A few days ago, @sean-king tagged me in his article
Sexual Click Bait? thanking me again for responding to his previous article offering my opinions on the subject.
His entry, along with mine, sparked a debate among the community.
With both of us combined, we had over 500 users engaged in a discussion.
My article: Is This Empowerment or Objectification?
Sean-king’s:More Thoughts On Women, Oppression and Porn
Something sparked inside of me, as well. I realized that this is exactly what I wanted out of Steemit.
To get involved in an ecosystem larger than myself,
sharing and creating with many other minnows, dolphins and whales, with different backgrounds and stories.
So let's get started.
Sexual Clickbait
It’s taken me a little while to respond. When I saw he mentioned me, I assumed it meant he was going to post something controversial.
But I’ll be honest.
There’s really not much wrong with what he’s saying.
To start off, he’s mainly talking about the negative comments he’s gotten. I can agree, I have received my fair share of snarky comments too-- and I actually get what he’s saying.
He defends both his wife and women in general, and he’s totally right to do so.
My questions for @cogliostro and @rainman, or any readers who agree with them, are simply these: Ignoring religious sensibilities for a moment (I'm not interested in debating anyone on the basis of religious teachings), what makes a picture of a sexually powerful woman "low" or "cheap"? Why do you resent it more than say, an equally appealing "click bait" image of...anything else. Is it not the fact that the effect of these images is so predictable? Isn't that what you truly resent--the power of the image and its undeniable influence over the masses and, if you are honest, even over you? Isn't that really why you derogatorily call it "click bait", because even you couldn't resist? Isn't it your own shame that's the real problem?
I think that’s pretty agreeable, right? Well, for the most part.
Here's where he loses me.
With a response to his own question:
Of course it is. It's the feminine power, and your inability to defend against it, that's so threatening. It's that which you seek to contain and diminish and mold to suit and serve you. After all, it's almost like women have an unfair advantage over you, right? Your scorn and attempted shaming are thinly-veiled attempts to deflect attention from this obvious truth, and to discourage women from exploiting this power in the future.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Women often don’t hold the power.
@sean-king’s definition of power is skewed. I’m guessing he’s referring to a woman’s sexual “power,” which doesn’t make much sense when we consider the astounding amount of women who have had their power taken from them. Or, they never had it in the first place, sexually or otherwise.
He then asks, if it’s, “almost like women have an unfair advantage over you, right?” Well, we really don’t.
As @stellabelle perfectly said in my previous blog:
Men control most of the world's money. Money gets the final say actually... Money is power.
I strongly agree with her on this. If women truly had some kind of unseen power, surely, there would be more women leaders of the world, and gender-inequality wouldn’t be as much of a problem… right?
That’s what I think. It is not in my opinion that “feminine power” is one of the true underlying causes of sexism, or why we receive negative feedback about explicit content.
So what's the problem?
The users under scrutiny in @sean-king's article Sexual Clickbait commented on pictures of @steemed-open in the article titled “Women Oppression and Porn,” saying it was clickbait (the title starting to make sense now?). They’re not necessarily wrong-- He never really talked about porn. That’s about it. Other than that, I personally think the photo was perfectly relevant to the article.
I ask myself, "I don’t have a problem with the photo, why would anyone else?"
It's simple:
Not everyone is comfortable with it.
I get that. The internet is the wild west, and sometimes we see things we don’t want to. That's understandable.
Maybe once the NSFW tag isn’t so buried, we won’t have as many issues like this in the future.
Until then, we just have to ride it out. Sometimes seeing content we love, and sometimes seeing content we hate.
Remember that Steemit is in beta and there are lots of features to look forward to in the future, so we can all have a better experience.
Perhaps it would be useful for @dantheman to consider implementing a 'click to consent' type placeholder image on top of material that is tagged with any terms relating to the topic at hand. Once you've set that cookie, users will no longer be barred from seeing that content (unless they clear their cookies or whatever flag is set via the account to enable or disable such content). There will be many more users that come and will be perfectly happy until they see something sexually explicit (to them) and be turned off completely & needlessly. Just my two cents!
That is a wonderful idea. I think that is much more agreeable than simply flagging posts (who are we to decide what is appropriate to the viewer?) and that way certain posts won't get buried.
Thank you for the input and suggestion!
sure, I'm quite certain this thought has already been through the lead coders head and is likely a work in progress - just simple growing pains and all this takes time. (effective imagery you've selected ;) wink
Exactly! Like I said towards the end,
Looking forward to seeing where this all goes. :)
I liked this discussion so much. I am also uncomfortable with women exploiting themselves sexually because I see every human being as being so bestowed with creative energy. And plus, also, I was exploited in my youth, so I am highly sensitive to such exploitation. I didn't suffer too much, but I suffered a lot psychologically from the exploitation. After that time, I dressed in mens clothes, refused to wear makeup or dresses....I never wanted any male attention. I'm still like this actually, to a degree. I've never worn any dress that shows cleavage either. It might be my personality or a reaction to being exploited.
anyway, that's probably why i am uncomfortable with a spread-eagle crotch shot as the click bait title. But i liked the issues that were raised, by both, a male and a female. Without @veralynn's voice, though, I would not have felt as good. Thanks to @veralynn who made it worthwhile.
@stellabelle, I'd love it if you could explain more (not that you owe that to anyone). Why do you perceive eploiting one's looks or sex appeal to be any different than exploiting one's "creativity"? Can't one be creative/unique in their sex appeal as much as in their music, their art, their...whatever? Why do you perceive the former as somehow lower? Is it possible that your views on this are clouded by your own personal tragedy? By that I mean that perhaps your aversion is simply visceral/emotional rather than logical or principled? I don't mean that as an insult in any way. I too have aversions to things based on my own traumatic history that don't make logical sense, but they are very real.
And finally, wouldn't you agree that "being exploited" is very different from exploiting one's own gifts or talents? All to often people conflate the two, but they are very different. One disempowers, the other empowers.
Intelligence is also mostly given by nature, so it is not virtue
it is very similar to beauty in that sense.
Thank you for sharing that, @stellabelle -- that is something that vexes me, as well.
I look forward to posting more in the future on women's activism and engaging in a constructive discussion about it. Hopefully we can get more users involved and continue covering important topics frequently.
Also, if you would ever like to collab on a feminism piece, you know where to find me! :)
The high-falutin naivette of our, supposedly, feminist friends always makes me laugh. I don't suppose those highly respectable ladies ever sat down and considered the reason why advanced humankind developed clothing that covers the women of the tribe up.
Such all-knowing beings as ourselves are surely too busy to concern ourselves with these outdated, and irrelevant norms of the prehistoric past.... or are we?
Ladies, in the wild, in lawless conditions with no police - you need to cover up, because otherwise you will get raped all the time by horny men.
Covering up helps a decent woman only get raped some of the time, not constantly and not by everyone. It helps her gain favor with the other females, who are less likely to see her as a "slut" and unfair competition. The decent men of the tribe are inspired by this, and often are willing to give their lives to protect the decent women from all dangers, all rapists, domestic and international.
That is the origin of our "oppressive" custom to dress modestly, and not spread your legs for the public in wantonly, tawdry self-glorification. Does it restrict women's freedom to bar them from such cheap thrills? Sure. But so what?
Police restricts men's freedom too. Common decency restricts men's freedom even further, as far as their interaction with women.
As you pretend not to know (but I know you know), men have a biological reflex, they get a hard dick from seeing your wonderous feminine charms and men always want to fuck - often when you don't.
That is why you cover up, that is why a woman with her legs spread is indecent and makes everybody nervous as if it's a depiction of a crime scene.
If you want men to magically be "OK" with it, to ignore everything they were evolved to do and be, then you will end up destroying men and you will be left utterly miserable on your own with other miserable women. You can't push and push indefinitely, danging sex in front of men's faces like a scarlet cloth in front of a raging bull, without experiencing a pushback that will send you flying, and land you right on your naive ass in the middle of ridiculously unfavorable circumstances you never bargained for or deserved.
We hope you go back to being your sweet, unpretentious and modest selves very soon, inspiring us to see you as the treasured and cherished mother of our future unborn children... not as a fuck doll to be used by every Jack and Joe. And that you discard this silly blue hair diversion you misguidedly call "empowerment" forever.
Lovingly yours,
The Good Men.
Thanks Vera! I just posted an article about this conversation and will update it to include a link to this reply.
I just saw your comment on it as well! Sorry I did not get to it in time, I did upvote it though. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks! Here's my post if you'd like to contribute anything there as well.
That's a really interesting point. As we flag content the community (and society at large) deems "inappropriate" we reinforce those cultural norms which, possibly, leads to further division. If nudity and sexuality become "normal", would it even be an issue? You and I currently have a high rep here (7 and 8) so our downvotes matter more than most. I flagged a pornographic comment this morning. The picture itself was beautiful, but I'm currently enforcing the stated standards of the community as informed by the original creators who do not want adult content on steemit without it being tagged nsfw and hidden for most users.
Does my downvote make the problem worse? Do the ideals of the creators to create a "family-friendly" (whatever that really means) site? Is the world (or, more accurate, the United States) ready for openness about human sexuality?
All interesting things to consider. I'm excited to have a place to discuss them with other intelligent adults. :)
Downvoting is a toss up for me. There are some posts that definitely should be hidden, (i.e. harassment, bots, etc) but when it comes to original content, or "explicit" images, there is also a fair amount of people that want to see that.
I think @timelapse's idea is great. Click to consent, a warning, or a tag could be an easy fix for situations like these.
Yeah, that's a great idea. It goes along with giving reasons for the flag as part of the flagging process. They need a solution for comments as well, since the interface doesn't currently allow for the nsfw tag there. Based on the positive changes I've seen so far, I'm fairly confident they'll keep adding good features.
I've really enjoyed this discussion, and I think you and I are mostly on the same page at this point. It seems to me that we disagree mainly on the issue of whether or not women have meaningful power. I contend that they do, and that they could have far, far more if they'd only grasp it. I can lead the horse to water, but I can't make it drink. :-)
Why do I say that women have power? Because I experience it. I understand the influence they have over me. And the biggest misogynists here on Steemit, and the Internet in general, do too, hence their disparagement and attempts at shaming.
Evolutionary psychologists have long understood the power wielded by females. Here's one of my favorite quotes form notable evolutionary psychologists on this point:
Women are, in fact, the "reason men do everything", and this gives them extraordinary power. That power just isn't always obvious. It's not the testosterone-fueled, grandiose pseudo-power that people usually associate with men. It's far more subtle and nuanced, but no less effective. In fact, it's more effective in many ways.
Men don't, in fact, control the money in the world. Here are a few easily-verifiable statistics that I think will shock both you and @stellabelle and many others:
Women own or control more than three-quarters of the nation's financial wealth. Look it up! Women make more than 95 percent of all household purchasing decisions. Again, just look it up!
Today, significantly more women than men now graduate from college each year, and the trend is accelerating. The unemployment rate for men has averaged two to three full percentage points higher than for women over the last decade. Men commit suicide at rates four to five times that of women. Women physically assault men at rates nearly equal to the reverse. More than three-quarters of the homeless, and more than 90 percent of prisoners, are men. Men are actually raped more often than women (when prison rapes are counted, as they should be). Women live an average of five years longer than men. Twice as many men as women become drug addicts, and three times as many men as women become alcoholics. The most dangerous jobs (except MAYBE prostitution) are done almost exclusively by men. Men constitute the majority of those who work outside the home for a living (even though females outnumber males). Females who work outside the home do so on average for two and a half weeks less per year than their male peers. Three fifths of all state and local government employees are female.
These statistics don't lie. I contend that the only reason female power isn't more widely acknowledged is because they've been conned into letting men define power, and into measuring it by men's "in your face" standards. Men don't want to admit that they are as powerless as they are against females, so they grandiosely try to define power in ways that diminish the visibility of female contribution and influence. But that contribution and influence is no less real.
There's a famous Shakespeare quote: "The lady doth protest too much." Well, in this case, it's the men (and traditional feminist) who protest too much. The vehemence with which they attack displays of female power, especially sexual power, betrays their true impotence and the extent of their often unconscious fear. People don't waste time attacking that which is not a threat. Men attack women not because women are weak and vulnerable, but because they are almost mystically powerful.
In Japanese business culture, it's the person who never speaks who is the most senior in the room. They understand more than the West does that true power is often silent. This is true with women as well. Their power is subtle. Demure. Artful. Cunning. But it's incredibly potent nonetheless (as noted by the statistics above).
Thank you @sean-king for always providing such interesting opinions. You have a lot of meaningful things to say, and I do agree with you, for the most part we are on the same page.
I would love to continue this conversation with you and @lukestrokes in our own seperate articles. I will post another rebuttle tomorrow. :)
I'm looking forward to that! I'm curious why this post we're now discussing doesn't appear on your blog. That seems odd. Maybe a bug in Steemit?
I noticed that as well! Perhaps some of my tags are hiding the post?
Ah, that could be it. Maybe the
porntag? Since it hasn't paid out yet, you might try removing that to see if it shows up. While you're at it, you might want to remove thesteemittag as some have expressed frustration at "tag spam." Since this post isn't really about the steemit website, that one could probably go. I've seen whales downvote for that stuff.Wait, that can't be it. My post also has the
porntag. Odd.@lukestrokes I attmpted redacting "steemit" as a tag twice, with no avail. It must be a bug...
@sean-king, after much thought, I have posted a full response to this comment.
Check it out here
I totally agree that women don't fully comprehend the nature of male visual stimulation. Ladies don't have an idea how even a picture of a scantily clad woman works on us. That's one of the many differences between the opposite sexes, women don't really experience visual stimulation as strongly as men do. I don't want to call men beasts as that is just derogatory and I'm a male myself ofc, but sometimes the primal urges just kick in, a picture that could be called "clickbait" has guys immediately click the post and maybe not even read the text and upvote right away. I've seen guys drool over pictures like that unable to move on to other posts.
I think if women start realizing their power, guys will be in big trouble. :) I think it would only be fair for males to experience some form of gender tyranny, because of all the centuries women were viewed as lesser beings, but let's not do that please, let's have equality :) I hope evolution will take care of male primal urges and make as more sophisticated like the ladies are.
I disagree. It could be argued that women don't experience as much sexual arousal from visual stimuli, but stating that women don't experience visual stimulation as strongly as men do is just false.
Also, when you say "but," it kind of negates your previous statement. While I agree that I don't want to call men "beasts" either, you almost infer that you are one when saying you are a victim to your own subconscious. i.e. "primal urges."
Patriarchal society will be abolished once we are willing to accept that men and women really aren't that different. I feel like some ideas in evolutionary psychology (such as what you and @sean-king previously stated about "sexual power" and "primal urges") enforces these ideals that men and women aren't equal.
^^^ This is what I've been all about, from the start. Thank you for sharing your opinions.
I don't want to call men beasts, but sometimes I think we are just that. In a company of men only, you sometimes see testosterone induced actions that a normal thinking human being wouldn't even think about doing.
While I fully believe in women and men being valued the same, I don't believe that sexes are the same. That would be waaay too boring for me. :D And I don't really see the point trying to say that men and women think, act and speak the same. We should focus on having men and women treated the same, not try to make everyone the same.
Some people call that Toxic Masculinity.
And yes, I agree that we should focus on equality much more, rather than pointing out each other's differences.
Your original post said
And that was what my original question (Why do you think that is something we have to come to accept?) came from. Why do we have to accept that? to which you havent answered
Then in your reply you changed the acceptance stance to
Now you say you were talking about being held accountable for our actions (by whom?), a complete different topic, that has nothing to do with patriarchy or men and woman. I am sorry, you are confusing me
You didn't make it clear what your question was in reference to.
When I said
I meant that gender inequality should be over. I'm not sure how that hasn't been clear from the beginning, but I hope it's made more clear now.
Why do you think that is something we have to come to accept? what is your evidence?
There are many species where the behavior fo the female specimens is well differentiated from the male, couldn't humans be a little bit like that too?
Is it a choice we make?
Being in control over your choices and unconscious decisions, is something all humans should "come to accept."
The point I am making is that humans are departing from that archaic part of the mind-- the "reptillian brain." ( @sean-king likes evolutional psychology, so he may be interested in this, too) Carl Sagan wrote about it in The Dragons of Eden.
It's essentially the (very small, now) part of the brain that thinks: food, sex, sleep.
In my experience, I barely identify with that part of my mind. As an evolved, evolving species, we are capable of (and have accomplished) changing and growing the structures of more important parts of the brain.
So I ask myself, when people think women and men are so different:
Isn't it a bit reductive?
Is saying women have an inherent "power," or "sexual power," putting them above men-- is that not dehumanizing as well when we put them on a pedestal?
Is that idea, that women do have a secret power, by definition inequality?
(referring to evolutionary psychology)
It was perfectly clear because my question was in reply to that post, and at the time of my question, it was the only post in which you had mentioned acceptance. The other reference to acceptance came afterwords, as an answer to my question.
To make it clear here.
You: > once we are willing to accept that men and women really aren't that different
Me: > Why do you think that is something we have to come to accept?
You, after the question: > Being in control over your choices and unconscious decisions, is something all humans should "come to accept."
So no, there is no way you could have not known what i was referencing, since you mentioned acceptance again only in your answer. Plus the dialogue shows how you do not make sense
It amuses me greatly that from the start of this debate nobody has mentioned how hetero-normative the whole central premise of the original argument was.
The idea that women hold a natural power over men by nature of their inherent sexuality fundamentally disregards the fact that not everybody is attracted to the opposite sex at all. Not only that, but not everybody is even sexual at all.
Real power is bestowed at the organizational level, not by individuals practicing their sexuality.
The groups that aren't attracted or sexual are great minorities though. There were real cases of men being controlled by sex alone - that country in Africa in civil war, women told men that there will be no sex, unless there is peace. Peace was declared in under a month :) . There are many exploits of male visual stimulation being used - thieves hire attractive females to draw attention, poker players have giant decolts etc.
@desmonoid, I actually covered some of that today! Check it out!
Excellent article!
Thank you! I hope we provided some interesting insights and had provoked you to form your own opinions.
Hey Vera, great article, very interesting and engaging!! :) Alla x
Thank you Alla! I already upvoted your post on blinis! I am Russian as well (and Jewish), and blinis and blintzes have always been a staple in my breakfast routine! Keep it up :)
Aww thank you darling :)) I saw, so cool that so many nationalities pretty much share the same love for food ;)
Sex sells!
That's right! I said that in my previous article, too!
Thanks again for reading. :)