Nuclear TFWOT
(That's Thursday Flamewar Open Thread, of course.)
So who said the following, and in response to whom?
"It is not probably prudent ... in today's world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country."
Oh sorry, that quote on the bottom was from the Livejournal page, I meant it as supporting evidence.
Posted by: practicallyevil | Apr 24, 2008 at 09:00 PM
There's a good list of buttons here.
Posted by: Indiana Joe | Apr 24, 2008 at 09:05 PM
Now this is a really good analysis of the dynamics of what's going on and why The Ferrett is a skanky ass.
I got as far as "Not Safe For Work". Precis, please?
===================
To throw another log on the fire, how do these pins compare with the "Kis Me, I'm Irish" shirts and pins sported on St Pat's day. The women who wear them do **NOT** want all and sundry to kiss them; I doubt they even want a sizable portion of the populace to ask.
Yet, it would appear, to a casual observer, that is indeed what they are inviting.
(I've always assumed such slogans are fluffery and that the wearer likes the concept without having thought of the ramifications.)
========================
The problem with "my eyes are up here" is that you may run into a Homer Simpson: "I've made my choice!"
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 24, 2008 at 09:05 PM
I got as far as "Not Safe For Work". Precis, please?
Assuming this is the synecdochic link--it's an explanation of why the poster, as a sex-positive lesbian with some bi-sexual tendencies, and with a long history of con/SCA/rennfaire in her past (and life in the sex-positive culture in her present) finds the OSBP skeevy. Highly recommended reading when you're no longer at work.
Posted by: cjmr | Apr 24, 2008 at 09:12 PM
Yeah, some people are just starers, okay
Posted by: Ryan | Apr 24, 2008 at 09:19 PM
re: button catalog
I like this one:
You don't need to look at my chest. These aren't the breasts you're looking for. Move along.
Posted by: cjmr | Apr 24, 2008 at 09:21 PM
Bugmaster: Another possible answer is, "because you're destroying everything we feminists have worked so hard for all these years". However, if your feminism prevents women from doing what they freely chose to do, then I'd argue that your feminism has a design problem at its core. Of course, you can respond with, "these women are silly gooses, I know what's best for them better than they do", but then... You wouldn't take that kind of condescending attitude from a man, would you ? Does being a woman really entitle you to deliver it with impunity ?
Being a grown up - being a free person -entitles me to give my opinion on something - the person to whom I give it may reject it or not, although if I thought what they were about to do was immediately physically dangerous I would try harder to impress my view on them.
I have little objection to a woman who wakes up in the morning and thinks: I will go out and let it be known that complete strangers may fondle my breasts. If she meets another woman and explains this feeling, the second woman may join, or decline, and then the third and so on. There is a possibility that in order not to appear prudish, or ashamed of the off-white bra, someone may join without enthusiasm. (A not dissimilar situation arose in The Apprentice last year, where one woman suggested selling kisses - the team split on moral grounds, but the proposal won because there were house-points and Sir Alan Sugar to win.) But back to our Open Source project: Oddly, once you get men in the policy making body, it becomes more complicated. There are now people who are not participants but customers: their views may be important to the success of the project once it's underway, but I'm not certain women would want validation of their decisions from the very creeps who want the free grope. As I said, if you wouldn't let him touch with a bargepole in real life, why do it here at the con?
As a fun activity in a very small clique in a con, behind locked doors, it's none of my concern. If - as had been suggested - it were to spread to other venues, and to a wider audience, it's still not my concern (I won't be there) but my advice is that you are encouraging the objectification of women, which leads - for some people - to harassment, stalking, grudges and even fewer social skills, and in extreme cases to assassinating Presidents...
(*) I also dislike the word "boobs", because of the "booby == stupid" association. Of course, I'm just a man, and I have moobs, not boobs, so my opinion is moot.
To be honest, I sometimes think you're a complete tit.
Posted by: Rosina | Apr 24, 2008 at 09:21 PM
I've heard no accounts of buttonless women being approached.
That's incorrect. In the initial post, Ferrett describes approaching a woman in the hall because she was wearing a revealing costume, which meant that she was inviting male attention.
In other words, the bitch was dressed for it.
Posted by: Darkrose | Apr 24, 2008 at 09:41 PM
I've heard no accounts of buttonless women being approached.
That's incorrect. In the initial post, Ferrett describes approaching a woman in the hall because she was wearing a revealing costume, which meant that she was inviting male attention:
And then the real magic happened. Because a beautiful girl in an incredibly skimpy blue Princess outfit strode down the hallway, obviously putting her assets on display (the thin strips of her clothing had to be taped to her body to stay on), and we stopped her. (emphasis mine)
In other words, the bitch was dressed for it.
Posted by: Darkrose | Apr 24, 2008 at 09:42 PM
That's what the fairy story Red Riding Hood is all about: the wolf is not a bad guy, until the day you realize he ate your granny and he's going to eat you and he'll still have a big smile on his face.
I thought that was a plus.
Posted by: hf | Apr 24, 2008 at 10:25 PM
@Kristy
>*sighs* Jesu... ok. Despite being told by other people that it's a lost cause, I have tried to treat you respectfully, and ask for that respect in return. You want to disagree with my ideas, fine. But I still do not appreciate the personal attacks.
Er, it's a lost cause?
:)
Posted by: spinetingler | Apr 24, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Jesu - "I put that down to your youth and inexperience."
What a condescending bitch.
There, I've said it for the rest of you
Posted by: | Apr 24, 2008 at 10:42 PM
All this discussion about the propriety of touching women's breasts reminds me of the Ashcroft-covers-Justice-statue controversy of several years ago. Someone captioned a picture similar to the one shown in the article: "So, which is the bigger Boob?" (Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it anymore...)
Posted by: Reynard | Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44 PM
@Rosina:
Agreed, of course, but you should understand that merely being grown up does not render your opinion authoritative. The difference is mostly in the attitude -- it's the difference between a[Wo]Man Who Explains, and a friendly and engaging conversationalist. I personally think that, most of the time, you exemplify the latter.I have no idea what you just said :-( I'm out of the loop, and older than the hills, apparently. Bah ! When I was young, we didn't have no fancy picture-boxes ! Get off my lawn !
As far as I understand, men wore the buttons as well (well, the male version of the buttons, since not many people have a moob fetish). But, more importantly:
There are several things wrong with this statement, if I understand it correctly.
Firstly, the buttons do not say, "grope me without asking"; they say, "you may ask me for a grope", which makes a whole world of difference. When a creepy bargepole guy asks a button-wearing woman for a grope, she can always say "no". The default setting, as it were, is also "no". Now, you may argue that all men (or, perhaps, the overwhelming majority of men) are beasts who don't take "no" for an answer, but, firstly, actual reports from the actual con tell a different story; and, secondly, that statement is, frankly, sexist. I can discuss it in more depth, but I won't do it now, since I don't know if that's really what you meant to say. (I'll also pretend, for now, that gay men and women do not exist).
Secondly, you are implicitly assuming that there's some sort of committee who assigns buttons to women. In reality -- as far as I understand -- women simply choose to wear the button, or not; the decision is up to them. I suppose someone could always argue that women are too weak-minded and foolish to make such a decision intelligently, but I think we both agree that this is not the case.
What irks me the most, though, is your statement that this OSBP club "encourages objectification of women". This implies that women who join the club are objects, or that a woman freely makes the choice to let a stranger fondle her -- in a loose and isolated social environment free of attachments -- is turning herself into an object (and, perhaps, that men in a similar position are immune from these effects, somehow). You have already objectified these women, in your mind; and now you're fighting to rescue them. I, however, am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. I think that every woman I meet has free will, until proven otherwise. As Terry Pratchett says, the source of all evil lies in treating people as things.
Posted by: Bugmaster | Apr 24, 2008 at 11:53 PM
To dra-a-a-g this back to back to the original post, I am irresistibly reminded of the huge press kerfuffle over Hillary Clinton's necklines last year.
If only the noble Ferret had been around! I am sure that he would have handed her a button that said, "NO, YOUR COVERAGE MAY NOT TOUCH ON MY BOOBS", and all media sexism would have instantly melted away.
Posted by: hapax | Apr 24, 2008 at 11:56 PM
I am a lurker here, not a poster, but I'd just like to note that I agree with Rosina and Jesu wholeheartedly, and honestly if the majority of people here really can't see the logical reasons that the OSBP thing is a bad, bad idea, and continually paint Jesu as some kind of radical extremist (I'll allow that she can be abrasive in how she presents her opinions, but no more so than several folks on the opposite side)--well, then I may even need to reduce lurking on comment threads on this site to completely ignoring them. It's scary that even in an extremely intelligent and reflective community like this one, there are so many people who just refuse to see the ways in which they keep making it okay to treat women as commodities.
Maybe I'm just still rage-filled from reading all thousand-plus comments on the prostitution flame war, but... you know what? I just want to say hi to Jesu and Rosina and let them know that someone appreciates the fact that they Get It.
Posted by: Caroline | Apr 24, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Strangely enough, this morning I had the weirdest dream that I had met Jesu and had coffee with her and found her charming company. And then I was all conflicted, trying to reconcile the lovely woman I'd met with the poison-spitting rage-bot I see here.
And then, as they say, I woke up.
--
I'm absolutely not happy with the "open source boob" project. I don't like it at all, starting right with the title: my body is not and never will be "open source." As someone in this thread put it, "My body does not exist in the binary of SOME GUY'S ACCESS TO IT." I don't presume to tell another woman that she should move her boundaries to mimic mine; but the OSB project does seem created to try to nudge society's boundaries such that more men would feel allowed to ask for a grope, and more women would feel pressured to say "yes" so as not to be thought prudish.
I highly recommend reading that thread, actually. Kate's original post makes a very good point as to why making "can I touch your breasts" a socially acceptable question won't exactly fill the world with roses and lollipops. And many, many other well spoken explanations of why the social experiment is wrong-headed follow.
Posted by: Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little | Apr 25, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Bugmaster, there is no such thing as an isolated social environment. Do you really not know how much pressure women in fandom experience to confirm to certain gender expectations? Or how uncomfortable it can be to participate in a fandom community where not wanting to participate in a certain amount of sexual objectification is completely condemned, to the point that one feels unwelcome if one doesn't offer oneself up? Or how it's one thing when a small group of like-minded friends plays this sort of game together and another thing when people want it to become the norm for a community that already has a lot of boundary issues when it comes to dress and sexuality?
Posted by: Caroline | Apr 25, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Also, and I am going back to lurking, but this response by vito_excalibur presents a positive alternative to participating in this project.
Posted by: Caroline | Apr 25, 2008 at 12:03 AM
@Bug As far as I understand, men wore the buttons as well
Really, you know better than that. A man wearing a button inviting others to ask about groping his buns (or whatever) is not in the same position as an OSBP woman. If you really think the two are equivalent, well, don't bother reading the rest of this post, because I don't think we live on the same planet.
When a creepy bargepole guy asks a button-wearing woman for a grope, she can always say "no".
Actually, I probably would not have had a problem with the OSBP if this statement were true. But Bug, I'm afraid you don't know much about social pressures on women if you didn't know that's not how it works.
Read some of the livejournal links that Jesu provides. See real live women actually talking about the issues like, "if I say yes to this guy, am I allowed to say no to his friend?" and "if my friend with whom I am chatting says yes to this guy, what happens if I say no?" -- and that isn't even beginning to go into the very real power dynamic that, alas, does occur at cons. (and I speak as someone who quite literally once fell at the feet of Harlan Ellison -- a long story for another time, but, Tonio, quite true.)
This implies that women who join the club are objects
Actually, Ferret in his original post, and in his replies to commenters, made it quite clear that he considered the participating women to be objects. Hence the whole "creepy" vibe.
Some women might enjoy being objectified. That's okay by me. I reserve my right to be slightly squicked at this being presented as a "positive" "empowering" experience that should somehow transform our culture.
Although I suppose that if being ASKED before being groped becomes the new standard, it's a baby step up. (sigh) Doesn't say much for the culture, does it...
Posted by: hapax | Apr 25, 2008 at 12:08 AM
I guess you go to different cons than me...
Posted by: Bugmaster | Apr 25, 2008 at 12:27 AM
I'd like to also cast my vote against the Open-Source Breast Project, though I can't add much more to this conversation than that. That's my problem with all these debate threads: by the time I feel up to writing a substantial comment, everything I could possibly say has been said by someone else at least three times. So I just end up making random asides.
Posted by: Spalanzani | Apr 25, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Posted by: Bugmaster | Apr 25, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Bugmaster, it's possible you just don't see harassment of women because you are not its object. It's possible that you're not privy to the thoughts of every woman who's uncomfortable with the way that men are treating her, and that she doesn't feel safe making an outcry about how the guy is making her uncomfortable, because culture has conditioned her to feel that he has the right to ogle or grope or otherwise harass her, and if she isn't happy about it she's a prude, or a bitch. Maybe she's not brave enough to fly in the face of that and speak up. Maybe she feels guilty because she is wearing that low-cut Hawkgirl costume. Fandom doesn't exist outside of a society that tells women that they're asking for it. And not every woman feels safe voicing her discomfort, especially not in a male-dominated environment.
I've only been to one con in my life. It was ten years ago; I was a teenager, and in the company of four adults who regarded me as a little sister and rarely left me to fend for myself, as well as a guest of honor who did me the great courtesy of making me feel like an adult while keeping a mildly paternal eye on me. The atmosphere was definitely courteous, and friendly to women and transfolk. That said, I remember at least a couple occasions on the scene of men intimidating women or making them uncomfortable, incidents where fortunately there were other women to back them up and help them negotiate the situation, because the men in the room didn't notice anything wrong. So I don't think we are in different places, I think that your patriarchal privilege makes it possible for you to not see gender issues, the same way that my white skin enables me to overlook racism when it's not directly pointed out to me.
Short version: Yes, if a woman at a con screams and cries, it's probable that everyone will turn on the person that's harassing her. But it is also possible that a woman will smile and be polite because she's been socially conditioned to do so, and because she's afraid of what will happen if she speaks out.
Posted by: Caroline | Apr 25, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Also, please take note that this whole project places the power in the hands of those who would objectify the woman. Why is it that the groper gets to go around asking people if they'll allow themselves to be groped, rather than a situation where the owner of the breasts in question could do the inviting? I do believe that women can make autonomous choices, but if the creators of this project really cared about a woman's autonomy, maybe they would be offering buttons that said, "yes, I am interested in groping breasts," or "no, I am not," so that women could make the choice as to whether they'd like to invite a friendly caress. Why is it that the women in the situation are asked to label themselves as participants or nonparticipants? Why aren't the men labeling themselves as gropers or non-gropers?
Posted by: Caroline | Apr 25, 2008 at 01:03 AM
@Caroline:
In a way, it does, because fans tend to be more geeky (and, I would like to think, more educated) than the average person. But, my comments would apply even if this were not the case.Yes, it's possible, but -- largely thanks to the efforts of feminism -- it's becoming increasingly less likely with every year. You are basically saying that women are not assertive enough, and not confident enough, to make their desires (or lack thereof) plainly known. If this is true, then why do you want to shut down the few women who are assertive and confident ?I can't really answer anything to the bulk of your post, other than, "no, I'm still not a woman". Actually, speaking of trans-folk, I'm not very good at recognizing them, so I don't know how they're treated in comparison to biological men and women... That's pretty impressive, actually, technology-wise. But I digress.
Posted by: Bugmaster | Apr 25, 2008 at 01:08 AM
@Bugmaster:
So the fact that you're not a woman and don't know how a woman is treated or how she feels means that... you get to totally ignore the many, many women speaking up and saying they're uncomfortable with this?
Nobody wants to shut down a woman who is secure enough with her body, her self-defensive capabilities (frankly, I agree with the LJ post that said that anyone who approached me and asked if they could grope me would be terrifying, because I don't know that they're the kind who will go quietly if I say no), and her community that she would be happy to deal with people approaching her and offering to grope her. I say good for her. But that doesn't mean we should make that the default setting. And that is in fact what The Ferrett and such people are suggesting. I ask again: why can't it then be that we make it okay for women to walk up to men and invite sexual attention? Why is it assumed that the man has a right to make the proposition? Why create a situation where women, many of whom already feel like their choice is to either be objectified or be excluded from fandom as a community, are obligated to label themselves to ward off unwanted male attention? Why not create a situation where unwanted attention is just not an option for men to give?
Why should anyone have to explain to anyone else that their body is not open-source?
Posted by: Caroline | Apr 25, 2008 at 01:15 AM
Tamora Pierce has an interesting explanation of why, even if women are making the choice freely, it's still not creating a positive environment for other women.
I'm going to sleep and back to lurking, because I don't feel that those of you who refuse to see why this is a problem are interested in accepting that it is one. But I want to say again that I appreciate the folks who are speaking up for women here, and I really wish you were the majority.
Posted by: Caroline | Apr 25, 2008 at 01:18 AM
Dammit, I keep forgetting things I meant to say. Last post before sleep:
You are basically saying that women are not assertive enough, and not confident enough, to make their desires (or lack thereof) plainly known.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
Not speaking up when a harasser you sexually uncomfortable has little to do with personal assertiveness or confidence. It has to do with weighing the pain that you're experiencing against the risk of ostracization or abuse. It has to do with how much a woman has internalized the constant social message that she is a sexual object. She's not to be blamed or called a coward if she can't shake that off in time to protect herself.
I'm saying that women are brought up to understand that society will punish them for making their desires or lack thereof plainly known, and that their choice isn't between suffering in silence or speaking out freely, it's between suffering in silence or suffering the consequences of speaking out. Some women decide that one alternative is going to be less painful than the other. That doesn't make them cowards, it makes them people in a terrible position.
Feminism has not overcome this. Just because you, as a relatively decent human being, aren't going to punish a woman for rejecting your sexual advances, doesn't mean that women aren't punished for it all the time.
Posted by: Caroline | Apr 25, 2008 at 01:24 AM
There's a simple mathematical proof that, if pairs are to be matched, and one 'side' always asks and the other 'side' gets to say Yes or No, it's the askers who are better off. I've lost the link, but I remember "boy-optimal, girl-pessimal" about dating.
(Also true of residencies and interns, etc.)
Also: a woman can benefit herself by damaging other women, and not be feminist; just as she can benefit herself by damaging other people, and not be humane. Criticizing such a choice isn't attacking the freedom of the person making it, it's defending the freedom of the people harmed.
Posted by: clew | Apr 25, 2008 at 01:31 AM
You seem to be saying that, just because some women wear the buttons that say,
0)."it's ok to ask to grope me, though I might say no",
that automatically entails
1). The expectation that the answer is always "yes", and
2). The immediate assumption that it's ok to grope anyone, without asking, button or no button.
While I do agree that some men are jerks, I don't think that all of them are jerks -- especially if you look specifically at relatively young, bookish, geeky men (fans, in other words). Nor do I think that men are, on the whole, so stupid that they can't tell the difference between (0), (1) and (2).
Some definitely are, and some are in positions of power (which, at a con, doesn't mean much, but can be a big deal in the world at large). Some women are also exactly as downtrodden as you say. But this doesn't mean that we should run our society in the most restrictive way possible. That only promotes the stereotype that women are weak-willed creatures who can't take care of themselves, and I personally hate that stereotype, and I want it to disappear forever.
Posted by: Bugmaster | Apr 25, 2008 at 01:51 AM
I've no dog in the OSBP hunt -- I will say that I think the "Kiss me, I'm Irish" t-shirts are probably more offensive than an "Yes You May" button. I've been to about a dozen cons, and it's my experience that the women most likely to be wearing these buttons are members of the Golden Horde (about 180 degrees from the KMII wearers.
If you don't know the implications of that, you're probably not qualified to talk about American SF/F Cons.
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 25, 2008 at 01:55 AM
@clew:
I think this depends on how you define "better off", and on what the supply/demand ratio looks like. I'd be very interested to see the proof.Ultimately, everything you do damages someone and something. But, it's a matter of degree.
For example, I just spent $12 on dinner, because I didn't feel like cooking. That's $12 that no charity will ever receive now. I have indirectly done $12 worth of harm to the world. On my way out of the restaurant, I noticed that my pant-knees (is that a word ?) were dirty (I must have knelt in some paint, or something), and that I had an ink stain on my shirt. I have damaged the restaurant, because I'm quite certain that some people who would normally patronize it decided to go elsewhere, rather than share it with some dirty-looking hobo (i.e., myself). Earlier this month, I have also argued, in public, that nuclear power (*) is an excellent alternative to most other power sources that we have today. If that kind of talk spreads, and people start believing it, then some people will probably get irradiated at some point in the future. I am responsible for harming them.
At some point, though, the harm just isn't severe enough to justify prohibition. I don't think that the OSBP is as trivial as the examples I mentioned above -- not by a long shot -- but I still don't think that it's harmful enough to justify a negative response.
(*) Behold my weak attempt to tie this post into the original topic...
Posted by: Bugmaster | Apr 25, 2008 at 02:02 AM
You know, I'd understand this kind of discussion if this "con" were the Democratic National Convention, not a fan con.
The problem here is probably the fact that the woman who actually becomes a subject of her own sexuality also becomes the object for men. For example:
why can't it then be that we make it okay for women to walk up to men and invite sexual attention?
If the wearing of pin described here is not "walking up to men and inviting sexual attention", then what is? In my opinion, Caroline and Jes are trying to define the proper way for women to invite sexual attention. Basically, in their opinion, any woman behaving in a way that allows some men to objectify her, causes a danger that the perceptions of the society as a whole start to objectify women in general. Well, on the other hand, in a free society, even women have the right to try changing a society to direction they feel beneficial.
In fact, the social dynamic of the situation considered here may be rather different from usual "groping". In Finland, where I live, the students of several student societies have a habit of having sauna mixed. I can tell you that even with drunken college students, the respect for the inviolability of women's privacy is very high in such a setting. No one in his right mind would dream about making any kind of sexual overture or attempt in the sauna, in the bathroom or in the dressing room. The atmosphere is not orgiastic at all, but actually more respectful towards women as is usual. This is because everyone understands that the nudity of sauna is not sexual, but rather has an air of holiness. (And yes, many men and women do not enter a mixed sauna, remaining still active and respected members of these student societies.)
Posted by: Lurker | Apr 25, 2008 at 03:53 AM
In my opinion, Caroline and Jes are trying to define the proper way for women to invite sexual attention.
No, it applies to men, too. It's just that the "proper way" is the way that men take for granted they will invite sexual attention: not a way that (some) men are willing to permit women.
Someone suggested to the Ferrett that, rather than buttons inviting a breast-grope, there should be buttons inviting a willingness to grope breasts: he and others could wear these buttons, and people who felt that they wanted to be groped by them could then invite those attentions. Of course they would have the right to say no they would not...
The Ferrett didn't like that idea. Too passive.
In Finland, where I live, the students of several student societies have a habit of having sauna mixed. I can tell you that even with drunken college students, the respect for the inviolability of women's privacy is very high in such a setting. No one in his right mind would dream about making any kind of sexual overture or attempt in the sauna, in the bathroom or in the dressing room. The atmosphere is not orgiastic at all, but actually more respectful towards women as is usual.
Sure. I've been to mixed naked swimming (parents-in-law of a friend are members of a naturist society, they book a swimming pool once a month, and it's the only event they do where guests are entirely welcome so long as they obey the basic naturist rules. I was uncertain about it the first time, but fine with it thereafter - once I realised that the rules against groping or any uninvited attention were absolute, and so strictly enforced that no individual had to worry about them.
I've never attended a fetish party, but friends who have tell me that, while it's a highly sexualized atmosphere, the rules against uninvited attention "look don't touch" are so absolute and so enforced that it is absolutely possible for a woman to attend wearing a skin-tight rubber dress and never be touched by anyone unless she has explicitly invited that person to do so.
That is not the atmosphere that's encouraged by getting women to wear buttons that invite breast-groping by strangers.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Apr 25, 2008 at 05:08 AM
Lurker: Basically, in their opinion, any woman behaving in a way that allows some men to objectify her, causes a danger that the perceptions of the society as a whole start to objectify women in general.
No, you have that completely wrong.
I mean, just completely backwards. I think any woman should be able to behave in any way she likes and no man should think that gives him reason to molest her. The woman whom TheFerrett gloatingly described walking down the corridor in a skin-baring blue costume, should not have been assumed to be a walking invitation to breast-fondling.
Nowhere in all of this have I or Caroline said we blamed the women for being objectified.
Male behavior is the problem here - not women's behavior.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Apr 25, 2008 at 05:12 AM
Nicole: Strangely enough, this morning I had the weirdest dream that I had met Jesu and had coffee with her and found her charming company. And then I was all conflicted, trying to reconcile the lovely woman I'd met with the poison-spitting rage-bot I see here.
I'm a poison-spitting rage bot who makes lovely coffee? Sadly, I do not recall the dream, but I'm sure you were charming company, too.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Apr 25, 2008 at 05:14 AM
I made post on Live Journal about my reaction to the Ferretfest.
Random things and That Project http://saoba.livejournal.com/190045.html?mode=reply
It contains my reactons, and in comments, my concerns about Ferrett's (now allegedly dead) plans to take this project on the road to other cons. It could be very dicey real fast. I used to work con security and what he proposed would be a security teams' worst night mare.
The silver lining in this cloud of breat fondling privilege is that I've met several terrifically smart feminist bloggers, so my default reading list has grown. I should send him a thankyou note.
Interestingly enough, though he declared the project dead and unrepeatable, I know of at least one large con where the con committee had to go into the online forum and make an official announcement the project was not an offical con approved activity and that con goers who broke con rules or local laws while playing in the project would be tossed out. Because people had grabbed the idea and thought it would be FUN. At a con expecting 30,000 in attendance. And the folks pushing for the idea did not seem to have a real grasp of the (admittedly weak) rules that were suposed to keep the project from spinning out of control.
Posted by: bbrugger | Apr 25, 2008 at 06:00 AM
I think any woman should be able to behave in any way she likes and no man should think that gives him reason to molest her. The woman whom TheFerrett gloatingly described walking down the corridor in a skin-baring blue costume, should not have been assumed to be a walking invitation to breast-fondling.
I would distinguish between wearing a revealing costume at a con, and wearing a button which says "I am happy that you make suggestions to me that I and many other women would consider both bad manners and possibly criminal in other circumstances."
A costume, or any garment at all should never be assumed to mean that the wearer is inviting attention. I have never been to a con, nor am I likely to go nowadays, but I suspect that at some, almost all the appropriate female costumes are of the basque/thrusting breasts/skimpy skirt kind - that a woman wanting to get 'in character' could not appear in a thick sweater and pair of jeans, or something glamorous yet unrevealing. So a woman or girl is already under pressure to wear clothes that she might be less than comfortable in. None of this is an invitation to strangers to fondle or to request fondling privileges.
My impression is that the buttons turn it from being an individual choice into a 'movement' - there are women that are with the movement, and everyone else becomes either a possible convert or an opponent. If people think that this is not likely to put pressure on those who would like to be seen as 'in', then they have forgotten school and peer-pressure. I am not sure how you can approach someone to suggest that they wear the button without implicit pressure. The evangelists for the movement seem to think that only those women most likely to agree were invited - if this is part of the sales pitch, it would increase the take up, of course: everyone likes to think that they have been singled out because of their special qualities, and to say that 'no, I don't have those special qualities' takes some courage. This isn't a woman/man thing - it's a Stamford or Milgram experiment thing. People will do things they are uncomfortable with even at the time if others around them are doing them.
My earlier comment made it clear that I was not unhappy with this in a small closed group, and that it was the taking it to a wider, unselected group that boded ill. The comments I made are those I would have used in the scenario proposed by Bugmaster to the woman wearing the badge in that wider scene - but without demanding that she take it off. And she would probably treat it with as much disdain as I did the bus-conductor who criticised my mini-skirt in 1962... although she didn't suggest that I take it off, either.
Posted by: Rosina | Apr 25, 2008 at 06:10 AM
Chris: I know this is a flame war thread, but I'm not going to waste my energy pointing out why that is idiotic.
Especially as this has been all over LJ already, including on-topic fanfic, a modest proposal and a link page.
Posted by: inge | Apr 25, 2008 at 06:31 AM
Why is it assumed that the man has a right to make the proposition?
Well, in my opinion, both sexes have the right to make the proposition. On the other hand, I believe that males (on average) have a genetic tendency of making a proposition much more often than women. (It is not the patriarchy, but simple evolutionary biology: women must be much more careful in their sexual engagements, because, unless contraception is available, they may end up having a child alone. Males, however, may engage in casual sex without any risk to their future survival. Any surviving children are just an evolutionary bonus.) This is why a sign: "You're welcome to ask whether you want to fondle my balls", would receive relatively few answers from women, even if it were David Beckham holding that sign. (I would not hold such sign. My balls are far too tender for strangers to fondle them.)
We must guard against naturalist fallacy, however: if something is biologically so, it is not necessarily morally right. So, does the man have the right to propose a sexual act to a woman? In my opinion, yes. Both sexes have right to propose anything at all, from "Could you pass the salt?" to "Would you marry me?" Of course, an egregious proposal will get a negative answer and result in embarrasment (at least), so there is a strong reason not to make improper proposals. Nonetheless, proposing sex as such is allowable. Speech is free. Forcing another human being to submit to a sexual act (by force or by other means) is utterly unacceptable.
In practice, no one in his/her right mind asks calmly for sex. The human sexual behaviour is, at its best, a beautiful cycle of slow approach and mutual understanding towards ever greater intimacy. However, condemning a man too severely for mistaking the woman's intentions is wrong. Asking "Your place or my place?" might be rude and uncivilized but it is not criminal. The embarrassement of getting a negative answer is punishment enough. Rape, stalking and sexual harrassment are a different matter altogether.
Posted by: Lurker | Apr 25, 2008 at 07:12 AM
Lurker: On the other hand, I believe that males (on average) have a genetic tendency of making a proposition much more often than women.
Oh god, now someone's turning to evo-psych to explain why men pester women for sex. How predictable. I refer you to all previous flamewars on the subject, because it's now Left Behind Friday, not Flame War Thursday.
A couple of days ago someone proposed a suitable alternative to the OSBP, before TheFerret froze all the threads: link. That people who wanted to grope other people's bodies should wear either red or green pins indicating that they would be open to invitations to do so.
TheFerrett decried this as a "passive system"... because it entailed the men - they would be mostly men - waiting to be asked for their services as breast- or other body-part-fondler. He felt that would make the men wearing the green pins look like they were sex-crazed. Yet, looked at gender-neutrally, it was no more passive than TheFerrett's system: people wear buttons indicating whether they're up for groping or not, and either way you have to ask, and if you ask and get no for an answer, you take no for an answer. The problem was, as TheFerrett noticed at once, it puts men in the position of waiting to be asked, of putting buttons on indicating their status as sexual beings... and gives the people not wearing the buttons all the options and choices. It isn't a "passive system" - it just puts most of the active choosing with the people who want to be groped, and the only choice someone who wants to grope has is to put on the pin or not.
(It would still be a security nightmare, mind: I'm not advocating it, just noting that TheFerrett's reaction to the idea that he could put on a pin and indicate his readiness to fondle body parts if asked to do so was not exactly positive, welcoming, and delighted. He didn't want to be regarded as a sexualized creature available to make others feel good: he wanted young, attractive women to feel like that.)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Apr 25, 2008 at 07:31 AM
Of course, an egregious proposal will get a negative answer and result in embarrasment (at least), so there is a strong reason not to make improper proposals. Nonetheless, proposing sex as such is allowable. Speech is free. Forcing another human being to submit to a sexual act (by force or by other means) is utterly unacceptable.
In one sense, proposing sex to a woman without any indication that she is willing to listen to the request is "a sexual act". Words can be used as a means of assault, and said in a particular way such a proposal could class as threatening enough to be harassment. I would not have wanted my work colleagues to feel free to say "Do you want a shag?" whenever they felt like it. Or "Can I feel your tits?" Or even "I would like to make tender passionate love to you." These are all offensive out of context. And from the giggling way men have responded to the project, I'm not sure if embarrassment is an effective weapon. I know that some men, approached by gay men for sex, consider that only a two-by-four speaks loudly enough. Not condoning this, but some more aggressive type of repellent would be useful if such behaviour became acceptable.
And of course, if it were 'acceptable' and seen as right, then the man would not feel embarrassed - he was only exercising his right to ask. And other men would support him, just as Lurker does. It is the woman who would feel embarrassed, and the more 'acceptable' it was for men, the less women would be able to inhabit public space freely. Perhaps, in order to avoid provoking men into making such suggestions, they would be advised to wear a burka, because, of course, men are unable to control their impulses enough to allow women to exist as non-sexual objects.
Posted by: Rosina | Apr 25, 2008 at 07:51 AM
Jes, sorry. I came to this "Thursday" late.
Oh god, now someone's turning to evo-psych to explain why men pester women for sex.
In my opinion, evolutionary psychology offers quite a few good insights, but it is not the full explanation. Cultural aspects regulate our tendencies at least as much, but part of our behaviour is regulated by our genetic makeup.
With regard to sexuality, the evolutionary view is at its strongest. Sexual selection is an extremely strong evolutionary factor. And we find parallels elsewhere in Creation: not only human males pester females for sex. Almost all mammal males have the "active" part in the sexual interaction, pestering the female for sex. (Have you ever seen dogs, squirrels or horses copulating?) And for the natural fallacy: Being natural is not the same thing as being morally right. We are humans, not animals and we make our morals by conscious decision, not by yielding to our urges.
Posted by: Lurker | Apr 25, 2008 at 08:02 AM
Lurker: Almost all mammal males have the "active" part in the sexual interaction, pestering the female for sex.
Er... No.
Almost all species in which there is sexual reproduction, females select males for sex. DNA testing proves the point that even where there is a "pairbonding species", though the female of the pair will have sex with her partner, she will also have sex with other males.
The notion that males pursue and females are passive is a function of naturalists imposing their own cultural perceptions on actual animal behavior. Even Charles Darwin knew better. While there may be a more indepth and intellectually sound kind of evo-psych, the kind of evo-psych argument that gets cited as sound-bites in blog arguments is invariably based on someone taking examples of current cultural behavior - for example, men sexually harassing women - and justifying it with carefully selected reference to examples of animal behavior that could, with care, be interpreted as males pestering females for sex.
Bizarrely, they do this even with species where the female of the species goes into heat, and the male of the species has gaudy drag to make himself look attractive to the females who choose their mates.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Apr 25, 2008 at 08:12 AM
And of course, if it were 'acceptable' and seen as right, then the man would not feel embarrassed - he was only exercising his right to ask
On the other hand, how can a heterosexual affair ever form, unless one side is willing to make a step towards it? Yet no one asks, unless he/she believes the answer is "yes". Yet you may make a mistake. For example, I once asked a Chinese fellow student to movies. We had a rather nice evening, and while I was escorting her to her bus, I asked whether we might go out together more often. The answer was: "Oh, I did not understand, I have a boyfriend in China." In such case, it is quite possible that she was considering my asking her out a non-sexual act of friendship, while to a Finn, my intention of courting her would have been rather clear. Naturally, we were both embarrassed for not understanding each other, and at least I was very happy to get to the bus and out of the situation. Yet I would not condemn myself: I did not reduce her ability to inhabit public space freely, and having been turned down, have never felt enmity against her.
So, I would say that you have the right to ask when you feel the answer is likely to be yes, but also have a right to make mistakes.
Posted by: Lurker | Apr 25, 2008 at 08:18 AM
Almost all species in which there is sexual reproduction, females select males for sex.
Completely agree. That is why the "activity" of the male is partly a show. A man may enter woman's company (rather than vice versa) but doing it without the inviting glance from the woman is uncouth and improper. Misinterpreting the signal is equally uncouth and improper, a symptom of autistic syndrome at best, threatening behaviour at worst.
Posted by: Lurker | Apr 25, 2008 at 08:26 AM
Come on, Lurker, don't be ingenuous. You asked a girl out to the pictures - possibly even to a film she wanted to see. You then asked whether we might go out together more often, and when she explained that she didn't want the relationship to progress beyond friendship you understood this. You are now claiming this - and its effect on her - is the same as asking if you could fondle her breasts, and your suggestion of further dates didn't drive her into seclusion, neither would it if instead of saying "Do you want to come to the pictures with me again?" you had said "Do you want come to bed with me?" If your post-cinema request was blunter, and did suggest - however subtly - that sexual or proto-sexual contact would be involved in future dates, then she may well have felt that if asked again to go to the pictures, or for a meal, or to an exhibition with a male friend, it would be better to refuse the first invitation than to be thought of as inviting and agreeing to intimacies that she did not want.
But I am really glad that you have never felt enmity against her because she didn't want to continue the relationship. Because, if you had, it would have been absolute proof of creepiness.
Posted by: Rosina | Apr 25, 2008 at 08:34 AM
On the other hand, how can a heterosexual affair ever form, unless one side is willing to make a step towards it?
How do you suppose lesbian and gay Finns have affairs, Lurker? Somehow I feel sure they manage it, even without the helpful rule that tells heterosexual Finns that the girl waits to be asked and the boy does all the asking.
There may even be heterosexual Finns, outside your experience, who manage to have mutual affairs.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Apr 25, 2008 at 08:39 AM
"On the other hand, I believe that males (on average) have a genetic tendency of making a proposition much more often than women. (It is not the patriarchy, but simple evolutionary biology: women must be much more careful in their sexual engagements, because, unless contraception is available, they may end up having a child alone."
No.
No!
NO NO AT THOUSAND TIMES NO!
Why do we have to put up with this in a thread that JUST MENTIONED a proof that this produces a matching that is optimal* for MEN and pessimal* for WOMEN.
That means, assuming men always do that asking, and that women and men both have a prefence that ranks each member of the opposite sex is some order:
The men will all get the woman closest to the top of their preference list subject to the condition that there be a stable* matching in which the man can be matched to her.
The women on the other hand will get the man closest to the bottom of their preference list subject ot the condition that there be a stable matching in which the woman can be matched to him.
A stable matching is one in which there is no man-woman pair such that the man and woman prefer each other to their current match.
I'd prove it in this comment, but it's already too long. Google male-optimal female-pessimal and it'll be in the top ten. It's quite correct.
This is why evo-psych pisses me off so much. It's all just-so stories without even the bare minimum of research to test whether they're even possible, let alone plausible.
On the OSBP, Jesu is, as usual, rude but right.
Posted by: malpollyon | Apr 25, 2008 at 09:47 AM