Patrick Brown makes a very good point in this thread about women imposing their own standards of decency and speech on men in the workplace, or elsewhere for that matter:
Patrick Brown on 2013-03-26 at 9:51 am said:
Thing is though – as you point out with your link – it’s not actually a female norm. Listen in to a conversation between women and it’ll be every bit as filthy as a conversation between men. The books and magazines women read are as full of sexual references as anything men consume. It is not a female norm to recoil from mild sexual innuendo. This isn’t a norm of behaviour that’s assumed to apply when it doesn’t – nothing that innocent. It’s power. Richards will make dick jokes with guys she knows and likes, because fundamentally, she doesn’t actually object to dick jokes. But she reserves the right to make men she doesn’t know or like suffer for innocuous innuendo, because she can.
In this type of sexual entitlement a woman is entitled to use sexuality as a weapon against men. She can weaponize their comments against them simply by complaining to some authority, some Daddy figure, some patriarchal power elite. It’s very Victorian. In fact it really is Victorian.
dungone on 2013-03-26 at 10:38 am said:
@Patrick, yeah I agree with you. The goal seems to be to make men as uncomfortable as possible while allowing women to express their own sexuality to their hearts’ content. It’s definitely all about power and it is reflected by the lopsided costs of sexual access in our culture.
Donglegate, the way I see it, is really no different from Elevatorgate and both are no different than this: http://now.msn.com/heather-hayes-arrested-for-attacking-boyfriend-eric-zuber-because-he-would-not-have-sex-with-her At the end of the day, each one involves an attention-starved woman who lashed out because she was not satisfied with the exact nature of the sexual dynamic between herself and a male, even though none of the men had done a single thing wrong.
Schala went on to expand the discussion by connecting it to the classing of gender. She points out that female status entitles a person to take offense at things the lower orders may not, and also to have that sense of offense taken seriously and be acted upon.
Schala on 2013-03-26 at 10:00 am said:
This is a “female gender role is aristocracy” remnant from conservative Victorian-era roles.
The slaves, the working-class people and even the middle-class people cannot complain much about what is asked of them. They do it or they get sacked, out of work, starving, no insurance, and they die. Even truly hostile environment.
But the aristocrat? Their livelihood is usually nothing that they ‘do’, unless they’re the public face of a super rich company. Regardless, they can refuse, impose their standards, and “pay someone to do it” when they don’t like the work.
This Richards Affair is ripping a lot of scabs and septic bandages off.