It’s been awhile since I posted. So I thought I’d offer up two recent exchanges I had on youtube for your edification.
It was on a video out of India that’s apparently trying to convince women that they’re so frail, a man can hurt them with his majik voodoo eyeballs!
Wow, I got to get me a pair of those +40 debuff ocular orbs of masculine potency!
Highlights: on a video that’s all about shaming men into changing their behaviour by presenting women as victims of their horrible horrible gaze, commentators insisted it wasn’t about “men changing things” but empowering women.
Empowering women by promoting the idea men are so powerful even their peepers can hurt you if they gets laid on you, if you’re a weak widdle woman!
Oh, the male gaze! Ephemeral thing that I am, I burst into a thousand shards of weeping womanhood the instant it alights upon me! WOE!
On with the show.
Exchange # 1
James Chiofalo 4 hours ago
+Shelleg3s
Because men are the ones in the world that say things like “staring at women isn’t bad”. In a world in which women are treated like objects for sex, instead of like human beings (aka our world), who is the one that is targeting women? Is it a dog, or a cat? Typically it isn’t another woman. In this world, men treat women like slabs of meat.
Alison Tieman4 hours ago (edited)
+James Chiofalo Maybe you treat women like “slabs of meat” but all of the men in my life treat me like a person.
Maybe because I treat them like people and not some sort of inhuman menace with toxic eyes.
James Chiofalo4 hours ago
It is an issue of society. Just because there are exceptions doesn’t mean that problems do not exist. Congrats, you are an exception. There is a world outside of yours dude.
Half of advertising, films, and video games are based on women who rely of men, rather than being independent and fighting for themselves. Those who are independent have bodies which are unrealistic.
Lawmakers have tried changing rape laws in the US numerous times, to say that sex when intoxicated or on date rape drugs isn’t rape, focusing on women specifically in their defenses. Women are shamed for being raped because their clothes were too small, or someone shouldn’t have drinker, or you should have punched him, not realizing that they are blaming a female victim, rather than a male attacker. These are just some of the issues.
Alison Tieman 3 hours ago
+James Chiofalo “Just because there are exceptions doesn’t mean that problems do not exist.”
Bullshit. Good men aren’t an “exception”. The very idea of sexual “objectification” has no basis in science. It’s superstitious nonsense.
The normalization and justification of rape is only a problem… for male victims of female rapists.
Also lawmakers haven’t tried to change laws in the US “numerous times to say that sex when intoxicated or on date rape drugs isn’t rape”
“Half of advertising, films, and video games are based on women who rely of men, rather than being independent and fighting for themselves.”
And what does feminism offer women in terms of a role model aside from whining for men to saaaaaaaave them?
James Chiofalo3 hours ago
Whining for men to save them? Are you kidding me? Where have you heard that notion? I have heard feminism as the fight to ensure that people independent of race, sex, class etc are equal.
I have NEVER heard a single person state that men should be a saving force. Fighting for social change involves the individuals who are repressed (whether they are shamed for what they wear, being targeted because of their gender etc) can only occur when people of the group stand up. THIS is women standing up. this is not women saying that men should change things. This video, among many other videos, and dissertations, along with millions of other women, who I have had the privilege of working alongside, has women standing up for their right to be comfortable.
Alison Tieman 3 hours ago
+James Chiofalo “THIS is women standing up. this is not women saying that men should change things.”
So what’s the point of this ad if it’s not telling men to change things?
James Chiofalo3 hours ago
The women are saying no to this by forcing men to look at theirselves in a mirror. They are standing up by being a mirror and letting oppressors view themselves and what they are doing.
If a group rises against their oppressors, they will eventually need the force pushing them back to listen.
The Civil Rights Movement in the United States for instance. The powers that be in the United States were primarily people who were white. Congress, Supreme Court (barring one Justice), President, Governors etc were white. In order to fight against Jim Crow laws, peopl of color had to rise up and fight by showing the world the horrors of Jim Crow. By showing the beatings, and the violence. They rose up and they fought back with words, and as a result, those in power responded.
These women are rising up against being seen as a sexual toy by speaking out against this (similar to persons of color speaking out against Jim Crow).
Alison Tieman 3 hours ago
+James Chiofalo So this ad is telling men to change their behaviour in order to “save” women from oppression.
Comparing being ogled to jim crow is, well, if I were the type to get offended, I would say it’s offensive.
However I know why you have an urge to paint this as horribles!oppression of women… you want a damsel to save. Nay you want an entire society of them.
If ogling women is oppressing them… than what is forcing them into the role of damsel? (You’ve already acknowledge that’s BAD.)
Exchange # 2
Sharell Cook via Google+19 hours ago (edited)
A thought provoking video recently released by a Mumbai film school that highlights the issue of men leering/staring at women in public. Nearly 1,000 comments (expressing all kinds of opinions) have been left in response to it….
Good video. However, staring the women isn’t a rape. We all stare at girls all the time. It’s a natural trait.
dianne sharma-winter15 hours ago
+Ashish Pradhan Ashish as one of those women let me just say that your ‘natural trait’ FEELS like VISUAL RAPE so get over yourself and mind your manners boy
I think he needs a jolly good whack with your trusty umbrella!
+dianne sharma-winter YOU should get over yourself.. staring means men think you look pretty. It’s a compliment, nothing else.
Benjamin – please. There is a difference between staring and looking, glancing, etc. What, passing lewd comments should be accepted as a compliment as well, because, hey you are pretty? What kind of an idiot are you? Grow up! And learn to treat women with respect.
Yeah, Ashish – same goes to you.I looked as well when I was younger. But staring – now that’s something I did not do. So learn the difference. Stop making women uncomfortable by your “natural traits”.
You aren’t getting me. Staring like a rapist is a complete different things. Looking at beautiful girls is not bad. All men do that. Are you telling me to stop looking at girls?
Oh I am getting you loud and clear. Are you an expert on how women feels about being stared at? What, you keep your face a certain way when you stare at a woman? Is there a non-rapist stare? I see it all the time when I come there with my wife.No one says the guys who stare are rapists. That is not the issue here. But the stares – the visual rape – disgusts her.
I am not saying don’t look. You can – but if you make it obvious that you are looking at her, well, that’s what is the core of this issue. A girl, pretty or otherwise, needs to feel comfortable outside. When she feels like she is getting stared at, or even looked at, she tends to lose that safe feeling.
You all need to stop. There is nothing cool about it, and women hate it. And a lot of men hate it too – and some of us might do something about it the next time. Hope you get it now.
+Anil Pillai Thank you for saying this. Even in the UK I feel this unwanted attention and I’m sorry to say sometimes it is at work. Because they are just staring it feels as if you cannot confront them or say anything, but it makes me avoid walking in certain areas of the workplace because particular men sit there. Before people attack me for arrogance – I do not feel I am extremely pretty or attractive, yet men still stare. It doesn’t make me feel flattered or powerful, it’s intimidating and alienating.
Wow, get over yourself.. If men are staring at you so much that you feel the need to compare it to rape, then maybe you should stop dressing like a whore. I guarantee that at least 80% of the time, the only reason the guy stares, is because you’re wearing almost no clothes, booty shorts, half a shirt, push up bra, fake tan on your legs, $20 worth of makeup on your face… try not dressing like your role model Miley Cyrus and stop showing off your ass and fake tan, and I bet you anything this problem will stop for you.
bushpilot2234 hours ago (edited)
Above all people, quit being little pussies and stand up for yourself. If there’s someone staring at you and making you uncomfortable, turn around and say “Hey, would you mind stop staring at me asshole?” I guarantee they will feel terrible and feel like a jackass, and stop staring at you, hell, they might even apologize.
Just because a guy is looking at you and appreciating your amazing beauty does not mean they are perverted, sexually violent rapists.
Anil Pillai3 hours ago (edited)
Ding ding ding.. we have a winner! It is Bushpilot! The first guy to take out the ‘blame the victim’ card on this post. Feeling pretty gutsy, punk, writing all that mcp bullshit from behind a keyboard?
+Anil Pillai How about you Anil? Do you feel like more of a man by promoting the idea that women are victims of men’s eyeballs?
I mean this entire video is essentially telling women that they can be hurt just by men looking at them? And the only solution is for women to beg men not to look? How much more disempowering does it get?
If women can be hurt by men just looking at them then they are trapped in the permanent social role of powerless victim. Their only purpose in life is to constantly beg men to change their behaviour.
Bushpilot is actually recognizing that women have the power to act and not just whine for men to save them.
What kind of man promotes the idea that women are helpless?
Listen +Alison Tieman, I do not think you understand the scenario in India. It is a major issue, and when you have the same men coming up to you and taking a photo of you with their phone, in your face, you will realize how widespread and pervasive the problem is. I have no idea where you are from, but you have to experience it to believe it.
+Sharell Cook who posted this, is no wallflower, and i am guessing neither is +dianne sharma-winter. Men’s eyeballs do not threaten them, so why don’t h you ask them what bothers them with the undressing stares? And why should the women be asked to talk to aholes to stop staring? Why don’t you ask yourself that question?
And finally, please, id rather not respond anymore to Bushpilot, who thinks you women are to blame for the way you look. Sad you seem to agree with him.
+Alison Tieman Woah, the stupidity in your comments just amazes me. It’s not saying women are hurt by being stared at. It’s that they are subjected to men who’s thoughts are far from innocent. REGARDLESS of what they wear and they shouldn’t have to feel uncomfortable and be leered at. Wow. Bushpilot is in no way saying women have the power to act. He’s saying women don’t HAVE the right to dress how they want. Are you fucking kidding me? As a woman, I have no fucking idea where your head is at. It’s not that women are not powerful, or that they’re begging, it’s that they shouldn’t have to.
” It is a major issue, and when you have the same men coming up to you and taking a photo of you with their phone, in your face,”
Look up “tube crush”; an entire website devoted to women taking pictures of strange men on transit that they like the look of.
” Men’s eyeballs do not threaten them, so why don’t h you ask them what bothers them with the undressing stares?”
Feel free to explain what’s threatening about being stared at.
If guys want to forfeit their dignity by goggling at me like simpletons, who gives a shit? Point and laugh.
As for the guys in the actual ad, one of them just glanced; another was just being socially awkward and smiling at a woman he found attractive. The guys on the moped were apparently a gay couple who found her hot pants amusing. And the ones in the train were obviously disgusted by the boob sweat and having a chuckle at the woman’s expense. (Get some antiperspirant lady!)
“And why should the women be asked to talk to aholes to stop staring?”
Because the alternative is to view yourself as a damsel who needs to be “saved”.
“who thinks you women are to blame for the way you look. Sad you seem to agree with him.”
What? Of course I’m responsible for the way I look. I’m the one making decisions about it!
Are you capable of recognizing women as people who make choices at all?
Alison Tieman2 hours ago (edited)
+shadooplucy How do you fit so much contradiction in your head?
“It’s not saying women are hurt by being stared at.”
Is directly contradicted by your very next sentence. “It’s that they are subjected to men who’s thoughts are far from innocent.”
Subjected? To what? People’s thoughts don’t affect me because people are not telepathic. I choose to be affected. And so do you.
“As a woman, I have no fucking idea where your head is at. ”
As a woman I have no interest in imagining myself a damsel to be saved. I have no interest in seeing men’s gaze as some sort of toxic something(?) to be saved from.
Let them stare. Point and laugh at how cheap men sell their dignity.
+shadooplucy Thank you. Precisely what I am trying to say.
Yes that women are defined by being victims.
I was saying they’re not PHYSICALLY hurt by ONLY men’s glances in this video. However, even the description of the video refers to a bigger incident and message at large. Staring’s not a crime, neither really, is leering. But it makes majority of women feel uncomfortable and it can lead to other atrocities LIKE the Nirbhaya’s Rape Case this video was made for. You’re not a damsel in distress, you’re a women who deserves to be treated with respect! It’s not that hard of a concept. The way you’re looking at this is very logical in that men’s thoughts don’t affect you, and cheap men sell their dignity, but men’s thoughts and gaze are toxic when they go beyond a certain extent that you have to fear for your safety or sacrifice your comfort. And just because you feel a-okay being stared at, does not mean every women is miraculously as unaffected as you are. You claim responsibility for how you look, does that mean it’s also your responsibility if men decide how you look is an invitation to something more?
Alison Tieman1 hour ago (edited)
This is your problem:
“You’re not a damsel in distress, you’re a women who deserves to be treated with respect!”
I don’t deserve to be treated with respect because I’m a woman.
I deserve to be treated with respect because I’m a human being.
Just like men are human beings who deserve to be treated with respect and not viewed as having “toxic eyeballs”.
“but men’s thoughts and gaze are toxic when they go beyond a certain extent that you have to fear for your safety or sacrifice your comfort”
Men looking at women is not a contributing factor to rape. Rape is a cycle. A small number of people who have been subject to rape go on to rape.
Did you know that Indian boys are at greater risk for sexual violence than Indian girls?
Google “Study on Child Abuse: India 2007”
You want to stop rape of adult women, start addressing sexual abuse of boys.
You are not going to convince me I need to be scared about men looking at me.
+Alison Tieman you do not seem to get it at all. The alternative is not to have women as damsels waiting to be saved. The alternative is that women can walk outside the same way as men, free of being stared at, free of being objectified. If you do not get this simple concept of personal freedom, you are just daft. Either that, or you are a troll.
The alternative is that women can walk outside the same way as men?
Great! Than I’ve already achieved that. I’ve actually done better than “walking outside the same way as men” because men still have to deal with 5 times the rate of violence compared to me. (Baby, you’re the real victim here, not me.)
Now start listening to what I’m saying. The way to women to achieve freedom is to not let people convince them they’re a victim.
Not to let people convince them that they are so frail and weak that a man can hurt them with just his majik voodoo eyeballs.
+Alison Tieman congratulations on making it then, ‘baby’.
+Anil Pillai Thanks! Now I got to save you, my fair lady.
+Alison Tieman No need to save me, mister. I am alright. I will continue the discussion when you get some real world experience living in countries like India, instead of surfing to Google.
You don’t like being the damsel, Anil? Why is that?
Sharell Cook 8:51 PM
You are such an idiot! There is nothing worse than people who make comments that reveal their ignorance.+dianne sharma-winter is a grandmother in her 50s who dresses conservatively and still has to resort to beating off Indian men with an umbrella because they sexually harass her. No one is spared!!
Sharell Cook 9:04 PM
I think this issue really highlights the difference between the way men and women think. Men are mostly glad to receive attention from women… it makes them feel attractive and good about themselves. However, men are not the most perceptive and emotionally intelligent of creatures, and as a result, they commonly think that women must also like such attention. This is not the case at all. Being stared at and leered at by a man often makes a women feel violated.. yes, it often feels like visual rape. Us women are quite well aware of what goes on in men’s minds when they look at us in that way. And when groups of men photograph us with their phone cameras… well, it’s pretty obvious what the photos will be used for. When a women looks at a man, she’s not thinking of penetrating his body, and men have no concern about having their body unwittingly penetrated… that’s the difference! The sooner men understand this the better.
Sharell Cook 9:09 PM
I totally agree with you. The situation in India is very different and needs to be responded to that way. Women who make ignorant comments like “Feel free to explain what’s threatening about being stared at” clearly have no real experience in regards to the matter.
aaaaaaaie 9:09 PM
+Sharell Cook Actually, I don’t think violence is an acceptable reprisal for looking at someone or trying to verbally defend one’s self, woman. Now look up “how can she slap” on Youtube for more wholesome Indian goodness.
Alison Tieman 9:29 PM
+Sharell Cook
“still has to resort to beating off Indian men with an umbrella because they sexually harass her”
So she engages in violence because men look at her?
“Men are mostly glad to receive attention from women… it makes them feel attractive and good about themselves.”
If you deprive a person of touch long enough, they’ll even accept a beating… just to feel some sort of human interaction.
The fact that men will accept attention that women will not only speaks to the pain of isolation that they face on a regular basis. Just like the fact that a prisoner who lives isolated in a hole in the ground looks forward to his weekly beatings speaks to the pain of his isolation, not to the benefit prisoners get from being beaten.
“When a women looks at a man, she’s not thinking of penetrating his body”
Maybe she’s thinking of enveloping his body. Is there some reason to think envelopment (think bear traps, think being buried alive) is somehow more threatening than penetration? Is this more mystical magical man-powers? WOOOOO!
“Women who make ignorant comments like “Feel free to explain what’s threatening about being stared at” clearly have no real experience in regards to the matter.”
About seventeen years ago I was alone at night in a park. As I was walking through a dark grotto a man’s voice came from above me (he was standing on top of a rocky outcropping over looking the path. I was completely vulnerable. He demanded I tell him where I was going in a very aggressive, intimidating way. (Made even more so because he was directly above me and I couldn’t even see him.)
I pointed directly ahead of me and said “that way.” I continued walking without missing a step or going any faster.
It’s entirely likely that man was intending to assault me. Or kill me. Him shouting at me from the dark was the classic criminal “interview” technique to see if you startle. If you don’t, the criminal moves on to easier prey.
If I had trained myself to respond with fear to a man just looking at me it’s entirely probable I wouldn’t be alive right now, telling you this story.
Teaching women that they’re damsels, kills. It kills women. Congrats to all of you. You’ve just made women more likely to startle the next time some man wants to rape and kill them.
Sharell Cook 9:42 PM
+Alison Tieman I have training in both kung fu and kick boxing. I’m no damsel and have no problem responding aggressively if needs be, and as I’ve done a number of times. Yet, it sickens me the way men leer at me and photograph me (and I never dress to attract attention, in case people may think I reveal a bit too much skin or wear tight clothes). You may have been harassed 17 years ago but that kind of thing is frequent for women in India, along with many other issues. Come and live in northern India for a year an you’ll understand what it’s like and the way men behave. Until then, I don’t see any point having further discussion with you about this. There’s a difference between isolated incidents and endemic.
Alison Tieman 9:52 PM
I didn’t respond aggressively. Nor would I. Because aggression would most likely have gotten me killed.
If you’ve “responded aggressively” you were likely never in any danger. (Which is entirely consistent with the “harassment” in this video. None of those guys were a threat.)
The majority of women who end up raped (according to one self-defence expert, Dan McYoung) initiated the violence with a slap or a shove.
Being assertive is not the same as being aggressive. Aggression itself can signal insecurity.
” You may have been harassed 17 years ago but that kind of thing is frequent for women in India, along with many other issues.”
I wasn’t harassed. That man wasn’t interested in trying to get my attention in a sexual way, he was interested in finding out if I was a soft enough target for violence.
There is a difference. I’m not about to bore people with tales of being “disrespected” because they’re trivial. Just like all the incidents in this video are trivial to any woman who doesn’t define herself as a damsel in distress.
Men do not “rape” with their eyes.
You are not “experiencing rape” when men look at you.
That is superstitious mumbo-jumbo on par with evil eye and witchcraft.
(Also kung fu and kick boxing are just sports, not self-defence. If you don’t know how to grapple you don’t know self defence.)
Alison Tieman 10:13 PM
If I recalibrated my “give-a-shit” meter to “fainting couch” I could come up with a list of “harassment” I’ve endured in my life a lot longer and a lot worse than what’s in this video.
However if I were to train myself to be intimidated by men staring at me, I would make myself more vulnerable when I encounter a man who really does want to do me harm. Thus making me more likely to end up raped and murdered.
Why should I do this? Why should I make myself less safe? What purpose does it serve to embrace the fainting couch?
Anil Pillai 10:21 PM
Yep she knows all about beating back aggressive packs of men in your face because, um seventeen years ago, invisible man voice did not phase her. Oh and women <> damsels in distress. Got it. Dang, never realized it was that simple.
Such wisdom, coming from the warmth of some nice western city.
One last time, let me try. Do not mind about disrespect, etc. Just answer the damn question. Do you think a woman walking the streets of india is treated the same way as a man walking the same streets? Or, how about a woman walking the streets in India expect the same treatment as the woman walking outside say, in some city in Australia? If you say yes, you don’t know shit. If you say no, well, these PSA’s are one of the many different ways they are trying to make some positive change to this nastiness.
Alison Tieman 10:46 PM
@ Anil
Promoting a fearful response in women gets them killed.
“If you say no, well, these PSA’s are one of the many different ways they are trying to make some positive change to this nastiness. ”
Instead of promoting a fearful response in women to men–which only makes them less safe–why don’t you take this money and address the epidemic of sexual violence being perpetrated against Indian boys? Maybe there would be less of them growing up to be harassers and gang rapists.
“Do you think a woman walking the streets of india is treated the same way as a man walking the same streets?”
If what’s occurring in this video is indicative of the average experience of an Indian woman… than I don’t think there’s any significant difference between that and a woman in the west. Women were stared at–apparently in one instance by a gay couple–and one guy smiled and said “hi” (I assume.) Those things happen quite a bit in the west too. (And the damsels get just as upset about it here.)
As for Indian women being treated the same as Indian men… Taking a look at the world death tables, Indian men are 3x more likely to die from violence inflicted on them by others.. If Indian women became Indian men tomorrow, 3 times as many of them would be die violently. From these numbers I imagine women in India are treated differently!
“Yep she knows all about beating back aggressive packs of men in your face because, um seventeen years ago, invisible man voice did not phase her.”
I think you misunderstand. I didn’t DIE because I don’t view myself as a damsel. If I had, I’m certain mr. aggressive-interrogator wasn’t about to give me a bouquet of flowers.
I didn’t see any “aggressive packs of men” in the video. Perhaps my understanding of “aggressive” is different than yours. To me “aggressive” doesn’t involve quite as much giggling.
Anil Pillai Yesterday 11:34 PM
+Alison Tieman Wow. This is hopeless. I know when some one is beyond reason. Before I go, a suggestion. Next time you decide to barge into a conversation with your ridiculous opinions, do a gut check. Do you really have enough relevant experience in the topic, or you just have some links you read on Google? The people in that conversation above had years of experience living the issue in India. The video, since you somehow seem to think is an actual representation, is just a portrayal, almost whimsical in nature, something made without showing the real ugliness of the reality, so that they can show it on the local tv. So that a newer generation of boys might see it and tone down their behavior as they grow up. It’s got nothing to do with fearful response or any of the other issues you are mentioning.
Oh I am so done now. That was my last attempt to respond to an unreasonable person.
Alison Tieman 2:36 AM
You’re damn right this video does nothing to address the ugly realities; I see absolutely zip on the epidemic of sexual abuse of boys in India in it. That is the likely causal factor in many them growing up to be rapists.
Instead of doing anything to address the actual issues, money is used to create a “whimsical” video about how women are “raped” by men staring at them.
Or money is used to fund feminists groups opposing Indian boy’s protections against sexual abuse. Look up “Only men can be booked for rape.”
What was the point of equating ‘staring” with rape when Indian boys are being raped en mass and groups of people are actively preventing them from being protected by law?
BTW, Google is just a search tool. I read these studies on the scientific journals they were published on. Perhaps if you want to deal with reality, you should also consider looking into actual statistics and legal realities rather than supporting whimsical nonsense that 1. equates staring with rape thus either shaming men needlessly or frightening women needlessly. 2. Does nothing to either present an accurate picture or address the issues that really need to be addressed.
Once again, Anil, you’re the one who needs to be saved. As annoying as it is, and I know it is annoying to be the damsel.
It’s also annoying that a substantial fraction of men would rather indulge in a power fantasy of male invulnerability than recognize the solution (if you really want to reduce the rape of women) _is to address the sexual victimization of boys who grow up to rape women._ As long as your ego is flattered(wee! look how much more powerful I am than women, they can’t even withstand my _gaze_) what’s a few more raped women or boys?
—
I held up a mirror to both Anil and James. They didn’t like it.
Oh pooh!
- What will Dior’s decision regarding Johnny Depp mean for male survivors? - August 10, 2022
- Chauvin Released, Teen bullied for supporting trump, False accuser forced to apologize| HBR News 277.5 - October 13, 2020
- What Jordan Peterson checking into Rehab can teach us all - October 26, 2019
by 
I’m not sure I still agree with the concept of human beings deserving respect at this point in my life–maybe some tiny baseline of respect which they can use to earn more or just squander as they speak and act. Or maybe we all simply deserve pity.
From what I understand about late-stage rabies, in addition to the mental symptoms, the victim’s throat becomes too painful to swallow water or even their own saliva (hence the foaming mouth) and they become phobic of water. Watching someone try to bring logic to people with a rigid worldview feels a lot like what I’d imagine it would feel like watching someone bring water to a rabid animal. One knows the person’s intentions are good and the victim needs what’s being offered but hope for a positive outcome seems scarce. But perhaps someone seeing the interaction may decide to get themselves vaccinated against comfortable delusions.
Now that I’ve tortured this metaphor beyond belief I suppose I should have it put down.
I read the whole exchange, every time you made a comment I was thinking “hey that’s a great point, maybe they might at least attempt to understand what you are saying.” But nope, that didn’t happen, your logic and reasonable thought process was too much for them to understand. And the fact that they simply ignored your statement about the abuse of boys in India just go to show how completely full of shit they are. They had no response for that, so they simply ignored it. You addressed all of their idiocy though, especially the woman who stated to the effect that ‘any time a man looks at a woman he thinks about penetrating her’.
That Anil guy seems the saddest though, he’s been completely brainwashed, I wonder what he thinks about himself? Does he view himself as a powerful and horrible objectifying eye rape monster of women? Or is he the classic White Knight or do both concepts intercept now?
Just the other day, youtube user The Amazing Atheist brought this to my attention, don’t know if you saw it already. http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
But apparently now, according to feminists all vaginal sex between a man and a woman is rape, but of course only the man is the rapist. Normal sex is rape, looking at a woman is rape, everything is rape to feminists. I challenge anyone to read that entire post from that link, it’s just so idiotic.
I find myself simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with the author at the same time. I agree that stareing is not criminal, but disagree that it might not be dangerous.
I think of the alertness of a hunter or warrior, and the power allowed the common man in traditional societies. I think it’s hard for those of us raised in feminized societies to understand the power dynamic in a place that has not implemented socialized police forces to the extent that we have.
In traditional societies, men still retain their natural right to violently defend their families, and any women wandering outside of that protection are vulnerable to outlaw behavior.
It’s not that outlaw behaviors are legal, it’s just that those patriarchs see it as a waste of their resources to “farm out” those policing tasks that they are capable of fulfilling themselves.
That said, a criminal will be a criminal, and it doesn’t matter if we can get him to stop stareing. It’s like trying to get an armed robber to stop parking the getaway car in the handicap spot.
I can say from personal experience that being stared at, and being raped, are in no way alike. It is saying seeing a car, is the same as getting run over by one.
I can also tell you, from personal experience, that women leer, stare, ogle, and ‘undress’ with their eyes too. Likewise, I can assure you that persons who have been the victims of sexual violence/sexual assault, are MUCH more sensitive to attention of this nature. I can also tell you that persons of this sort will go to great lengths to reduce and prevent the level of visual interest they have, to those they impute (rightly or wrongly) as ‘predators’.
Where it can get ‘ugly’ is when the need for social or physical interaction grows to eclipse the ‘hard wired’ danger avoidance programming that all (most) animals are born with.
Hence, it is not at all surprising that men who were raped/abused can go to be rapists/abuses.
Perhaps, a bit in way that dogs who are rabid go crazy with thirst while they are plagued with hydrophobia. The need for water, and the need to avoid it, at the same time.
As a boy-type person myself, I have the advantage of it being very easy to make myself of no interest to the vast majority of girl-type individuals. (If only because men, in general, are vastly more deprived of nurturing, support and comforting to begin with.)
Almost as if society was giving free food to the well fed, and at the same time punishing the underfed for being hungry.
Or, as The Bard was want to verbalize it, via a doomed Dane:
“I have heard of your paintings too, well enough. God has given you one face and you make yourselves another. You jig and amble, and you lisp, you nickname God’s creatures and make your wantonness your ignorance. Go to, I’ll no more on ’t. It hath made me mad. I say, we will have no more marriages. Those that are married already, all but one, shall live. The rest shall keep as they are. To a nunnery, go.” (Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1.)
Sending fake distress signals, accusations of male abuse, is a vile attempt to emotionally abuse men. When a women tells me her sob story I just consider it bullshit now. This is the moral fall of of women emotionally manipulating men.
I really like the point about the tube crush website. (I didn’t know about that before.)
What that says about objectifier and objectified puts perspective on the thing about the woman with an umbrella.
@ Hendrick
“I think of the alertness of a hunter or warrior, and the power allowed the common man in traditional societies. I think it’s hard for those of us raised in feminized societies to understand the power dynamic in a place that has not implemented socialized police forces to the extent that we have.”
So sort of like the “evil eye.” Except, historically, such ocular power was believed to reside in matriarchs.
Or maybe we can stop fluffing ourselves with ridiculous nonsense.
Also, historically a lone man who either stepped outside the taboos of polite society or was born outside them was the most vulnerable creature on the planet.
As can be attested by how often they were victims of mob violence based on unsubstantiated rumours.
Those comments just drip with hyperagency and man-hatred WRT to the power of men’s staring, and with misogynist hypoagency WRT to women
s response. And the entire response is couched in gynocentric terms – how does a woman feel when… as if the men exist solely to make women feel safe and all that matters is how the woman view the situation.
What weak and worthless women those must be.
Typhoon, thank you for being a gracious host.
I know nothing about the evil eye, so idk.
When someone is in alert mode, you can feel it and you yourself go into alert mode. It goes with the training.
And your assumption about “fluffing” is the same old feminist assumption that the male role is glamorous. The male role simply “is”. It morphs to different circumstances, but is always constant. The knee jerk us/them mentality ads nothing to the conversation. As you claim it to be “rediculous nonsense”, and then go on to make claims about this nonsense that never existed?
2013 “what my gaze is being subjected to” report.
The briefness of the young ladys’ – and not a few older ones – attire has progressed even further during 2013. The oh-so-tight shorts are cut higher, particularly on the sides. The unexpected – for me anyway – innovation is very loose athletics shorts. I’ve worn similar shorts frequently through my (lengthy) life but they were never constructed to do Marilyn Munroe impersonations in a light breeze. The skirts aren’t shorter – high degree of difficulty involved – but have evolved in line with the shorts. The wardrobe adjustment rate has grown slightly as a consequence. There is now also noticeable levels of wardrobe adjustment among shorts wearers.
I’ve given up on all the various “why”s I can apply. The direction is consistent and has one logical outcome. Of course, whilst this process is in play, men – conditioned through aeons to respond to visual stimuli – should avert their eyes after the first glimpse of any woman’s flesh. If he feels some shame over that glimpse so much the better.
I believe a bloke called Andersen once wrote about a similar dynamic.
@ Hendrik
“And your assumption about “fluffing” is the same old feminist assumption that the male role is glamorous.”
The “fluffing” is the idea that the male role is or has ever been one of power. I don’t find the reality of male powerlessness being hidden behind a fiction of agency to be “glamorous”.
From where I’m standing it looks more like foolishness and vanity.
Feminism seems to mostly concern itself with inflating the power of the male role now and historically so I don’t see the connection.
I thought of a question. (Yes, I know, shocking is it not?)
If, when men have sexual thoughts about a women, it is ‘making them an object’ would that then mean men are sexually attracted to ‘objects’ rather than ‘people’?
I mean, not to put to fine a point on it, but if men were attracted to objects, and not people, well . . . it strikes me the population would be a tad lower.
Then again, these are the same people who clam that a man having ‘naughty thought’ about a facsimile of a female. (ie a drawing, a painting, a video game character, etc.) That that is ALSO objectification. However, it rather begs the question how does one make an object, into an object? (That could almost be a Zen question.)
Yes, I know, I am a very strange creature. I have strange thoughts. the scary part it, I am much stranger in person. MUCH stranger.
Will staring at a woman’s picture considered “visual rape”? If yes, I will stop staring at that Miley Cyrus wall poster now..
I had a “yahoo” chat with a girl once and I asked her whether she likes being looked at by a guy.. she said “it depends” – she will like it if the guy was good looking… Not sure whether it is applicable to all the women out there….
In another site – “guysaskgirls” or something like that – a guy asked why girls wear tight yoga pants. more than one girl said it enhances the shape of their a** …
Happy New Year!
Now with that out of the way……
Are this people fore real.Who can you be detached from reality to this level.Having this much fear just from people looking at you ,is not normal.And it is the sine of extreme privilege.This woman probably never found himself in real life danger.Because if they did,they definitely would not be scared of simple glencoe thrown in their direction.If this is who she reacts in this situation.I cant help but wonder ,who this women would react if she whitest carnegie after a cluster bomb.Ore bether jet ,I would like to see her reaction when Tomahawk missile hits a building and windows from all the neighboring houses start breaking from the impact.
Then things get interesting when this people start talking about,putting this delicate flowers in places of power.I am absolutely positive that this woman would make great president.
“Visual rape”?
Sounds like that downplays actual rape to me.
Oirish, it trivializes actual rape and it also appropriates it.
One commenter adminishes Allison for not understnading the situation in India. What is clearly evident about the situation in India, and from that commenter’s own comments, is how essential the notion of female victimhood and hypoagency are to that conception of femininity. It’s as if the culture values passivity or something.
Jeebus H…somebody call a fucking waaaaaaaahhhhmbulance. These infants should get a load of the swinish objectifying of their oh-so-delicate sisters when I go bar hopping in one of my kilts. The eye-fuckings alone I get on such occasions would have these silly little bitches in PTSD counseling for as long as ObamaCare would pay for it.
Ajax, that kind of thing is the polite little secret of all this, the way women in bars feel they have an absolute right on any man they take an itch too and he’s a woman-hater if he doesn’t feel grateful.
Once we can convince people that ‘feeling uncomfortable’ makes you right and anyone who caused that feeling is wrong… why, we’ll have the solution to every problem humanity has ever faced!
“Who’s feelins got hurt da most? OK, you win.”
Copyleft, it’s a feature of the culture, not just the feminist part:
http://www.genderratic.com/p/3035/female-privilege-hypoagency-queen-for-a-day/
And now it looks like India has the same sickness.
The video looks like feminists are trying desperately to hold onto India’s caste system, but only for men. Even the socioeconomic status of the people portrayed in the video betrays the way the video’s creators view lower class men. It’s Schrodinger’s Rapist, Indian style.
Indian feminists seem to have no qualms fomenting racism against their own culture; they seem to know that men will bear the brunt of any hostility. You also have to roll your eyes when these same sort of feminists claim that feminism is unknown in India when it’s pretty obvious that they have it down to a science.
Someone buy that commenter an excavator.
TB, were you saying that in trollface?
@ Basta
“TB, were you saying that in troll face?”
Nope.
I understand why and I sympathize to an extent. But the amount of shit men will put up with, the backstabbing they’ll do for female “beauty” is grotesque.
Yelling at a stranger in public in the hopes of getting their attention is a form of self-abasement.
Also I’m not talking about anything in that video–nothing depicted was, in any way, offensive(maybe the guys giggling at the woman’s boob sweat)–I’m referring to men(or women) hollering at other people in public.
It’s rude and unless you’re going to argue that men need unique dispensation for being rude… my point stands. You’re rude, you get mocked.
“It’s that they are subjected to men who’s thoughts are far from innocent.
Someone buy that commenter an excavator.”
Someone buy those women a skin.
Typhoon, I noticed you addressed the comment about men wanting to penetrate.
Feminist’s minds wiggle around like trying to keep kittens in a sack when it comes to finding why women forcing sex on a man is less important than the reverse.
I’m coming more and more upon feminists using the mechanics of hetero sex against men and arbitrarily saying that what men is doing is worse because forced penetration is worse than forced envelopment.
I’m really glad you addressed that. You did a good job fending off the wolfpack simpletons. I think it’s funny how very very indoctrinated and cult-like their comments are and then Anil declares *you* to be beyond hope. lol
“I’m coming more and more upon feminists using the mechanics of hetero sex against men”
John, I have seen that too and I have a response these people can never counter. I ask them if they have plagarized that homophobic shit form the Focus On the Family website because that’s the kind of place that demonizes homosexual anal sex and they are doing exactly the same, unless they are trying to claim that penetrating a man is somehow less, and in that case they are rape apologists. I have yet to see one come back with anything on that one.
And I have also noticed how adverse they are to being called rape apologists. They don’t have much of a moral sense but that one accusation does seem to sting.
@TB:
Your exact wording was:
Nothing about yelling. Emphasis mine.
Secondly, as far as yelling is concerned, whether it constitutes “self-abasement” or not depends on whether the yeller originally enjoyed dignity. If they did, then you are right. If OTOH they were pre-emptively denied dignity, then there is no further abasement.
@ Basta
Point stands for staring as well.
Saying that men who stare at women(for extended lengths of time) aren’t raping them and shouldn’t be demonized doesn’t preclude _also_ thinking they’re rude and open to being mocked.
It’s rude to stare and it’s rude to yell. For both men and women.
Where’s the rude here? Do you believe that looking at someone for any length of time can constitute invasion of their space?
@ Basta!
http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/i-can-solve-this-in-two-words-dont-stare/
Staring is a form of non-verbal communication. In most species it indicates a confrontational attitude.
Where are you going with this?
That’s a “solution” by a 13-year-old who hasn’t got to experience the general case of the starer’s predicament yet. It’s like me saying I can solve 0x^5 + 0x^4 + 0x^3 + 0x^2 + x – 1 = 0 in three words: x is 1. Here, I solved a quintic.
Half-true. It is also a position of one’s eyes necessary for effective gathering of visual information about a chosen object of observation.
Half-true. Staring can mean lots of other things too, so absent other cues it is inherently ambiguous.
I guess we will just have to disagree here. I simply draw the line a notch further than you do. Looking at someone for any length of time does not harm them, nor is an invasion of their personal space, absent active attempts by the looker at observing what the other person intends to be hidden from view, if that intention is either communicated or reasonably presumable.
At the other end of the line (of sight), my eyes are my body.