Being "non-PC" apparently is too much for some people....

[Andara Bledin]

The final straw was after the date he opened the car door for her and she said, "Come on man I can handle a car door." So he came out and asks, "I thought woman liked chivalry?" She responded with (I kid you not), "Maybe - in 1955, not today!" Needless to say, that was the last date they went on.

The fact that he couldn't figure out after the first two incidents that it irritated her, that's probably for the best.

I hate people pulling chairs out for me. It's absolutely impractical unless the sitter is wearing massive skirts and cant handle the chair on their own. Plus, the person sitting is utterly helpless the entire time, and if they're not ready for it, it's a thoroughly unpleasant event that involves trying very hard not to fall over.

And that's before you get to whether or not it's patronizing by either infantilizing the subject or placing them on a pedestal, neither place a date wants to be.

[KabeRinnaul]

But lad's mags are like car enthusiast mags in that they are trying to show their readers something you don't see on the sidewalk (or in the case of the car mags, the road) every day.

So, the one magazine presents idealized objects for men to ogle and fantasize about using, which they know are beyond their reach but they still wish to possess. Having these objects would reflect well upon their masculinity and overall status. The objects presented are not what one would encounter in everyday life, but rare, perfect specimens, which appeal more strongly to the reader as a consumer of said objects.

And the other one's about cars.

I like how you don't see how this is objectification. Damn good example of it, too; congratulations on that.

[HEMI6point1]

And this is just prime Nice Guy bullshit.

I would agree with you IF it was only whiny Nice Guys (TM) saying it. But it isn't.

On one of those all-female talk shows, one of the panelists came right out and said this (paraphrasing, but you'll get the drift):

"It is sadly true that nowadays young women will gladly excuse some character flaws in a man if he is the typical hollywood handsome type. But if said man is not the typical hollywood handsome type, if he wants to successfully court the beautiful girl in the lounge, the library, supermarket, wherever it is, then he BETTER have something to offer her to be successful!"

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what she is referring to.

So your friend repeatedly did things she asked him NOT to do and then told her what she's suppose to like? That has nothing to do with indoctrination. Rather then being invested in her feelings and thoughts as a person, your friend overrode her opinion in favour of what he thinks women should be like.

Your friend is a dick.

So he's a dick because he did what is considered gentlemanly?

So, the one magazine presents idealized objects for men to ogle and fantasize about using, which they know are beyond their reach but they still wish to possess. Having these objects would reflect well upon their masculinity and overall status. The objects presented are not what one would encounter in everyday life, but rare, perfect specimens, which appeal more strongly to the reader as a consumer of said objects.

And the other one's about cars.

I like how you don't see how this is objectification. Damn good example of it, too; congratulations on that.

Read the segment down that blog that describes my feelings on this, and read the sentence that says "A woman doesn't have to be beautiful and model-like to be desirable to a man"

[NecCat]

So he's a dick because he did what is considered gentlemanly?

Yes.

If someone is throwing spitballs at you, and you tell them to stop, they keep throwing spitballs at you and when you get mad goes 'we are just having fun, jeez, can't you take a joke', they are being a dick.

When someone tells you they don't like something, you keep doing it to them, then tell them they should feel good about it because you do, you are being a dick, a bully and a complete asshole.

How is it being gentlemanly to make a woman feel bad?

[protege]

On one of those all-female talk shows, one of the panelists came right out and said this (paraphrasing, but you'll get the drift):

"It is sadly true that nowadays young women will gladly excuse some character flaws in a man if he is the typical hollywood handsome type. But if said man is not the typical hollywood handsome type, if he wants to successfully court the beautiful girl in the lounge, the library, supermarket, wherever it is, then he BETTER have something to offer her to be successful!"

Unfortunately, there are some (not all!) women who do that. They'll tolerate the bullshit because of what the guy looks like or what he has. That also works both ways--quite a few guys will overlook how bitchy their girlfriend/wife/whatever is because of the way she looks. These are the people that will buy a BMW, big house, and fancy clothes...simply to impress people. They either don't have the confidence, or can't figure out that such things don't matter. The clothes don't make the man (or woman) in other words.

As for being a dick, well, if someone's telling you that they don't like something...and you keep doing it, well, you *are* a dick. Why should someone--of either sex--have to put up with that? There's a huge difference between being a "gentleman" and being an asshole.

[s_stabeler]

I think something needs to be made clear:
1. pulling the chair out, etc: it's fine, but if the woman tells you not to do it, then don't do it.
2. asking someone out after having been refused: again, it both depends on how you are refused ("I have a boyfriend is different from "I don't feel like dating right now") and it's probably best to wait a while- as in, you Liberian shouldn't be asking the same day ( that IS harassment) and it's probably better to wait a couple of weeks. ( and honestly? unless there's some sign they are interested in you, frankly, I wouldn't bother asking again)

as for the issue of hollywood looks getting away with more: it's true enough that it happens, but to be fair, there's always going to be people that act stupid over people they have a crush on. ( and yes, it's usually a crush, not love)

[Gravekeeper]

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what she is referring to.

This is not gender exclusive. Plus, snide delivery aside, if you are trying to woo someone outside of your league so to speak then yes, you need to be offering that person something. Intelligence, a sense of humour, similar interests, something.

You do not inherently have a right to any woman you see nor is her rejection of you her fault.

So he's a dick because he did what is considered gentlemanly?

No, he's a dick because he did not consider his date's thoughts or feelings on the matter. This shit isn't hard to figure out. Women are people too strangely enough. <gasp>

"A woman doesn't have to be beautiful and model-like to be desirable to a man"

The problem with all of your disclaimer attempts to not be sexist is that they are sitting along side blog posts where you do shit like completely dismiss all criticizm of the fashion industry by saying its only fat, ugly and jealous women complaining. Then go on to give them an acronym and a nickname ( FUJ/Fudges ).

While at the same time objectifying women ( and generalizing men ) by saying men want these women to show off as a trophy:

So what do intelligent and successful men want? They want a woman that looks like Joey Fisher, Jodie Gasson, Harley Gacke, or Charlotte Springer.* They want a woman that causes them to smile as they look at her from across the table, they want a woman who they are proud to show off to their friends and family, they want a woman who makes them feel like they hit the jackpot without ever actually winning the lottery! In short, intelligent and successful men look at those models in lad's mags because a woman like that is what they strive to obtain! Now a woman don't exactly have to be model-like, but as long as an intelligent and successful man finds her "beautiful and desirable" that's all it takes.

Then you, yet again, pre-emptively try to deflect criticism from your views with a disclaimer:

*BTW, if you google these women (Some results might be NSFW) and don't think they're at least pretty, or if you start insulting them in any way then you're either blind, have no taste OR (especially if you insult them) a member of the very crowd that I am complaining about here.

[KabeRinnaul]

BTW, if you google these women (Some results might be NSFW) and don't think they're at least pretty, or if you start insulting them in any way then you're either blind, have no taste OR (especially if you insult them) a member of the very crowd that I am complaining about here.

Well, since you brought it up... Fisher is actually really attractive, mainly because she has a body type that supports her large breasts and they look natural on her, and she has a pretty face with a mature look to it. Though all I'm thinking is I'd love to see her dressed up as Miss Moxxi from the Borderlands games. Gasson and Springer have kind of generic porn star looks and honestly bore me a bit. And Gacke has this weird Hartman Hips thing going that I always think looks creepy on real-life women.

But recognizing physical attractiveness in the opposite sex isn't the same thing as wanting to have them around to be eye candy, and doesn't preclude me from recognizing objectification. I'd still rather have a partner (that I find attractive, yes) that I can share my actual life with, by having shared hobbies and interests, that sort of thing. But that requires having an interest in a woman as a person, not just a pair of tits and pretty face.

[BlaqueKatt]

If they're "offended," then they need to open their damn mouths and tell me. I'm not going to censor myself because someone "might be offended." If they truly *are* offended, I'm not so unreasonable that I wouldn't limit the comments.

Yet you're saying this and also saying that people telling you to not say it aren't "qualified", YOU'VE BEEN TOLD, AND ARE CHOOSING TO IGNORE IT. If they go to your boss and they tell you, will you still demand they have to make the confrontation? For all you know the people that HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU, have overheard something and are trying to prevent a write up.

Most people don't attempt to seek out confrontation, or put themselves in a position to be ridiculed further. You're saying it's their job to police *your* language(which you then complain about, like you ARE doing here, "why are people not involved complaining"), because you take no responsibility for it, instead of being proactive and limiting on your own to foster goodwill, you choose to be reactive, and not consider it a problem until it becomes *your* problem. That's actually the definition of Privilege.

Why is it, that it's never the people *in* the group that are offended, but the people *outside* the group?

Empathy.

I'll leave this here

[protege]

For all you know the people that HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU, have overheard something and are trying to prevent a write up.

I already know what my boss would say. That is, something along the lines of "get a thicker skin." Mostly because you need one of those to work in the investment industry.

Most people don't attempt to seek out confrontation, or put themselves in a position to be ridiculed further. You're saying it's their job to police *your* language(which you then complain about, like you ARE doing here, "why are people not involved complaining"), because you take no responsibility for it, instead of being proactive and limiting on your own to foster goodwill, you choose to be reactive, and not consider it a problem until it becomes *your* problem.

I don't go out of my way to offend people. However, if they're truly pissed off with what I'm saying...than they need to man up and say something--instead of having someone else (who rips on the neighborhood even more than I do) to fight their battles. I can't read minds--you have a problem with me, come to me and we'll talk about it.

Oh, and the person that was supposedly "offended?" She wasn't around much longer. She got canned for taking too long for the simplest of tasks, and for taking too many days off.

[HEMI6point1]

Interesting....

While at the same time objectifying women ( and generalizing men ) by saying men want these women to show off as a trophy:

Someone I know from my workplace read my blog and said something among the lines of:

"What you essentially said was that once a man reaches some sort of 'success,' he needs to validate said success with a 'hot' woman. That's not 'finding a compatible partner,' that's looking for a trophy girlfriend/wife."

I had a feeling someone was going to accuse that section of "wanting a trophy girlfriend/wife," but as the paragraph right before the one GK quoted alluded to, no one, male or female, wants a partner that makes them feel like they "settled" or makes them constantly think "man I could have done better."

That is not healthy, for both parties. You're depriving the person you're "settling for" a chance to be with someone who does find them attractive.

The other thing too, is if you do settle, you'll constantly be ribbed by people in your circles that you just "gave up trying." I personally wouldn't care if someone said that to me, but how would my chosen partner feel if people were essentially saying that I was only with her because I felt I had no other options?

Gacke has this weird Hartman Hips thing going that I always think looks creepy on real-life women.

To each their own. On one of the lad's mags sites she is on one person described her as "having the most perfect waist-hips-bust ratio he has ever seen, with an angelic gorgeous face and that red hair." (Which is admittedly dyed, but she said that once she changed to red she got more modeling jobs, so whatever works) <---- And no that wasn't me saying it!

Just don't make jokes of "If you marry a guy with a last name of Davison" to her....

But recognizing physical attractiveness in the opposite sex isn't the same thing as wanting to have them around to be eye candy, and doesn't preclude me from recognizing objectification. I'd still rather have a partner (that I find attractive, yes) that I can share my actual life with, by having shared hobbies and interests, that sort of thing. But that requires having an interest in a woman as a person, not just a pair of tits and pretty face.

This may come as a shock, but I totally agree with this. I have talked to women who are a 6 on their best day become a 9 once you actually get a chance to talk to them. Similarly, I have seen 9's that shrink to 4's once they open their mouths. Guess which one I would rather have?

[Gravekeeper]

I had a feeling someone was going to accuse that section of "wanting a trophy girlfriend/wife," but as the paragraph right before the one GK quoted alluded to, no one, male or female, wants a partner that makes them feel like they "settled" or makes them constantly think "man I could have done better."

You seem vividly aware of when you are being or sounding sexist and yet it doesn't appear to stop you? Even now you're *still* objectifying women. First you say they should be proud to show her off and now you say people will rib you in your social circle if your companion's attractiveness is not up to par of their approval. You hold up the beautiful trophy woman as the ideal goal for a man despite your attempts to weasel out of it. You measure a man by his intelligence and success and then measure a woman on the criteria of her attractiveness to a man and his friends.

So what do intelligent and successful men want? They want a woman that looks like Joey Fisher, Jodie Gasson, Harley Gacke, or Charlotte Springer.* They want a woman that causes them to smile as they look at her from across the table, they want a woman who they are proud to show off to their friends and family, they want a woman who makes them feel like they hit the jackpot without ever actually winning the lottery! In short, intelligent and successful men look at those models in lad's mags because a woman like that is what they strive to obtain! Now a woman don't exactly have to be model-like, but as long as an intelligent and successful man finds her "beautiful and desirable" that's all it takes.

Tossing in a little thing at the beginnig or end doesn't invalidate the shit before it. Nevermind the fact this is all encapulated as a rebuttal to "fat, ugly and jealous" women.

This may come as a shock, but I totally agree with this. I have talked to women who are a 6 on their best day become a 9 once you actually get a chance to talk to them. Similarly, I have seen 9's that shrink to 4's once they open their mouths. Guess which one I would rather have?

and then you use a number ranking system without a shred of irony. >.>

I'm sorry, but you are sexist and no amount of shifting the blame to imaginary groups such as the PC Brigade or Fudges or trying to stick in little disclaimers as if that negates it all will change that.

[s_stabeler]

depends- if you only think of people by where they are in your ranking system, then yeah, it is, but if it's meant as shorthand for "I prefer this type of women to another" then it isn't. Frankly, how I interpreted the statement is "there are women that look more or less average to me that become highly attractive when they turn out to have a brain, and there are women who look highly attractive that become rather less so when they open their mouth"

[BlaqueKatt]

I already know what my boss would say. That is, something along the lines of "get a thicker skin." Mostly because you need one of those to work in the investment industry.

which tells me you didn't bother reading the link(or even reading the title).

[HEMI6point1]

depends- if you only think of people by where they are in your ranking system, then yeah, it is, but if it's meant as shorthand for "I prefer this type of women to another" then it isn't. Frankly, how I interpreted the statement is "there are women that look more or less average to me that become highly attractive when they turn out to have a brain, and there are women who look highly attractive that become rather less so when they open their mouth"

^^^^^^
THIS. 100%.

And GK, just an FYI. I'm a huge supporter of women's rights (equal pay, etc), I am pro choice, and if you look at my blog page I wrote a whole post about defending women on the subject of victim blaming (Which you seem to have chosen to completely ignore).

But yet, I'm sexist for having the guts to call out a specific group of people that like to demonize pretty much an entire industry (Glamour, not fashion BTW).

If that makes me a sexist to you, then so be it.