First off, I never once stated that it was appropriate for a man to proposition a woman because she's wearing a low cut top or something like that.  That's a ridiculous mis-characterization of my argument, and it may be due to me not fully understanding your point original.  I was referring to a dialogue between Ana and Cenk from a few shows back.  Now, I'm not sure what your point is because you attempt to draw an analogy for me to "get it" and in the process you dismiss your own insight as you state:

You can't apply your own personal experiences as a man to that of women.  The inner-workings of the female mind differs from yours.  The world as a woman experiences it is far different from your own.  And until you're willing to accept that, this won't go anywhere.  What I'm saying is that the previous two paragraphs you see above?  They're pointless.  They don't help you understand women at all because it's a man's experience.  Just like how all of your current outlooks are inadequate to understanding women.

If this is the standard for negotiating the tricky road of gender variation then by what right do you have an informed opinion on what women think/feel as you are by your own definition unqualified to hold one.  Additionally, if what you say is true then it must logically be true that women have no clue what it is like to be a man as evidenced by your own words, "The world as a (man)woman experiences it is far different from your own.  And until you're willing to accept that, this won't go anywhere."  So by your own admission it would be fair to say women don't know what it's like to be a man who's incapable of controlling his wandering eyes. This argument cancels both party's complaints out and is foolish in general, but this is what you get when you present a specious argument.

Now, on to reality.  I understand that people dress for comfort and I can buy into the top-tier fashion lines are more comfortable argument, even though I am skeptical.  What I don't buy into is, my cleavage being out is more comfortable than not, or wearing a mini-skirt in the dead of winter is more comfortable than pants.  You can't pass this off to me as reality because adherents are either liars or fall so far off the scale of common human experience to be not worth considering i.e. outliers.  It's clearly about style not comfort, and once again we are back to style being about self-expression and this by definition requires at least one additional person to appreciate your flair.  So ultimately, if you are expressing yourself you will be observed and possibly oogled because we are sexual creatures, so expect it.  You also may be judged as well, though not by me.  It seems to be a common human trait to judge self-expression and apply a value judgment to something as one does when they browse an art gallery.  I'm not comparing people to art, but there is something about fashion that is reminiscent of art, or arguably should be considered art.  When your exhibit highlights an area that evokes sexual stimulus in males you get oogled.

Finally, It's necessary for me to say I'm not blaming women for the abuse they take from men that go way over the top and enter the land of harassment or abuse.  This is totally unacceptable behavior and a violation of a person's rights in my opinion.  I just want to keep it real as they say.  I'm all for self-expression and I am generally non-judgmental or at least make an effort to be, but I must call things for what they are.  I also must say that it is quite possible for the most unassuming and conservatively dressed woman to have a more lackadaisical attitude in selecting sexual partners (which I have no problem with just keep it safe).  Things are not always as they seem, and I am more persuaded to attempt to define a person by their actions rather than appearances or preconceived notions.

by marcusau2 on 01/28/2009 11:51:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My post above wasn't directed solely to you.  It's more of an extension of that other thread which has grown into a monster.

"If this is the standard for negotiating the tricky road of gender variation then by what right do you have an informed opinion on what women think/feel as you are by your own definition unqualified to hold one."

You misunderstand.  I'm merely pointing out that you can't take a male perspective, attempt to shove it into a female perspective, and expect it to align and make perfect sense.  It's like trying to jam a square block into a triangle opening.  What makes sense for guys, how we experience society and work, our interactions with friends and strangers... they're different, whether we like it or not.

My argument works on multiple levels, sex just happens to be one of them.  I could never be a Native American living on a reservation.  I could never be a homosexual man who grows up in a hostile environment.  I could never be a multi-billionaire that owns 50 mansions... though I suppose there's still time to try.  Does that mean we could never understand one another?  No.  And I never claimed that, go recheck my post if you'd like.

I am merely advocating that people take off their self-centered lenses and realize that others experience things differently from you.  We can, at the very least, try to put ourselves in their shoes.  You seem to be an individual who can do that.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with you.  I think we hold similar stances, so I'm not even sure why we're in each other's faces.  I know that there are dudes out there who will heckle women.  I've never argued against that fact.  The thing that started my ranting was the non-stop statements that the offensive comments ladies get is somehow the lady's fault for wearing those clothes.  It doesn't matter if they're expecting it or whatever.  It should not happen... as I know it currently does.  Guys need to learn to shut up and have some control.  Additionally, I don't care about the level of revealingness.  It's irrelevant to me.  Case in point: the situation in Iran.  It's somewhat similar to what's going on here (though at a vastly higher level), except they start freaking out at E&A (elbows and ankles) instead of T&A (hint: this A isn't ankles).

And I think you're in agreement with me... so yeah. :o

by invert on 01/29/2009 01:13:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]