Clothing

[♪alt13]

I am less concerned about raising my daughter to dress a certain way than I am about raising her to be self confident and to demand the respect that she deserves. A woman wearing a mini skirt can be powerful and a different woman wearing the same skirt may be exploited.

The feminazi's and the ultra conservatives alike love to bash things like makeup and certain clothing as evidence of the objectification of women by men. It seems to me that many women if not most are dressing to impress other women. I can tell you 100% that this is the case with my fiance. I was a little surprised by how spiffed up she got when she went to her friends baby shower.

 

[LogGrad98]

I am less concerned about raising my daughter to dress a certain way than I am about raising her to be self confident and to demand the respect that she deserves. A woman wearing a mini skirt can be powerful and a different woman wearing the same skirt may be exploited.

The feminazi's and the ultra conservatives alike love to bash things like makeup and certain clothing as evidence of the objectification of women by men. It seems to me that many women if not most are dressing to impress other women. I can tell you 100% that this is the case with my fiance. I was a little surprised by how spiffed up she got when she went to her friends baby shower.

I see this in my daughter and wife. My wife was getting dressed one morning and had this relatively low-cut number on and a particular bra she owns that had a nice push-up effect. She had the makeup going and had spent some real time on her hair. I asked her who her boyfriend was, and she reminded me she had a lunch that day with some old friends of hers from school. She doesn't dress up like that for our anniversary, but to impress her friends she is all over it.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You can find women who don't talk about their harassment much, for various reasons. Finding women who have never been harassed is much more difficult.

So... you are saying all of the women you talk to or spend time with have been harassed? I'm looking for a common denominator here... what is it... I can almost put my finger on it.

btw, I said nothing about women that have "never" been harassed. Try reading the statement again.

This reads to me as if you are saying we should not believe women when they tell us what they experience. I don't accept that line of thinking. Are you looking for some sort of study on harassment relative to clothing or gender?

Not at all. I'm saying I should think twice before believing you when you speak as if you've personally spoken with all of the women of the world and they have all been harassed, pretty much every day and every time they go out of their house no matter what they wear.

You incorrectly interpret what I say, then say you don't accept that line of thinking... that's great because it's not what I'm thinking. (^^feels good doesn't it)

While there are certainly plenty of creeps and jerks out there in the world, I think your pov is extreme. I also think it more likely some creep will target a woman dressed in a mini skirt over sweats, but I'm not saying harassment of girls in sweats doesn't happen. You seem to be implying that if all things are equal, a girl that only wears sweats will be harassed equally as the same girl that only wears mini skirts. "I don't accept that line of thinking".

What's your reason for believing it true? Why do you think that the degree of harassment/judgement/objectification (as opposed to wanted attention) would change based on what your daughter was wearing depending on the circumstances? Can you do better than "it's obvious"?

Do I have to go Mr. T on you sucka fool?

Let me try to explain some simple mathematics for you.

Let's pretend you are Perry the Teenage Girl for a second.

You want attention, you want boys to look at you, you like boys in general.
You find out that they tend to look at you twice as much when you wear a mini skirt instead of sweats.

Boys - look.
Creeps - ogle.
Harassing Creeps - Harass

In your research you found that when you wear sweats 25 boys look at you, but when you wear a mini skirt 50 boys look at you per hour.
The number of creeps to boys is 1 in 25. The number of harassing creeps to creeps is 1 in 10.
If you wear sweats it is likely you will be harassed at least once in 10 hours of walking around in sweats.
If you wear a mini skirt it is likely you will be harassed at least twice in 10 hours of walking around in mini skirts.

Basically, you get more attention and you have just increased the odds one of the people in that pool is a harassing creep. Simple math.
The only thing you can do to attempt to refute this is to stupidly attempt to state that more boys do not look at girls in mini skirts as opposed to sweats. As proof just read the entire .gif thread and the rest of jazzfanz.
If you want to make it more complex you start to worry about the places you go, the types of people you see and the odds of finding a creep in the different situations you are in. Are you with friends or alone, are you in small groups of people, large groups of people, or walking alone in the dark in a neighborhood that some view as "rough". So many factors.

I submit this challenge to you OB.
Do each of these for 30 days so we get a good sample size.
You go out in your regular daily activities in sweats and see how many times you get harassed.
Then go out in your regular daily activities in a mini skirt and see how many times you get harassed.
Then tell me what you wear means nothing.

TIA

Obvious - clearly
You want me to do better than "it's obvious" when all you give is hints that you've spoken to women at some point in your life. Sounds very much like a double standard.

I'm thinking of ways to make this longer.....


hmmmm....


I got nothing....


Curse you Perry the Teenage Girl.

 

[Stoked]

Props for the reference Triangle Man. Watched that this morning with my girls.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Props for the reference Triangle Man. Watched that this morning with my girls.

It's a good show. I love it.

 

[One Brow]

The feminazi's and the ultra conservatives alike love to bash things like makeup and certain clothing as evidence of the objectification of women by men.

The feminists who do that seem to be a small part of the movement.

 

[♪alt13]

The feminists who do that seem to be a small part of the movement.

Which is why I chose the term feminazis as opposed to feminists. Generally I define a feminazi as a woman that believes the ultimate goal for women is to act in the same manner as the most juvenile/chauvinistic men do. The type of "feminist" that look down on a woman for choosing to be a mother or god forbid have a husband.

I just really love the irony that these two disparate groups make similar lame arguments about what a woman chooses to wear.(feminazis & ultra conservatives)

 

[One Brow]

btw, I said nothing about women that have "never" been harassed. Try reading the statement again.

I agree, you did not make a specific claim in that area. I'm quite comfortable with my response, nonetheless.

Not at all. I'm saying I should think twice before believing you when you speak as if you've personally spoken with all of the women of the world and they have all been harassed, pretty much every day and every time they go out of their house no matter what they wear.

I'm sure you're comfortable with the hyperbole here.

You incorrectly interpret what I say, then say you don't accept that line of thinking... that's great because it's not what I'm thinking. (^^feels good doesn't it)

While there are certainly plenty of creeps and jerks out there in the world, I think your pov is extreme. I also think it more likely some creep will target a woman dressed in a mini skirt over sweats, but I'm not saying harassment of girls in sweats doesn't happen. You seem to be implying that if all things are equal, a girl that only wears sweats will be harassed equally as the same girl that only wears mini skirts. "I don't accept that line of thinking".

My interpretation has been that you think women who wear more revealing clothing (relative to context) will suffer more unwanted attention, as well as receive more wanted attention. If I have that wrong, please clarify. If not, please justify.

Let me try to explain some simple mathematics for you.

Let's pretend you are Perry the Teenage Girl for a second.

You want attention, you want boys to look at you, you like boys in general.
You find out that they tend to look at you twice as much when you wear a mini skirt instead of sweats.

Boys - look.
Creeps - ogle.
Harassing Creeps - Harass

In your research you found that when you wear sweats 25 boys look at you, but when you wear a mini skirt 50 boys look at you per hour.
The number of creeps to boys is 1 in 25. The number of harassing creeps to creeps is 1 in 10.
If you wear sweats it is likely you will be harassed at least once in 10 hours of walking around in sweats.
If you wear a mini skirt it is likely you will be harassed at least twice in 10 hours of walking around in mini skirts.

Basically, you get more attention and you have just increased the odds one of the people in that pool is a harassing creep. Simple math.
The only thing you can do to attempt to refute this is to stupidly attempt to state that more boys do not look at girls in mini skirts as opposed to sweats.

Wow, thanks for the "simple math" lesson, emphasis on "simple". It relies on a few built-in assumptions, of course. You are assuming that harassers look for the same circumstances and find the same things noticeable as non-harassers; perhaps harassers are much more likely to focus on things like group size, proximity, and ability to retreat comfortably. You are assuming harassers and non-harassers are going to evaluate the same social cues from the female. You are assuming that the primary stimulus for harassers is sexual desire and not expression of power. I'm afraid I'm not nearly simple enough to accept your assumptions, and therefore the math based on them is meaningless; I'll leave that for those who are simpler.

I submit this challenge to you OB.
Do each of these for 30 days so we get a good sample size.
You go out in your regular daily activities in sweats and see how many times you get harassed.
Then go out in your regular daily activities in a mini skirt and see how many times you get harassed.

Being a male, I rarely, if ever, get harassed for showing skin.

Then tell me what you wear means nothing.

Why would I tell you that? What in my claim would mean men wearing dresses would not get harassed?

You want me to do better than "it's obvious" when all you give is hints that you've spoken to women at some point in your life. Sounds very much like a double standard.

Except, I'm not proposing a standard. I'm just saying I don't see a reason to think there is a different level of harassment experienced.

 

[One Brow]

Which is why I chose the term feminazis as opposed to feminists. Generally I define a feminazi as a woman that believes the ultimate goal for women is to act in the same manner as the most juvenile/chauvinistic men do. The type of "feminist" that look down on a woman for choosing to be a mother or god forbid have a husband.

You do realize you are using a term that many conservatives apply to feminists indiscriminately, and one that links them to one of the most genocidal regimes in modern history? You use 'ultra-conservative', why not 'ultra-feminist' or (more descriptively) 'para-feminist'?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Wow, thanks for the "simple math" lesson, emphasis on "simple". It relies on a few built-in assumptions, of course. You are assuming that harassers look for the same circumstances and find the same things noticeable as non-harassers; perhaps harassers are much more likely to focus on things like group size, proximity, and ability to retreat comfortably. You are assuming harassers and non-harassers are going to evaluate the same social cues from the female. You are assuming that the primary stimulus for harassers is sexual desire and not expression of power. I'm afraid I'm not nearly simple enough to accept your assumptions, and therefore the math based on them is meaningless; I'll leave that for those who are simpler.

First of all, you are welcome.

So you only like looking at complex issues through a simple lens from far away when it suits you?
I readily stated there are many many factors that go into this, but all things being equal there would still be a difference in attention paid from one to the other in regards to dress.
I guess you are more scientifically challenged than I though. All of the study's you reference in other topics tend to attempt to boil down complex situations to one or two factors and you have no issues with that, but in this case it's too complex for you? absurd why not apply this same reasoning when your point is on the other side of the coin?

Except, I'm not proposing a standard. I'm just saying I don't see a reason to think there is a different level of harassment experienced.

Except you are by requesting something you do not seem willing to give yourself.
How about you give the reasoning behind why you feel there is no difference in the levels of attention or harassment based on what a person wears, or is it just "obvious'?

 

[One Brow]

So you only like looking at complex issues through a simple lens from far away when it suits you?

It is a human failing to which I am prone. I'm not sure to which specific issues you are referring.

I readily stated there are many many factors that go into this, but all things being equal there would still be a difference in attention paid from one to the other in regards to dress.

We have agreed on both of these points already.

All of the study's you reference in other topics tend to attempt to boil down complex situations to one or two factors and you have no issues with that, but in this case it's too complex for you?

Scientific studies start from the position of 'there is no effect', and require proof that there be an effect. That is my position here.

why not apply this same reasoning when your point is on the other side of the coin?

I try to. You are wlecome to call me out anytime you think I am mentioning an effect that I can't prove; in the past when so called out, I have withdrawn claims I could not prove.

How about you give the reasoning behind why you feel there is no difference in the levels of attention or harassment based on what a person wears, or is it just "obvious'?

First, that there is no difference is the default position. I'm not aware of any studies that have tested this directly.

There is some research that is tangentially relevant.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=djglp

Among the conclusions (there is more detailed support in the body of the work):

Sexual harassment is about power; therefore, a target who is dressed provocatively is not the ideal target for the would-be harasser, who appears motivated at least in part by his ability to dominate his victim. Provocative dress does not necessarily signify submissiveness but instead may be an indication of confidence and assertiveness.

https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cou/34/2/186/

Clothing is absent from the list of risk factors.




https://irs.sagepub.com/content/39/4/373.short

How revealing the clothing of an athlete is has very little to do with the level of harassment.

 

[♪alt13]

You do realize you are using a term that many conservatives apply to feminists indiscriminately, and one that links them to one of the most genocidal regimes in modern history? You use 'ultra-conservative', why not 'ultra-feminist' or (more descriptively) 'para-feminist'?

Honestly I would have liked to use a "nazi" catch phrase for the ultra conservatives too but I couldn't think of one that would get my point across. I don't mind hyperbole. No one thought that Seinfeld's Soup Nazi was a Jew killing *** hole we all knew that he was just a really big *** hole. If I was making a literal comparison and not using obvious hyperbole than the criticism would be fair.

I do think that regardless of numbers the para-feminists, feminazis if you will, have to a large degree hijacked the message resulting in the alienation of most females putting the movement on life support.