On this thing called "rape culture"

DSGamer wrote:

Yeah. That's what my little brother always says about a relative of ours that's an a-hole. His theory is that someone needs to punch him a few times to let him know that what he's doing isn't acceptable. Do it in public and humiliate him.

See, this is where we disagree. You think it would humiliate a person, I think it just enrages them and solidifies your status as an a-hole in their mind. And probably leads to righteous indignation, which will only serve to reinforce the initial asshattery that got them punched in the first place.

Jonman wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Yeah. That's what my little brother always says about a relative of ours that's an a-hole. His theory is that someone needs to punch him a few times to let him know that what he's doing isn't acceptable. Do it in public and humiliate him.

See, this is where we disagree. You think it would humiliate a person, I think it just enrages them and solidifies your status as an a-hole in their mind. And probably leads to righteous indignation, which will only serve to reinforce the initial asshattery that got them punched in the first place.

I'm not sure what it takes to change people's minds, but I am unconvinced it is possible unless the person is willing and ready to change.

Paleocon wrote:

I'm not sure what it takes to change people's minds, but I am unconvinced it is possible unless the person is willing and ready to change.

I honestly think that it takes direct encounters with situations that specifically counter their presuppositions. Sometimes repeatedly. For example, that's what it took for me to shift away from my original bigoted worldview on sexual preferences. I had to find myself in social situations where I was confronted with the simple fact that people are people regardless of our differences, and we all deserve the same rights, opportunities, and respectful treatment as one another.

This is the what motivates forced desegregation policies (such as bussing students to desegregate schools).

Jonman wrote:

I wish things worked that way, but in my experience, twatting someone in the face is not an effective method of changing their mind. Quite the opposite.

Frankly if you "twatted" me in the face I'd probably never shut up.

You're right, it might not change their mind but it is pretty effective in getting them to STFU!

Farscry wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I'm not sure what it takes to change people's minds, but I am unconvinced it is possible unless the person is willing and ready to change.

I honestly think that it takes direct encounters with situations that specifically counter their presuppositions. Sometimes repeatedly. For example, that's what it took for me to shift away from my original bigoted worldview on sexual preferences. I had to find myself in social situations where I was confronted with the simple fact that people are people regardless of our differences, and we all deserve the same rights, opportunities, and respectful treatment as one another.

This is the what motivates forced desegregation policies (such as bussing students to desegregate schools).

I guess. Whenever I see entrenched ignorance though, I am reminded of the interviews I saw of nazis in the 1950's using "USA" as a code for "Our Sacred Adolf" in German.

A friend of mine who lives in NYC just posted this on her Facebook:

Don't dress up a conservative outfit with red heels unless you want to be snarled at and rubbed against all day.

In unrelated news, it is often said that many professional women seem to lack a robust sense of humor.

I am unclear about the snarled at part.

I would make Wizard of Oz jokes, but never snarl.

clover wrote:

A friend of mine who lives in NYC just posted this on her Facebook:

Don't dress up a conservative outfit with red heels unless you want to be snarled at and rubbed against all day.

In unrelated news, it is often said that many professional women seem to lack a robust sense of humor.

This reminds me of some shoes I loved but stopped wearing because I was told they are "CFM" heels.

The liberal writer Johann Hari wrote something relevant to this thread in The Independent recently.

Yellek wrote:
clover wrote:

A friend of mine who lives in NYC just posted this on her Facebook:

Don't dress up a conservative outfit with red heels unless you want to be snarled at and rubbed against all day.

In unrelated news, it is often said that many professional women seem to lack a robust sense of humor.

This reminds me of some shoes I loved but stopped wearing because I was told they are "CFM" heels. :(

What does CFM mean?

Ulairi wrote:
Yellek wrote:
clover wrote:

A friend of mine who lives in NYC just posted this on her Facebook:

Don't dress up a conservative outfit with red heels unless you want to be snarled at and rubbed against all day.

In unrelated news, it is often said that many professional women seem to lack a robust sense of humor.

This reminds me of some shoes I loved but stopped wearing because I was told they are "CFM" heels. :(

What does CFM mean?

Come f*ck me

Ulairi wrote:
Yellek wrote:
clover wrote:

A friend of mine who lives in NYC just posted this on her Facebook:

Don't dress up a conservative outfit with red heels unless you want to be snarled at and rubbed against all day.

In unrelated news, it is often said that many professional women seem to lack a robust sense of humor.

This reminds me of some shoes I loved but stopped wearing because I was told they are "CFM" heels. :(

What does CFM mean?

...Hmmmmm 'Come fight me?'

*Urban Dictionaries*

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...

El-Taco-the-Rogue wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Yellek wrote:
clover wrote:

A friend of mine who lives in NYC just posted this on her Facebook:

Don't dress up a conservative outfit with red heels unless you want to be snarled at and rubbed against all day.

In unrelated news, it is often said that many professional women seem to lack a robust sense of humor.

This reminds me of some shoes I loved but stopped wearing because I was told they are "CFM" heels. :(

What does CFM mean?

...Hmmmmm 'Come fight me?'

*Urban Dictionaries*

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...

:P

Those would be red laces, not red heels.

Tanglebones wrote:

Come f*ck me

You tease

Re: the shoe thing, I'm not really sure where to go with that one. If it's drawing an amount of attention you don't like in terms of unobtrusive reactions (glances/stares) I have a hard time really faulting the culture for causing that when human beings are animals and on some level still feel required to display when we are attracted to someone. Thankfully we've managed to tone that down enough socially that body language and general social taboos give a pretty good indicator when someone would be uncomfortable. Actual intrusions on your person (rude comments, rubbing, etc) are obviously over the line.

This takes me down a tough line of thought, though. I do believe that since humans are animals it is natural to wish to display our attraction to each other in manners that are appropriate, and that in itself does not encourage rape culture. But between different societies the manner in which we display that attraction can differ and might be seen as intrusive, and such offenses happen at a personal and not societal level.

Bright red shoes, from a purely artistic standpoint, draw the eyes lower. Those already inclined to be attracted towards those wearing the shoes then are more likely to look at the lower half of that person. I guess what I'm getting at is that a certain amount of 'wandering eyes' by those looking at the person wearing the shoes is understandable, as is perhaps an increase in the amount of socially acceptable displays of attraction, but anything further is not. That seems like an arbitrary line to draw though, especially with each persons definition of 'acceptable' differing. Ultimately it comes down to respecting the wishes of the receiver of attention, but how to know that ahead of time?

Edit: (Obvious answer is to just be respectful in the first place. Pretty much solves everything in my head. But does that then mean there is no encouragement of rape culture in that scenario?)

Jolly Bill wrote:

Edit: (Obvious answer is to just be respectful in the first place. Pretty much solves everything in my head. But does that then mean there is no encouragement of rape culture in that scenario?)

I would say that if everyone is being respectful of everyone else, there's no encouragement or perpetuation of rape culture, but that doesn't mean that the culture mysteriously vanishes. As people have pointed out, we also live in a culture of violence, and just because I am not punching a person or watching a video of punching a person doesn't mean that I now exist in a pristine violence free culture.

The fact that certain people make decisions about where they go, how they dress, and who they talk to based on fear of rape means we live in a rape culture. Polishing the medal we get when we don't perpetuate that culture for a few months at a time doesn't make that go away.

When pressed, I would say this is a problem with no foreseeable solution. I can't imagine a world where women would feel 100% safe from unwanted attention/harrassment/worse from other people, and I come from a culture where we've managed to outlaw the barbaric practice of spouse rape.

You're correct in saying that humans are animals, and animals' natural tendency is to just screw everything their brains tell them can lead to babies (and some species go beyond that). But, unlike animals, I've managed to teach myself to use birth control, hold my feces inside my body until an appropriate time, and avoid eating huge amounts of fat and carbs because my body is wired to think starvation is one meal away. One would assume I could also control my penis.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Re: the shoe thing, I'm not really sure where to go with that one. If it's drawing an amount of attention you don't like in terms of unobtrusive reactions (glances/stares) I have a hard time really faulting the culture for causing that when human beings are animals and on some level still feel required to display when we are attracted to someone. Thankfully we've managed to tone that down enough socially that body language and general social taboos give a pretty good indicator when someone would be uncomfortable. Actual intrusions on your person (rude comments, rubbing, etc) are obviously over the line.

Glances and stares would not have been a problem. It was lude comments from male strangers and somewhat surprisingly rude comments from female coworkers in spite of them wearing what I would consider low necklines inappropriate for the workplace. My reason for wearing them? High heels make me taller, and if I'm dressed for work in an appropriate manner, shoes should not imply anything.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Re: the shoe thing, I'm not really sure where to go with that one. If it's drawing an amount of attention you don't like in terms of unobtrusive reactions (glances/stares) I have a hard time really faulting the culture for causing that when human beings are animals and on some level still feel required to display when we are attracted to someone. Thankfully we've managed to tone that down enough socially that body language and general social taboos give a pretty good indicator when someone would be uncomfortable. Actual intrusions on your person (rude comments, rubbing, etc) are obviously over the line.

...

Bright red shoes, from a purely artistic standpoint, draw the eyes lower. Those already inclined to be attracted towards those wearing the shoes then are more likely to look at the lower half of that person. I guess what I'm getting at is that a certain amount of 'wandering eyes' by those looking at the person wearing the shoes is understandable, as is perhaps an increase in the amount of socially acceptable displays of attraction, but anything further is not. That seems like an arbitrary line to draw though, especially with each persons definition of 'acceptable' differing. Ultimately it comes down to respecting the wishes of the receiver of attention, but how to know that ahead of time?

Neither Yellek or I mentioned glances or stares; our posts referred to actual comments or physical intrusion. And yes, red shoes are noticeable, but the issue isn't so much whether someone sees them, the misunderstandings/inappropriate nonsense comes when the looker decides to communicate what they're thinking.

As for that, where's the line, then? If I wear a conservative suit and red shoes on the train, and a man sitting across from me looks and my red shoes, looks at me, and then makes a point of rubbing himself through his pants, he's neither touched me nor voiced a comment. What if he does the same but doesn't make eye contact? What if he keeps his hands in his pockets, but stares at me instead? What if he does nothing but look, but then gets off the train at the same stop I do and walks in the same direction?

Jolly Bill wrote:

(Obvious answer is to just be respectful in the first place. Pretty much solves everything in my head. But does that then mean there is no encouragement of rape culture in that scenario?)

For whom to be respectful? For the woman in nice shoes to respect the fact that the man is experiencing a biological urge? For the man to respect the fact that a woman's shoes are not an indicator of her interest in him?

clover wrote:

As for that, where's the line, then? If I wear a conservative suit and red shoes on the train, and a man sitting across from me looks and my red shoes, looks at me, and then makes a point of rubbing himself through his pants, he's neither touched me nor voiced a comment. What if he does the same but doesn't make eye contact? What if he keeps his hands in his pockets, but stares at me instead? What if he does nothing but look, but then gets off the train at the same stop I do and walks in the same direction?

Re: pocket pool, remember when I mentioned punching people until they learn? Here is another good candidate for some education. As far as the last one, I am having trouble following how that is a problem. If he is walking a step and a half behind you, that is one thing, but if someone looks at you on the train and has a destination similar to yours simply can't be treated as threat all the time. If you do, you have to spend your entire life being paranoid about every single person you see.

As we've established, I apparently live in a little bubble of ignorance and naivete, so I have a follow-up question for my enlightenment. Would any behavior other than completely ignoring you be okay? People tend to stare at those that they find interesting, due to attraction, disgust, amusement, or whatever(which is kind of stupid in my opinion, but humans as a whole are an ill-mannered lot). Does that staring automatically translate to a threat?

clover wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

(Obvious answer is to just be respectful in the first place. Pretty much solves everything in my head. But does that then mean there is no encouragement of rape culture in that scenario?)

For whom to be respectful? For the woman in nice shoes to respect the fact that the man is experiencing a biological urge? For the man to respect the fact that a woman's shoes are not an indicator of her interest in him?

Both. I'd say that everyone needs to be respectful to a point. The guy can look, but skip the no-blink staring and other creepy behavior. For the woman, don't be offended that someone notices your brilliantly-colored shoes and may be attracted to you. Again, a few looks is a very different thing than the round of pocket-pool or the sit-too-close on the train.

I was in no way attempting for my list of "inappropriate" actions to be comprehensive! Obviously there are inappropriate and offensive actions which are outside the categories of "rubbing" or "comments". Also, I would have hoped you read my 'respectful' as meaning for the man to respect the fact that the woman's shoes are not an indicator of her interest in him. I am afraid I must be wandering into territory I can not properly communicate if the woman being more respectful seemed like a reasonable interpretation of my post.

I wanted to share my thought process as I worked out what that concept meant to me in the context of this thread. As red shoes (or any similarly bright/chromatic focal point) would attract the eye, and very often the mind, to certain things I was determining for myself where the limit was from my perspective. That looped back around to the general principle that all interaction should be respectful. As the person commenting or engaging the person with the shoes is beginning the interaction, the onus falls on them to do so respectfully.

My musings ended up in the same place as yours... where is the line? Seems to me that line is different not just between any two given societies, but also between any two given people. There are respectful ways to communicate attraction, just as there are respectful ways to move on when you detect no return attraction, and such interaction usually takes place on a subtle level below normal speech and overt action. And let me be more clear this time, I do not see offensive actions such as rubbing oneself, rubbing oneself ON someone else, or making sexual comments outside of any possible context as EVER being appropriate or respectful.

Kraint wrote:

As far as the last one, I am having trouble following how that is a problem. If he is walking a step and a half behind you, that is one thing, but if someone looks at you on the train and has a destination similar to yours simply can't be treated as threat all the time. If you do, you have to spend your entire life being paranoid about every single person you see.

Like I mentioned upthread, I grew up socialized to a high level of violence, so I do interpret that as a potential threat. It is, objectively, an overreaction, but when people were getting beaten over $100 Filas twenty years ago it was good social behavior to give strangers a wide berth when there were few people around. Now it's just a well-worn neural pathway to me. But I don't staple that to the bottom of rape culture; I brought it up to create gradations from obvious assholery (pocket pool) to an extremely ambiguous situation.

If we're going to talk about biological urges, natural selection rewards paranoia about strangers, because if it keeps you alive/unharmed in a situation where a more trusting person would be attacked or killed, the behavior pattern did its job and is passed on to hypothetical offspring.

Kraint wrote:

As we've established, I apparently live in a little bubble of ignorance and naivete, so I have a follow-up question for my enlightenment. Would any behavior other than completely ignoring you be okay? People tend to stare at those that they find interesting, due to attraction, disgust, amusement, or whatever(which is kind of stupid in my opinion, but humans as a whole are an ill-mannered lot). Does that staring automatically translate to a threat?

I have pretty good radar about people's motivation (see above hair-trigger sensitivity about strangers) so no, people just looking, or having their own internal narrative, or even staring purely out of curiosity or interest aren't automatically threatening. I don't find just looking at other people to be offensive; I enjoy peoplewatching myself.

But if they're exhibiting other behaviors that could register as threatening (wearing a shirt with a rude quote, slouching into their seatmate's personal space, doing other things that demonstrate their own comfort/entertainment is more important than respecting the people around them) then they come under more scrutiny. And staring or direct eye contact, biologically, can be an indication of aggression or a dominance challenge as well as a sign of interest, so if someone is outright staring at me, it does instinctively notch that upward.

Kraint wrote:

The guy can look, but skip the no-blink staring and other creepy behavior. For the woman, don't be offended that someone notices your brilliantly-colored shoes and may be attracted to you. Again, a few looks is a very different thing than the round of pocket-pool or the sit-too-close on the train.

I don't think I've ever made a case that noticing what someone's wearing is offensive. And with the shoe anecdotes, we haven't been talking about a few looks. Up above you seemed to defend staring as natural behavior, and down here you're saying it should be curbed, so I think I might be missing something in your stance on this.

Jolly Bill wrote:

I was in no way attempting for my list of "inappropriate" actions to be comprehensive! Obviously there are inappropriate and offensive actions which are outside the categories of "rubbing" or "comments". Also, I would have hoped you read my 'respectful' as meaning for the man to respect the fact that the woman's shoes are not an indicator of her interest in him. I am afraid I must be wandering into territory I can not properly communicate if the woman being more respectful seemed like a reasonable interpretation of my post.

I walked the respect thing way into hypothetical polarity for discussion's sake. Didn't mean to imply that you were implying that

DudleySmith wrote:

The liberal writer Johann Hari wrote something relevant to this thread in The Independent recently.

Relevant to the Charlie Sheen thread too. I think someone has already mentioned his wife-beating/shooting and porn star-using in that thread, but it was largely ignored so people could post more memes.

Prederick wrote:

For those of you asking "where does this happen? When?", there ya go.

Kraint wrote:

As far as the last one, I am having trouble following how that is a problem. If he is walking a step and a half behind you, that is one thing, but if someone looks at you on the train and has a destination similar to yours simply can't be treated as threat all the time. If you do, you have to spend your entire life being paranoid about every single person you see.

As we've established, I apparently live in a little bubble of ignorance and naivete, so I have a follow-up question for my enlightenment. Would any behavior other than completely ignoring you be okay? People tend to stare at those that they find interesting, due to attraction, disgust, amusement, or whatever(which is kind of stupid in my opinion, but humans as a whole are an ill-mannered lot). Does that staring automatically translate to a threat?

Staring by itself is just an action. The expressions and body language that accompany a stare is what we all use to interpret the meaning behind a person's inability to stop looking at someone. I won't read a child staring at me a with a smile on his face the same way I'd read some random woman snarling at me.

A look of genuine attraction or affection is very different from an objectifying stare or an "I'm raping you with my eyes" stare. Big difference. I don't have a problem with the first type. Anyone who gives me that last example or actively harasses me after being told numerous times to get lost needs to come a little closer so I can give them a proper dropkick to the face.

This is leading me down a bit of a weird sub-path, but bear with me a second. We've gotten a bit derailed from "rape culture" into "actions that make me uncomfortable". Obviously a lot of overlap there. But one thing that does NOT seem to overlap for me is the distinction that unspoken social cues are being sent back and forth, and presumably picked up on.

If someone is staring at you, or following you, or in any other way making you feel uncomfortable and continues to do so after you have made it clear that you are not comfortable they may be doing it because they are empowered by rape culture (seeing women as sex objects and/or helpless to defend themselves). But some people have legitimate problems picking up those social cues. Is it just accepted as a given that those cases are excluded from what we are talking about?

Jolly Bill wrote:

If someone is staring at you, or following you, or in any other way making you feel uncomfortable and continues to do so after you have made it clear that you are not comfortable they may be doing it because they are empowered by rape culture (seeing women as sex objects and/or helpless to defend themselves). But some people have legitimate problems picking up those social cues. Is it just accepted as a given that those cases are excluded from what we are talking about?

If I told someone who was staring at me, "Hey, f*ck off, creeper," and that person then informed me that they had some kind of social handicap, I don't have to feel bad for misjudging them. Their actions remain inappropriate. I might apologize for the language, but I wouldn't back down from the position that they were behaving wrongly, and needed correction. And their appropriate response should be an apology for that behaviour.

Brennil wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

If someone is staring at you, or following you, or in any other way making you feel uncomfortable and continues to do so after you have made it clear that you are not comfortable they may be doing it because they are empowered by rape culture (seeing women as sex objects and/or helpless to defend themselves). But some people have legitimate problems picking up those social cues. Is it just accepted as a given that those cases are excluded from what we are talking about?

If I told someone who was staring at me, "Hey, f*ck off, creeper," and that person then informed me that they had some kind of social handicap, I don't have to feel bad for misjudging them. Their actions remain inappropriate. I might apologize for the language, but I wouldn't back down from the position that they were behaving wrongly, and needed correction. And their appropriate response should be an apology for that behaviour.

Agreed. And would that be the case, despite some initial inappropriate actions, the behavior is unrelated to rape culture.

So while trying to crack down on rape culture behaviors and thoughts we may be overly harsh on those who inadvertently display such behaviors. While that is an edge case given how prevalent those types of behaviors are, it's worth it and should happen, I just feel a little for the social misfits (like some of us) out there. My mind typically goes to edge cases from the start, though. Sorry for the derail.

Jolly Bill wrote:

I just feel a little for the social misfits (like some of us) out there. My mind typically goes to edge cases from the start, though. Sorry for the derail.

Really though, how many times does a social misfit need to have "f*ck off, creeper," yelled at him/her before getting the pointing that leering is inappropriate?

Oh, so at PAX there were DickWolves flashmobs and Mike drew a "Vagina Wolf". Guess that makes future decisions easier.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/03/pax-east-triggered-tough.html