To justify second helpings, you say you ate too much icecream and must get more to restore the balance. Then you *accidentally* get too much icecream and have to get more cake. *Repeat*
I wouldn’t be surprised if she felt that the reverse was ok with the justification that it’s ok if women do it since they’re not the ones with the power.
Oh fuck both of you. Spoiler alert, women don’t really rate guys. It’s not a thing? Like they might think some guys are hot while others don’t do it for them. But they don’t have a pseudo-public system of using numbering systems to reduce men to objects because women don’t fucking have that power.
And inventing a false equivalence where it doesn’t fucking exist to justify shallow sexist bullshit that is openly connected to an active group of rapists who train others to rape like them?
Is pretty fucking bullshit.
TemporalShrew
False equivalencies aren’t cool, but neither are blanket generalizations. “Women don’t” isn’t really something you should start a sentence with unless you can back it up with something non-anecdotal or objective.
Not a critique of your point, but definitely a critique of how it’s framed.
(Prefacing corrections by saying “fuck you” is probably also not good practice, although I am sure there are fair personal reasons for the animosity).
Oh, cool, tone policing. I definitely have the patience for that tonight.
Yes, sir, sorry, sir, won’t happen again, sir, let me deign unto the majesty of your wisdom, sir.
Amynotmyname
Female here.
Of the woman type.
Cis if it matters.
I was a pretty hardcore bongo in college. All of my friends were as well. We rated the shit out of guys. Normally on a 1-5 scale (called them Cats like hurricanes).
As long as we are being anecdotal and shit.
BBCC
Good for you.
We’re speaking about cultural conventions here.
begbert2
Did somebody get the license of that goalpost? I think it sideswiped me on the way past.
BBCC
“But they don’t have a pseudo-public system of using numbering systems to reduce men to objects because women don’t fucking have that power”
Didn’t sideswipe you, you walked into it because you weren’t paying attention.
Falcon
Tone policing is especially important when shouting matches start between people earnestly making their points. Cerberus, you may not have patience for what TemporalShrew is trying to do, but from where I’m standing you’re blaming someone for trying to create a more rational atmosphere for discussion.
If someone’s point is something that wouldn’t be acceptable even if expressed politely, that’s when the banhammer should come out. It’s a private forum. First Amendment protections do not apply here, only our willingness to talk.
Austyn
Tone policing is not good because it allows people to avoid difficult discussions because the other party was unable to distance themselves from their emotions enough to explain a situation without using emotional language whatsoever. It’s often been used as a derailment tactic to avoid important conversations. >a href=http://groupthink.kinja.com/on-tone-policing-why-its-bullshit-and-why-you-need-to-1148310719 title=This article> explains more
My bad on also ruining that link; apparently coding is not my strong suit and it’s 4am
Falcon
For the record, I did read the article. Yeah, no, I don’t see the merits of its argument. Having good reasons for expressing something in an unreasonable manner, especially when that manner leads to the communication of plainly inaccurate information, is a mitigating circumstance.
Tone policing is why moderators exist on forums. It’s why moderators exist in debates. Just because some people abuse it to gaslight minorities doesn’t suddenly make it bad.
Songbird
To be honest, I’ve always had trouble buying into the tone policing argument myself. Like, everyone has a right to be angry if someone says or does something shitty to them. Most people, I also feel, should be granted the minimum grace to make a mistake and apologize for it.
So if I accidentally say something shitty to someone that makes them hurt and angry, by all means, they should call me on it–and I would hope they would at least give me a chance to apologize and explain myself, even if they don’t forgive me or accept my explanation. And if I say that I don’t understand, I would hope that the injured party would have the patience and willingness to explain to me what I did wrong so that I can apologize appropriately (though they are by no means required to do so and I am okay with that).
I’m willing to listen and learn from my mistakes. But I do ask that others are polite, not because I want to silence them, but because there IS a line where you can take it too far and abuse people who probably didn’t deserve it. So while I am willing to listen and learn (and I think most people are too–but that just might be because I’m an optimist), I’m NOT going to take verbal abuse, and I will call out someone who attempts to use it on me or others. I think part of the reason I feel so strongly about this is because I recently came out of a relationship that was often characterized by emotional abuse against me that I permitted to go on because my ex-SO “had it worse” and therefore I didn’t have the “right” to speak up for myself because I didn’t have her disadvantages. It…kind of messed me up, so I’m determined not to let it happen to me again, or to other people if I think it can be stopped.
And while I neither can nor would I want to MAKE someone opt for a specific tone, I would caution that verbally abusing people who may otherwise be willing to listen is a good way to lose potential allies really quick.
Anyway, that’s my two cents. Maybe you agree, or maybe you think I’m a raging asshole. Both are valid views to take, I suppose. I generally tend to assume that I’ve been enough of a jerk in my youth that any vitriol thrown my way by strangers is probably deserved, but I’ve been trying to get out of that mindset because I only realized how unhealthy that was (not to mention that that mindset was based on a skewed perception of reality that had been built up over time due to isolation).
Anyway, I’m rambling now, so I’m just going to end this comment here. I hope it’s helpful to somebody (or if not helpful, then at least interesting…is that the right word?). I’m having strange thoughts again, so I’m just going to put on a movie and try to get some sleep.
thejeff
Emotional abuse is a thing. Tone policing is a thing too. Sometimes it’s tricky to see the differences.
It’s possible to use anger and shouting over people to dominate and control the conversation. It’s also possible to use someone’s justified anger as an excuse to shut them down and again dominate and control the conversation.
Okay, if we’re playing this game, here is what I mean:
While some women can be pieces of shit who borrow aspects of toxic masculinity culture*, there is no standardized culture nor are there encouragements for women to rate the people they are sexually attracted to on anywhere near the same level as exists for men. And women doing it in a pseudo-public fashion like this would be much more likely to encounter strong push back from their peers.
*One of my friends in college was a lesbian who fell hard into PUA awfulness and it was a long road clawing her back to not being a piece of shit.
And it is this normalized culture and it’s closeness to an actual organized movement of rapists teaching others how to rape more effectively that is a systematic problem that causes real harm not only to the women targeted by it, but also to the mean perpetuating it as it robs them of the right to non-normative attraction or romantic desire lest they be mocked or beaten by their male peers.
And the particular aspects of this culture means desperate attempts to make this a “both sides do it” false equivalence end up minimizing or erasing the real harm of these systems and disallows any real focus on dismantling this toxic system.
And “both sides do it” in general is a thing that makes me very angry at the moment because the abuse of that rhetorical tactic has gotten us to the point where the open movement to murder millions of Americans making extra sure to get a few kicks in on the ones most marginalized is all normalized as “just another side” and where we are so desperate for “both sides do it” BS that we’re screaming at angry scared kids setting trash cans on fire or trying to fight back against literal nazis because we so desperately need something the left is doing “wrong” to balance out the vile cruelty on the right.
And as for tone policing. Well, there’s a large amount of reasons why it’s a terrible practice, but I’m going to be very specific here instead.
Last night, I was desperately attempting not to harm myself, weeping my eyes out, because the US House of Representatives passed a law that is designed to kill me and all of my friends and make it so we can be denied any right to access health insurance ever again.
And also because the shiny orange fascist who stole the Presidency signed an Executive Order that says that an emergency worker can straight up deny me emergency care if they have a “religious objection” to me being trans. And since corporations are people now, it also means hospitals can choose to just kick me out or refuse to admit me if I need help. And this is coming at a time where violence against communities I belong to are increasing and literal nazis are coming into my general neighborhood looking to hurt people to defeat some nebulous idea of liberalism they have in their head.
And this horrible state of affairs is directly because of the bullshit uses of “both sides do it” normalizing hate and making it so folks are scared to call out Republican evil for what it is even when it is designed to kill me and everyone I love.
This all happened yesterday. But hey, I was uncivil in one of my many interactions and that civility matters more than humanity. Which, yes, I know. I know that I will die in the darkness and everyone will remark on how at least there was no unpleasantness about the whole affair. That’s what had me wanting to slit my wrists last night.
So yeah, for some strange reason I didn’t have patience for tone policing last night.
Like, given how 217 folks very civilly and without anger voted for a bill which if it passes the senate will kill me and everyone I love in fits and starts over years, so I get to experience one of the worst parts of the Plague Years (HIV crisis) for my very own, I’m not that big of a fan of civility at the moment, I’m terribly sorry to say.
Kit
@ Cerberus
-appropriate gesture of support-
I know everything is SUPER fucked right now, but hopefully this will make you feel a tiny bit better: the ACLU has issued a press release in response to the Apricot Hellbeast’s executive order. They described it as “fake news” and “an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome.”
Here’s the whole thing:
“Today’s executive order signing was an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome. After careful review of the order’s text we have determined that the order does not meaningfully alter the ability of religious institutions or individuals to intervene in the political process. The order portends but does not yet do harm to the provision of reproductive health services.
President Trump’s prior assertion that he wished to ‘totally destroy’ the Johnson Amendment with this order has proven to be a textbook case of ‘fake news.’ The directive to federal agencies to explore religious-based exceptions to healthcare does cue up a potential future battle, but as of now, the status quo has not changed.
What President Trump did today was merely provide a faux sop to religious conservatives and kick the can down the road on religious exemptions on reproductive health care services. We will continue our steadfast charge to defend Americans’ right to exercise their religion and ensure their freedom from having others’ beliefs forced upon them. The ACLU stands ready to sue the Trump administration and in the event that this order triggers any official government action at all, we will see Trump in court, again.”
Hang in there. And even though it absolutely does not feel like it’s true right now, please keep reminding yourself that it gets better.
Kit- That actually makes it a million times worse because it means we’re being cut off and left on our own.
Like, a lot of queer organizations have worries about Sec. 4 as it gives AG Sessions the right to determine what does and doesn’t count as a religious liberty exemption and he loathes us and wants us dead.
And even if it does turn out to be unenforceable that does not change the real impact on the ground level. Someone being able and maybe even succeeding at suing on behalf of me (and the fact that they might not even succeed) being left to die by emergency workers would not change the person believing that their “religious liberty” would be protected to do so.
Like there’s a million ways in which this will make already existing discrimination problems so so much worse.
And now the ACLU has abandoned us and made jokes about “fake news” instead.
Kit
Cerberus – The ACLU is not abandoning us. That’s not what they are saying at all. Their last sentence was “The ACLU stands ready to sue the Trump administration and in the event that this order triggers any official government action at all, we will see Trump in court, again.”
They’re saying that from a legal perspective, his EO doesn’t look like it actually changes anything. And Lambda Legal seems to agree:
“The executive order did not explicitly elevate various anti-LGBTQ views as exempt from anti-discrimination protections, and it is clear that the administration backed away from the draft order leaked in February because of the threat of lawsuits from Lambda Legal and others.
That is certainly a victory, as our opponents understand very well – “Trump Fails To Deliver on Religious Liberty,” according to the National Organization for Marriage.”
Lambda Legal was way less snarky and called the EO a “clarion call to his anti-LGBTQ minions, led by Jeff Sessions, to use every lever at their disposal to dismantle the progress that we’ve made over the last eight years” but they aren’t suing yet, either.
Like you said, bigots who believe the EO gives them discriminatory carte blanche are going to start discriminating. Hopefully if they know the law hasn’t changed, they won’t change their behavior for the worse. I suspect that, coupled with taking the wind out of Trump’s sail, motivated the ACLU’s statement.
I’m sorry. I was trying to point to something hopeful and “it’s less awful than we expected” is a pretty crappy substitute.
No, sorry, I do appreciate the attempt. It’s just everything’s scary and awful right now and it keeps getting worse and worse.
Kit
Cerberus – You have nothing to apologize for. I’m scared, too. This political environment is fucking terrifying. And the 2018 election cycle is going to be brutal, which makes it even worse.
But we can’t give up. We can’t let the bastards win. Our community suffered through the fucking Plague while Ronald Republican-Jesus Reagan sat silently in the Oval Office letting us die and his press secretary literally laughed about it. But we’re still here. Queer people still exist. Our community made it through that. And we’ll make it through this, too.
In the words of our venerable elder-queers: Act Up. Fight Back.
ischemgeek
Civility doesn’t work.
Because every time a marginalized person acts within the bounds of “civil,” the dominant group changes the definition. Peaceful protest was civil… until that football player took a knee, or that woman dared laugh at Sessions.
Orion Fury
I’m not big on the touching, but hugs to those who’d like one.
Clif
Cerberus, I had no idea that ” an actual organized movement of rapists teaching others how to rape more effectively” exists and I am dumbfounded that this is tolerated. What does this group call themselves? Are they some kind of 4-Chan subculture or what?
What Pablo said. Red-pillers, men’s right activists, pick-up artists.
The last is the one that I’m most directly referring to as it’s all about “getting game” to “score chicks” but all the techniques that are popularized are about exploiting social norms against making a scene to escalate encroaching unwanted touch or coercing a not-saying-no by any means necessary up to and including the use of alcohol or other drugs.
Most of the big names in the scene are admitted rapists (RooshV, et al), and some have detailed their rapes and sold it as a how-to-guide to “struggling dudes” who just want to know how to “get laid”.
But all definitely trade in general tactics to get around consent as in their minds women totally secretly always want them because they are so manly and good at game, but women have to make a big show out of not wanting it, so it’s all about working your way around that and get the “notch” on your score-sheet that you can brag about to the fellows complete with “conquest report”.
Some of them even made a game out of specifically targeting women who said they were asexual “for the challenge”.
It’s honestly all really horrifying and awful.
OBBWG
They even teach this at professional events for professional therapists. I have sat in on those classes. What I learned at professional events is they abhor rape. Rape is wrong and evil. Instead, they recommend using various techniques of persuasion to convince women to say yes. That is certainly not rape. The woman said yes. Yes means it’s not rape. Right?
In professional settings they never say “women”. It is always “people”. And it is never about sex. (Sex with a client is genuinely verbotten.) It is about helping people achieve what is right for them, even it is something they did not realize they needed. Did you know these techniques can be used outside a professional setting, like at parties and bars, to help people become more comfortable talking to you? Those are great places to practice these techniques and a great way to make new friends.
At professional events, they phrase it in ways that are socially acceptable such as “Dynamic Conversational Therapy” or “Breaking Through Clients Barriers”. Pretty much everyone attending knows exactly what it is. The panels are attended by about a 65/35 mix of men/women.
Why are they tolerated? Because they offer something people want. Power over others.
For what it is worth, at the last conference I attended, several of us held a counter panel explaining why this was basically evil. We had a tenth of the attendance their panels had. Sigh.
BBCC
@ Falcon & Songbird – First, tone policing is when you say a point is invalid because it was angrily or rudely phrased, which is what TemporalShrew was doing. That’s utter bullshit and frankly, it’s not bullshit I am willing to put up with anymore. Especially because ‘but it turns off allies!!!!’ is utter bullshit – first, if people only give a fuck about other people being oppressed when they aren’t angry, you don’t actually give a fuck about it, and second, because it’s untrue. I’ve known far too many people who’ve learned that way to put any stock in that bullshit argument. That is not about ‘rational atmosphere for discussion’ it’s about not wanting to listen. And frankly, I’m done with it.
Jack Faire
So is the new rule that only men can critique men and women can only critique women? Separate but equal? Because anyone starting off any argument with “Fuck You” regardless of what’s between their legs will shut the listeners ears.
A shitty tone is how you pick fights. Oooooooh well okay troll on you. Good job i almost didn’t notice you were trolling people well have fun.
BBCC
Fuck you too. Because women doing it is very much generally not a thing. Some probably do, because people suck, but culturally speaking it’s very much more geared towards men doing it regarding women. And fuck you for doing the ‘call outs that aren’t 100% polite aren’t good practice, people don’t listen!!!’ bullshit.
And fuck you again for knowing you’re nitpicking about something serious, and doing it anyways.
BBCC
My apologies to Willis if this crosses the line and definitely delete if it did.
foamy
I think there’s maybe differences in what “rate” is being taken to mean here, because it’s absolutely true that people judge other people’s looks and personality (and accomplishments, and family, and friends, and job, and hobbies, and etc) all the time. It isn’t even confined to “would I like to sleep with this person” either. So if that’s what you mean by “rate”, then, yeah, women rate men too. And other women. And men rate men and women.
But that’s a bit of a trite observation, y’know? It’s so obvious, it doesn’t really need to be said. And so when someone says women rate men, the assumption is that “rate” is referring to precisely the kind of thing Joe’s doing right here. And that’s a verrrrrrrrry different thing than the general process everybody does. It’s a very specific kind of objectifying and it’s done by a specific subgroup of people.
It’s also interesting, I feel, how systematizing something can change perfectly ordinary, unremarkable behaviours into something uncomfortable. Consider Dorothy and her spreadsheet on the dorm residents. It’s entirely expected — in fact, social graces demand it — that you keep at least some kind of tabs on the people around you, yeah? You’ll probably know when friends or family are going on trips, stuff they’re working on, who they’re dating, etc. But if you start writing that stuff down, start organizing it, it starts looking more like spying.
Same in some ways here. Nobody, I think, would have any problem with Joe thinking, say, that Roz is more attractive than Joyce (aside from, like, waifu wars). Hell, I don’t think people’d have problems with Joe changing his opinions on that based on Joyce decking him, yeah?
But Joe’s got this all systematized, and what’s more it’s a very reductionist kind of system in reducing people to not only a number, but JUST a number. So it’s got all sorts of creepy and demeaning overtones, and then he compounds those by putting these ratings out in public, which is an asshole manouver on many, many levels.
Austyn
thank you this is exactly what i meant <3
Falcon
I might be one of the few people who felt Dorothy’s spreadsheet was a wonderful thing that would help her do her job better. I mean, I might be more self-conscious about what I say around her, but as far as being an RA goes writing down stuff relevant to keeping me happy and the dorm well-run sounds like a good idea to me.
foamy
I didn’t say it’s a bad idea. It’s vital, even, as you scale up; if you’re running an enterprise of any scale you have to have files on the people involved, the people you’ve networked with outside the organization, etc. The trick to making it work, at least if you’re aiming for a positive impression, is to not give the impression that you have them (let alone are relying on them).
Remember stuff about somebody and they’ll be flattered; recite a file and they’ll be pissed.
Falcon
I get it. I also feel that it’s a weakness in the human condition that needs to be compensated for mentally. I certainly would be flattered if someone remembered. But I’d actively work to not be uncomfortable if someone told me where they kept the record of it. Whether they remember what I like because I made an impression or because they’re just that damn good shouldn’t be a possibl epenalty for them.
foamy
Or I guess you could be Miles Vorkosigan and be able to remember everything about thousands of people, but most of us aren’t. 🙁
A critique of your comment: Cerberus is a woman, so she is an expert on what women (generally) do.
A further critique of your comment: nitpicking the style of other people’s comments while ignoring their content is a classic derailing technique. it’s curious that you’re more critical of Cerberus’ framing than of the sexism displayed in this comment thread, which is surely a much more significant issue.
conclusion: fuck you
Plu
That’s… not really valid. I’m a man and I am absolutely not an expert on what “men generally do” because they’re billions of ’em and I’m not like most at all. I’m an expert on what I do, and to some extent an expert on what people I like do, but I have no idea about the general population of “men” because I don’t know, or like, most of them.
Unless you want to imply all women are the same, you can’t claim to be an expert just because you’re one out of billions of them.
zoelogical
:)))
generalizations aren’t implied to be true of every single person ever, that’s why they’re generalizations. it’s like the mean in a data set. it’s a basic point that recurs often enough to be relevant to argument and discussion.
inherent in the concept of women is the concept of femininity, which entails what makes femininity distinct from other modes of gender expression, the specific struggles of existing in that gender expression, and the socialization imposed upon people living in that gender expression. so if enough people who identify as women say they have a problem with this specific thing, it’s a reasonable generalization to say that women do, even if not all women in all places do to the same extent.
for example: people die. not all people have died, but death is an experience that most people are going to have had. generally speaking, death is something all people are going to struggle with. even if not all people have experienced death personally or to their loved ones, most people are going to at least be aware of death, or come across it.
for example: they estimate 1 out of 8 women in the US have been raped. that’s not nearly as many as those who have been sexually assaulted, or who have experienced sexism. even if you don’t experience sexism as sexism, sexism is still going to be a large part of your experience simply because it’s so prevalent.
so, in conclusion: fuck you, for quibbling on immaterial details and ignoring the larger problems that literally kill women every single goddamn day
Bluewind
Please see my long long long long long reply comment below.
Tldr version is that the women who rate men are objectively rare, it revolves around penises from the only example I have, and everyone not them strongly disapproved on many levels. And then a rebuttal on her views on penises courtesy of my father and a PSA on protection.
Sebastian Temple
There’s a fine line between attending to the civility of a discussion and tone policing.
Attending to civility is preventing either side from making threats, kys remarks, jokes about things which are not funny, keeping the discussion focused on relevant topics, and devolving the conversation into an ad hominem shouting match.
Tone policing is telling people to not be angry, or otherwise emotional, because “emotions have no place in a debate,” which is not true. And swearing does not subtract from a conversation; its an important qualifier of intensity: see “fucking garbage bill” vs “garbage bill.” One shows anger and the other annoyance.
If you’re not well practiced in keeping the civility of a conversation without tone policing, I’d recommend not trying to do so, and leave it to the people who know how to do it intuitively.
missilentmurmur
I’m not very proud about this but we did rate our classmates back in middle school. We had a complex system of looks, kindness, brains and funniness.
With the very rare exception of things like the Lulu ap, there is none of the history of rating men the way women casually are rated by others and I don’t want to dismiss Joe’s boorish behavior or make it cute or harmless.
Thinking about and feeling for you & yours in this time of resurgent evil: be well.
BBCC
That means a lot to me too, thank you. <3
Cassidy Moon
Most of the women I know do this. Are they not real women to you?
Ardin
I guess I’m not a thing then. I rate boys.
Yes, this is a very complicated social issue in which male dominance shows very clearly, and yeah, it’s mostly males objectifying women simply because they can due to complex social structures. But my idea is that the solution to this isn’t teaching males to stop them from objectifying women, because this is simply not gonna fucking happen lmao, centuries of fucked up hierarchy between sexes and oppression isn’t gonna go anywhere ever. Instead, women should be encouraged to objectify males, take some power in their own hands and thus try to make things a bit more equal.
It’s a similar concept to my body negativity theory, or maybe it’s even a part of it. Instead of forcing the public to accept women without makeup and without fit bodies in the name of body positivity, men should be shamed for not looking good enough. Men should have unrealistic body standards posed in front of them as well. It should be basic for them to put some concealer on in the morning to avoid the “you look tired” comments, just like how it happens to women. But of course for this to work, men first have to be treated as objects, otherwise their looks will never be as important as of a female’s.
I mean fuck. Making things better clearly doesn’t work, we have to try to make things equally bad so that at least we have equality in some ways.
But what about all those Cosmo articles that rate actors by their abs, or olympians by their speedo bulges? I would think that is contributing to societal norms. Plus the comment is ABOUT ONE girl in particular. She can be the exception to any societal norms.
Delicious Taffy
Since when is Cosmo considered a valid authority on anything?
since he ran Knowhere and is awesome, especially when he teams up with Guardians of the Galaxy in the comics.
Jago
A joke or completely missing the point, I honestly can’t tell.
Ardin
Explain.
darynluna
times are tough
Ensiform
Yes, women rate guys. It’s a thing? Maybe not a thing you do, but a thing that happens? Fact.
BBCC
Cerberus is speaking of societal norms. So no, not really.
Jack Faire
Yeah neither do men. It’s a bullshit TV Show trope that in 36 years neither myself nor the other men I interact with have ever used or even had something similar. Just like you we either find someone hot or not.
As a female, I can say I don’t rate. I might comment on a famous guy I find attractive whom my other friends will either agree that he is, say he doesn’t do it for them, and the friend who basically say they see the appeal but not for them. And me liking girls? Also don’t rate. I’m either attracted to them, get attracted later after talking and loving their personality, or doesn’t appeal to me.
The only women I’ve seen rating guys ever were my biological mother and her friends and it was 0 about looks and all about dicks and yes, other women were not okay with that either. My mother was not a good person either.
I don’t agree with her assessment either because cis women (and trans women who have gone through surgery) are different sizes just like cis men (and trans men who go through either lots of surgery and/or hormones) and what feels like a great match with a former partner might not work for the new one (speaking of this, never ever EVER compare us to your former girlfriend especially if it’s to say they loved this so you must have something wrong with you. Speaking from experience). My dad also went into the TMI department, but as a former hippy with over a hundred female sexual partners (WITH NO COMDOM! HOW DID IT NOT FALL OFF!?!) and had an almost legendary reputation even with a penis of around 5 inches erect which several women laughed at at first, but not for long especially with his (TMI Dad!) long foreplay sessions beforehand. I have also (burn my ears please) had this confirmed by many former lovers. I did really appreciate the education, the healthy framing and explaining of female of body shapes that kept me from having issues with the shape of my own breasts and labia, learning the importance of warming up and care afterwards, the dangers of a lot of products, the positivity in natural smell and look (including washing with Dove and shaving is a fairly new thing which can chafe or even friction burn, so if you do be careful. If you don’t, leave as is or trim with something like scissors if you can be careful or with a men’s electric beard trimmer on a longer setting), and so much more, but I really didn’t need so much detail like the threesome story or that married woman who made you jump out the window when hubby got home early (he was faithful to people he was in a relationship with, but if he was single and they wanted it, he didn’t check their status).
Also, use condoms and/or dental dams (yes people. going down on a vagina haver requires protection too regardless of what arrangement the giver has in their pants). Carry the things. Give them out to your kids and nieces and nephews and cousins and tell them how to tell if condoms are too small (red ring at the base after fun time), how to use a dental dam (and how to make in emergencies), and latex (allergies because OW! that is no freaking fun even if it’s the mild kind). My dad has bad cold sores (herpes), he had crabs several times, so very many yeast infections (yes boys can get them too with uncircumcised usually feeling the burn and circumcised usually being mostly asymptomatic giving it back to their partner over and over like the worst re gift ever), and some strange STD that he got from bio mom (who also slept around) that required him to paint his dick blue with medicine. I also have 1 confirmed brother of unknown name who’s mother married another guy and passed it off as his after moving to another state. This is just what I know. So wrap it up people!
I’ll believe wouldn’t be surprised, but then why? I think you’d be hard pressed to find evidence of Roz numbering people, or any comparable hypocrisy. So then it would have to be because that’s just how you think people work: women who ask not to be treated as objects just tend to be hypocrites. In which case, jeez, go listen to some women instead of just picking up stereotypes from people who hate them.
Which is how Facebook got started so, yes, it is explicitly evil.
Delicious Taffy
Wait, Facebook started with what?
firestk
The same guy that made facebook created hot or not like site called facemash. I don’t have the time to actually research further but whatever. The story of facebook is super backstabby anyway.
like i mean she slept with joe, her standards for dudeflesh are low already. in that i mean she isn’t idealizing some perfect dude who can idealize her ideals and help her fight injustice everywhere: she’s fucking who she wants to fuck because she wants to do it. rating people doesn’t really seem to come into it, imo. it’s not like she was ever ashamed of people knowing who’d she’d fucked. it doesn’t hurt that joe’s hot, but it’s not on the same level.
the lady-rating system is something that has a much more pernicious history going back AGES (legit, in Pride and Prejudice all of the sisters know exactly how attractive they are in relation to one another. creeptastic.). if you want to get Biblical, goes back to Leah and Rachel having to compete against each other for the same dude, who they both married, because their dad was an ass.
to be gender binarist while i’m generalizing, women aren’t socialized to think about men the same way that men are socialized to think about women. we’ve been taught all our lives to see men as people who are more people than us, whereas men are taught to see themselves as the most significant people in any situation. so. like. ladies (generally) might talk about who’s the hottest, but it’s something that’s going to come down to personality as much as looks.
granted, rating dudes is a thing that some groups might do in rebellion against said socialization, but…i honestly don’t see how roz would find the time. like if you care about feminism at all, you’re going to prioritize women, and rating dudes is not really on that agenda. it’s just going back and making everything about men again, which is kind of besides the point.
710 thoughts on “Upgrade”
Ana Chronistic
“Like a five. But I’ll have another.”
“Hey, that adds up to ten!”
/co-workers, justifying a second helping of cake
Chris
To justify second helpings, you say you ate too much icecream and must get more to restore the balance. Then you *accidentally* get too much icecream and have to get more cake. *Repeat*
Arquinsiel
I don’t understand.
How much icecream is “too much”? Are you sure this is a real number?
Alan Lafond
Any amount of ice cream with cake is too much. Ice cream belongs in a separate bowl that does not touch the cake in any way.
Tacos
Pfft! Who needs justification when it comes to eating extra helpings of cake.
C.T Phipps
I would be very sympathetic to Roz here but I have a very difficult belief she doesn’t rate men.
Not that, FYI, Joe isn’t being an ass.
Jack
I wouldn’t be surprised if she felt that the reverse was ok with the justification that it’s ok if women do it since they’re not the ones with the power.
Cerberus
Oh fuck both of you. Spoiler alert, women don’t really rate guys. It’s not a thing? Like they might think some guys are hot while others don’t do it for them. But they don’t have a pseudo-public system of using numbering systems to reduce men to objects because women don’t fucking have that power.
And inventing a false equivalence where it doesn’t fucking exist to justify shallow sexist bullshit that is openly connected to an active group of rapists who train others to rape like them?
Is pretty fucking bullshit.
TemporalShrew
False equivalencies aren’t cool, but neither are blanket generalizations. “Women don’t” isn’t really something you should start a sentence with unless you can back it up with something non-anecdotal or objective.
Not a critique of your point, but definitely a critique of how it’s framed.
(Prefacing corrections by saying “fuck you” is probably also not good practice, although I am sure there are fair personal reasons for the animosity).
Signed,
Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Cerberus
Oh, cool, tone policing. I definitely have the patience for that tonight.
Yes, sir, sorry, sir, won’t happen again, sir, let me deign unto the majesty of your wisdom, sir.
Amynotmyname
Female here.
Of the woman type.
Cis if it matters.
I was a pretty hardcore bongo in college. All of my friends were as well. We rated the shit out of guys. Normally on a 1-5 scale (called them Cats like hurricanes).
As long as we are being anecdotal and shit.
BBCC
Good for you.
We’re speaking about cultural conventions here.
begbert2
Did somebody get the license of that goalpost? I think it sideswiped me on the way past.
BBCC
“But they don’t have a pseudo-public system of using numbering systems to reduce men to objects because women don’t fucking have that power”
Didn’t sideswipe you, you walked into it because you weren’t paying attention.
Falcon
Tone policing is especially important when shouting matches start between people earnestly making their points. Cerberus, you may not have patience for what TemporalShrew is trying to do, but from where I’m standing you’re blaming someone for trying to create a more rational atmosphere for discussion.
If someone’s point is something that wouldn’t be acceptable even if expressed politely, that’s when the banhammer should come out. It’s a private forum. First Amendment protections do not apply here, only our willingness to talk.
Austyn
Tone policing is not good because it allows people to avoid difficult discussions because the other party was unable to distance themselves from their emotions enough to explain a situation without using emotional language whatsoever. It’s often been used as a derailment tactic to avoid important conversations. >a href=http://groupthink.kinja.com/on-tone-policing-why-its-bullshit-and-why-you-need-to-1148310719 title=This article> explains more
Austyn
whoops sorry i ruined that link explains more. Also I know this isn’t a scientific site nor have I ever used it before, but I read this piece in its entirety and it’s saying the things I mean.
Austyn
My bad on also ruining that link; apparently coding is not my strong suit and it’s 4am
Falcon
For the record, I did read the article. Yeah, no, I don’t see the merits of its argument. Having good reasons for expressing something in an unreasonable manner, especially when that manner leads to the communication of plainly inaccurate information, is a mitigating circumstance.
Tone policing is why moderators exist on forums. It’s why moderators exist in debates. Just because some people abuse it to gaslight minorities doesn’t suddenly make it bad.
Songbird
To be honest, I’ve always had trouble buying into the tone policing argument myself. Like, everyone has a right to be angry if someone says or does something shitty to them. Most people, I also feel, should be granted the minimum grace to make a mistake and apologize for it.
So if I accidentally say something shitty to someone that makes them hurt and angry, by all means, they should call me on it–and I would hope they would at least give me a chance to apologize and explain myself, even if they don’t forgive me or accept my explanation. And if I say that I don’t understand, I would hope that the injured party would have the patience and willingness to explain to me what I did wrong so that I can apologize appropriately (though they are by no means required to do so and I am okay with that).
I’m willing to listen and learn from my mistakes. But I do ask that others are polite, not because I want to silence them, but because there IS a line where you can take it too far and abuse people who probably didn’t deserve it. So while I am willing to listen and learn (and I think most people are too–but that just might be because I’m an optimist), I’m NOT going to take verbal abuse, and I will call out someone who attempts to use it on me or others. I think part of the reason I feel so strongly about this is because I recently came out of a relationship that was often characterized by emotional abuse against me that I permitted to go on because my ex-SO “had it worse” and therefore I didn’t have the “right” to speak up for myself because I didn’t have her disadvantages. It…kind of messed me up, so I’m determined not to let it happen to me again, or to other people if I think it can be stopped.
And while I neither can nor would I want to MAKE someone opt for a specific tone, I would caution that verbally abusing people who may otherwise be willing to listen is a good way to lose potential allies really quick.
Anyway, that’s my two cents. Maybe you agree, or maybe you think I’m a raging asshole. Both are valid views to take, I suppose. I generally tend to assume that I’ve been enough of a jerk in my youth that any vitriol thrown my way by strangers is probably deserved, but I’ve been trying to get out of that mindset because I only realized how unhealthy that was (not to mention that that mindset was based on a skewed perception of reality that had been built up over time due to isolation).
Anyway, I’m rambling now, so I’m just going to end this comment here. I hope it’s helpful to somebody (or if not helpful, then at least interesting…is that the right word?). I’m having strange thoughts again, so I’m just going to put on a movie and try to get some sleep.
thejeff
Emotional abuse is a thing. Tone policing is a thing too. Sometimes it’s tricky to see the differences.
It’s possible to use anger and shouting over people to dominate and control the conversation. It’s also possible to use someone’s justified anger as an excuse to shut them down and again dominate and control the conversation.
Cerberus
*Looks up, looks down*
*deep pained sigh*
Okay, if we’re playing this game, here is what I mean:
While some women can be pieces of shit who borrow aspects of toxic masculinity culture*, there is no standardized culture nor are there encouragements for women to rate the people they are sexually attracted to on anywhere near the same level as exists for men. And women doing it in a pseudo-public fashion like this would be much more likely to encounter strong push back from their peers.
*One of my friends in college was a lesbian who fell hard into PUA awfulness and it was a long road clawing her back to not being a piece of shit.
And it is this normalized culture and it’s closeness to an actual organized movement of rapists teaching others how to rape more effectively that is a systematic problem that causes real harm not only to the women targeted by it, but also to the mean perpetuating it as it robs them of the right to non-normative attraction or romantic desire lest they be mocked or beaten by their male peers.
And the particular aspects of this culture means desperate attempts to make this a “both sides do it” false equivalence end up minimizing or erasing the real harm of these systems and disallows any real focus on dismantling this toxic system.
And “both sides do it” in general is a thing that makes me very angry at the moment because the abuse of that rhetorical tactic has gotten us to the point where the open movement to murder millions of Americans making extra sure to get a few kicks in on the ones most marginalized is all normalized as “just another side” and where we are so desperate for “both sides do it” BS that we’re screaming at angry scared kids setting trash cans on fire or trying to fight back against literal nazis because we so desperately need something the left is doing “wrong” to balance out the vile cruelty on the right.
And as for tone policing. Well, there’s a large amount of reasons why it’s a terrible practice, but I’m going to be very specific here instead.
Last night, I was desperately attempting not to harm myself, weeping my eyes out, because the US House of Representatives passed a law that is designed to kill me and all of my friends and make it so we can be denied any right to access health insurance ever again.
And also because the shiny orange fascist who stole the Presidency signed an Executive Order that says that an emergency worker can straight up deny me emergency care if they have a “religious objection” to me being trans. And since corporations are people now, it also means hospitals can choose to just kick me out or refuse to admit me if I need help. And this is coming at a time where violence against communities I belong to are increasing and literal nazis are coming into my general neighborhood looking to hurt people to defeat some nebulous idea of liberalism they have in their head.
And this horrible state of affairs is directly because of the bullshit uses of “both sides do it” normalizing hate and making it so folks are scared to call out Republican evil for what it is even when it is designed to kill me and everyone I love.
This all happened yesterday. But hey, I was uncivil in one of my many interactions and that civility matters more than humanity. Which, yes, I know. I know that I will die in the darkness and everyone will remark on how at least there was no unpleasantness about the whole affair. That’s what had me wanting to slit my wrists last night.
So yeah, for some strange reason I didn’t have patience for tone policing last night.
Cerberus
Like, given how 217 folks very civilly and without anger voted for a bill which if it passes the senate will kill me and everyone I love in fits and starts over years, so I get to experience one of the worst parts of the Plague Years (HIV crisis) for my very own, I’m not that big of a fan of civility at the moment, I’m terribly sorry to say.
Kit
@ Cerberus
-appropriate gesture of support-
I know everything is SUPER fucked right now, but hopefully this will make you feel a tiny bit better: the ACLU has issued a press release in response to the Apricot Hellbeast’s executive order. They described it as “fake news” and “an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome.”
Here’s the whole thing:
“Today’s executive order signing was an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome. After careful review of the order’s text we have determined that the order does not meaningfully alter the ability of religious institutions or individuals to intervene in the political process. The order portends but does not yet do harm to the provision of reproductive health services.
President Trump’s prior assertion that he wished to ‘totally destroy’ the Johnson Amendment with this order has proven to be a textbook case of ‘fake news.’ The directive to federal agencies to explore religious-based exceptions to healthcare does cue up a potential future battle, but as of now, the status quo has not changed.
What President Trump did today was merely provide a faux sop to religious conservatives and kick the can down the road on religious exemptions on reproductive health care services. We will continue our steadfast charge to defend Americans’ right to exercise their religion and ensure their freedom from having others’ beliefs forced upon them. The ACLU stands ready to sue the Trump administration and in the event that this order triggers any official government action at all, we will see Trump in court, again.”
Hang in there. And even though it absolutely does not feel like it’s true right now, please keep reminding yourself that it gets better.
Cerberus
Kit- That actually makes it a million times worse because it means we’re being cut off and left on our own.
Like, a lot of queer organizations have worries about Sec. 4 as it gives AG Sessions the right to determine what does and doesn’t count as a religious liberty exemption and he loathes us and wants us dead.
And even if it does turn out to be unenforceable that does not change the real impact on the ground level. Someone being able and maybe even succeeding at suing on behalf of me (and the fact that they might not even succeed) being left to die by emergency workers would not change the person believing that their “religious liberty” would be protected to do so.
Like there’s a million ways in which this will make already existing discrimination problems so so much worse.
And now the ACLU has abandoned us and made jokes about “fake news” instead.
Kit
Cerberus – The ACLU is not abandoning us. That’s not what they are saying at all. Their last sentence was “The ACLU stands ready to sue the Trump administration and in the event that this order triggers any official government action at all, we will see Trump in court, again.”
They’re saying that from a legal perspective, his EO doesn’t look like it actually changes anything. And Lambda Legal seems to agree:
“The executive order did not explicitly elevate various anti-LGBTQ views as exempt from anti-discrimination protections, and it is clear that the administration backed away from the draft order leaked in February because of the threat of lawsuits from Lambda Legal and others.
That is certainly a victory, as our opponents understand very well – “Trump Fails To Deliver on Religious Liberty,” according to the National Organization for Marriage.”
Lambda Legal was way less snarky and called the EO a “clarion call to his anti-LGBTQ minions, led by Jeff Sessions, to use every lever at their disposal to dismantle the progress that we’ve made over the last eight years” but they aren’t suing yet, either.
Like you said, bigots who believe the EO gives them discriminatory carte blanche are going to start discriminating. Hopefully if they know the law hasn’t changed, they won’t change their behavior for the worse. I suspect that, coupled with taking the wind out of Trump’s sail, motivated the ACLU’s statement.
I’m sorry. I was trying to point to something hopeful and “it’s less awful than we expected” is a pretty crappy substitute.
Cerberus
Kit-
No, sorry, I do appreciate the attempt. It’s just everything’s scary and awful right now and it keeps getting worse and worse.
Kit
Cerberus – You have nothing to apologize for. I’m scared, too. This political environment is fucking terrifying. And the 2018 election cycle is going to be brutal, which makes it even worse.
But we can’t give up. We can’t let the bastards win. Our community suffered through the fucking Plague while Ronald Republican-Jesus Reagan sat silently in the Oval Office letting us die and his press secretary literally laughed about it. But we’re still here. Queer people still exist. Our community made it through that. And we’ll make it through this, too.
In the words of our venerable elder-queers: Act Up. Fight Back.
ischemgeek
Civility doesn’t work.
Because every time a marginalized person acts within the bounds of “civil,” the dominant group changes the definition. Peaceful protest was civil… until that football player took a knee, or that woman dared laugh at Sessions.
Orion Fury
I’m not big on the touching, but hugs to those who’d like one.
Clif
Cerberus, I had no idea that ” an actual organized movement of rapists teaching others how to rape more effectively” exists and I am dumbfounded that this is tolerated. What does this group call themselves? Are they some kind of 4-Chan subculture or what?
Pablo360
They call themselves the red-pills. You’ve probably met them before.
Cerberus
What Pablo said. Red-pillers, men’s right activists, pick-up artists.
The last is the one that I’m most directly referring to as it’s all about “getting game” to “score chicks” but all the techniques that are popularized are about exploiting social norms against making a scene to escalate encroaching unwanted touch or coercing a not-saying-no by any means necessary up to and including the use of alcohol or other drugs.
Most of the big names in the scene are admitted rapists (RooshV, et al), and some have detailed their rapes and sold it as a how-to-guide to “struggling dudes” who just want to know how to “get laid”.
But all definitely trade in general tactics to get around consent as in their minds women totally secretly always want them because they are so manly and good at game, but women have to make a big show out of not wanting it, so it’s all about working your way around that and get the “notch” on your score-sheet that you can brag about to the fellows complete with “conquest report”.
Some of them even made a game out of specifically targeting women who said they were asexual “for the challenge”.
It’s honestly all really horrifying and awful.
OBBWG
They even teach this at professional events for professional therapists. I have sat in on those classes. What I learned at professional events is they abhor rape. Rape is wrong and evil. Instead, they recommend using various techniques of persuasion to convince women to say yes. That is certainly not rape. The woman said yes. Yes means it’s not rape. Right?
In professional settings they never say “women”. It is always “people”. And it is never about sex. (Sex with a client is genuinely verbotten.) It is about helping people achieve what is right for them, even it is something they did not realize they needed. Did you know these techniques can be used outside a professional setting, like at parties and bars, to help people become more comfortable talking to you? Those are great places to practice these techniques and a great way to make new friends.
At professional events, they phrase it in ways that are socially acceptable such as “Dynamic Conversational Therapy” or “Breaking Through Clients Barriers”. Pretty much everyone attending knows exactly what it is. The panels are attended by about a 65/35 mix of men/women.
Why are they tolerated? Because they offer something people want. Power over others.
For what it is worth, at the last conference I attended, several of us held a counter panel explaining why this was basically evil. We had a tenth of the attendance their panels had. Sigh.
BBCC
@ Falcon & Songbird – First, tone policing is when you say a point is invalid because it was angrily or rudely phrased, which is what TemporalShrew was doing. That’s utter bullshit and frankly, it’s not bullshit I am willing to put up with anymore. Especially because ‘but it turns off allies!!!!’ is utter bullshit – first, if people only give a fuck about other people being oppressed when they aren’t angry, you don’t actually give a fuck about it, and second, because it’s untrue. I’ve known far too many people who’ve learned that way to put any stock in that bullshit argument. That is not about ‘rational atmosphere for discussion’ it’s about not wanting to listen. And frankly, I’m done with it.
Jack Faire
So is the new rule that only men can critique men and women can only critique women? Separate but equal? Because anyone starting off any argument with “Fuck You” regardless of what’s between their legs will shut the listeners ears.
A shitty tone is how you pick fights. Oooooooh well okay troll on you. Good job i almost didn’t notice you were trolling people well have fun.
BBCC
Fuck you too. Because women doing it is very much generally not a thing. Some probably do, because people suck, but culturally speaking it’s very much more geared towards men doing it regarding women. And fuck you for doing the ‘call outs that aren’t 100% polite aren’t good practice, people don’t listen!!!’ bullshit.
And fuck you again for knowing you’re nitpicking about something serious, and doing it anyways.
BBCC
My apologies to Willis if this crosses the line and definitely delete if it did.
foamy
I think there’s maybe differences in what “rate” is being taken to mean here, because it’s absolutely true that people judge other people’s looks and personality (and accomplishments, and family, and friends, and job, and hobbies, and etc) all the time. It isn’t even confined to “would I like to sleep with this person” either. So if that’s what you mean by “rate”, then, yeah, women rate men too. And other women. And men rate men and women.
But that’s a bit of a trite observation, y’know? It’s so obvious, it doesn’t really need to be said. And so when someone says women rate men, the assumption is that “rate” is referring to precisely the kind of thing Joe’s doing right here. And that’s a verrrrrrrrry different thing than the general process everybody does. It’s a very specific kind of objectifying and it’s done by a specific subgroup of people.
It’s also interesting, I feel, how systematizing something can change perfectly ordinary, unremarkable behaviours into something uncomfortable. Consider Dorothy and her spreadsheet on the dorm residents. It’s entirely expected — in fact, social graces demand it — that you keep at least some kind of tabs on the people around you, yeah? You’ll probably know when friends or family are going on trips, stuff they’re working on, who they’re dating, etc. But if you start writing that stuff down, start organizing it, it starts looking more like spying.
Same in some ways here. Nobody, I think, would have any problem with Joe thinking, say, that Roz is more attractive than Joyce (aside from, like, waifu wars). Hell, I don’t think people’d have problems with Joe changing his opinions on that based on Joyce decking him, yeah?
But Joe’s got this all systematized, and what’s more it’s a very reductionist kind of system in reducing people to not only a number, but JUST a number. So it’s got all sorts of creepy and demeaning overtones, and then he compounds those by putting these ratings out in public, which is an asshole manouver on many, many levels.
Austyn
thank you this is exactly what i meant <3
Falcon
I might be one of the few people who felt Dorothy’s spreadsheet was a wonderful thing that would help her do her job better. I mean, I might be more self-conscious about what I say around her, but as far as being an RA goes writing down stuff relevant to keeping me happy and the dorm well-run sounds like a good idea to me.
foamy
I didn’t say it’s a bad idea. It’s vital, even, as you scale up; if you’re running an enterprise of any scale you have to have files on the people involved, the people you’ve networked with outside the organization, etc. The trick to making it work, at least if you’re aiming for a positive impression, is to not give the impression that you have them (let alone are relying on them).
Remember stuff about somebody and they’ll be flattered; recite a file and they’ll be pissed.
Falcon
I get it. I also feel that it’s a weakness in the human condition that needs to be compensated for mentally. I certainly would be flattered if someone remembered. But I’d actively work to not be uncomfortable if someone told me where they kept the record of it. Whether they remember what I like because I made an impression or because they’re just that damn good shouldn’t be a possibl epenalty for them.
foamy
Or I guess you could be Miles Vorkosigan and be able to remember everything about thousands of people, but most of us aren’t. 🙁
Cerberus
Yup, this.
zoelogical
A critique of your comment: Cerberus is a woman, so she is an expert on what women (generally) do.
A further critique of your comment: nitpicking the style of other people’s comments while ignoring their content is a classic derailing technique. it’s curious that you’re more critical of Cerberus’ framing than of the sexism displayed in this comment thread, which is surely a much more significant issue.
conclusion: fuck you
Plu
That’s… not really valid. I’m a man and I am absolutely not an expert on what “men generally do” because they’re billions of ’em and I’m not like most at all. I’m an expert on what I do, and to some extent an expert on what people I like do, but I have no idea about the general population of “men” because I don’t know, or like, most of them.
Unless you want to imply all women are the same, you can’t claim to be an expert just because you’re one out of billions of them.
zoelogical
:)))
generalizations aren’t implied to be true of every single person ever, that’s why they’re generalizations. it’s like the mean in a data set. it’s a basic point that recurs often enough to be relevant to argument and discussion.
inherent in the concept of women is the concept of femininity, which entails what makes femininity distinct from other modes of gender expression, the specific struggles of existing in that gender expression, and the socialization imposed upon people living in that gender expression. so if enough people who identify as women say they have a problem with this specific thing, it’s a reasonable generalization to say that women do, even if not all women in all places do to the same extent.
for example: people die. not all people have died, but death is an experience that most people are going to have had. generally speaking, death is something all people are going to struggle with. even if not all people have experienced death personally or to their loved ones, most people are going to at least be aware of death, or come across it.
for example: they estimate 1 out of 8 women in the US have been raped. that’s not nearly as many as those who have been sexually assaulted, or who have experienced sexism. even if you don’t experience sexism as sexism, sexism is still going to be a large part of your experience simply because it’s so prevalent.
so, in conclusion: fuck you, for quibbling on immaterial details and ignoring the larger problems that literally kill women every single goddamn day
Bluewind
Please see my long long long long long reply comment below.
Tldr version is that the women who rate men are objectively rare, it revolves around penises from the only example I have, and everyone not them strongly disapproved on many levels. And then a rebuttal on her views on penises courtesy of my father and a PSA on protection.
Sebastian Temple
There’s a fine line between attending to the civility of a discussion and tone policing.
Attending to civility is preventing either side from making threats, kys remarks, jokes about things which are not funny, keeping the discussion focused on relevant topics, and devolving the conversation into an ad hominem shouting match.
Tone policing is telling people to not be angry, or otherwise emotional, because “emotions have no place in a debate,” which is not true. And swearing does not subtract from a conversation; its an important qualifier of intensity: see “fucking garbage bill” vs “garbage bill.” One shows anger and the other annoyance.
If you’re not well practiced in keeping the civility of a conversation without tone policing, I’d recommend not trying to do so, and leave it to the people who know how to do it intuitively.
missilentmurmur
I’m not very proud about this but we did rate our classmates back in middle school. We had a complex system of looks, kindness, brains and funniness.
Pablo360
Nothing you did in middle school counts for anything. *boards up closet full of zombies*
C.T Phipps
I apologize for that observation and stand corrected. I hope things will turn around for you soon, Cerberus.
C.T Phipps
With the very rare exception of things like the Lulu ap, there is none of the history of rating men the way women casually are rated by others and I don’t want to dismiss Joe’s boorish behavior or make it cute or harmless.
Cerberus
Thank you.
fogel
Thinking about and feeling for you & yours in this time of resurgent evil: be well.
BBCC
That means a lot to me too, thank you. <3
Cassidy Moon
Most of the women I know do this. Are they not real women to you?
Ardin
I guess I’m not a thing then. I rate boys.
Yes, this is a very complicated social issue in which male dominance shows very clearly, and yeah, it’s mostly males objectifying women simply because they can due to complex social structures. But my idea is that the solution to this isn’t teaching males to stop them from objectifying women, because this is simply not gonna fucking happen lmao, centuries of fucked up hierarchy between sexes and oppression isn’t gonna go anywhere ever. Instead, women should be encouraged to objectify males, take some power in their own hands and thus try to make things a bit more equal.
It’s a similar concept to my body negativity theory, or maybe it’s even a part of it. Instead of forcing the public to accept women without makeup and without fit bodies in the name of body positivity, men should be shamed for not looking good enough. Men should have unrealistic body standards posed in front of them as well. It should be basic for them to put some concealer on in the morning to avoid the “you look tired” comments, just like how it happens to women. But of course for this to work, men first have to be treated as objects, otherwise their looks will never be as important as of a female’s.
I mean fuck. Making things better clearly doesn’t work, we have to try to make things equally bad so that at least we have equality in some ways.
Pablo360
See my earlier comment about birds and mammals.
shammers
But what about all those Cosmo articles that rate actors by their abs, or olympians by their speedo bulges? I would think that is contributing to societal norms. Plus the comment is ABOUT ONE girl in particular. She can be the exception to any societal norms.
Delicious Taffy
Since when is Cosmo considered a valid authority on anything?
Spaz
since he ran Knowhere and is awesome, especially when he teams up with Guardians of the Galaxy in the comics.
Jago
A joke or completely missing the point, I honestly can’t tell.
Ardin
Explain.
darynluna
times are tough
Ensiform
Yes, women rate guys. It’s a thing? Maybe not a thing you do, but a thing that happens? Fact.
BBCC
Cerberus is speaking of societal norms. So no, not really.
Jack Faire
Yeah neither do men. It’s a bullshit TV Show trope that in 36 years neither myself nor the other men I interact with have ever used or even had something similar. Just like you we either find someone hot or not.
Bluewind
As a female, I can say I don’t rate. I might comment on a famous guy I find attractive whom my other friends will either agree that he is, say he doesn’t do it for them, and the friend who basically say they see the appeal but not for them. And me liking girls? Also don’t rate. I’m either attracted to them, get attracted later after talking and loving their personality, or doesn’t appeal to me.
The only women I’ve seen rating guys ever were my biological mother and her friends and it was 0 about looks and all about dicks and yes, other women were not okay with that either. My mother was not a good person either.
I don’t agree with her assessment either because cis women (and trans women who have gone through surgery) are different sizes just like cis men (and trans men who go through either lots of surgery and/or hormones) and what feels like a great match with a former partner might not work for the new one (speaking of this, never ever EVER compare us to your former girlfriend especially if it’s to say they loved this so you must have something wrong with you. Speaking from experience). My dad also went into the TMI department, but as a former hippy with over a hundred female sexual partners (WITH NO COMDOM! HOW DID IT NOT FALL OFF!?!) and had an almost legendary reputation even with a penis of around 5 inches erect which several women laughed at at first, but not for long especially with his (TMI Dad!) long foreplay sessions beforehand. I have also (burn my ears please) had this confirmed by many former lovers. I did really appreciate the education, the healthy framing and explaining of female of body shapes that kept me from having issues with the shape of my own breasts and labia, learning the importance of warming up and care afterwards, the dangers of a lot of products, the positivity in natural smell and look (including washing with Dove and shaving is a fairly new thing which can chafe or even friction burn, so if you do be careful. If you don’t, leave as is or trim with something like scissors if you can be careful or with a men’s electric beard trimmer on a longer setting), and so much more, but I really didn’t need so much detail like the threesome story or that married woman who made you jump out the window when hubby got home early (he was faithful to people he was in a relationship with, but if he was single and they wanted it, he didn’t check their status).
Also, use condoms and/or dental dams (yes people. going down on a vagina haver requires protection too regardless of what arrangement the giver has in their pants). Carry the things. Give them out to your kids and nieces and nephews and cousins and tell them how to tell if condoms are too small (red ring at the base after fun time), how to use a dental dam (and how to make in emergencies), and latex (allergies because OW! that is no freaking fun even if it’s the mild kind). My dad has bad cold sores (herpes), he had crabs several times, so very many yeast infections (yes boys can get them too with uncircumcised usually feeling the burn and circumcised usually being mostly asymptomatic giving it back to their partner over and over like the worst re gift ever), and some strange STD that he got from bio mom (who also slept around) that required him to paint his dick blue with medicine. I also have 1 confirmed brother of unknown name who’s mother married another guy and passed it off as his after moving to another state. This is just what I know. So wrap it up people!
3oranges
I’ll believe wouldn’t be surprised, but then why? I think you’d be hard pressed to find evidence of Roz numbering people, or any comparable hypocrisy. So then it would have to be because that’s just how you think people work: women who ask not to be treated as objects just tend to be hypocrites. In which case, jeez, go listen to some women instead of just picking up stereotypes from people who hate them.
Smiling Cat
It sets a bad precedent to turn that personal rating into a searchable online database.
C.T Phipps
Which is how Facebook got started so, yes, it is explicitly evil.
Delicious Taffy
Wait, Facebook started with what?
firestk
The same guy that made facebook created hot or not like site called facemash. I don’t have the time to actually research further but whatever. The story of facebook is super backstabby anyway.
zoelogical
ehhhhhhhhhh i don’t think she does
like i mean she slept with joe, her standards for dudeflesh are low already. in that i mean she isn’t idealizing some perfect dude who can idealize her ideals and help her fight injustice everywhere: she’s fucking who she wants to fuck because she wants to do it. rating people doesn’t really seem to come into it, imo. it’s not like she was ever ashamed of people knowing who’d she’d fucked. it doesn’t hurt that joe’s hot, but it’s not on the same level.
the lady-rating system is something that has a much more pernicious history going back AGES (legit, in Pride and Prejudice all of the sisters know exactly how attractive they are in relation to one another. creeptastic.). if you want to get Biblical, goes back to Leah and Rachel having to compete against each other for the same dude, who they both married, because their dad was an ass.
to be gender binarist while i’m generalizing, women aren’t socialized to think about men the same way that men are socialized to think about women. we’ve been taught all our lives to see men as people who are more people than us, whereas men are taught to see themselves as the most significant people in any situation. so. like. ladies (generally) might talk about who’s the hottest, but it’s something that’s going to come down to personality as much as looks.
granted, rating dudes is a thing that some groups might do in rebellion against said socialization, but…i honestly don’t see how roz would find the time. like if you care about feminism at all, you’re going to prioritize women, and rating dudes is not really on that agenda. it’s just going back and making everything about men again, which is kind of besides the point.
Techhead