WHY is that troubling? Cannot supporters of a given ideology want to keep associates and outreach (public disccussions and expression of conformal viewpoints) kept to the “straight and narrow” as they perceive? I do belive this is the norm in any clique. That’s how schisms occur. I personally do not believe in the “big tent” approach to any particular ideology or facet thereof. I don’t see how “atheism” has anything to do with “feminism” nor vice versa. Are there intersections of interest? Sure. Are they co-requirements of eachother? I cannot in any way believe so. Anyhow … thread’s a year old … who’s gonna read my comments here? LOL.

@Raping Bee: “slpaaat.”

Is that a threat? Oh you menz is sooo violins! Yer rape switch must be vibrating on high alert! The violins mechanisms are kicking in–and we all know how closely related you menz sax and violins are!

Now run along Be-yotch, and troll the streets of Phoenix in your grey ponytail and Speedos–some superhero you are.

I think objectification is a perfectly useful word for the discussion, but, frankly, I can’t find it in the dictionary (with the definition I’ve given it), which, while not conclusive, could mean that it does fall under the category of jargon or specialist language. I agree that using jargon can make these sort of conversations more difficult. I can’t chastise you for picking and choosing acceptable words based on your taste while doing the same myself based on -my- taste. It may be that “objectification” isn’t useful at all: I think it is, but I can see how opinions could reasonably differ.

Rebecca Watson is comparable to Mao? Unhinged troll is unhinged.

They got their wish, while everybody here was arguing about whether one privileged white girl was slighted in an elevator.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

How fucking nice and sexist of you to feel sorry for the po’ hapless womyns. Idiot. She obviously is enjoying the hell out of it over there, and has said as much.

And remember, ass, you started it, you threw the first insult, and you revealed your true nature as an sniping insulting troll, way back there on another Greg post.

And you pedantically demanded substantiation about things you deny and fail to read or become involved in BTW, have you seen the latest statistics about male rape victims in the Congo? I doubt it. 22% of survivors ( meaning the men who are alive after their rapes) report being rape victims.

So go change out of that that crusty Speedo, and put on some overalls, and get to work acknowledging your initial harm–and insult–or go fuck yourself.

@49 hoary puccoon@Was Elevator Guy in the right in what he did, coming on to Rebecca Watson?

Um, yes, he was within the norm of existing biological impulses, and evolutionary drives–so if we can infer that women who are awake at 4 a.m.aren’t “easy” then we can also infer that men who are also awake at 4a.m. aren’t “hard,” as well.

and, Was Rebecca Watson in the right to criticize Stef McGraw from the podium?

Yes, she was well within the norm of people who seek power, and status, and who are also known to misuse power and status. For examples, think Mao-v-Deng, or Lenin-v- Trotsky, etc

Or Karl Rove versus a vaccuum cleaner…

This whole thing is the equivalent of a very large note passed around the schoolyard by the mean girls, with the net effect of harming some at the expense of others.

Yes, you are being pedantic. Just because you do not know a word or do not like a word doesn’t mean you can just decide its worth or its meaning. “Objectification” is hardly an obscure word in anything dealing with social justice, sexism, racism, and the like. It’s been around for ages, especially in feminist theory, and is a useful term for describing a set of behaviours. I used a lamp as an example, in that no one cares if they’re turning the lamp on or off as the lamp is an object. A person is objectified when their feelings are given the same consideration as we give a sack of potatos or a chair: do you think about a chair before you sit on it? Do you think about how you hate the chair and want it to feel your weight keeping it down? No, you (hopefully) don’t. That is how this word differs from your description of it.

You’ve described “dehumanising” quite well, and they are similar words but they are different.

Last, FYI, the eskimo words for snow is a myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow). And we aren’t “stuck” with one word, we have this word along with several others to describe a wide range of human behaviour.

Where did I say anything even remotely like that?

I think “objectified” is just as specific as any of the examples you’ve provided. Which of those actually means “treated me like an object”?

Actually, I suspect that in most of the cases you call “objectification,” the target was not actually treated like an object (such as a chair or a sack of potatoes), but more like an animal, servant, slave, or hated enemy whose feelings (if any) did not matter. To be super-technical and pedantic, that’s not really the same as being treated like an “object.” Inanimate objects generally aren’t insulted, lied to, or beaten bloody in quite the same way too many women are.

Yes, yes, I know, I’m being horribly pedantic about all this. But the reason for this is, I’m a technical writer by trade, and a SF writer by hobby, and I’ve always been taught, by teachers and experience, that words MATTER and should be chosen with at least some care. And besides, our language has SHITLOADS of words to choose from, so why not expand our range to tell our stories as compellingly as possible? The Eskimos have fifty-odd words just for snow, so why do we have to be stuck with one vague generalized word for mistreatment of people by other people?