The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

6 October 2003

A lot of nerve

Lesley goes all Positively 4th Street on those males (we won't dignify them by calling them "men") who have given her the treatment recently attributed to Mr. Schwarzenegger:

I wish that men magically became women for one week and had to put up with the shit that we put up with on a regular basis. Then maybe some wouldnít so offhandedly dismiss the reports. Maybe they'd realize that it is demeaning and humiliating to have some guy grope you without your consent, and that it's not a sign of manliness. Maybe they'd realize that women actually can tell the difference between a man who is just saying he finds her attractive and one who is trying to intimidate her.

Bottom line: She'd rather see you paralyzed.

Posted at 10:01 PM to Table for One

A have never been able to stomach this double standard in our society.Whenever one turns on the TV, any number of shows today are hell-bent on making the average male look like a total idiot,and the audience gets its laughs out of that scenario. You typically see the male being insulted, bashed, hit, and criticized by women (Raymond, Friends, Seinfeld, ad nauseum), and one can also witness the not-so-occasional groping, ogling, butt-pinching, fondling, and even frontal hand motions indicating a hand full. This double standard is a recent phenomena that appears so frequently that society takes it for granted. None of this sexual behavior is acceptable from either gender. Why perpetuate it as something so hysterically funny coming from the females?

Posted by: Vickie at 5:26 AM on 7 October 2003

It's the same old double standard we had in the 50s, turned on its ear. A woman who takes these liberties is now presumed to be empowered; a man who does the same is exercising the privileges of the Evil Patriarchy™ and must be slapped down.

A world where "Leave me the hell alone" applies equally to both sexes would be the fairest, but likely the hardest to realize in practice.

Posted by: CGHill at 7:29 AM on 7 October 2003

A world where "Leave me the hell alone" applies equally to both sexes would be the fairest, but likely the hardest to realize in practice.

Not to mention devoid of lowbrow comedic possibilities, which is all sitcom TV is good for plumbing.

Posted by: McGehee at 8:11 AM on 7 October 2003

Yeah. Nothing kills an audience faster than a loving, committed, affectionate relationship.

Posted by: CGHill at 11:16 AM on 7 October 2003

I know I'm probably going to be bashed for saying it, but I wonder how many women complaining are the same ones going to clubs on the weekend wearing a skirt 8 inches above the knee and 6 inches below the waste.

I'm not using the George Carlin "she was wearin' a short skirt" excuse, but lets be honest. With all the high rise skirts, low rise jeans, and low cut blouses out there, some women aren't exactly sending out clear signals.

Posted by: Ravenwood at 11:54 AM on 7 October 2003

1. What double standard was inherent in my post? I was writing about my experiences, which in no way negates anyone else from having bad experiences as well.

2. I don't wear micro-minis, low-rise jeans, tight pants, low-cut tops, midriff-baring tops, or tight sweaters. I dress pretty conservatively. My office is business casual, and I generally wear the same clothes for leisure as I do for work. I almost never go to clubs at all. If I go once a year, it's a lot. And I never go to bars. I won't even wear a skirt unless I'm wearing tights or pantyhose. Guess what? It doesn't make a difference. The idiot who came up and asked me "How much?" asked me that while I was wearing a suit. The times I was "jostled" on the subway - the first was when I was 17. It was winter, and I was wearing a long coat. The last two times it happened, I was on my way to work.

Posted by: Lesley at 12:16 PM on 7 October 2003

Okay, in fairness, I was writing about my experiences and how they are typical of the experiences of one group. That still does not negate another group from also having bad experiences.

Posted by: Lesley at 12:18 PM on 7 October 2003

I don't think it was implied that there was some double standard inherent in your original post — only that one does exist, and that it would be better for all of us if it did not.

Posted by: CGHill at 1:15 PM on 7 October 2003

The double standard that was noted in your post came through in the first line: "I wish that men magically became women for one week and had to put up with the shit that we put up with on a regular basis." First of all, the statement, although duly noted that it obviously an opening line that is leading to personal experience, makes a complete generalization that all men should trade places with all women because of the shit that all women put up with. Secondly, in my comment that there is a double standard in society, I was expressing my disgust for the fact that women find it perfectly acceptable to bitch and moan about the negative sexual encounters/innuendo/whatever that THEY deal with, but don't seem to have a whole hell of a lot of problem with what I consider to be inappropriate and unacceptable behaviors exhibited on television from women towards men. If, in fact, women were truly interested in equal treatment, the NOW organization would be the first in line screaming at Hollywood that the way men are treated, both physically and sexually on television sitcoms, all for the thrill of the laugh and at the expense of the male, is completely out of line and wholly demonstrative of a double standard, one that is openly and unabashedly passed on to kids as well.

I really don't see how this is a difficult concept to grasp. Maybe those who complain the loudest that they are mistreated are the ones who need to think about it the most.

Posted by: Vickie at 2:50 PM on 7 October 2003

Okay, amend #8 to read "I didn't read it as such." (This is #10.)

Posted by: CGHill at 3:52 PM on 7 October 2003

I was referring to #6.

Posted by: Vickie at 4:52 PM on 7 October 2003

Had you read the entire entry, rather than just the excerpt posted here, you would have seen that at the end I wrote the following:

"I also understand that men go through things that women donít understand. But this post isnít about that. If one of you guys wants to write about those things, go right ahead. Needless to say, Iím not in a position to do that. So spare me that as an excuse, please."

Because, of course, it isn't an excuse for marginalizing someone else's experiences. The fact that your experiences may have been marginalized by others doesn't make it okay to turn around and do the same thing. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Further, in the second line of the entry as excerpted here, I specifically said "some" referring to men, not "men" or "all men", directly acknowledging that not all of them behaved in the negative manner I was criticizing. The excerpt isn't even my first paragraph. It's actually my second. In the first I acknowledged that some men have outright condemned Schwarzenegger and that I was surprised by some of the ones that did not. I would hardly be surprised by that if I expected it in the first place. You are reading something into my post that is not there. If you wish to critique it, please read it in its entirety.

What you have said is not a difficult concept to grasp. I just feel you are distorting what I believe. You can't possibly know what I think broadly based on one paragraph I wrote. No one is that simple.

Posted by: Lesley at 7:38 PM on 7 October 2003

And just in case it needs to be stated outright, lest I be further judged for believing something I do not, I have no use for most sitcoms. I find them stupid and full of gratuitious behavior, which I dislike. When it occurs to either gender. I wish that there were still sitcoms that portrayed people as something other than broad stereotypes of negative characterizations. In the case of men, something other than stupid, bumbling oafs. In the case of women, something besides nagging harpies. I wish they wouldn't go so quickly to the cheap humor. I am not a fan of "bathroom" humor or gratuitious sexual innuendo. I actually only watch very few TV series. I was particularly enjoying the reruns of "Dark Shadows" on Sci Fi, but they seem to have discontinued them, may Angelique curse them. I was watching "Port Charles" (a soap opera), but it was cancelled. I do watch "That 70s Show", pretty much because it reminds me of my junior high and high school days (I was only 4 years younger than the characters). Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Posted by: Lesley at 7:48 PM on 7 October 2003

To get quickly to the point, I linked to your site yesterday and did read the entire entry. You can check that yourself. Your explanation of your introductory paragraph, the one I quoted, does not translate out to what you claim it does. My original 'critique', as you put it, was to make a more sweeping commentary that your own disgust for behavior that you have encountered, as you described further into your site, and behavior that is certainly unacceptable and worthy of contempt, is another representation in our society of how one side is allowed to complain and be heard, much like the double standard exhibited by the black race (witness Dusty Baker's comments last July about how blacks were "brought over to work because they tolerated the heat better"). Let a white man say those comments and all hell breaks loose (Rush L.?). I'm sorry you feel you have to explain yourself this much. But a reading audience has different interpretations of what people write; obviously Charles did, and I just didn't happen to agree.

Posted by: Vickie at 5:10 AM on 8 October 2003