Every time you choose to view pornography, attend a strip club, solicit a prostitute, or in any other way, treat a woman like a piece of flesh rather than a person, remember one thing: That girl is some man’s daughter. From: Lessons I Learned Raising My Daughter
(Emphasis mine.)
I found this particular admonishment on The Art of Manliness . (I can't remember how I ended up over there...link hopping, probably.)
I digress.
My thoughts for this post were sparked by that last line.
I've encountered this and very similar admonishments quite often when it comes to the harassment and objectification of women.
The language bothers me.
I realize that people use this and similar phrases to try to make men (generally) think critically about the fact that there is a person on the receiving end of the harassment. The admonishment plays off the question "How would you feel if someone did that to your daughter/mother/sister?" It tries to make the impersonal personal .
And I know it's effective for some audiences, that it does make them stop and think.
But I also feel that we lose something when we use the kind of language in this type of admonishment.
We lose the idea of autonomy.
The woman as her own person. Deserving of the basic respect to not be harassed, othered, objectified.
We, instead, seem to be defining the appropriate treatment of the woman on the basis of someone else's relation to her. Often (in my experience) that someone is male. The woman is: "Some man's daughter"; "Some man's wife"; "Some man's sister." The language is reminiscent of women as property. Don't do that. She belongs to some other man and you're infringing on his territory.
Even if the language is a neutral "someone" rather than "some man" there's still this air of property violation to it. You shouldn't do that (because she's not yours to treat that way).
I find it sad that something as simple as respecting a woman's personhood is difficult to express (or for some to accept) without language that implicates someone else's ownership of her.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Language Matters: A few thoughts on "Some man's daughter.".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13955
I get what you are trying to say...but I personally find nothing wrong with that statement. Because we really ALL belong to somebody. I belong to my family and my family belongs to me. People use that kind of language to make a point about connecting with another human being. Relating an experience to someone they know. It is much more effective to change people's minds about issues when talking about someone or something they know about then just to talk about some independent thing.
Like I personally hate war, and I frequently do say "but what if that was your son who was shot to death in front of his house because he had the wrong religion?". It's trying to relate to another human being.
I totally get the idea of woman as a possession problem but I also think that we all belong to someone or something. There is such a heavy focus in the western world on independence from, family, from parents, from partners as if being interconnected with all those people is a terrible thing. It's all culturally relative...
Because we really ALL belong to somebody.
There is a difference between belong in the relational sense and belong in the possessive sense. Talk of a woman being some man's (or someone's) daughter generally implies the possessive sense rather than the relational sense, given the role of men in the Patriarchy: fathers and brothers are the protectors of the virtue of their daughters and sisters, a virtue (or lack thereof) that reflects their own status in the community, and it is a virtue (and purity) that is passed on to the future spouse of the woman. Note the tradition of the father (or some other person import in the life of the bride) giving the bride away at weddings, and the white bridal gown, that still has very strong currency in the West.
Though you may be using belong in the relational sense when you say that we all belong to someone, I can't read such a statement in any way other than possessive. We are all autonomous beings. The heavy focus on independence in the West is, I think, a misreading of what autonomy means. Yes, we have relationships with people, but those relationships do not mean that we are subject to those people. Our independence derives from our autonomy. The recognition and acceptance of individual autonomy is what supports our liberal heritage, and is what has allowed the freedoms we all take for granted, as well as those that we still fight for in movements such as feminism.
I agree. It's not about possessiveness. It's about getting men to think about the young ladies in these hard situations. What I see in it is:
"How would you feel if you raised a daughter, loved her to the very core of her being and wanted to protect her. Then, you find out that at the age of 16, she's being used and violated by a man (or men) who think their physical pleasure is more important than her health, safety and well-being?"
The response? Outrage!
The goal is to get an emotional response out of the men and get them to (hopefully) think about what their actions are really doing!
The problem, of course, is that when you personalise it that way, they're no longer bothered.
If you ask them "How would you like it if some woman masterbated to nude photos of you, or paid to see you naked, or paid you to sleep with them?", they'll say "Where do I sign?"
Men are being socialised to not turn down sex. (Well, except maybe gay sex, but I digress) And since we're socialised to express that someone is sexually appealling this way, and no one acts this way to us (and/or, because we're socialised to think we're non-sexy, and if someone acts this way towards us we're conditioned to think we're being mocked, fine) and at least throw in that we're conditioned to think only women are sexy, then (as a generalisation), you can expect that many men are, for want of a better word, desperate to have someone find them sexy, and have a very hard time internalising that the bad aspects of, say, being objectified outweigh the desire to be sexually appealling.
So the closest to home you can hit is to say "empathise with her as though she was some woman you cared about", and you speak to them in a way you can understand. Say "empathise with her as though she were you" and it's much harder for them to find such conduct objectionable. With a long, difficult reflection, it'd still be very hard to get it. (Hell, even then, it may be impossible.)
That may well be pragmatic, rather than idealistic, but that's not an unfathomable choice to make.
Oh, I definitely see the pragmatism. And I do agree, in some situations, it may the lesser evil/best choice to make to get someone to understand.
At the same time, I hesitate about the ease with which feminists and allies sometimes use the admonishment and I think we need to be more aware of the subtle sexism the language conveys.
See, I have had a hard time in the past trying to explain why the objectifying attitude is supremely insulting. Brian, you are right that most men wouldn't see the problem if the tables were turned. Most of them would smirk and say "bring it on!" But now that I am older and wiser, I can break down why it bothers women (or me, anyway):
-It's not so much that men are socialised to be "non-sexy", it's that men are assumed to be an entire person with multiple facets, not JUST their sexuality or how appealing they are to others. The very idea of oversexualizing men seems ridiculous to lots of people. This is a product of old social programming. Men are whole people, so it's absurd to treat them like women. o_O This sentiment is pervasive and insidious.
-When women are "appreciated" in this way, there is the underlying attitude that she better be damn grateful.
-Which ties in with rape culture. Particularly aggressive "appreciaters" make us nervous deep down. What if this guy is a problem? Add the usual hostility toward a woman that dares turn down a man (the BITCH!)...ouch.
-I am tired of my body or looks being the first thing on someone's mind. I don't care if you think it should be flattering (not YOU you, Brian. a general "you";)) From the time I could talk, I and most women have had to deal with our sex appeal or prettiness being used to define our worth as human beings. I just get tired of it. I'm a human being. Maybe you find me attractive, but please try to separate that from my identity as human. I do it with men I am attracted to. And no, it's not that men are "visual" and can't help it, and women "don't care" about looks and have to "be in love" etc. It's all just socialization! Almost all humans are capable of treating even people they find sexy like real, well, people. All it takes is to realize the effects the culture has on you and be introspective enough to recognize it in yourself.
Let's take what you describe as a woman's experience as a given (and it has a lot of the caveats that are often missing, I'd guess it's a pretty good description). But how you're describing a man's experience simply isn't my experience, and isn't going to be the experience of a lot of other men, either. When you decide that's not really what our lives are like, or how we feel, or whatnot, you lose the ability to empathise, which'll make communication fearsomely difficult.
If we take our zeroeth order gender roles, then probably all of your value comes from your appearance, and all of my value comes from my ability to provide material goods. We'll both (probably) internalise a much more nuanced gender role, and part of what I'll (likely, anyhow) internalise as a man is that I'm fuckass ugly and no one'll ever describe looking at me as any better than "not specifically offensive". Now, this is not as bad as it'd be for a woman (since my self-worth'll likely include part of my internalised gender role, which values my appearance less, if at all), but it's still not pleasant, and I'll covet being found sexy more easily than I'll appreciate the drawbacks. It isn't that oversexualising men is ridiculous, it's that sexualising men at all is ridiculous (in the context of traditional gender roles), and the ability to be seen as sexy is something we'll (generally) envy, without appreciating that a woman's gender role takes it too far. Which'll result in us talking past each other, because we only appreciate what the other has, not what the other lacks, since it's very hard to notice when someone lacks what you take for granted.
Realistically, the best way to treat people isn't in either of our gender roles, and it shouldn't be surprising that we'd both see the grass as greener on the other side.
Okay, I'll concede that there is some "men are ugly, women are beautiful, soft goddesses" (an idea that irks me for other reasons, mainly because it paints sexual objectification as "worship" and something we should want) mentality floating around. But look at how society treats an ugly girl as opposed to an ugly guy. Men and women both are told that women "don't care about looks", and you see hawt girl/average or ugly guy combo in the media, which serves to normalize the dynamic. So, perhaps "men are ugly", but they don't suffer as harsh consequences as ugly women. Men in prominent social positions and in business are still respected and listened to even if they are ugly. Women are not. Maybe people hate these men, but it's because of their ideals, not whether they look frumpy in a pantssuit. Political women are ripped apart for their looks before their political views. Now, I didn't agree with Hillary Clinton's platform, but it really bothered me how viciously society evaluated her appearance, and they've been raggin' on her for years! Now, I'm aware that in Real Life, there are pretty/average/ugly men and women intermingled everywhere, and there are women out there who do not fit into the beauty standards that are respected and powerful. But, it's harder for women to get there, and in our culture, it's perfectly acceptable (and lots of times, presented as funny) to take a shot at a woman's lack of sexiness and disparage her body publicly. The more publicly-oriented or famous she is, the more accepted it is.
But Brian, I am talking generalities, and I don't mean to belittle your personal experience. What are some of the ways you were socialised to see yourself as ugly? Did you suffer detriments because of this? I am curious because I don't want to speak for you. Ask a woman, and she'll probably be a able to relate a myriad of moments that hammered into her her inferiority, her not-pretty-enough-ness, her lack of rationality, etc. I've experienced what you're talking about: one time, I was talking to a mixed-gender group, and I stated that I thought penises were beautiful and men's bodies were also beautiful (because I'm straight and love men :)), and most of them disagreed! The men wrinkled their noses, saying nothing was more beautiful than a woman, and that men were hairy, gross and ugly. Even the women seemed shy talking openly about loving "the cock", they also saw women as being more beautiful than men. But I have a theory. The male, hetero point of view is put forth as the Normal in society. What are male heteros attracted to? Women! So it makes sense that "males are icky, women good" is also present in our culture. I think this has roots in sexism, but it is also one of the ways patriarchy hurts men, when individual men like you take these messages and internalize them into thinking their bodies are not the sexual ideal. It's harmful all around.
Also, though I don't fit into the American ideal of skinny, blonde and big-breasted, I would not be considered ugly by any stretch, plus I am white. I realize this gives me a lot of privelege. I am more prone to attracting the benevolent sexism rather than the nasty, degrading kind (still bad, though). But just because it doesn't happen to me directly doesn't mean other, less priveleged women don't experience it. So, because I am passionate about calling out sexism in all forms, I speak about general attitudes and cultural phenomena, so I apologize if it sounds like I am discounting anyone's personal experiences. :)
Err, I don't mean to compare men and women at all. I'm explicitly trying to avoid that, because I think it makes the situation muddier and diverts from my main point, which is about understanding these men's viewpoints if you want to communicate with them (without necessarily endorsing them.) Let's also for the moment drop what the general cultural perceptions are, and just talk about how men are being socialised (an odd thing to do on a feminist blog, but I think it makes sense in context). I'm just saying, let's understand what these men are thinking, so we can understand how to communicate with them (especially since we're more interested in communicating with them than they are with us, most likely.)
Then your experience fits in well. Men's view of themselves is generally that they're hairy, gross, ugly (I could go on, that list usually includes stinky, for instance). Maybe partly from generally being attracted to women, but there's a much stronger homophobic component to the gender role (so not just "Women are hot", but also "Men are repulsive" comes in our standard socialisation package). This isn't a pleasant way to feel about yourself, and so you'll want someone to find you desirable/sexy/beautiful (and even here, I have a hard time writing "beautiful", since it's such a stereotypically feminine characteristic.) So you'll get a lot of men who'll very strongly covet someone finding them sexy (even though they'd probably deny it directly, since that'd imply they have feelings that can be hurt. ;) )
Relevant to this thread, however, the end result is that when you try to get men to empathise with the subject of catcalls, it's very hard for them, because the whole package comes with something they want a great deal, in addition to a negative component. It's very, very difficult for them to focus on anything other than "someone finding you attractive, and broadcasting that to you.", which necessitates the "Imagine that was your mother", since he can get why she'd find it offensive, but not "Imagine that was you", since he has a much harder time getting why it's offensive.
I think we are actually in agreement. :)
It's very unfortunate that that happens. Men are also socialised to laugh about it too, so even being sad or outraged at it is unacceptable. :(
Well, I defnitely understand the concept of something that may seem beneficial to someone on the outside looking in, like being found beautiful, or not being sexually objectified. A man wonders why a woman would find that offensive, because all he wants is for society to stop calling him repulsive, then laughing about it. A woman resents being ogled, and is baffled at the man's annoyance. She thinks he's got it made: "Don't you see! Your treated as more human than I. You're lucky!" He says: "You are treated as beautiful and desirable, and practically worshipped by some! I never will be. You're lucky!"
It's a perfect example of how patriarchy hurts everyone.
I totally agree with you about the original statement. It seems to reinforce the "daddy's little girl" type attitude, where women are helpless and need a man (or a "father") to watch over them and protect them at all times.
The statement wouldn't make sense if it said "Every time you choose to view pornography... or in any other way, treat a man like a piece of flesh rather than a person, remember one thing: That man is some man’s son" because men are socialized to be autonomous, independent, and strong. So connecting him to his father does not hit people's emotions at all, proving that this is a matter of sexist attitudes.
I really hate the language and the attitudes that it reflects. I am glad more people, like you, recognize them.
I have seen this argument used against war-remember that these are some mothers son, etc. Is that equally problematic? I don't know. I get the whole territory issue, but I do think that the first commenter had a good point-we're all interconnected and it never is just doing something to one person.
I agree with you on the question of "How would you feel if someone did that to your daughter/mother/sister?"
Besides losing the notion of autonomy, it always, in a nagging little way in my head, reminds me of begging. I realize that it can be effective when other words cannot be effective, therefore I do not necessarily blame the person using it, but it does trouble me. It is as if the questioner has lost faith in the men/man's ability to be fair and accept womens' humanity on their own, abstract terms, and can only see womens' humanity if they think of their own female relatives. What if the man had no female relatives that he was close to? Or what if the man thought "Yeah, but my daughter/mother/sister is different/would never be caught in that situation/is not of that race,social class,nationality, etc." To have a truly feminist world we will eventually have to reach a place where women are accepted as equals on their own terms and such admonishments are no longer necessary to remind people of why misogyny is wrong.
I realize that it can be effective when other words cannot be effective, therefore I do not necessarily blame the person using it, but it does trouble me.
(OP here)
Exactly.
I certainly get the pragmatism, but it troubles me. So long as people have a hard time accepting women as autonomous persons in their own right--without that little emotional manipulation-- equality is still out of reach.
Eh, can't say I'm too much of a fan of the male-possessive idea, but sometimes the most efficient way to make a feminist point is to point out the inconsistencies in the patriarchal paradigm (i.e., that men should protect their daughters' virtue but sexually objectify women they are not related to).
I never liked this either. It's almost like they're saying, "Watch out! She might actually be a madonna in whore's clothing!" ;P
Attitudes like this fit very neatly into that boxy little dichotomy. If we as a culture didn't think that mothers/sisters/daughters were ever-chaste, nonsexual creatures, lest the thought of their sexuality make the men in their lives feel all "oogy"**, then this wouldn't strike such a chord. So, to me, it's just as insulting to suggest that the stripper is in fact a "pure" daughter or mother as it is to call her a whore. Pedestals are no favor! Plus, it's all based on a picture or movie you see of her? How presumptuous! :)
Don't even get me started on the "git yer shotgun" mentality that some fathers have about daughters (and that's actually considered "flattering" and being a "good father".)
**Try saying to someone that a man shouldn't be sexually exploited (ya, I know, but humor me) because he "could be someone's brother/father/son!" You'll get, "So??" Because it isn't accepted that brothers/fathers/sons are non-sexual, pure beings.
I said above, but will add here, I have seen your ** argument used about war-that war kills brothers/fathers/sons. Does that make it better, because men are more likely to be defined by their capacity for violence while women are likely to be defined by their capacity for sex? does it apply? I go back and forth on the last question.
Here's the difference:
"War is wrong, those men are somebody's father/brother/son getting killed."
--#1) Men aren't the only ones damaged/killed by war. Women serve in the military as well.
--#2) There is no problem using this arguement to argue for the respecting of human life. Humanizing the violent horrors of the world and the people suffering them is a great way to end such horrors. It could and should apply to all people putting their lives in danger during war. It would make more sense to make it more gender inclusive. In fact, one could argue that you only ever hear about "fathers/brothers/sons" rather than "mothers/sisters/daughters" in wartime because it's assumed that only men get killed, and that only men are worth mentioning in this way.
"How dare you view that pornography, that's someone's mother/sister/daughter."
--#1) This is about sex, not life and death. As such, it's just loaded with cultural baggage about what womens' sexuality should be. Even the words "mother" "sister" and "daughter" are loaded with preconceptions about what's appropriate, sexually. Women being defined by their roles and all that.
--#2) As someone else pointed out, the pornography that degrades women (and not all does, of course) isn't wrong because the women "belong" to someone else, or because mentioning "mother" or "daughter" touches deep sterotypes and judgments that serve to emotionally manipulate people, it's wrong because they are human beings who don't deserve to be objectified and degraded.
(I am against drafts of any kind, for men or women, btw. I think they are a violation of human rights. But that's not what's being discussed here. Just sayin', I guess.)
so, you're saying that men are humanized by this argument while women are owned because. . . war is worse that street harassment? I don't buy that. There something to be said for the men are humanized, women owned because that's how our sexist society works, and I agree. but saying it's okay because war is bad, but not okay because, objectification isn't as bad? no.
But the same arguement is talking about apples and oranges. IMO, it is sexist to say that only men are affected by war. Women are killed, tortured and raped while serving in the military or being part of the civilian enemy. The argument should be "You shouldn't kill people in a war. Those people are someone's mother or father, sister or brother." But personally, I do not like using this argument at all, nor in the sexual one. It isn't wrong to kill for these reasons, it is wrong because we're talking about sentient human beings having their lives taken from them forever. And it is wrong to sexually objectify because they are humans who deserve basic respect, and because objectification has systemic societal consequences like "Otherizing" groups of people. Besides, the logic is flawed in that there are people who don't think anything of harming or killing their families. Not everyone is going to have the same visceral emotional reaction to the word "mother" for example. When you say "she's someone's mother!" you are relying on someone to call forth the general stereotype of Mother: domestic, loving, sexless, selfless. That's why these appeals work.
I guess you could also say "People shouldn't be objectified sexually, because they could be someone's mother or father, sister or brother." But saying this rings false, because men aren't objectified nearly to the degree women are.
I'm sure most people say that about sex workers with the intent to humanize, but you just can't ignore all the cultural baggage surrounding women's sexuality, ownership of women, entitlement attitudes toward women's bodies, slut-shaming. When you say something that even alludes to ownership of a woman and her perceived worth through her purity or lack thereof, even if your intent is good, it still strikes a tender place in those of us who have had to deal with these attitudes our whole lives. We're forced to ask What did they mean by that?? That I belong to my father/husband? What if I'm not anyone's daughter/mother/wife?? Does that make me a slut worth abusing then?
I guess my rambling point is, there are better ways to humanize rather than allude to ownership whatsoever.
I don't think the war argument is the same, though. When we use the sex argument that a woman is someone's relation, we're trying to get the (usually) man to see the woman as a human, rather than a sex object. When we use the argument that a soldier is somebody's son, who are we trying to convince? It's not parallel because we aren't trying to convince mostly women that soldiers are human beings. And actually, based on the stereotypes, women would be the ones that see soldiers as human beings and men would be the ones that simply see soldiers as statistics. I see this soldier argument as a "what about the menz" way to steer us off topic at worst and another example of how the patriarchy dehumanizes both men and women at best.
1- The reason soldiers are able to kill civilians and other soldiers is because the people they kill are dehumanized. Think Abu Ghraib.
2- Sexual dehumanization is the same as non-sexual dehumanization. It serves the same purpose…to make someone less human and therefore disposable. It gives the opportunity for those who make that person less human to abuse the dehumanized person, sexually, emotionally or physically.
3- Men can he sexually dehumanized. Men are frequently sexually dehumanized in jail and in war and in “funny movies” about being in prison or any other joke that relates to being raped. Another example again is Abu Ghraib.
My point was that connecting with people sometimes requires using personal examples so that they can relate empathetically to the issue rather than be emotionally devoid of it. I understand what the point was that the OP was trying to say and we should be careful about language but I personally don’t think there is anything wrong with any man or woman saying that about their daughter. Maybe a better example would be “what if that was your son raped in prison?”.
First off, going to that Art of Manliness is where you fucked up to begin with. I had a look - wow what a bunch of bullshit.
That said, the phrase rankles. Reminds me of the abstinence program that urged boys to not have the sex with girlz because "she will be someone's wife someday" - don't respect her for herself, but because you don't want to damage some other man's possession. eesh. I appreciate the "make it personal" idea, but this phrase has too much baggage.
I think the argument of "imagine if they were your X" is effective and appropriate for many arguments. Since people are going to have greater empathy for a hypothetical relation that a hypothetical stranger. It makes it much more personal.
But that isn't what the quote in question is doing. It's trying to humanize objectified women by reminding the reader that they have a specific relationship, i.e. father-daughter. (Never mind that many women don't know their fathers for whatever reason and thus don't really experience that relationship.)
The author of the article in question was trying to do the right thing but his underlying sexism showed through. I agree with the first replier wholeheartedly, but the original quote is sexist, and should have made a greater effort to mention other things than just one relationship. The woman's hope and dreams, other family members, friends, or even just the realization that when she goes home she has to deal with the same sort of chores as you are all equally humanizing arguments.
I like reading the arguments about language and semantics. It's given me some things to chew on.
Intellectual arguments fall apart, though.
I would like to point out that a woman in a desperate situation like seeing prostitution as her only choice, a woman being raped in her own apartment or little girls being abused DON'T CARE ABOUT SEMANTICS! They need help and intervention. They need the protective instincts of others to kick in.
And the kind of men that would visit prostitutes, rape a woman or abuse a little girl most likely don't care about semantics either.
I was in a really bad relationship. When I came home upset my older brothers got angry. They asked me if I wanted them to beat up my (now ex) boyfriend. They're both 200 lbs+ :-). It gave me a great deal of comfort, and strength in a really difficult time.
Everyone deserves to be protected and feel loved. I've also felt great comfort from my male and female friends who have protected me or said they wanted to protect me.
I would like to point out that a woman in a desperate situation like seeing prostitution as her only choice, a woman being raped in her own apartment or little girls being abused DON'T CARE ABOUT SEMANTICS!
And I never said otherwise.
This is not an either/or issue.
In other comments I've agreed about the pragmatism of such an admonishment. I think we can still use it to make the men, who really can't seem to humanize women--for whatever reason--in their own right, realize that women are, in fact, people.
At the base of it all, particularly in less severe situations, we need to be more aware of the subtle sexisms our words can and do convey.
I'm not sure the author has the right emphasis here. What the "some man's daughter/wife/sister" is trying to do is force its audience to imagine the person in question as someone with whom they have personal ties and who they CARE about on a personal level. It's not (in my interpretation) emphasizing the "property" implication of the possessive, but the relationship implication. I also don't think it's a matter of "because of patriarchy men aren't capable of respecting women on their own terms" but rather a reflection of the reality that without personal context, it's very difficult for people to feel real empathy for each other. For a grim example, Stalin famously said that "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." Dehumanizing people - all people - is so easy as to be the default without personal context to mitigate against such tendencies.
What the quote asks - indeed almost forces - its audience to do is step back and consider the humanity of the person (in this case the woman) being exploited. This is best done by imagining a personal connection, rather than hoping for some pseudo-Kantian or even Christian ideal of universal empathy for the inherent worth of people.
As for whether or not the sex industry is inherently exploitative, that's something that is assumed by the quote and can be legitimately disputed. Still, I don't think that the quote communicates "look how you're violating someone else's property" but rather "look how this is a PERSON whose fundamental humanity you're ignoring."
Probably it would have been a more effective formulation to say "What if that had been your daughter/sister/mother?" That emphasizes the relationship, rather than the ownership.
Most people are capable of recognizing inappropriate behavior when it is directed against someone they care about from an external source. By contrast, we are singularly blind concerning our own misbehaviors. Personalizing the issue shifts the perspective from the latter situation to the former.
By contrast, saying "some man's daughter" isn't all that personal. It's still some guy you don't know from Adam. Why is the dad, or the woman and her dad as a pair, entitled to more respect than the woman by herself?
That wording was probably an attempt to put yourself in that dad's position, but it doesn't work very well.
"By contrast, saying 'some man's daughter' isn't all that personal. It's still some guy you don't know from Adam."
...or in some cases, some guy you do know but don't respect.
For example, how would "Every time you choose to view pornography, attend a strip club, solicit a prostitute, or in any other way, treat a woman like a piece of flesh rather than a person, remember one thing" sound to a hetero non-Asian guy who flies to Thailand for "sex tourism" and thinks all Asian men are domineering wimps?
I agree.
Your post reminds me of muddgirl's comment on "1001 Rules for My Unborn Son" at 11:06 AM on May 21 at MetaFilter:
"81. Remember, the girl you're with is somebody's sister. And he's perfectly capable of kicking your ass.
"Doesn't even make sense. Is he implying that if the girl you're dating only has sisters, then you should feel free to rape 'er as much as you like?"
Thanks for linking that.
I found another excellent summation in Miko's comment:
When someone sets up the construction that the reasons not to violate someone's boundaries are based on the protection or vengeance they're going to receive from other males, not on simple respect for the boundaries and understanding of the limits of one's own power, there is a nasty implication about women's roles there.
You're welcome!