Same here.
This blog explains/explores those concepts:
Isn’t “the Patriarchy” just some conspiracy theory?
Rape Culture 101
Can you give a more complete explanation of this thought? What do you mean by “sex object”? Does this also apply to men wearing little clothing in public?
Aaaand here we have a very good example of slut-shaming. The players are not the only ones who had a say in what they were to wear on the field, Flyer. Corporate sponsors and the federation organizing the sport had more decision-making power over that than the players did. Individual players could probably refuse to play out of principle, but how would that convince the real decision-makers to change their minds?
No matter how women dress, they are not sex objects. They may look and feel sexy, which is an entirely different matter, but they are not sex objects. They are not advertising their sexual availability to all and sundry, nor are they indicating any particular interest in you specifically simply because they are dressed in a revealing manner. Women in general are not at fault for the way they dress, you as an individual are at fault for making unwarranted assumptions based on the way they dress.
That’s Victorian thinking; you are assuming that a woman flaunting her sexuality is a bad thing, regardless of her own opinion on the matter. And where’s the “shaming” part?
Ah, now here we have the shaming. Except it’s not the women it’s targeted at, it’s the men. If a man has a perfectly normal, instinctive reaction to an attractive woman, he’s evil. In fact, your position is an example of “slut shaming”; you’ve just switched the gender of the targets.
Playing volleyball in a burka is gonna be kinda tough.
It’s because that’s ultimately ignoring everything else about her as a human being other than her assumed sexual availability. Doesn’t matter what she likes to read, what she does for a living, what her favorite food is, what makes her sad or happy to be on this earth; all that matters is the fleshy details in the skimpy packaging. All it’s assumed to be saying is “Step up and try your luck, you might be the one. Or two.”
Which it’s not.
There’s a difference between condemning a man for looking at a woman sexually (which, according to this lovely little book Sex at Dawn pretty much happens automatically) and condemning a man for assuming that dressing sexy implies being sexually available regardless of a woman’s assertions to the contrary.
A real Victorian attitude would be one that assumes men are all randy horndogs who are entirely unable to control themselves and who must be kept from excitation at all costs, which would be the women’s job through not dressing provocatively, etc. I, on the other hand, hold that women have the right to dress as they please without fear of unwanted and unsolicited attention (i.e. touching, groping, crude comments, etc.). We’re big boys; we can handle seeing pretty ladies without losing all self-control.
Nonsense. A man is perfectly capable of looking at a woman sexually without suddenly suffering amnesia about everything else about her. And who said anything about “sexual availability”? Some woman you see on a TV screen from a thousand miles away whom you aren’t ever going to meet isn’t sexually available.
Because of course the moment a man finds a woman attractive he turns into a rampaging psychopath who is utterly incapable of any thought but monomaniacal lust, right? :rolleyes:
Which is pretty much your position. You are pushing the idea that men are sexual predators, and that the only reason that women dress sexily is because the Evil Men make them.
Actually, you’ve been saying the exact opposite, that men are all subhuman sexual predators, and that women who dress provocatively are victims.
Well, this should be fun.
I did a little social experiment not long ago. Wore a mankini in public. There was no touching and groping to my dismay, but crude comments were abundant.
So as a man, I cannot dress as I please.
Olentzero,
What do you mean by the term “sex object”? Sometimes, it’s used to mean that person A focuses on the sexual aspect of person B. Sometimes, it’s used to mean that person A denies that person B has any other aspect than the sexual one. Which do you mean?
Do you think it’s possible to, at a particular point, focus on the sexual aspect of a person without thinking that all that matters is the sexual aspect of that person? Do you think it’s possible to focus on a non-sexual aspect of a person without thinking that all that matters is that non-sexual aspect?
Perhaps a lot of the disagreement with Flyer comes from the ambiguity of the term “sex object”. Note how Flyer never says that a woman “who goes around nearly naked in public” is a slut or should feel shame. Also note that Flyer never says that the way a woman dresses implies sexual availability regardless of her assertions to the contrary. That “regardless of her assertions to the contrary” is simply not in Flyer’s words.
“hold that women have the right to dress as they please without fear of unwanted and unsolicited attention (i.e. touching, groping, crude comments, etc.).”
That “etc” leaves much ambiguity. If I introduce myself to a woman and chat with her without any touching, groping or crude comments, it is still attention. If, before I started talking to her, she didn’t feel like chatting (I didn’t know that because usually, the way you find out if someone wants to chat if by starting to chat with them and seeing how they respond), it is unwanted and unsollicited attention.
I believe in a “rape culture” of sorts, but not the one a stereotypical feminist believes in. They consider “rape culture” to be an environment that allows misogynistic thoughts to flourish - I consider it to be an environment where rapists are actively aided. I’m not worried about Tentacle Bento, I’m worried about the US military diagnosing rape victims with preexisting psychological disorders to drum them out.
It’s an old term though. It was a term used heavily in the 80s when I got a Women’s Studies minor. I happen to think that it’s a valid term, although I think that what we have is probably more of a rape subculture or a subculture where there is a male entitlement view of sex.
At some point in continum range from a bikini to a burka, there’s probably something less sexually provocative than the bikins but less restricting than a burka, do you think?
Like how about the costumes that the men’s beach volleyball teams wear?
Do you get to make that determination? Or should the woman who is clothing themselves make that determination and expect to be treated with respect regardless of the determination she makes?
Perhaps, but honestly I’d suspect the bikini is about a unrestrictive as you’ll get this side of being nude. And given this a cute throat competition, pretty much wearing what is the least restrictive (or at least what you THINK is) is what many/most/all players are going to wear.
And if they are wearing bikinis, I’d suspect it is because they want the least restrictive thing they can wear, not because they wanna show of their body. Some probably do and some would probably be quite happy if the Olympic whoevers declared “uniform x” that is somewhat less revealing is the standard everyone has to wear.
I haven’t even seen what they are wearing (seriously), so for all I know it actually is burkas 
Absolutely true. If the female beach volleyball players prefer to play in bikinis (and many of them do) then there’s nothing wrong with that and they should be allowed to. I do have a problem, though, with the “official uniform” of women’s beach volleyball being the skimpy bikini. I noticed in London that some of the time they wore much more covering uniforms, but that was mostly because it was cold. As I understand it, the bikini is the officially sanctioned uniform. So even the players who feel uncomfortable displaying that much flesh (especially when the men get to compete in floppy shorts and shirts–I mean, come on–if the argument is that beach volleyball should be played in swimwear, then why the hell are the men wearing shirts?) don’t have a choice if they want to play.
Holy shit, I agree 100% with a Der Trihs post.
I don’t think I’ve ever come across an explanation of patriarchy that included it being genetic or evolutionary. For example, under Marxist theories societies were once egalitarian and a patriarchy arose with the rise in property, social class and the need to control women’s reproduction in order to secure property through a male line. Also, name a single matriarchal society. Groups with matrilineal families don’t count.
It’s a good thing most feminist scholars don’t argue that it’s hardwired into the brains of men.
The Internet has enabled everyone to shut themselves into a microcommunity where no dissent ever soils their ears and find another thousand people to tell them all their preconceived notions are right. The sort of feminists who believe that every male is literally a rapist (“rape culture”, “male privilege”) are no different than people who think they are actually dolphins trapped in human bodies, Holocaust deniers, or, of course, the loathsome “men’s rights activists” (rape apologists) in that respect. It would be a mistake to buy into the ridiculous notions of people who have an agenda about men in general, just as it would be a mistake to judge all feminists or all women by those people.
And the problem I have with Melissa McEwan’s description of rape culture is that it includes everything and the kitchen sink. I read that months ago and started to wonder just what isn’t Rape Culture?
Yup. Rape culture is disagreeing that there is a rape culture.