I think it is depressing in this day and age, in our "social advanced society" that women are reduced to nothing more than a marketing tool. Women have come very far in the last 100 years but there seems to be a regression going on and women are allowing it to happen. TV and everything else is covered with scantly clothed women, prancing and posing. When men see this, what do they think about? SEX and thats what sales according to marketing research, it sparks interest. So if men see women as objects, it is partly because that is what they are being sold as. If the women really wanted to improve their image they would take action against this travesty, the degradation of women that is happening in American society.
dont find this derogatory nor degrading nor any other thing you may want to insert, girls call guys many things too, and as long as guys dont call girls b*tch, it's not too too bad
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
Not too bad isn't really good enough... I have a revised opinion after reading this thread. I object to the terms when they're used in a manner that objectifies or makes a woman out to be nothing more than a grade A piece o' meat, or when used in place of an individual's name. Otherwise, I can see the terms being teasing or merely used as a primitive form of male communication.
And Moonbeam and Atrail, thank you two particularly for your thoughtful posts. I liked what you had to say.
Squisher
Lifer
- Aug 17, 2000
- 21,204
- 66
- 91
I can't imagine calling a girl/woman a chick to their face. Like "hey you chick, you wanna go out." Or, "excuse me hottie, you dropped your pencil."
However, when I refer to girls/women as chicks I don't see how this is in any way derogatory.
I mean, Margaret Thatcher is one hard ass chick.
However, when I refer to girls/women as chicks I don't see how this is in any way derogatory.
I mean, Margaret Thatcher is one hard ass chick.
I didnt see a moonbeam post. Perhaps you are confusing the mushroom/toadstool avatar with Sir Frederick.
-PAB
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 35,216
- 2,359
- 126
Well, without reading the whole thread, I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
There are jerks in every single category. Guys, girls, Christians, Jews, Americans, Postal Employees, Bottle Cap Collectors, all of these groups have their jerks.
Yes, there are quite a few guys who care about nothing but sex. Some people say that we're wired for it. I know I don't think about it nearly as much as a bunch of guys that I've met.
Babe is a compliment, and I've never heard of anyone having a problem with it until now. Where I'm from, all guys call girls that, and all girls call guys that. It's just language.
I'd imagine chick came in as a replacment for girl. I've found personally that a lot of women don't like to be called girls. Woman is too formal for an informal conversation, so chick fits nicely.
But anyway, my point is that it's not something to get worked up over.
There are jerks in every single category. Guys, girls, Christians, Jews, Americans, Postal Employees, Bottle Cap Collectors, all of these groups have their jerks.
Yes, there are quite a few guys who care about nothing but sex. Some people say that we're wired for it. I know I don't think about it nearly as much as a bunch of guys that I've met.
Babe is a compliment, and I've never heard of anyone having a problem with it until now. Where I'm from, all guys call girls that, and all girls call guys that. It's just language.
I'd imagine chick came in as a replacment for girl. I've found personally that a lot of women don't like to be called girls. Woman is too formal for an informal conversation, so chick fits nicely.
But anyway, my point is that it's not something to get worked up over.
I love how you degrade religious groups by placing them in the same set as bottle cap collectors.
(I'm not being sarcastic: I think I could use it as another great way to take preachers off their high moral hill and down a long, long fall all the way to the concrete floor of reality... I just have to think of a way to use "bottle cap collectors" and "did you say I will burn in hell" in a sentence. )For those of you guys who still Just Don't Get It (and I know there are a lot of you out there), I have a scenario that might give you some perspective.
This will probably be lengthy, but worthwhile, so bear with me. This is a hypothetical situation, so please do not object that it is unrealistic.
Imagine for just a moment that you are heterosexual (I know this may be a stretch). Now imagine that the majority of males are actually homosexual. Furthermore, imagine that homosexual males look at heterosexual males as nothing more than sex toys.
Now imagine that TV, magazines, billboards, and just about every other medium contains pictures of scantily clad, muscle bound males. Imagine that the worth of a man is mostly based on the size of his muscles, and the only way *you* can get muscles like the models is by using drugs which induce unrealistic muscle growth.
Girls look down on guys who do not have unrealistically large muscles. Everywhere you go, people comment on the size of your muscles and whether or not they are attractive (and thus, whether or not you are attractive). If you are not attractive, people have little interest in speaking to you or being friends with you.
Imagine that in order to feel better about yourself, you wear clothes that show off the muscles that you do have, which aren't so small in their own right.
Unfortunately, a consequence of this is the constant attention of homosexual males. They honk at you when you walk down the street. They pull over and offer you rides. They are bigger than you are, and one in every 16 has raped a heterosexual male at some point in his life. They catcall, whistle, and occasionally grab your ass. They call you "honey," "sweetie," and "girl," and call you sexy.
When you complain about it, people tell you that you have no right to complain because you wear shirts that show off your muscles.
Perhaps now you understand what it is like to live as an objectified person, and experience unwanted sexual attention. If you are not at least slightly homophobic, this example probably didn't help at all.
Now that you understand what unwanted sexual attention is like, perhaps you can better understand why women do not like it.
Once you understand that, it should be quite easy to understand why women do not appreciate being objectified.
This will probably be lengthy, but worthwhile, so bear with me. This is a hypothetical situation, so please do not object that it is unrealistic.
Imagine for just a moment that you are heterosexual (I know this may be a stretch). Now imagine that the majority of males are actually homosexual. Furthermore, imagine that homosexual males look at heterosexual males as nothing more than sex toys.
Now imagine that TV, magazines, billboards, and just about every other medium contains pictures of scantily clad, muscle bound males. Imagine that the worth of a man is mostly based on the size of his muscles, and the only way *you* can get muscles like the models is by using drugs which induce unrealistic muscle growth.
Girls look down on guys who do not have unrealistically large muscles. Everywhere you go, people comment on the size of your muscles and whether or not they are attractive (and thus, whether or not you are attractive). If you are not attractive, people have little interest in speaking to you or being friends with you.
Imagine that in order to feel better about yourself, you wear clothes that show off the muscles that you do have, which aren't so small in their own right.
Unfortunately, a consequence of this is the constant attention of homosexual males. They honk at you when you walk down the street. They pull over and offer you rides. They are bigger than you are, and one in every 16 has raped a heterosexual male at some point in his life. They catcall, whistle, and occasionally grab your ass. They call you "honey," "sweetie," and "girl," and call you sexy.
When you complain about it, people tell you that you have no right to complain because you wear shirts that show off your muscles.
Perhaps now you understand what it is like to live as an objectified person, and experience unwanted sexual attention. If you are not at least slightly homophobic, this example probably didn't help at all.
Now that you understand what unwanted sexual attention is like, perhaps you can better understand why women do not like it.
Once you understand that, it should be quite easy to understand why women do not appreciate being objectified.
MichaelD
Lifer
- Jan 16, 2001
- 31,528
- 3
- 76
Wurd.
SirFred, when did you become Gloria Steinhem's alter-ego? Sheesh man!
I'm so tired of hearing women whine. You wanted to vote; we let you. You wanted to drive; we let you. You wanted to work and have a career; we let you. You wanted the remote; we broke your hands...but that's another thing entirely.
My point is; what more do you want? Do you want to have balls? Do you want to experience the "swinging sensation" b/t your legs? Christ'a'mighty, STOP WHINING already!
The same women that whine "I'm tired of being looked at like a piece of meat!" are the same women that put on the mini skirt, the "fvck me pumps" and the tube top and go dancing with the girls, while pulling mens' chains for free drinks and/or attention.
These days, a woman has a BETTER chance than I do of getting hired for the same job just because of "affirmative action" and "quotas" and other BS like that. When does it stop? Now go make me a sandwich like a good girl, PLEASE.
Everything. Referring to a stranger as a chick is objectifying and derogatory.
If you're flirting/teasing/joking around with a friend it's an entirely different matter.
Originally posted by: MichaelD
SirFred, when did you become Gloria Steinhem's alter-ego? Sheesh man!
I suppose it happened when I realized that there are far too many guys like you in the world.
We "let" them. As if we had some right to prevent them from doing those things in the first place.
I'll tell you what my female friends want:
They want to be treated as normal people, not sex objects. They don't want to be honked at. They don't want people looking them up and down all the time, and they don't want to be propositioned by you. If they do the same job as a guy and they do it just as well as he does (all things being equal), they want to make as much money.
Wrong. Most women I know complain about that, and I don't know any who do that. However, a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants without repercussions. Even if a woman does dress as you described, she wants attention from the guys that she is interested in, not every random stranger who sees her and thinks she looks sexy.
If a woman truly has a better chance at getting hired for the same job as you do (I find this unlikely unless you have some numbers to back it up), it's most likely because companies assume that she will be willing to work for less.
As a male, I've never thought of the term "chick" as anything but what horribly PC feminists might refer to as a "female-indentified person." Note usage of "chick" in chick-flick, a sterotypically girly movie. Dick-flick is my term of choice for manly, action-filled cinema.
Originally posted by: HotChic
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Oh, so women never call men, hunks?
Nope, not really. I hear girls talk about how hot a given guy is, just like I hear guys talk about it. But no one actually uses the term "hunk". Besides, how many gals would use that as a name. "Hey babe" / "Hey hunk". *shrug*
I only hear "hunk" in ads written by men -- never hear a woman under 50 saying it. Women usually describe a man by description, e.g., "the well hung one" or the "lousy lover who doesn't know it" or the "small one"
MichaelD
Lifer
- Jan 16, 2001
- 31,528
- 3
- 76
SirFredrick,
You win the Male Sensitivity Awareness Award of the Year! For your prizes you get:
1. A cookie
2. Another cookie (of your choosing! I'm sure it will be a non-fat, tofu-type cookie...)
3. A 3-pack of chick flicks including: Terms of Endearment, Yentl and Mask
4. A 3-pack of non-fat, non-butter tofu popcorn
5. A 3-pack of Kleenex Facial Tissues (with Aloe!) to wipe the tears away while watching your movies
6. And finally, another cookie
AFA the whole "voting/driving/working thing" goes; the world and it's societies have existed for thousands of years with the man being the sole breadwinner and firmly in control of his family...it seemed to work well enough. Now, granted; these days, a family (or just a couple for that matter) can't exist on one income...most of the time, so the woman HAS to work...but I see nothing wrong with a woman staying at home.
Also, I firmly believe that the only reason we men gave women the right to drive in the first place is so that we wouldn't have to have them sitting next to us whining all the time. If they aren't in the car with you...you can't hear them, can you?
You win the Male Sensitivity Awareness Award of the Year! For your prizes you get:
1. A cookie
2. Another cookie (of your choosing! I'm sure it will be a non-fat, tofu-type cookie...)
3. A 3-pack of chick flicks including: Terms of Endearment, Yentl and Mask
4. A 3-pack of non-fat, non-butter tofu popcorn
5. A 3-pack of Kleenex Facial Tissues (with Aloe!) to wipe the tears away while watching your movies
6. And finally, another cookie
AFA the whole "voting/driving/working thing" goes; the world and it's societies have existed for thousands of years with the man being the sole breadwinner and firmly in control of his family...it seemed to work well enough. Now, granted; these days, a family (or just a couple for that matter) can't exist on one income...most of the time, so the woman HAS to work...but I see nothing wrong with a woman staying at home.
Also, I firmly believe that the only reason we men gave women the right to drive in the first place is so that we wouldn't have to have them sitting next to us whining all the time. If they aren't in the car with you...you can't hear them, can you?
Well, I'm a female and I think Sir Frederick did a mighty job of hitting the nail on the head with his post. That is pretty much how it is... but there isn't much we can do about it. I used to try to speak up about it but it only got me shot down.
I do avoid people who are buying into and feeding the machine, though.
I do avoid people who are buying into and feeding the machine, though.
Yeah, the old system worked great. FOR MEN! Women make up half of the population. A system that neglects/abuses half of the world's population is a lousy system.
HChic, m'dear, this thread brings to mind the whole hullaballoo of the PC nonsense with which the modern world has become infused. On the one hand, words as used to name things are used and this is the end of it. On the other hand, they have a cultural history and an exact meaning implied by the sender of the message.
My usage of the words in this case were for effect, and out of habit of calling females `dear` (as I call males `m'good man`). Suppose another used the same words in a different situation, changing the connotation and implication of the words. For a male, the word choice typically has little value as words are perceived to have equal tangibility and thus whatever experience creates a state of mind , it is expressed as "cool" or "outstanding". The tiff others have with this is that certain words were created in a period of time where perhaps ignorance or deliberate malice really pained the receiver of the words. As the words are unchanged, even if they are used innocently, some still understand them to mean an undesired state, say objectification.
And so we have PC, where someone is hurt and so all must adjust in order to prevent anything objectionable from being said. Sensible? Or is a better solution to not even mind what is said or how it is said because clear understanding across a communication channel is nearly impossible? Both seem to be not how things are done.
In this case, the use of chick and babe are words chosen by a culture to express that state of objectification and detached appreciation that can be a part of sexuality. The words aren't particularly harmful. I see them used and I shrug them off. At the same time, the underlying dynamic is what I think we're having some trouble accepting because it looks to primarily ignore the present humanity by resorting to a classification of things as "a prime piece of ass" or other some such. The words in themselves are not particularly bad or good. If you want to have a situationally dependent response of approbation of disapprobation, that works but it's also helpful to understand the reasons why the usage of some words feel inherently offensive (despite what my testosterone-laden brethren espouse )
Wait, what am I saying? *HUBBA* *HUBBA* look at all the chix0rs in this thread! Woah... babes... pics?
Cheers !
Hi Jean
My usage of the words in this case were for effect, and out of habit of calling females `dear` (as I call males `m'good man`). Suppose another used the same words in a different situation, changing the connotation and implication of the words. For a male, the word choice typically has little value as words are perceived to have equal tangibility and thus whatever experience creates a state of mind , it is expressed as "cool" or "outstanding". The tiff others have with this is that certain words were created in a period of time where perhaps ignorance or deliberate malice really pained the receiver of the words. As the words are unchanged, even if they are used innocently, some still understand them to mean an undesired state, say objectification.
And so we have PC, where someone is hurt and so all must adjust in order to prevent anything objectionable from being said. Sensible? Or is a better solution to not even mind what is said or how it is said because clear understanding across a communication channel is nearly impossible? Both seem to be not how things are done.
In this case, the use of chick and babe are words chosen by a culture to express that state of objectification and detached appreciation that can be a part of sexuality. The words aren't particularly harmful. I see them used and I shrug them off. At the same time, the underlying dynamic is what I think we're having some trouble accepting because it looks to primarily ignore the present humanity by resorting to a classification of things as "a prime piece of ass" or other some such. The words in themselves are not particularly bad or good. If you want to have a situationally dependent response of approbation of disapprobation, that works but it's also helpful to understand the reasons why the usage of some words feel inherently offensive (despite what my testosterone-laden brethren espouse
)Wait, what am I saying? *HUBBA* *HUBBA* look at all the chix0rs in this thread! Woah... babes... pics?
Cheers !
Hi Jean
I read about halfway down to the 2nd page and then I got tired of reading this 1-sided thread. Sir Fredrick makes it sound like every single girl in the world is a victim and men are the enemy. This situation is a 2 way street. Anyone who refuses to believe that is ignorant to the real situation. I've seen women treat me the same as some guys treat women. I've seen the situation reversed on plenty of cases for other people also. Women arn't as shy and quiet as this thread makes them out to be -- only a certain personality type of women. That same personality type exists in men also. Ones that don't want any attention and don't want people honking at them when they are walking down the street.
This is an age old response, but it continues to hold true. People here state that women shouldn't be called previous stated names yet they continue to dress like it. They hate guys that grind against them, yet they come back next week, same time, same place. If a dog attacked me and I didn't like it, I would either learn how to stop the dog from attacking me or avoid it. I wouldn't run right up to it with a t-bone steak strapped around my leg. Hell, THE JANITOR of my workplace has a freaking t-shirt that says "no boys allowed", jeee wiz wonder what that means.
I'm not saying all women ask for it and I'm not saying all guys are innocent. What I am saying is that these personality traits exist in both men and women and although it may be a tipped scale, its not 1-sided. Last time I checked, girls like to call guys babes/baby, even right to their face.
Guys call other guys dudes right to their faces far more often than they would address a girl as a chick to her face. Remember that.
This is an age old response, but it continues to hold true. People here state that women shouldn't be called previous stated names yet they continue to dress like it. They hate guys that grind against them, yet they come back next week, same time, same place. If a dog attacked me and I didn't like it, I would either learn how to stop the dog from attacking me or avoid it. I wouldn't run right up to it with a t-bone steak strapped around my leg. Hell, THE JANITOR of my workplace has a freaking t-shirt that says "no boys allowed", jeee wiz wonder what that means.
I'm not saying all women ask for it and I'm not saying all guys are innocent. What I am saying is that these personality traits exist in both men and women and although it may be a tipped scale, its not 1-sided. Last time I checked, girls like to call guys babes/baby, even right to their face.
Guys call other guys dudes right to their faces far more often than they would address a girl as a chick to her face. Remember that.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter