Contemplating short dresses and cleavage on teens

[Toni]

FFS, why do you think I've gone on and on and on about what I was wearing the first time I was attacked?

OK, why do you go on and on about what you were wearing the first time you were attacked ?

Because being so covered up that only my face and hands were exposed was not a protection against being attacked. Nor is dressing in a short skirt or having bare arms and cleavage or gasp! all three! an invitation for sex.

 

[TSwizzle]

FFS, why do you think I've gone on and on and on about what I was wearing the first time I was attacked?

OK, why do you go on and on about what you were wearing the first time you were attacked ?

Because being so covered up that only my face and hands were exposed was not a protection against being attacked.

Did someone say it would be a protection ? I don't recall anyone saying that covering up is a good defense against (sexual) assault.

Nor is dressing in a short skirt or having bare arms and cleavage or gasp! all three! an invitation for sex.

As before, NOBODY has said that. In fact Ruby Sparks has been very clear and called you out on that already but it doesn't deter you from totally misrepresenting what was actually said or is being discussed.

 

[Toni]

Because being so covered up that only my face and hands were exposed was not a protection against being attacked.

Did someone say it would be a protection ? I don't recall anyone saying that covering up is a good defense against (sexual) assault.

Nor is dressing in a short skirt or having bare arms and cleavage or gasp! all three! an invitation for sex.

As before, NOBODY has said that. In fact Ruby Sparks has been very clear and called you out on that already but it doesn't deter you from totally misrepresenting what was actually said or is being discussed.

The OP is about girls dressing up fancy. There have been a LOT of posts about how the girls are really advertising their availability for sex. You have written posts opining that high school girls are akanky hoes looking for sex and giving it away. Someone wanted to know where that high school was so he could check it out. Ruby keeps writing asking how girls should be taught that guys are dangerous instead of talking about how girls should simply be allowed to dress in ways that make them feel pretty and fancy without having to worry about dangerous men who frankly are dangerous no matter what girls and women wear BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION IS ALWAYS ABOUT CONTROLLING WHAT GIRLS WEAR INSTEAD OF TEACHING BOYS HOW TO DEAL WITH THEIR FEELINGS AND TO TREAT GIRLS AND WOMEN WITH RESPECT.

 

[TSwizzle]

The OP is about girls dressing up fancy.

Then stick to that topic instead of giving out irrelevant, incoherent rants about something that NOBODY said and then going on to misrepresent what was actually said.

 

[Toni]

The OP is about girls dressing up fancy.

Then stick to that topic instead of giving out irrelevant, incoherent rants about something that NOBODY said and then going on to misrepresent what was actually said.

I haven’t. But sure. I’ll shut up and leave it all to the men folk to tell us what we need and what we mean.

 

[TSwizzle]

The OP is about girls dressing up fancy.

Then stick to that topic instead of giving out irrelevant, incoherent rants about something that NOBODY said and then going on to misrepresent what was actually said.

I haven’t. But sure. I’ll shut up and leave it all to the men folk to tell us what we need and what we mean.

Laughable. Telling people what they mean and misrepresenting what was said is your MO.

 

[Toni]

I haven’t. But sure. I’ll shut up and leave it all to the men folk to tell us what we need and what we mean.

Laughable. Telling people what they mean and misrepresenting what was said is your MO.

Sounds like YOUR MO, though.

I'm not the one opining that the girls are really just trolling for sex or at least advertising the possibility of sex.

 

[TSwizzle]

I haven’t. But sure. I’ll shut up and leave it all to the men folk to tell us what we need and what we mean.

Laughable. Telling people what they mean and misrepresenting what was said is your MO.

Sounds like YOUR MO, though.

I'm not the one opining that the girls are really just trolling for sex or at least advertising the possibility of sex.

But you are the one firing off irrelevant and incoherent rants against an argument NOBODY made and misrepresenting what was actually said.

 

[Toni]

Women ALREADY KNOW how dangerous men can be

Just on this, whilst I agree generally that at least many women already know this, how well do teenage girls specifically know that some men can be dangerous, or just how dangerous they can be, about certain things (eg sex), in certain situations? It will vary, according to a lot of things (including age) from individual to individual. Some teenage girls will be more savvy and smart and mature than others (and in general more mature than their teenage boy counterparts). But by and large, their teenage years are when they are foraying for the first time into new situations, and even if before that they knew boys could be assholes, they may not appreciate that those same boys are also entering the new arena, involving changes in both biology (including both external bodily changes and biochemical changes) and culture for both sexes. 'Nature' is setting them up to do what evolution 'wants' them to do, more than anything else. It's arguably a potent brew, and by and large it's new territory.

What should this mean? Does it have any implications for how we might treat or educate or advise teenage girls? I have already opined on this. It is boys more than girls who need to be advised and educated, but I am not against (in fact I am for) advising and educating, when and where advice and education are warranted, not just just boys, so long as the emphasis and content of the advice are imo the correct ones. As I said before, it's a question of emphasis and degree and the ways in which such things are handled.

Get it wrong and for instance you can go in the direction of victim-blaming, as society unfortunately has tended (and in many cases still tends) to do when it comes to sexual wrongdoings, more so than for other wrongdoings.

Ruby, I am not trying to antagonize you or be combative but let me break down for you what I found upsetting about the above.

All the quotes are from this post that I am responding to.

Just on this, whilst I agree generally that at least many women already know this, how well do teenage girls specifically know that some men can be dangerous, or just how dangerous they can be, about certain things (eg sex), in certain situations? It will vary, according to a lot of things (including age) from individual to individual. Some teenage girls will be more savvy and smart and mature than others (and in general more mature than their teenage boy counterparts). But by and large, their teenage years are when they are foraying for the first time into new situations, and even if before that they knew boys could be assholes, they may not appreciate that those same boys are also entering the new arena, involving changes in both biology (including both external bodily changes and biochemical changes) and culture for both sexes. 'Nature' is setting them up to do what evolution 'wants' them to do, more than anything else. It's arguably a potent brew, and by and large it's new territory.

1. Girls know about as well as they know. Usually don't fully internalize it until it is an actual issue for them or someone they care about. Then it goes from theoretical to reality although there is always the potential for shock which can interfere with the ability to comprehend what was said or meant by the words or actions because to the girls, it all comes out of absolutely no where. A burning bush announcing they were going to be asked to carry a unicorn in their womb is about as probable to them.

2. The more salient question, especially one that I would think men would have some interest and insight into is "How do we teach boys to deal with their changing bodies and changing emotions and responses to stimuli that was nothing before but now is overwhelming? How do we help boys navigate the many messages that media is sending that are as confusing to them as they are to girls?

Why isn't there any discussion about that? Why is it about teaching girls that boys are dangerous so they have to be careful?

What should this mean? Does it have any implications for how we might treat or educate or advise teenage girls? I have already opined on this. It is boys more than girls who need to be advised and educated, but I am not against (in fact I am for) advising and educating, when and where advice and education are warranted, not just just boys, so long as the emphasis and content of the advice are imo the correct ones. As I said before, it's a question of emphasis and degree and the ways in which such things are handled.

Even here, you barely elude to the fact that the boys need more education and advising. It's more about the girls needing education and advising. And you are extremely unspecific about exactly 'what the 'correct emphasis and content of the advice' would be. From what you wrote, I am quite under the impression that it is still up to the girls to monitor how they dress and behave so as not to rile up the boys who are utterly clueless about what is going on with their minds, bodies and emotions. And frankly, it seems that for some, that never changes, given some of the responses from some of the men in this thread. That argues all the more strongly that boys and men are the ones who need education and advising..

Get it wrong and for instance you can go in the direction of victim-blaming, as society unfortunately has tended (and in many cases still tends) to do when it comes to sexual wrongdoings, more so than for other wrongdoings.

Ruby, it seems to me that you have exactly gone past dipping your little toe into the victim blaming/shaming here. Your emphasis really seems to be very much about making GIRLS more aware.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would love to see a definition of patriarchal oppression that isn't nonsense.

I think patriarchal oppression (or indeed tyranny, which is another word I've heard used) is more problematic than saying patriarchy ('it does what it says on the tin') benefitted men more than women and subordinated and sidelined the latter, which by and large it did, and still does, where it exists. It's kind of a no-brainer, actually. If there's an issue of inaccuracy in terms of presentation or conception of the matter, it's got to do with patriarchy being overstated as an explanation, or being used over-simplistically without regard to the nuances and complexities, by some, that's all, possibly in some cases partly for ideological or political (with a small p) reasons rather than empirical reasons.

As to the rest of your comments questioning the above fundamental point, I've read and discussed them all before, several times, and imo they're mostly pseudo-intellectual, non-fully-analysed, denialist rubbish, which, although containing some truths, do not dislodge the fact that patriarchy generally more often than not does and did what I said above. Sorry. That's my informed opinion.

So let's change the subject maybe? You don't think toxic masculinity is a problem and you don't think patriarchy is a problem, and it's not entirely clear to me that you even believe either exists. Pick something else. Go for a hat-trick of daft opinions all in the one thread, why don't you?

And stop banging on about third wave feminists, or even just feminists. They did not invent the term and they were not the first to promulgate it in modern times.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I would love to see a definition of patriarchal oppression that isn't nonsense.

I think patriarchal oppression (or indeed tyranny, which is another word I've heard used) is more problematic than saying patriarchy ('it does what it says on the tin') benefitted men more than women and subordinated and sidelined the latter, which by and large it did, and still does, where it exists. It's kind of a no-brainer, actually. If there's an issue of inaccuracy in terms of presentation or conception of the matter, it's got to do with patriarchy being overstated as an explanation, or being used over-simplistically without regard to the nuances and complexities, by some, that's all, possibly in some cases partly for ideological or political (with a small p) reasons rather than empirical reasons.

As to the rest of your comments questioning the above fundamental point, I've read and discussed them all before, several times, and imo they're mostly pseudo-intellectual, non-fully-analysed, denialist rubbish, which, although containing some truths, do not dislodge the fact that patriarchy generally more often than not does and did what I said above. Sorry. That's my informed opinion.

So let's change the subject maybe? You don't think toxic masculinity is a problem and you don't think patriarchy is a problem, and it's not entirely clear to me that you even believe either exists. Pick something else. Go for a hat-trick of daft opinions all in the one thread, why don't you?

And stop banging on about third wave feminists, or even just feminists. They did not invent the term and they were not the first to promulgate it in modern times.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I think patriarchal oppression and toxic masculinity has become (or always was) pop phrases thrown about devoid of meaning. But I also think there's plenty of problems when it comes to gender dynamics. I just think there's better expressions for it. More specific.

The biggest hurdle in fixing anything is to get most feminists to admit there are fundamental and inherent gender differences in behaviour. Until we get to that point this debate will stay stupid. For example, educating boys on how to behave towards women won't solve the problem of violence toward women. Because men who assault women aren't wired in the head like the rest of us. Most men never do anything bad toward women and make considerable efforts in protecting women around them. That is normal human male behaviour. Men don't need education to protect women. It comes naturally to us. I think its instinct. We protect our in group and keep a watchful eye on the out group.

 

[bigfield]

The biggest hurdle in fixing anything is to get most feminists to admit there are fundamental and inherent gender differences in behaviour. Until we get to that point this debate will stay stupid. For example, educating boys on how to behave towards women won't solve the problem of violence toward women. Because men who assault women aren't wired in the head like the rest of us. Most men never do anything bad toward women and make considerable efforts in protecting women around them. That is normal human male behaviour. Men don't need education to protect women. It comes naturally to us. I think its instinct. We protect our in group and keep a watchful eye on the out group.

The implication that sexual assault perps have different wiring is difficult to reconcile with incidents of sexual assault.

Take the Steubenville high school rape case, for instance. A whole group of boys took part in the assault either as perpetrators or spectators. What are the odds that they all shared the same mental deficiency that made them capable/tolerant of such cruelty?

I think that such cases are not far removed from the men described in Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men:

While this book discusses a specific Reserve Unit during WWII, the general argument Browning makes is that most people succumb to the pressures of a group setting and commit actions they would never do of their own volition.

I am confident that if you go through life with your eyes open, you'll find men everywhere going along with shitty behaviour rather than stopping someone doing what they know to be deeply wrong. To use your own phrase against you, it "is normal human male behaviour".

 

[ruby sparks]

The biggest hurdle in fixing anything is to get most feminists to admit there are fundamental and inherent gender differences in behaviour. Until we get to that point this debate will stay stupid. For example, educating boys on how to behave towards women won't solve the problem of violence toward women. Because men who assault women aren't wired in the head like the rest of us. Most men never do anything bad toward women and make considerable efforts in protecting women around them. That is normal human male behaviour. Men don't need education to protect women. It comes naturally to us. I think its instinct. We protect our in group and keep a watchful eye on the out group.

People are wired differently. Back of the net. Now you get to keep the match ball.

 

[ruby sparks]

Those girls in the pic were probably heading for a night out. That's one scenario. Another which may be interesting is the workplace, let's say an office or shop. So what are the dynamics here?

It seems there are similar issues, of men thinking, speaking or acting inappropriately. Examples might be 'I like you in that short skirt, when you bend over I can see your panties'. Ditto, similarly for dresses or tops which reveal cleavage. There are also cases where women are asked, by management, to dress more sexily. Sex sells, etc, perhaps for example at reception, on the sales floor or in a meeting with a male client (assuming heterosexuality and a female employee).

So, we might start to think that provocative dress is a valid risk factor for getting harassed (and possibly objectified or pressured). If that were true, we might then say (and possibly take a lot of flak for saying it) that a woman, if she chooses, or a teenager if she chooses, might not wear 'sexy' attire (and/or make up) to work in order to reduce the risk, assuming the management are not in fact pressuring her to do otherwise. Now, we could say that and still say (and I would say) that the problem, if a problem arises, is with the man (assuming heterosexuality and a male harasser). 'Just don't be an arse' kind of sums up my advice to that man or men. More details on request.

Why this is potentially interesting though, I'm thinking, is in two ways.

First, what if 'sexy' dress is not correlated with getting sexual harassment of the sort described above? What if other factors, such as perceived 'submissiveness' (ie non-assertiveness) either also play a part or play an even bigger part? And there may be others. It surely won't be just the dress and appearance and it surely won't just be 'sexiness' (because women and girls not dressed or presented in that way will and do still get harassed, just as they do get assaulted and raped).

And second, what does 'not correlated' mean, if the data were broken down? It may mean that attire (for example) is not necessarily or overall related to risk, or it could, I think, mean that it sometimes is and sometimes isn't, which would of course leave instances where it was. Hypothetically, certain types of of inappropriate behaviour, in certain situations, perpetrated by certain types of (horny, confident) men (who may lack self-control or have other attitudes associated with toxic masculinity) might be correlated to sexy attire.

I think it's an interesting question, though I don't know the answer. An answer would hopefully resolve the arguably puzzling apparent disjoint between the fact that sexy appearance in a woman does arouse straight men, often leads them to wrongly assume the woman wants sex or is at least signalling something along those lines (and also at another level that men and women tend to generally think, rightly or wrongly, that such things are likely to provoke certain responses) and so on and so on, but that it (the attire etc) does not, apparently, actually lead to inappropriate behaviour.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The biggest hurdle in fixing anything is to get most feminists to admit there are fundamental and inherent gender differences in behaviour. Until we get to that point this debate will stay stupid. For example, educating boys on how to behave towards women won't solve the problem of violence toward women. Because men who assault women aren't wired in the head like the rest of us. Most men never do anything bad toward women and make considerable efforts in protecting women around them. That is normal human male behaviour. Men don't need education to protect women. It comes naturally to us. I think its instinct. We protect our in group and keep a watchful eye on the out group.

The implication that sexual assault perps have different wiring is difficult to reconcile with incidents of sexual assault.

Take the Steubenville high school rape case, for instance. A whole group of boys took part in the assault either as perpetrators or spectators. What are the odds that they all shared the same mental deficiency that made them capable/tolerant of such cruelty?

I think that such cases are not far removed from the men described in Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men:

While this book discusses a specific Reserve Unit during WWII, the general argument Browning makes is that most people succumb to the pressures of a group setting and commit actions they would never do of their own volition.

I am confident that if you go through life with your eyes open, you'll find men everywhere going along with shitty behaviour rather than stopping someone doing what they know to be deeply wrong. To use your own phrase against you, it "is normal human male behaviour".

We're fundamentaly tribal. Both men and women. We protect our in group and treat the out group as fair game. Basically, we need cops to protect the out group(s). That's why racism is such a problem for instance. But what is a group is pretty fluid.

The middle class will prosper if everyone is just nice to eachother and cooperate. Because they are already in an elite position to exploit whatever situation arises.

The lower class(es) are likely to get screwed no matter what they do. So they typically pick clearly deliniated in groups where the out groups are evil/parasites and fair game. Just so they get to feel on top in at least one context. So it can get violent.

We all tell ourselves self aggrandizing meta narratives to justify our own groups values and behaviours.

But here's the thing, all the above is not gendered. Both men and women do this. But it's still the lower class boys who do the raping. Often with the implicit permission of the in groups women. The men are the "warriors", and commit the crimes but the entire group is responsible for the identity production.

In war we have something called "anomie". It's the disintegration of social norms. Studies of war zones show man's natural state. We are an incredibly violent and brutal species. Civilization is only a very thin varnish upon society. It takes very little disruption for extreme behaviours to emerge. Soldiers in foreign lands typically are all men so have no women in their in group group to protect. So end up raping indiscriminately.

I read a fascinating book by a Congolese child soldier who managed to survive and get an education and a proper job. He couldn't explain why he thought the things he did when he raped and murdered the women. He explained it as if it was another person thinking the thoughts and commuting the acts.

But these are extreme situations. Humans most often live where civilisation is well established.

 

[TSwizzle]

In war we have something called "anomie". It's the disintegration of social norms. Studies of war zones show man's natural state. We are an incredibly violent and brutal species. Civilization is only a very thin varnish upon society. It takes very little disruption for extreme behaviours to emerge.

It's frightening how thin. I remember seeing an interview with an ordinary civilian from one of the Slovakian regions that came under control of WWII Nazi Germany, and he described how easily he (and many of his countrymen) fell into rounding up Jews for execution. He was calm about describing it and with a shrug of his shoulders kind of waved it off as a "what you gonna do ?" type attitude. The Jews were the "out group" I guess.

 

[TSwizzle]

The biggest hurdle in fixing anything is to get most feminists to admit there are fundamental and inherent gender differences in behaviour.

Agreed.

For example, educating boys on how to behave towards women won't solve the problem of violence toward women. Because men who assault women aren't wired in the head like the rest of us.

You are right, educating boys on how to behave towards women won't solve the problem in certain men, the men that are wired towards violence of women. You can't do much with these evil bastards. But you can educate young boys to not be obnoxious dicks, taking liberties and harassing women.

Most men never do anything bad toward women and make considerable efforts in protecting women around them. That is normal human male behaviour. Men don't need education to protect women. It comes naturally to us. I think its instinct. We protect our in group and keep a watchful eye on the out group.

I'm not so sure about this. It may apply to mature adults but younger adults/boys are a different kettle of fish in my opinion.

 

[ruby sparks]

The biggest hurdle in fixing anything is to get most feminists to admit there are fundamental and inherent gender differences in behaviour.

Agreed.

Just on this. Is that really the biggest hurdle? Do we really need to wait for those feminists? There's not all that many of them and, let's say they remain unconvinced. We could still get on and do...anything, unilaterally. I mean, mostly it's not feminists telling us they're harassed and suchlike.

Unfortunately I think the 'them' and 'us' of the whole Feminism thing informs a lot of the objections and resistance. And maybe it shouldn't.

 

[thebeave]

In war we have something called "anomie". It's the disintegration of social norms. Studies of war zones show man's natural state. We are an incredibly violent and brutal species. Civilization is only a very thin varnish upon society. It takes very little disruption for extreme behaviours to emerge.

It's frightening how thin. I remember seeing an interview with an ordinary civilian from one of the Slovakian regions that came under control of WWII Nazi Germany, and he described how easily he (and many of his countrymen) fell into rounding up Jews for execution. He was calm about describing it and with a shrug of his shoulders kind of waved it off as a "what you gonna do ?" type attitude. The Jews were the "out group" I guess.

Yep. Read about the Stanley Milgram experiments and the Stanford Prison Experiment. Pretty horrifying stuff.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The biggest hurdle in fixing anything is to get most feminists to admit there are fundamental and inherent gender differences in behaviour.

Agreed.

Just on this. Is that really the biggest hurdle? Do we really need to wait for those feminists? There's not all that many of them and, let's say they remain unconvinced. We could still get on and do...anything, unilaterally. I mean, mostly it's not feminists telling us they're harassed and suchlike.

Unfortunately I think the 'them' and 'us' of the whole Feminism thing informs a lot of the objections and resistance. And maybe it shouldn't.

Those feminists completely dominate the dichotomy. How else could the phrases "toxic masculinity" and "patriarchal oppression" catch on and be used so freely?

If one gender, on average, is more aggressive than the other and resources are scarce logic dictates that members of the more aggressive gender will seize power. That's not oppression. Nor patriarchal oppression. Since most of the patriarchy are also oppressed. That's "by design". Gender equality is absolutely connected to the economy and how abundant it's resources are. Which is why the less developed an economy is the more patriarchal it is. There's a reason the goat herder economy of the African Dinka is the world's most patriarchal society. Its economy has looked the same the last 15 000 years. Give or take a few.

How doesn't patriarchal oppression imply some sort of conspiracy? Why would most men participate in a conspiracy they're at the losing end of?