The especially chortle-worthy thing is that people have successfully sued establishments over Ladies’ Night. They do so by pointing out that it violates antidiscrimination laws and disadvantages men. Den Hollander got his strap in a wad about the Feminist Conspiracy drove the liquor licensing board into a scheme by which non-putting-out bitches attach a vacuum cleaner to men’s wallets.

Because that’s how MRAs like him think. Never mind that the point of Ladies’ Night is to attract more women for men like him to hit on, and to make buying those women alcohol to lower their inhibitions easier: all they see is ‘potential transfer of wealth from female to male’. It’s like a libertarian version of the primitive belief that women have sex with you to drain your life force.

I guess I’m technically against ladies night, but I just don’t go to them to register my displeasure.

The argument you’re basically making is a capitalist one—let the market decide—which I’m completely in agreement with. Ladies Night signs do act as a sort of “Buyer Beware” for everyone who goes into them. I can’t remember if I ever went to a place for Ladies Night, but if I did, it obviously wasn’t memorable, and I can’t imagine having a good time if I stumbled into one these days.

Oh, he just doesn’t think the stripper likes him. If she doesn’t, she’s a ball busting bitch, see. If youdon’t adore this hateful motherfucker, you’re failing in your one job in life, which is to serve men.

From the hairstyle and font, I would guess that your illustration dates from post-Repeal to the late ‘40s, Amanda, and it’s a real hoot.

?: What(if any) sites and/or resources do you use to find illustrations as in the above?

Pandagonia requests an answer, preferably while you’re drinking a cuke martini :-D

Food for thought. I like this post.

Crappy cocktails, yes.

Not that I pay attention to Ladies Night specials, but let’s not forget “beer that I wouldn’t drink for a dollar” also.

I hate this argument, too:

“If the roles were reversed, we would be in full-on protest mode.”

Which implies that discrimination against women is as hurtful and is done for the same reasons as discrimination against men.

It’s the same argument the teabaggers are using in their desperate search for an African-American person who is racist against white people.  If you find one, (1) it automatically excuses all the instances in the past in which a white person has discriminated against an African-American person, because “they do it, too”; and (2) you get to call all African-American people hypocrites if they don’t condemn this form of discrimination as much as discrimination against African-American people.

In this case, Ladies’ Nights are a result of centuries’ worth of discrimination against women, rather than some new strain of discrimination against men.  When you spend centuries upon centuries shaming women for having normal sexual urges, they’re probably going to be a little more reluctant to show up to a bar for a random hookup.  Especially since the men they find there will be the result of centuries and centuries of conditioning to treat women like property.  It’s a sociological clusterf*ck.  Hence the half-price drinks.

Exactly, ryan.  “If the roles were reversed” implies that such a thing is possible, and that sexism doesn’t have any complexity to it.  What purpose would serving cheaper drinks to men serve?  Who would be the intended beneficiaries?  What would the intended result be?  If you think in those terms, you see why it wouldn’t happen. 

The reason these dudes sue over ladies night is that they’re embittered that they strike out, I suspect.  If they can’t get the courts to force women to sleep with them after they’ve paid for a drink, then they’ll punish someone, dammit.  They’re probably sticking it to guys who didn’t strike out right along with the (perceived) attack on women.  Women as a class really don’t benefit from ladies night. 

That said, it occurred to me after I wrote this that there might be side effects of ladies night that should concern feminists.  I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that clubs that have ladies night have more sexual assault cases, for instance.  If that’s true, then perhaps we should talk about whether or not that requires regulation.

Of course Ladies Night are for men—many clubs and bars of the wait-in-line while the doorman decides you’re cool enough type—well, they’re going to admit more women than men, in any case.

Because the doormen are usually, well, men: and they consider women decorative, and other men are competition.

Which means even if a gal is looking for a guy, Ladies Night and doormen mean the men have the pickings because they’re outnumbered.

So this jerk who had to travel to another continent to find a woman willing to marry him—and even then, only did so because she needed him as a travel agent—yes, he’s working against his self-interest.

Ladies Night is nothing more than an advertising gimmick, assuring the men that yes, indeedy you’ll be outnumbered by chicks.

Ugh to the whole number, as well as who cares?

If douchbag wants to work against his own self-interest, feminists should applaud, if they can be bothere to take notice.

Ugh to the whole

Yeah, the role reversal line got me thinking of ignorant whines like “Why is there no WHITE History Month?”

Men’s Rights Advocate: N.  A man who finally realized that patriarchy hurts men too, and devotes his life to making sure it only ever hurts women.

Out of most of the women that I know, Ladies Night was for cheap drinks.  And then you go home to the boyfriend, if he didn’t come with you - in other words, hookups weren’t even on the radar.  It was just to buy your own drinks because you normally can’t afford a night out like that otherwise.  Also, in my area, Ladies Night usually was on a weekday, like Thursday night.  Occasionally it was on a weekend night, but mostly during the week, and if it was on a weekend night (Friday/Saturday), it usually was “Ladies Drink Free/Reduced Price until X time!”, where X time was ridiculously early.  I only went once, because I didn’t have a regular job at the time and I was in college, and I went with my friends and their boyfriends.  The boyfriends would have a drink or two, but pay for us, because it was cheap.  I usually didn’t go to these things mostly because I’d either have to take off the next day or go into work sorely hungover.

Although Ladies Night has kinda been replaced by SIN nights - for service industry workers.  Usually on the same weeknight.

The only time I’ve ever been to a Ladies Night was in my temp years.  A group of us would meet up at various bars for the cheap drinks and ignore the dudes.

And DaveL owes me a keyboard.

I think Ladies’ Night is a great opportunity for Guerrilla Gay Bar.  Gay or Lesbian.  Or feminist.

From the hairstyle and font, I would guess that your illustration dates from post-Repeal to the late ‘40s, Amanda, and it’s a real hoot.

?: What(if any) sites and/or resources do you use to find illustrations as in the above?

Pandagonia requests an answer, preferably while you’re drinking a cuke martini :-D
Comment #5: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein on 09/05 at 12:47 PM

Google image search for “ladies night” shows it as number one, which leads to a site selling it as a metal poster.  Copyright Izzy Moore-Long.  I can’t find any “izzy moore long” via Google, too many “izzy moore” to go through at the moment.

I would be really surprised to see that level of double entendre in a mass-market illustration pre-1960s.  Although there has been a market for “racy” printed items for as long as there’s been printing shops, it’s usually less well drawn the more racy it is.  Reference to penises in print makes it super pornographic by the rules of that time, hence very risky. 

You’d see this in Sixties or Seventies or Eighties retro posters.  Sixties poster shops had them, and by the seventies, National Lampoon was one of many places such poster shops would advertise, with a wide variety of double entendre.  Along with dangling cat “hang in there baby” of course.

Another example of too-sexy-for-its-chosen-style:  http://www.personalizedsignshop.com/tell_a_friend.php?cPath=1380&products_id=1368

Viewers would make such comments on pictures like that found in 40s or 50s US printed material.  The joke was unspoken but it was assumed you’d get it.  Post-Playboy, the gates were open.

So I’d say it could be a mashup of old illustration and new text, but my guess would be it’s all just retro style, not real vintage.  Especially given the copyright notice.

Another interesting Ladies’ Night image:  http://media.photobucket.com/image/ladies night/emilitta/LADIES_NIGHT.jpg

Perfect, DaveL.

Perfect response to ladies’ night, Amanda. 

I go to bars with ladies’ night once in a blue moon when my friends and I are in the mood to get hit on and see what the night has to offer.  No matter how old we are, what we’re wearing, what state we’re living in, at least once during the night, a man will walk over to us and open the conversation with “don’t you (seemingly intelligent/liberal) women think cheaper drinks/cover charges are reverse discrimination against men?”  And then call us cunts when we silently give each other the “get a load of this small-dicked loser” look before giggling into our neon-colored, sugar-spiked drinks.

Amanda @9—
Yeah, there are some bars that really do seem to set up their Ladies Nights to facilitate sexual assault. One I know of is women-only with 1 cent drinks until 11, when they let the hordes of still-sober dudes in. But the catch is they don’t let anyone in from 9 to 11—you have to get there early and hang out for a couple hours with nothing to do but drink super cheap booze before the DJ even goes on. They run ads that encourage women to use that promotion for a ‘girls night out’ to go drinking and dancing with friends, and also blatantly advertise the ‘room full of women letting their guard down and getting very drunk’ angle to men.

When I worked as a bar bouncer, a big part of the job was keeping customers from harming each other—through bar fights, alcohol poisoning, leaving to drive drunk, theft, sexual assault, on and on. When bar employees don’t see sexual assault as a problem, they are effectively condoning it. They’re the authorities, they set the tone, and it doesn’t take long to start attracting people who are actively looking for a place where they can get away with whatever it is you’re too lax about.

So while I agree that offering drink specials to try to bring in more women is annoying-but-unimportant in and of itself, I do think there’s a real feminist interest in the bar cultures that really encourage and profit from offering men a place to find blackout-drunk women to assault. Not because women shouldn’t be able to get as over-the-top drunk as they want, but because I can’t see the employees of a place like that stepping in when they should.

“Why is there no WHITE History Month?”

There is.  It’s January.  And February.  And March.  And April.  And May.  And… you get the idea.

There are plenty of feminist arguments to be made against ladies nights, but Clark-Flory, just like this Hollander guy, is apparently oblivious to them. Her statement is that feminists should protest ladies nights to prove they’re in favor of equality across the board. It’s like that tired old bullshit about the U.S. military draft which we haven’t had in about 40 years yet feminists are still made to answer for at least twice a week.
All arguments that boil down to “if the situation were reversed…” have gotten on my last fucking nerve anyway. When the situation is not reversed, all the people who make “if the situation were reversed” arguments have jack shit to say about it.

Is it bad I just can’t shake the mental clip of Jon Loviz singing “Ladies’ Night” over and over again?  Now you know my interior characterization of most MRA’s and douchebags.

Haven’t gone to bars often enough to really notice ladies night as I am not much of a drinker and only go if there is a specific event such as a performance by an indie band and/or meeting up with friends to hang out with on the weekend. 

Moreover, considering the noise, crowding, events, and the possibility one may mistakenly hit on someone already attached to someone with the possibility of angry words/spoiling for a fight from the drunk(s) who took offense, I have trouble seeing how they are a good spot for meeting someone for a hook-up…much less a longer-term relationship. 

Personally, other than enjoying the performance/event/hangout, I tend to limit my drink intake and keep alert for anyone who has had one too many and may want to start something…..though some of that is artifact of violent experiences from growing up in NYC before I went from being a short chubby kid to a tall thin adult(a smidgen under 6’) and it became gentrified and thus “kinder and gentler” for those who have the privileges of being tall, male, and “seeming” middle class…..though one friend said “certainly not looking like a hipster”...whatever that means.

I think there’s also something to be said for limited time offers and crowd pricing.  If you want a certain crowd or are entertaining a group - like people in wigs or some club or whatnot - then a limited time discount doesn’t count as discrimination.  A pattern would need to be apparent; like putting women’s night when you always have the most customers, period, making it inconvenient to come when the pricing was otherwise; of that the discount applied negatively to a protected group more than a certain amount of prime-time in the establishment.

Anyhow, that’s just my argument, in that it needs a pattern of disregard to be note-worthy.  And one night a week just isn’t noteworthy.

But it is right that the reason feminists don’t fight such things is because also they have little impact in the world compared to more important topics.

DaveL @12, I owe you a drink. Well said.

Dark Avenger GCM @5: The double entendre seems almost too direct for signage the period, and the font use seems more a ‘70s retread, but the illustration is very ‘40s.

Cory Doctorow recently revealed his secret image-researching weapon: TinEye. It seeks similar images from across the web, and really helps find the source of reused images. It has a Firefox plug-in, too, that let’s you choose it from the right-click menu.

The Ladies Night pic seems to derive from this one: http://shanghaiist.com/attachments/ntudhope/LadiesNight.jpg I’ve no time now to dig further, but that’s what TinEye came up with.

A “Ladies Night” is a service that a straight bar provides for its male clientele, namely, procuring women. Bellyaching about how it’s an unfair boon to women at the expense of oppressed males misses the point.

On closer inspection the font looks handmade after all (‘70s would be Letraset), and the sleeves & shoes are more ‘30s than ‘40s.

But that’s from looking at the clearer image at shanghaiist.com, which is closer to the original and less pixelated.

When the situation is not reversed, all the people who make “if the situation were reversed” arguments have jack shit to say about it.

In-fucking-deed. I’m stealing that one.

I used to work at a bar and one of my favorite nights to work was “skirt night” where anyone, wearing a skirt, male or female, could get dollar drinks.  We finally had to stop it, because most the guys that came in would get way too drunk by the end of night.  I still have images of hairy guys in mini skirts throwing up in the parking lot.

Exactly, ryan.  “If the roles were reversed” implies that such a thing is possible, and that sexism doesn’t have any complexity to it.  What purpose would serving cheaper drinks to men serve?  Who would be the intended beneficiaries?  What would the intended result be?

More snu-snu?

I still have images of hairy guys in mini skirts throwing up in the parking lot.

Ah, yes - the fond memoreis of university that that recalls…

Exactly, ryan.  “If the roles were reversed” implies that such a thing is possible, and that sexism doesn’t have any complexity to it.  What purpose would serving cheaper drinks to men serve?  Who would be the intended beneficiaries?  What would the intended result be?

There are women who go to sports bars on game nights to meet guys, and those bars often have discounts for everybody on those nights when they also expect a lot of male clientele. So the roles are already reversed, except the women who go to sports bars on discount-drink game nights don’t seek out the drunkest guys in the place and follow them around with Jagerbombers.

Another reason not to oppose Ladies Night is that for all the moronic and slightly to very bad ideas behind it, a lot of people of both genders and most sexual orientations find them fun. Generally, going against things that most people find fun and pleasurable isn’t a good ideological and/or political strategy and you should only do it if the pleasure in question is really bad. Of course, what is really bad is up for debate.

Gender-based pricing, really?

I take it Tracy Clark-Flory never gets her hair cut or uses the dry cleaners, both of which have gender-based pricing (in the form of charging women more) all day, everyday. Bah.

Anyway….“Ladies Night” is so far down on my list of priorities I don’t even know where to start. Can’t say I’ve ever picked a bar for it’s “Ladies Night”, for the reason Amanda outlined above…..“Get Sexually Harrassed, Followed Around, and Told You’re a Stuck-Up Bitch for Not Agreeing to Sleep with Some Random Loser!” Night…yeah, not so much fun. The few times I go out drinking, it’s either…go where the rest of the union members are going, go to Drinking Liberally or Film Geeks night, going to hear a specific band, or going out with actual friends I don’t get to see enough of, so we pick a quiet place with tasty drinks to catch up on each others’ lives. In fact, I can’t remember a bar around here even having a “Ladies Night” ever since I became old enough to drink. The bar owners’ trick around here regarding potential sue-happy losers over “Ladies Night” is to offer drink specials that….men who are anxious about the perception of their masculinity won’t order. Things like margaritas, pina coladas, appletinis, etc.

@31 -
The bar owners’ trick around here regarding potential sue-happy losers over “Ladies Night” is to offer drink specials that….men who are anxious about the perception of their masculinity won’t order. Things like margaritas, pina coladas, appletinis, etc.

I just wanted to quote that because it is beautiful and so very true

The bar owners’ trick around here regarding potential sue-happy losers over “Ladies Night” is to offer drink specials that….men who are anxious about the perception of their masculinity won’t order. Things like margaritas, pina coladas, appletinis, etc.

Funny….had the pleasure of enjoying two free margaritas a few days back during Happy Hour at a bar where a friend’s new indie band was playing.  Plenty of men had no problems partaking in the margaritas. 

Then again, the type of crowd the indie band and other bands playing with them that night would have definitely filtered out those with anxious masculinity issues.

La Lubu at 31: I as a man happen to like margaritas and pina coladas. I also like good beer, bad beer during certain events like baseball games or when its really hot out because bad beer is better as a cold drink than good beer, and wine.

La Lubu at 31: I as a man happen to like margaritas and pina coladas.

And the smell of the ocean and the taste of champagne - but in a manly way, of course.

PIATOR - Is the jury still out on getting caught in the rain?

On closer inspection the font looks handmade after all (’70s would be Letraset), and the sleeves & shoes are more ‘30s than ‘40s.

But that’s from looking at the clearer image at shanghaiist.com, which is closer to the original and less pixelated.
Comment #25: Yamara on 09/05 at 03:57 PM

The (C) Izzy Moore-Long is on that image also.  Which says to me it’s not original but retro-style.

I’d be more concerned about the unfairness of “ladies’ night” if the MRA’s were more concerned about the fact that women routinely pay more for haircuts and dry cleaning.

Also….from one legal layperson’s perspective, his argument that Ladies Night is unconstitutional because government agencies issue liquor licenses and thus involved is a real stretch.

I don’t know if this has been pointed out already, but the thing that immediately jumps out at me is that Den Hollander is pissed because women can say no. I do not believe he is so stupid he cannot see that the point of ladies’ nights is to benefit men - he probably wouldn’t complain if it were law that women had to date the first guy who approached them at a ladies’ night - because like the Girls Gone Wild assault case, merely being there is tacit consent to whatever. No, he’s pissed off because “those bitches” can, theoretically, hit him (or others like him) up for drinks and he has to pay full price despite the fact that the women have been drinking at half price all night, and what’s more, they don’t even have to put out in exchange.

Anyway, is it just me, or does the whole concept of “Ladies’ Night” sound… wrong? There’s always the underlying assumption that any slash in material price must be made up for in flesh, and not in a pleasant way.

Phoenicia at 35: Actually, yes even though you were joking. I do like the smell of the ocean and the taste of champagne. Although, proseco is a bit a better tasting..

Here in Japan there are a lot of “ladies day” campaigns where you get discounts on some days for being a female person.  The most common one is at pretty much any movie theater where, on a Wednesday, women get in for only 1000 yen (about ten bucks—usually a ticket is 1800). 

I’ve heard from a lot of guys how unfair this is.  And I would agree with them except:

1.  Women here make the equivalent of 66 cents to the dollar
2.  Women make up 36% of college grads—the lowest rate for women in any developed country—and many still only go to college to try to find a husband.  (I seriously want to cry every time a young woman tells me she only plans to work for a few years post-graduation anyway because she wants to get married by 26 or 27.)
3.  Women’s salaries peak in their 20s and stagnate after that, probably due to the fact that women are expected to quit their jobs either after marriage or childbirth. 

The least you can do if you’re not going to let women go to college, work, or support themselves is to give them half price movie tickets. 

I realize stuff isn’t quite as bad in the US (I’m American), but I know it still kind of sucks for women who try to be independent.  And most “ladies night” stuff is for the benefit of men anyway.  But come on.  Are we not allowed ONE facet of our lives where things are CHEAPER because we’re female?  We already have to spend more on toiletries and clothes, and a lot of women spend tons on those beauty rituals like waxing, manicures, and hair styling, all while making 78 cents to the dollar a man makes.  It’s like the system is designed to make us broke and “need a man.”  And then men complain about it.

I’m against the concept of pricing by sex, whether it’s haircuts, dry cleaning (actually, I’m against dry cleaning itself, but that’s another story,) or alcohol consumption.  I’m indifferent to women-only classes at healthclubs, thinking that all members should be treated equally and have equal access to what’s there (and no, that doesn’t mean the locker rooms need to or should be mixed, though it would be nice to hang out with my sweetie in the sauna at the Y, something homosexual couples get to do—and by “hang out” I mean “relax with”, you pervs.)

A yoga membership I used to have was at a place that had two afternoons of Yoga for Women classes that were at a time I would have loved/was actually able to have taken a class.  In other words, my membership (same price for men and women) wasn’t as valuable to me because I was a man.  I mentioned this to the owners, a couple.  They set up a Yoga for Men class at a different time after they realized that A) it would make them less able to get sued and B) they wanted to expand their class offerings and try things out.  It wasn’t a very popular class until it was renamed Yoga for Strength and more men and women went.  Part of me was happy that they offered more classes I could take (I liked the end solution far more than the interim “for Men” class,) but another part was still unhappy that the original times were still unavailable to me.

The Horrific Injustice of Being a Man: I’ll still take it.

Gender-based pricing comments remind me of this recent local story:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/07/15/ottawa-imperial-hair.html

Yeah, it galls me that my husband gets his crazy weird thick difficult curly hair cut for $12, but if I want a simple 10-minute trim to my straight hair, I pay a minimum of $45 not counting tip, no matter where I go. I’m glad this local woman made people stop and think for a moment.

I doubt he used a mail order bride service, since the article said he’d been there a decade.  There are plenty of young women who could come up with that plan without the help of an agency and he probably had “sucker” written all over him.  I know a couple guys just as skeevy as him, but very few who would turn being rejected by one woman into a money-sucking legal campaign when that money could be better spent on newer women.

Also for some reason I doubt this Russian Bride was all that subtle about what she was doing, but that’s just me extrapolating from some young Russians I know + the article’s assertion that everyone but Roy knew what was going on.  So while Roy shares some of the blame for probably ignoring a bunch of red flags, let’s authorize 30 seconds of genuine pity for a guy who can spend 10 years in a place and not have a single friend who could successfully warn him of uncomfortable truth before it’s too late.

....

Ok, now we go back to siding with the friends who just sat down with popcorn to watch the train wreck.

While my hairstylist friend has different pricing for different styles and services, her prices are determined by the time it takes and not the genitals of the client.

That leads to an interesting aside, but I’ll just leave it right there.

3letter, the fact that they have more classes for women than men is the result of the greater demands on women to be physically fit and attractive.  I don’t see it as them withholding from men so much as responding to the fact that women work out a lot more than men, because a lot of men feel like they don’t have to work at being attractive.  This is just a blunt reality.  Except for a few body-builder-oriented gyms, the client base at your average gym is probably 70% female.  Classes are especially female-oriented for whatever reason.  At my gym, the classes are co-ed but every time I look in the windows, it seems that there are few, if any, men taking them that day.

BonAppetit: I never quite got why feminism never really succeeded in Japan to the extent it did in other First World countries. Japan had all the necessary components for a successful feminist movement, so there is no reason why it should have struggled so much. Japanese culture and socities was sexist but there have been other cultures just as bad or worse, where feminism got more results. Its a real mystery.

I blame Kool & the Gang and their snappy disco tribute.

There’s a difference between how things turn out (yoga for mostly women) and how things are meant to be (“Yoga for Women” on a schedule will probably result in a class of women.)  But what you say about gym membership demographics is certainly true.

I think some of the sexual imbalance is also caused by the fact that traditional “men’s” exercise such as lifting weights can be accomplished without a class.  (It makes lying easier, too.)  Many men don’t like competing in tests of strength and flexibility against women in a yoga/pilates/aerobics class, but some of us like different kinds of challenges.  (And there’s no need for anyone to tell me that yoga isn’t meant to be competitive.  I’m there to push myself and not there for the spiritual woo stuff.  Learning to remember to breathe is good, but I’m not doing it to control the universe’s energy.)

“3letter, the fact that they have more classes for women than men is the result of the greater demands on women to be physically fit and attractive.”

I wouldn’t underestimate the power of the male gaze into the bargain.  A lot more women are going to want to have a space where they can sweat and puff and flush and be not-thin in tight clothes and so forth without having to worry about blowback from being insufficiently decorative, or without having to worry about heteroperformative men seizing the opportunity to stare at their asses.  You’re going to have a strong demand for female-only classes (or gyms, in the case of places like Shapes and Curves) pretty much as long as women have to routinely put up with a ton of shit men don’t.

The male gaze was a big part of why the Yoga for Women classes were so popular.  The fact is, I do see a lot during a typical yoga class.  I’m not looking for that, but I can’t unsee it when it’s in front of my eyes.  It’s not why I’m there, but I won’t say I’m above enjoying the view now and then.  (Yes, sometimes I get distracted by something beautiful.  But it happens much less than distractions of work, money, relationships, sweat in my eyes, uncomfortable clothes riding up my crotch, frustration, having to fart, outside noise, and all the rest that happens during a typical yoga class.)

“Yes, sometimes I get distracted by something beautiful.”

That seems like something that could be dealt with by asking them to leave the particularly striking flower arrangements and objets d’art in the lobby.

Sure.  But sometimes it’s a lovely ass or a cool swirly pattern in the floorboards.  Damn my eyes!  And oddly enough, sometimes one of my yoga instructors did bring in particularly striking flower arrangements.  Once it was distracting because of my allergies, but I moved to the back.

Thanks to all you folks named Amanda who took the time to locate the probable origin of the sign, but my point that it’s a mixture of different styles from different American periods still remains.

not there for the spiritual woo stuff.

When you can do what these folks do, let us know about that spiritual woo stuff.

As a hetero woman, I had to stop going to gyms because I kept getting distracted by men’s well-turned ankles and conking myself in the head with the free weights.

Well, yes, John, that’s why liberals want to control what a woman does with her body, and are so concerned about adults having sex without having a holy man mumble the right words beforehand for the both of them.

Thanks again for playing!

#56 Who the what?

Also, this is rich coming from the same people that thought it was awesome to arrest GLBT folk for congregating in privately-owned spaces, and for having sex in their own homes, for decades. Just recently, the cops in Fort Worth, TX - hotbed of big-government liberalism, no doubt - came in a gay bar and started busting heads and arresting people for being drunk. I’ll believe that conservatives honestly believe in small, non-intrusive government when they start walking the walk in the regions where they have an unyielding iron grip on public office and public policy.

John talks a lot about Detroit, but are people lining up around the block to buy one-way tickets to the Deep South, where conservatism is undefeated champion? Unless they’re looking for a career in Nashville, the answer is hell no.

3letterjon, are you still unaware that women don’t like being called a lovely view, or hearing about how you think someone’s ass is lovely?

Um, I’m not named Amanda nor threw any woo your way, but you’re welcome anyway.

However, the shanghaiist.com also lead me to this article about… “Visual Harassment” in China. Sounds like a job for… Roy Den Hollander!

3letterjon, be warned: Article may contain images of distracting beauty.

When, as a very young person, I worked at a dry cleaners’ I was astonished and appalled that a woman’s shirt, even if structurally identical to a man’s shirt, was charged twice as much.  I asked my boss about it but she had no answer.  “It’s just how it is.”

As an adult, I tried to structure my life to avoid as much of the discriminatory pricing as possible.

Now, as an old person, I wear almost entirely mens’ clothing.  When I get my hair cut, I go to a mens’ barber shop, where I am charged the same price as a man.  True, I get a mens’ style of haircut, but otoh, a lot of men I see in the shop are wearing styles that would be entirely acceptable on a woman.

Uh, Yamara, I hope that you and others here will forgive me for thinking the illustration the late ‘40s version of a frat boy poster, and you’ve never, AFAIK, have ever thrown woo at anyone here or elsewhere.

“3letterjon, are you still unaware that women don’t like being called a lovely view, or hearing about how you think someone’s ass is lovely?”

I would guess he is aware of that. You might note—or at least I did—that he did not say “in the yoga class, I tell women they make a lovely view or that they have a lovely ass.”

I therefore concluded that instead of saying these things, he simply thought them. Are thinking such thoughts also offensive to women?

Oops, posted #64 in the wrong thread.

@Celda

You are on the right thread.

I therefore concluded that instead of saying these things, he simply thought them. Are thinking such thoughts also offensive to women?

I completely forgot that Pandagon was either 1) bereft of women reading and participating in the discussion or 2) taking place entirely in 3letterjon’s head.  My mistake.

  I therefore concluded that instead of saying these things, he simply thought them. Are thinking such thoughts also offensive to women?

I completely forgot that Pandagon was either 1) bereft of women reading and participating in the discussion or 2) taking place entirely in 3letterjon’s head.  My mistake.

3LJ said in passing (paraphrased) “that he sometimes got distracted by a lovely ass”.  He didn’t call any particular woman here “a lovely ass” (which would have been offensive), nor go on about a particular person’s ass, nor was he particularly going on about the presence of aesthetic backsides in the world.  He was mentioning in a conversation about yoga one of the disadvantages of mixed-sex groups from his perspective - he wasn’t bragging or waxing lyrical on the subject (“hurr, hurr - ass!”

I concluded three things from that:

i, 3LJ is a hetrosexual male.
ii, 3LJ considers backsides potentially attractive
iii, 3LJ is polite enough not to make attractive backsides his primary focus when he’s supposed to be doing other things.

And possibly a fourth:

iv, 3LJ isn’t ashamed of either of those first 3 conditions.

Now, I share with 3LJ all four of those conditions.  Sometimes I get distracted by attractive females in public - but I have it on good authority that women are also sometimes distracted by attractive males (watching a bunch of librarians crooning over Nandor Tancos was particularly amusing).

Help us out - which of them should we be feeling shame over?

So while Roy shares some of the blame for probably ignoring a bunch of red flags, let’s authorize 30 seconds of genuine pity for a guy who can spend 10 years in a place and not have a single friend who could successfully warn him of uncomfortable truth before it’s too late.

If he has some sort of personality disorder that causes him to unwittingly alienate others, then I’ll sympathize.  If, however, he knows or should know that his crappy personality turns others away, I can’t muster much pity.  Bad things can happen to bad people.

I know the rules: thinking such thoughts is okay, not saying them at the time is preferred, but admitting in a completely different setting that such thoughts ever occur to me is well outside all bounds of propriety.

@PIATOR

Well, one thing missing in your paraphrase is that he said “something,” not someone or someone’s lovely ass which is a bit objectifying.  I can’t remember you commenting on many different subjects with your personal opinions on female beauty.  I agree with oldfeminist that his comment was, at best, inappropriate to a feminist blog.  He’s done this before at least once (women in heels look ridiculous to him).

My comment which you quoted though was more in response to Celda’s claiming that oldfeminist was offended by what 3letterjon thinks.  She may or may not be, but was responding to something he said not something he thought and had the decency to keep to himself.  I believe that is an important difference.

My comment which you quoted though was more in response to Celda’s claiming that oldfeminist was offended by what 3letterjon thinks.

Okay, this conversation has officially gone over my event horizon for untangling interpersonal modeling.  My brain hurts.

PiAToR: people are probably reacting negatively not to 3letterjon’s ‘I notice attractive female bodies at the gym’, but to the overall tone of the post. In the middle of a discussion about how women are pressured to worry about their bodies and how gyms cater to that, he pops up with “The male gaze was a big part of why the Yoga for Women classes were so popular” in response to a previous post about ‘the male gaze’ - which is a phrase with very specific meaning in feminist terminology, as I’m sure you know.

Frankly, while 3letterjon may well not have meant it to sound this way, his post @52 comes across very much as the guy who takes yoga classes so he can not-so-surreptitiously enjoy looking at women’s bodies in a context that makes it easy for him to do so.

I understand why “something” can be analyzed and criticized, and I’m sorry for the consternation that word has caused.  Sometimes it’s a something that I see that distracts: a nice ass, a well-turned leg, a shapely nose (yeah, I’m a weirdo.)  And sometimes it’s not a thing but a beautiful woman who distracts me throughout a class.  I could explain it away until the sun sets and the cows come home, but sometimes I’m distracted by a beautiful woman and sometimes it’s just a part or parts of one or more.  I was responding to a comment about the male gaze, admitted that it’s real, and unfortunately provided a “part” example rather than a “whole” one.  I don’t know if it’s any better that it’s only sometimes that I enjoy seeing just a part, but in the specific example of yoga classes I don’t see too much of some people and can’t make an overall assessment especially when I’m too busy trying to keep up with the sun salutations and other poses and am not there to find true love anyhow.

realitybeam,

While I agree that discrimination is discrimination, Amanda’s rationalizing about this issue was largely on the side of “Yeah, but this is something I would prefer not to care about much.”  That’s not a cop out, that’s just saving her energy for something that really matters.  Hopefully that something won’t be the male gaze.

No no, you’re supposed to get on Amanda’s case for wasting time on such a trivial issue when there are all those stonings in Iran and rapes in the DRC.

Bad things can happen to bad people.

I’m not trying to start a whole pity party for the guy, I just think it’s really sad.  Of course he deserves his comeuppance   It would be interesting for a reporter to track her down and get her side of the story, assuming it wouldn’t leave her open to deportation, or for that original article writer to publish more of her supposed interviews with his Russian-era friends.  Basically more work like that Harper’s article about mail-order bride agencies, where the fantasies and reality are sharply contrasted.

The hilarious thing to me is that, based on my anecdata, when American guys do have an edge on an international dating market, it’s usually the feminism that gives it to them.  The stereotype is that American guys are fun and they don’t expect nearly as much coddling, with the added bonus that your potential mother-in-law calls you less to make sure you’re taking care of him properly   Turns out even sexy foreign ladies are people, too, and all other things being equal will go for the guy who shovels less shit at them.  All things are rarely equal, however, and of course individual mileage may vary.

Roy Hollander is The Douchebag of Douchbags!MRA’s are so full of shit! I’m reading Warren Farrell’s, “The Myth of Male Power” and it is one of THE STUPIDEST books I’ve ever read. I’m not reading it because I thought he had anything worthy to write about, but because I like to keep up on anti-feminist bullshit. He claims that when a man is unemployed that it’s the equivalent of a woman being raped, that harems were a way of men protecting women and that football is child abuse- among other pure unadulterated bullshit! Anyways, technically feminism would eliminate Ladies Nights since they encourage women to initiate dates, own their own sexuality and other sociological changes that would chisel away at the need for a Ladies Only Night.

Also wanted to add that he’s trying to make his money off of suing feminists and it does seem that he’s more upset with the money thing than any real injustice to men.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/mra/mra/5000815/Interview_with_Roy_Den_Hollander/
“What is your response to his criticism?

RDH: Not if state action is involved, plus think of the
present value of all that money that was transferred from men’s wallets
to ladies’ pocketbooks.

MRA: Finally, can we expect to see further men’s rights lawsuits filed by yourself, in the future?

RDH: Not unless I win the lottery. My seven years war has
left me broke. With sufficient financing, however, I’ll file suits
against the feminists until the day I die, and if there is anything
after death, then for eternity.”

This website also has Roy Hollander saying that he was married to not just a Russian bride but a Russian mafia prostitute stripper (his words). He also says he takes hip-hop classes, lol!

http://www.ivygateblog.com/2008/08/middle-aged-white-guy-sues-columbia-for-discriminationan-interview-with-roy-hollander-mens-rights-pioneer/

I know the rules: thinking such thoughts is okay, not saying them at the time is preferred, but admitting in a completely different setting that such thoughts ever occur to me is well outside all bounds of propriety.
Comment #70: 3letterjon on 09/06 at 04:57 PM

Talking about person B as if they’re not human, to person A, isn’t any more acceptable than talking about person A as if they’re not human, to person A.

You don’t seem to think expressing your opinion of human beings as a “view” is a problem.  You don’t say it with any remorse or understanding.

Sharing your faults is perfectly acceptable here, so long as you actually understand it is a fucking fault.

I am perfectly willing to say, for example, that when I’m dealing with someone new, I might have a weird irrational belief about how that person’s going to be, before the first word, based on race, age, gender, etcetera.  I don’t say that in a proud or even “that’s just the way it is” way.  I say it knowing that it’s fucked up and I wish it didn’t happen.

You’re able to call human beings scenery and not get called on it in most places because you’re, guess what, privileged.  I’m calling you on it.  I’m not scenery, bad or good; I’m not happy having myself referred to as a lovely (or not) ass.  Just because you saw it there and are talking about it here doesn’t make it different.

This is female solidarity.  If you don’t like it you know where to go.

#67 But weren’t you just talking about how liberals want to strictly govern the behavior and personal choices of citizens? How are gay pride parades the evidence of a totalitarian nanny state within the liberal mecca of San Fran, instead of the very opposite? I shouldn’t have to remind you of your own damn thesis. What is this, amateur hour? Go hard or go home.

Thanks to all you folks named Amanda who took the time to locate the probable origin of the sign, but my point that it’s a mixture of different styles from different American periods still remains.
Comment #55: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein on 09/06 at 01:00 PM

Plus the baseline isn’t really bent around in a circle, it looks like letraset or not very good computer graphics.

One of my biggest beefs with some designers today is their unwillingness to letter things themselves.  I watch a huge-budget movie or see a big-budget commercial or advertisement, and it’s obvious they used some font right out of the box.

The ultimate in laziness is the “handwriting” fonts.  What, you couldn’t find someone who can actually write in regular print, block print or cursive?  Grr.

not there for the spiritual woo stuff.

When you can do what these folks do, let us know about that spiritual woo stuff.
Comment #55: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein on 09/06 at 01:00 PM

So you think there’s a spiritual effect that’s causing these monks to control their bodily functions?

The mind controls the body, and meditation is a real mind state.  That doesn’t mean there’s any Great Spirit involved, no God or Buddha or anything like that.  Humans evolved to be able to attain these states because it’s pro-survival.

If you’ve been around a lot of people who are sick or in distress, you will see repetitive self-soothing behaviors.  They’re important in helping humans cope with overwhelming stimuli without going insane.  They allow the human to stay relatively still and heal.  Most cultures have them.  Davening.  Prayer wheels.  Hail Marys.  Mantras.  They’re similar not because God is everywhere and likes people repeating His name, they’re similar because they have an effect on human brains that is calming.

That’s why you also see them more publicly in people with autistic-spectrum disorders.  Much more of everyday life is overwhelming for them.  Rocking, chanting, counting, looking away, “going away.”

It’s not just humans.  These are all coping mechanisms that we share with lots of other mammals.  The pacing tiger in a cage, the dog who won’t stop licking, they share with us this response.

Monks have studied it and use it with sometimes spectacular results.  Great.  But that doesn’t mean there’s anything really mystical about it.

Lawsuits against feminists?  Buh?

Also, oldfeminist, I think you’re being really, really rude to him.  He admitted he was sometimes distracted.  How is that insulting?  That someone might see something attractive in someone else or see sex in someone?

He’s discussing his thoughts.  You really don’t get to direct his thoughts.  And if he can’t share his thoughts, couched in that he knows they’re not to be said at the time, we wouldn’t get much talking done, would we?

It’s very sexist for me to feel this, but I generally choose female practitioners because I don’t feel comfortable with guys even though I know women just as often (and perhaps more often as an adult) will mistakenly say rude things to/about me.

If we aren’t able to admit these things, how are we supposed to ever face the realities?  We need to make space for people to admit things.

“You don’t seem to think expressing your opinion of human beings as a “view” is a problem.  You don’t say it with any remorse or understanding.

Sharing your faults is perfectly acceptable here, so long as you actually understand it is a fucking fault.”

A person that you don’t talk to or interact with in any way other than looking at them is indeed, nothing more than a view. That’s just a statement of fact.

Basically what you are saying is that it may be wrong for a man to look at a woman and be attracted to her, and definitely wrong to say that you do such a thing.

Also, oldfeminist, I think you’re being really, really rude to him.  He admitted he was sometimes distracted.  How is that insulting?  That someone might see something attractive in someone else or see sex in someone?

I am heartstruck to have been rude to someone!  Not.

He was calling the gathering of women (or their body parts) “scenery.”  Scenery isn’t even fucking alive.

He’s discussing his thoughts.  You really don’t get to direct his thoughts.  And if he can’t share his thoughts, couched in that he knows they’re not to be said at the time, we wouldn’t get much talking done, would we?

It’s very sexist for me to feel this, but I generally choose female practitioners because I don’t feel comfortable with guys even though I know women just as often (and perhaps more often as an adult) will mistakenly say rude things to/about me.

If we aren’t able to admit these things, how are we supposed to ever face the realities?  We need to make space for people to admit things.
Comment #86: Crissa on 09/06 at 09:51 PM

Admitting them is only the first part of facing the reality.  He didn’t seem to think there was anything wrong with what he said.

And he has a history here of doing just this, thinking hanging out with the feminist girls makes him a feminist.  Telling us he prefers our legs unshaven.  Like we care what his cock thinks.

Basically what you are saying is that it may be wrong for a man to look at a woman and be attracted to her, and definitely wrong to say that you do such a thing.
Comment #87: Celda on 09/06 at 10:30 PM

Nope.  That’s always the argument, and it’s always bullshit.

I’m saying that a man or a woman should know there’s a person attached to that “view” and not speak about people in that way.  And to remember that the person isn’t the view and strive to treat the person that way whether the person can her them saying it or not. 

Hence, not come back here and talk about women as a “view” though those women can’t hear it.

I’m beginning to believe that the concept of objectification has just passed some people by.  Not that I expected you to get it, Celda, but come on.  Why did no one else pick up on it when Jon said it?  Fatigue?

I hate to disagree with Amanda, but one of the things that is very powerful about the early history of utilizing the equal protection clause to stamp out gender discrimination is that the cases were often brought, by Ruth Ginsburg at the ACLU and others, against trivial sorts of gender “discrimination” against men. Craig v. Boren, for instance, was a law that allowed women to drink at 18 but required men to wait until they were 21. I could make the same sort of argument about this law that Amanda makes about ladies’ nights. Nonetheless, there’s something to be said for a legal rule that doesn’t accept trivial excuses for discriminating in favor of women any more than it accepts trivial excuses for discriminating against them. (Note, by the way, that more serious reasons for gender classifications that MRA jerks often attack—e.g., affirmative action, scaling test scores, child and spousal support rules—aren’t the issue here. This is about trivial justifications.)

So while there’s no reason to get all outraged about ladies’ nights, I still think that if some MRA type (or someone else) gins up a legal challenge, they should win.

There’s one other thing to note about this. Ladies’ nights are very trivial, but there’s a lot of price discrimination that hits women pretty hard. Clothes are more expensive, hairstyling is more expensive, personal hygene and cosmetics are more expensive, etc. A good strong legal rule against price discrimination, even if brought by some misguided men’s right’s activist, could be a very positive step for gender equality.

He was calling the gathering of women (or their body parts) “scenery.” Scenery isn’t even fucking alive.

Really?

Could you cite his exact words which you believe did this rather than using your own interpretation of those words?  For one thing, the only person who has been using the word “scenery” with which you have been taking so much umbrage - is you.

To recap, his exact words seem to be:

The male gaze was a big part of why the Yoga for Women classes were so popular.  The fact is, I do see a lot during a typical yoga class.  I’m not looking for that, but I can’t unsee it when it’s in front of my eyes.  It’s not why I’m there, but I won’t say I’m above enjoying the view now and then.

followed by

But sometimes it’s [a distracting something beautiful] a lovely ass or a cool swirly pattern in the floorboards.

It seems to me that he was going out of his way not to describe the women in his class as scenery in the first bit; that is, he was not identifying them as a collection of sexual organs out of=n display for his purposes.

The simple fact is that we are sexual beings, who respond to visual signals from the opposite (or appropriate) sex.  It’s wrong to reduce the opposite sex or any individual therein merely to those sexual signals, but it’s not wrong to acknowledge that said signals are there or that you respond to them - whether those signals be the female backside or the male chest.

For one thing, the only person who has been using the word “scenery” with which you have been taking so much umbrage - is you.

“won’t say I’m above enjoying the view now and then. “

View.  Scenery.  I corrected myself later.

I mean, sorry I referred to the wrong specific word, but “view” is equally nonhuman.

The phrase “a lovely ass” may not be a red flag for you.  For me it seriously recalls, again, the guys who want to be one of the girls, so they can “get some.” 

It may not translate for you, since you’re in a different culture.  It may not hit your ear the same way, because you’re a man.  But in my experience, guys who talk like this, and who are very eager to tell you that your non-patriarchy-complying physique are attractive to them and “those skinny stuck-up bitches with Brazilian waxes are gross,” aren’t your allies.

The simple fact is that we are sexual beings, who respond to visual signals from the opposite (or appropriate) sex.  It’s wrong to reduce the opposite sex or any individual therein merely to those sexual signals, but it’s not wrong to acknowledge that said signals are there or that you respond to them - whether those signals be the female backside or the male chest.

Right.

But, again, he didn’t seem to think calling women a “view” was demeaning at all.

It is.

He was calling the gathering of women (or their body parts) “scenery.” Scenery isn’t even fucking alive.

Not that I’m trying to get too “dudes all ganging up on a lady kind of justifiably pissed off about some shit” but throwing words into quotes that nobody else actually used is kinda lol.

THAT SAID man yeah 3LJ could’ve probably ratcheted the skeevy weird depersonalization on that comment up another couple of degrees and gone for the Totally Classy Dude All-Stars Lifetime Achievement Award.

You know the person who called human being scenery?  oldfeminist.

The phrase “a lovely ass” may not be a red flag for you.  For me it seriously recalls, again, the guys who want to be one of the girls, so they can “get some.”

It may not translate for you, since you’re in a different culture.  It may not hit your ear the same way, because you’re a man. 

Both of your last two points are correct.  There is also the possibility that you are bringing your own filter to the conversation (as we all do), more than the actual comments warrant.  However, I haven’t been paying attention to any “previous history” 3LJ has that might give you a context for interpreting him.

Monks have studied it and use it with sometimes spectacular results.  Great.  But that doesn’t mean there’s anything really mystical about it.

I could be flip and say “Those who know don’t talk, and those who talk don’t know.”

I once asked my undergrad vertebrate physiology teacher some 30-something years ago about this sort of thing, and he stated that any physiological reflex or activity can be brought under mental control.

There may not be a mystic explanation to how it works, the trick is to understand it enough so that it can be done by the average person without invoking the Buddha, etc.

I’m just saying you shouldn’t indulge in scientism, however great the temptation to do so.

OTOH:

Link

The neurobiology of Meditation and its clinical effectiveness in psychiatric disorders.

Rubia K.

Institute of Psychiatry, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, King’s College University London, UK. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Abstract

This paper reviews the evidence for changes of Meditation on body and brain physiology and for clinical effectiveness in disorders of psychiatry. The aim of Meditation is to reduce or eliminate irrelevant thought processes through training of internalised attention, thought to lead to physical and mental relaxation, stress reduction, psycho-emotional stability and enhanced concentration. Physiological evidence shows a reduction with Meditation of stress-related autonomic and endocrine measures, while neuroimaging studies demonstrate the functional up-regulation of brain regions of affect regulation and attention control. Clinical studies show some evidence for the effectiveness of Meditation in disorders of affect, anxiety and attention. The combined evidence from neurobiological and clinical studies seems promising. However, a more thorough understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms of action and clinical effectiveness of the different Meditative practices is needed before Meditative practices can be leveraged in the prevention and intervention of mental illness.

@PIATOR

I personally agreed with oldfeminist because I think finding pieces of people attractive is a bit a dehumanizing.  3letterjon wasn’t even distracted by women, but by things including pieces of women.  Even his explanation/apology in 74

Sometimes it’s a something that I see that distracts: a nice ass, a well-turned leg, a shapely nose (yeah, I’m a weirdo.) And sometimes it’s not a thing but a beautiful woman who distracts me throughout a class.  I could explain it away until the sun sets and the cows come home, but sometimes I’m distracted by a beautiful woman and sometimes it’s just a part or parts of one or more.

separates a woman from her composite parts.  That is creepy.  He describes being distracting by a woman and by her parts as if they are different.  He is being distracted by an attractive woman in every single case.

Plus, it is a bit of extra creepy that 3letterjon seems to imply he is the male gaze, which mythago noted in #73, although it is possible that that was unintentional/uniformed.  If 3letterjon actually considers himself the male gaze, that is all kinds of wrong and creepy.  I don’t think that is what he meant, but this is not a 101 blog, so I don’t think there is anything wrong with holding him accountable for that.

oldfeminist, I think you’re being really, really rude to him.

Yeah, blah blah blah TONE, OLDFEMINIST. Your job is to be polite and smile a lot at your betters, remember?

Poor, poor 3letterjon! To discover that the entire fucking universe isn’t a receptacle for whatever thoughts his id compulsively regurgitates! Next you’ll be saying you’re not interested in knowing his opinion on your body hair management habits, or your heel height, or your weight!

You know the person who called human being scenery?  oldfeminist.
Comment #94: Crissa on 09/06 at 11:31 PM

“View.  Scenery.  I corrected myself later. “

Apologies to 3letterjon for remembering the wrong word in one of my posts. 

That makes me the big sexist here.  Because “view” and “scenery” are so VERY VERY DIFFERENT.

@oldfeminist

Because “view” and “scenery” are so VERY VERY DIFFERENT.

Just like a woman and her sexy, sexy leg.

I personally agreed with oldfeminist because I think finding pieces of people attractive is a bit a dehumanizing. 

I think finding pieces of people attractive(*) is goddamned normal and part of actually living with a sexuality.  Maybe just living with a male sexuality, but my conversations suggest it happens with women as well - waxing lyrical over David Bowie’s bum, or talking about ripped chests making her hot for example.  When 3LJ mentions it (and just that), he’s simply acknowledging a fact of life, IMHO.

It’s what you do with that attraction that counts.

(*) (assuming they’re, you know, still attached of course, ‘cos otherwise you’re a sick sick puppy and probably shouldn’t be allowed into medical school)

@PIATOR

But even in your defense of objectification (which, yes, women do as well), you say David Bowie’s bum and not that bum that was onstage that I saw while I was at the concert where David Bowie performed.  There is a difference.

Ripped chests (in the abstract as you used it) is a bit different, but I assume 3letterjon wasn’t distracted by abstract legs he accidentally saw during yoga.

Is it really so terrible to ask a man to be slightly less objectifying and dehumanizing on a feminist blog?

I know I’m mostly a lurker here, but this thread is resonating with me because I do it ALL THE TIME. Man, that girl has a great ass or that guys shoulders are incredibly sexy. Not every part of a person may be equally attractive and I see nothing wrong with acknowledging what floats YOUR particular boat as long as it doesn’t taks an inappropriate form, such as street harrassment.

@102 I think in 3LJ’s example it IS in the abstract b/c a lot of times even if you are going to the same class frequently people join or drop out at random so you don’t often get to personally know them. So, it would be “a great ass” as opposed to “Suzie’s great ass”.

I totally get the irritation/anger at REDUCING people to their parts but I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. I work in a male dominated field and I’ve heard “wow. my last/high school(person that does my job) wasn’t as pretty/didn’t have as big boobs as you do”. Now THAT SHIT is reductive, esp. since I’m really REALLY good at my job, sometimes better than males I work with & I know there aren’t females saying the like to my male counterparts.

@97 (re:74): I think this is a good place for the concept of closure. When you see someone’s face in a window, you assume there’s a body attached. Similarly, when you see part of someone’s body that you find particularly attractive, even if the whole is not within your eyes’ focus, you (hopefully! Thanks, PIATOR, for that Global Frequency-esque image) assume that it’s attached to a human being. In this sense, there isn’t really a distinction between a “that” and a “(s)he,) since the former presumes the latter. Even in media representations, such as photographs, the princple applies: on the current cover of Rolling Stone, I can’t see one of Christina Hendricks’ arms. In fact, I can’t see Ms. Hendricks, because it’s just a piece of fucking paper decorated to reflect light in a manner similar to looking at the actress herself. So there is no arm in the photo, and I’m sure the arm fetishists are deeply saddened by it. But because the brain interprets the image as standing in for a person, and people generally have two arms, we tend to assume it’s there.

My rambling $.02: I like looking at women. This need not necessarily compromise my politics. It took me quite a while to really acknowledge and accept this. And while I think several of us are using different language to describe the same phenomena, I do agree that 3LJ’s language kind of sucks, and implies something off-putting.

Ripped chests (in the abstract as you used it) is a bit different, but I assume 3letterjon wasn’t distracted by abstract legs he accidentally saw during yoga.

I like to imagine that there’s some non-representational art on the wall and he’s interpreting it as women’s bodies. Like a guy who sees Rohrshach on the Watchmen poster and spends the rest of the day fantasizing about making out with January Jones.

Is it really so terrible to ask a man to be slightly less objectifying and dehumanizing on a feminist blog?

This framing really reminds me of the pseudo-MRA complaint that men aren’t allowed to give women compliments anymore. In practice, I find that it’s considered acceptable by almost everyone to compliment women in any way you can think of that isn’t likely to be interpreted by a reasonable person as a veiled threat of rape. And it turns out that, after a few millennia of patriarchy, most compliments to a woman about her body are going to be interpreted, with solid, historical reason, as veiled threats of rape, because it turns out our language is absolutely soaked in rape imagery, especially where sex/romance is concerned, so, uh, I suppose you’ve got your work cut out for you. I try not to be a dick about it, and find that it’s generally pretty easy when you try. And while looking at women doesn’t make you the embodied form of a selection of 70s psychoanalytic film theory, it is a tricky business that women have good reason of which to be wary.

@thatsnotironic

I meant in the abstract as in “I like breasts” or “I like ripped chests” or “I like hairy toes.”  Those are abstract.  The ass 3letterjon saw in class is not abstract, or at least not abstract in the same way.  He may be using ass to stand in for whatever part of the women’s bodies he was distracted by, but if they were in the room and distracting him, they were not abstract, they were literal.

Literal asses are attached to literal woman.  Abstract asses are concepts, and could be attached to women, men, doors, puppets, or nothing.

Talking about a “woman’s ass” (while still probably not appropriate here) is better than “the ass in my line of site.”  And I am not so much accusing 3letterjon of reducing people to their parts as I am accusing him of treating people and their parts as different and unconnected things.  Maybe everyone does do it, but it is creepy as fuck.

Gah, ever since 3letterjon started commenting more often on pandagon, I’ve had to stop reading comment sections for fear I’ll read another disgusting tidbit I won’t be able to ‘unread’ later.  Still throwing up in my mouth at his comments on the shoe thread the other day.  Now I know women in his yoga class think he is creepy too, and that he feels entitled to stare, and thinks it’s cool enough that he can tell strangers he stares at women’s asses at yoga class. 

I really can’t even finish reading comment thread for fear that I’ll have to come across more of this entitled comment-thread-derailing, discussion-contaminant-doucheflap.  Ugh, why do I get the shudder-inducing feeling pandagon is just another yoga class where this creep is observing the “fiery attitudes” and “feisty arguments” of some “sexy, opinionated ladies”?  Am I making sense?

Sheesh, people.  I just said I occasionally see something/part of someone/an entire someone and sometimes it’s (by which I mean “the seeing and my reaction is”) a bit distracting.  I don’t go to exercise to look, but I’m not going to lie and say I never look.  And I’d be the worst liar on earth if I said I never see anything.  If I had mentioned the large asses with thongs peeking out I’d be a different kind of asshole, but I see those too.  Want to hear about some of the old people and how their bodies sag and their skin looks like death?  I could mention that.  There are also some scarily skinny people.  But if I say I see something I actually like, it’s heteromannageddon! 

I also see men.  Middle-aged men, young men, full-of-themselves men (most classes have mirrors,) old men, men with more weight than they should have, men who make me envious with their flexibility, and men who have upper body strength that makes me feel good about my semi-wimpy self.  Some of them even have genitals that—assuming they don’t stuff their pants—are bigger than mine.  I may or may not have the best ass, but I haven’t polled any classes on these important issues.

The entire idea of a man resenting “Ladies’ Night"s at bars is so fucking moronically lame, its pitiable. It is difficult to describe my feeling of pity at the sheer pettiness evinced.

Now THAT SHIT is reductive

Both/and, thasnotironic, both/and. They’re both (possibly different degrees) of reductive and objectifying.

3letterjon: No one is telling you to lie and say you never think things you do think. We’re telling you to shut the fuck up for two seconds and think about whether you need to regale us at all with the subject matter.

anyone over the age of 30, who hangs out at bars or nightclubs, absent a special occasion (a birthday party maybe), is a douchebag, period. gender is no bar.

any bar/nightclub that needs to offer women cheaper drinks, to get them to come in, is one they probably want to avoid in the first place.

any bar/nightclub that needs to offer women cheaper drinks, to get them to come in, is probably one that any self-respecting, decent guy wants to avoid as well.

cpinva - I stopped hanging out at bars and nightclubs loooong before I hit 30, but that blanket pronouncement seems a bit harsh.

I guess I’m a huge douchebag for hanging out at the bar with friends on the weekends. And I never knew it till now. I’m 34, so I’ve been a douchebag for years now. Years! Gah! Oh well.

I’m curious cpinva.  Where should people over 30 hang out, then?  What establishments are you counting within bars or nightclubs?  And why 30?  And what do you mean “gender is no bar”?

I think what cpinva means is that s/he’s young enough that 30+ is the “ew gross old people” category, and such people shouldn’t be cluttering up bar space properly reserved for the young and fabulous. It’s a stage, people, lots of kids go through it.

@ mythago,

Yeah I am now just starting to understand that turning 30 doesn’t mean you just have to twiddle your thumbs and wait around to die.

anyone over the age of 30, who hangs out at bars or nightclubs, absent a special occasion (a birthday party maybe), is a douchebag, period. gender is no bar.

So I guess all the people that go to bars to listen to music or hang out with their friends are douchebags? Wow.  The people I have met in places like that (including my husband) don’t really seem to match your description.

Maybe you mean loud pickup bars?  I assure you there are nice places to go in Virginia.

Lol… I’m in my twenties and dirt poor, and my primary impetus for soldiering on is the idea that when I’m in my thirties, perhaps then I’ll be able to afford to frequently “go out on the town” and actually enjoy life - but by then, I’ll actually be too old to do those things.  *cue “the more you know” star*

3letterjon,

It is the something that is particularly gross.  Calling someone’s body part “something” is really fucking depersonalizing.  Even in your men example later in the thread, you didn’t describe the mens’ disembodied large penises as something.

If you’re going to talk about things like that, on a feminist blog, at the very least, consider distinguishing between some *thing* and *something about* an actual person.  A characteristic that exists as part of a human being, not some disembodied object of beauty.

Why is this hard?  I sure as hell don’t talk about men like this, and it is because I believe men are entitled to respect as persons.  I may comment on a particular aspect of a person’s appearance (wow, she has ripped arms, he has really pretty eyes), but the focus is on an attribute belonging TO A PERSON, not on an attribute as though it exists separate from the person and is only due the respect given to a “thing.”

That said, w/r/t Roy Den Hollender, unless the argument was completely meritless, I think it would be teh funny to file an Amicus brief, if for no other reason that it could kick off a great public discussion about objectification/alcohol/men/women.

Which is what the fuck we were talking about until 3letter had to mention that he thinks a beautiful ass is a thing, and can be distracting, as can a beautiful woman, who is hopefully (but if so, illogically) not a “thing.”

Jaysus.

It probably depends on the bar.  I’m nearly 30 and there are plenty of places that are willing to take my money without making me look or feel like a complete douche.  On the other hand, I used to have a coworker a bit older than me who preferred the only 18+ establishment in town, mostly because he loved impressing teenagers (or strippers, or teenage strippers, depending on the story they fed him) with all the vile $1 Long Islands he could buy them.  He was both a giant douche and skeevy as all hell, and I could see undergraduates talking about him with the same distaste cpivna has expressed   If s/he’s that young, then probably s/he’s going to places where the only 30+‘s in sight are the douchebags.

Eh, I don’t think we really need to deconstruct 3letterjon’s precise language to discuss why his comment has no place on a feminist blog.  The fact is that he has a history of coming into these discussions to let us know what his boner thinks.  To date, after about a year of sporadic lurking and off the top of my head, I’ve read all about 3letterjon’s opinion on: women’s shoes, women’s body hair, women’s weight, and his preferred level of sexual inhibition/lack thereof in a female partner.

Not only was at least one of those things personally hurtful to me, I’d bet money that every one of them hurt at least one other woman who reads here.  Every time, a discussion was going on re. expectations of women that hurt them, and women were offering ways that they personally had been hurt, and 3letterjon jumped in to let us know which approach to these issues gets him hard.  Every time, someone called him out on it, and yet he continues to come back and let us know his dick’s opinion on these types of issues, and be dismissive when called out.  He’s not a feminist; he’s not even a nice or neutral person.  He’s a commenter who’s consistently creepy, off-topic, and hurtful.  Why anyone should be sorry that they were “rude” to him I can’t imagine.

Kyso K @119: could be. I’m just amused at the idea that bars are for ages 21-29 only, with perhaps an allowance for 18-20s with good fake ID. I’ve been in sports bars and neighborhood hangouts where being 30 made you the punk whippersnapper in the room. But then I’m a little past the stage where sticky drinks and flashing lights make for a good nightspot.

just, just shut the fuck up already. omg how rude of me.

also, cpinva, lolwtf? in my experience, the biggest douchebags in any given bar are those under 25. which is why i don’t go to ratty college bars. most places i go to these days (aside from the gay clubs, to dance) attract more of a 30s-40s crowd. and austin loves its nightlife. we can’t all be douches. i, too, would love to be enlightened on where i am allowed to show my old ass 32 year old self. and it’s probably douchey of me to hang out with my coworkers, who may range from 20-40something.

oops, “Just” should be jon.

Mythago, everyone knows a proper adult drinks alone and in the dark, mourning their lost youth.

Mythago, everyone knows a proper adult drinks alone and in the dark, mourning their lost youth.

Speak for yourself - I never lost my youth.  I keep her in a box on ice under my bed, and replace her whenever she starts to smell.

Hey, cpinva may be right about one creepy older guy hanging around in bars…

anyone over the age of 30, who hangs out at bars or nightclubs, absent a special occasion (a birthday party maybe), is a douchebag, period. gender is no bar.

Oh, dear.  Looks like several friends who are musicians and/or work in bars would be douches then.  Looks like those of us over 30 who enjoy some music and a drink on the weekends at a bar or even karaoke are douches.  Agg…..I’m over 30….forget about learning an instrument…especially a cool modern one like an electric bass/guitar, synthesizers, etc.  No…if you didn’t start that as a kid or at the very latest….high school…it is too late for you…..

BTW: Have you even been to a decent sampling of bars in the NYC/Boston areas???

Where the do you get off declaring how other adults spend their leisure time based on arbitrarily set ages?!!

Know what….I’ll maintain my “douchy” attitude by taking our my electric guitar, cranking up my amp, and practice some more so I can maintain my “douchiness” well into my middle age and beyond*......

* With due consideration of neighbors at night and early mornings, of course.

I turned 30 this year, and I’m not about to stop staying out till 4am. It’s not so much about age as your state of mind. But to be fair to cpinva, I think we’ve all seen that skeevy guy in the club who hangs at the bar and stares.

@chibi

i, too, would love to be enlightened on where i am allowed to show my old ass 32 year old self.

You mean, Carrousel and Sanctuary aren’t enough for you?

I look at cheap drink the same way I look at doors. I’m not going to ask you to sell me the former and open the latter, but if you truly feel like doing it I won’t say no.

“I may or may not have the best ass, but I haven’t polled any classes on these important issues.”

Gosh, it’s too bad for you that you don’t have the luxury of being of the gender that gets random strangers telling you their opinion of your body parts without out asking.  Then you could dispense with the labor of polling said random people.

And on that note…what themasses says.  Also:

The topic for discussion is not “what john likes to look at.”

The topic under discussion is the whether ladies night out is discriminatory.

What does letterjohn bring to this discussion?  His woeful tale of finding a yoga class to take.  As a way of saying “yes! the patriarchy hurts men too!”

Amanda responds with, essentially “yes, but, like the ladies nights, remember that the reasons for this is because women get the short end of the stick in other ways.  In this case, by having to deal with being on display all the time.  Even when doing the messy job of becoming thin enough to be worthy of on display.”

letterjohn’s response is to mention that he, too, likes to look while in yoga class.

And there are people on this thread worried about other people possibly being rude to him?  seriously?

Because at this point, he’s not just being a willfully ignorant ass (oh, gee, you mean guys like to look while in yoga class?  gosh, we were totally unaware of that fact.  it’s not like that fact is included in Amanda’s response or anything) - he’s being also being more than a litte creepy.  And the repetition of “omg how can you be so mean?  all I am doing is being honest!” is really only adding to the creepiness.