary?

      Moreover, as a skeptic, I expect YOU to be more skeptical of glib statements like “Every woman has the same chance as men to inherit a position of equal power.”

      Since privilege-denying “skeptics” just LOOOOOVE to pretend that discussions of patriarchy and/or women’s exclusion is an ideology that can’t possibly be data-driven, I’ve taken the liberty of suggesting some introductory reading about how women do NOT have equal opportunity in this society:

      Men are rewarded for negotiating raises, and while women ask for raises at the same rate, they are not rewarded:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/for-women-in-business-the-squeaky-wheel-doesnt-get-the-grease/2012/01/09/gIQAGRuqlP_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

      Women are judged to be more competent at a task when the judge is blinded to subject gender:
      http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1997-04-28/news/9704250139_1_vienna-philharmonic-orchestra-auditions-harpist

      Organizational structures perpetuate biases against women that leads to gaps in their promotion and compensation:
      http://www.catalyst.org/publication/292/cascading-gender-biases-compounding-effects-an-assessment-of-talent-management-systems

      Men were selected over equally-qualified women in hiring simulations because they matched the ideal applicant, who is assumed to be male:
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00985.x/abstract

      Men’s subjective assessments of women’s competence is affected by the women’s attractiveness, which does not hold true for men or women assessing men:
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/m43524751tj81606/

      Women and minorities are judged less favorably than white men of the same professional performance:
      http://advance.ei.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Readings/Greenhaus_1993.pdf

      Overweight women are discriminated against in hiring decisions, even more so than overweight men:
      http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/79/6/909/

      Women are collectively judged as being poor performers at math, leading to stereotype threat and deflating performance:
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103198913737

      And no, that’s not weak ladybrains–white men can be induced to perform badly under stereotype threat too:
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103198913713
      (they just don’t usually have to deal with harmful stereotypes about themselves)

      Girls report lower self-esteem than boys in early adolescence and more negative body image and media influence:
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/m7225317781257j7/

      58% of women experience sexually-harassing behaviors in the workplace:
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00752.x/abstract

      Girls in high school are more likely than boys to face severe harassment from classmates and adults at school, with a negative effect on psychological outcome, school attendance and safety:
      http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/32/2/113.abstract

      Okay, so now do you think you might want to consider that some of this stuff we’re talking about actually exists?

      1. All of those points you raised are probably true to some degree. However, just because they may be, does not prove that there is a patriarchy. You just posted adversities that women have to face while some men don’t have to.

        I could equally post facts that prove men have hardships that women don’t, does that mean we live in a matriarchy?

        1. LOL Oh my god you are fucking DENSE.

          I challenge you, then. Post facts that prove that men have an equal amount of hardships as women. If there is not an EQUAL amount and women face more hardships than men do, then that fits YOUR stupid dictionary definition.

          I won’t hold my breath. Something tells me you wouldn’t know a fact if it smacked you right in the mouth.

          1. So, women are expected to do the vast majority of the childcare in this country, and then you’re surprised that they get custody of the kids they disproportionately care for?!

            Moreover, when “we live in a society that expects each gender to act in a certain manner,” where the male gender’s “manner” means that it gets the vast majority of political, economic, and social advantages, while the female gender’s “manner” means that it gets even more of the long, difficult, un-financially-compensated task of childrearing, means that yes, O obtuse privilege-denying one, we live in a PATRIARCHY.

          2. I feel this may be a teaching moment for any readers and lurkers on the importance of REPUTABLE SOURCES.

            I cited work from the American Psychological Association, the Journal of Experimental Psychology, and numerous other peer-reviewed manuscripts.

            What do we get from our erstwhile MRA? A measly couple of amateur screed sites. Well, well, well.

            So, gentle readers, please note what being evidence-based looks like!

        2. What the fuck?! You claimed that women have equal opportunity. I proved you wrong. You admit that what I’ve said is true (which therefore necessarily means you’re wrong), and then you assert that there must be some balancing data (which you utterly failed to provide) that evens out the massive, systemic obstacles that women face to achieve equality. WHAT could even possibly even-out the fact that women are disproportionately rated less competent than equally-competent men, punished professionally for seeking raises, hired less often, and face more sexual harassment at work? How does this not constitute a society where women have systemically less power and less opportunity? How does this not create an environment where women are at a social, economic, political, and familial disadvantage?

          And, moreover, the proof is in the pudding: these hardships are disproportionately holding women out of important fields, and from making social, economic, and political strides. When you overlook ALL these barriers, and then just say, “Women could have the same opportunities if they wanted!” willfully ignoring those women who try but are discriminated against, you are just being a denialist intent on upholding the patriarchy because you like it.

    8. Speaking of being skeptical, by the way. You said, “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.”

      Oooh, more women than men vote (66% of women versus 62% of men, or about 10 million more women than men reported voting in 2008–see http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/20/census-bureau-heres-who-voted-in-2008/)! That means there is complete and total equality and power is equally shared among genders, y’all!!!! *eyeroll* Is that how we measure oppression, by the number of voters? I guess by that standard, 18- to 24-year-olds are the most oppressed people in the United States!!!!

      Now, let’s look at a little bit of who actually holds the power, shall we?

      “While the partisan composition of the Congress is fairly close to that of the electorate, there are larger disparities between the Congress and the general citizenry in term of sex and race. In the House, there are currently 362 men and 76 women. In the Senate, there are 17 women and 83 men.” (from http://thisnation.com/congress-facts.html).

      Or maybe….

      A 1995 report by The US Department of Labor showed that “while white men are only 43 percent of the Fortune 2000 work force, they hold 95 percent of the senior management jobs.” (from http://www.civilrights.org/equal-opportunity/fact-sheets/women.html)

      Or…..

      Women, on average, make 80 cents for every dollar that men make doing the same job (from http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/the-gender-pay-gap-by-industry/)

      But equal opportunity abounds, RIGHT?? Just pull yourselves up by the bootstraps, ladies! If you’re treated unequally, you only have yourselves to blame!

      1. “there are larger disparities between the Congress and the general citizenry in term of sex and race. In the House, there are currently 362 men and 76 women. In the Senate, there are 17 women and 83 men.””

        I literally just finished saying that equal opportunity =/= equal outcome. The fact that less women are in politics, is because less women are taking those courses or showing interest at a collegiate level.

        “Women, on average, make 80 cents for every dollar that men make doing the same job”

        Wage gap myth. How many times does the world have to shove the facts in your face that the wage gap is a fallacy.

        1. You said: “The fact that less women are in politics, is because less women are taking those courses or showing interest at a collegiate level.”

          Okay, let’s assume for a moment that you are correct. Why are less women taking those courses or showing interest?

          Then you followed that gem up with: “Wage gap myth. How many times does the world have to shove the facts in your face that the wage gap is a fallacy.”

          What facts? All you’ve posted is your opinion. You have not posted ONE SINGLE FACT in this thread. Since you’re so fond of dictionaries, let me help you out:

          FACT:
          – a thing that is indisputably the case: she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public | a body of fact.
          – (usu. facts) a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

          So, #1 I dispute your statement (meaning it is not indisputable!) and I have provided evidence as to why you’re wrong. #2 you have provided not one iota of evidence to support yourself. And you have the audacity to say that others are not being skeptical! Hint: Just calling something a myth is not a fact supported by evidence!

        2. Just calling something a myth isn’t going to cut it. And your idea of “facts” are ideologically-based studies that willfully ignore social inequalities (e.g., childrearing), unfair evaluation, biased promotion, etc., etc. Go read my citations above on how many ways women are discriminated against in hiring and compensation and then maybe you’ll get somewhere.

          And just saying “women are underrepresented just ’cause they feel like it!!” totally ignores vast systemic pressures that alienate women from certain fields, not to mention a constant environment of criticism and harassment that make it vastly more difficult to succeed.

          1. I will post facts disproving the wage gap, once you or Will post a fact that proves the wage gap exists.

          2. I actually did post facts about the wage gap–it was the first link of many, showing that women sought raises at the same rate but were not rewarded while men were. I also showed abundant data about job performance rating disparities which, in the professional world, generally translates to more promotions and/or more money.

      1. Thank fuck. If he’d seemed to have any interest in having an honest discussion I wouldn’t have minded him, but he obviously was just here to troll.

      2. As an anarcho syndicalist myself, I can’t help but be sickened by this individual for calling himself by that handle. He seems more about bolstering the systems of oppression than tearing them down. Vote Conservative Mike, your views seem more fitting with them…

        …but since he got his trolling ass strung up a flagpoll, I guess it’s not fair of me to taunt his delusional disposition since he can’t answer back.

        And sorry, I needed to get that off my chest…it’s just that bit of living, breathing oxymoron was bothering me no end.

      3. As a newcomer to the forum here, I can’t really see what MikeFromCanada did wrong. Regardless of what anyone thinks his underlying intent is, his posts are respectful, rational and to the point. One may disagree with him, but he never called anybody names or derailed the thread or did anything else untoward as far as I can see here.

        On this thread, though he was called a mansplainer, told he was wagging his tiny dick around, and told to fuck off.

        I must say that the treatment of that guy seems odd.

        1. The reason is that after you have heard the same ignorant and possibly hateful argument often enough, it becomes really hard to take anybody seriously who still uses that argument, because it usually just means that this person is there to provoke and nothing else.

        2. Have you actually been reading what we’re saying? Mike is a known troll. There is HISTORY from him. If you actually read what we said, you’d understand that. no, he wasn’t being respectful. Just because someone doesn’t include curse words in their argument doesn’t mean they are being respectful. THE ONLY TIME he comments is when an article of sexism/feminism comes up (something I’ve already mentioned at least once, but which you’ve conveniently ignored). He says the same shit over and over and over again. He continues to deny that the patriarch even exists. We end up re-hashing the same shit over and over and over again with him. EVERY TIME. He never comments on anything else. He has a clear agenda. He is an MRA troll.

          You are NEW. Which is fine, but you need to realize that this blog has been around a lot longer than you’ve been around, and there will be a history that you are unfamiliar with.

          It might do you some good to listen to what we have to say, since we’ve been here a while and understand some of the history and context from certain commenters that you are not familiar with.

          But it’s pretty typical for those who apologize for sexist behavior to completely ignore what women say, and to brush off their concerns and complaints like it’s no big deal, even if we know more than you do about the situation, so I can’t say that I’m surprised.

    9. This is like saying “But the definition of ‘gay’ is happy or joyful! I’m not calling people joyful just because they want it!” – Just because what we call the patriarchy (or kyriarchy) doesn’t fit what your dictionary says doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    10. Dude, you can use point number 2 when – and ONLY when – there are consistently an equal number of men and women in all levels of government and other areas of authority and power.

      In Canada, we have a record 76 women, which is about 1/4th. I assume that women still make up about 1/2 the population, so you can see that we aren’t quite there yet.

      Unfortunately, basic math often is a requirement for effective skepticism. Until you master this skill, you may find your posts subject to ridicule on this site.

  8. When I saw the term “White Knighting,” it raised my eyebrows. I first saw this term over at manboobz.com, a blog that makes fun of Men’s Rights Movement Advocates. The MRA’s use this term as an insult to men who defend feminism. They also use words like “mangina,” to refer to anyone who defends women. It’s supposed to be highly derogatory.

    1. Yes, it is quite similar to how feminists use the term mansplaining as a gendered insult towards men. Doesn’t feel good does it?

      1. No, troll, “mansplaining” is a critique of male privilege, NOT of the state of being a man. Many men are great at explaining/discussing things intelligently and respectfully, and the term mansplaining would never be applied to them (Conversely, women who are speaking from a position of arrogant privilege on other matters are also considered “mainsplainers”). You, however, cannot see the difference between the fact of your maleness versus the behavior to which your privilege has entitled you, and thus you think a criticism of your privilege is an attack on you as a male and a person, which is, of course, hogwash.

        We are not criticizing you for being a man. We are criticizing you for being an ASSHOLE, which you happen to be doing in a manner inseparable from your sense of entitlement as a man (but non-asshole men do not behave this way).

        1. No, it is a gendered insult because it is stereotypically men who talk like know it all. So, instead of saying that I’m talking in a condescending manner, you chose to use an insult that is gendered towards men.

          1. It’s not a “stereotype.” It’s a socially-reinforced phenomenon, and one from which you benefit.

      2. Nah, “white knighting” is an insult thought up by guys (particularly “how to hypnotize women into sleeping with you” types) and used by guys – usually against guys who are actually nice to female people. Just like the obsession with dick length vis a vis getting laid is a guy thing (girls are more interested in girth, but we’re usually much more interested in actual skills that bring us to orgasm that are not related to size).

    2. The expression that someone is acting as a White Knight comes from Alice in Wonderland. It’s not a big deal, and it’s not racial. The White Knight saves Alice from the Red Knight. The allusion is used in business to mean a friendly investor who saves a company from a hostile takeover, and it is used in general parlance when someone rides to the rescue of a person who supposedly is weaker or set upon.

      1. **headdesk**

        Perhaps you might want to look a little more into how this term is actually used in this context? It has a lot of history on this topic of which you seem to be grossly unaware.

        1. I have a pretty good knowledge of etymology. However, I never claim to have perfect knowledge. You’ve implied with your “head desk” blurb that I have somehow said something ridiculous or over the top.

          Feel free to enlighten me or clarify what the underlying offensiveness of the term “white knight” is in this context. I would love to have my understanding expanded.

    3. I’m not particularly bothered by “mangina.” It’s just plainly nasty and ineffectual. It is openly misogynistic, implying that I’m like a woman because I defended them, and that being like a woman is bad. It’s just plain trolling. It’s no more insulting to me than calling me a doo-doo-head; it just gives me the opportunity to write the speaker off entirely as a chauvinistic scumbag.

      1. No one should be offended by being called a Mangina, because it’s a female Hebrew name meaning “song, melody”. So MRAs can put that in their pipe and smoke it.

        This I discovered when looking for an etymology or history of the insult, seeing as the Men’s Rights douchebags seem to want to use ridiculous slurs for feminist or feminine-acting men, which of course is harmful to men in general.

  9. I followed the thread on Facebook and I couldn’t help thinking, thank the FSM for people like Rhys! Because as a man, sometimes I despair about the more clueless members of my gender. And I’m too much of a coward to confront anyone about their sexist idiocy, even online. Well done, Rhys, it’s a relief to know we’re not all numpties.

    1. I have to agree. I only wish there were more people like Rhys out there. Age should have nothing to do with it. If anything the older we are the -less- we should care about what people think of us. That Rhys is starting so young gives me hope. And while I don’t want a hive mind, it would be nice if more people could see just how much their thoughts and actions hurt others. It’s too bad that man didn’t apologize to Jessica until after she spoke up, as if that were the defining line. As long as she wasn’t bothered by it, it would be okay! Except not really.

    1. Completely agree, it is sad that any thread with a women’s picture gets sexualised, but it is wonderful that all these threads are getting railed into discussions of misogamy. Dan Savage made a wonderful point, which I think is analogous, on working on the margins, building majorities and getting people to see that they are the problems check it out here.

  10. Yeah, I had a similar thought as Hellboundaleee, that anyone using the term “white knighting” must be into “the game” or some other lameness meant to, um, cure their lameness with women. It’s a pretty big giveaway as to how someone thinks and where they got their indoctrination. The dudes that sell this stuff seem to alternate between dressing up like sleazy magicians and pretending they’re selling a science – it’s like a special kind of specifically male woo. It reminds me of new agey type woo that mixes up true believer stuff with a little bit of science, which leads believers to think themselves superior skeptical thinkers without actually understanding any of the science. Most of these guys seem to be pretty hostile to women in general, as well as decent guys that women actually want to spend time with (clothed or not…but, hey, that’s pretty clearly jealousy on the part of the creepy dude that women don’t want to hang around with).

  11. I have to say, I think the bit about Ahlquist being invited to the “Sexy Atheist” thread as some sort of outrage or “perverse” and “creepiness,” is itself an imposition of a certain cultural value on the situation. That 16 would be too young for the “Sexy Atheist” thread described is, perhaps, an American idea of “age of consent” where many Americans think that anything sexual before the age of 18 is off limits. In most European countries, the age of consent to actual sexual intercourse with an adult is 16 and up. Obviously, an invite to that “Sexy Atheist” picture exchange is not as sexual as actual sexual intercourse.

    Looking at pictures of beautiful bodies, male or female, and commenting on their sexual attractive may be morally wrong in many people’s minds (both the religious, and here as in Ms. Watson’s long blog entry above), it is not universally so, nor is it necessarily a product of a “patriarchy.” People are sexual beings and many humans like to look at other humans, and they find them attractive and sexually stimulating. That doesn’t seem to me to be abnormal.

    I find the blog article above to be monumentally prudish and very difficult to understand from a modern standpoint. A woman dressing in sexy clothes, suggesting that sex may be had on Valentine’s Day night — which in the US is a night of romance and, well, sex, quite often, doesn’t seem to me to be beyond the pale. She does suggest “guys, if you give you will receive,” well — come on, I mean — it’s a coquettish double-entendre or play on words.

    The fiat commercial where the woman was being gawked at was not a display that she enjoys being gawked at. She yells at the guy and puts him in his place, and she is the one with all the power in that commercial. The metaphor in the commercial is that the car is so hot you can’t take your eyes off of it. The woman is fully clothed, and quite beautiful. There is nothing wrong with looking at her. There is nothing wrong with being sexually excited or titillated by her. In my opinion, anyway. And, I am really surprised to see that it is a problem for most people, especially liberal, educated, enlightened people.

    The blog article above sounds like something written by a very religious person, who has sexual hang-ups and wants to make sure that people don’t watch “dirty” things. Only here we’re not talking about porn, we’re talking about fully clothed, but sexy women (except the body paint commercial, but there we only see stomach, arms and legs, separately).

    I’m surprised the clip of Janet Jackson’s purposeful “wardrobe malfunction” from a few years back wasn’t included here.

    1. First of all, Jessica is an American, so it should come as no surprise to you that she would subscribe to the typical American cultural more of the inappropriateness of adult men hitting on teenagers. I would also point out that Rhys is not American, so your notion that this is an American hang-up of some sort is off base.

      And, as Rebecca explained (and you apparently conveniently overlooked), it’s more than the age thing. It’s the habitual and overwhelming objectification of women’s bodies and the centering of their existence around approval from men.

      Saying that the article is “prudish” is a distraction from the actual point of the article, which you also obtusely overlooked. It was laid out very well by Rebecca how these commercials contribute to patriarchy. You say things like “The metaphor in the commercial is that the car is so hot you can’t take your eyes off of it.” This is exactly the problem of comparing it to a woman. It reduces women to their physical bodies. Rebecca NEVER SAID there is something wrong with being turned on by women. What she is point to is the PATTERN in our society of using women as OBJECTS.

      All of that other stuff that you’re saying you read into the article is shit you’re reading into it. Rebecca explicitly said, “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.” How is that AT ALL prudish or dirty or a sexual hang-up?

      1. Well, I will say that I respectfully disagree with you on a couple of points:

        1. Ms. Ahlquist is 16, and the age of consent in Rhode Island for sex with adult males who are not her schoolteacher or other fiduciary is 16. So, while I respect anyone’s right to find anything “creepy” (some would find anything sexual at all between even unmarried adults to be a form of “creepy”), I just wanted to point out that 16 is old enough to field and fend off suggestions from internet denizens, it seems.

        2. I do not see the habitual and overwhelming objectification of women’s bodies and the centering of their existence around approval from men. I see very common portrayals of female (and male) bodies in a sexual fashion to sell products. People like to look at hot bodies, and get sexually titillated by them and they are more apt to be favorably disposed to a product because of it. If that’s objectification, fine — but, have you seen the Hollister store at the mall? Or Abercrombie? It’s all erotic or semi-erotic depictions of males in their underwear, carved abs, suggestive, etc. Calvin Klein underwear ads — and it’s not just recent – a few years back there was that Coca Cola advert where the women in the office leer and gawk at a man doing construction and drinking a coke. I think isolating only commercials depicting women in sexually titillating manners paints a distorted picture — sex sells, and there are sexual depictions.

        3. I disagree with you about the car commercial. I don’t find it “reduced” the woman to a mere “object.” I think one has to have a predisposition about strong, sexually confident women to get that out of the fiat commercial with the gawking male. The depiction of the woman in that commercial was of “power,” and “confidence,” in the presence of a male who could not resist her and when confronted by her was powerless and at her mercy. I at no point saw her as “object” in the least — I saw her as a beautiful, sexual attractive woman. But, of course, I am only telling you my own view of it. What the commercial represents is quite often, like any artistic work, largely in the minds of the person viewing it.

        It’s like the argument from 30 and 40 years ago as to whether Playboy Magazine was “porn” or not. It depends on who is looking at it, I guess.

        4. Regarding the “she never said it was wrong to be turned by women” point you made, you are quite right. However, the overall impression I get from the blog post is that any titillating, sexual depiction of women in an advert is going to be considered “objectification.” I could be wrong, of course, but that is the overall impression that I get. This raises an interesting point (well, interesting to me, that is) — what would be an example of a titillating, sexual commercial that ISN’T “objectification?” If I could see what line is being drawn here with concrete examples, then I might be able to fathom where I’ve gone wrong here. But, the issue that I see on this point is that, like the body paint dot-co commercial and the beautiful-woman on the street Fiat commercial, they don’t seem all that “objectifying” to me – they seem to me to merely be humorously titillating – a bit like fun sexual banter.

        Obviously, I have to be prepared for the possibility that I don’t yet fully understand the argument being made. But, that is, of course, why I’m here discussing it. So, while some of you seem to be getting a little heated here – I assure you that I am just voicing my opinion and engaging a discussion. I hope that is o.k.

        5. I agree that adult women have every right to “upload” (I would say “publish”) images of themselves anywhere and not be ashamed of it. I think that includes, however, the women in the videos in the blog. The Godaddy characters in the advert were engaged in non-pornographic activities – bodies were not exposed beyond what would be lawful on most public streets. The idea of a depiction of, say, a man being struck dumbfounded by a sexy woman on the street and aligning that against the reaction the car company wants to suggest you will have when you see their car on the street, well, there isn’t anything to be ashamed of in that either.

        It’s hardly, in my view “objectification” either, but I already covered that before.

        Perhaps “prudish” was too inflammatory of a word, but I really find the thesis of the article – that things like these commercials are evidence of a “patriarchy”, along with lurid, immature invites of a 16 year old teenager (who is, if she is anything like the normal American teenager, no stranger to sexual imagery on the internet far more extreme) is also evidence thereof, well, I can only say I haven’t been convinced. I’ll keep reading here and thinking about it.

        In any case – in this kind of format, rather than a “forum” style posting board – it is very difficult to keep in depth discussions going, and I find it difficult to get my point across completely. So, maybe that is part of a communication issue on my part which resulted in my post seeming to you as if I had missed major parts of the article.

        And, of course, I admit that some stuff may well have blown by me — it happens to the best of us, ay? I will go back and re-read the whole thing, though, and see if I come out with a different perception.

        Thank you.

        1. Your insistence on using age of legal consent as a way to defend this behavior is … well, fucking disturbing.

        2. http://skepchick.org/2011/12/reddit-makes-me-hate-atheists/

          A 15 year old girl can’t even post an innocent, non-sexual picture of herself without being told how many ways she should expect to be raped until she bleeds.

          And then we’re told that we are overreacting, because we are angry that atheists thing this is at all appropriate.

          If that’s not enough evidence for you, I don’t know what will be.

        3. I will stick to your point system so we can hopefully stay clear on what we are talking about.

          1. Age of consent and creepiness have little-to-nothing to do with each other. I don’t know why you keep equating the two. Would you be making this argument if she was 15? 14? Why do you feel that age of consent laws should mark some point at which creepiness is no longer understandable? You say you respect anyone’s right to find anything creepy, yet here you are telling people that they shouldn’t find this creepy. And also? Jessica seems to have agreed with Rhys that it was creepy, so I fail to see how the age of consent in the state in which she lives (much less anywhere else) is even relevant. What it comes across as is a creeper who is trying to lessen the creepiness of adult men hitting on teenagers.

          2. Uh, the use of bodies to sell products is OBJECTIFICATION. It is reducing a person to their body to associate it with a product. Of course both men and women are used. But there is a history of women being oppressed and objectified even when they don’t want to be objectified–WHICH IS THE POINT OF THIS POST. Jessica did not ASK to be objectified–some CREEPER objectified her, reduced her to her body, and told her to go post her picture on a Facebook page where other men could further objectify her. Please, find me examples of this happening habitually to men. I’d be shocked if you could, because men are not objectified habitually in the way women are.

          3. The depiction of that women in the commercial was not of HER power and confidence, it was of the power and confidence a MAN will have if he buys the car! The whole point of the commercial was that he was gawking at the car, imagining that it was as sexy and feisty as that woman was. By having the woman–and the car–the MAN can be seen as successful. The entire commercial revolved around the man, and had nothing to do with the success or power of the woman.

          4. The overall impression you get from the article is entirely your problem. You can read the post wrong all day long, it doesn’t mean Rebecca is prudish or “ultra-conservative” because you cannot see what she is actually talking about. It means that you need to step back and try harder.

          5. I don’t see where Rebecca said that the women in the videos she linked to should not have been allowed to make them. Again, pretty sure she said exactly the opposite. What she’s saying is that women can participate in the (re)production of patriarchy–knowingly and unknowingly–and provided examples of the patterns of patriarchy via the objectification of women.

          I hope you will take the opportunity to go read a bit more about privilege and the objectification of women and take seriously what is being said to you here.

          1. 1. Age of consent is not determinative of what is creepy. I was very clear that anyone can find anything they want “creepy.” Some people have very low tolerances, and others have very high tolerances. The reason I brought up the age of consent was that plainly the consensus in our society is that a 16 year old is competent to make sexual decisions on her own at that age. She can consent to ACTUAL SEXUAL ACTS with an adult at that age. That, to me, is evidence that as a society, there is not an overarching consensus that a 16 year old being exposed to sexual images is creepy either, since having sex, it stands to reason, is a bit more sexual than seeing pictures of naked people or having someone make a sexual suggestion. Hopefully, you see what I mean now. Yes, I said I respect anyone’s right to find anything creepy, but I did not – not in the least – tell anyone that they “shouldn’t” find this creepy. I was explaining how it is not by definition creepy, and just because SOME people here find it creepy doesn’t mean that it is, ipso facto, creepy.
            2. You said, “the use of bodies to sell products is OBJECTIFICATION.” No, it isn’t. Objectification is when a human being is reduced to a mere object. Using bodies to sell products might do that, but it doesn’t NECESSARILY do that. I can give you a clear example – underwear modeling – selling underwear and other clothes using bodies. Is that “objectification?” Hardly. You then say that “Jessica did not ASK to be objectified–some CREEPER objectified her, reduced her to her body, and told her to go post her picture on a Facebook page where other men could further objectify her.” It isn’t objectification to be attracted to and comment on people’s bodies. She didn’t ask to have the guy ask her to post her picture, but – please – having someone ask you something is not “objectification.” If Playboy Magazine were to ask a woman to pose as their centerfold, that is not “objectification.” That’s just asking her to do so, and even if Hugh Hefner said, “I want you to pose for Playboy, so everyone can see your beautiful body and comment on it” – that is not “objectification.” Please, find me examples of this happening habitually to men. I’d be shocked if you could, because men are not objectified habitually in the way women are.
            3. You said this, “The depiction of that women in the commercial was not of HER power and confidence, it was of the power and confidence a MAN will have if he buys the car!” If that’s what you got out of it, then I can only say I don’t share it. Throughout the commercial, the man was rendered dumbfounded and powerless, first by the woman, and then by the car. That was the point of the commercial. And, you say “The entire commercial revolved around the man, and had nothing to do with the success or power of the woman.” That isn’t what I saw. I saw a powerful woman who dominated the man and reduced him to a quivering mass who was at her mercy, and the commercial was saying that the car will do that to a man similarly. But, I suppose that’s the deal with these kinds of things – we each see in the commercial a lot of what we bring to the table in terms of our perceptions. I have a very positive view of women, including beautiful women, and I don’t see depictions of them or their sexuality or sexual power to be “objectifying” them.

            4. You say, “The overall impression you get from the article is entirely your problem.” Likewise, your overall impression is entirely your problem. And, you say, “You can read the post wrong all day long, it doesn’t mean Rebecca is prudish or “ultra-conservative” because you cannot see what she is actually talking about. It means that you need to step back and try harder.” Perhaps. I’ve been open to that possibility since the first post. I think any skeptic, including you and the writer of the blog post, ought leave open that possibility – that they aren’t viewing the issue correctly, or perhaps need to step back and try harder. We’re exchanging ideas here – and just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean that I am the one who is necessarily wrong.
            5. You said, “I don’t see where Rebecca said that the women in the videos she linked to should not have been allowed to make them.” I didn’t say she did. I was responding to the quote pointed out to me that any woman could upload whatever images she wants of herself. Sure – I agree, and I wanted to include the commercials in that. If we’re talking about consent and whether a woman “wants” her images publicized, then we can’t presume that the women in the commercials weren’t perfectly happy and comfortable about their portrayals.
            Lastly, you said, “I hope you will take the opportunity to go read a bit more about privilege and the objectification of women and take seriously what is being said to you here.” To the extent you imply that I haven’t read about this subject, please, don’t make the mistake of presuming that disagreement equals a failure to read or understand. Sometimes, you may wish to open yourself up to this possibility – sometimes someone else can rationally draw a different conclusion.

          1. **ZOMG** I was totally thinking this guy’s obliviousness to recurring social motifs calls for an urgent dose of Anita Sarkeesian!!!

            But I couldn’t remember which videos they were, and then I’d be watching FeministFrequency all night!

            So thanks for posting those, and I applaud your good taste in YouTube videos!

            Yay.

        4. fensterbaby,

          A response to a couple of you points…

          The age of consent where Jessica lives is not relevant. The issue is whether or not she should should have to fend off suggestive remarks from men based on a very innocuous picture she posted. I am not, nor have I ever been, a 16 year old girl. So, while I cannot presume to know for certain that a 16 year old girl who posts a silly picture would find posts of that sort unwelcome, I can say that, based on what I have learned over the years, most girls her age would react to that sort of thing (particularly from older men) with a sort of “ewwwww” sound.

          The issue is, why does she even have to consider that sort of thing at all? Why is it an issue to begin with? As many here have pointed out, there are underlying reasons, and we need work so that *all* members of our society can post a silly picture and not be made to feel ashamed or unsafe in doing so. Remember, the picture she posted was not sexual in any way. For someone to immediately go there speaks to a problem with that person, and for so many to defend that behavior (on her own page and here) speaks to the greater societal problem RW and the other posters here are pointing out.

          “I do not see the habitual and overwhelming objectification of women’s bodies and the centering of their existence around approval from men.”

          Let me ask you this – are you a woman? I only ask because, as a man, I spent a good deal of my life not noticing that sort of thing either. From our differing positions in society, I think men and women view these things differently. As I man, I walk by A&C and see the ads with the ripped young men and don’t think a thing about it. That is because as a man, I have never felt that my worth was tied to my body. Women, from a very early age, are taught otherwise.

          I have tried as best as I can to employ empathy to overcome the fact that I am not a woman to understand these issues. As in, well, *I* don’t care if someone make suggestive comments to me, but if I was a 16 year old girl, would I like a 40 year old guy inviting me to post pics on a sexy atheist page? Probably not.

          Also, something that helped me a great deal in learning these issues was internet rule number 33 – Lurk More. I lurked at this site for over a year before I ever posted, specifically because I wanted to learn about these issues. Because, you know, this place is filled with crazy lefty hippies and I swing more to the right, so I figured I had better make sure I knew whereof I spoke before I did so, because this lot here does not suffer fools easily. They do, however, know their stuff, and all that time I spent in the rafters was well spent. I have learned a lot here, and I am grateful for that.