I am simply astounded at the men here confidently asserting that they aren’t alienating women when they talk about “getting” “attractive women” and speak of women as symbols of male success or indeed accessories for a successful male. This reduces me and other females (including female rationalists) to the category of a fancy car or a big house, and I feel humiliated when I read it.
If a woman publicly asserts that she wants to “get” an “attractive man”, would you also think that she is being alienating?
Most people, regardless of whether they are men or women, want attractive partners, and yet, in my experience, only men are accused of being alienating or superficial or even sexist when they are honest about their desires.
In addition, insofar as successful men are significantly more likely than not-so-successful men to attract women whom they find attractive, having an attractive girlfriend does signal that you are successful.
FWIW, I find individuals who talk about men as high-status possessions rather offputting as well, regardless of their gender. That said, I’ve never tried to participate in a community I considered defined by such individuals.
If a woman publicly asserts that she wants to “get” an “attractive man”, would you also think that she is being alienating?
Sure. I usually wouldn’t care enough to object, but it would seem faintly wrong in a way that ‘I want to have sex with an attractive guy,’ or a concrete statement of any other desire, would not.
And I most certainly would not expect most heterosexual guys to participate in a web-community that often talked about how to “get an attractive man”.
in my experience, only men are accused of being alienating or superficial...when they are honest about their desires.
If you really meant that, then your experience seems weirdly limited. Or are we just talking about sexual desires? I think the statement still fails in that case, but not as soundly.
Most people, regardless of whether they are men or women, want attractive partners, and yet, in my experience, only men are accused of being alienating or superficial or even sexist when they are honest about their desires.
I’ve seen “superficial”. As to the other two, I believe the party line is that sexism requires both prejudice and institutionalized power in order to function, that males are uniformly more socially powerful, and thus that male-directed sexism is impossible. In itself that’s little more than a definitional quibble, but in practice this shakes out to a belief that otherwise identical behaviors are less alienating when directed at men.
How seriously you take that probably depends more on your politics than on your observed experiences. That being said, I imagine I’d feel pretty alienated if I’d wandered into a 90%-female community that frequently discussed men in terms of status potential, and I further imagine that that sort of thought experiment should screen off most of the information we’d get from discussing which accusations are more common.
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think it’s generally much easier to convince a group to stop doing something because it’s bad than to convince them that its okay when others do it, but only bad when they do it.
As to the other two, I believe the party line is that sexism requires both prejudice and institutionalized power in order to function, that males are uniformly more socially powerful, and thus that male-directed sexism is impossible. In itself that’s little more than a definitional quibble, but in practice this shakes out to a belief that otherwise identical behaviors are less alienating when directed at men.
Would this imply that, in a truly sexually egalitarian society where niether side posses any systematic power disparities over the other, and both would be free to objectify the other without being sexist?
Most people, regardless of whether they are men or women, want attractive partners, and yet, in my experience, only men are accused of being alienating or superficial or even sexist when they are honest about their desires.
As a general rule, everyone is constantly accusing everyone else of everything.
As a general rule, everyone is constantly accusing everyone else of everything.
This seems deep, open minded, egalitarian and… blatantly false. People aren’t constantly accusing everyone else of everything. Moreover some people do more accusing than others, some people receive more accusations than others and some kinds of accusations are received more positively by observers than others. Anyone who believed (or, rather, anyone who alieved) your theory would make poor predictions of human behavior and make correspondingly bad social decisions.
This seems deep, open minded, egalitarian and… blatantly false.
I was honestly going more for silly, cynical, misanthropic and… obviously hyperbole.
If you do not mind me quoting a different part of this thread momentarily:
To the extent that it is a joke it is a bad joke, inappropriate to the context, with an undesirable expected influence, encouraging flawed patterns of thought.
I do not understand what flawed patterns of thought I am encouraging. Could you elaborate a bit?
To the extent that it is a joke it is a bad joke, inappropriate to the context, with an undesirable expected influence, encouraging flawed patterns of thought. ie. The feature of humor that allows it to bypass critical facilities would makes the joke interpretation worse than a more direct interpretation.
Something being a ‘joke’ does not make it immune from criticism. Or, rather, it often does make it immune from criticism but this is unfortunate. This comment in response to the text that it quotes being overwhelmingly positively received is a negative sign. I speculate (or perhaps merely hope) that in a different thread it may not have been given as much leeway.
If a woman publicly asserts that she wants to “get” an “attractive man”, would you also think that she is being alienating?
Most people, regardless of whether they are men or women, want attractive partners, and yet, in my experience, only men are accused of being alienating or superficial or even sexist when they are honest about their desires.
In addition, insofar as successful men are significantly more likely than not-so-successful men to attract women whom they find attractive, having an attractive girlfriend does signal that you are successful.
FWIW, I find individuals who talk about men as high-status possessions rather offputting as well, regardless of their gender.
That said, I’ve never tried to participate in a community I considered defined by such individuals.
Sure. I usually wouldn’t care enough to object, but it would seem faintly wrong in a way that ‘I want to have sex with an attractive guy,’ or a concrete statement of any other desire, would not.
And I most certainly would not expect most heterosexual guys to participate in a web-community that often talked about how to “get an attractive man”.
If you really meant that, then your experience seems weirdly limited. Or are we just talking about sexual desires? I think the statement still fails in that case, but not as soundly.
I’ve seen “superficial”. As to the other two, I believe the party line is that sexism requires both prejudice and institutionalized power in order to function, that males are uniformly more socially powerful, and thus that male-directed sexism is impossible. In itself that’s little more than a definitional quibble, but in practice this shakes out to a belief that otherwise identical behaviors are less alienating when directed at men.
How seriously you take that probably depends more on your politics than on your observed experiences. That being said, I imagine I’d feel pretty alienated if I’d wandered into a 90%-female community that frequently discussed men in terms of status potential, and I further imagine that that sort of thought experiment should screen off most of the information we’d get from discussing which accusations are more common.
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think it’s generally much easier to convince a group to stop doing something because it’s bad than to convince them that its okay when others do it, but only bad when they do it.
Would this imply that, in a truly sexually egalitarian society where niether side posses any systematic power disparities over the other, and both would be free to objectify the other without being sexist?
As a general rule, everyone is constantly accusing everyone else of everything.
This seems deep, open minded, egalitarian and… blatantly false. People aren’t constantly accusing everyone else of everything. Moreover some people do more accusing than others, some people receive more accusations than others and some kinds of accusations are received more positively by observers than others. Anyone who believed (or, rather, anyone who alieved) your theory would make poor predictions of human behavior and make correspondingly bad social decisions.
I was honestly going more for silly, cynical, misanthropic and… obviously hyperbole.
If you do not mind me quoting a different part of this thread momentarily:
I do not understand what flawed patterns of thought I am encouraging. Could you elaborate a bit?
It’s related to the fallacy of gray.
To me it seems like a joke.
To the extent that it is a joke it is a bad joke, inappropriate to the context, with an undesirable expected influence, encouraging flawed patterns of thought. ie. The feature of humor that allows it to bypass critical facilities would makes the joke interpretation worse than a more direct interpretation.
Something being a ‘joke’ does not make it immune from criticism. Or, rather, it often does make it immune from criticism but this is unfortunate. This comment in response to the text that it quotes being overwhelmingly positively received is a negative sign. I speculate (or perhaps merely hope) that in a different thread it may not have been given as much leeway.
Logical fallacy ad hominem tu quoque?
I was not trying to disprove Rachael. I was merely trying to point out the potential use of double standards.