Comments by "I Hate Unicorns" (@ihateunicorns867) on "Charisma on Command" channel.

  1. I had a job interview once and I froze up and stumbled over my words for a few questions and the atmosphere got really awkward. She then asked me that standard: "What areas are you looking to improve your skill in" to which I replied "I think a good start would be answering interview questions". We both laughed and the interview continued much more fluidly. I ended up getting the job. Always much better to acknowledge to awkwardness.
    2100
  2. What the actual fuck? Can't people just talk to other people like humans? What kind of person has to use a pre-calculated formula to get people to sleep with them?
    207
  3. I stopped drinking about 6 years ago. It's amazingly eye-opening. There always become a point where people stop listening to each other and start shouting about themselves at each other (repetitively). It's weird how people can't see that if they have to take drugs to enjoy other people's company, those people probably aren't really the best friends out there for them.
    59
  4. Dizni I think my first mistake was filling her with petrol.
    34
  5. Collinge Communication Institute Not at all. I think this kind of attitude promotes the trophyism of women. I find the example clips shown here horribly misogynistic. I know Russell Brand publicly acknowledges that his prior sexualisation and objectification of women was a bad trait of his personality and is actively trying to change his behaviour. These really shouldn't be shown as behaviour to aspire to.
    24
  6. "Friendzone"? Women aren't machines you put "nice chips" in until sex comes out. Friendzone is a misogynistic term designed to assign blame to women who don't want to sleep with you, even though you were being "nice".  You don't need "techniques" to get people to sleep with you. You wouldn't trick someone into being your friend through psychological manipulation, you would make friends because you both like each other and get on. It's the same with sex.
    22
  7. TheFucker669 The "That's just the way it is. Accept it" attitude is common and has been the stance of many apathetic people throughout history in relation to any period of social change. The employment of 'techniques' to get people to sleep with you will only lessen your chances of meeting someone who you genuinely get on with. I'm married now, but back in the days when I was going out and meeting people, I never really 'tried' to get people into bed. I was just confident and chatted with them and was myself. That way I ended up spending time with people I genuinely liked and then after I'd gone back to theirs and had sex, we'd do something like stay up all night chatting and making each other laugh rather than me lying there, wondering when I could leave.  If I'm being brutally honest, I'd say that most of my friends who used to employ flirting and pick-up techniques don't seem to have ended up in very good relationships. Maybe that's just coincidence. I don't know.
    16
  8. Dizni Liking a woman to a car?
    13
  9. Dizni A pattern that likens them to cars? 
    13
  10. ***** I believe that there's a lot of sexism in society and women's position needs to be elevated so I would probably class myself as a feminist. What is a "social justice warrior"? Social justice sounds like a good thing. Not sure about the "warrior" part. Reminds me of when people call others "militant atheists" simply because they're vocal about what they believe.
    13
  11. ***** Go through life without being largely defined by their gender.
    13
  12. I wish you’d stop using Jordan Peterson as an example of logic and reason. He’s manipulative in his arguments. Poor old Cathy Newman never stood a chance. Peterson will say two statements together alluding that there’s a connection (eg Women are not in as many high-profile jobs as men, and hierarchies are natural and even Lobsters have them). This leaves the other person in a lose–lose situation. They can either deny one of the statements (which is not a good idea as they are generally truthful) or try to clarify what Peterson is saying (eg “So you’re saying…”). And then they end up being the one saying these ridiculous things. There’s a reason so many Nazis and other far-right groups love Jordan Peterson. He’s not famous for being clever, he’s famous for being controversial by refusing to use the correct pronouns for transgender students at his University. His method of arguing is subtly facetious and designed to attract attention. He’s the Donald Trump of academia. Don’t give him the attention he craves.
    12
  13. Ben Provenza I mean to just act like you would anyone else rather than try to apply a formula to your conversation. Be confident, friendly, talk about something interesting and listen to people. Just see where the conversation leads rather than to having an aim. I don't mean literally saying "I want to mate with you" …although one of my ex-girlfriends did approach me by saying "Hi. I'd like to have sex with you." — which did work to be honest. I'd just finished playing a gig (I was in a band at the time) and I was having a drink and it took me completely off guard. The directness and confidence was intriguing. Although, from a guy this would sound a bit rapey, so I wouldn't advise taking this route! Basically, I mean women are people with feelings and personalities, so don't treat them like a challenge to be conquered with techniques.
    11
  14. 1 2 I hate this constant weird strawman rebuttal against anyone who is pro-gender equality by making out that we're in some way denying biology. Please explain how being against making inappropriate, sexualised comments to professional women trying to do their job is denying biology…
    7
  15. ***** How hot are these girls? If they're over 100.4 F then, that's classed as a fever and they may need antibiotics.
    7
  16. ***** Sounds like people have misunderstood what feminism is. I take it this term is used in the majority by white men. Privilege is a blindfold unfortunately.
    7
  17. ***** Talk to other people much, do you?
    6
  18. ***** Now I'm in a difficult position. I really don't want to get into a YouTube comments debate about feminism. It'll go nowhere constructive and I've heard it all 100 times before. But on the other hand, what you've said is so easy to explain/answer. This is all very basic-level stuff though. Some things take more study to understand and I probably can't easily explain them in a comment of this length. Here goes: 1. No, it's a statement based on masses of evidence and countless studies by sociologists. It's not a controversial view, it's a view accepted by mainstream sociology. To argue that it wasn't the case would be a bold claim. 2. I'm not claiming that there are no biological differences between men and women — this is a common misconception/misrepresentation of feminist theory used by antifeminists. Our notions of gender roles are a mix of socially constructed and biological differences between men and women. Socially constructed such as: trousers/skirts, short hair/long hair, pink/blue etc. Biological being: logical intelligence/emotional intelligence, physically strong/physically weaker etc. However, the biological aspects are only general trends and men and women often don't conform. eg. You get strong, athletic women and you get emotionally intelligent, sensitive men. The part feminists have a problem with is the application of gender roles. eg: girls being discouraged from playing with "boys toys" and encouraged to play with dolls and make-up sets, boys being told that "boys don't cry" … "man up" etc. Feminists don't want a physically strong woman to feel she's less of a woman because of her strength. 3. This one is going to annoy you. I apologise, but I don't know how to say it in a nicer way. Firstly, you don't understand what intersectional feminism is. Secondly, you are falling into the classic trap of viewing your own culture as "the right balance" and everything from less-developed nations/past times as "needing progressive ideas" and anything that moves your own culture on as "going too far". This has always been a common psychological trait throughout history. It's what people thought when enslaving Black people was considered acceptable and normal. 4. Yes, you can find people who supported Solanas, but you are still anomaly hunting. Attempted murder is not part of feminist ideology. Sommers calls herself a feminist, but I feel she does this in a facetious way to make a point. She does not want to change women's position in society. She seems happy with things as they are and spends her time trying to discredit feminist theory. Believing in equality makes you egalitarian, not feminist. A feminist recognises that the way to achieve gender equality is to elevate women's position in society. 5. Being male makes you privileged in terms of gender, but there are many forms of privilege: ethnicity, gender, wealth, sexuality, disability etc. Each has their own problems. People get defensive when they are called privileged, but it doesn't mean you have it easy. It means you have it easier than someone else in exactly the same position as you, but who is female. 6. Many feminists are guilty of ignoring their own privilege. You are very right on that. This is what the notion of intersectional feminism is trying to counteract.
    6
  19. So are you saying do the eyebrow flash or don't do the eyebrow flash?
    6
  20. ***** Well, I have two degrees in it so I'm fairly invested in the concept. Feminism is really an umbrella term for a wide spectrum of beliefs, but they are united by the desire to change women's position in society. I really do think that most adversity to feminist discourse by people who truly believe that men and women should be equal comes through misunderstanding. Although, I do think a lot of the time, feminists are to blame for this. Anger at injustice seems to take over from persuasive techniques a little too often for my tastes (but then I'm in a position of privilege being male, and have the luxury of being to walk away should I wish). I can see how people could be outraged if they read those radical 'think' pieces and take them literally. Due to the difficultly people face in being objective about their own culture, people write 'think' pieces with radical content. These pieces may call for the death of all white men or to round up men and put them in camps etc. These are not meant to be taken literally — no-one actually wants this. They are a hypothetical scenarios designed to take people out of their comfort zone and allow them to view a situation from a different perspective and therefore gain insight they might not otherwise gain. Unfortunately, the people who really need to benefit from these are the ones that will take it literally and make a YouTube video about the 'crazy feminists'. So, while I understand the reason for these things' existence, I'm not sure I can completely get on board with them. If you were referring to something else, then I apologise for rambling.
    5
  21. ***** Ah, but while you may find occasions where you are discriminated against because of your gender, it's not anywhere near as prominent and defining as women's experience. Notions and expectations of masculinity are the fallout from patriarchal culture, anyway. Feminism is fighting against this.
    5
  22. Pissed? As in angry or drunk? I was neither.
    4
  23. Epictetus You make some good points. I have jumped the gun a little in linking flirting with picking up women for sex. Having watched some of the other videos this guy has done, I actually find them really interesting. As a psychological study, this is interesting (and maybe I was doing exactly this subconsciously when flirting), but my point is that if you do these things consciously, with an agenda, you are not going to get true connections with people. I also feel very uncomfortable about the concept that women are prizes to be won by playing a game. Maybe I unfairly placed this video in a cultural context to which it does not belong.
    3
  24. ***** I would say I'm being more didactic than prescriptive. The flirting techniques shown here are prescriptive. My position is opposed to that. When you say that "it is hardly rape", you're venturing into the fallacy of relative privation. ie— you can think of something worse, therefore the problem identified is not worthy of being cited. It is a problem nonetheless. Although, maybe not one you agree with, but I would put it to you that you don't think of this as a problem because it is not a problem for you. You don't have to think about it or deal with it. You can walk away from the debate if you want. I'm not positioning myself as a moral high-ground, I'm trying to communicate a social problem I can see with this video.
    3
  25. What? Seriously? Women approach me all the time. But this idea of "approaching" someone is very one-sided. The person who is now my wife I met at uni. We were just chatting and getting on well and it just gradually evolved into kissing. There wasn't really any preconceived agenda on either side. It just kind of happened. But this is my point. If you stop worrying about who you might and might not sleep with and treat women as human beings, these situations just end up happening.
    3
  26. Clive Pereira That's a strawman. I'm not implying in any sense that people should not learn how to be confident and social skills. Can you not see a difference between objecting to a pre-calculated technique that belittles women in order to seduce them and the abstract concept of social awareness?
    3
  27. Kyle Richter It's what people call you when you don't act like a douche.
    2
  28. ***** Unless you actually mean "can't" in which case: turn invisible.
    2
  29. ***** Solanas was mentally ill and Sommers doesn't even fit the definition of a feminist. It seems like feminism's detractors always pick extreme fringe cases in order to make their point. Wouldn't a more intellectually honest approach be to critique mainstream feminist discourse rather than to ignore it? Do you know what confirmation bias is? I see a lot of people online (YouTube etc) who seem to scour the Internet for extreme cases, sensationalistic misrepresentations and some genuine misunderstandings (I think) in order to built up a case against feminism. The weirdest trait of this behaviour (that I find) is when people cite education into a subject as a bad thing. As if this somehow blinds you to the reality of a situation. It's what young earth creationists do. As though studying evolutionary biology is an indoctrination into a world of lies designed to conspire against God. The problem with confirmation bias is that the majority of the time, people don't even realise they're doing it. You'll need to bear with people if they get angry at your questioning their arguments. It's difficult when someone in a position of privilege tells the underprivileged how they should feel about their situation. Like when rich people question the poor's work ethic, forgetting about how their private education, contacts through daddy and inheritance advantages them. Like confirmation bias, privilege is difficult to see. This is because the privileged party doesn't have to think about it all the time like the underprivileged party does.
    2
  30. ***** Please do not speak for me. You clearly do not understand my position.
    2
  31. ***** It's about fuelling a culture of viewing women as trophies or goals, not suggesting that women are unable to transcend pick up techniques. Analysing rapports between people is fascinating, but manufacturing a false rapport to achieve a goal leads to a whole set of problems.
    2
  32. ***** You were inaccurately explaining my position, so you either don't understand it or were deliberately strawmanning my argument. Either way, please don't.
    2
  33. ***** There's a big difference between telling someone their hair looks good in order to not hurt their feelings and dictating the structure of how two people interact in order to make someone feel like they have a rapport with you so they will be more willing to sleep with you. Developing an emotional connection with someone should be nothing at all like a job interview because — and I reiterate— human beings are not goals to be achieved. In an attempt to steer this conversation back to my original problem with this video: These women are interviewing these people, they haven't approached them in a bar to flirt with. The woman interviewing Brand is just trying to do her job. We live in a culture where women are constantly harassed, sexualised, objectified when they're just trying to do get on with their lives. Flirting is great when both parties are up for it, but it shouldn't be constantly forced upon women when they are trying to work. I watch the Brand clip and think "Brand is unable to talk to this woman without reducing her to her sexuality", but it's being presented here as aspirational behaviour. This is my objection.
    2
  34. Epictetus "Reducing someone to their sexuality" is not and anti-sexuality statement, it means that her primary function becomes about her sexuality rather than her job, talents, general humanity etc. The media obsesses about what women look like or who they're dating/married to much more than it does to men. This is a product of and addition to that culture. Beautiful women are people too. Being attractive doesn't mean you should just be there to service the sexual needs of men. But you know that already. Why don't I focus my criticism at the producers? — This is what it always comes down to. People get so defensive when they think they're being criticised. Rather than identifying a problem and working together to solve it, people just worry that they're being criticised and argue for their defence that there's actually no problem. I'm tired of this.
    2
  35. Epictetus This is the media. I don't think flirting is wrong. Flirting is great. But the constant message that the primary purpose of women is something for men to have sex with is problem, and one that has a lot of impact into other areas (rape and male entitlement for example). If something is a problem for women, it doesn't mean that that problem has the same relevance for men. You have to work within cultural context. Men are not defined by their sexuality in the way women are, so the cultural effect is very different. There is still a lot of pervasive sexism in our culture. The more people who challenge this, the better. Men need to become more aware of their actions and views. Being objective about your own society is very difficult. "White knight"? Grow up.
    2
  36. Epictetus A 'white knight' is a derogatory term meaning someone who supports feminist issues because they think it will get them laid. It's a term used by people who cannot understand why someone would support women's rights if they were a man. No, I didn't say it was "fine". I said it didn't carry the same cultural and social implications. Sometimes female reporters will speak out, but it creates an awkward situation/ruins your interview and they become subject to criticism and scrutiny. Possibly in trouble with the boss. If they're freelance, maybe people would be reluctant to hire them again. Sometimes hatemail from viewers. Sometimes death threats, stalking, abuse. By challenging it, you are publicly criticising a lot of people's idol. You start a whole shitstorm with you at the centre. It's not an easy decision to make, especially not one you have to make on the spot. It's a lot easier to get on with it and rant to your friends about it in private later.
    2
  37. ***** You need to do more reading.
    2
  38. ***** The comments you're making are very naive. You are questioning things that are well established facts as though I've just invented them. You need to do more reading on feminist theory and look at studies into gender.
    2
  39. Epictetus You asked why women don't object. I assumed you meant didn't object if they didn't want it. I'm sure lots of women love it. What's your point?
    2
  40. ***** There are hundreds of feminist books, studies and theses already written about film. I don't think this research will change anything as it's just confirmed what everyone already thought. I'd like more research to be done across industries as you say, though. It would be interesting to get a really wide set of data to really analyse the details of everything. We kind of have a top-line understanding of most industries, but I want proper geeky, hardcore data. (If only to help prove points to those who oppose the women's rights movement).
    2
  41. Epictetus I didn't say the interviewer was harassed. I'm not talking about her reaction. Forget about her. Her personal feelings and reaction are irrelevant. The point is what Brand is doing. It's about making something about a woman's sexuality when it is neither appropriate or consensual. The problem here is two-fold. Firstly, maybe she doesn't want to make the interview about her own personal sexuality. Secondly, the wider social implications of reinforcing the notion that women are primarily about their looks/sexuality.
    2
  42. You guys have a very warped idea of what feminism is.
    2
  43. ***** Because having two degrees in something makes you understand it less? Oh no, hang on… Undergrad and postgrad degrees are education except when it comes to gender and feminism when it become brainwashing and indoctrination. The voice of truth is to be found in the YouTube comments section from people who've never studied the subject. Does that sound about right?
    2
  44. ***** please don't labour under the delusion that you have provided "difficult arguments". I only respond to points when I believe the people I'm talking to have a chance of understanding. I'm also just tired of the platitudes. If I'm not enjoying the debate, I'll leave.
    2
  45. I think we all need to take a step back and think about what we're trying to achieve here. Why are you continuing to talk to me? This started off fairly civil (well, not actually civil, but civil for taking to someone who's openly identified as a feminist. No-one's threatened to kill anybody yet so we're in a good place). It's kind of descending into a slanging match now. My ultimate motivation in these matters is to impart my knowledge, plant the seeds of ideas and try to make the world a better place. I seem to have become lost in emotive responses and don't feel like I'm being productive in any way. Nobody else will be reading a thread this long. It's just us three here. So I wonder if it's time to stop.
    2
  46. Epictetus I think she uses the term "feminist" in a deliberately facetious way. She is firmly settled in 2nd wave theory and seems to spend her time discrediting all 3rd wave discourse. She may class herself as a feminist, but to me, a feminist is someone who wants to change women's position in society. She seems to think that everything is great as it is. Equality achieved. I don't give her much thought really. The fact that so many MRAs cite her all the time speaks volumes to me.
    2
  47. I was also at work which didn't help. The reason I cite my degrees is not to gain points but to emphasise how unlikely it is for someone to change my viewpoint on things. I do keep it brief for a few reasons: 1. This is a comments forum. 2. The iPhone app I use sometimes just deletes my comments without posting them. 3. I'm normally at work and probably should be on my phone. 4. I am a busy person with a wife and two kids. 5. (Probably the most important one) I worry that if I go into too much detail, you won't understand and you'll think I'm saying something I'm not and then get angry. (Not because I think you're stupid, but because I may reference concepts you're unfamiliar with. I got in a proper argument with a feminist on here not long ago because I referenced sometime from poststructuralist queer theory and she thought I was being homophobic.) But I'm happy to carry on if we can keep it respectful.
    2
  48. +Bad Man Okay, This is going to be rambly and go off at tangents and not really form any kind of cohesive structure. Sorry. Any areas you want me to expand on, please ask and I'll do my best. Top, top line: I find the term Egalitarianism to be of very little use when you are trying to establish what someone believes. Speaking purely from a western perspective, pretty much all people believe that all people should be equal. The bigger question for me is recognising the problems that are getting in the way of forming an egalitarian society (or as near to it as we can get). For me, Feminism is recognising that women's position in society needs to be advanced to achieve equality for gender (again, for me. Many different strands of feminism. Some don't want to be advanced in a society with the current patriarchal framework… long story. Lots of theory. I've never met a feminist who wants superiority over men, but I'm sure they exist somewhere in the same way there are socialists who want the monarchy and the rich executed, but that doesn't really define what socialism is). But this is all just semantics really. Gender inequality is so, so vast and so, so complex. I'm not sure it helps dividing it up into problems that negatively affect men and problems that negatively affect women. In a way it's lots of different problems but it's also one big problem. Men are in a more powerful position than women and this causes a lot of problems (for women and for men, but women suffer a lot more — although it's not a sympathy competition. It's a question of identifying what's wrong and fixing it). The majority of discrimination men face based on their gender is a fallout from patriarchy. If you want to fix this, fix it for women and the male problems will also be fixed. It's very difficult for men to understand what it's like being a woman and vice verser. Empathy is hard. And when you are able to dip in and out of a discussion/problem as we are, it's difficult to understand what it's like being in that situation. As the great Jarvis Cocker puts it: "Still you'll never get it right, 'cause when you're laid in bed at night watching roaches climb the wall, if you called your Dad, he could stop it all". I recommend following EverydaySexism on Twitter just to see how commonplace and normalised harassment and sexism is for women. Men do not experience discrimination anywhere near as frequently. I can almost hear you asking for evidence. The problem with evidence for things like this is it is there but is doesn't take the form that people are asking for. It's like the creationist asking for evidence of "transitional forms" and using the lack of it as confirmation of intelligent design. I'm going to call it a "technique", because I believe it is a technique used to dismiss the struggles of women. People want to see scientifically tested or peer-reviewed evidence of things or else they don't believe them. Now, this is a great attitude to have for things that can be tested like that: medicine etc. But you can analyse sociological phenomena like this because you cannot isolate it, and if you could, it would lose all meaning because it's defined by its context. You have to listen to people's experiences. But some people take a leap of logic and conclude that if you can't prove it via rigorous scientific method, then it must not be true, and they take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. They can then explain away every instance they hear one by one with full-on confirmation bias while believing that they are upholding the scientific method. — this is a tangent sorry. You are not being pushed to the right. You are pushing yourself. You don't have to align yourself to any movement. You can just believe what you believe and be critical of methodology you perceive as negative. I recommend just trying to see life from the point of view of a woman. Read something lighthearted and funny like Caitlin Moran's How to be a woman. I like her a lot as a feminist. Her views are pretty in line with mine. She doesn't want to fucking ban everything like they all seem to want to do. Banning stuff is rarely the solution. Education, not legislation. If something is sexist, make better stuff and give people the choice. Random side note: Massive generalisation, but I'll tell you something about 2nd and 3rd wave feminism: 2nd wave may seem all great and simple (hindsight is a wonderful advantage there, of course), but they were pretty anti-porn. 3rd wave on the other hand… a lot more pro-porn. I think porn can be feministic, although most of it isn't. But as a concept, great. Not that that's really got anything to do with anything. Apologies for the non-sequitur there.
    2
  49. +joaov2 Unfortunately I have no guarantee of your impartiality. Given that the YouTube comments forum is heavily populated with antifeminists, I don't fancy taking the risk.
    2
  50. joaov2 This isn't like physics or something though. What do you class as "Empirical Evidence"? Say we're talking about something like the amount of rapes that go unreported or the amount of catcalling women get in the street. What kind of evidence would be acceptable for that?
    2
  51. joaov2 Yes, I mean no action taken by the victim after the attack. But there is more than just hard statistics and completely making something up. You have, for example, the sheer volume of accounts by various people that this has happened to them combined with the many reasons not to report it (eg. how little chance it has of leading to a conviction given how difficult rape is to prove, labelling the person who reported it a 'liar' and adding to the MRA's favourite pot of 'false rape accusations'). You can't just dismiss subjects because you don't know exact numbers for sure.
    2
  52. joaov2 Great. I'm glad you would consider anonymous surveys and even analysis as worthy of note. A lot of people I talk to don't accept things like that because "Women have a victim complex and these people could be lying" etc.
    2
  53. joaov2 Your moderation skills are impressive. I'm sold.
    2
  54. Epictetus Badman came up with a structured suggestion so I agreed. It's nothing personal, but you guys get into this tag-team style where you are just firing stuff at me. I check my notifications and I have several messages from you guys addressing all sorts of different points which leaves me struggling to answer anything before more questions come. And then my not answering earlier questions is used as my "running away from difficult arguments".
    2
  55. +Bad Man The term “objectification” covers a wide area so I’m going to keep this about sexual objectification within the media. Sexual Objectification is a psychological phenomenon where someone views a person as less of a whole and more of a object with a purpose (in this case for the viewer’s sexual gratification). A common form of this is known by psychologists as ‘dismemberment’, which is where a person is reduced to their body parts (you get this a lot in advertising). Sexual objectification has historically occurred mainly with women, but there is an increasing amount of it happening with men (although nowhere near the level that it happens with women). The gender imbalance in objectification can be exemplified in many things. Eg. Magazine covers http://www.dailylife.com.au/content/dam/images/2/5/j/b/g/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.25jc9.png/1347517427753.jpg And music videos such as this (where women are literally used as decoration) http://www.vevo.com/watch/USUV71300526?syndicationid=bb8a16ab-1279-4f17-969b-1dba5eb60eda&shortlink=W0OCcA&country=GB The objectification in the media encourages not only men to view women less as people and more as sex objects, but also women to objectify themselves contributing to various psychological conditions such as body dysmorphia and depression. (study: http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/39/1/6 ) More studies on objectification theory: A study on the effects of sexually objectifying music videos on college men’s sexual beliefs: http://comm.arizona.edu/sites/comm.arizona.edu/files/JOBEM_aubrey%20et%20al.pdf An overview of a study published in the European Journal of Social Psychology that concludes that we are more used to seeing women as individual body parts and men as a whole: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/study-proof-that-we-sexually-objectify-women/260339/ A study into the sexualisation of girls in media and its psychological effects: http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf
    2
  56. ***** Sexual objectification is not just people presented in a sexual way, it's about reducing people to their sexuality. Take Lana Del Rey on the GQ cover for example: Her sexuality becomes her defining characteristic and she become interchangeable for another woman. It's not longer about Lana Del Rey, but about a naked woman — the identity of whom doesn't matter. For a slightly easier example to understand, see this drink advertising example: https://genderdisplays.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/front-page1.png It fulfils quite a few (if not all) criteria from this checklist (which is also a good way to start understanding what objectification is): 1. Does the image show only part(s) of a sexualized person's body? 2. Does the image present a sexualized person as a stand-in for an object? 3. Does the image present a sexualized person as interchangeable [with other similarly sexualized persons or other objects represented as available]? 4. Does the image affirm the idea of violating the bodily integrity of a sexualized person who can't consent? I.e. is that person acted upon as though they were a sexual object? 5. Does the image suggest that sexual availability is the defining characteristic of the person? 6. Does the image show a sexualized person as a commodity, something that can be bought and sold? 7. Does the image use a sexualized person's body as a canvas? The studies don't assume sexual objectification has detrimental effects, the studies conclude this after a collection and analysis of data. It's perfectly possible to show people in a sexual way without its being objectification. The key is what is the defining characteristic: the person or their body/body parts shown as sexual objects.
    2
  57. joaov2 I don't think that's what BadMan is saying, though. I don't think he accepts the concept, but thinks "objectification" is an inappropriate term for it. I think he is challenging the concept that people can be objectified by the media.
    2
  58. ***** Let's move on from the subject of where our perception of beauty comes from. It's a different discussion and one that doesn't change my position on objectification either way. It reminds me slightly of when people discuss whether being gay is a choice or not — ultimately it doesn't matter when it comes to issues homophobia. You've referenced several times things like religion or creationism and likened them to my position to explain how you feel. Let me try to explain how I see it: When it comes to understanding feminist issues, it took a lot of time for me. I didn't start off as a feminist. I was — by default — a product of my culture. If you'd have asked me about the media objectification of women 20 years ago, I would have told you that of course people didn't see other people as "objects", that it was a ridiculous idea that anyone could think that and I wasn't interested in over-sensitive nonsense like this. Issues made up by people with too much time. etc. Looking objectively at your own culture is difficult for two reasons: Firstly, you are trying to see something from within it. You have a binary concept of normal/abnormal and your cultural is your deeply ingrained understanding of "normal". Normal, by its very nature, does not stand out to you. Secondly, you are part of the culture. You contribute to it and are validated by other members for conforming. But once you understand an issue, it's like someone's switched on a light. You start to be able to see the problem clearly. You see people doing it and you can see yourself doing it. You become acutely aware of it and it suddenly seems obvious. Much like the "push-pull" technique referenced in this video. Once you're aware of it, you can spot it a mile off. Other people will argue that it doesn't or can't exist because "everyone is different" … "people interpret their own meaning onto conversations" … "It's just how people talk naturally" etc. But I wouldn't expect someone to be able to recognise the technique if they didn't understand the concept. This is my position. So next what I will ask is this: What could you see that would convince you that objectification exists and is present in our media?
    2
  59. kenonerboy "friendzone"? What is that exactly?
    2
  60. ***** In what sense?
    2
  61. ***** I'm familiar with the phrase, but as it's a socially constructed concept, different people have different definitions and in order to effectively critique, I need to be clear in what I am critiquing.
    2
  62. kenonerboy So how is being "friendzoned" different from someone just not liking you in a romantic/sexual way? Your statement that you shouldn't treat women "like humans" does worry me somewhat.
    2
  63. ***** It's the implication that women are some sort of conquest and you have to play the game right or you end up in the "friend zone" is what I would critique. When a guy isn't attracted to a girl, people don't say he's been "friend zoned" because the girl didn't play it right. It's a misogynistic trope, not some deep psychological analysis.
    2
  64. ***** I think my experiences are normal. I'm clearly attractive to some people and not others. Attractiveness is not a strictly objective characteristic. I don't think it's conducive to categories people into binaries eg. a misogynist/a feminist. I believe this "push/pull" technique contributes to a misogynistic paradigm within our culture, but I wouldn't want to demonise everyone who tried to use it because they wanted to pick up women. I'm aware that sometimes you just want sex. When I've had one-night stands, just sex has been fine, but I've always made sure it's clear that we agree on this beforehand. Nothing wrong with hooking up. You seem to think I'm against sex in some way. I'm not.
    2
  65. "Why do you feel the need to make this personal […] Is it because you're a dick?" Kind of stepped on your point there a bit.
    2
  66. Izaya at the Beach This isn't a pick up channel, but this is a pick up video. I find this video to be an anomaly amongst other very good videos. There's a much better video about flirting where he addresses the boundaries and when to back off. I find the examples used here to be wholly inappropriate. I don't think it's okay to encourage men to hit on women while they're at work and I don't like the "push-pull" technique. It's belittling and it's about the man asserting a position of psychological power. And ultimately, what's the point in creating a false connection between people other than to get laid? It's not about saying something nice, the motives are more selfish than that. There are better, more genuine ways to make a connection with someone.
    2
  67. ***** Nope. Pretty pointless once it stops becoming enjoyable. Sometimes I just try to understand why people think the way they do.
    2
  68. Great video. The interviewer, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, is a TV news presenter here in the UK. He's done a range of cringeworthy interviews like this one. I think he wants to get a reputation for being a hard-hitting TV journalist, but unfortunately lacks the social skills to pull off those probing questions that others become so famous for. Ironically, he completely overlooks the value of building a rapport with the person he's interviewing.
    2
  69.  TheWhiteWhale  This is exactly the problem with Peterson I was talking about. When it comes down to technicalities, he never directly says what he is alluding to, leaving this 'get out of jail free' card. He didn't say he wouldn't call transgender people by the correct pronouns, but he did say that he wouldn't not call them by the incorrect pronouns. And then people fixate on the details, when what we should be asking is why does he think that his choice to say a word is more important than acknowledging the existence of someone's identity? Peterson is not out to educate. He is out to stir up regressive controversy. And yes he does have an unhealthily large following of people with far-right political views (including many people who openly identify as Nazis).
    2
  70. 8:40 - "This guy…" — That's Max Clifford. He was a famous publicist for many celebrities but ended up in prison for multiple counts of sexual assault. He's dead now.
    2
  71. +Gary Henderson I always find the term "girls" weird when referring to sexual subjects. "Women", I think adults, "girls", I think 8-year-olds.
    1
  72. ***** What I believe, I believe based on evidence and data. You seem to think that any theories are all equally likely. I was just earlier today looking at a load of data gathered about gender in films. Not a feminist group, not collected with an agenda, just pure data gathering. Check it out, it's interesting: http://polygraph.cool/films/
    1
  73. So why do you think that Brand now publicly acknowledges that this behaviour was not okay and says it's something that he's since become aware of and is "working on"? Does he really believe this? Have "the feminists" got to him?
    1
  74. ***** You think page 3 is fine?
    1
  75. Epictetus The term feminist is fluid and covers a vast array of ideologies. Not all feminists want equality, but the common factor that unites them seems to be to change women's position in society. Sommers does not seem to want this. I'd call her an Egalitarian (although that describes pretty much everybody in western society). Please understand this is not the way I define myself, this is how I perceive the term 'feminist'.
    1
  76. ***** okay. Are there any points you'd like me to address that you feel I haven't to your satisfaction?
    1
  77. BosonCollider Huh? The suffragettes had many questionable beliefs and causes. Personally I'm in favour of votes for women, but not eugenics or the white feather movement. I'm not sure I understand your point… 
    1
  78. +Bad Man Why don't you pick a topic?
    1
  79. joaov2 Go on then. I'll take a chance. 
    1
  80. ***** Let's go with objectification. That's probably more my field.
    1
  81. I'll await Badman's question on the subject of objectification.
    1
  82. joaov2 Well, I'm happy to answer that, but I only want to debate one person at a time.
    1
  83. Err… okay. I'll wait for Badman to offer a question then.
    1
  84. ***** Can you give a specific example here where a feminist has cited something as objectification so I can respond to it? Maybe something Anita Sarkeesian has referenced or something like that?
    1
  85. joaov2 Thanks, ref.
    1
  86. Shall I give an explanation of my understanding of objectification and we can start from there?
    1
  87. ***** I'm at work at present and so will not be able to formulate a response until later. I see there's a lot to read through. One thing I did note whilst skimming through is that you say that you understand what objectification is, but the way you're conflating it with issues of nudity and positions in denial of sexual dimorphism makes me think that you don't. These are other topics that don't really bear any relevance to what we're talking about. You also made reference to one of the models in Blurred Lines by referring to her as "the most beautiful" one. This ascribing of a hierarchical ranking onto the women based on their bodies is in itself a form of objectification. Again, it's not really relevant how much success the model gained from this video, we are talking about the effects of the objectification.
    1
  88. joaov2 Thanks for moderating (and for researching). I appreciate it.
    1
  89. +Bad Man +joaov2 Our interpretations of the media we consume are subjective, but that subjectivity is born largely out of the cultural framework from which we view it. There is a shared notion of human "beauty" within our culture, but this is at least partly due to being conditioned by the culture we live in and are part of. We know this as we can see this archetype vary throughout our history and throughout the world. I'm sure you know from your art history that notions of female beauty have changed many times. If we look at baroque paintings, "beautiful" women are depicted with chubby, pair-shaped bodies and small breasts. Even decade by decade we can see the "ideal" woman change. In the 1980s, broad shoulders, pubic hair and large breasts were the thing. Today, different cultures aspire to different things. In Japan, women have their teeth cosmetically un-straightened whereas in America, straight, white teeth are the thing to have. I'm vaguely aware of the studies carried out about facial symmetry etc. But — and please correct me if I'm wrong on this — from what I remember, they were investigations into seeing if there were any common attributes across different cultures' ideas of beauty rather than suggesting that beauty is an entirely objective phenomenon driven exclusively by our biology. I'd like to move away from the Blurred Lines comment if we can. It was just a throw-away observation that I made because it further suggested to me that you don't fully understand what objectification is. I appreciate that by picking up on it, I am effectively saying "you have done something wrong" and you will feel that you need to defend you position. This is probably a bad psychological position to put you in as it will likely divert the debate and entrench your views. I have more to say on this subject, but I don't think it would be productive to continue this line of conversation. The Wikipedia link is good (I love Wikipedia), I'm wondering if we should focus more on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification rather than objectification as a wider topic as this has more relevance to the video we were originally discussing. BadMan, what is your take on this entry? What do you feel it is missing?
    1
  90. joaov2 We need to be careful that we don't fall into a fallacious position by invoking an argument based on relative privation. I would challenge that we are purely discussing semantics, but that we are discussing the validity of a concept.
    1
  91. joaov2 Our visual understanding is more complex than that. The beholder associates themes, motifs, meanings, semiotics etc. by being a product of their culture.
    1
  92.  @Charismaoncommand  I recommend watching Richard Ayoade get the better of him. He answers all passive-aggressive questions with absurd answers, but in a serious tone. It totally throws Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Ayoade ends up completely controlling the interview.
    1
  93. Why do people on YouTube say "I'll see you in the next video"? No, I'll see you. You won't see me. …will you? I hope not.
    1
  94. It seems that Peterson is such a charismatic character, that he's even pulled the wool over Charisma on Command's eyes. Studying Peterson is like studying a leader of a cult. This video is wrong in its assertion that he listens or concedes to the credibility of his opponents' arguments. He gives the illusion that he is listening and responding, but what he actually does is a clever combination of the gish gallop and straw-manning. It's often enough to confound his opponents, giving the impression that he's won on the grounds of logic. His appearance of wanting to educate and help people is a Trojan horse for reactionary right-wing politics. He grooms impressionable people (usually young white men), and he's very good at it. I recommend ContraPoints' video on Jordan Peterson on for a balanced perspective. And as Peterson became infamous for his opposition to a rule that staff should gender trans people correctly, it's probably worth listening to a trans person's perspective on it all. People who have to live stuff tend to have a deeper understanding of issues that someone who's just thought about it for a bit.
    1
  95. Confidence is like exercise. It's something you do, not something you are. The more you do it, the better at it you get.
    1