Ascenray, why are you responding to that? There is no reason to think that that is going to listen this time any more than that did to the prior explanations.
I have a confession to make. When I see an attractive woman, in any context, my concentration shifts
Perhaps you have it backwards. Maybe words do not carry intrinsic meaning, but people assign meaning to words. I’ve thought about it over last night, but now I think all semantics are subject to conditioning. I am thinking that everyone has their own take on language.
If two men infer two distinct meanings from the same sentence in the same context, do they truly speak the same language?
~Max
You know what? Begbert, you’re right. I’m being led around by the nose. I’m quitting this game.
Max. I think it’s possible you’re arguing in good faith and may just be confused.
But you need to be aware, if you aren’t already, that this technique of hunting around to find some example, in any context whatsoever, in which an objectionable word or phrase is being used without some of the people it’s used against objecting is a technique very commonly used in bad faith. It comes across very much as a way of trying to claim ‘if I can find any instance at all of someone in the disrespected group accepting the use of this word or phrase, then nobody should be objecting to it.’ If this isn’t what you’re after, then please just accept that occasional such examples are not relevant: any more than your grammatical examples earlier in the spoiler boxes, which to be honest came across in the same sort of fashion, were relevant. And accept, also, that context matters. What two lovers say to each other has nothing to do with the subject at hand; it’s between them entirely. Lovers say all sorts of things to each other that would be entirely improper in other contexts.
– and a whole lot of additional paragraphs about what the OP may have been thinking.
I’m not in the least impressed by the “total honesty” argument. It’s neither necessary nor sensible to blurt out absolutely every thought in one’s head in order to get a point across. Not only won’t it all fit on the page, but most of the time attempting to do so will get in the way of the point, not clarify it.
I think that nate was after validation: that he wanted to come onto the Straight Dope and get people to back his theory that almost all men not only have objectifying sexual thoughts, but are entirely unable to control them; and that it’s utterly normal for men to be unable to concentrate on anything else if they happen to see a woman who they find sexually attractive.
When that wasn’t what he got, he attempted to double down on it, and said that the men who were saying otherwise ought to just admit that they routinely behave in the same fashion. When that still wasn’t what he got, and instead he got advice about how to get his thoughts under control ranging from ‘look in the other direction’ to ‘better get treatment for a psychiatric condition’, he disappeared.
I don’t see anything in his posts to show that nate cared in the least how his post was perceived by women; the apology reads to me as just a formal nod to what he thought was the theory that although all men, he assumed, knew this, they weren’t supposed to talk about it. And post 86 reads to me that he thought it would be better if men could just talk about it, in whatever terms they felt like.
Of course words don’t have intrinsic meaning, and I don’t believe anybody in this thread has said that they do. That’s a theory of magic, not one of linguistics. Words have the meaning humans assign to them.
But they don’t have whatever meaning any individual human wants to assign to them at any given moment. The meaning they have is assigned to them by multiple people over periods of years, often of centuries: and this meaning also includes the connotations they’ve picked up along the way. If everybody declared their own individual meaning for each word, it would be impossible to communicate at all.
And I am also beginning to doubt that it’s possible to communicate anything more in this thread than has been said already; plus which, I have to do a market harvest and a couple of markets.
I am not pursing this any longer. It’s getting ridiculous. There is no need to delineate every conceivable situation in life.
As noted, Nate was seeking validation for his position and did not receive it. I think most of us believe him when he said that was what went through his brain. That’s not under debate.
No, that’s “sorry not sorry”. It’s a common lead-in to a question or statement that demonstrates bias. Related to “some of my best friends are X” before spewing something offensive.
If by “behavioral conditioning” you mean “thousands of years of mistreatment, victimization, and social/legal disadvantage” then yes.
I could do that in my sleep. I’m talking about actual, real, attractive women, not pictures of them.
Yes, you don’t need 100% equivalence in understanding to be speaking the same language. It’s a philosophical question to be sure but it has an everyday experimental proof. We both think we speak the same language but we probably have different definitions of a “wealthy batchelor”.
What do you think of my conditioning argument? I laid it out at the end of [POST=21808356]post #239[/POST]:
*in that post, I mistakenly wrote “operant conditioning”
I would think that covers all of the “other info”, because in my opinion feelings are the classical response subject to conditioning (either unconditioned, neutral, or conditioned) and experience is a recollection of the conditioned response to neutral + unconditioned stimulus combo. I think context is an all-encompassing word that includes the “other info”, that is, feelings and experience.
I also think history is also a factor, in that history either determines or influences one’s experience. Therefore history has either a direct or indirect effect on all stimuli, and by extension has an indirect effect on one’s response to word usage. For example, reading a hundred year old letter referring to a woman as a “that” would mean the conditioned stimulus (“that”) is history.
You previously mentioned usage and culture. I think usage is already accounted for under syntax - which word was used and where? Under the conditioning model, usage amounts to the present stimulus, which may be conditioned (eg: for some women) or neutral (eg: for me). I do think culture influences word usage, but not directly. In my opinion culture is a nebulous concept, a pattern derived from the individual actions of a group of people. There can be a strong culture, a weak culture, and multiple cultures going on at once. To any extent that culture influences a person’s response to a certain word, I fit this into my model as one or more patterns in history or that person’s experience, derived from the individual actions (stimuli) of groups of people.
To put this all into an example, let’s say a father is calling his young daughter out for doing something wrong. The girl starts crying because she is ashamed, and it breaks Dad’s heart to see her crying. Dad has conflicting feelings because he wants his daughter to be ashamed for doing wrong, but seeing his beloved daughter crying makes him sad. He tries to stop the crying with hugs and “it’s OK to be wrong sometimes, but in the future do better”. The daughter doesn’t understand and can’t communicate because she is young and distressed. Dad loses his patience and eventually says with a stern voice, “If you can’t stop your crying, get that out of my face”. When Dad says “that”, he waves his hand and eyes her whole figure so as to indicate “that crying person in front of me”. She runs out of the room, and her distress over doing wrong is pushed aside because now she thinks her stupid face made her beloved Daddy angry. “What’s wrong with me? Why do I have to have this face?”
This happens many times over the years. Now an adolescent, she is ashamed to cry in front of men and tries to avoid situations that make her cry. She might even start to wonder whether her face is more important than her self. In this example, the unconditioned stimulus is herself being unable to stop crying in front of her father. The unconditioned response is to continue crying and think negatively of herself. The neutral stimulus is her father referring to her as “that”.
One day at school she works up the courage to introduce herself to her crush, a boy who is standing in a group of other boys. As she walks up to the group, one boy whistles a catcall which makes her uncomfortable. The whole group turns towards her and some of them conspicuously eye her body. Her crush’s eyes dart down to her legs or shoes for a split second but then he looks her in the eyes. She likes that her crush is looking at her (his eyes are sexy) but she is creeped out by the other boys. One of them says out loud, “Look at that”. She sees perverted smiles and licking of lips, but her eyes are on the crush who calmly says, “Hey [name], what’s up?” She starts to speak, “I-”, but just then one of the other boys comes out and puts his arm around her shoulder, and his stinky boy-armpit is inches away from her face. This random boy says “How’s it goin’, babe?” and the girl internally freaks out and is on the verge of crying. She can’t cry in front of men (see above), especially not men she likes such as her crush. Arms and voice trembling, she pushes the boy off her and says, “I- I’m sorry. Please excuse me.” She then puts her hands on her face, turns her back, and runs away to the ladies room two hallways down, far out of earshot of the boys. There she loses composure and struggles to muffle her bawling. This doesn’t agree with her stomach and she becomes nauseous. She rushes over to a toilet bowl and manages to keep most of the vomit off her clothes.
In this example, the unconditioned stimulus is plain sexual objectification. The neutral stimulus is again, the word “that”. The unconditioned response is a host of undesirable things: shame, crying, nausea, vomit. Part of the unconditional response is compounded by her experiences with her father. A number of similar events happen where she is objectified with the word “that”.
Now she is an adult, on a message board, and she reads nate’s post. The word “that” when referring to women triggers a conditioned response, it won’t make her start crying or nauseous but it will make her uncomfortable, more uncomfortable than sexual objectification without explicitly calling a woman “that”. To her, “fuck the hell out of that” is semantically more offensive than “fuck the hell out of her”, even if they are both clearly referring to the same person’s body, even though the post describes sexual objectification either way. She has been conditioned to see “that” as a more offensive term.
What do you think?
~Max
(1) Your story of conditioning is unnecessarily long and speculative.
And no woman needs to be conditioned to have a negative reaction to “that.” All it takes is the knowledge that “that” customarily refers to non-animate objects. You can hear a turn of phrase for the first time in your life and understand it as dehumanizing or objectifying without “conditioning.”
(2) You are using a lot of words to convey simple ideas repeatedly.
Nice quitting.
Regards,
Shodan
Damn, all this because one guy can’t understand that there are varying degrees of good and bad and clearly some things are adding additional bad to the pile. Can’t even ask for some basic civility around here without someone going “um, actually, I think even if he tried to be more civil, it would be grossly uncivil anyway, so why do you care so much?” It’s not even about nate in particular but a request for everyone to stop using “that” in reference to people when typing or speaking aloud, and his post was used as a point of example. It’s really not that hard to understand that this is about generalities and not specific posts.
I think you don’t need any of that crap to understand that one doesn’t, in most contexts, use “that” for a person.
I learned that one somewhere around – second grade, maybe? Maybe before I got to school. Neither nausea nor child abuse was involved.
Maybe some habituation, or desensitization, like how they train people to stop freaking out over spiders, is in order?
I assume a significant proportion of your co-workers, and of friends you and your wife hang out with, are actual, real, attractive women? As for strangers, maybe start out watching television shows without losing focus. Then walking around town, and finally culminating with jogging / going to the gym / catching rays at the nude beach.
I’m reading through this thread now and it’s absolutely fascinating and I’m trying to take it all in. There are so many posts I’d like to respond to.
I never would have thought the phrase “I’d fuck the hell of of that [shit]” would cause such deep discussion. To me, it’s just a figure of speech I heard a lot during my formative years and has no deeper meaning than “I would put my penis in that woman, given the opportunity”.
There are some really good posts in this thread that have helped me understand why a phrase like that could be really offensive, although I think it is being WAY over-analyzed given the 1/2 second of thought I put into it.
Well, give or take one or two posters, I think most of the analysis boils down to “I’m getting tired of literally being referred to as an object, thankyouverymuch”.
I’ll be the first to agree that a properly attractive woman is the sort of sight that my mind singles out and draws attention to, but after that initial moment of noticing her my consciousness catches up and I don’t drive off the road into a signpost like a cartoon character. If you really can’t pull your mind away then you definitely aren’t representative of 98% of the male population.
I think you actually can pull your attention away though; you just don’t because you don’t want to, and you don’t personally find anything wrong with thinking of women as pieces of meat. That you want to fuck. Fuckmeat.
I missed this, sorry.
I have asked many others but not you yet. As I understand it, your problem with nate’s use of “that” is that it is dehumanizing. I agree. I also agree with you that letting his distraction harm his relationships and endanger people on the road is a much bigger issue, but here I’m only talking about your criticism of calling women “that”.
But even if he had said “her” instead, as he did when describing the documentary, he would still be dehumanizing women. Further, I take nate at his word when he says he is posting what is on his mind. I don’t think he meant to d I do not doubt that he actually thinks to himself, word-for-word, what he wrote, nor that he thinks those thoughts are involuntary. I wouldn’t say he deliberately chose to think “that” or omit “her” in his actual thoughts when distracted by attractive women. He had a choice in sharing those thoughts with this board verbatim, and I believe that is the act that you think is deliberate and dehumanizing.
I am not saying you are wrong to be more offended when he imagines himself thinking of women as “that”, and I am not saying you should or should not be offended. I just want to know why you think it is more offensive or more dehumanizing. I have a theory going that your life experiences, or what you have heard of others’ life experiences, inform your interpretation of words in an objectifying context. My theory is that you have been conditioned to be more offended when women are explicitly called “that” or “things” as opposed to implicit objectification, much like I have been conditioned to think curse words are more offensive in certain contexts than minced oaths.
For example, if the original post had written “that ct", I would have instantly recognized how and why that would be more offensive than “her”. Even with an undeserved presumption that "ct” referred to anatomy instead of an insult, I would recognize that the word itself makes the objectification more offensive because, as I explained in [POST=21807500]post #233[/POST], we are conditioned to be more offended by such words in certain contexts (with the c- word, in all contexts).
I am asking for validation of my theory but that’s not my goal. My goal is to understand you, not to validate or invalidate any theory. I can only speculate here since I don’t know you. Maybe you think the words themselves have proper meanings in certain contexts, and in this case “that [body]” is just innately more offensive than “her [body]” because that is the state of the English language these days. If that is what you think, I must ask whether you think I just don’t (didn’t) know the proper meaning of the word “that” in context. It is possible and if you think so, I won’t hold it against you. That is another explanation that I would understand, although I personally disagree with it, I would agree to disagree.
The harder I try to explain myself, and to acknowledge what I do understand, and what I’m trying to do here, the longer my posts get. 
In short I don’t think you answered my question. Do the words “that” and “her” mean the same thing in context? If so, what is the link between your being offended and differences in the normal and obvious use of words, when they mean the same thing in this context? Is not the original post just as dehumanizing regardless of the pronoun used?
~Max
Not necessarily intentional, but I do think people are systematically conditioned to react to language in certain ways. Specifically I believe conditioning affects which semantic definition applies to a word in context. Prior to this thread I was not taught, nor did I ever have occasion to learn, that using “her” instead of “that” to refer to a woman, if the sentence still constitutes sexual objectification, would make the sentence less offensive. I don’t find this little rule in any standard dictionary and I don’t have the “common sense” to figure it out on my own.
If you think language has intrinsic meaning (I don’t know for sure whether you think that), it follows that I did not actually know the correct definition of “that” or “her” until Manda JO et al said otherwise. Which is fine if that’s how you see things - I won’t be offended, and we could agree to disagree.
The conditioning is not just to respond to “that”, but to be more offended by “that” than “her” in a context where the sentence is offensive either way. I am not disputing that nate’s use of “that” constitutes sexual objectification.
I did argue that a husband referring to his wife as a “that” can be done with affection, but that was a response to Broomstick saying it could not be so. Even then I realized that would be largely irrelevant and put my response in a spoiler.
~Max
OK. I acknowledge that you disagree with me, or rather disagreed with me, since I now think conditioning can change the semantics.
To be perfectly clear, I am very confident that you think it would be more offensive - unacceptably more offensive - for a man to decide to say:
‘Every time I see an attractive woman, I think to myself “I want to fuck the hell out of that.”’
compared to:
‘Every time I see an attractive woman, I think to myself “I want to fuck the hell out of her.”’
It’s not your main criticism of nate’s post, but to you the word “that” is like insult upon injury, or at least that’s what I think you think. My understanding of your opinion is that by repeating verbatim thoughts that objectify of women, the man is being unacceptably rude.
I am not saying that you are wrong, but I don’t (didn’t, because now I do) personally reach the same conclusion. I think both sentences are equally impolite because they describe sexual objectification of women. I try to empathize with the women he mentions, and as they and I are people, and I would be offended if I was objectified, I am offended when they are objectified. This goes for either variation of the sentence. I am not more offended personally by his choice to share his thoughts one way or the other, nor could I comprehend why any person would be - yourself included.
I don’t have to reach the same conclusion as you do. This isn’t a jury, and we don’t have to agree on this particular count. But I do want to understand why we disagree. In hindsight, perhaps I should have made a separate thread. We’re a hundred posts in, and I think I am close to understanding you, so I maybe it’s too late to do that now… but if you or others disagree I’ll make a separate thread.
My current theory is that you have been conditioned to respond to objectification via “that” with great offense, as if using the word in that sense was a profanity. That makes sense to me. I understand it, although it doesn’t apply to me personally, I can empathize with that. Before, I didn’t have the understanding necessary for me to do that. Now I do.
Unless I don’t. I am still getting the impression that I just don’t get it. I asked RaftPeople whether it was pointless to try and understand and the response (also Broomstick’s response) encouraged me not to give up.
I am quoting this out of order for flow purposes, but I agree with you and Ascenray about this.
I recognize that you and a number of women are more offended depending on the particular pronoun used. A thousand apologies if I ever give you the impression that I did not believe your description of your own feelings.
I can see why you would be frustrated. I’ve had a very similar feeling when trying to explain something to kids. It’s hard to tell whether they really don’t understand, or if they are pulling my leg. Why won’t this Max guy just… get it? If you (or others in this thread) want to stop, or if you want me to just go away, that’s understandable and I will do so because I respect you as a poster and I’m not invested in this issue. It’s not my post under the microscope.
Bolding mine.
The only goal of my continued participation in this thread is to understand why you and others are criticizing the specific language used to describe nate’s reaction. I agree with you that terminology takes a distant back seat to the public danger of distracted driving.
My post #121 only concluded that it was impolite (socially unacceptable) of nate to think lustful thoughts. I did not then consider whether lust is healthy or moral. In [POST=21805079]post #162[/POST] I suggested that “impolite language ought not to have been in his thoughts to begin with”, which is a moral statement. Mijin quickly disagreed in [POST=21805096]post #164[/POST], and I quipped that it “might make for an interesting thread” in [POST=21805144]post #165[/POST]. When I read Mijin’s second disagreement in [POST=21805317]post #174[/POST] I scrapped that potential thread. Nevertheless, politeness came up again in Broomstick’s [POST=21807481]post #232[/POST]. My response in [POST=21808356]post #239[/POST] includes a short explanation of why I think it was impolite for nate to even bring up the topic of sexual objectification:
I did not however make a moral judgement on the posting of this thread, I only gave my opinion that the original post was (and is) impolite. Neither do I seek moral judgement on that matter. I only want to know why you think the one word is more offensive in context than the other.
I see that you have made more recent posts which may address this question and will get to those as soon as I can.
~Max
You’re right. I should have cut that out as irrelevant. Sorry, Broomstick, thorny locust, and others.
Well, he knew women would read the post because he said “You women might not realize this struggle”. If he thought for even a second why men aren’t supposed to talk about women as sex objects (it is impolite and disrespectful), it follows that he posted despite knowing it would be impolite and disrespectful. That and the fact that his disrespect/impoliteness was towards a class of people was my point, in direct contradiction to the sections of Broomstick’s post I quoted.
In all practicality I agree with you. I might disagree in a purely philosophical sense but I am not bringing that into this conversation.
I only half-agree with this. Each person has to learn the meaning of specific words on their own. There might be a culture or standard language that the person learns, but I think individual experiences can give words different meanings for different people in the same language and context. The same way the British see “wanker” as a highly offensive word, a profanity even, while Americans do not; the same way an African American might be offended when a white person calls them “n***a”, but not when another African American does so.
~Max
Yeah, sorry about that.
OK, but even so he must have realized something in his post was impolite? Why else make the token apology?
ETA: My long explanation is in [POST=21809402]post #248[/POST].
I think we’re agreed! That’s even better than understanding you. I’m so excited!
~Max