No longer can traditional masculinity deny it is complicit to the objectification of women, and to a larger extent, sexism. No longer can the "good guys" remain silent, and by virtue of inaction, be absolved of the guilt of misogyny. No longer will finger-pointing take the blame off men who, while not rapists or abusers themselves, continue to feed into the sexism that dominates society.
Not after years upon years of objectifying Erin Andrews on sports blogs and in bar conversations. Not after Andrews' privacy was violated by a peeping Tom who drilled a hole in her hotel room wall to videotape her in the nude. Not after the millions upon millions of Google searches for the videotape that eventually made her the most searched for name over the weekend. While the violation of Andrews' privacy is an isolated incident, done at the hands of one man, her objectification - as well as the objectification of millions of other women - is systematic. As such, each one of us is guilty for the contribution to her assault.
The guilt is also mine. I am guilty for the times I tuned into ESPN only to make an objectifying comment to a friend about a female sportscaster. I am guilty for each Swimsuit Edition of Sports Illustrated I bought to share with friends. I am guilty for each time I clicked on a picture of a cheerleader to ogle at her, separating her body for her humanity. In doing so, I also reinforced traditional masculinity as well as contributed into the commercial exploitation of women's bodies, thereby adding support to the systematic objectification of all women, and by that extent, Erin Andrews.
Such guilt is also found in the men who participate in chat forums whose main discussions revolve around Andrews' and other women's bodies, their style of clothes and a rating system of these women, based on numbers from 1 to 10.
But the guilt isn't limited in just those who, using the excuse of being "sex positive" or that their misogynistic actions are merely "sexually natural," continue to excuse their own objectifying behaviors. Such guilt can also be found in professional sports - both as a money-making entity that promotes the domination of men over another on the field, and over women in the bedroom.
The guilt stems from the shots of cheerleaders acting as sideshows to men's performance of dominance.
It stems from the sexualization of women athletes based on their bodies and attractiveness, rather than their skills in the playing field. We can make ourselves feel better all we want by spouting the merits of Title IX programs - but until we view women athletes as legitimate sports competitors, rather than mere sets of bodies to be viewed with pleasure, we are each part of this system, and therefore, also guilty.
Guilty, too, are those of us who idolize sports stars, believing they could do no wrong, even at allegations of rape and abuse of their partners and women they do not know. In a world in which every athlete accused of rape is automatically written off as innocent - a world in which the sexual history of alleged victims is more important than the actions of those accused, each of us is guilty every time we come to defend these athletes. Our guilt, then, lies in blaming victims for their own assaults, and silencing future victims.
Instead of questioning professional sports' culture of hyper-masculinity, we shame women into silence. Our guilt in every case, is in siding with the Kobe Bryants of the world, rather than their alleged victims. Our guilt also lies in automatically writing off Steve McNair's killer as a scorned lover, rather than discussing the sense of entitlement athletes have about access to women's bodies. Our guilt as a society lies in condemning Adam "Pacman" Jones for the shooting of a security guard at a Las Vegas strip bar, yet not acknowledging the shooting took place during an altercation over strippers, after Jones brought thousands of dollar bills to "make it rain" and buy these strippers.
It isn't just in professional sports, however, in which guilty parties - both active and inactive, can be found. Guilt can also be found in the "brotherhood" of sports - the bastardization of something good - physical fitness and competition - in which being a part of a group, and the preservation of one's masculinity, is more important than speaking up against sexism. In such culture, those who speak out against sexism, assaults and the objectification of women are seen as being "others," rather than being a part of masculine brotherhood. Where men are taught to be more concerned with competition over their own masculinity rather than doing what is morality required of them as human beings, is it any wonder gang rape cases continue to happen, or that each time rape allegations come up at college parties involving athletes and fraternities, a code of silence is almost always adopted?
Where do these identities of masculinity come from, though? If we're going to blame sports for misogyny and sexism, then we might as well start at its lowest level - on the baseball diamonds of Little League and school playgrounds, where little boys are told to be tough, in control of their emotions, and not to cry. Guilt is found in every coach who's ever told little boys that they throw "like a girl," and every parent who's told their child that boys do not cry, lest they want to look like little girls.
But the biggest blame here lies in the millions of men who have, since the assault of Erin Andrews, chosen to support her exploitation by searching for the video. That they might or might not have masturbated to orgasm watching this video is immaterial. What matters is that they knowingly supported the violation of Erin Andrews - and even worst, sought to derive satisfaction, whether emotionally, sexually or otherwise, through her assault.
Just admitting guilt, however, isn't enough. Guilt, after all, never helped free women of other oppressions, and it certainly didn't help them attain the freedoms they've gotten to this point. What we need, then, is action. We need to speak up. We need to call others out for their sexist actions and statement - but to do that, we must call ourselves out. The journey to ending sexism toward Erin Andrews and all women, those in our lives and those we do not know, starts with an admission of guilt. We are all guilty.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Professional sports, masculinity and Erin Andrews.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15110
I am a good guy.
I do not need to prove myself, nor does anyone else. I refuse to accept your guilt for choosing to live my life as I see fit. I should not have to actively participate in feminism to be a "good guy".
You're articulate, but I feel after the piece you were ultimately blaming a lot on men that goes both ways.
I could cite many examples of women getting sentence discounting or walking free with murder/assault. Calling whole societal issues, woman's issue only serves to worsen the problem. This goes for objectification (albeit I'll concede that female politicians more often then not get it alot worse).
In short I refuse your guilt, but that doesn't make me a bad guy.
It is a folly to try and "counter" Marc's "men are evil" speech by complaining about the advantages women have, even those derived from the "men are victimisers, women are victims" paradigm that Marc is advocating".
Women have a veritable cornucopia of legitimate complains about the way they're treated by society. Truly, so too do men, but we can fall on the old moral adage "two wrongs don't make a right", and say "negative treatment (or positive treatment) of either gender must not affect our ethical judgement of the treatment on the other gender." If women to complain about the way they're treated, that's their right, irrespective of how men are treated. Our complaints ought to be addressed separately, as they're separate. I'm not sure it's Marc's place to speak for women, but I'm also not sure it's my place to say it isn't, either.
I should not have to actively participate in feminism to be a "good guy".
What does "actively participate in feminism" mean?
If you see and recognize an injustice, and you stay silent, then you are not a "good guy."
If you "live your life as you see fit" but refuse to consider how your actions might affect others, then you are not a "good guy."
If you see and recognize an injustice, and you stay silent, then you are not a "good guy."
There is probably not a single person in the world who has spoken up on every injustice they've been aware of. An ethical test that every last person fails doesn't seem to be of much utility. Conversely, I suspect nobody's never spoken up either. I suppose one could ask "How often does one need to speak up?". I'm not sure I know that answer.
Sure, but this guy seems to be saying that he knows about the injustice, and maybe even participates in it, but doesn't think it's his responsibility to end it (or at least step back and not participate in it) because he's "a good guy" who just wants to "live his life the way he sees fit."
Obviously no one can spend their energy fighting every injustice they become aware of, but they can at least try to minimize the harm they create in the world, and stop participating in injustice when they become aware of their participation.
Well, it's not exactly clear, but that's not what I read into it, really. I take from it that he doesn't want to be responsible for what other people do, only what he does. Not ideal, but certainly not terrible.
I can certainly empathise with a frustration over being accused of something you haven't done. I haven't seen the video in question, but Marc seems to be advocating that I'm just as guilty as someone who has; I think a rationale, ethical person can call bullshit on that if they want.
There's probably something too, on the problematic vagueness of objectification complaints, at least to a lot of audiences. I'll confess I certainly don't know any alternative beyond not being attracted to women, and I've never seen one articulated in a meaningful way. Marc's speech certainly contains a lot of "You're a bad person for being attracted to women", which'll reasonably upset a lot of men, I think. (I suspect a lot of people will take exception to this third comment, I'm not sure how exactly to explain the point. Certainly it's the case that a lot of feminist writing does make me feel unethical for being attracted to women, whether that's the intent or not, in a way in which only giving it up seems like a remedy, whether that's the intention or not. More realistically, maybe, that objectifying vs. non-objectifying behaviour is not well distinguished, or issues with context, or ... well, anyways.)
Look, being attracted to women is fine. But when the behavior caused by that attraction negatively impacts innocent women something is wrong. And when straight males' collective behavior and collective media force can wreak this kind of havoc on someone's life and career, something is REALLY wrong. I don't see what is so unreasonable about acknowledging that, I just don't.
I don't get the "you're a bad person for being attracted to women" feeling from Marc's post. I do get a vibe that says "shit, masculinity, as we know it today, is causing this, among a million other problems." and maybe even a "holy crap, as men, we are subscribing in part to this problematic masculinity thing."
And when straight males' collective behavior and collective media force can wreak this kind of havoc on someone's life and career, something is REALLY wrong. I don't see what is so unreasonable about acknowledging that, I just don't.
I don't see a problem with acknowledging that either. But that's a different presentation than mailing Alexander a package of guilt for whatever involvement he might have (here I don't know, but Marc seems to want to spread blame pretty evenly, regardless of one's actions) is a somewhat different deal. Marc lays a lot of fairly specific accusations, which may, or may not apply to Alexander.
The only thing one has to subscribe to, to be a straight man, is to be attracted to women. I'll cop to this without reserve, I suppose. (Admittedly, I tend to feel bad about it, but guilt without action is pretty worthless, and I don't really take any now)
I have mixed feelings about this; on one hand, I don't think straight men as a demographic need feel guilty for the actions of others. I didn't get the feeling from this post that Marc was implying otherwise. However, the vague statement "live my life as I see fit," when stated in opposition to Marc's post, begs the question: "how is it you see fit to live?"
What if I see fit to punch Marc in the face? That wouldn't be very appropriate, would it?
I think the point is that the right to live "as I see fit" stops at another's right to do the same. If Alexander's actions are imposing on another person's rights or privacy because he is engaging in behaviors that Marc decries, then he is not, in fact, one of the good guys.
IF this post does not apply to him, why is he offended by it? On behalf of men it does apply to?
I think the author is merely trying to make people see that they are accountable and partially responsible for the abundance of sexist attitudes and actions throughout society. We all (or most of us) feed into it one way or another. I think realizing this and trying to correct this is what people need to do. You can be "a good guy" and still participate in sexist behaviours. You can be a moral person and still feed into the rampant sexism in society. The author is not judging you in that way, he is simply saying that we all need to be aware of the ways in which we are feeding into this. At least that's the way I read it. I thought it was an excellent post actually.
Okay, I'm a man, and I've always been afraid of man-blaming in feminism, but there is NO WAY to talk about Erin Andrews and NOT blame men.
At every juncture in the escalating objectification of Erin Andrews, it was MILLIONS of men in control. We owe it to Andrews and to all women to acknowledge that this problem is coming from OUR community.
Thanks, Dangerfield, for voicing your opinion as well as for getting it.
It'll always perplex me that people can turn defensive at the thought that our actions do contribute to sexism. Saying men are responsible for some of what took place isn't to be anti-men, but rather, anti sexist actions that some men take due to them having socialized to be hyper-masculined.
Oh, and Brian - being anti-objectification does not mean being anti-sex.
I didn't say being anti-objectification was being anti-sex. I said "If anti-objectification is not anti-attraction, there's a failure to present an attraction model which is compatible with that, and as such attacks on objectification are not readily distinguished from attacks on attraction."
A relatively simple model: there's nothing wrong with thinking "Hey, that's a hot lady right there. I want to see her naked."
There is something wrong with slapping that lady on the ass as she walks by, then claiming you "can't help it, I'm a guy," when she gets angry at you. And there is also something wrong with not taking your friend to task if he's the one who mistreated her.
I think that's the crux of what Marc is saying, here. We all think what we think (and despite what anyone might tell you, us straight women want to get a look in the pants of hot men, too--it's just far more taboo for us to do anything about that!). What we do--or don't do--is what's at issue.
"Objectifying" isn't "assaulting". I would hope we could all get behind the "it's wrong to assault people" ethic.
But Marc's condemned us for say, buying the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue (not that I ever have, but I've certainly bought comparable publications, so the point is moot). That's not assaulting anyone, that is saying "Jeez, this lady is pretty, and I fancy a long gander at her."
Blaming all men for the acts of one is anti men.
And being outraged by heterosexual American men being sexually attracted to a woman who fits contemporary White American beauty standards is anti sex.
One man videotaped Erin Andrews naked.
He is 100% at fault, and should be sued and indicted for his acts.
I wasn't in that hotel room - I just downloaded the video.
And I refuse to apologize for that.
Then you are violating her all over again. Nice.
Yuck. You're not physically threatening her in the same way, but you're still making a deliberate effort to look at the fruits of that violation. Why not look at pictures or video of girls who want to be seen naked?
Congratulations! You are, my your own action, a supporter of the violation of women's privacy and autonomy. Gregory, in this case, you ARE the oppressor. Pat yourself on the back.
If you didn't rape someone - do you think it'd be okay to watch a rape video and get off on it? No, because you'd be supporting rape.
As much as I hate to agree with Marc about anything (Sorry Marc!), he's right to say that someone who downloads the video shares some ethical responsibility. And probably anyone who says it's ethically flawless shares some responsibility, too (at least, going forward. We probably can't change the past, though I sometimes believe it may be possible, with the retarded solutions to Maxwell's equations and whatnot.)
Anyways.
Yeah, if you downloaded the video, you shared some part in violating Andrews' privacy. If you tell people it's okay, then you share some part of the responsibility if they go and watch the video. Or take that ethical principle and violate someone else's privacy.
I should not have to actively participate in feminism to be a "good guy".
What does "actively participate in feminism" mean?
If you see and recognize an injustice, and you stay silent, then you are not a "good guy."
If you "live your life as you see fit" but refuse to consider how your actions might affect others, then you are not a "good guy."
I liked to hear what Erin has to say about this because like Rhiana I doubt if she wants to be someone's posterchild.
I really enjoyed this post, Marc. This can apply to anyone, not just men and women. We all need to realize how our actions effect others.
After I had been sexually assaulted I started having a lot of unwanted fetishes that had to do with control over women, voyeurism, and assault. For a while, I acted on those fantasies by viewing and getting pleasure out of the porn that had to do with it. I'm sure that the majority of the porn that I saw was staged, but I still felt guilt about it. I still felt guilty for supporting those types of actions, especially since I had gone through the pain myself. At the time, I was really confused. How could I get pleasure from something that has hurt me so much?
That was a hard phase to get out of, but I forced myself out of it because I knew how my actions effected others. I knew how my actions supported sexism and misogyny.
I'm a woman, but I am guilty too, Marc. I'm guilty of feeding the rape culture. And I'm sorry for it. I'm sorry, and I'm willing to act now.
You can be attracted to someone without objectifying them. You can be attracted to someone without seeing them as only an object as opposed to a full human being. You can be attracted to someone without, like you said, reducing them to a number from 1 to 10 on a scale.
It's a mistake for people to view this type of thinking as anti-sex. I'm VERY pro-sex, despite having been assaulted. I'm actually a lot more open and less ashamed about sex than a lot of the people that I know. We should only be ashamed or guilty when our actions are hurting other people, in my opinion.
uh, whoops. I meant to say that "this can apply to anyone, not just men."
Siby - please don't feel guilty for looking at porn.
The people you see in porn are models, they signed a release and got paid for their work.
It's just a fantasy.
It's not real.
They are only videos - the actors played their parts when the director said "action", stopped when the director said "cut" and they all got in their cars and drove home when the director said "that's a wrap!" - and a couple weeks later, they got a check in the mail, went to the bank and then got out the checkbook and paid some bills.
Nobody should feel guilty for looking at porno - I know I don't - because porn is harmless.
Guilt is an ugly and dangerous emotion and it damages people - so please don't feel guilty about acting out on your sexual urges in a safe way by using porn.
I know that it's staged, but that doesn't really change how I feel about it. I strongly believe that I'm supporting a misogynistic culture when I look at porn, particularly certain types of porn. Not only that, but porn really damaged the trust that I had left for men. After being assaulted, it was hard enough to trust men.. Seeing men treat women like shit in porn all of the time didn't help at all. I couldn't help but to start to believe that all/most men were like that, especially since it was during a time that I sheltered myself and didn't go around and meet a lot of people. It genuinely hurt me, and I believe that my actions were also hurting other people. I'm just not going to do that.
The people you see in porn are models, they signed a release and got paid for their work.
It's just a fantasy.
It's not real.
UNLIKE Erin Andrews. There is a huge difference between watching a video of someone who consented to participate and watching a video of someone who did not.
This is not about the right to enjoy sex, beauty, pornography, what have you. It is about VIOLATING a woman's privacy and repeating that violation over and over. That is NOT acceptable. To think otherwise is not only anti-feminist, but incredibly callous.
Gregory -
Sex is natural. Treating women like shit and an object is not.
I sense you're misunderstanding the word "guilt." Guilt, in this case, is neither an emotion nor any feeling of self-loathing, but rather, acknowlegment that one's action directly and indirectly affects the lives of other people negatively.
I don't think anyone who speaks out against porn "feels" guilty about it, or beating themselves over the head, but rather, taking responsibility.
I am not - and I don't believe any anti-porn feminist is - advocating that sex - or even rough sex, is bad. Some of us like it. Some of us practice it. But just because sex is natural and a good thing does not mean that you can say the objectification of human beings - be they men or women - is a good thing.
I am attracted to women, I have plenty of sex, and I enjoy it. I just do not believe in that porn is harmless, or that the objectification of other human beings (in this case women) are merely natural.
I don't get why you think we're anti-men or anti-sex. We're anti-sexism.
Perhaps if men started taking responsibility and speaking out against practices that lead to the assaults of women, and by extent, women in their lives, then no longer will men be blamed for some of women's plights.
Thank you, Silby, for sharing your story, as well as for being able to succintly summing up the points. It's not a hard concept - yet, I still don't understand why people do not get it.
I don't see the connection between Swimsuit Issue and covertly videotaping someone naked.
SI models choose to show off their beauty and are well paid for it. They go beyond consent, they work very hard for that job. Yes, I appreciate them for their looks independent of their personalities (which are none of my business), just like gay or female fan of attractive male models and celebrities. It's a shallow but consensual and mutually beneficial "relationship". Writing that I feel like kind of a loser, but hardly a contributor to rape. And if I were a creep who wanted to do something worse than look at pictures they pose for, I couldn't because I have no contact with them whatsoever. Neither the projected fantasy nor the reality of SI models is one of vulnerability or exploitation.
How does that exist on any kind of spectrum with stalking Erin Andrews, invading her room to plant a camera, and distributing video she wasn't even aware of on the internet? Her physical space was violated and her security threatened. She didn't negotiate the use of her image on her terms like a SI model, it was taken without her knowledge or consent and distributed in a way that almost certainly horrifies her. SI models sell their images, on their terms, at a safe distance. Andrews' image was stolen from her, by some creep who invaded her room and could have physically endangered her.
I agree!
A stalker intruded on Erin Andrews privacy in her hotel room, videoed her nude without her permission and circulated that video on the internet.
Sports Illustrated models are professionals - they are paid to have their pictures taken (and paid quite well in some cases), they sign a release authorizing Sports Illustrated to disseminate their image in print, broadcast and new media formats and they are not nude, they pose in bathing suits.
Totally 180 degrees different than what happened to Erin Andrews.
As a heterosexual male, I refuse to apologize for being sexually attracted to women, or for looking at pictures, videos and websites featuring scantily clad or naked women.
I am a supporter of womens liberation, but I refuse to renounce my manhood or my heterosexuality as a part of that support!
You're so much of a supporter of women's liberation that you downloaded a video of a woman being stalked - as you described it - to watch, and you feel no guilt over it?
Thanks for the support, dude.
The connection here isn't the content or even situation, but rather, the intent. The intent, in this case, is putting conventionally good-looking women into a magazine that's largely aimed at males.
Let's not pretend for a second that this is about art - or even human sexuality - it's about making women the viewing pleasure for men, and as such, continues to feed into the commercialization of women's bodies.
That's all true, but it's not really the subject at hand.
If a woman wants to sell her body, or her image, (or consents to) we can agree or disagree about the ethicalness of this, and whether we should permit her to (obviously, I'm alluding to it being problematic to tell her what to do with her body/image, so maybe I ought to drop the facade of neutralness). Regardless, this is entirely different from Andrews' case, where her image was taken from her. These are different, don't conflate them.
If you don't see consent or safety as the issues here, or distinguish my intent in looking at pictures Josie Moran or Jessica White gladly posed for from some other creep's intent in stalking and covertly taping Andrews naked, then we don't have much to learn from each other and I accept my failure as a Feministing-style feminist.
Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue means I have the same "intent" as a stalker? Good luck marketing Feminism like that, you might as well stick to pointing out that
men's suicides aren't newsworthy.
how about this. Why don't men learn self control? that would solve the problem. We as women wouldn't be subjected to the laundry list of issues caused by men who find women attractive. I find nothing wrong with men being attracted to women. I think that it is a good thing, but if men were to practice a little bit more self control, we wouln't have as many problems to fight against. I don't understand why that is so hard. Women can do it. There are a lot of times when I would like to grab a hot guy's butt in a public place, but I don't because the behavior is inappropriate. There is something wrong with a society that doesn't accept self control as a viable option for stopping a lot of these things
Yes, women are taught to ruthlessly repress their sexuality from early childhood - and that has been the case for thousands of years.
And it has caused untold human misery among women.
Why would men want to impose that on ourselves?
The world would be a far better place if women were allowed to be as upfront and outspoken about their sexual urges as men are.
Imposing the brutal psychic corset of feminine sexual restraint on male sexuality would mean there would be that much more human misery in the world, and that many more people forced to crush and suppress their natural sexual urges.
Huh, what? I don't want to speak for her, but I didn't see Rebekah mention repressing anyone's sexuality. She was talking about having self control. There's a HUGE difference in being attracted to people and being open about it, and assaulting women on the street because you just "can't help" but to grab her ass.
Again, I don't want to speak for her, but it seemed to me that she was talking about harassment and assault. Do you honestly believe that it's okay for men to go around harassing/assaulting women?
Yes, the world would be a better place if both men and women were encouraged to be open and honest about their sexuality. No, the world would not be a better place if women assaulted men just as much as men assaulted us.
Sexual "self control" for all practical purposes amounts to sexual repression.
No, I don't advocate anybody grabbing anybody's ass in public - but I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with looking and fantasizing.
GB shows up often to tell us that us asking to be treated with basic dignity is tantamount to suppressing male sexuality. Basically the argument falls apart though due to the common phenomenon of men like him changing their behavior when they perceive real consequences to their actions.
Ask how many guys go openly ogle their best friend's sister or mother. How many men would walk up to a woman on the street and talk shit when she's accompanied by another man? How many straight guys give the same generous understanding asked of women to gay or bi men who fancy them?
GB, when your fellow men demand these boundaries of you and if you demand boundaries of them, why isn't this also suppressing your sexuality? We're only asking for the same boundaries of respect that you have for other men to be extended to us. You can do it! We know you can because we see it happen everyday.
Gregory - newsflash! Feminists do not advocate suppressing sexuality. We advocate not treating human beings, and in the majority of cases, women, like objects when it comes to sex.
Want to fuck nine ways to Sunday? Fine by me. Want to have dirty, kinky, hot, taboo sex? Fine by me. But it's the removing of a person's humanity from their body that we're concerned about.
Let's not pretend for a second that you're concerned about women's sexuality - because if you did, you'd be fighting religious oppressions of women's sexuality and be passionate about comprehensive sex education. But it seems the only instances you're ever up in arms is when your male sexuality - in this case, the objectification of women, is threatened.
The problem, I think, is that by and large, men also restrain themselves when they want to grab someone's butt. I'd usually wager every man in this thread does, though Greg seems to have gone off the deep end a bit.
Which comes back, I think, to why Marc set some many men off. People don't like being blamed for what they haven't done. I know I get very uppity when I'm accused of something I haven't done.
More men are inappropriately sexually aggressive with women than the reverse, but it ain't that no women are, or that all men are, and presenting it that way'll make men all cranky, and I think legitimately. One might accuse me of "OH! Teh poor Menz!"ing, but it is a discussion started by Marc, as a man, addressing other men, so I think it's contextually appropriate.
How about you respond to this, Marc?
"guilt also lies in automatically writing off Steve McNair's killer as a scorned lover, rather than discussing the sense of entitlement...."
Are you blaming Steven McNair, a murder victim, for his own death because his "entitlement" to consensual extramarital affairs?
I am not. The woman who murdered him is guilty.
What I am saying is that our society does not place enough emphasis on conversations about male entitlement and masculinity. In all cases, we're looking at issues with blinders on.
Yet, anti-feminists and conservatives are claiming that our media is liberally-dominated, or that we've gotten soft.
Tell that to me when we start examining the roots of the problems, rather than just scratching the surface.
Until we talk honestly and open about these problems from a gender perspective, we're not doing anything but putting band-aids on a sucking chest wound.
Sorry buddy. I'm not guilty. I have bought swimsuit issues by the dozens, I've said "hey, she's hot" more times then I can count, I've rated women on their looks hundreds of times... but I'm not guilty. And you know why? Because I'm not the one who videotaped Andrew in the nude. He (assuming he) is the guilty party. And I'm not. Again, sorry buddy.
Seriously, that you can't understand the relationship between the obsessive objectification that led up to this incident and the incident itself is really disturbing. No, all men aren't to blame, but men who participate in this kind of thing ARE, in part, to blame, and guess what, by your description, that's you. And gregoryabannedbutcamebackanyway. Deal with it.
You know, Marc seems to get off on telling men how they are personally responsible for seemingly any crime committed against any female anywhere. Maybe he should don a mask and cape and fight purse snatchers everywhere. After all, the only way for him to avoid being a thief is to stop all of the other thieves in the universe.