[Dr. Jezebel]

If anyone needs a recent example of misogyny in the church, look at the response by religious people to Ariana Grande being groped by a Bishop in the pulpit of the church during Aretha Franklin's funeral.

The majority of them are blaming his actions on her short dress. It's noteworthy that he didn't reach up her skirt to cop a feel; instead, he squeezed her fully covered breast.

Misogyny in church isn't just "women can't preach." It's also "If you don't follow our modesty rules, we'll do what we want with your body & then blame you."

[myotch]

I don’t know of anyone blaming the preacher man’s actions on Grande’s attire.

I don’t know what “religious people” is supposed to mean, but the major religions of the world teach self-restraint, not blame-gaming. It was the bishop who committed the sin, regardless of whether Grande sinned (and, this should be obvious, Grande’s attire was not sinful nor inviting of his behavior).

[Neigh I Say]

IMO, any religion that teaches that a woman’s body is inherently sexual in a way that a man’s isn’t—in practice rather than theory, as most anyone will at least give lip service to the idea that men should be held to the same standards, but most still treat girls differently—invites blame.

Even mainstream culture does this—breasts are seen as inherently sexual, even though they aren’t seen that way on a man, and women in the entertainment industry are constantly exploited for sex appeal. Girls are taught to sit with their legs closed, even if they’re wearing pants, or else they’ll look like a slut. Of course there is sexualization of men as well, but it’s not ingrained into the culture to the extent it is with women.

So regardless of how men are told to control themselves, women are taught that self-restraint on their part means don’t wear too little because you have a ~sensual~ body and so men will stare at you, catcall you, grope you, etc if you “draw too much attention to yourself.” There’s a fine line between teaching women to protect themselves and telling them that their body inherently invited it.

[myotch]

How much of the nature of the physical makeup of each sex is fetishized, made sexual? Breasts are secondary sex attributes for women, but as the late Robin Williams noted, nipples and genitals are wired together in fantastic ways for us all.

I’m also thinking of the commercial playing lately, the two old ladies knitting a loud, tacky sweater, only to see the sweater fitted tightly on the muscled pool guy. Aren’t the muscles on men somewhat indicative of preferred characteristics of a sexual partner, a mate?

Evolutionarily speaking, our tastes have evolved. Breasts and hips/buttocks are noticeable features, desirous not for sex itself, but breeding. Muscles, for ability to produce and protect. Compared to now, the Venus that Botticelli envisioned is a tad on the thick side, Michelangelo’s David’s model would probably lose to another hunky beast.

We can see quite a change throughout the evolution of what we find desirous. Obesity, overweight in women used to be prized (and wide child-bearing hips), now we regard healthy as lower fat. In the seventies, tan was in, but the trend in the last few years has been more pale, across the board, all races, both sexes. Geeks are the new super-providers.

(Side path on non-sex preferred characteristic for attraction.)

[James33]

(09-03-2018, 08:15 AM)Dr. Jezebel Wrote: If anyone needs a recent example of misogyny in the church, look at the response by religious people to Ariana Grande being groped by a Bishop in the pulpit of the church during Aretha Franklin's funeral.

The majority of them are blaming his actions on her short dress. It's noteworthy that he didn't reach up her skirt to cop a feel; instead, he squeezed her fully covered breast.

Misogyny in church isn't just "women can't preach." It's also "If you don't follow our modesty rules, we'll do what we want with your body & then blame you."

lol the majority of response I saw was that people were saying it was probably an accident. Grande herself said it was probably an accident.

[EnlightenedMK]

(09-17-2018, 06:14 PM)James33 Wrote:

(09-03-2018, 08:15 AM)Dr. Jezebel Wrote: If anyone needs a recent example of misogyny in the church, look at the response by religious people to Ariana Grande being groped by a Bishop in the pulpit of the church during Aretha Franklin's funeral.

The majority of them are blaming his actions on her short dress. It's noteworthy that he didn't reach up her skirt to cop a feel; instead, he squeezed her fully covered breast.

Misogyny in church isn't just "women can't preach." It's also "If you don't follow our modesty rules, we'll do what we want with your body & then blame you."

lol the majority of response I saw was that people were saying it was probably an accident. Grande herself said it was probably an accident.

I can not roll my eyes hard enough at this comment, anyone who has seen the video can tell that it is obvious intentional groping.

And her saying it’s probably an accident is just another example of how women try to downplay and minimize a man’s assault on their body... because some how in spite of all the evidence to the contrary we can’t fathom that a man would intentionally breach our boundaries like that (and we are taught to give men the benefit of the doubt)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dr. Jezebel]

Yeah, the good Bishop gave Ariana a breast exam by accident.

And think about the ramifications for Ariana if she didn't downplay the assault. She's a high profile person. Every action is already dissected and criticized. She might have decided to publicly downplay the incident because she doesn't have the emotional energy to handle the backlash. She's currently being slammed & blamed for the overdose death of her ex-boyfriend. She's within her rights to decide to downplay this other incident while she deals with everything surrounding her ex-boyfriend's tragic death.

[Neigh I Say]

(09-13-2018, 11:52 AM)myotch Wrote: How much of the nature of the physical makeup of each sex is fetishized, made sexual?  Breasts are secondary sex attributes for women, but as the late Robin Williams noted, nipples and genitals are wired together in fantastic ways for us all.

I’m also thinking of the commercial playing lately, the two old ladies knitting a loud, tacky sweater, only to see the sweater fitted tightly on the muscled pool guy.  Aren’t the muscles on men somewhat indicative of preferred characteristics of a sexual partner, a mate?

Evolutionarily speaking, our tastes have evolved.  Breasts and hips/buttocks  are noticeable features, desirous not for sex itself, but breeding.  Muscles, for ability to produce and protect.   Compared to now, the Venus that Botticelli envisioned is a tad on the  thick side, Michelangelo’s David’s model would probably lose to another hunky beast.

I’m not sure how much this was intended to be a ramble versus a response, but I’ll say that there’s a line between something being seen as attractive and something being treated as inherently inviting attention no matter what the context—and this negative attention generally does fall on women, no matter what kind of woman is currently considered sexy. We don’t insist that muscles on a man be censored, but in the classroom girls can’t show their shoulders or collarbones. A man on the street wearing a muscle shirt and shorts would garner some glances, but wouldn’t get groped or harrassed, because we generally have a concept of respecting men who are just going about their daily business and not actually in a sexual situation.

Basically, my point is that while Christianity may tell men to control themselves, it undermines its own teachings by focusing women’s lessons on what to wear, how to sit, etc.  Everything in the end talks about how sexy female bodies are. If they’re going to treat people equally, there’s no need to separate lessons by gender—they can just teach generally on politeness and asking for consent. No clothing policing needed.

[myotch]

It was neither a ramble or a response, per se. i thought you brought up an interesting side topic, and I explored it more. Think of this more as cooperation than conflict.

In a classroom, guys typically don’t show bare shoulders, collarbones. And men’s fashion, to my knowledge, doesn’t bare the midriff, as is the popular style for females.

Now, i’m no expert in how often women get catcalled or groped. But I have seen it in person fewer times than I’ve seen depictions on TV and in movies. MaybeI live in a plain decent part of the universe, or maybe the pervs wait until a woman is alone and vulnerable.

I don’t think teachings on modesty for anyone is undermined when we Christians still hold the individual accountable to their own sins, including(and especially) men with their libido turned up to 11. But again, it certainly matters what form the Christianity takes. Fundamentalism does seem to foster the environment for blaming victims. There are much different and higher forms of Christianity that don’t do this.

And the problem is not strictly Christian, or even religious. Islam has managed to fetishize cranial hair and bare ankles. Godless states encouraged women to dress down to utilitarian clothing and eschew fashion as an interest of the bourgeois.

[Neigh I Say]

Well, that’s what I meant by ramble. And I’m on meds, so forgive me if I’m a bit slow.

My point is that if they did show shoulders and collarbones, it wouldn’t be as big of a deal on a guy as it is on a girl, because that’s just how we view their bodies. A man breaking dress rules is more of a cultural taboo, which he might very well be reprimanded for, but a woman doing it makes her some variety of seductress. And to be honest, I don’t have a thorough knowledge of any branch of Christianity left of Southern Baptists, and I’m not sure where you fall, but my impression is that the bulk of Christianity has some form of inequal modesty standard, even if it’s mainly in the minds of the followers (as in not explicitly taught anymore, but everyone still learns it from each other; or it is explicitly taught but in a low-key way because they don’t actually expect anyone to follow tradition), rather than being totally committed to being truly counter culture and advocating for never policing a woman’s dress.

It’s really easy to think that something like harrassment doesn’t happen often when you haven’t seen it, but when you’re not the target, it’s not always obvious what’s happening. Women don’t always make a scene when they’re groped. Harassment can be whispered, or over texting, or by a boss. Every single time I was harassed in public school and youth group, there were other people around, but either no one happened to notice, no one thought it was bad enough to say anything, or people were too intimidated to step up.

Certainly it’s not just Christianity causing the problem, but you’d said Christianity teaches self-restraint and not victim-blaming, which is what I was responding to.