So you know, there's a Quote function in the Hubski Markup. If you put | before and after things you want quoted it'll make it a lot easier to read. I think we're seeing eye to eye here more than we are disagreeing, especially on the effect of social constructs on how we view other people. I'd also like to repeat here (as I tried to make clear in my original comment), that these are things that affect all genders, not just a men vs women thing. I agree, however there are many, MANY sexual assault and rape cases where "S/He was asking for It" or "Look at what S/He was wearing, I couldn't help myself" are used, along with other defences that place the blame on the victim while citing an inability to control themselves. What do we mean when we say someone "can't control themselves"? Usually we are referring to some sort of Edwardian concept of the "animalistic human" which we all keep inside of us, mostly composed of hormones and the "reptillian brain" (a theory which is not 100% accepted, though it is popular in public thought). So when I said "Unable to control their reaction to their hormones", this is what I was referring to. If you can't "Control yourself" in that sense, then perhaps you need to get some help. I won't comment specifically on the treatment of the feminine figure as inferior, though If you decide to embark on a journey through sociological textbooks to get more info I think you'd gain at least some good points to refute or differ from. However, you touch upon a pivotal concept. what exactly are "decent clothes", where did we get that Idea, and how do we define it? There are all sorts of things that are considered "Decent Clothes" which are also able to be put into the light of a sexual object (Without delving into the idea of "Fetish" whether in the Marxian or causal usage of the term). A plain black Pencil Skirt that is Knee length and non-revealing Can be seen as incredibly sexy, as can the suits shown in the original article. What these person are wearing is seen as "Decent Clothes" in a young office setting (maybe add a blazer for the woman). But someone could be wearing these clothes and be walking home, get raped, and then someone would say "they were asking for it." that shit's unacceptable, yo. But we have two options: we can make some sort of societal dress code which prevents "Dark thoughts" (See Burkas and Niqabs), or we can allow people to wear what they want and not be such judgemental pricks who can't prevent themselves from being handsy. Because the Status quo just isn't cutting it. At this point in my comment I've moved into a broader picture, not just involving the clothes we wear, but how we treat people who are "Societally exceptional" or not fitting into "normal." We simultaneously put them on a pedestal and throw rotten tomatoes at them, when they deserve neither. I see that as pretty fucked up, and it's what I was trying to get at. Men are at a historical advantage here in what is "expected of them", though, come to think of it, what is really "expected of them?" Why do women AND men need to be stuck in the rut of what has been historically expected of them? It's late, I'm getting ramble-y again, so I'll leave it there, because it's going to get incoherent. Needless to say, Of course these things affect all genders and all people. Switching the Genders, as the article does, is a literary exercise to put a finer point on what people say, and the problems with it.Treating a person differently has little to do with hormones.
Where do we treat the female form as inferior and what does that have to do with wearing decent clothing in public?
What does this have to do with the article?
you see fewer men going against what is expected of them.
This has little to nothing to do with the article posted. I understand those things happen, that they are bad, etc. However, this is an article trying to highlight a double standard that just doesn't seem to exist. Not situations/a situation of "she was wearing yoga pants so she deserved it" Unless I read it wrong, it was saying that we shouldn't judge women based on what they wear, because "This is what it would be like if we did the same for men" and it doesn't make sense to me. And the entire "Can't control yourself" is idiotic. Imagine people used that argument for fat people. "I just can't control it, I HAVE to keep eating!" We are humans, we are all about ignoring and controlling urges. Clothes that are average and commonly accepted in a society. That's just about it. People are weird, and in some places you can be judged for stupid things that we find normal. Go outside what is expected of you, and you will be judged. Simple as that. And I honestly don't get the "what if you just changed situations" argument either. People who are coming home from work will not be out very long, saying "what if it's appropriate here and not there" is fine, but about 90% of the time when you see people wearing something, they dressed for the situation you are seeing them in. And the "but she deserved it" argument has nothing to do with this article. It's not a related thing. People being judged for the clothes they wear can exist without and outside of idiots trying to use that to justify doing a horrible thing. This article is only speaking on the subject that we shouldn't be expected to conform to standards and/or tries to make the standards we have for women seem obscene by applying similar ones to men. What I am saying is that similar standards already apply. You changed the topic. Brought in something unrelated to make your argument sound better. And that has little to do with the article at hand. I do not really agree that it's fucked up to be treating those who act/dress differently in a better or worse way selectively. They are the ones acting differently, if they wanted to be treated normally, they can act normally. Do I agree with people going out of their way to shit on others to make themselves feel better? Or those trying to control others through being incredibly strict and judgmental about what others do or wear? No. However, those situations are outliers. For the most part, you only really get a lot of judgement if you go out of your way to be a certain way, and honestly I think it is well deserved. Ah, a historical advantage? I guess china is also at a historal advantage at being a world superpower also? Can you honestly not think of a single thing? The only thing men are expected to wear are pants/t-shirt style clothing. Suits, pants/shorts/t-shirt, button up. That's about it. Go outside that and you are outside what is expected. Men are judged for wearing skinny jeans or other too-tight clothing, wearing anything frilly or "girly". There may be more, but those are the two main ones. We shouldn't be! I have no issue with those who want to step away from what is expected of them to do something new. I do have issue with people acting like they are entitled to do it without being judged. Also with people who are clearly begging for attention rather than having real motivations.I agree, however there are many, MANY sexual assault and rape cases where "S/He was asking for It" or "Look at what S/He was wearing, I couldn't help myself" are used, along with other defences that place the blame on the victim while citing an inability to control themselves.
. what exactly are "decent clothes"
At this point in my comment I've moved into a broader picture
but how we treat people who are "Societally exceptional" or not fitting into "normal." We simultaneously put them on a pedestal and throw rotten tomatoes at them, when they deserve neither. I see that as pretty fucked up, and it's what I was trying to get at.
Men are at a historical advantage here in what is "expected of them"
come to think of it, what is really "expected of them?"
Why do women AND men need to be stuck in the rut of what has been historically expected of them?