And to follow up on yesterday, THIS right here is the logical continuation of purity balls.
Teen Girl Ejected From Prom Because Horny Dads Can’t Stop Staring
A 17-year-old girl says she was kicked out of her homeschool prom because some lecherous dads complained that she was arousing “impure thoughts.”
To be fair, no one actually approached her and said they were having impure thoughts. It could easily have been a reference to, oh, I don’t know, the teenage boys there. Maybe the dads were just thinking she was dressed to provocatively for a high school dance. Nothing from the article corroborates the idea that she was being lusted after by the dads there.
Right?
From the actual blog:
“She took me into a corner in the hall way, with another woman, (who I’m assuming was a parent/chaperone) and told me that some of the dads who were chaperoning had complained that my dancing was too provocative, and that I was going to cause the young men at the prom to think impure thoughts.”
So yeah, they were actually talking about the boys and not being dirty old men, wow, go figure. Nice paraphrasing on Gawker.
Vic: corroborated? No. We just have her word for it that the chaperone said it was the dads.
The point is the adults looked at her and said “the boys are thinking impure thoughts because of the way she is dressed.” And that isn’t fair.
Having been a teenaged boy I can safely say that I’d be thinking impure thoughts about a hot girl is she was wearing a burka.
Ugh, so throw the boys out and be the Thought Police already.
i imagine they were chaperones… My prom had chaperones and we weren’t even homeschooled. And it was 1992. I’d imagine in a homeschool environment, and in the year 2014, there’s a lot of adult supervision.
Katherine: Or you could just ignore it and let horny teenagers be horny teenagers
I mean, she wore a dress that she felt sexy in because… ITS FUCKING PROM AND THATS WHAT YOU DO!!!
I guess to me the story is a girl got booted from a dance, she didn’t like the reason and blogged about it, and that is that. Are we suggesting the adults in question couldn’t have thought she was dressed and dancing inappropriately? Why assume they were lusting after her, just because that is what she said happened? Maybe they were, but it is just as likely, since multiple people complained, including the organizer(a woman) as she walked in, that the parents are just prudes. Maybe they don’t like the fact that she is dating a black guy, who knows.
Assuming perversion seems off base.
Assuming that boys are tempted to sin by women because they cannot control themselves is bullshit. Utter 100% bullshit. Not only that but it’s inherently dangerous in terms of male/female interaction. That seems perverse to me.
Chris Maverick: I’m really just being sarcastic along with pointing out that her dress is not to blame for what others think. If they didn’t want teenagers having impure thoughts at prom, they should not have held a prom. However this would not have prevented teenagers from having impure thoughts elsewhere.
Vic: I’m not sure what you’re arguing. The parents were certainly prudes. That’s the point. The reason prudishness exists is because those in a position of power look at something and say “OMG, that makes me feel all tingly like when I used to climb the rope in gym class!”
whether that’s acknowledged as “oh my god, i wish my wife wasn’t here so I could fuck that teenage girl behind the bleachers” or it’s repressed as “she’s too sexy, we better PROTECT THE CHILDREN!” is irrelevant. She’s a 17 year old girl, who was doing what 17 year old girls do at proms.
The fact that they found the need to do something about it IS perversion. It’s saying, “for whatever reason, we are threatened by that girl’s sexuality, and therefore we must quash it”
Chris: I don’t think it’s COMPLETE bullshit, actually. I just think it only tells half the story. Girls are also driven to “sin” by boys. People are sexual beings. Teenagers are people. The attempt to repress this can be seen as patriarchal control or overactive parenting… or both!
(also, as per my previous post about purity balls, I think the idea that “sinning” which in this situation pretty much means fucking is bad is problematic in an of itself)
Not really arguing anything LOL. I just find it odd that some random teenage girl can blog about getting kicked out of a dance and all of the sudden the dad’s are leches and the other adults are prudes. We weren’t there, who knows why she was really kicked out. Maybe she copped an attitude, again who knows.
People project their views onto a situation, even ones they were not involved in, I just think that is odd.
That’s a shame. I remember how much formals meant to me when I was her age. How dare they rob her of that. It’s amazing how warped people are. I’ve experienced similar creepy feedback when I was underage from my teachers.
ok, yes… I will grant you that we do not have the ability to mind read the specific adults (or teen) in this situation… but I don’t really care about that. The issue is “is there a cultural thing where we are blaming girls for how they dress” and that’s certainly true. That I have witnessed with my own eyes. And that’s the problem that I’m calling attention to.
I mean, sure… you can question any opinion article ever. There’s always the chance that any writer is lying. That’s not even the internet. That’s the nature of the press.
Chris, I was more going with the idea that boys ‘fall into sin’ because they can’t control themselves if they happen to spy a well turned ankle.
mmmmm…. ankles!!! Yeah, I get your point. But I felt like ranting more on what I think the actual problem is.
I guess after reading the actual blog, my issue, as is often the case, is how it was presented by the article.
“Teen Girl Ejected From Prom Because Horny Dads Can’t Stop Staring”
Forget how disingenuous that headline is. Forget that isn’t the reason she was given for being booted. You can’t try to look sexy, teenager, adult, whatever, and then get upset when you succeed and it offends some people.
“I looked hot. Not trashy, but you definitely would look twice when I walked through a doorway.”
Definitely not suggesting she shouldn’t be able to feel pretty, or dress whatever way she wanted to dress. I just think reporting it as lecherous dads, both from the article and her blog, is dangerous. Most people will not look deeper. Most people won’t even read the article, just assume there are a bunch of pervy dads in her community. Society just needs to be careful in this regard, both in protecting the rights of people(teens included) and not jumping to conclusions based on someones random blog. That’s all. No argument, no consternation, just objectivity.
Chris, in my view that is what the problem *really* is. Look, the typical viewpoint has always been that men are strong and stalwart and able to get the job done up until a woman tempts them away from the path of righteousness. In the face of female sexuality, the idea goes, males are unable to do anything but turn into slavering monkeys intent on humping. You see that trope constantly in our interpretation of Biblical stories – Adam and Eve, Lot and his daughters, Samson, and so forth. This is continued in the Christian narrative by Augustine, Benedict, and other early theologians. Women are seen as weak, sensual, imperfect, and impure who, unless they are the Virgin Mary, distractions from the pursuit of grace. If a woman expresses their sexuality it’s not the fault of the men around her if she’s assaulted. She should have known better. In my view, that’s the problem the article is exposing (especially being that the background is a conservative christian event).
To me part of the problem is if it is true that the dress did not violate the stated dress code as the girl claims, then people deciding that she was still dressed too provocatively actually has nothing to do with what she’s wearing. It would mean that she was kicked out of the prom for having too provocative of a body-type. That is not okay.
The part of this that I find upsetting is that she was sticking to the dress code. It is not like they kicked her out for not following a dress-code or decency clause. They are giving themselves free reign to decide wether a girl is to hot to be at prom. She could be in a parka and her boobs and butt would be just as big and humans would still be humans with sexual thoughts. In addition she was pretty well covered. I don’t understand on what basis they threw her out.
Vic: I disagree there. Reading the article, that is EXACTLY the reason she was given. Adults felt that her outfit was inappropriate. Whether that was because they were ashamed of the improper feelings they were having or they were afraid she would give such improper feelings to their kids is immaterial. They looked at her and said “that girl is too sexy to be here” and so the headline is completely valid. Yes, you do share some responsibility for the way in which you dress causes other people to FEEL. But no, you should not be punished for it. Certainly not in a situation where by letter of the rules, you are following them. That’s being objective.
As for the reporting of it as lecherous dads, well sure, that has an agenda. But she’s not writing a history book. She’s writing an op-ed piece, which is completely valid. It’s the difference between what appears (or should appear) on the 6 o’clock news and what appears on O’Reilly, Hannity, Stewart or Colbert.
Chris: Yep, that is certainly the insinuation. Haivng a minimum dress length is exactly equivalent to requiring a burkha. The same reasoning applies.
Jessi: Yes, that’s pretty much exactly what I would assume. Or they felt that the rules weren’t specific enough. The article says she’s 5’9. That means it’s quite possible that “fingertip length” on her might be may closer to crotch level than someone who is 5’3. it might not, either. But it’s not her fault they picked a stupid rule for the dress length rule.
Helena: Yep, that’s exactly what they did. The thing is, the prom is not governed by law, it’s governed by rule. The school (or lack of school in this case, I guess) can throw you out for whatever reason they want, and in this case, it seems pretty clear (to me) that they through her out for being too hot. That’s not ok.
Honestly, I’m not ok with the dress length rule either. (I’m against indecency rules in general). BUT she knew the rules when she bought her prom ticket, so she implicitly agreed to abide by them. Changing the rules in retrospect is a dick move.
To be fair, we only know what she said the did, hey at least they refunded her money.
Right… I acknowledged that. But like I said. That’s true of every op ed ever
Chris: I am against them in general too. They imply 1. That sexuality is not okay 2. You are in charge of the way other people treat you because of your clothes. I have never liked the whole ‘modest is hottest’ thing. But I digress…It seems strange to me that they are disobeying their own rules. And the fact that they have her money back implies that they know they did something wrong. I am curious just how much of this was based on her body type. As the article mentioned other girls who’s dresses didn’t match the dress code. That could have been bitterness on the sisters part, or they may have just be selectively choose who to in force the ‘rules’ on. Either way all the home school group is doing is informing the idea of ‘purity’ as a standard all women must uphold and that men men can’t control themselves. (Disclaimer: I am not implying that men shouldn’t think about women sexually. That is a completely in realistic (and stupid) goal some people seem to have. I just think there is a did fence between thoughts and un-welcome action) also they are completly ignoring the lesbians and their impure thoughts. Why is it that she only gets kicked out for the straight men’s thoughts? I want Representation!
I find it interesting that it was two women complaining that the men thought it was distracting to the boys. I wonder if it was just the women thinking it was distracting to the men.
Mark: that may be the case. Women can absolutely be just as sexist (against women) as men.
Helena: Yep. That’s pretty much what I was getting at. Restricting clothing options at all is basically saying “we don’t have the faith in humanity to handle the unfettered power of you vagina!” So I’m against it. Maybe humanity can handle it. Maybe not. That’s irrelevant. I don’t like the premise that 17 year olds are not sexual beings. Thus I pretty much unilaterally find purity standards bad.
finger tip length is a bullshit length requirement. Which is why we changed ours to no more than 2″ above the knee (i think that is what it is, but it is along those lines) for regular school day ware. I forget what the modifications are for Prom.
And woo…. a picture that DOESN’T include from the neck down is submitted as “proof” that her dress fell within the parameters of the dress code.
Do I fully favor a dress code, not really…. but at the same time there is something to be said about standards of dress and reasonable expectations. You can’t always wear what you want.
why can’t you?
Because society sucks like that…. 🙂
Well, you can wear what you want, but there are sometimes consequences that go along with that decision.
well, it depends on which part of this thread you are addressing. If you’re addressing the original post, then (at least from what we know) she was within their dress code standards. (I mean, to be fair, you’re right. We can’t see the top, so maybe it has visible nipple cutouts)
but if you’re talking about more what Helena and I are talking about, I’m not in favor of dress codes at all. I’m ok with restricting people from coming to school naked for sanitary reasons, but if a kid wants to come in a swimsuit, I’m pretty ok with that. Society sucks… yes…. society is wrong.
Or maybe, she has her shoulders pulled up to her ears rather than hanging straight down (which is the definition of finger tip length)
Just throwing this in- women in new york city are legally allowed to go about fully topless. Wonder how those adults would deal with a situation like that
I read the article and it shows her dress. There were no cut outs. There were interesting points though about her boyfriend and where this took place.
whatever… it’s a stupid rule… I mean, what if she was born with Phocomelia? Does that mean she should be able to go bottomless? What if you have severe dwarfism? 2 inches above your knee could show visible crotch.
The problem is, the people who make rules like this, are too sexually repressed to use words like “vagina.” What they want to say is “skirts must hang at least six inches past the bottom of the labia” but then they’d have to put that in a book somewhere 17 year old boys would read it and have impure thoughts and then where would we be?
Society is fine, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions, as well as realize life ain’t always fair.
We do not live in a vacuum, and how we interact with people does not just affect us, it affects them as well. So while I can agree people should be free to express themselves, the people they encounter also share that freedom. Thinking she was inappropriate may not be what she wanted to hear, or what you or I believe, but it is just as valid as her desire to look “hot”. Lambasting the people who made her leave, especially without having been there, not knowing anything but her point of view, seems illogical to me.
YOU think it was fine, you agree with her, that in and if itself does not negate the thoughts of the people running the dance.
Not saying you guys are wrong, you just aren’t right simply because you have an opinion.
Some people think she should be able to dress anyway she likes, some don’t, nothing wrong with either point of view IMO.
Vic: Society is hardly fine. it is society. There are problems with it and there are good things with it. And change comes (for good or for bad) by discussing those problems.
As I said before. I do acknowledge that it isn’t a public event. As the holder of a private event, I should be able to have whatever rules I want. “No sexy dresses” or “everyone must be nude.” Hell, I’m actually the guy who was IN FAVOR of allowing that group to have the “no blacks” prom a couple years back. When you agree to go to a private event, you agree to abide by their rules. No matter how asinine. If you don’t like it, don’t go. I’m fine with that.
But that doesn’t mean I won’t lambast them. I’m lambasting them for the same reason I lambast anyone. Their opinions are stupid. What they want is stupid. I say this, because I’ve thought long and hard about the world and I’ve realized that I know better than everyone else. Yes, I realize the rest of the world hasn’t accepted my genius yet… but that’s because they’re stupid!!! A few people are coming around, (hi, Helena and Jessi), and one day, when they die, they will be celebrated as my high priestesses and people might build a temple to them or something. But sadly for the most part, I will not be truly appreciated til years after I am gone. Such is the problem with great men, such as I.
Seriously though, you seem to be stuck on the idea that “maybe she did something wrong. We don’t know because we only have her side.” which isn’t relevant. no one is talking about her specifically. Not really. We’re talking about the theoretical idea.
Let’s look at it this way, its entirely possible that she’s lying entirely. It’s possible that she showed up to the prom, yanked up her skirt, pulled down her panties and looked at the chaperone and said “lick this, bitch!” then, pulled out a .45 and pistol whipped her and made her watch while she fucked one of the dads in the middle of the prom floor. Then she came home and lied about it. This is completely possible… and if so, sure… ejecting her makes sense…
But it’s also possible that she’s being completely 100% accurate. And that is the interesting case here. In all likelihood, since she’s human and not a god among men, like myself, she’s got some of her personal experience coloring it. So it’s probably somewhere between what she said and what you are theorizing. But none of that matters.
We’re not talking about is what we perceive as a societal problem. Forget that it’s even a real person. Lets assume it was a movie about a girl who got kicked out a prom for being too sexy. We would still be having this same discussion because it speaks to a societal problem. I’d argue the very fact that you are doubting the validity of her story speaks to the societal problem we are talking about.
So assume that she’s 100% accurate because that’s the interesting case. Sure, you are are responsible for accepting the consequences of your actions. But there were no actual consequences of her actions here, save for what was constructed by the chaperones who feared her sexuality. If she had walked in the door and a bunch of bible thumping christian boys had suddenly said “oh my god!!!!” and then started raping everything in sight, then MAYBE you’d have a point. But they didn’t. The only consequence of her actions was “someone feels like it is inappropriate because of a societal norm that we feel shouldn’t be there.” So if we don’t discuss societal norm, then what do we do?
Just to give context of the dress as a whole, this article shows pictures of it:
http://www.hannahettinger.com/fuck-the-patriarchy-guest-post-by-clare/
I don’t doubt her story, nor do I just accept it at face value. I have no reason to do either, do I? Why she was kicked out isn’t really relevant. How it was presented, and subsequently perceived, now THAT, to me is the interesting part.
Suppose you were a less open person. That you were not as comfortable with sexuality as you are. Would you be wrong, just because you felt that way? What is acceptable ebs and flows with changes in society, as such, how can anyone say what is right, or what is wrong as opposed to what is right now or considered wrong now.
Objectively there is no right or wrong, only what is accepted and what isn’t. Sure morals and ethics can determine a societal baseline, but that still doesn’t actually make something inherently right.
You say they fear sexuality, but how do you know? Are you suggesting that anyone who thinks she was inappropriate fears sexuality? I don’t think so, but without being there who truly knows. I like porn, erotic photos, dirty words, etc. I still think there is an appropriate level if dress and behavior for a teenager. I have nothing against sexuality, but I also am not against etiquette either.
All I am saying is that while you may have come to know everything ;), you have to let the rest of the works catch up.
I didn’t think her dress was all that crazy, but like I said, she also took a black dude, so maybe there was some other prejudice at play. We may never know. 🙂
wow
Yeah, I don’t see the dress as being that crazy either. I’m just pointing out the fact that it is possible to game the system and make it LOOK as though the dress is the right length in a picture even when it isn’t (and in person as well)
I’m kinda for school dress codes in the “eliminate distractions” POV. I’m also against them from the “personal freedom” POV. It can be very much a slippery slope. Regardless of whether I agree with the dress code or not, it is my job to enforce it to the best of my ability.
Vic Carter has very valid points across the board. However, if this was at trial she has already lost the battle. By her own admission at the end she acted aggressively. Earlier on rather than dropping the topic of her dress as she entered she continued to push the topic, I read it as aggressive. Based upon her own admissions at the end and how she started the night, I really believe she is sugar coating her behavior. Again I was not there but she has two points of reference of behavior one being pushy and the second as she left wit her friends and her friends I’d consider super aggressive. Also while I think this is a fair comment, I’ll agree her dress fits the code it does certainly brush up against it, normally when you are aware of a rule one she careful admitted to being aware of you assure you are well and safe. I can’t take her word at face value, why did she not post pictures of her friends dresses to back up her point. Anyone can get upset write on a blog and spin it anyway they want. WTH is with that topic line however “Horny Dads” what is with media today we just make up stuff? I could be wrong on her dress depending on how she is holding her shoulders and posture could easily swing it from valid to invalid. It looks like she is standing very erect from the photo with her shoulders back, if that’s the case depending on her posture 90% of the time the dress would not be acceptable per their rules. Also her blog post drops and F-bomb in the title, seriously?
Vic: It’s not relevant, but you keep referring back to the specifics of her case and making it relevant. That’s my point. Let’s say she’s completely full of shit. Are you saying that you believe that overactive attitudes towards sexuality AREN’T a problem in this country? Because I believe they are, which is why I posted about it (and post about it frequently). That’s the issue we’re talking about.
“Suppose you were a less open person. That you were not as comfortable with sexuality as you are. Would you be wrong, just because you felt that way?”
YES!!! that would be wrong. That IS wrong. That’s what I’m saying. I mean, despite my delusions of Godhood in the previous post. What makes me right and everyone else wrong? It’s my Facebook wall. Everything here is my opinion. The world according to Mav. I’m not actually God, no… but I am apparently interesting enough that I say all this grandiose bullshit with regularity and people like me enough to keep coming back. So that means my opinions matter. That’s why I do it. Sure, there’s all kinds of forums that lean the other way too. That’s why that purity ball video that I posted the other day exists. And those people are welcome to their opinion. But yes, I am saying categorically THEY ARE WRONG.
Sure, what is acceptable ebs and flows… at some points in space-time, slavery is acceptable. At some points in space-time, flying planes into buildings is acceptable. At some points in space-time female castration is acceptable. But I feel that I can categorically say that all those things are wrong. To look at it the other way. At some THIS point in space-time, homosexual marriage is unacceptable. Use of “illicit” drugs is unacceptable. Polygamy is unacceptable. Gambling is unacceptable. But, *I* also say categorically that those things are all RIGHT by me.
Objectively there is no right and wrong. You are correct there. It is all subjective. Right and wrong are nothing but sociological constructions. What I do is point to ways in which the constructions should be changed according to my own (possibly godlike, possibly just delusional) sense of ethics. I don’t deny that. It makes just as much sense for me to do that as it does for the religious groups to campaign against what I believe in. Interestingly, I support their right to do that as well.
The way cultural change actually happens is that there are people like me and people like chaperone lady, and we both pus at the ecosystem and eventually the needle moves a little in one direction or the other. Sometimes it moves a lot and the 13th amendment happens.
That was the opinion side. Now on to the cultural theory issues (This is responding to both Vic and Kathleen:
“You say they fear sexuality, but how do you know? Are you suggesting that anyone who thinks she was inappropriate fears sexuality?”
Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. Etiquette is a sociological construction. It is a hegemonic tool used to maintain adherence to a desirable status quo. Say she was completely naked. Complete nakedness does NOT magically cause “impure” thoughts to happen. There are tons of societies in africa, for instance where people wear far less clothes than we do. There are other societies (say in the middle east) where people wear far more clothes. The “impure thoughts” are a psychological response to unfamiliar stimuli. Etiquette, is the way in which we impose rules to maintain that status quo. (we, being the controlling ideology) We want ladies to behave like ladies. We want judeochr istian values towards sexuality and femininity to be maintained. You can directly trace most rules like this back towards a cultural ideal that is attempting to be upheld. Not wanting girls to be too sexy is a way to maintain their place as brides to be traded in a patriarchal system. (It’s really complex, I’m simplifying a bit, but I could cite papers if anyone cared.) I actually don’t have a problem with etiquette OR hegemony as a concept. So long as it is upholding an ideal that *I* believe in. I don’t believe in this one. So I am against it.
“I’m kinda for school dress codes in the “eliminate distractions” POV.”
But they DON’T eliminate distractions. Looking at it from the Point-of-view of 1) a former teenage boy. 2) a current teenager of teenage boys 3) a scholar of sexuality. 4) a total horn dog myself even for a middle aged man. I feel quite confident in saying that regardless of whether a woman is naked, wearing a bikini, wearing a nightgown, wearing a catholic school uniform, wearing jeans and a t-shirt or wearing a full burkha, if a teenaged boy likes her, he is going to be distracted by her. The hetero teenage boy is going to be devoting between 50-90% of his energies at all times to figuring out “how can I put my penis inside of her?” That’s what they do. Nothing you can do hegemonically is going to stop that. In fact, there is some research that says by demonizing sexuality you actually make it far worse. Not to mention the fact that it’s WRONG because you are saying that the teenaged girls rights to personal expression are worth shit compared to the teenaged boys rights to not get an accidental erection.
So yes, I get why these rules exist. But, I feel like (even outside of my self-appointed role as supreme ruler of the universe) I can authoritatively say they are wrong.
the fact that the adult males were upset that they were having impure thoughts and were scared by it it hilariously sad
Michael don’t forget no man said that for sure, We don’t really know if they said anything. Everyone is getting upset over a blog post that we can’t even prove has facts. I can find blog posts with pissed off people about everything. Here’s something more worthy of attention, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02/wilcox-integrated-prom-2014_n_5072414.html
Darren: As I was saying to Vic… yes, we don’t know that she is being 100% truthful, but that’s not the issue anyone really cares about. it’s entirely possible that the reason she specifically got kicked out of the prom was that she had a black boyfriend. It’s entirely possible that the reason she got kicked out is that she was running a methlab out of the bathroom. Maybe she shot a man in cold blood. The specifics of her situation aren’t relevant. What’s relevant is that she calls attention to a larger problem that’s worth discussing. It’s like when a politician calls attention to Joe the Plummer or something in a debate. No one cares about justice for Joe specifically. He’s relevant because he’s indicative of some larger issue that is worth discussing.
Do you believe that there is NO sexism towards teen girls because of the way they dress?
to put it another way. The very fact that anyone with at least half a brain would question “what if this girl is lying” rather than “fingertip length? what a ridiculously stupid rule” is the very thing that I take issue with.
Also, to Darren again… why do you have a problem with Fuck being in the title of her blog?
“Everyone is getting upset over a blog post that we can’t even prove has facts.” You know, whether or not that blog post is full of facts or full of bald-faced lies is actually not relevant. It could be a complete fiction; works of fiction address societal issues all the time, and that particular post addresses the policing of female bodies and the structural misuse of power.
You made my point for me, you are right…but if we don’t know the validity of her article it brings into question there being a problem to motivate a conversation. I am far beyond a reasonable doubt to say that she is not telling the whole truth. I have a problem talking about any “controversy” when that conversation is being pushed by a what is likely to be a libel instigation. I have a problem with the F-bomb because its being used to get attention that is unwarranted. I’ll site a website “I read that they don’t respect me or my argument, and they lack confidence in their argument so they feel the need for this vulgar language. In all discussions, there should be a mutual respect for each other and each other’s argument. Whether or not you agree shouldn’t matter; that respect should still be there.” http://earendilstar.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/that-fing-blog-post-on-fing-vulgarity/
“In all discussions, there should be a mutual respect for each other and each other’s argument.” yeah, this is actually not true.
I mean, just as a for-fucking-example:
Side 1: Vaccines cause autism!
Side 2: YOU’RE A FUCKING LOONY
Similarly, the fact that she says ‘fuck’ doesn’t mean she’s wrong.
Tone-policing is bullshit. Don’t do it.
Nat seriously? You just did the very thing I’m citing is not proper and making clear, that I consider very disrespectful.
Huh. How about that.
I’m gonna tone-police Darren. Darren, you are a disrepectful ass who does not know how to debate. Fuck off.
I’m impressed at the sheer lack of ability to debate me. I certainly picked a good picture to post for this bunch.
Do your victory dance and strut on away, sad little baby-man.
I’m impressed by your sheer lack of command of English, my man.
I am not your man, sorry to disappoint you.
I GOT RHYTHM
I GOT MUSIC
I GOT MY MAN
Darren Orange says “.but if we don’t know the validity of her article it brings into question there being a problem to motivate a conversation.”
No it doesn’t! Not at all! Because…
Laura Valentine says “You know, whether or not that blog post is full of facts or full of bald-faced lies is actually not relevant. It could be a complete fiction; works of fiction address societal issues all the time,”
Yes, exactly that… That’s what writing is for. Take a film like… I dunno, 12 years a slave. It’s based on a slave narrative. One man’s account of what his life was like as a slave. We don’t know his master’s side. We just have Solomon Northup’s side… in fact, since most people haven’t read the book, and instead have just seen the film, what we have is Steve McQueen’s interpretation of Solomon’s Northup’s side of the story. That doesn’t at all cast a doubt on whether or not we should consider the morality of slavery. Take another one, off the top of my head: Juno. Complete fiction. But that doesn’t mean teenaged pregnancy isn’t an issue.
Clare’s post calls into question a real issue. For exactly the reason I said before. The fact that anyone has a response of “what if she’s lying” rather than “wait, why is there a rule about dress length anyway?” is the issue that I have a problem with. It’s minimizing the freedom of the 17 year old girl. Which I have a problem with for the reasons I said in my long hegemony diatribe earlier.
As for the tone. Saying fuck is fine. I teach my students to write for their audience. That means if they’re writing for an audience of school administrators they write one way. If they’re writing for an academic journal it’s another way. If they’re writing for a news paper that’s different still. And if they’re writing for an internet blog that’s different as well. Titling a blog post “Fuck the Patriarchy” addresses it towards a very specific audience. It sets the tone of her argument from the first line. This is an extremely important rhetorical move, and the right one to make in this case.
When people read my FB (or any of my blogs before this) they probably assume that I’m just an asshole who likes to swear. But I’m not. I write in a very different way here than I write in my academic papers. And there’s a reason I’m as popular as I am. I am writing towards the audience. So was she.
darlin’, you’re as popular as you are because you are a relentless engine of self-promotion and pornography
Thankfully, not a relentless engine of self-pornography.
Chris, thanks for getting us back on topic. It’s not just the swearing its her claim in her own dialog to say it was wrong and yet she writes it after the fact? She admits to doing this and says she is sorry yet her title has the F-Bomb in it? It no only shows disrespect but its twice worse because of her claims in her writing. I wonder what other counteractions are in there that are just waiting to be uncovered. I agree with you Chris write to your audience but who cares if it ruins your point. Also this is being pass off as fact, not fiction, if someone made a movie about this fine go ahead fill in the gaps. It’s still a movie a work of fiction. We still sell movie tickets for films about slavery and civil war and other things that are well in our past. I’m not trying to say that there being a problem is negated. My point is only based upon the facts. If you want to change the world it starts with each person. I think promoting problems is not the best way to go but taking action where we can and effecting change is the way. If we all stay true then at some point these problems “breed” themselves away. You are never going to change people as mass but over time you can and it all starts with each person and that’s about the best you can do. I don’t think this has to do with what we think it has to do and that’s pretty much what I’m sticking to, it’s the best magic trick ever when people unwittingly help you pull it off even without you realizing you are doing it.
“My point is only based upon the facts.” What facts? The ones you are making up?
Laura Valentine says: “darlin’, you’re as popular as you are because you are a relentless engine of self-promotion and pornography”
Actually, the funny thing is, my self promotion (cheap plug http://www.cosmichellcats.com ) gets almost no attention at all. And my sexy girlie pics (most of which are on my fan page, but for a few links to the fan page as self promotion which I again, kinda fail at) are no where near as popular as my little outrages against stupidity like this one and the purity balls… I’m a man of the people, dammit!!!
Small favors. 🙂
Darren: I’m sorry, I don’t understand most of your comment. I’m not sure if you’re agreeing that she has a valid point or not (even if you think she’s lying). My real issue is you seem to think that if she’s lying… if’s she’s being fictitious, that matters. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a book called Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It was complete and total fiction. She never claimed otherwise. Abraham Lincoln said that that book was responsible for starting the Civil War. Writing matters.
Whether Clare is telling the truth or whether she went to prom and had a great time with her friends and was not thrown out but decided to make up a nice little story for attention the next day, really doesn’t matter at all. Again, it’s like when Obama or Bush or Romney or Clinton or whoever stands up in a debate and says “last week I spoke with a single mother in Arkansas who said…” It doesn’t really matter if they’re lying. No one even checks. They tell the stories because stories have power and they get to the point that they want to make (we need universal healthcare or social security reform or to got to war in Iraq, whatever).
Using harsh language is a very important tool. You’ll note that in 73 comments, you’re the first person to even notice or care about it. Because that’s not actually bad debate tactics. It’s very good debate tactics, depending on the audience. Clare isn’t trying to institute a change in her school board. There’s no way any one of those parents regularly read her sister’s blog. She was writing to energize a group of internet savvy feminists and that’s a call to action and there that language is completely appropriate and in fact encouraged.
Similarly most of my posts, even about really serious issues have some amount of swearing and very often overt racism, heresy or misogyny in them. Because that’s part of my humor. I’m not testifying before congress. I’m trying to be amusing enough to make people pay attention to me long enough to get the message that I am trying to send.
@Darren – in short: It seems to me, and perhaps many people, as though you are ignoring and undermining the message by attacking the messenger.
Those with strong opinions on this may see your tactic, intentional or accidental as it may be, as being very similar to a defense attorney attacking a whitenesses character based upon the clothes she is wearing. Is how the whiteness is dressed more important than her testimony? What about a teenaged girl at a prom? How is she supposed to dress and who decides?
You know, normally I don’t really care if people spell things correctly or not. So long as I know what they’re trying to say. Same with grammar. This is Facebook not a spelling bee. That said….
Robert W. Bergen: the fact that you said “whiteness” instead of “witness” twice is the best thing ever and more than anything makes me happy I started this conversation.
@Chris – There’s no telling when my dyslexia will couple with autocorrect to comedic effect, only that it will happen. 😉 Such a happy-making accident. must stand.
Oh I love this thread and I hate that I am so late to see it. Thank you for the interesting read, and interesting comment section!
Lacy: it’s just from yesterday, mostly last night, so you’re not really late. What are your thoughts?
Many of you already wrote what I would write – and so much better. I will share something similar that happened to me in 6th grade though.
I wore a LONG dress to school – ankle length, completely within dress code. I was approached by a male teacher who told me maybe I shouldn’t wear that dress to school anymore because it was too ‘womanly’ I remember feeling super embarrassed walking away and never wearing it again. But looking back I did have a ‘womanly’ body in 6th grade, I had ‘blossomed’ but I wasn’t trying to be sexual, or turn anyone on – I loved that beautiful dress. It irritates me that the teacher sad that to me. Basically I needed to hide my body as it was because IT was inappropriate.
I think a lot of teen girls go through something like this – there’s comes a point when you are still a ‘child’ yet your body starts to because womanly and people treat you differently – it sucks because you didn’t ‘do’ anything, but everyone else changes.
Hmmm, after reading that I’m not sure how on topic it was, but that’s what I was reminded of by this article. Also, I very much agree that it wouldn’t even matter if she was lying, because I know that sort of SHIT happens, so it’s worthy of discussion even if it is fiction.
Chris Maverick – “It’s not relevant, but you keep referring back to the specifics of her case and making it relevant.”
The point of using her blog as an example is to illustrate that everyone here is only getting one side of the story. Panties(or boxers) all up in a bunch based on the word of a random teenager, who was pissed she got booted. Think about that. You are all making a moral judgement call in regards to the adults, based solely on a blog post from a teen age girl, simply because you agree with what you think she is trying to say. Does no one see a problem with that? Who cares why she was thrown out, reading her blog she seems like every other self entitled teen these days, so it really doesn’t matter. The fact that a BLOG post from some random girl has people up in arms. What does that say about our society.
“But yes, I am saying categorically THEY ARE WRONG.”
You can only prove who is “wrong” so long as the majority of people involved in a debate agree with one side or another. Murder is something we think is wrong, put us in a room with 100 rebels who see it as their only escape from oppression, and guess what, it ceases to be wrong. Some would say, that there is an inherent knowledge of right and wrong in our species, that “wrong” can be classified as anything that causes harm, etc. While I agree there needs to be a societal norm, that norm is not generated by some universal golden rule, but rather by power and in human societal case, majority rule. What is rigtht to you or me is only as relevant as how many people agree with us. That is a fact. Take the moral high ground on kidnapping girls against the militants in Africa solo and see how far being “right” gets you. Take in a battalion of hardened troops and a few tanks, and guess what? You just became the rightest mother f@#ker on the continent. See my point?
“The way cultural change actually happens is that there are people like me and people like chaperone lady, and we both pus at the ecosystem and eventually the needle moves a little in one direction or the other.”
Which is fine. But there is no reason to do it under the pretense of “right” and “wrong”. That draws a line in the sand, and creates a divide implying that someone has to win and others have to lose. That need not be the case. WHY do you think sexuality should be more open in this country? Why do you think abortion is ok(not saying you do or don’t, using the figurative “you”)? Why should we feed the poor by taking from the rich? Imagine if people actually discussed the reasoning behind their beliefs as opposed to assigning some arbitrary morality to everything. If every action was based on a tangible result and not on ideology or opinion. Can you even fathom the difference that would make. If instead of trying to convince each other of OUR truth, we all presented our evidence and discovered the truth together?
“Complete nakedness does NOT magically cause “impure” thoughts to happen. There are tons of societies in Africa, for instance where people wear far less clothes than we do.”
We don’t live in Africa. In America, where we and that girl live, it is socially unacceptable to just randomly walk around naked, and as we see nakedness as a sign of sexuality, it is unlikely that doing so will not elicit thoughts of a sexual nature. And while you may not agree with society. While you may be free to speak out to change it. So long as you are part of it, you should adhere to the standards set forth by society. We do not get to pick and choose the rules/laws we follow. That is not how things work, contrary to what many believe. If you walk around naked, and your society is not that open, regardless of your desire to express yourself, you are in fact wrong by the standards of your community. Your solution? Move to a place where being butt nekkid is cool. Individuals must at the very least abide by societal laws, even as they try to change them. Defiance and change do not necessarily go hand in hand.
” Not wanting girls to be too sexy is a way to maintain their place as brides to be traded in a patriarchal system.”
Perhaps you are right, still doesn’t change the fact that society will dictate this regardless of whatever morality we choose to apply.
“Not to mention the fact that it’s WRONG because you are saying that the teenage girls rights to personal expression are worth shit compared to the teenage boys rights to not get an accidental erection. ”
Society is not infringing on male or female rights when it defines what is acceptable in terms of sexuality. MAJORITY RULES. Women are objectified because the vast majority of society objectifies them. Men are in positions of power because a majority of our society believes that to be valid. When will that change? Simple. When more people agree with the hypothetical A than agree with B. If people suggest that a select few control the masses, whose fault is that? The select few or the masses? Here is a skit by Dave Chapelle that illustrates this point:
http://youtu.be/J7QNw1LRJv4
Point? What you or I think as individuals is irrelevant, society will determine what the “uniform” you wear says about you. That is just the way it is.
Laura Valentine – “You know, whether or not that blog post is full of facts or full of bald-faced lies is actually not relevant. It could be a complete fiction; works of fiction address societal issues all the time, and that particular post addresses the policing of female bodies and the structural misuse of power.”
Actually it is extremely relevant. Not because what happened to this one girl at her prom actually matters, but rather for the reasons stated above in regards to what people will believe and why they will believe it. You have to be willing to ask the right questions. By assigning your own morality to the story, you ignore all other possibilities as a means of reinforcing your own ideology. And that is a problem.
Laura Valentine – “In all discussions, there should be a mutual respect for each other and each other’s argument.” yeah, this is actually not true.
“I mean, just as a for-fucking-example:
Side 1: Vaccines cause autism!
Side 2: YOU’RE A FUCKING LOONY”
Do you know what side 2 should be? What would really help the world instead of pushing one way of thinking over another?
Side 2: Why do you think that vaccines cause autism?
After this you guys got all wonky and confrontational something I am avoiding these days as it serves no one.
Vic, I’m not going to get into an actual vaccine debate here (or, in fact, anywhere). The point is that there isn’t an argument or debate to be had: the anti-vaccine people are flat-out 100% wrong and, if they are still anti-vaccine at this point in time, almost certain to be zealots who cannot be convinced by the actual evidence. Telling them they are fucking loonies and peacing out is the only response I care to have. There is no need whatsoever to respect them, their side of the debate, or to have a civil discussion. LOONIES. PEACE OUT.
How is it possible that you missed the point that badly Laura? Seriously, I am literally baffled by your lack of insight.
“Side 2: Why do you think that vaccines cause autism?”
The point of that statement, since you completely missed what was being said, is that understanding the opposing point of view is integral to true social change. It is not enough to simply “know” you are right. Understanding where people are coming from is far more important than any agenda you may have, provided your ultimate goal is education and not simply to push your point of view onto others.
Chris says that this post points to a larger issue, the use of sexuality(repressed or otherwise) as a means of control and subjugation in our society. I content that the issue is that shared ideology negates reasoned debate as is evidenced by the acceptance of her story, no questions asked, simply because it reinforces a particular mindset.
You cannot dismiss other people out of hand without first establishing a baseline for your expertise. Simply saying you are right, does not in fact make you right. Now, as stated before, when you are in a room with 20 people and 19 agree with you, guess what, you are then about as right as you can get.
Proof exists. Things can be measured, facts CAN be established. There is no question that a reasonable truth can be obtained. It is still only as valid as the amount of people who support it. That is, in regards to society. The Earth has always been round(ish), but for all intents and purposes it was flat until society accepted it to be something more.
We should not be trying to convince one another of what is “right”, we should be learning to educate one another as to what is possible.
Vic, you might want to avoid trumpeting how much you’re “avoiding” getting confrontational right before you explain how you’re “baffled” by someone’s “lack of insight”.
It’s fine if you want to be an obnoxious asshole, but don’t treat the people you’re arguing with like they’re stupid by pretending you’re above the fray. It doesn’t reflect well on you.
Also, the point *you’re* missing about “respect” and “education” is that it’s nobody’s job to be your teacher in an argument. Nobody is *obligated* to patiently explain things to you until you understand, especially if you are unwilling to do any of that work yourself.
Sitting back and whining about how people are being so unfair and mean and not helpful enough in an argument is a child’s tactic. You’re a grown man, so act like it.
I did say I was LITERALLY, as in I am actually baffled, that she was able to miss the point. Not sure how much clearer I could have been Nat.
You on the other hand, no question there, you simply want to be confrontational. I mean you missed the point as well, but at least you did it with gusto.
Seeking understanding is not equivalent to needing an explanation. Finding common ground, despite what you might think, is actually worthwhile.
And Nat, please don’t talk to me like you know me. You don’t.
You’re right, I don’t know you. And I’m pretty glad about that, frankly.
You seem to think that if you just vomit enough words onto the page, they’ll start making sense on their own. That ain’t true.
“Common ground” and “understanding” are nice things, but they’re not the only good goals in the world. Too often they get misused by smug motherfuckers like you who’d rather shut someone down for being rude or (gasp) confrontational than actually listen to them.
Funnily enough, it’s very often women who get shut down for being angry. They only get to talk about what’s happening to them or what’s wrong if they do it juuuust right and manage to avoid upsetting the oh-so-delicate flowers like you. Even more strangely, sometimes it turns out that there’s no correct way to phrase the problem. Too strident? Well, nobody’s going to listen to someone who’s so *angry*. Too quiet and calm? Well, if you don’t speak up, nothing’s going to change? Can’t you just *help* people understand you, dear?
Bullshit, all of it.
It’s awfully convenient to be able to decide you’re not going to listen to a complaint or an argument because it wasn’t phrased properly, but c’mon. This isn’t Jeopardy and you aren’t Alex Trebek. Grow up and learn to listen to people even when they’re angry and it upsets you, because their problems aren’t *about you*, and they are under no obligation to rephrase everything to suit your particular delicate nature.
Again, you don’t know me. You want to make a point about my thoughts based on yours fine. Keep leading off with baseless insults and you aren’t going to get very far.
I didn’t “shut” anyone down. She missed the point. No amount of sugar coating is going to change the fact that she didn’t get it. I explained what I meant twice, neither time was I condescending in making my actual point. The fact that neither of you “got it” is on you not me. I didn’t say anything earth shattering.
“It’s awfully convenient to be able to decide you’re not going to listen to a complaint or an argument because it wasn’t phrased properly, but c’mon. This isn’t Jeopardy and you aren’t Alex Trebek. Grow up and learn to listen to people even when they’re angry and it upsets you, because their problems aren’t *about you*, and they are under no obligation to rephrase everything to suit your particular delicate nature.”
Now you are just being foolish. She was talking about apples and we were discussing oranges, no one was lambasting her for being upset about autism and vaccines, it wasn’t relevant to the discussion, so the actual point was clarified and the rest dismissed.
I am not sure what your problem is, seems like some insecurity, but whatever. No one was attacking anyone. Everything I wrote was based on objective opinion, nothing was presented in any way as to try and force Chris, Laura or anyone to do anything. The sole purpose was to get people thinking. Apparently that bothers you, my bad, let me go back and get my pitchfork and torch so we can rabble rouse instead.
Jackass.
My Sr prom dress was short…so were the dresses of half of the Sr class girls attending.
Ok, I can give a crap about this. lol
I did not miss the point, Vic. You did; your response clearly showed that you did not understand what I was talking about, so I clarified. Then you missed it again.
Except no one was talking about what you posted… Your point, about there being a clear “right” and “wrong” was not missed. My suggestion, in regards to being a little more open to true debate, was.
You made the assumption(about my response), that I was somehow actually commenting on the validity of your statement, based on your ideology.
In context of everything else I said, which you either missed or ignored, I was merely stating that the my way or the highway attitude, exhibited throughout this thread serves no one.
I didn’t post anything overtly confrontational, not sure what all the consternation is about.
She should be glad to get kicked out. lol
Ok, I’ve been in class all morning… trying to catch up now.
Good luck. LOL
Lacy: That’s also a really good point and I was wondering when someone would make it. The reality of being a teen girl… (the reality of being female at all) in this country is that, people are going to stare at you lasciviously. In all likelihood if there were more than three or four adult men at the prom, at least one of them looked at her with “damn, I’d like to hit that” eyes. It is not in her imagination. Women (even 17-year-old ones) know when they’re being sexually objectified.
I actually don’t have a problem with it. I freely admit that I’ve seen girls who I’m pretty sure were teenagers and said to myself “damn, that girl is sexy. If I were in this high school I’d be all over her!” It happens and she has every right to be creeped out about it (as did Lacy when it happened to her). The difference is that I am evolved enough to know that the fact that I might want to bang someone is my (and my penis’s) problem and NOT hers. And so I behave accordingly. I would never dream of telling someone that they needed to not dress a certain way because it’s too sexy for me to handle.
Lacy is absolutely right. Given that physical and mental development are completely unrelated, there is certainly a likelihood for any young woman of her body going through puberty well before her mind can handle it. That’s no one’s fault. Not the girl. Not the male onlooker. Adult Lacy knows that if she’s looking particularly hot one day and I (or her husband) tells her that, it’s a compliment. She doesn’t feel OBLIGATED to fuck either one of us. She doesn’t feel OBLIGATED to change her clothes to not distract either one of us either. That’s just something she had to learn as a process of growing up That’s life.
So yes, I feel like the “creepy old men” (who honestly, given that they’re parents of 17 year olds are likely my age) have every right to be creepy and ogle her for being dressed hot. And she has every right to be creeped out by it or ignore it (which is basically what she claims she did).
The part that I think is WRONG is asking her to change her behavior because of it. It was the homeschool prom. In a very real way, it was a party FOR HER. Not for them. No matter which side of this debate anyone is on, what she did was clearly with in the bounds of the sociological norms of teenaged high school students. Anyone who is telling her otherwise is trying to map their social morals onto theirs and that isn’t fair.
Vic: Let’s be completely fair. I will make moral judgements on people with or without other sources. You read and comment on my stuff enough to know that. I’ve said repeatedly, regardless of whether she’s telling the truth or not, my issue is with standards by which we expect people to comport themselves in regard to sexuality. In fact, back in October, I gave my kids a writing assignment where they had to debate what was and wasn’t appropriate for teenaged Halloween costumes particularly in response to the whole Mean Girls “Halloween is just a chance to wear slutty lingerie and put on a pair of ears and that makes it ok” phenomenon. That is what I find interesting, so that is why I posted the article.
The fact that a BLOG (your emphasis) post has people up in arms says something awesome and amazing about our society. The idea behind the first amendment was to include freedom of expression, in particular it called out both the right to speak openly and to publish freely. The problem was for the next 200 years, speech only had a audience of earshot. Publication (which has been extended to include tele broadcasting) had a much wider range, but was prohibitively expensive. What this meant was that your big guys (say an NBC or a Fox or DNC or an RNC or a Wall Street Journal or a Marvel Comics) had the ability to express their opinions EXTREMELY widely, whereas the little guy had a much harder time and basically needed to become really notable, either by being a brilliant orator (say MLK) or doing something crazy (Thich Quang Duc) or be lucky enough to be beaten to death (Matthew Shepard) or some combination of the three and have the media that did have power take notice of you and tell your story for you. In the Internet age, I think its great that some random person with a stick up their ass about an issue that’s important to them can blast off a few words and hope for the best. Clare has a story (real or fictional) that rang true and important enough with a large enough amount of people that it took hold And got attention WITHOUT mass media validation. And that is perfect. That is the essence of cultural change. So what does it say about our society? It says that we got something right for once.
“You can only prove who is “wrong” so long as the majority of people involved in a debate agree with one side or another.”
But I don’t have to prove who’s wrong. That’s the point. I’m not trying to prove wrong and right. You’ll note that in the 20 years or so I’ve been doing this in various places I’ve never blocked a single person’s comments, no matter how inflammatory they might be much less for disagreeing with me. It’s not about proving anything. It’s about pointing out what I see as a social injustice. Which in this case, happens to match up with what Clare sees as a social injustice, so I used her as the example. She’s my Joe the Plummer, as I said before. You are correct. Right and wrong are not objective. They never are. They are purely subjective concepts. I am using my subjectivity to attempt to change the societal norm of what right and wrong are. So is she. That’s how the system works. I don’t see why you’re even arguing this.
Essentially all o your arguments come down to “yeah, but she’s just some pissed off dumbass teenaged girl. Why should we listen to her?” My answer is, why not? Does she not mater because she’s pissed off? Because she’s dumb? Because she’s a teenager? Because she’s female? To me, I think all of those people have valid opinions.
“and as we see nakedness as a sign of sexuality, it is unlikely that doing so will not elicit thoughts of a sexual nature. And while you may not agree with society. While you may be free to speak out to change it.”
Then why are you against her doing that? That’s what she wrote the blog for. And she’s not even as out of left field as I am. All she wants is the right to wear a dress in the same style as her shorter friends.
” So long as you are part of it, you should adhere to the standards set forth by society. We do not get to pick and choose the rules/laws we follow”
You’re just flat out incorrect here. Not subjectively wrong. You are objectively incorrect. That’s not how the system works. We DO get to pick the rules and laws we follow. We do not have to adhere to the standards of the community. We specifically have courts set up so that we can try to fight the standards that we disagree with. We specifically have the first amendment so that that we can gain support for that fight. Do we have to live with the consequences of breaking those rules. YES. But do have to accept them? NO! and the important thing here is, she didn’t BREAK a rule (so far as you know) she only spoke out against a rule. You are correct, we have no evidence to the other side. But all we know right now is that by the letter of the rule (not law) she was in bounds. Any assumptions that she broke other rules have been added by you, because you doubt her authenticity. She’s just as likely to have not broken any rules as to have broken them.
“Society is not infringing on male or female rights when it defines what is acceptable in terms of sexuality. MAJORITY RULES. Women are objectified because the vast majority of society objectifies them. Men are in positions of power because a majority of our society believes that to be valid. When will that change? Simple.”
This is also incorrect on a million different levels. If you care, I can point you at a bunch of research that says so. But you’re making assumptions that aren’t true or simple. I hinted at some of them earlier, and everyone ignored them, so I’m not going to bother again, but NO, patriarchal hegemony DOESN’T work like that (for good or for bad)
The Chapelle skit:
This is interesting, because by posting it, you have EXACTLY proven my point. Chapelle is not a source checked reporter. He is some random guy who posted his opinion about a fact that is 1) certainly colored by his own experiences 2) almost certainly fictionalized to make it funny. But you posted it BECAUSE it points to a larger cultural issue. Which, btw, is also why he said it. The fact that you used it, completely validates literally everything I have said about why Clare is relevant.
Laura and Vic’s autism loonies argument: The point here goes back to Darren’s comment about playing nice during a debate. No, you don’t have to play nice. That’s why I said Darren was wrong for saying her point was invalidated because she used Fuck in the title. The right thing to do in a debate is to play by the rules of the debate in such a manner as to get the debate audience on your side. If you’re on a presidential debate on CPSAN there are certain rules of decorum (that pretty much every presidential candidate in the television age has broken). If you’re playing on the internet it’s the wild west.
So, Laura is right. If someone uses “Vaccines cause autism” as their argument, then she is completely valid in saying “you’re a fucking loon” as her response. They are attempting to use reasoning backed by science that is incorrect by current scientific understanding. If someone says “vaccinating is against my religion” she can still say “you’re a fucking loon” but its no longer as strong an argument because they’re not making a scientific claim. She is in that sense now debating the validity of their religion which is a much harder battle because religion is based on faith not fact.
I’d argue that most internet people arguing against vaccinations fall into the former camp not the latter.
Nat and Vic’s tone policing argument: I think I’ve made it clear that in general, I don’t have any problem with people being mean to each other in comments on my stuff. Like I said, it’s the wild west up in here. Hey, my last name is Maverick!
Sarah: Exactly. The dress in that girl’s picture is clearly no obscenely short. Certainly not by HS prom standards. It is intended to be sexy. I offer that it is MORE conservative than this one from an article I was reading earlier this year and never ended up posting: http://community.sparknotes.com/2014/01/10/should-midriffs-be-allowed-to-attend-prom
The question isn’t one of did she or didn’t she break a rule. Not really. The question is why are people threatened by the sexuality of a 17 year old woman (and yes, I said woman and not girl on purpose)
“Essentially all o your arguments come down to “yeah, but she’s just some pissed off dumbass teenaged girl. Why should we listen to her?” My answer is, why not?”
That is not what I am saying at all. My question, the very first thing I asked why take her word for it and not simply consider the alternatives. My theory on that was that her views are in line with your views, thus there is no need to look further. Believing that all sides must be considered is not the same thing as disregarding a particular point of view.
“But I don’t have to prove who’s wrong. That’s the point. I’m not trying to prove wrong and right.”
And my point is not about there being a wrong or a right. It is the idea that wrong and right are determined by perception, which we seem to agree on. Trying to change something that you disagree with is not the same thing as dismissing those who disagree with you. Again, I am speaking more to the idea of their being only one valid point of view, which I don’t believe, as opposed to some arbitrary determination of right or wrong.
“Do we have to live with the consequences of breaking those rules. YES. But do have to accept them? NO!”
I never suggested you couldn’t break the rules. Or that you had to agree with them. But until the rules change, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks, we are all bound by them. Acceptance or not, what we think as individuals, in and of itself has no bearing on how our actions will be perceived or what the consequences will be. Sorry, but you are wrong to think otherwise. Need proof? Pick a rule/law you disagree with that has an impact on other people, break it, and tell me how that works out for you.
“Any assumptions that she broke other rules have been added by you, because you doubt her authenticity. She’s just as likely to have not broken any rules as to have broken them. ”
I made no such assumption. Not once. The only assumptions made where by the author and the people who accepted her story at face value. The fact that I chose to question a teenager accusing chaperones of discrimination and lechery has no bearing on the validity of her claim. I am not sure why questioning a random blog post by a disgruntled teenager automatically means I am condemning her. Nothing I have makes a claim for either side other than to reiterate a lack of substantiated evidence. Which I believe is more dangerous than whether or not she was subjected to some over reaching morality play.
“This is also incorrect on a million different levels. If you care, I can point you at a bunch of research that says so. But you’re making assumptions that aren’t true or simple. I hinted at some of them earlier, and everyone ignored them, so I’m not going to bother again, but NO, patriarchal hegemony DOESN’T work like that (for good or for bad)”
I disagree. The is no assumption regarding how the majority affects what is and is not accepted. It’s not my opinion that a persons ideology affects their ability to comprehend and process counter arguments. There are studies on that point as well Chris. There are examples of hive mentality all around us.
“The Chapelle skit:
This is interesting, because by posting it, you have EXACTLY proven my point. Chapelle is not a source checked reporter. He is some random guy who posted his opinion about a fact that is 1) certainly colored by his own experiences 2) almost certainly fictionalized to make it funny. But you posted it BECAUSE it points to a larger cultural issue. Which, btw, is also why he said it. The fact that you used it, completely validates literally everything I have said about why Clare is relevant.”
Again, not the point I was making. Perception is a key part of how we interact. Regardless of what you or I think is good or bad, right or wrong. The point of posting the skit, was not as some validation of an opinion, but rather an illustration(a comedic one), of how people may not always look past what is right in front of them, thus missing(or ignoring) a deeper truth.
There is always another point of view. Always more perspective. Ignoring that, is a mistake, no matter how contrary it is to ones own beliefs. THAT is the only point I have been making. Anything else, you guys have gleaned from my posts is based on your assumptions of my motives, nothing more.
Well this has been fun. I will respond to specific questions Chris, but any rebuttal you have will be left as the final word. Thank you for the discussion.
Vic: “My question, the very first thing I asked why take her word for it and not simply consider the alternatives.”
Because I don’t care one way or the other. I’ve said repeatedly. Whether she was swaying to the music in the corner with her hands holding down her skirt to hide her depleted uranium core chastity belt or whether she was fucking guys in the bathroom while cooking meth and pistol whipping chaperones is irrelevant to me. I honestly don’t care about either of those issues or anything in between. The interesting part is the question she raises regarding a teenager’s right to her own sexuality.
” My theory on that was that her views are in line with your views, thus there is no need to look further.”
And your theory is incorrect. I defend the rights of people who’s views I don’t agree with A LOT. I defended the rights of the idiot white kids who had their “gangsta watermelon MLK day party.” I don’t think Sterling should be forced to sell the Clippers even though he’s an asshole. I even support the rights of parents to not vaccinate even if I think it’s a dumbass decision that is potentially extremely harmful to other members of society, MYSELF included. I don’t go out of my way to start threads supporting these viewpoints, because they’re not mine, and why should I? But, I often chime in saying that I support their rights to be idiotic.
your point about validity: But no one is questioning you on that. Not a single person cares at all, other than Darren, who agrees with you. Everyone has said they’re welcome to their opinion. Meaning it’s valid. They’re just dumbasses. So what you’re in theory fighting for is completely immaterial to the conversation.
“Or that you had to agree with them. But until the rules change, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks, we are all bound by them. Acceptance or not, what we think as individuals, in and of itself has no bearing on how our actions will be perceived or what the consequences will be. Sorry, but you are wrong to think otherwise. Need proof? Pick a rule/law you disagree with that has an impact on other people, break it, and tell me how that works out for you.”
It works out great. That’s how rules change. You find things that you don’t agree with and you fight them. Yes, fighting them is hard. Yes, there are consequences to fighting them. But, fighting them is what she’s trying to do. She is trying to change something that she disagrees with. I don’t see why you don’t get that. Seriously, what about it don’t you understand. She says “here’s the rule. Here’s why I don’t like it. Here’s what happened to me.” Your response has been “fuck her, she was probably breaking some other rule.” That is literally the only thing you have said in response to her issue. “Why should we believe she was really affected by this?” and the answer is: IT DOESN’T MATTER IF SHE WAS.
Here’s a counterexample. I’m heterosexual. Gay marriage literally has no direct effect on my life whatsoever. But I still have an opinion on it. I say “let them get married.” In fact, I might also say “hey, my cousin is gay, and I would like for her to be able to get married some day.” You don’t know if I have a gay cousin or not. Maybe I do. Maybe I totally made that up. But it doesn’t matter. I am calling attention to an issue. Your response is like saying “how do we know Mav has a gay cousin? Maybe his cousin can’t get married because she’s ugly. Maybe she can’t get married because she’s in prison. Maybe she can’t get married because she is betrothed by birth to the lord and savior G’Jheety-7 of the Alpha Centauri! We can’t take Mav’s word for it. We need answers to these other questions.” We don’t need answers. Those are just deflections from the key issue: I want there to be gay marriage.
The key issue here is: 17 year old women shouldn’t be discriminated against for being too sexy.
Ignoring everything else… Do you agree or not?
Continued: As for the assumptions you made… YES, you did. You’re the one who brought up that she could have been kicked out for other reasons. That’s the only reason those are even part of the conversation. No one else cares why she was kicked out.
“I disagree. The is no assumption regarding how the majority affects what is and is not accepted. It’s not my opinion that a persons ideology affects their ability to comprehend and process counter arguments. There are studies on that point as well Chris. There are examples of hive mentality all around us. ”
Cite one… And explain how it relates to this conversation…
For my part, I’ll start with Luce Irigaray’s explanation’s of how females are subjugated sociologically as objects of trade in a marxist class structure as an extension of ancient kinship systems. And we can go from there.
Chapelle Skit: I know that wasn’t the point you were making. My point is that by using it, you proved that it is valid to use a biased source as your straw man for making an argument.
Then, again, this is a homeschool prom. These are kids of parents who believe they can do a better job of teaching their kids than the school system. These are parents that do not value the socialization that also goes on in school. The girl may be more correct than most are giving her credit for. Teenagers often exaggerate to make a point ( as do adults who haven’t yet reached concrete operations…). Maybe they are lechers….
She’s only kind of homeschooled. She was homeschooled as a senior so that she could take college classes at a community college. It sounds like she otherwise had a regular school experience and socialization.
Fish out if water then. She wasn’t one of them.
“The interesting part is the question she raises regarding a teenager’s right to her own sexuality.”
Well, she only raises that question if she was actually singled out and ogled by the parents. Otherwise, she just accused the fathers of pedophilia based on her perception. I don’t know about you, but to me, without actual proof that she was being targeted by the fathers there, is the real story, not whether or not she should as a teenager be free to dress anyway she likes.
“And your theory is incorrect. I defend the rights of people who’s views I don’t agree with A LOT.”
Sigh… Let me rephrase. You think the story is about her freedom to express her sexuality, she thinks she was targeted for being too “hot”. Her veiw of the situation aligns with your view of the sitaution. I think the real story is in how some random fucks blog post was taken by gawker, tarted up to link bait, and then presented as fact. It is an OP-ED based on a blog, there are no facts. Which is why the details of her story are irrelevant. The geneder politics you are assigning to the story, again, irrelevant. The thing that I found interesting was the reaction to her accusations. Not sure why you are missing that.
“It works out great. That’s how rules change. You find things that you don’t agree with and you fight them. Yes, fighting them is hard. Yes, there are consequences to fighting them. But, fighting them is what she’s trying to do. ”
Really? She is a champion for female rights now? Nonsense. She is a disgruntled teenager and you are assigning way more credence to her story than the information calls for. This is the internet, this story could just as easily be completely made up as true and you are questioning my reasons for being skeptical? Questioning the validity of the source is not an automatic dismissal BTW.
“She is trying to change something that she disagrees with. I don’t see why you don’t get that. Seriously, what about it don’t you understand. She says “here’s the rule. Here’s why I don’t like it. Here’s what happened to me.”
I don’t “get” it, because that isn’t what she did LOL. She wasn’t trying to buck the system. Her goal was not to push the boundaries. Nothing in her posts suggests anything like that, in fact, she claimed to have met their standards on purpose. What she actually did was accuse people of lechery. Without proof. Which in this day and age, because of how easy it is for people to have their voices heard, very dangerous. That is what YOU don’t get. This isn’t about some girl who had her prom ruined by douche bag parents. It’s about some girl with no actual credibility having her accusations accepted without question. Fine, YOU choose to believe her. You choose to assign validity to her words. You choose to believe that everything happened as was presented. And you are seriously going to say that your personal ideology has nothing to do with your blind acceptance of her story? Come on now.
“You don’t know if I have a gay cousin or not. Maybe I do. Maybe I totally made that up. But it doesn’t matter. I am calling attention to an issue. Your response is like saying “how do we know Mav has a gay cousin? Maybe his cousin can’t get married because she’s ugly. Maybe she can’t get married because she’s in prison. Maybe she can’t get married because she is betrothed by birth to the lord and savior G’Jheety-7 of the Alpha Centauri! We can’t take Mav’s word for it. We need answers to these other questions.” We don’t need answers. Those are just deflections from the key issue: I want there to be gay marriage.”
No Mav. I did not question whether or not she was a girl, or that she went to the prom, or that she had an incident. I questioned her account of the event. Big difference there. And why did I question her account? Because it levels and accusation, that was turned into the headline, and changed to focus of the story. Had she or gawker left out the speculation that the dads were lusting after her. We wouldn’t be having this conversation. Again, not sure why you keep ignoring that part. You think this is about sexual repression, I think it is about the transfer of information. You very well may be right, but the fact that I choose to not accept her story sans proof, BECAUSE it levels an accusation on someone else, does not lessen my understanding of your position or hers.
“The key issue here is: 17 year old women shouldn’t be discriminated against for being too sexy.”
Aside from the fact that this is not necessarily the key issue, of course not. However, we are all responsible for the situations we put ourselves in. How we dress, talk, interact with others. If you are suggesting that she has no responsibility in that regard, then no, I don’t agree. But claiming discrimination is not the same as proving it, and yes I do think the burden of proof falls on the accuser.
“You’re the one who brought up that she could have been kicked out for other reasons.”
Yes I did, as a defense of her story, not in condemning it. I made no distinctions in regards to whether or not she was actually booted, a girl, etc.(not until this post, and then only to illustrate a point). I questioned her accusations of the parents, nothing more. How would you like it if a student accused you of lechery because they got a bad grade. Do you think their story should be accepted just because they blogged about it? would blogging about it actually make you a lech? She made accusations, true, false, whatever, it doesn’t matter. The title of the article you linked determined what the story was about. All of your postulation in regards to the gender politics of the situation has no basis in anything other than opinion. Which is perfectly valid. But don’t insult my intelligence by suggesting I don’t “get” it. The story is A your reason for posting was B, my concern C only applies to A. So when I suggested that Laura missed my point, it was simply because I was not talking about B, and I had been pretty clear about that.
See. Gawker did focus on the “lechery”. She did make an unsubstantiated claim. Those are the actual facts available. How she was repressed, how she feels about it, etc. While valid questions, they are not the issue here. Had you posted a link to her blog. And not the op-ed, then that would have been true. It is just her thoughts, expressed on line, no reason to doubt it or her. On that I think we could agree. But you didn’t post that, did you? You linked to the op-ed. Which had already decided what the focus of the story was, not her sexual repression, not her right to dress the way she wanted, but rather the lechery of some dads, who stood around staring at the teenage girls all night. Sorry but that kind of accusation, in this day and age, better be backed up by some proof. People have been fired, arrested, accosted for a whole lot less, so I am sorry if I see THAT as the real problem here.
“Cite one… And explain how it relates to this conversation…”
Two linked below. One talks about how political tendencies(no particular side) affect a persons ability to reason. In short, you are more likely to support the wrong answer when it aligns with your political leanings. The other illustrates how ideological leanings can be used to influence decision making. Present something one way and it will attract a certain type of ideology, present the same thing another way and you get a different result.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/new-study-politics-makes-you-innumerate
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-political-ideology-impacts-decision-making-energy-efficient.html
At the very least this suggests that our ideology affects how we approach problems. Not definitive proof, but examples nonetheless. Though I am not sure why you needed them, there is little question in this day and age of how influential ideology can be. Mainstream media is designed to exploit this very thing.
“For my part, I’ll start with Luce Irigaray’s explanation’s of how females are subjugated sociologically as objects of trade in a Marxist class structure as an extension of ancient kinship systems”
We could discuss that topic, but doing so would not make it any more relevant to my initial point regarding how the story was presented and why it was a problem.
“Chapelle Skit:My point is that by using it, you proved that it is valid to use a biased source as your straw man for making an argument.”
No. Sorry. I used it as an example to illustrate the difference between perception and reality as it relates to society. I was not suggesting that it was her fault for dressing that way. I was pointing out that we cannot ignore societal norms regardless of personal views. Just because she has a right as a human to do something doesn’t mean she or anyone can just ignore the world around us. That is naive. The people who ran the dance were justified because they were in charge, period, it has nothing to do with gender politics and oppression. Those very well may have been the reasons behind her expulsion, but that wouldn’t negate their basic right(as the organizers) to kick out anyone they wanted, no matter how stupid that may be. And should they be proven wrong, for whatever reason, they would have to deal with the consequences as well, in this case give a refund.
Chris we see two different issues here, one regarding female subjugation and the other regarding baseless slander in the media. I think the latter is the key point of the story, you think it is the former, it is all a matter of perception. Personally I think the facts presented support a discussion of the former, but apparently that is just me, and perhaps Darren.
Whew, had to break that up, FB kept dying LOL. 😛
http://www.listen-tome.com/save-me/
Welp here’s another ‘side’ for those interested,someone who claims to have been there. Here’s a taste:
“Women use clothing and actions to attract men all the time, but as Christians and really just as moral people, ladies have a duty to dress in a way that earns respect and doesn’t tempt men. Everyone (not just men) have a duty to guard our thoughts from things that aren’t healthy, but men shouldn’t make it harder for women and women shouldn’t make it harder for men. The Richmond Homeschool Prom was meant to be a wholesome night and when Clare was approached (by women) for what they deemed inappropriate, she got mad and acted in a childish and disrespectful manner towards the adults in authority. It was only then that she was asked to leave.”
http://calliehobbs.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/dads-are-not-the-problem/
I disagree with a ton of that statement, but it is what it is.
“ladies have a duty to dress in a way that earns respect and doesn’t tempt men.”
Everyone has this duty IMO, now THIS is an example of the gender BS that Chris was talking about. The fact of the matter remains, this point of view is no more substantiated than the initial blog. It would be easy to infer things about both the girl and the organizers based on the available information, but without having been there, none of us could know for sure. Which is why I thought the issue was with how this was presented and not anything specific about what happened.
Vic: She didn’t accuse them of pedophilia, she accused them of ogling. Big difference. And that really isn’t her main point anyway. And it certainly isn’t what the vast majority of us are taking from it.
Yes, her view aligns with mine. But that doesn’t matter. As I pointed out, I often agree that people have valid points even when I don’t agree with them. Like I said, I’m on Sterling’s side with the whole Clippers selling thing, even though I think he’s a huge asshole. I as much said so on a big comment on my brother’s page. I just don’t bother to post about it here, because this is my page and why should I post about anything that doesn’t directly align with my sensibilities. I mean, it’s my page. That’s what it’s for.
“It is an OP-ED based on a blog, there are no facts. ”
Yes, this is true of literally every OP-ED piece ever. I said that already. Are you saying all op-ed’s are therefore worthless? I mean, if you believe that, fine… that’s at least a defensible viewpoint. I still disagree, but you can make a stronger argument for it than what you’re arguing now.
“Which is why the details of her story are irrelevant. The geneder politics you are assigning to the story, again, irrelevant. The thing that I found interesting was the reaction to her accusations. Not sure why you are missing that. ”
No one is missing it. You’re the one saying the details of her story are relevant. We all said they aren’t. The gender politics are NOT irrelevant. The post is entitled “Fuck the Patriarchy.” It is about nothing BUT gender politics. Disagreeing with her (or my view) is fine. But if you’re arguing anything else (like “what if she’s lying”) you’re off topic.
“Really? She is a champion for female rights now? Nonsense. She is a disgruntled teenager and you are assigning way more credence to her story than the information calls for. This is the internet, this story could just as easily be completely made up as true and you are questioning my reasons for being skeptical?”
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. She is championing a cause. The fact that she’s a disgruntled teenager is irrelevant. Most champions of causes are disgruntled. Otherwise they’d never bother. She is a champion the same way Rosa Parks was. There’s a reason Parks isn’t just “the dumb bitch who didn’t give up her seat, when she knew the rules.” And by the way, that story is completely staged. It was not a random incident, the planned it for months and specifically chose her to carry it out because they thought she was pretty enough to play well on television. That does not make her less of a champion. She called attention to a cause. That’s what Clare is doing.
You seem to think that everyone here is just misunderstanding you and that’s why we disagree. We understand you fine. We STILL disagree with your view because all of your evidence amounts to side issues. Can you say anything that is wrong with the story without calling Clare’s personal credibility into view?
Again, I know that wasn’t your reason for brining up Chapelle. I totally see what you’re trying to do. What I’m pointing out, is that in doing so, you gave my point, which was “the truth of her story is irrelevant, Op-ed’s matter” complete validation. You clearly didn’t mean to. But you did.
As for your other side issues. Those are red herrings. Again, to take the Rosa Parks example, you’re basically trying to argue “we don’t know the bus drivers side” And you’re right. WE DON’T CARE. Has nothing to do with the issue.
You also argue media bias. I’ll even agree with you there. The media is always biased. Again… WE DON’T CARE. It’s not what we’re talking about. You care. And that’s fine. The issues aren’t mutually exclusive. But you’re distracting from the point of her article (we assume) and mine (we know, because I said so) which is “Does a 17 year old woman have the right to dress however she wants?”
Here’s the clearest thing I can point to what you’re doing:
“Chris we see two different issues here, one regarding female subjugation and the other regarding baseless slander in the media. I think the latter is the key point of the story, you think it is the former, it is all a matter of perception. ”
NO! It’s not a matter of perception. Her post is titled “Fuck the Patriarchy.” My entire content of my original post is “And to follow up on yesterday, THIS right here is the logical continuation of purity balls.” The key issue here is CLEARLY gender issues. You might also see an issue of media bias or slander, which I’m happy to debate with you (obviously) but that’s NOT what anyone is saying EXCEPT you. The issue that she, I, Laura Valentine, Nat Lanza, Helena Nichols, Lacy Chenault, etc. are talking about is the gender one. Your issues may or may not exist, but in this context, they are immaterial. GENDER POLITICS is what the key issue is, and all of your defense of it are distractions. Like I could read Roots and say “hey, there’s some gender issues in this book.” But that’s NOT what the book is about. To say that would be the key issue, would be wrong. You are wrong here. That’s not perception. That’s not subjective. That’s you misreading.
Ok, what Vic started to say there was an on topic argument, and valid. I still disagree, but let’s look at it:
“Everyone has this duty IMO, now THIS is an example of the gender BS that Chris was talking about.”
I disagree. I think NO ONE has that duty. However, I will agree that by attending a private function, you are implicitly agreeing to abide by their rules… No one forces you to go to prom. And as such, what Lacy excerpted makes a valid (but stupid) point. So sure….
“The fact of the matter remains, this point of view is no more substantiated than the initial blog….”
Everything after that is immaterial again. So I will go back to the actual argument, which is what’s under debate. (And where Vic is right, and my personal ideology comes into view rather than just rhetorical theory)
“Everyone (not just men) have a duty to guard our thoughts from things that aren’t healthy, but men shouldn’t make it harder for women and women shouldn’t make it harder for men.”
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. They’re welcome to feel that way, and they throw their prom. She abided by their rules to the letter, and it turned out their rules didn’t have the desired effect. “Dammit, we were trying to make her wholesome… but we underestimated just how sexy she was… the power of the pussy is too great. I am being sucked in! Look away! Look away!” So yeah.. OOPS. As it turns out, I (and this will surprise Vic) support their right to throw anyone out of any private event for any reason. The problem is, they were stupid for trying to justify it with a “scientific rule” regarding fingertips. What they should have just said is “if my husband’s dick gets hard. You have to go. My husband’s dick must remain limp!!!”
“ladies have a duty to dress in a way that earns respect and doesn’t tempt men.” this line makes me want to vomit, so yeah I completely disagree. I don’t *have to* earn respect from anyone, and what people see as respectful is so varied – by who’s standards of respect and temptation? Plenty of people have breastfeeding fetishes, so perhaps women shouldn’t be able to breastfeed in public. Even more people have foot fetishes, so no more sandals either.
Oh my god, Lacy. You’ve had like 3 kids right? Please don’t tell me you never breastfed in public while wearing sandals. You whore!!!
You can keep misrepresenting my point of view, that’s fine, doesn’t alter the facts of what has transpired here in the course of the debate.
Your right, I misspoke, by definition she did not accuse them of pedophilia, it was lechery that could be perceived (incorrectly) by some as pedophilia as people often lump any sexual interest in children with that term, a mistake I made as well.
Everything else you posted beyond that correction is irrelevant because you are projecting your ideals onto someone else’s opinion.
“NO! It’s not a matter of perception. Her post is titled “Fuck the Patriarchy.” My entire content of my original post is “And to follow up on yesterday, THIS right here is the logical continuation of purity balls.” The key issue here is CLEARLY gender issues.”
Well, it might have been, had you actually linked to her blog instead of and opinion piece focused solely on the lechery of the parents at the dance.
It’s like you wanted to talk about motorcycles, but linked to a story about planes that referenced a story about boats. Telling me that everything is about motorcycles over and over again is not going to make it so.
This girl had no intent of championing anything. She did not go to the dance with some gender politics agenda. Her blog is clear proof of her intent to conform. At least her STATED intent. That in and of itself negates your assessment that this is somehow about sexual repression at the core.
This is about a girl who went to her prom and got booted. We all agree the reason is irrelevant. She did not go there to make a statement, she did not go there to expose the lecherous parents. She did not go their to champion the elimination of gender bias. She went there to dance and have fun. Anything that you apply to her post beyond that is speculation and in this case projection of your own beliefs.
If all she was talking about was feeling singled out and confused as to how the rules are meant to apply to certain people. Yup, I would agree with you. Her story highlights an issue within society that should be addressed. But that is not what she did. She presumed to know the thoughts of the fathers there. Which again would have been fine, more or less, in the context of your post, HAD YOU SIMPLY LINKED TO HER BLOG AND NOT THE ARTICLE ABOUT LECHEROUS DADS.
“I disagree with this wholeheartedly. They’re welcome to feel that way, and they throw their prom. She abided by their rules to the letter, and it turned out their rules didn’t have the desired effect.”
You have no way of knowing that she abided by anything. None. In fact you now have a counter argument from another source that contradicts her account of the events. So everything you are debating in regards to gender politics is based on your projection. Everything. Which would be fine, there is nothing wrong with using opinion as the basis of discussion, except, that wasn’t the source of your post. Her assessment is 100% valid, that still doesn’t make it proof of jack shit.
“The fact that they found the need to do something about it IS perversion. It’s saying, “for whatever reason, we are threatened by that girl’s sexuality, and therefore we must quash it””
What were you basing that on? Nothing. There is nothing to substantiate that idea of what occurred. “She said” is not a valid basis for revolution LOL.
Look, I will say this again, no one missed what you were saying. No one. I didn’t ignore your argument about how you think people should address sexuality. What it did do was question the validity of said argument in relation to a blog post made by some random teenager, who’s intent in going to the dance had nothing to do with the things you are referencing.
What I also did was question the validity and appropriateness of an op-ed, eliminating the context of her blog and framing the whole thing as teen girl being victimized by perverts. The OP-ED that you fucking linked to, the one that referenced the blog that you ACTUALLY meant to discuss. The blog that still doesn’t validate your claims of oppression because it is completely unsubstantiated.
If you are suggesting this whole thing is a discussion regarding gender bias, and how it affects teen girls, you could have just had that fucking discussion, linking to something discussing another topic that links to something that kind of goes along with what your goal was, makes no sense.
You think that people should be able to express themselves equally, regardless of race, creed or gender. Got it, not a real complicated point of view. I think you don’t need unsubstantiated claims of a teenager to bolster that point, and that perpetuating accusations leveled at parents, with NO proof whatsoever, is just as, if not more, important than any ideology you decide to tack onto the story.
These ideas, are not mutually exclusive. And one of them at least, it 100% relevant to the article you used as the basis of this post.
Vic: In all due respect, that’s not what you’ve been saying. You’ve changed your main point half a dozen times. Which is why people got frustrated with you. It really feels like every time someone tells you they disagree you feel like you need to prove how much more you know. But lets just take your issue here.
Ok, so you’re now saying your main issue is NOT Clare, but Gawker, because they turned it into a story about percy dads. Ok, That’s at least a single cohesive point we can look at.
Yes, I linked to the Gawker piece and not the Clare piece. The main reason there, honestly, is that it was simple. I saw it on someone else’s feed and from my cellphone, it’s far easier to just reshare their link than post a new one.
That said, it doesn’t matter. That’s how the internet works. Hell, that’s how media works. It’s definitely how Facebook works. The Gawker piece is clearly attributed so that anyone who cares can dig deeper (and you did).
But, yes… that is the point Gawker is making and it is a point that Clare is making. And it is very much related to my point. So it is completely appropriate to my post.
I get that you don’t like that point. I get that you don’t agree. We all do. Really we do. And no one, not even the people who have called you names here, thinks you don’t have a right to disagree.
The problem is how you disagree. You keep trying to prove that the argument is invalid because we don’t know the intent of the accused. That doesn’t matter. That’s weak arguing. Specifically it’s an Ad Hominem fallacy. Your assertion is that because you don’t trust the character of the original poster, her stance on the issue is weakened. That doesn’t work.
It particularly doesn’t work in this case, because OUR main point (“our” meaning most of the people who have commented here) is that “there is a problem with morality of middle aged men trumps the freedom of expression of a teenaged woman.”
Which basically means, every time you complain about how she’s disgruntled or maybe she didn’t follow the rules, or we all have a responsibility or whatever… All the rest of us go “yeah, because of that!”
No, the ideas aren’t mutually exclusive. But the one you chose to cling to (“she has no proof!!! why does no one see that she has no proof!!!”) that is only pertinent because it proves the point that she (and we) are all trying to make.
Chris, I have been clear on my point from the very beginning. Never wavering as to what I was concerned about:
“I guess to me the story is a girl got booted from a dance, she didn’t like the reason and blogged about it, and that is that. Are we suggesting the adults in question couldn’t have thought she was dressed and dancing inappropriately? Why assume they were lusting after her, just because that is what she said happened? Maybe they were, but it is just as likely, since multiple people complained, including the organizer(a woman) as she walked in, that the parents are just prudes. Maybe they don’t like the fact that she is dating a black guy, who knows.
Assuming perversion seems off base.”
You are suggesting that her expression of feelings in regards to the people at the dance is valid, you are correct, however:
“It particularly doesn’t work in this case, because OUR main point (“our” meaning most of the people who have commented here) is that “there is a problem with morality of middle aged men trumps the freedom of expression of a teenaged woman.””
What is the basis for this opinion in regards to THIS situation. You could argue that it would be wrong for this to occur, which I would agree with, but you can’t invalidate my concerns as to the accusations being questionable by using the accuser as proof that “there is a problem with morality of middle aged men trumps the freedom of expression of a teenaged woman.”
My next post:
” I guess after reading the actual blog, my issue, as is often the case, is how it was presented by the article.
“Teen Girl Ejected From Prom Because Horny Dads Can’t Stop Staring”
Forget how disingenuous that headline is. Forget that isn’t the reason she was given for being booted. You can’t try to look sexy, teenager, adult, whatever, and then get upset when you succeed and it offends some people.
“I looked hot. Not trashy, but you definitely would look twice when I walked through a doorway.”
Definitely not suggesting she shouldn’t be able to feel pretty, or dress whatever way she wanted to dress. I just think reporting it as lecherous dads, both from the article and her blog, is dangerous. Most people will not look deeper. Most people won’t even read the article, just assume there are a bunch of pervy dads in her community. Society just needs to be careful in this regard, both in protecting the rights of people(teens included) and not jumping to conclusions based on someones random blog. That’s all. No argument, no consternation, just objectivity.”
How is that point unclear? How is that any different than anything else I have said? The article painted a picture based on the blog of a teenage girl, TO ME, this is wrong. Standing up for oneself is one thing, making baseless accusations and having that trump the rest of the overall narrative is quite another. Seriously how much clearer did that need to be? That is my 3rd post. Where was the confusion?
We established early on that the particulars of her story were irrelevant. regardless of what you or I took from this. Sexual bias is an issue, disingenuous media and slander, also an issue. Those are facts of the world we live in, both happen daily.
I don’t mind debate, or disagreement. But please refrain from changing my position to suite your argument. I questioned the validity of accusing the dads at the dance without providing evidence. Her character is irrelevant, when you want to make a claim like this, I’m sorry but you damn well better have something to back up that claim. Imagine she had claimed racism, that being a mixed couple got them booted. Imagine she claimed they were looking at her boyfriend as if he should be picking cotton instead of dancing with a innocent little white girl.
We could argue all day long how racism still exists and there are people who would see the black man subjugated. And we would be right to do so. Wouldn’t prove the claims that racism occurred. Her story wouldn’t be any more real, and it isn’t any more real in this instance.
Your position is based on conjecture, I had a problem with that. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree, sexual bias is bad. I agree, her opinion is not invalidated by lack of proof. I agree, she has a right to feel and express anything she likes. I agree she had a right to protest the dress code(she didn’t but she has that right IMO). I agree with everything you have said in regards to sexual bias, gender bias, etc.
I don’t agree that expressing those feelings automatically grant validity to her thoughts. I don’t agree with making allegations of sexual misconduct should be accepted without proof. I don’t agree that her expressed feelings make a case one way or the other for gender bias, not because they are invalid, but rather because they are not substantiated, thus no more relevant to a discussion of the subject as an essay or a piece of fiction.
Words don’t lie. My point has been the same from the beginning. I even asked what the problem was, since I wasn’t actually disagreeing with the spirit of your position, just the scope.
Vic: “I have been clear on my point from the very beginning. ”
I’d argue that’s debatable. But whatever. Sidetrack. Lets go through your points.
“What is the basis for this opinion in regards to THIS situation. You could argue that it would be wrong for this to occur, which I would agree with, but you can’t invalidate my concerns as to the accusations being questionable by using the accuser as proof that “there is a problem with morality of middle aged men trumps the freedom of expression of a teenaged woman.” ”
I’m not invalidating your position. I said that’s your position. We disagree. You’re welcome to disagree with us.
“Forget how disingenuous that headline is. Forget that isn’t the reason she was given for being booted. You can’t try to look sexy, teenager, adult, whatever, and then get upset when you succeed and it offends some people. ”
I’m not upset that it offended some people. I don’t think Clare or Gawker is either. They have every right to be upset. If they are, perhaps they should blog about it.
“I just think reporting it as lecherous dads, both from the article and her blog, is dangerous”
Dangerous how? Are you suggesting that the character of the Dads (who are unnamed) is somehow hurt by her accusation?
“Society just needs to be careful in this regard, both in protecting the rights of people(teens included) and not jumping to conclusions based on someones random blog. That’s all. No argument, no consternation, just objectivity.”
That’s certainly arguable as well. And a fair point. But she hasn’t libeled anyone. It is quite clear from her blog and the gawker article that it is her opinion that she was ogled. Why does society need to be careful in that regard, freedom of speech is specifically designed so that someone can do exactly what she did. Even if she’s completely full of shit, the protection is she can say “I don’t like how I feel like I’ve been treated.” That’s all she did. Gawker believes her. I tend to as well. Your issue is that you don’t because you don’t know the Dads’ side of the story. But as I keep saying we don’t care about the Dads’ side of the story. It’s immaterial to the conversation we’re having. (we being everyone not you)
“TO ME, this is wrong. Standing up for oneself is one thing, making baseless accusations and having that trump the rest of the overall narrative is quite another. Seriously how much clearer did that need to be? That is my 3rd post. Where was the confusion?”
We’re NOT confused about it. That’s what you don’t seem to get. You keep saying that as though your concern for the dads will prove to us that we need to rethink the position. WE REALLY DON’T CARE ABOUT THEM. Not even a little.
Lets simplify the story. Say the prom had made a clear rule that said something like “All prom dresses must extend to at least four inches below the knees of the woman wearing them” and she’d shown up in that dress, in clear violation of the rule. Then she’d screamed “this is bullshit!!! Why do you arrogant bible thumping mother fuckers get to tell me how to dress. I hate you fucking cunts. I hope you get cancer and die. Fuck this prom. I’m going to go outside and give blow jobs to all comers. That’ll show you! Power to the hos!” Now lets take a poll, of the people who have posted here ( Chris Rapier, Moose Finklestein, Katherine Wren, Melanie Sue Driscoll, Jessi Bencloski, Helena Nichols, Mark Lively, Kathleen L. Habel Willard, Michael MacGowan Smith, Denise Elaine Ferguson, Michael E. Higgins, Darren Orange, Laura Valentine, Nat Lanza, Charlotte Yano, Robert W. Bergen, Lacy Chenault, Sarah Thompson, Dan Tomkiewicz, Bryon H. Lyons) would you be sympathetic to her plight? I certainly would. Because Vic is right. I don’t actually agree with what the prom organizers did in the first place.
That said, I DO support their decision to kick her out. As I’ve said before. A private event should be able to set their own rules. And they’re not a court of law, so when they feel like someone has violated the spirit of those rules, they should be free to change them. That means, they can should feel free to kick her out for being too sexy, for having a black boyfriend, for being obnoxious, for being blonde, or maybe they just don’t like her. They can kick her out for any reason they want to.
BUT she also has the right, to call them assholes over it. For most of us, the argument is very simple: “No matter what the truthfulness of her blog, what the prom was doing is sexist and repressive.” You seem to be hung up on “it’s not fair that we’re calling a bunch of middle aged guys horny old men.” You are right, they’re not mutually exclusive. It’s just that you are very concerned with the latter issue, which no one else (here) cares about.
“I don’t mind debate, or disagreement. But please refrain from changing my position to suite your argument.”
Here’s the thing. Maybe in your mind, you know what you’re trying to say. But I will be completely honest here. It’s not coming across as though you’re keeping to one point. Its coming across (at least to me, and judging by the other responses you’ve received, I’d say at least to Lacy, Laura, and Nat) as though you’re all over the place arguing other stuff just to find something you can hang onto where you’re right. Maybe that’s not your intention. But I’m telling you, that’s how it’s coming off. Debate is not perfect. The internet is not perfect. But in this particular case, I’m not trying to put words into your mouth or change your argument. I’m telling you, this is what we’re hearing. So if that’s not your intention then you aren’t being as clear as you think you are.
I’m interested to know if the Dad’s complained or just Mrs. D. Also why make rules for the prom and change them for one person.
I don’t know. But it wouldn’t change my opinion.
Teenage boys would never think impure thought. Cough!
yeah… well, my prom date’s dress went to her knees and I was thinking impure thoughts all night.
Where do you draw the line? If everyone disagrees with the Proms rules. Where do you draw the line? Can women show up in a bikini, men in a Speedo? Where is the line? Can a location not place expectations on the way someone dresses who is attending? Why not let everyone show up naked? “Horny old men” in this conversation only exist thanks to “telephone” and “media” its no where in the original blog post. This is why I don’t like it being labeled here, because its not even part of the argument. It’s like claiming someone did something because of what someone else said they said but then the media twisting it to be what they felt when in fact we have no idea if any of its true at all. This whole thing is a serious mind twister.
Darren: in what sense are you asking me to draw the line? Where would MAV draw the line or what should the LAW be? (those are very different answers… and I’m betting that given everything I’ve said here, my answers to both will probably surprise you)
I guess my main question would be, why is my dislike of the context of the gawker article, and my skepticism in regards to her accusations considered support for the dads? I don’t care about the parents or the girl. My problem was with how the information was passed along. A point I think I made right off the bat. I mean you keep saying I am dissing the girl and supporting the school. All I did was question the source and the way it was presented.
“All prom dresses must extend to at least four inches below the knees of the woman wearing them” and she’d shown up in that dress, in clear violation of the rule.”
To me, this would have supported your argument about gender bias a lot more than what supposedly occurred. By refusing to comply I feel like she would have actually been making a statement. Also, if the other side claims she was not booted for her dress, but rather for her behavior, doesn’t that, at the very least call into question the validity of her story? As I said I agree that there should not be a double standard, but if she was actually booted for a reason other than a gender bias, why think of her as an example? It’s a valid topic regardless of her story.
Vic: Ok, that’s simple and direct and I can address it much easier.
We don’t know if she broke other rules. We can never know. You are correct in saying “all we have is her word for it.” But that is literally true of every op-ed ever, like I said. For all we know, she stabbed a man in the parking lot. For all we know, there was no prom and she made the whole thing up. But that’s all the actuals of the case, which even you’ve agreed don’t matter.
What we do know is that there is a story of a young woman who was booted out of an event for obeying “the letter of the law” of the rules that were set out for her. We consider that a sexist action. Yes, I will agree, if actually she was booted because she shivved a guy in the parking lot and she conveniently left that part of the story out, that’s a different thing. But those are details for a court of law. This is a discussion of a story as reported.
The frustration for people is that when a story of (alleged) discrimination is presented, the retort is “well, what if the victim is lying.” And well, yeah, if she’s lying, then that sucks… but that ignores the other question “what if she’s not lying?”
Consider, Sterling. As skeevy as it was that he was recorded. He was recorded, perhaps led into a trap(seriously the guy is not all there), thus giving validity to the story. Imagine the response to those accusations without the tape. Is he losing his team? Lambasted by the media?
My point, his story is being told by a neutral party(the recording), no one needs to take anyones word, its on tape, he said it, that’s it.
“What we do know is that there is a story of a young woman who was booted out of an event for obeying “the letter of the law” of the rules that were set out for her.”
Do we? See in this case we have her version of why she was booted. Somewhere in this thread it was presented that she was not kicked out for her dress but rather her attitude. So now there are two points of view, neither verified. Bottom line we don’t know anything. So I proposed that she was taken at her word because her presentation aligns with a particular view.
Assume she is not lying and she was booted for her dress. Everything in regards to the ogling is speculation on her part, she never claims to have been approached by the dads, or offer up any proof of their lechery. Like I said, had she left that part out, had gawker not focused on it, I probably wouldn’t have commented. I think it is that aspect that clouds the issue and takes this from, “hey a girl felt like she was singled out for looking a certain way” and takes it to, “a girl accused some parents of attending the prom to scope out their neighbors daughters.”
I think that is messed up.
heh, and now I am done, I don’t think I can explain my position any further. 🙂
My opinion.
1) If they set the rules in advance and she broke the rules they were right to kick her out.
2) Yes she is allowed to say they are assholes, even if they let her in after breaking the rules.
3) She would only be right in saying it if she were in compliance and then kicked out.
4) I agree that the could kick her out for any reason.
5) To the fingertips is silly restriction since it obviously doesn’t take into account varying builds.
Ok, let’s take Sterling’s case. In his case, I actually am on his side in that I DON’T think he should be forced to lose the team. He owns the team. If he were a PLAYER, I’d say that coach has a right to fire him for being racist. As an OWNER, I’d argue that “racist dude has the right to own a team. Guess what, everyone. you work for a racist.” There is a little wiggle room here, yes… because the NBA has bylaws that allow the other owners to vote someone out. This is where *my* personal opinion differs from the law. I don’t like those bylaws. I think “you have a right to be racist and if the people don’t like it, they can stop going to Clippers games.” This has suckful consequences for the league and the sport, both financially and reputation-wise, but you asked where I fell on the matter, and that’s where.
“Do we? See in this case we have her version of why she was booted. Somewhere in this thread it was presented that she was not kicked out for her dress but rather her attitude. So now there are two points of view, neither verified. Bottom line we don’t know anything. So I proposed that she was taken at her word because her presentation aligns with a particular view.”
Yes we do. Let me make it more clear. If we view this as a legal case, then we have to deal with burden of proof and other verifications of truth. That’s not the case here. If it helps, think of it as a complete work of fiction. When we (all people) read opinion pieces, we use them to stimulate conversation. “How do I feel about this issue?” Earlier, I brought up “Juno.” How does that film make you feel about teen pregnancy. How does “1984” make you feel about government oversight. If we include memoir and autobiography (both unverified one-sided narratives) how do “12 Years a Slave” and “Roots” make you feel about racism and slavery?
Clare’s narrative is essentially an autobiographical memoir. We don’t need to verify the truth of her story, because the narrative itself raises the issue “how should we feel about the rights of teenaged girls to dress provocatively and how should we feel about the rights of onlookers to ogle the provocatively dressed?”
My comment is that I support both rights. Dressed like a total ho? And I say “Make that money girl, don’t let it make you.” Staring at a woman because she’s dressed like a total ho? Then I agree with the Chapelle link you posted “You may not be a whore, but you are wearing a whore’s uniform.” But Chapelle also makes the comment during the same routine, that despite wearing the ho’s uniform, that does not establish anything about her character or how we should treat her.
In Clare’s narrative, she was treated a different way because of how she was dressed. I have no problem with middle aged men being lecherous horn dogs. I said before, I’m right there with them a lot of the time. But my horniness does not infringe on the rights of others. Here, in the narrative, it did. And that is the basis for this discussion.
Sterling is rough. I think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. Six months this likely blows over.
That being said I don’t think that they should be able to take the team from him but the NBA being a cooperative endeavor, do you force other teams to play them? Do you not allow players to switch teams and force them to work for someone objectionable or not at all? (Not sure how free agency works in basketball)
A lot of it really depends on how the NBA franchise contract is worded. They might be able to pull his franchise which would leave him with a team and a trademark but no one to play.
He said that this would be tied in in the courts for 20 years which I can believe.
I see three ways this ends. He dies while this goes through the courts, he makes a big payout to civil rights groups and says he sees the error of his ways or he gets paid a third or so above market value for the team. I am sure the last two options are in negotiations.
Sterling does sound like Master Shake…that is pretty much fact.
Having reread the story, I wonder if the problem is the middle aged patriarchy or the middle aged matriarchy? Here’s a funny thing I have noticed: While men ogle women, women ogle women more and for a multitude of reasons, of which one is threat assessment.
Doubt me women? How often have your male partner taken note of a change in your appearance? With men how often had you had to use running lights and directional aides to lead them to the change? How quickly do your female friends take note of a change in your appearance without mentioning it? What about something as small as a new piece of jewelry?
Women scrutinize other women and how they look. They judge them a lot. Sometimes it’s quiet and kept to themselves and other times it’s rather in peoples face. While some “husbands” and “young men” were most definitely having some impure thoughts (regardless of the dress code) it may well have been, and likely was, woman worrying themselves over the thoughts of their men and/or men they wished were their own.
I had always wondered how women caught men gawking at women, until I dated a lesbian and figured it out. Occasionally as we would walk down the street as a couple, frequently holding hands, I would find a woman attractive. My girlfriend and I were monogamous and not swingers, just so that’s out there. I always felt free and comfortable pointing out attractive women to her. When it came to women we had similar tastes. So I go to point out a particularly attractive woman to her and when I turn to my girlfriend to speak I can see by the dazed look on her face and the directionality of it that she had already noticed and was still enjoying watching this attractive woman pas by us.
The light bulb went off: Of course!!! It’s so obvious, my straight girlfriends checked them out too and like me, because I wasn’t as attracted as my girlfriend was in that instance, they lingered not as long as men before checking to see if their partner noticed too. The gaze, the directionality, and they would know. This looking they were doing was threat assessment, as I call it, and determining who was someone their partner might find attractive (and here’s the key) and/or more attractive (thus a threat).
The objectification of women is sadly a two way street. While it may be straight men as the focal point of the objectification, it is women who both reject it in others and reinforce this in themselves and their behavior. My wife doesn’t wear makeup and I love it. I love her as she is. It generally saves lots of time going places too. Additionally she prefers not to wear clothing that exaggerates her figure, which I think is nice (her figure that is, since I often push for more revealing clothing).
So I would say my wife reinforces the objectification of women in her behaviors less than most. Yet even she was nearly obsessed with her best friend’s apparel one night. She kept trying to get me to ogle her best friend, “Look at that! Isn’t that amazing,” pointing out the plunged neckline and small little peek-a-boo of midriff below where the blouse gathered to end the neckline. My wife was a little tipsy, but she was simply honestly engrossed by how beautiful her best friend looked that night and was openly and honestly sharing it with me. While I knew it wasn’t a trap on my wife’s part there was still the fact that this was someone else’s wife and her husband was there. I politely commented that yes, she did look beautiful and that it showed off her best friend’s breast quite well. My wife replied, “I know! Right?!” with glee. I Love My Wife! And, I think she illustrates my point well.
I think it’s a fair point to consider if it was the female chaperones were entirely to blame in this scenario and if there was any actual involvement of men or just assumed involvement on the part of the female chaperones? (As real or fictional as this scenario may be – seriously dude, give it up!)
Robert: In this sense patriarchy doesn’t actually refer to the men in charge. It’s confusing because people (on both sides of the feminism debate) do tend to use it that way, as though it were some illuminati-esque conspiracy group that defined the rules to keep women down.
In reality though, the patriarchy is the sociological system which allows for the subjugation of females (actually, not just females, but lets not make it more complicated than it needs to be) in favor of the dominant male gender.
As for the continuation of patriarchy, historically women can be (and very often are) just as responsible as men. Lots of laws, rules of etiquette, customs and other social mores are part of it.
It’s just poorly named.
So you are saying that there is a “chance” key word here “chance”…that women think something then blame it on the men thinking it as justification or something like that?
yes… but not in the way I think you mean it.
In this case, for instance, I’d say she is being subjugated because of her gender and sexuality. The fact that the agent of the repression happens to also be female is immaterial. Sexism towards women coming from a woman doesn’t make it any less sexism. (Same with racism or any other discrimination)
That said, it’s called patriarchy for a reason. It’s still a system wherein the dominant gender (male) subjugates the other. So the fact that there are women helping perpetuate the system isn’t really much solace.
if she didn’t meet the rules then yes she should be penalized, but from everything i’ve read, she did meet the requirements. a bunch of old men realized that they were lecherous and blamed her instead of their own thoughts. gods forbid they get turned on and go home to their wives.
Umm again, reading the story, the men in it seem to behave reasonably. In fact aside from the teenagers being teenagers it is a single woman who seems unreasonable and sadly no one outside of Clare’s group seems compelled to standup to her about her behavior.
If a girl says that a guy was leering at her and making her feel uncomfortable, why doesn’t anyone believe her? She’s allowed to feel the way she feels. Were the dads being pervvy? Who knows. (Though they were the ones who came up with the “unpure thoughts” conclusion.) We tell women and girls they have to be aware of their surroundings, to trust their gut if something feels wrong, that’s the only way to stay safe, etc etc, blah blah blah. You can’t get mad at her for doing just that.