"Me Too"

[Wormius]

I wish there was a stage when everybody could go back to their personalities before puberty hit. I enjoy the interactions I see between kids, they're so thoughtful and without any libido-based drama.

[DoubleF]

I haven't heard of this. I'll have to look it up. An interesting conversation to have for sure.

I once had a conversation with a group of friends with a waitress at some bar somewhere on Kensington road. The comment was regarding an engagement ring the waitress was wearing. "It's fake" she said. "Probably $5 bucks at Ardene's, but it drastically reduces the amount of times people ask me out of dates."

My friend and I once ridiculed a buddy in front of a waitress when he went too far with the "chit chat". I believe we were at the Rose and Crown. After he excused himself to freshen up, we apologized to the waitress and she remarked that though she was essentially numb to such things, but it was nice that someone said something.

I haven't called anyone out in a long time. I have to double check to see if it's because coupled friends are different in interacting with others, or if it's something that has been deemed "ok", when it really shouldn't be. Probably the latter.

IMO, some of you are going a little far, but definitely in the right direction. There's nothing wrong with making a compliment to a lady/kid/guy/. But if that's the sole interaction you have with that individual, then it's possibly reinforcing the wrong things. I and my wife and friends engage servers all the time. There's no need to walk on egg shells. A loud female friend of mine prefaced it (correctly or incorrectly, I'm not sure) this way. "

Though to be conservative, you can always preface things by saying, "If you don't mind my asking...". We like saying things like, "What do you like on the menu? What activities do you like? Where are you from? What are you working towards?". It's just a conversation. There's no need to completely avoid chit chat, but finding ways to have more... equalizing conversations is something worth contemplating. Also, making the conversation about the server helps to make the dining experience more enjoyable. We find we get better ideas when we ask the server vs "what's good here, what's recommended." etc.

For me, the conversations aren't too big of an issue, but the eye bounce is the hardest thing to shake. I've been trying to work on it since I started dating. Though my wife reminds me that I'm better than most others we know, I still think I can do better.

Ultimately, having more open conversation about the issue is the best thing to do, perhaps more than just enacting things on your own. It's easier to change with support from a group than just aimlessly on by yourself.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Here’s a tip: you’re at the bar, you see a girl, which is more appropriate? Starting a conversation, picking up the signal that she too is interested, and then complimenting her bum? Or walking up to her and complimenting her bum? Number one is clearly the more appropriate way to handle flirting, but I would be concerned if saying “don’t do the second one” seems sexually repressive. The key is to figure out what kind of relationship and understanding you’re in with this person, BEFORE you make sexually suggestive comments.

Sure. This is a nuanced, common sense approach. In other words, this is good advice for that situation. The problem I see - well, one of a number of problems - is the oversimplification of complex human interactions that are based on unexpressed signals. When you take good advice like the above, and reduce it to "never make a comment to someone you're sexually attracted to unless you'd also make it to someone you weren't sexually attracted to", not only is that unrealistic and facile, it's quintessentially repressive. It treats sexual attraction as some bugbear we should all be constantly on guard against. That in itself is something not to take lightly.

More important still, it's easier to demonize, broad-brush and scapegoat than it is to actually understand complex human behaviour. People are constantly looking for simple answers on moral issues - the mob gets carried away rather than reflecting on the various shades of gray (pun not intended) inherent in what we're discussing, which is probably the most agnoized-about subject in human history besides "why are we here".

But like I say, this whole discussion is so charged and moralistic, rather than actually participate fully in the various aspects that could found the basis of an interesting conversation, I think I'm just going to stick with the woods.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Joborule

This is the problem I've been musing about while reading this thread, and what Matty has bought up.

Is basically indicating any interest in something you're attracted to off grounds? If you can't compliment physical attributes of someone you like and want to date, then how are you even gonna get to the point of having a sexual relation with them, that follows the rule you posted?

I'm all for being more respectful and considerate to women, and to take emphasis away from the important of looks; but we are human, and we are attracted to one another based on our sexual orientation. We have to be reasonable that physical compliments isn't the worst thing in the world, and must be avoided at all costs with strangers, friends, or love interests.

You don't want to push too far on the other end of the spectrum here.

I went into it a bit in my post to Corsi, but it’s about contextualising what you’re saying to someone.

Complimenting someone because you find them attractive is, at it’s base, a selfish thing to do. It seems like you’re doing it for them, but all you’re doing is indicating your own attraction to them. That’s fine in a setting where that is important (dating, and the potential for) but totally unimportant in a professional setting or a setting between strangers. So, contextualise it. Are you just indicating your own attraction to the person? If so, why is that important?

That’s why I state the rule that it should be something you’re comfortable telling both someone you are and are not sexually attracted to. That’s an indicator that the compliment is truly about them, and not about you. It’s also in the way you put the compliment. If you tell someone they look beautiful, that’s an expression of attraction, if you say they look really put-together, that at least can be understood as an expression of appreciation. One is valuable and appropriate in a non-sexual relationship, one is not. Use the right one if you feel you absolutely must say something (but also ask yourself if you really need to say anything at all).

[GirlySports]

You guys know the skipthedishes commercial 'the italian is here!'

That commercial should be banned. Or else it's a double standard.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Sure. This is a nuanced, common sense approach. In other words, this is good advice for that situation. The problem I see - well, one of a number of problems - is the oversimplification of complex human interactions that are based on unexpressed signals. When you take good advice like the above, and reduce it to "never make a comment to someone you're sexually attracted to unless you'd also make it to someone you weren't sexually attracted to", not only is that unrealistic and facile, it's quintessentially repressive. It treats sexual attraction as some bugbear we should all be constantly on guard against. That in itself is something not to take lightly.

More important still, it's easier to demonize, broad-brush and scapegoat than it is to actually understand complex human behaviour. People are constantly looking for simple answers on moral issues - the mob gets carried away rather than reflecting on the various shades of gray (pun not intended) inherent in what we're discussing, which is probably the most agnoized-about subject in human history besides "why are we here".

But like I say, this whole discussion is so charged and moralistic, rather than actually participate fully in the various aspects that could found the basis of an interesting conversation, I think I'm just going to stick with the woods.

Not to mention, along with the inherent complexity of interaction among people is, at a bar, you generally have alcohol in copious quantities thrown in...which is totally known to really help folks make complex, nuanced decisions...

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Sure. This is a nuanced, common sense approach. In other words, this is good advice for that situation. The problem I see - well, one of a number of problems - is the oversimplification of complex human interactions that are based on unexpressed signals. When you take good advice like the above, and reduce it to "never make a comment to someone you're sexually attracted to unless you'd also make it to someone you weren't sexually attracted to", not only is that unrealistic and facile, it's quintessentially repressive. It treats sexual attraction as some bugbear we should all be constantly on guard against. That in itself is something not to take lightly.

It’s a basic rule that informs a better understanding of how to deal with people. If it’s not nuanced enough for you, then stop taking it so rigidly and understand the point that the rule is getting at. And please, understand what I actually said, because you’re making it a selfish thing about who YOU are sexually attracted to. The rule is essentially, do not make a sexual comment to someone you aren’t in a sexual relationship with. Relationship, in this sense, meaning a common understanding between two people of sexual potential. This eliminates strangers, family members, co-workers, etc.

If you think it’s unrealistic, facile, and repressive to reach a point where you at least believe the feeling of sexual potential is mutual before you make a sexual remark to someone, then I think you need to seriously re-analyse how you treat those you’re interested in, because it’s absolutely part of the message behind this movement.

Making sexual remarks to someone who is not interested in selfish gratification and, in some cases, straight up harassment. I don’t think you really need to sit here defending your right to not be so repressed that you can’t sexually harass women, do you? I think a level of repression that avoids that is actually just fine. Call me “unrealistic.”

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I went into it a bit in my post to Corsi, but it’s about contextualising what you’re saying to someone.

Complimenting someone because you find them attractive is, at it’s base, a selfish thing to do. It seems like you’re doing it for them, but all you’re doing is indicating your own attraction to them. That’s fine in a setting where that is important (dating, and the potential for) but totally unimportant in a professional setting or a setting between strangers. So, contextualise it. Are you just indicating your own attraction to the person? If so, why is that important?

That’s why I state the rule that it should be something you’re comfortable telling both someone you are and are not sexually attracted to. That’s an indicator that the compliment is truly about them, and not about you. It’s also in the way you put the compliment. If you tell someone they look beautiful, that’s an expression of attraction, if you say they look really put-together, that at least can be understood as an expression of appreciation. One is valuable and appropriate in a non-sexual relationship, one is not. Use the right one if you feel you absolutely must say something (but also ask yourself if you really need to say anything at all).

Good elaboration. That's what I was curious about since in a dating situation where there's potential for the relation to elevate sexually, but perhaps not there yet, I wouldn't figure physical compliments are off grounds since they are a part of the experience.

[OMG!WTF!]

Compliments/pick up lines just have to be the worst way to get a date anyway. It's always a sad "oh the humanity" moment when it happens right in front of your eyes.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I once had a conversation with a group of friends with a waitress at some bar somewhere on Kensington road. The comment was regarding an engagement ring the waitress was wearing. "It's fake" she said. "Probably $5 bucks at Ardene's, but it drastically reduces the amount of times people ask me out of dates."

I did this. I had less issues when I waited tables than when I was on a shift on the front desk at the motel that the restaurant was attached to, but it helped, to a degree when waiting tables. It was more effective when I was working nights on the front desk, and the bar would let out and the men too drunk to drive decided to take a room for the evening. The majority seemed to think I was a part of the price of the room. The fake wedding set was an easy and non-confrontational way to respond - I'd just hold up my hand and flash the rings and generally they backed off. Occasionally, I'd have to go get the bouncers or a manager to come deal with them. We had a set phrase to use to indicate we were having an issue, when calling them in for assistance, so that again, it wouldn't set the guy off in any way, so he'd have no idea they were on their way to deal with him until they showed up.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by driveway

What are YOU doing?

Nothing.

Which is pretty much the same as what a lot of the women who claimed to have been harassed and assaulted have apparently and effectively done over the years.

Which, in turn, has presumably allowed the (alleged) harassers and assaulters to continue harassing and assaulting.

So if those who have allegedly been harassed and assaulted haven't felt the need to speak up and do anything about it until now---when it is awfully convenient for them to jump on the bus and claim "me too" and let someone else take the lead---why should I?

Originally Posted by Peanut

Anyways I do agree that a power imbalance makes things much worse. But in a restaurant situation there still is a power imbalance. The "talent" is working for tips and put up with a LOT of lewd and crude comments, and I'm sure the occasional grab and grope, to earn their tips and keep customers happy. It's demoralizing. And harassment.

Generally speaking, no one is forced to work in any environment.

If a person---female or male---finds the workplace to be demoralizing, demeaning, harassing, or whatever, they can certainly leave and find employment elsewhere.

In facet perhaps it is only through such people saying "enough" and walking out of their jobs will the behavior of the patrons change (because, presumably, they want to be waited on by someone when they go out to eat) and the behavior of the bosses change (because, presumably, they don't want to be the ones doing the waiting on the patrons).

But everyone has a price, and for those who work in a restaurant for tips and who put up with such comments, well, clearly they find the pay to be worth it. And if they do, then who is really asking for a change to be made, and why are they asking for it?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Making sexual remarks to someone who is not interested in selfish gratification and, in some cases, straight up harassment. I don’t think you really need to sit here defending your right to not be so repressed that you can’t sexually harass women, do you? I think a level of repression that avoids that is actually just fine. Call me “unrealistic.”

Yeah, so you've just equivocated on the definition of sexual harassment. Again, I'm not going to get into it, there's really no point. I'll just say this and bow out of the thread.

First, it seems to me that all of this discussion doesn't need to involve strict rules regulating the interaction between the sexes, beyond "treat women like people".

Second, the concept of "people" includes their sexuality, which is not something to be feared. Presenting women's psyches as dependent upon their sexual inviolateness is not only non-representative of most women, but demeaning and regressive. It is an overture to purity culture.

With that, I leave you to it.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Nothing.

Which is pretty much the same as what a lot of the women who claimed to have been harassed and assaulted have apparently and effectively done over the years.

Which, in turn, has presumably allowed the (alleged) harassers and assaulters to continue harassing and assaulting.

So if those who have allegedly been harassed and assaulted haven't felt the need to speak up and do anything about it until now---when it is awfully convenient for them to jump on the bus and claim "me too" and let someone else take the lead---why should I?





Generally speaking, no one is forced to work in any environment.

If a person---female or male---finds the workplace to be demoralizing, demeaning, harassing, or whatever, they can certainly leave and find employment elsewhere.

In facet perhaps it is only through such people saying "enough" and walking out of their jobs will the behavior of the patrons change (because, presumably, they want to be waited on by someone when they go out to eat) and the behavior of the bosses change (because, presumably, they don't want to be the ones doing the waiting on the patrons).

But everyone has a price, and for those who work in a restaurant for tips and who put up with such comments, well, clearly they find the pay to be worth it. And if they do, then who is really asking for a change to be made, and why are they asking for it?

What a disaster. That is just so embarrassing.

[bigtmac19]

Why is "if you don't like it, leave" always a response to situations like this. If only life were that easy? What a moronic thing to say.

[habernac]

hockey isn't the only thing he's illiterate at

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Nothing.

Which is pretty much the same as what a lot of the women who claimed to have been harassed and assaulted have apparently and effectively done over the years.

Which, in turn, has presumably allowed the (alleged) harassers and assaulters to continue harassing and assaulting.

So if those who have allegedly been harassed and assaulted haven't felt the need to speak up and do anything about it until now---when it is awfully convenient for them to jump on the bus and claim "me too" and let someone else take the lead---why should I?





Generally speaking, no one is forced to work in any environment.

If a person---female or male---finds the workplace to be demoralizing, demeaning, harassing, or whatever, they can certainly leave and find employment elsewhere.

In facet perhaps it is only through such people saying "enough" and walking out of their jobs will the behavior of the patrons change (because, presumably, they want to be waited on by someone when they go out to eat) and the behavior of the bosses change (because, presumably, they don't want to be the ones doing the waiting on the patrons).

But everyone has a price, and for those who work in a restaurant for tips and who put up with such comments, well, clearly they find the pay to be worth it. And if they do, then who is really asking for a change to be made, and why are they asking for it?

Hockey isn't the only thing you're illiterate on, clearly.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, so you've just equivocated on the definition of sexual harassment. Again, I'm not going to get into it, there's really no point. I'll just say this and bow out of the thread.

First, it seems to me that all of this discussion doesn't need to involve strict rules regulating the interaction between the sexes, beyond "treat women like people".

Which is the point. Some men aren’t doing that. Some men don’t understand that they aren’t doing that. These rules are built along the lines of “how to treat women more like people, and less like objects for your own personal gratification.”

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Second, the concept of "people" includes their sexuality, which is not something to be feared. Presenting women's psyches as dependent upon their sexual inviolateness is not only non-representative of most women, but demeaning and regressive. It is an overture to purity culture.

With that, I leave you to it.

Thanks for arguing against something nobody is saying. If you truly believe that this is about fearing sexuality instead of engaging in sexuality when appropriate to do so, do the work. A movement suggesting that our own sexuality should be understood and engaged in when appropriate, not when a man feels the slightest urge, is far from a purity culture.

For someone who preaches nuance, I am surprised you don’t see the vast expanse of sexual expression between “I have to sexually harass this waitress so she knows I am sexually interested!” and “SOCIETY IS CHASTE.” Because it’s pretty vast, and in there, somewhere, is an area where people are somehow able to control their sexual urges to a point where they are channelling them to the appropriate relationships, and not complimenting their enployee’s beautiful face or making a sexual advance on the girl at the hotel desk.

Maybe listen to the women here, instead of making this into a selfish thing where you lament the fall of sexuality because someone says you shouldn’t perve on the waitress.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I seem to notice this becoming more and more prevalent as time goes on. I'm in my 30s, and I don't recall nearly so many distinctly gendered products for children back then. Yeah, boys had action figures and girls had dolls, but it felt like there was a wide array of gender-less entertainment available when I was younger. Now it feels like absolutely everything has to be either pink or blue. Like we're now hyper aware of gender norms. And not just for children's toys--like why are there specific pens that are marketed to women? We all have hands. They aren't different enough to warrant different pens.

I find the opposite. Toys and childrens' play were far more gendered when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s than it is today. Back then it was G.I. Joe, Tonka trucks, and Stars Wars figures for the boys, Barbie, pink strollers, and Easy Bake Ovens for the girls. Any cross-over was unthinkable - never once did a girl play Star Wars with us, and never once did I see a boy play with a Strawberry Shortcake.

In fact, we never played with the girls at all. Recess and after-school play was absolutely self-segregated by gender. As a boy, your friends were drawn from other boys in class. Girls were the same. No girls played soccer with us ever. You would occasionally see a boy among the girls who clustered around the teachers, but he was ruthlessly ridiculed for it.

It's completely different with my kids today. I have a boy and a girl, and they both have boy and girl friends. My daughter eats lunch and hangs out mostly with boys playing soccer and basketball. One of my son's best friend is a girl. Another of their friends is a boy who dyes his hair pink and wears a dress. Nobody cares.

I doubt there has been a generation of children in history that has grown up less encumbered by gender roles and expectations than children in Canada today.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Also, apparently, we'll start phasing out porn tout de suite and shaming people for masturbating. Seriously, when did the left become the Catholic Church?

It is curious how the unspoken assumption around the new morality is that it's only men who engage in sexual flirtation, or who have carnal and superficial appetites. A lot of people championing the neo-puritanism would feel right at home in a traditional, conservative society of 60 or 70 years ago, when women kept covered up, didn't drink in public, and there was a broad consensus in society that women needed to be protected from the beastly urges of men.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Nothing.

Which is pretty much the same as what a lot of the women who claimed to have been harassed and assaulted have apparently and effectively done over the years.

Which, in turn, has presumably allowed the (alleged) harassers and assaulters to continue harassing and assaulting.

So if those who have allegedly been harassed and assaulted haven't felt the need to speak up and do anything about it until now---when it is awfully convenient for them to jump on the bus and claim "me too" and let someone else take the lead---why should I?





Generally speaking, no one is forced to work in any environment.

If a person---female or male---finds the workplace to be demoralizing, demeaning, harassing, or whatever, they can certainly leave and find employment elsewhere.

In facet perhaps it is only through such people saying "enough" and walking out of their jobs will the behavior of the patrons change (because, presumably, they want to be waited on by someone when they go out to eat) and the behavior of the bosses change (because, presumably, they don't want to be the ones doing the waiting on the patrons).

But everyone has a price, and for those who work in a restaurant for tips and who put up with such comments, well, clearly they find the pay to be worth it. And if they do, then who is really asking for a change to be made, and why are they asking for it?

Talk about someone who just completely doesn't get it.