|
|
|
|
macherry
May 10, 2007, 6:11 PM
Post #51 of 189
(7398 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
climb_eng wrote: macherry wrote: no, i'm not comparing you to a rapist, i'm just throwing out another instance where woman have been given the "I told you so, it's your fault excuse",when they have been victimized. OK, I misunderstood you. I'm sorry. macherry wrote: so now women in in low cut, revealing dress attire is crude and therefore, you have the right to treat her differently. It's all about context. In a workplace environment, it's a little crude. In a social environment such as a party, a bar or a beach it's perfectly acceptable. macherry wrote: well, i hold mself and others in my life to a different standard, than what you may believe society allows. Look Marge, this isn't complicated. IF you go out of your way to attract attention, you attract attention. Men could do well and be more subtle about it, but even if it seems like they're not looking, they're looking! Men are men, hot guys will look at you, but so will the ugly, fat dirty-old-men. It's an unrealistic expectation to dress in a loud fashion and expect people not to give you the once-over.l
i agree that by dressing in a provocative way brings attention. It's how we as individuals react. The once over is fine, i'm all about looking. But, we should hold people to a higher standard in how we act. Do we look or do we say something rude? My point is that it doesn't matter how we dress, there should still be respect and some sign of maturity.
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
May 10, 2007, 6:11 PM
Post #52 of 189
(7397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: Pervs AND Pigs are revealing their true character just by simply posting or defending the notion that women exist simply to be looked at and judged as ugly or attractive by men.
I don't think anyone here has done that. Life is complex and nobody exists "simply to be...". Not even inanimate objects have a single purpose, never mind human beings.
I think your interpretation is extreme.
|
|
|
|
|
slablizard
May 10, 2007, 6:21 PM
Post #53 of 189
(7390 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
walter wrote: Seriously, you come into the ladies room to lecture them on what a pervert is? Methinks thou doth protest too much.
well more to me than the ladies.
I considered "perv" an insult. A pedophile is a Perv...a rapist is, a man that looks at a woman's ass is "normal" at least in Italy.
Here, as I read, you can be a "perv" if you look at a woman ant hink about having sex with her...so your thoughts more than your actions make you something.
That to me does not makes sense.
We should be judged by what we do (if anything) not what we think..or what "she" thinks we think.
what the heck is wrong here? I do post in other forums too, mostly in european / italian sites, and no one gets ticked off like here (in US) to "perceived" dissrespect calling someone a "perv" or a "pig" or else.
why you get so defensive when talking about sexual behaviour?
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
May 10, 2007, 6:35 PM
Post #54 of 189
(7385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
"It's never appropriate to treat someone as a lesser being and most people don't. "
Are you KIDDING? Hang out with or near a homeless person for a day. Notice the look they get given when they come out of a Starbucks bathroom from the person who was "inconvenienced" and had to wait. Or the look a person begging receives from a large percentage of those who happen to be there when the person makes the request.
What about a person who might have accidentally cut you off in traffic? Did you give them the benefit of doubt, thinking perhaps the hadn't realized you had begun accelerating to catch the light and misjudged your pace. Or did you treat them in a "lesser" way, by mouthing demeaning words in anger?
What about support personnel in the working world? Who HASN'T seen a person up in the heirarchy pulling a power trip on a subordinate, simply because they can get away with it?
Corrected an online typo with a condescending attitude, as if by pointing it out you've somehow proved some totally unrelated point? That's treating another as less than.
Overweight people and homosexuals seem to be among the most sought after demographics to treat in a lesser way here on dood old rc.com, followed closely by the religious.
And then, of course women in general. Writing that a woman somehow deserves unwanted attention by her dress is....treating her as less than. Plain and simple.
It's always a good practive to keep things in the "I." As in "I feel it's never appropriate to treat someone as a lesser being, and I do my best to treat people as I'd like to be treated myself. " But to say that "most" people don't treat others as "less than" is, from what I witness on a daily basis, at a minimum, naive.
As for the idea that women should expect to be treated badly because of their clothing, I write the following paragraph. It's - clearly - in jest. But maybe it can provide a little insight:
When I'm at the crag in summer, I am just amazed at all the guys showing their bods off! They take off their shirts and work on hard movements, knowing that the flexing muscles in their back will get my attention! A little bit of sweat just accentuates the positive, too. Mmm, mmm.
And their baskets, when they have on a tight harness! They CAN'T not realize women are going to be checking that out.... If they didn't want the undue attention, they'd take care to keep their back turned, at the minimum. Or wear a longer shirt and untuck it when they areen't climbing. I mean - it's right....there. Some say that they wish a girl wouldn't look, but would they rather have a tiny set of...tricams.... that you'd have to squint to see? I don't think so.
And boulderers - Someone once told me that if a bouldering guy wears a beanie, it's sort of code for saying they like to give head, and expect no reciprocation. Wow! Of, course, the person who told me this is sort of a wierdo, but...well, now it's out there, and so any guy reading this should know to expect a little attention if they are ever wearing a beanie. It's no one's fault but their own if some random woman makes a lewd face at them. They know they were advertising...."
|
|
|
|
|
slablizard
May 10, 2007, 7:22 PM
Post #55 of 189
(7361 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
macherry wrote: i agree that by dressing in a provocative way brings attention. It's how we as individuals react. The once over is fine, i'm all about looking. But, we should hold people to a higher standard in how we act. Do we look or do we say something rude? My point is that it doesn't matter how we dress, there should still be respect and some sign of maturity.
Ok then what are we talking about? The "look...she's hot" is the "once over" you mention
OF COURSE if that is followed by something rude said or done is a whole different matter ! Do we even need to discuss that?
And OF COURSE there still is respect...even if you're wearing only a thong...
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
May 10, 2007, 10:21 PM
Post #56 of 189
(7337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: "It's never appropriate to treat someone as a lesser being and most people don't. " Are you KIDDING? ..........
Touch a nerve?
We can all come up with a million examples of inappropriate behavior. You've given me a bunch of ways in which many people behave solely based on appearance, which is the point I was trying to make in the first place. We all do it. We can't help it. We're made that way. I still think that MOST people try to be charitable in their direct interactions. Most people that I know act that way. Most interactions that I see on the street seem that way. Take that as my opinion and observation. It was intended to be general. I have a generally positive attitude toward people.
I try not to let the fact that others sometimes behave badly affect my own interactions with people. It's always easier and healthier (IMHO) to give someone the benefit of the doubt and let it go than to get angry and cop a bad attitude for the rest of the day. Especially... for the person who cuts you off in traffic. That one can be a real stomach acid producer if you let it.
In reply to: As for the idea that women should expect to be treated badly because of their clothing
That's a wrongheaded idea. A woman (or man, for that matter) should expect to be treated differently depending on what she (or he) wears. Different is an observation, badly is an interpretation.
I know... that very idea seems to have been expressed here and I don't like it either. I'll give the writers the benefit of the doubt and hope they start thinking a bit more deeply about the subject. Have I helped or hurt with my messages?
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
May 11, 2007, 12:34 AM
Post #57 of 189
(7320 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
What possible nerve is it that you believe you may have touched, I am wondering.....
You said "A woman (or man, for that matter) should expect to be treated differently depending on what she (or he) wears."
That, I think, is a very strange belief. That you continue to insist that a person's behavior would/should or even could be caused by another human beings appearance is a pretty good example of someone not taking self-responsibility. Nobody CAUSES us to act in any way. We CHOOSE to act in whatever fashion we act in.
To paraphrase a spiritual saying "Whatsoever you do the the least of MY brothers, that you do unto Me." I am fairly certain that the one who gets the capitalized letters in that saying would be more than a little disappointed in the blame game you're trying to play off.
|
|
|
|
|
marinaaxid25
May 11, 2007, 12:50 AM
Post #58 of 189
(7315 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 130
|
I'd be lying if I said I never caught myself staring while spotting someone
Do I think it's a sexual thing? No, because for the most part, the expectations are clear between my (climbing) partner and me.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 11, 2007, 12:54 AM
Post #59 of 189
(7309 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
happiegrrrl wrote: You said "A woman (or man, for that matter) should expect to be treated differently depending on what she (or he) wears." That, I think, is a very strange belief. That you continue to insist that a person's behavior would/should or even could be caused by another human beings appearance is a pretty good example of someone not taking self-responsibility.
Ever been to a job interview?
What did you wear?
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
May 11, 2007, 1:17 AM
Post #60 of 189
(7302 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
In a job interview scenario, as with any situation, the interviewer should take responsibility for THEIR end of it, and the interviewee takes responsibility for THEIR end of it.
One time I was running late for a job interview, and slapped on an outfit that was something I would usually wear. The shirt, an old favorite, was fresh from the cleaners.
I aced the interview, as was the usual case, and got the job. When I got home later, I was shocked to realize that that old favorite shirt had.....not fared well at the cleaners. It had apparenlty become so frail that all it took was that little last bit....the cleaning had deteriorated the fabric in a LOT of places, and I hadn't noticed that there were actually slits in MAJOR places on the front of the shirt!
I always wondered in the guy who interviewed me noticed it. Would have been pretty hard to not see. Luckily, if he did, he didn't make judgements on my ability because of it.
Anyway.....
Had it occurred to me to treat my newest employee "differently" when interviewing her, based on her appearance(it seems she wears black from head to toe, and seems to have a sort of gothic style - a thing that I did notice when first meeting her; but didn't occur to me to make a judgement over it), I would have lost out on the best assistant I have ever had the pleasure to work with. Every single one of my clients has told me more than once how great she is. She took over a heavy workload for me while I was away recently, and didn't fumble once.
At any rate....this idea, of women deserving to be treated disresepctfully, stemmed from an inquiry of a guy with regards to women climbing. Someone came up with a statement like "leave the skirts up to there for the club" - which.... how many women has anyone ever seen at the crag, or even in the climbing gym, wearing provactative clothing?
If you are going to call a sport bra, tank top or leggins overly provactative, I would ask you to take another look at the joke post I made about guys with no shirts "asking for" attention.....
|
|
|
|
|
htotsu
May 11, 2007, 1:47 AM
Post #61 of 189
(7301 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 673
|
thorne wrote: IMO, what matters is how men "check out" women. It's about being discrete and respectful. Just ogling is rude and (understandably) offensive. What goes on in your head is your business, but how you behave to the world is not just your business.
How you choose to respond to what you see is entirely up to you, and you alone. Your response cannot be "blamed" on what another person chose to wear. That person's clothes do not force you at gunpoint to act in a disrespectful manner to the wearer.
Some of you should really think about why it is that you are so set on dismissing any responsibility for your own actions, even if you call them reactions. No one says it's wrong to notice something, to see. It's what your eyes do. But then what? From there forward it's all you.
The link to the rape example is not so tenuous as some of you might wish to believe. "She clearly wanted sexual attention and comments! She should have known she'd be leered at, so she must have wanted it!" is not at all far from "She clearly wanted to be groped!" and so on. It's the same justification each time - it's all her fault - with the guy taking no responsibility for HIS CHOICE to leer, to grope, to be a jackass.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 11, 2007, 3:29 AM
Post #62 of 189
(7290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
happiegrrrl wrote: In a job interview scenario, as with any situation, the interviewer should take responsibility for THEIR end of it, and the interviewee takes responsibility for THEIR end of it.
So, in your opinion, would it be a smart move to show up to a job interview in ripped jeans, a faded "Metallica" t-shirt, and Birkenstocks, three days removed from your last shower?
Or do you think it'd be better to dress with an eye towards class: nice slacks, a decent shirt, neatly groomed, and so forth?
The point here is that people DO and WILL make judgements based on appearance. It's nice to say "Well, they shouldn't!", but that's not reality.
None of which has anything to do with the OP of this thread, but thread drift is a staple here on RC.com, so I'm giving myself a pass on the digression. 
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
May 11, 2007, 4:40 AM
Post #63 of 189
(7279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
reno wrote: So, in your opinion, would it be a smart move to show up to a job interview in ripped jeans, a faded "Metallica" t-shirt, and Birkenstocks, three days removed from your last shower?
If you're applying to be a roadie, HELL YEAH!!! And you wave the sign of the devil on your way out the door! Rock n' Roll, dude!!!
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
May 11, 2007, 9:29 AM
Post #64 of 189
(7266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
This thread has turned into an episode of the Jerry Springer Show...
Have at it, I'm outta this one.
|
|
|
|
|
marinaaxid25
May 11, 2007, 11:32 AM
Post #65 of 189
(7261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 130
|
..which is why it's essential to do some research about the company you're applying for. If it's corporate, your best bet in terms of acing the interview is wearing a button-down shirt, and some nice slacks.
I remember during one interview, the interviewer was wearing a super low-cut lacy camisole (under a cardigan). Let me tell you, it kinda annoyed me, because it didn't seem like she was aware that appearance counts for a lot.
I've also balked at another interviewer who chose to go barefoot.
Thank god I made a switch into teaching.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
May 11, 2007, 2:09 PM
Post #66 of 189
(7243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
Reno.....WTF? I can see how someone has said this has become Jerry Springer. I never should have entertained your attempt at distraction in the first place. My error. (BTW, notice that I am taking responsibility for my end of things, rather than blaming you for "making me" react?)
This interview crap, as you said - has nothing to do with the original thread. Is it an an example of what people refer to as "straw man" when they have political debate?
What this IS about - is that someone, back in the start - said something very much like "if a woman dresses in a way that excites a man, she should expect him to act on his impulses."
The counter-argument was that - no - a person does not get carte blanche to act on their impusles because of someone else's attire.
Is there STILL any debate on that? Because - If someone feels they do have that right, please do come by the Gunks someday, and make the sort of remark deemed within your rights to my face.
You know - a guy might actually want to listen to the women hear in this thread, rather than continuing to defend a position that has been resoundingly discounted...by women. Maybe the empathy isn't there because they have never had the experiences most women have had. Like walking home from a long shift at work, down a quiet street, and getting a vibe from an oncoming person(a guy). Thinking he intends to grab my bag, I gain a tighter grip. As the disntance between comes smaller, I give hard eye contact, conveying, I hope, the idea that I will be able to identify him in the police lineup when he lands his ass in jail.
But it's not my bag he's after; it's my boob. As he comes past, at the last instant he garbs one of them, squeezes it like it's a roll of Charmin, and says, brightly "Have a nice day!"
I turned around had slammed him with that handbag, and he starts to move a little faster. I scream at him. he runs. He gets far enough ahead, because I am in shock and not chasing, that he has a buffer zone. He turns around and says "Why did you get violent? I didn't do anything to hurt you."
So.....get a grip. A pig is a pig is a pig. The women hera are saying "NO." A response other than "Okay, thank you for clarifying." is disgusting.
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
May 11, 2007, 4:34 PM
Post #67 of 189
(7221 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: That, I think, is a very strange belief. That you continue to insist that a person's behavior would/should or even could be caused by another human beings appearance is a pretty good example of someone not taking self-responsibility. Nobody CAUSES us to act in any way. We CHOOSE to act in whatever fashion we act in.
Do an experiment and see different behavior for yourself. Dress yourself up in two different ways, on two different days. Maybe make yourself look really dumpy one day, groomed, well dressed and attractive on another. Anyone can do it. Spend some time in a public place like a park or a zoo. Walk around and think about your experience. Think most about how other people reacted to you.
I've had the experience many times personally. The different treatment can last through entire conversations. People DO look at me differently when I'm dressed in my "executive" look. People speak to me differently, sometimes defer to me. Sometimes I take advantage of it.
I think you're extrapolating my words to a conclusion that's sort of out there. Certainly appearance causes an initial reaction and SOME behavior (walk wide around that person who appears to be homeless). Once you actually think about it you choose your action. We don't think much about a lot of what we do. Some people get stuck in that initial impression and never move on.
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
May 11, 2007, 4:43 PM
Post #68 of 189
(7218 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
In reply to: ..which is why it's essential to do some research about the company you're applying for. If it's corporate, your best bet in terms of acing the interview is wearing a button-down shirt, and some nice slacks.
Unless you're going for a C-level position :)
One of my old marketing profs told me a story about a used car salesman who sat in the trailer on the lot in his underwear. If a guy in cowboy boots and a big belt-buckle came on the lot he'd wear boots & a western shirt. He'd get out his suit when there was a prospect wearing one. He chose to dress similarly to the person he'd be negotiating with in order to generate warm & fuzzies. He didn't work in a trailer for long.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 11, 2007, 5:46 PM
Post #69 of 189
(7209 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
happiegrrrl wrote: Reno.....WTF? I can see how someone has said this has become Jerry Springer. I never should have entertained your attempt at distraction in the first place. My error. (BTW, notice that I am taking responsibility for my end of things, rather than blaming you for "making me" react?)
Whoa, there. Where did I EVER support "blaming" someone else for "making me react"? I said no such thing, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't attribute words to me that I didn't speak (well, write, but you get my point.)
In reply to: This interview crap, as you said - has nothing to do with the original thread. Is it an an example of what people refer to as "straw man" when they have political debate?
No, it's not. The original thread talked about a person's reaction to another person's appearance.
Then, you said the following:
In reply to: That you continue to insist that a person's behavior would/should or even could be caused by another human beings appearance is a pretty good example of someone not taking self-responsibility.
And I point out that people DO have different reactions based on the appearance of others (cf. professional interviews.) Now, there is a VAST difference between lecherous ogling and evaluating an interviewee based on dress, but in the end, they're both part of the same spectrum (though, as I said, polar opposites.)
To think that people's opinion of you doesn't change based on your appearance is, in my opinion, naive.
THAT SAID: I do not support, approve, or advocate the leering, sexualization, or objectification of ANYONE based on appearance. You're welcome to wear what you want at the crag, and shouldn't be subjected to unwanted attention.
But in the end, your comment that people don't change their views (actually, you said "actions", but forming an opinion is an action,) based on your appearance is just wrong.
In reply to: So.....get a grip. A pig is a pig is a pig. The women hera are saying "NO." A response other than "Okay, thank you for clarifying." is disgusting.
Maybe you should go back and read what I wrote. My first post in this thread said as much, but you conveniently ignored that.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
May 11, 2007, 8:31 PM
Post #70 of 189
(7181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
Reno - Referring directly to you, I meant that I should have ignored your statement about job interviews, because it should have been clear to me that it would take the debate down an unrelated path - which it did. So, I cut it off rather than continuing to debate what I felt was a distraction.
The "blame/reaction" concept I referred to was a general statement, supporting one I had made earlier - that as rational human beings, we should take responsibility for our decisions, and that no one makes us to anything. I didn't intend to imply you supported blaming others for a behavior someone perpetrated.
I apologize for being unclear - My intent, in this as in nearly any thread I ever write, is to convey ideas to or address a general population, and not pointing directly to any one person specifically. I can see how you thought that, since I started out referring directly to you.
Again - There were 2 main items that came to prominence within this thread.
The first, from the thread's creator, wondering if he was a pervert. It would seem that question did receive enough response that he should be able to take a look at his behaviors and thinking, and glean some insight. That was not an issue I took up, mostly because the inquiry was well covered, in my opinion.
The 2nd point, and the one I have addressed, was from someone suggesting women "take responsibility".... for...."being ogled." The words, in case one would like to be reminded, were:
"I find it very hard not to look at a beautiful or sexy woman. You reveal legs or breasts to me, and I have to try very hard not to stare. Am I a perv, or is it perhaps just human nature?
Shouldn't a woman take some responsibility for her appearance? If she doesn't want to be ogled, perhaps she should save the up-to-the-butt miniskirt, cleavage enhancing push up bra and super low cut shirt for the club?"
It' such a bizarre statement, being that this is a climbing website, in a thread about climbing. Are there any women here who have ever worn an "up to the butt" skirt out climbing? Please - help me out on this! Peruse the latest Patagonia, North Face, Prana, Mountain Hardware or any other outdoors clothing related catalog, and post a link to any item of women's clothing that you feel would merit her "asking for" someone to ogle or make comments about if she were to wear it climbing. I have, as of yet, to see a woman wearing either an up-to-the-butt miniskirt or cleavage enhancing push up bra and super low cut shirt while out at the crags.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 11, 2007, 8:38 PM
Post #71 of 189
(7177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Fair enough. I don't totally agree with all your points, but that doesn't matter, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
marinaaxid25
May 13, 2007, 2:08 AM
Post #73 of 189
(7126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 130
|
You know what's really funny? The school I teach at is a very...casual...type. All the teachers (albeit the administrators) come to work with jeans and flip flops. Some even have piercings (one has a nose ring; the other has an eyebrow ring).
Earlier this week, a teacher from the middle school division commented, "What's the deal with the teachers on the 2nd floor? They're all wearing these maternity-like tops!"
Mind you, I teach on the 2nd floor. And I'm a sucker for Urban Outfitters tops. So comfy. And they do billow in the wind, so it does take on a more "expecting" look.
I don't think the teacher was making an insult...I guess she was surprised to see a trend going around the preschool division.
I don't know...it's just something I remembered.
(This post was edited by marinaaxid25 on May 13, 2007, 2:08 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
arebecavg
May 14, 2007, 2:01 AM
Post #75 of 189
(7067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 7
|
I climb must of the time with guys, and I feel comfortable. But I had bad experiences with some of them, sometimes they seem to be very interesting to climb with you, but later when they realize that you aren’t going to sleep with them, they stop calling and inviting you to climb. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
