empowered expression or objectification?

[mkgal1]

Sorry, MK, but this is how society and social construction works.....unless you want to be isolated and not part of any kind of community with no sense of belonging, etc.

I don't really know what you mean, because I've been part of community and have a sense of belonging without apologizing for the behaviour of others.

 

[mkgal1]

The point was made the when cultures change, the only change is outward - that human nature stays the same regardless ("there will be Cain's and there will be Abel's"). A quote was made from Maya Angelou that suggested that she identified with human nature and human values with all their shortcomings (which I don't argue with). Is it your suggestion that she would have identified with what some today consider acceptable and would have called it acceptable herself?

That's not what her quote was about, though (acceptance and judgement of others). It's about what's within us....the possibilities for both goodness and evil. I mentioned it in the context of the discussion about the human condition not changing from the beginning. Maybe I should have quoted King Solomon when he said, "there's nothing new under the sun". Maybe that would have been more clear. Dr Maya Angelou came to mind, because of the overlap discussion of children born out of wedlock.

Applying her quote to the topic of both "empowered expression and objectification".....would mean that instead of having the attitude of "Oh.....I would NEVER do that".....it would be more empathetic.....realizing that she also had it in her to do the same....because she was human---so the possibility was there.

 

[mkgal1]

BTW......I just looked up that quote, and it actually helps to support the idea that --overall---the human condition hasn't changed over time. That quote was originally by a man named Terrence, an ancient Roman playwright (Publius Terentius Afer (/təˈrɛnʃiəs, -ʃəs/; 195/185–159 BC) from the days before Christ.

 

[tall73]

It is confusing to women, who know what they believe individually, but associate with some groups...but each person individually makes it even more confusing for men because there is no general standard or guideline by which they can gauge what to expect or how to "be" a man in today's world.

Do most men look to feminists to figure out what they should be?

My thought is that people form ethics through a variety of means and influences, and most men (certainly not all) either have an ethic that thinks all objectification is wrong, or an ethic that sees no problem with it. Now even those who have an ethic that calls it wrong may still be tempted, for those in the human nature debate.

I can see how the various strains of feminists might confuse professed feminists, however. And I can see where you are indicating that you don't like one of the strains of feminism and that it mixes messages. And perhaps you could say that feminists owe it to the movement to sort out what it really stands for and to make its message more productive of good. I am just not sure how that will work. It would seem it would require a governing body, or a central compelling figure or champion, or grass-roots movement to shake up the current state of feminist thought.

I just don't think feminist thought on the academic level has much impact on the day to day of men.

Now I suppose if you wanted to discuss the impact of feminist thought on media which does reach men in the day to day, that may be a different story. I don't know enough about it to say. I think a few here in the forum seemed to indicate they might want such a discussion!

In general I look to the Bible for ethics rather than feminists or media. Those who have not adopted a system of ethics whether utilitarian or from a religious ethic etc. may just hodge-podge together what seems right, and I suppose you could argue might be influenced by such.

On the other hand I can't picture a guy trying to decide whether to check out a woman jogging by in a bikini considering what feminists would think of him as part of his process.

 

[Hetta]

If we identify as feminists, we are guilty by the association with a movement that harms men. I am one, I am not ashamed to admit it, and I am not proud to say I have contributed to it. And not to excuse it, but we are all party to social sins. We should own up to our part in it.

I'm not guilty of any such thing. I think that the "we's" need to get dropped around now, because if you want to feel guilty, that's fine, but I don't like anyone telling me how I should feel.

 

[mkgal1]

I'm trying to figure out how one can even believe that (the guilt by association idea).

There are plenty of corrupt Christians (or people that use that label, anyway). Using that same line of thought---does that make us *all* guilty by association? Even if we have a completely different set of ethics and behaviour? If one is going to use that in one situation--it seems that same reasoning ought to be applied to *all* situations (or else there's a double-standard).

Anyway.....I disagree with painting a whole group (with an acknowledged division of belief systems, even) as "guilty".

I *can* agree with making note of the other set of ethics---realizing that maybe people may cast people wrongfully into the same "box" as others--- and in order to avoid that, making an effort to set oneself apart from the others.

I don't see that as the same thing as being guilty, though.

 

[sdmsanjose]

sheer/see-through "dress" exposing underwears

but they will say that they are empowered and are in control of their own sexuality and have no problem with what they are doing.

Saying that they are “empowered and are in control of their own sexuality” is a buzz word that is politically correct to some, sounds good, and gets applause from those that do not take the decency of the scriptures seriously

For me as a man I have a natural sexual movement in me when I see sheer/see-through "dress" exposing underwears. I am sexual enough without those images (just ask my wife). I find that if I watch those images too much that I desire them and start to compare them to my wife. I have a choice and I make those choices enough in the right way so that those images do not cause us problems. I guess they have a right according to our culture to wear whatever they want and we men will just have to learn to use our decisions in the right way. That is our culture so I have to live with that.

However, one reason that I can make the right choices on those images is that I consider those people that are behind that activity doing that as manipulators. Those sexy women do not care about me one bit nor do they care about my children and family. Furthermore, they would not want me in any way if we were to meet. To me those women are dressing like that for a variety of reasons such as:
For money, to boost their ego, to get a sex partner that benefits them, to advance their popularity, etc.. None of those have any consideration for me and my family.

So the bait that they are putting out there is a manipulation for their own selfish gain and the woman and manipulators are trying to lure us men into being pawns. That trick is as old as Sampson and Delilah

So yes their activities do arouse a sexual excitement but I combat that with understanding the manipulations and selfishness that is at much of the base of their activities. I can get all the visual sexual excitement that I want for free. I mean I can see all the most sexual bodies of beautiful women that I want, I have that freedom. However, my temptation is controlled by the fact that I hate being a pawn and manipulated.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I'm trying to figure out how one can even believe that (the guilt by association idea).

There are plenty of corrupt Christians (or people that use that label, anyway). Using that same line of thought---does that make us *all* guilty by association? Even if we have a completely different set of ethics and behaviour? If one is going to use that in one situation--it seems that same reasoning ought to be applied to *all* situations (or else there's a double-standard).

Anyway.....I disagree with painting a whole group (with an acknowledged division of belief systems, even) as "guilty".

I *can* agree with making note of the other set of ethics---realizing that maybe people may cast people wrongfully into the same "box" as others--- and in order to avoid that, making an effort to set oneself apart from the others.

I don't see that as the same thing as being guilty, though.

I'm taking a stab here (and VG can correct me), but I think the point of the thread is that everyone, whatever mindset we hold, contributes to the social construct around us. I can't say "well I'm me and the other guy is the other guy. As long as I take care of myself, what he does is up to him...", and walk away thinking that how I behave - or how I think - has no effect on the social norms around me because I say "what I do is what I do. It just isn't so. Whether I am a liberal or conservative, pro-life or pro-choice, Democrat or Republican, Church-goer or stay-at-home Christian, feminist or misogynist, introvert or the life of the party - my views and my life do have an effect on society around me. I can't absolve myself from having made a contribution, one way or another, to what we see in society.

 

[Hetta]

I can't absolve myself from having made a contribution, one way or another, to what we see in society.

That is obviously up to you. But I am not all woman or all feminists and I feel no responsibility for what any extremists do at any time.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

That is obviously up to you. But I am not all woman or all feminists and I feel no responsibility for what any extremists do at any time.

I'm not talking about extremists. I'm talking about ordinary persons going about their daily lives. Everyone (yes, I said it...) makes an impact on the world around them and influences, one way or another, the culture around them. Cultures are not stagnant, and neither are cultural norms. They are shaped by the opinions of the people that live in them. And whether we speak them on the street corner, or at the dinner table, we are all shaping our culture.

 

[ValleyGal]

Hetta, with all the sociology courses you've taken, I'd think you'd understand how everyone contributes to social norms, and how that all shifts with cultures and times as the collective social values change. Iow, the social value in the US is total independence from anyone and everyone, without making any impact on anyone or anything on a social level....but if you get millions of people with that value, that becomes the social norm, and yes, YOU and everyone else contributed to it.

I choose to contribute to a new social norm of people taking responsibility for how their own values and attitudes and beliefs and behaviours affect society as a whole, including those who those social norms negatively affect.

 

[Hetta]

The only place I have shared information about sociology classes, to my knowledge, is in the private women's forum. Regardless, I am well aware of what I have learned in school, but that still does not make me responsible for the behavior of other women. I have had no influence on either Miley Cyrus OR Catherine Brennan.

 

[mkgal1]

Hetta, with all the sociology courses you've taken, I'd think you'd understand how everyone contributes to social norms, and how that all shifts with cultures and times as the collective social values change. Iow, the social value in the US is total independence from anyone and everyone, without making any impact on anyone or anything on a social level....but if you get millions of people with that value, that becomes the social norm, and yes, YOU and everyone else contributed to it.

I choose to contribute to a new social norm of people taking responsibility for how their own values and attitudes and beliefs and behaviours affect society as a whole, including those who those social norms negatively affect.

Okay....that's great that you are choosing to contribute in a positive way (along with taking responsibility for how your own values/attitudes/beliefs and behaviours affect society)....but that's not what you said earlier.

 

[Hetta]

Okay....that's great that you are choosing to contribute in a positive way (along with taking responsibility for how your own values/attitudes/beliefs and behaviours affect society....but that's not what you said earlier.

Exactly.

Leave out the "we's".

 

[ValleyGal]

Yes, it is what I said earlier. I have always maintained that we all contribute to all of this. I guess the difference is that I am willing to own up to how I do....and others are not. Hetta, you have mentioned your education on the open married forum.

 

[Hetta]

not in detail. But I digress.

 

[mkgal1]

Yes, it is what I said earlier. I have always maintained that we all contribute to all of this. I guess the difference is that I am willing to own up to how I do....and others are not. Hetta, you have mentioned your education on the open married forum.

This is what you posted earlier:

If we identify as feminists, we are guilty by the association with a movement that harms men. I am one, I am not ashamed to admit it, and I am not proud to say I have contributed to it. And not to excuse it, but we are all party to social sins. We should own up to our part in it.

Which implies that those that identify as feminists (which, BTW, men are in that group as well) are guilty of negatively contributing---not simply contributing to all of this (which now you're saying you choose to contribute in a positive way).


I'll be happy to own up to how I contribute---it's by not buying into the "poor powerless and helpless men" meme. I think higher of men than that. I see that as a positive contribution.

 

[ValleyGal]

All feminists are guilty of contributing to the negative impact feminism has on some men. Yes, some men are part of that. I believe those are the men who are willing to work with women to make it more equitable for both genders. However, the movement still harms some men. That can't be denied. So yes, we are all guilty.

 

[mkgal1]

All feminists are guilty of contributing to the negative impact feminism has on some men. Yes, some men are part of that. I believe those are the men who are willing to work with women to make it more equitable for both genders. However, the movement still harms some men. That can't be denied. So yes, we are all guilty.

Not so. We can be part of the problem or part of the solution (or...an attempt at a solution, anyway)--not that all feminists are guilty of contributing to the negative impact.

But...you are free to believe what you wish.

How does it harm men to move things towards equality for both genders?

 

[ValleyGal]

Why can't you be part of the problem AND the solution? Imo, we are part of the problem, and we can choose to ALSO be part of the solution.