If only there was something between objectifying women and bombarding them with the message their value is tied to giving boners to men and removing physical attraction from the species. If only.

Other than the F*ck, Marry, Kill, and only because that's something people play, never mind the bad idea to do it with your coworkers, seriously wtf?

http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/mat...en-1202625959/

You mean instead of the President implying that he murdered a woman in his office 20 years ago?

LOL no. Cosby has nothing to do with the current reckoning.

This is a good question. It relates back to the dating coworkers focus. That they became a couple doesn't indicate there was ever inappropriate behavior. If the people getting hit with harrasment suits were really attempting to start a relationship with the behavior we are hearing about then they clearly harass any woman they are interested in regardless of the environment. Pushing it out of the workplace is addressing a symptom.

I don't think I strawmanned your argument as "remove physical attraction from the species".

I mean, people's (men and women) value is tied to being attractive to the opposite sex.

Teaching boys and young men to respect women and not treat them as objects but as equals doesn’t require people to stop being visually attracted to females, it does require not sexually assaulting them.

People are missing that my theories were only pertaining to the type of harassing of the Harvey Weinstein, Bill O'Reilly and (maybe) All Franken variety. Powerful men who are frustrated that they can't get pretty girls to want to have sex with them even though their bartender can. I wasn't talking about men who treat woman in general disrespectfully. And I was making the point that some of these harassers actually have more respect for womankind in general then many sexist men who would never consider physically harassing any female.

Put differently I was saying that a lot of these guys seem to be liberal but nerdy guys who are actually more concerned about female's political rights but simultaneously are afflicted with a psychological disease, than guys who are anti feminist but would never consider accosting a woman.

I then went on to say that some wily females try to use this psychological flaw in these men to their advantage. And I know plenty of them.

But since so many people continue to misconstrue what I am trying to say I'm done with this subject.

And there was much rejoicing.

I'm sorry you feel misunderstood, and certainly it's not my intent to misrepresent you.

But, your post was a response to mine, and my post was not at all limited to discussing the Weinstein's or O'Reilly's of the world. It was an answer to a question about a poster in this thread looking at Instagram models, or about objectification of women in general. Nor did your post say anything that would indicate that your comments were intended to be limited in the way you are now saying. Miscommunication happens all the time and I tend to think it's more interesting to clear it up then worry about whose fault it was, but if you're feeling unfairly misunderstood I would suggest that it's not because the people who responded to you were interpreting your post in bad faith.

the bolded read that way to me but I accept it's not what you were trying to do. In return please accept that elimination or reduction of physical attraction is not pertinent to my argument. Physical attraction can exist happily without the purposeful reduction to that as a value.

You are right that an attractive woman in a commercial will sell more of the product. Obviously. The question is what is the price we pay for that and should the line we set on it as a society be checked? I believe we can do better.

I don't think it's about forcing the ****ing weirdos into the bright light of the sun exclusively. It's about us. Every one of us. What do you accept daily that really isn't cool? What do you contribute to? What interactions did you have in your past that would be crossing your mind right now if you were in the public eye and worth making an example of? Making ourselves uncomfortable with those questions is a huge part of the value of this interesting moment.

This might be an appropriate place to post something that came across my wall during the #MeToo surge that occurred after Weinstein was exposed. It was a post by Justin Bonomo, actually, and I wish it had gone viral.

I am not facebook-savvy enough to know how to link an individual post, but it's on his page, and you can go there to read it. I'll just quote it:

I'm not saying this post is perfect, but until people really take a good hard look at their own actions, nothing is going to change, and all this current talk will go down as just sound and fury.

I’m not saying it was a rape button but Matt Lauer had a button under his desk to lock the door. Especially convenient for locking in visitors.

http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/mat...202625959/amp/

Some relevant parts of your post. If you believe I have edited dishonestly or taken you out of context by deleting parts, please tell me. It is not my intent.

I think you sort of misidentify the phenomenon and its causes, have cause and effect mixed up in a few places, and therefore draw incorrect conclusions about the results of your desired actions.

People, naturally, want to be attractive to the opposite sex (or the same sex, but we will assume heterosexuality here). The strategies identified above - girls: do as much as you can to look pretty, boys: put effort into your appearance as well, but moreso into becoming "successful" in some way - are basically the correct strategies for being as attractive as possible to the opposite sex.

As long as those strategies are correct, people are going to pursue them. You seem to think that telling girls that they should focus less on looking pretty will help them, but insofar as their goal is to be attractive to boys, that advice will fail them.

It will fail them as long as men's interest is primarily in hot girls. And thus, my post:

--

I don't know, because I don't know exactly what you think is wrong in this sense, but I don't see what good it will do to start putting ugly people on TV.

I feel like your problem is that you just pop in and make these points that are only tangentially related to what people are talking about in the thread. And then people naturally try to reinterpret your post to be relevant to the conversation at hand and everyone ends up misunderstanding each other.

The part of your post I left in is obviously correct, but not really relevant to anything anyone else said in the thread. So people understandably get confused and don't know wtf you're talking about, and subsequently misinterpret it in weird ways.

the trouble is, women are told their self worth is tied to those things (beauty, etc) to the exclusion of all else. We are even encouraged NOT to be smart, NOT to be outspoken, and NOT to be assertive. because those are considered unattractive.

We are called upon less in class. we are ridiculed out of science and math because "that's nerdy". We are railroaded out of video games, construction, STEM fields, you name it because those things aren't "feminine." Girls aren't supposed to like that stuff or be good at it. And when we are...oh man, we sure had better be "hot" or our worth is never considered.

Now, I have to go be borderline sexually harassed or belittled because of my gender for 8 hours. see ya on the flip side.

Regardless, this is actually not true at all. So many of these "powerful men" have done things to any woman, regardless of what she looks like, just because they can.

I don't think that you are defending harassers, and this post is more nuanced than the one I responded to initially.

What provoked my initial response was your statement that "sometimes the problem is that the harasser can't distinguish who's receptive from who isn't." In the overwhelming majority of these situations, I think that the harasser hasn't given a second thought to whether the woman is receptive.

The real problem is that his hot takes are offensive and dumb. Like "dudes only harass the very pretty girls" isn't drawing criticism because it was misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Current environment is so crazy. It’s like the Salem witch trials, except that everyone on trial is an actual witch.

10000% this

Yes. I encourage my 15 year-old-daughter to get in the face of pestering boys, but it is hard because at home we are a words and consideration family.

Yes, training kids is part of it, boys to be kinder, girls to fight back more. But in the present moment, I think we have to let it roll and have all the old offenses get exposed and revenged. If women can object with success, then I think we'll see more confronting of abuse in the moment rather than waiting decades.

You 'rite good.

This article was a real eye opener for me on the topic of how we raise kids to fit into society as it exists and not how it should be.

It's not random that the US has some of the globes highest rates of rape and sexual harassment. The US has a truly awful cultural view of human sexuality based largely on a patriarchal control of female sexuality. From birth, women are trained to be sex objects above all and men are trained to be sexually agressive. Layered on this is the nearly unique America mix of sexual puritanism and hyper-sexualized media landscape. American culture is predicated on the idea that people can grow up with no sexual education of any kind, surrounded by hyper-sexualized media, and end up as healthy sexual beings.

Men are trained to be sexually agressive and women are trained to be insanely sexually passive, and focused only in male sexuality, and then we are surprised when things like harassment occur.

^ This is what my point is also, not that ugly people should be on tv.