Summations Only

Speaking of elevator man's proposition, at 5 minutes, 41 seconds into the video, she states, and I quote:"when men sexualize me in that manner"Now we can argue whether sexualization = sexual objectification, but I'm not sure that's really necessary. We'd both be speculating anyway.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

First, show me where I EVER wrote that it was "Watson's" feminist theory or that misogyny is "solely" defined by sexual objectification? FYI -- Feminist theory was around before RW and she is well aware of it since she mentions it in other videos. I don't agree with her assessment because she would have to be a mind reader to know what was on the man's mind. Feeling attracted to someone, vocalizing this attraction, or even employing suggestive dialogue is not necessarily sexual objectification unless the man viewed her as an impersonal object. That's not to say he wasn't guilty as charged; however, based on the evidence she presented (the conversation in the elevator), she cannot credibly deduce that he was objectifying her. As I've stated before, she is free to conclude differently, but she should at least acknowledge there is reasonable doubt as to his actual motives."Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one's sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification." It's not a problem for me, but apparently it is for you.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

If I've been misrepresenting RW, it has not been intentional, as you seem to be accusing me. However, based on RW's own words, I'd say she does indeed believe she was sexually objectified in the elevator:"I pointed out that she posted a transcript of my video but conveniently left off the fact that I had already expressed my desire to go to sleep. I also pointed out that approaching a single woman in an elevator to invite her back to your hotel room is the definition of unsolicited sexual comment. But those are unimportant details in comparison to the first quoted sentence, which demonstrates an ignorance of Feminism 101 — in this case, the difference between sexual attraction and sexual objectification. The former is great — be attracted to people! Flirt, have fun, make friends, have sex, meet the love of your life, whatever floats your boat. But the latter involves dismissing a person’s feelings, desires, and identity, with a complete disinterest in how one’s actions will affect the object in question. "There you go. In her own words. In the elevatorgate video, she accuses the creep in the elevator of "sexualizing" her. In her blog, she states that because she made it clear to the creep that she wanted to go to bed, this constituted "sexual objectification."

You are wrong. I don't think you even know what RW's views are. You are wrong. Read the definition of Sexual Objectification. It hinges on the man internalizing her as an object, rather than a human being. She has not presented evidence that this man objectified her. Her *feelings* on the matter do not constitute *proof* of what his state of mind was at the time. She is speculating that he viewed her as an object. She has every right to feel uncomfortable with the proposition, but not to accuse him specifically of objectifying her.If you insult me, should I take it mean you hate women? Should I take it to mean you are going to assault me? Should I feel free to accuse you of such things publicly? The previous are not logical inferences, even if they *may* be true. If you insult me, my reaction will depend on many factors, but I will not necessarily default to thinking the absolute worst of you. Yet. I need to see more before coming to a different conclusion. Unless she read the man's mind, how could she possibly know hew sees her as an object? His words certainly belie her accusation.He said she was interesting rather than groping her with his eyes and stating, "nice tits," suggesting he appreciates her brain (or personality) more than her body. He issued her an invitation to his room, giving her a choice, and not a "let's fuck." These things all point to him wanting to get to know HER better. I see no objectification in his words.Her *feeling* objectified does not necessarily make it so.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.Edited by roxrkool, : Punctuation, grammar, etc....

I think you may be the first man in the history of the world to know what a woman is thinking. lol Fact is, you probably don't.Seriously, though. I think it's admirable for you and other men in general to be so empathetic as to consider my poor little female feelings and insecurities when approaching me, but we are all not RW. I prefer men to be honest and upfront about who they are. If you are a nice guy with great manners, be the great guy. If you are crass, be crass. If you are a fucking dick, then by all means, be a fucking dick. This way, I know who the keepers are and who are the ones to stay away from. If I get my poor little feelings hurt, I can handle it.See? You can't win for trying.Until someone discovers the cure for violence, women will always be wary of strange men.

As far as empathy goes, people aren't necessarily born with your level of empathy. It's another human attribute that ranges from non-existent (sociopath?) to well developed. Obviously, you and Crash have been gifted with high levels of empathy. Which I'm sure is as much of a curse as it is useful.Can you teach people to be more empathetic? I really don't know the answer to this question. If you can't, then there will always be people who simply cannot treat people with the level of respect and understanding that they probably deserve. And so then what is the solution for this? Or are we at the mercy of evolution?My son is also highly gifted in the empathy department. We noticed as soon as he started making friends. I hope this means he will be a wonderful man, husband, friend, and father.I honestly think it's wonderful that you and Crash are arguing the positions that you are. The world would be a much safer place if more people (not just men) were like you two. At least as far as I can tell from this board... But the fact is, the world is not like that and not likely to be that way any time soon. That's why I prefer to see people for who they are rather than for who they think I want them to be. I know that. My point was that you will offend someone no matter what you do. In my case, yeah, I don't appreciate to be patronized or thought of as some weak little lady who can't handle crass behavior. I can. But then I'm probably not your normal woman. Reasonable. I don't think that was a fair assessment. I never suggested any such thing. There are many things and situations that terrify me, and being in a dark alley alone with a strange person is one of them, but I don't look at it like it's everyone else's obligation to know what frightens me or get offended when they don't meet my needs. I think any reasonable person would be affraid in a dark alley at night. And that's really the only thing I feel is fair to ask of strangers. Again, that's reasonable. I expect most people will recognize such a situation as frightening and behave accordingly. And btw, I was playing devil's advocate there. Good manners and thoughtful behavior do not hurt my feelings or result in offense. Cheers.

I think you're giving the average person too much credit. When it comes to matters of the heart or plain ol' sexual matters, people turn into blubbering idiots.

This reminds me...Years ago, I was living out of a hotel for several months in a tiny buck water town. One evening, one of my workmates came over to my hotel room with a six-pack of beer. We were both married and just becoming friends. His wife was out of town and I was on my own. It never occurred to me until now that maybe that was his subtle way of showing me he was interested. Without being obvious about it because the appropriateness of that situation was questionable.We hung out and watched several episodes of The Highlander before he went home.Based on that, would it be reasonable to assume he was objectifying me?

Is there some reason you have to be so fucking condescending?And the fact that I have no clue what "rubric" means, probably not. I couldn't read his mind, so I have no idea if we did what he wanted. If he wanted to drink beer and watch TV, then we did what he wanted. Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

As we mature, we change and become better citizens... well, most of us do, at least. And I do think all people are capable of being shown the right way, but I'm not sure you can teach or make people *acquire* empathy. I thought I read that people were born with a predisposition to certain levels of empathy, but those born without that ability would never be able to have it. I will have to look into this more. I know what you mean. I think it makes me a better manager, though. Gotcha. I've done the same thing in this thread and it's not been recognized for what it was. Goes with the territory.

Is "sexual objectification" misogynistic, yes or no?

Answer the question. Yes or No.

So basically, what I'm understanding here is that, with the exception of rich, white, heterosexual, American, males, everyone is a victim. Edited by roxrkool, : Added: "American"

Nice.

From HERE (there are many other definitions and explanations, as well as links, if interested): Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.