Sexual Harassment Begins w/ Objectifying Women
Today, I followed the heated discussion on Army Wife 101′s facebook page about the page “Knockers for the Troops.” This page purports to support “the troops” by posting images of women’s breasts (mostly covered, depending on the image) for “the troops” enjoyment. Army Wife 101 and others suggested that this is totally fine because “the troops” aren’t “getting any” on deployment. The commentors on the discussion accused women who felt this page was inappropriate must be “insecure” in their marriage and that “it’s just their [men] nature to look.” (i.e. “boys will be boys”)
Army Wife 101 posed the question: “How does this affect anyone?”
Let me answer.
Many of my female friends are in the military. They are “troops” too. I fail to see how “Knockers for the troops” supports their interests and I would argue that it undermines women in the military by reinforcing the idea that women are sexual objects to be objectified by men.
I, like these female troops I know, work in a male dominated workplace. When I was recently hired to my new job, someone actually said to my boss, in front of me, “She’s a girl” in a shocked tone of voice. Beyond the PhD level women are a rarity in academia, especially in the physical sciences (except biology). And I have experienced more than my fair share of sexism, as have my female colleagues.
One of the things that contributes to sexism and sexual harassment is the view of women in general. In workplaces where porn, sexual pictures (not necessarily porn), sexual jokes and language, etc is tolerated, women are much more likely to be abused by their male counterparts, under the guise of “boys will be boys” (aka the Captain Honors scandal). This type of behavior leads to a culture of permissiveness toward mistreating women. In the case of my sisters in arms, sexual harassment and abuse leads to high rates of PTSD, which is an absolute travesty. I don’t want my sister’s downrange having to experience that type of behavior.
The likelihood is that they will. Many female servicemembers experience sexual harassment. Many are sexually assaulted in the workplace. These behaviors stem from a workplace that condones treating women as sex objects. And put quite simply, the objectification of women begins with simple things, like sexualized images of women being accessible in the workplace, and make no mistake about it, Afghanistan is a workplace, as are Navy vessels. If a man or woman chooses to engage in viewing such material, it must be confined to personal quarters (i.e his/her rack) and not public forums, including social networking sites.
The solution to sexual harassment begins not with the top brass issuing an edict (which they’ve done, only to not really have it change things), but at home. Military spouses need to value themselves enough to not condone the sexualization of women’s bodies. They need to do this for “the troops” they support, including the 15% of female troops who are negatively impacted by military culture that objectifies women. Military spouses also need to do this for themselves. Domestic violence also stems from the same source, objectification of women. Therefore, preventing sexual and domestic violence in military families begins by working to change the way men and women view women’s roles.
Let me be clear, I support free speech and I believe that there should be little constrain on the exercise of it (with clear exceptions); however, I also believe that military spouses supporting a culture of objectification of women’s bodies is wholly and entirely inappropriate. Arguing it helps our deployed servicemembers is faulty logic that devalues the very fundamental and important role female servicemembers and spouses play in the military and generates a culturally permissive attitude toward sexual harassment and sexual assault. When we see COs and whole commands basically fired for sexual harassment, civilians ask what is wrong with our military and why these things aren’t corrected long before they get out of control. The answer is that they could be, if we all stood up and said that we would not tolerate objectifying behaviors, if we stated that “boys will be boys” is not an acceptable argument for abuse, and most importantly if we truly stood shoulder to shoulder with our sisters in arms and valued their sacrifices as highly as any man’s.
With Respect,
Ophiolite
Yes. THIS. Thank you so much.
bravo!!!!!!
you wont please everyone all the time. your opinion counts, but giving the thumbs up in other countries is a really bad idea but in america its fine. should we stop doing it in america because it offends some one else? there is no nudity, its not against the law, its in no way sponsored by the military, its completely done off line from “the office” so for you to say it shouldn’t be done would suggest that u have control over someones life 100 percent of the time.
If you had read what I said, you would see that I said that what one does in one’s private quarters is one’s private business. However, when it is addressed in public, commented on in public, etc; I do believe it becomes a problem. When someone in the military commits a crime, it is always touted in the media not as X individual committed said crime but as Sgt. X of the US Army committed a crime. Why? Because once inappropriate behavior crosses into the public sphere, it becomes a reflection on the whole. Like it or not, when you join the military, you give up a certain amount of your right to claim privacy. You are governed by a different set of laws (UCMJ) and are held to a different standard. The lines between public and private are drawn much differently and some of the comments on that site, made by “the troops” are could be observed by the public and further characterize the military as a mysognist organization., ’cause you know it is a public page, not to mention be perceived as an inappropriate statement by a self-identified servicemember. If the government can regulate what a servicemember says in uniform, I would argue that they can every bit as much regulate what once says when they have a uniform picture up on their profile, self-identify themselves as being currently deployed, and then make inappropriate comments about women’s bodies on a public page that anyone (including our enemies) can see. And yes, there were some commentors who did just that.
But, anymore now, companies are firing average non-serving Americans for what they do in the public sphere. Teachers are fired for pictures on their profile of things they have done in their off time (like drinking with friends). Companies search people’s profile when deciding whether to hire a candidate. What all people do in the public sphere is monitored 100% of the time and while not “controlled” directly, it can affect one’s future indirectly and therefore, professionalism in the public sphere is worthy of address.
sooo what about the “Hot Bods for Military Broads”? You are honestly making a huge deal out of nothing. Honestly, if you don’t like it then don’t look
Actually I am opposed to either gender participating in behavior that could constitute sexual harassment in the workplace. Sexual harassment goes both ways. This is about professionalism; it’s about who servicemembers represent themselves as to their colleagues and to the outside world.
As I previously stated, what someone does in their private quarters is their business. When it enters the public sphere, it’s fair game for comment. Maybe I look at porn in my private quarters (I don’t, but I could). That’s one thing. If I put it out on facebook, it’s fair game for my employers and for the rest of the world to evaluate. If I share it with another female at work in the presence of a male colleague and he takes offense, that’s sexual harassment. And sexual harassment is wrong, regardless of who is doing it.
Moreover, women are not immune from the other behaviors that stem from objectification. There are certainly cases of male spouses being assaulted by their female partners. I am not in favor of that behavior either.
they also have a site that caters to female serivce members and does, more or less, the exact same thing. males posting pictures of themselves. if “knockers for the troops” didnt exist would you still have been as upset with that webpage? probably not right? so either you haven’t researched enough to have an opinion or its completely biased.
I am starting to feel like I am repeating myself. Yes, objectification of men is every bit as wrong as the objectification of women. It causes similar problems under similar circumstances.
On a base level, we are talking about professionalism in the workplace and in the public sphere. FB is not part of the private sphere. The second you share this with a buddy and there is someone of the opposite gender present who feels objectified by it and wonders if you view them as a professional and not as a sex object, you’ve already crossed a line.
You can read my other more detailed responses to the other comments for further information. Suffice it to say, feminists are every bit as worried about the broad negative impacts associated with the objectification of men as they are by the objectification of women.
Your assumption that I, as a feminist and a human being, am concerned by how men are treated in the workplace clearly shows that perhaps it is not me that is ill informed or biased in my opinions.
There was also a site created for women as well. Just Sayin! O and by the way, what is the difference between the pics posted here and live view at the beach or a mall for that matter?
Brian:
I suggest you take a look at my responses to the other comments. Let me summarize.
1) Professionalism in the workplace applies to both genders.
2) What one does in private is a separate issue and one I don’t particularly care about….falls under the category of not my business. FB is the public sphere. Commenting on something like this site w. a uniformed profile pic = crossing the professionalism line. Sharing it with male colleagues at work, crosses the line. This type of thing would not be condoned in other workplaces. And if a woman were present when this was being shared among the guys, it could be viewed as sexual harassment.
3) The beach, while public, is a place one interacts in their private time. This is different than bringing images to work. See #2 above.
4) Feminists are opposed to the objectification of men as well and yes, men can be subject to sexual harassment in the workplace. This is clearly enough of a social issue now to be addressed in the mainstream media now. Men and women have the right to go to work and be treated as professionals, to be recognized for their contribution to the team and not for their sexual organs.
Thank you for your question.
Hw bt y mnd yr wn bsnss r g thrgh bsc nd gt dplyd, mltpl tms. fck ff
[AS PER THE LEFT FACE COMMENT POLICY, THIS FUCKTARD HAS BEEN DISEMVOWELED. YOU'RE WELCOME. -SNARKY NAVY WIFE]
1) I really do not appreciate swearing on a public site. This goes to that whole professionalism thing I was talking about.
2) What makes you assume that I have not gone through basic or a deployment? What, because I am currently a spouse? I could be a veteran.
3) Even if I am “just a spouse” in your eyes, that does not invalidate my opinion.
4)Thank you for proving my point about the “good ole’ boys” network and how it leads to inappropriate behavior toward women.
5) Thank you for your service and for protecting my right to engage in debate with you.
~With all due respect, Ophiolite
Mn SHT TH FCK P WTH THT BLLSHT! N n crs wht y thnk. Nt n f ths yng lds r bng frc t pst pcs. Smpl sltn…y dnt lke i, dnt lk. Snds prtt s t m. Hll ts jst ttts. f y’r vr 13 nd hvnt sn tt yt thn ‘ll sy smll pryr fr y. Hll trps r th rsn y hv th rght t vc yr bllsht pnn n ths blg. Dnt gv m tht l sm bllsht rgmnt bt wmn bng bjcts. f th wmn flt lk bjcts thy wldnt pst. ts mrl bstr f nythng. N n sys sht whn fmal clbs prfrm fr trps n flttrig tfts. Lv th wmn nd mn f r rmd frcs ln.
[AS PER THE LEFT FACE COMMENT POLICY, THIS FUCKTARD HAS BEEN DISEMVOWELED. YOU'RE WELCOME. NOTE: THE NUMEROUS GRAMMATICAL ERRORS HAVE NOT BEEN CORRECTED IN ORDER TO REMIND THE READER THAT THIS COMMENTER HAS NO GRASP OF THE BASICS OF SECOND GRADE ENGLISH. ALSO, THE IRONY OF SPELLING MORALE WITHOUT THE E IS HIGH-FUCKING-LARIOUS AND DESERVES A STANDING OVATION RIGHT THERE. -SNARKY NAVY WIFE]
Actually, if you had followed the links on the site, you would see that I posted a response by a male servicemember about how he feels that USO morale boosters, which feature hooters girls, etc do objectify women and are inappropriate….in his opinion. I would suggest researching before speaking. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Beyond that, I believe you have thoroughly missed the point of what I said. I am sorry for that. I said that consumption of this and other sexualized images of women can lead to objectification of women you serve with and thus lead to sexual harassment and abuse.
I can’t help but wonder if you would want men you work with staring at pictures of your “over 13″ yr old daughter’s breasts. Or is that different?
BTW, you never addressed: How exactly is this a morale booster for female servicemembers?
I find it incredibly entertaining that you just repeated yourself four times, in addition to what you wrote. Actually, no, I don’t find that entertaining. I think it’s sad.
At any rate, I agree with you. If other professionals can get disbarred/fired/banned for doing much less and in an area where the public/private spheres collide, then it makes sense.
Besides, there are lots better soft core porn sites. And to be completely honest, I think it’s even more interesting that they assume every single soldier (male AND female) seems to run entirely on sexual urges. That’s a low and depressing stereotype, if I’ve ever heard one.
Thank you.
This was one of the many things I wanted to address, but couldn’t think of how to work in. Yes, it is sad that some people assume our troops are driven solely by sex. In a way, that assumption devalues both men and women as well. And it plays into this early 1900s “Cult of True Women” image where women are by their nature pure, chaste, benevolent, etc, but men as basically lascivious. This was used as justification of why women must remain in the private sphere. I addressed this topic on another blog years ago, but it perhaps I will resurrect it for discussion of how these ideas play out between military spouses and servicemembers again. I think the additional complexity of how some people ignore male spouses’ contributions because they do not fit these roles would provoke interesting discussion.
I very much agree with everything you’ve said. And I am a young man.
Our society DOES objectify women to the point where we no longer WANT to respect them. They ONLY wish to see them as sex objects. How are so many people commenting not getting that?
Then again they probably are the types that dont mind calling a women a bitch or a slut if she voices are educated opinion on anything. Pardon the language. Just saying. I dont understand why so many people seem confused or offended that YOU are offended at how women allow themselves to be treated….. smh… we are a failing generation…
To those who are screaming that we are being mean to men and women in uniform – we have spouses and children that ARE the men and women in uniform. If you wish to look at soft core porn and pay for it, go right ahead and waste your money. If you want to look at it, on a computer that is in a general area where it may embarrass someone else – that’s NOT ok. If you only see a woman as a “set of tits” I feel very sorry for you, and the female family members of your family. But that’s different, right? That’s YOUR sister, YOUR wife, YOUR mom… That’s different. You’d be incredibly angry if YOUR fellow soldiers said something crude and inappropriate about YOUR sister’s “tits”… but that’s different…. NO, dammit, it’s NOT
If a woman chooses to display herself, that’s her decision. But to be used to further objectify a woman in uniform as “just a set of tits” – that’s NOT OK! As the spouse of a currently deployed soldier who had to protect his fellow soldiers who were women due to a senior NCO who was later thrown out of the military due sexual abuse, I doubt he’d be in favour of this either. When he gets done with his actual work downrange, I’ll ask. As the mother in law of a female soldier who had to put up with the sexist demeaning remarks of her fellow soldiers , it’s NOT OK.
LAW
I think the men who are looking have their share of the blame but what about the women who are actually posting? Are these the same who will turn around and claim they don’t get any respect? Probably. So my message is to all the women and girls who think this is harmless: Show some respect for YOURSELF. No one else is going to do it for you. Many have already decided that ‘boys will be boys’ but, girls, you’re just giving it away. Yes, much blame needs to be put on guys who look at this trash, but if the girls who choose to objectify themselves aren’t willing to stop, then there isn’t much we can do. None of these girls were being coerced into snapping a picture. It just shows a complete lack of self worth to do this though. To know that they are responsible for the perpetuation of women as nothing more than sex objects. That’s a heavy load and sadly they all seem a bit too oblivious to care.
So “boys will be boys” – whatever. But Girls…don’t do this to yourselves, don’t do this to us.
You know what’s really interesting? The website originally had pictures of mothers nursing, but then they were taken down. Tits are tits…. but you’d think people would remember their main purpose, instead of just ogling them.
Exactly, Michelle. Exactly!
I agree. I think that women who feel the only contribution they can make is to post their breasts on FB clearly have problems. Our culture is saturated with images that objectify women and many people seem to grow up feeling that this behavior is wholly appropriate and normal as a result.
While I believe that women should have the right to choose to wear what they want, without it being an invitation for more, I do believe that women need to show some grace and dignity and put themselves in the public sphere in a way that uplifts and edifies the people around them.
and I mean, there is zero redeeming value to any of those images and the women posting them cannot possibly think there is no harm doing so or that they’re not being viewed as simply a body part when that’s ALL that is showing. A body part. NO full picture. No quick bio staying the tatas belong to a PHD from Harvard. Just tits. And a few random skank face shots.
What kills me are the ones posted by service women and by women wearing their husband’s uniform.
To be honest I dont even know how anyone came to the conclusion that posting their breast on facebook would support ANYONE except online stalkers and potential rapist….
That is like me saying I am going to start posting pictures of my penis on facebook to help breast cancer…..
How does the two even link?
I believe it was a bunch of insecure ladies who were desperately crying out for attention and decided to do this. And no one would question it because they are concealing their narcissism under Patriotism so people will say “Yeah troops! I love tits!”….(shaking my head)
Lol, it helps the moral of women just as it does the men. As far as the sexual harassment issue you are correct if you were to show a colleague in another’s presence and the other got offended it would be sexual harassment. But you are not forced to see what is going on at all. It is a social network where you choose yourself what you see and what you don’t see. If you are offended do not look. Those who are not offended will indulge. This whole post is honestly a mute point. It isn’t harassment because you are CHOOSING to look at it. It isn’t objectifying anyone, it is acknowledging a beautiful part of the human body. As a male yes I do enjoy seeing a nice pair of breasts. Do I see that as the only thing a woman has to offer no, and to make such an assumption about all of the men liking the page is sexual stereotyping which I most definitely do not appreciate.
Ya know, if I had countless hours to sit and think about this and troll the internet waiting for replies, I would make a blog about how disrespectful it is for you to improperly assume that all men are thoughtless animals using women for nothing but sexual object.
Honestly, gtfo your high horse and come back down here with the common folk. The days of extreme sexual bias and objectification is really only perpetuated by feminazies and ignorant people unwilling to accept equality..
Ok I am done before i start getting angry. Have a good day and I just pray one day you and the rest of the world let this crap go and move the f*ck on
Where did I say “All Men” do anything? Just out of curiosity. I am pretty sure I never did.
I was responding, in part, to the arguments made on Army Wife’s 101 about sharing the images. Perhaps you missed the part that this was my response to that discussion. I am pretty sure I made that clear.
You clearly missed the comments about the public sphere and private sphere that have been discussed prior to your comment. I would suggest you refer to them for an informed discussion on my viewpoint.
Suggesting that you have more important work than me by suggesting I have nothing but “countless hours to sit and think about this and troll the internet waiting for replies” clearly points out how you feel about some military spouses. For your information, I am a working professional in a male dominated profession…i.e. science. Perhaps you missed that in my post as well. It’s easy to do when you don’t read thoughtfully and carefully.
The idea that sexual bias is perpetuated only by “feminazis” betrays both your bias and ignorance. If this were true, women would not face the pay gaps, underemployment, and lewd behavior in the workplace that is still reported by mainstream media. Nor would there be a report every year about sexual harassment and abuse of females in the military. I suggest you google sexual harassment and military and then come talk to me.
BTW, I really don’t appreciate it that you feel it is appropriate to swear on a public page. I guess that’s because I find swearing common and vulgar. Please use appropriate language when addressing me. I *KNOW* I have earned it sir. I have done nothing to disrespect you and thus, you have no right to disrespect me. To debate is one thing. To resort to vulgarity is another.
Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.
But instead of *mute point, I think you meant *moot point.
And I think you’re using incredibly circular logic in insisting that we’re making “such an assumption about all of the men liking the page is sexual stereotyping,” or “how disrespectful it is for you to improperly assume that all men are thoughtless animals using women for nothing but sexual object,” because we’ve noted that *several* times.
In fact, I’ll copy and paste them. With numbers.
1. “You can read my other more detailed responses to the other comments for further information. Suffice it to say, feminists are every bit as worried about the broad negative impacts associated with the objectification of men as they are by the objectification of women.” @6:26 am
2. “Feminists are opposed to the objectification of men as well and yes, men can be subject to sexual harassment in the workplace. This is clearly enough of a social issue now to be addressed in the mainstream media now. Men and women have the right to go to work and be treated as professionals, to be recognized for their contribution to the team and not for their sexual organs.” @6:35 am
3. “To be completely honest, I think it’s even more interesting that they assume every single soldier (male AND female) seems to run entirely on sexual urges. That’s a low and depressing stereotype, if I’ve ever heard one.” @7:12 am
4. “You would see that I posted a response by a male servicemember about how he feels that USO morale boosters, which feature hooters girls, etc do objectify women and are inappropriate.” @7:34 am
And you’re right. It’s not harassment if you choose to look at it. But if you choose to look at it in the workplace, then it is. More importantly, the respective theaters have created a blend of private/professional that can’t really be fixed, simply by the nature of work done.
And like it or not, gender inequality is STILL a huge deal in America. You can live in your world where 100% of rapes, sexual harassment, and sexual assault (in and out of marriage) are documented, tried, and convicted and where women are paid equally for every job they do, but for those of us who have to deal with the victims and the remarkably unequal legal system regarding those victims (both MALE AND FEMALE), I’m afraid we (men and women) will just continue to be called feminazis and ignorant.
This comment is a veritable amusement park of opportunity. I could play here for HOURS, picking apart what you’ve said and reveling in the awesome level of fail.
I nearly disemvoweled this entire comment, too, because of your encouragement to Ophiolite to fuck off. However, I’m leaving one paragraph alone so that I can make fun of you for a second.
“The days of extreme sexual bias and objectification is really only perpetuated by feminazies [sic] and ignorant people unwilling to accept equality..[sic]”
Hahahahaaa! You so funneh.
First, you imply that there is still sexual bias happening, but we should gtfo it because it’s not extreme. Second, you imply that the only people harping about bigotry are feminazis (of which I am one, and I guarantee I harp as much about the oppression of men, too) and those who don’t actually want equality. Which…huh? How does that make sense? Someone doesn’t really *want* to be equal, so they’ll bitch about unfair treatment and make it sound worse than it is? How the hairyballs does that work, exactly? Third, you’re basically saying that we should be glad that we don’t have it worse where objectification and prejudice are concerned, so we should just shut up, go back to our kitchens, and make you a sammich. Right? Because that’s the gist of your whole comment, exemplified with that one poorly constructed, grammatically juvenile sentence.
How about you go take some classes to improve your reading comprehension. You clearly did not understand anything Ophiolite said. If you had, you’d have been able to bring a much more succinct, respectful, and pointed rebuttal. If you had, we’d be having a fascinating debate rather than wiping up your Neanderthalic drool.
oh but he likes seeing a nice pair of breasts. He actually LIKES women. (as long as they have a nice set)…
@ophiolite, my comment on 8:08 was not directed to you! Sorry if there was a mix-up, I think we were both posting at the same time.
You speak of respecting women and in your words “supports their interests and I would argue that it undermines women”. You should take a step back an notice that the person who made the site KFTT (Knockers for the Troops), also made a page for all the women in the world also objectifying the male body of a Soldier “Hot Bods for Military Broads”. I totally understand and agree women should be treated with respect……. Got it…. But if your going cry foul TRY and make sure you cover all base of the argument…
I suggest you *TRY* and read the comments section before you *assume* you know my feelings about the debasement of men. This was a blog post, not a dissertation on the subject. I am opposed to the objectification of men as well. Check my comments for more detailed information.
Read the comments left by Camron Frazier, Jeez, and Brian.
(Stay strong ophiolite. I know you’re frustrated.)
If you don’t like it, don’t look at it. If someone wants To post that kind of stuff it is their right.
I don’t know why I’m posting, because I know you don’t really care about any other opinion and won’t change your own, but after reading many of the comments here and seeing your responses, somehow I still feel compelled.
If you are truly connected to the military in some way or served yourself than you already know that service members are not permitted to view materials inappropriate to the workplace in the workplace. As to whether or not you or I find them or deem them inappropriate is a seperate debate. I can tell you that the men in the office sitting around looking at this kind of web content is not only very unlikely, but likely impossible. Im unaware of any web filter (at least at my duty station) that allows you to surf facebook and casually look at “knockers”.
Are women objectified? Yes. So are men. This is called human nature. I’m certain the only way to prevent this is by eradicating the cause (kill all humans??). Should an employer condone the objectification? I don’t think it would be accurate to say that the US Military in any of the branches allows, supports, or even enables the objectification of any of its service members. Perhaps if you (or anyone else does), you should take a closer look. I have served alongside men and women during my service and this has not been an issue. There are always thos that cause problems, and they are from both genders involved, and these issues are handled rapidly by the chain of command and with dignity.
Stop giving lip service to a problem that you would like to see continue so that you have something to talk about to feed your own ego. Blogging by it’s very nature is almost always just a form of narcissism. Would you like a compliment? You have an excellent vocabulary, and I’m certain that you’ve read many books and are an enlightened human being. Your education was no doubt very expensive so you or maybe someone close to you is proud. Job well done.
“Knockers for the Troops” is a silly website put up so that women who appreciate men in uniform who defend our freedoms can share some sunshine on to what can tend to be a very stormy day for most of us that serve. It wasn’t women being objectified until people like you attached that stigma to it. The brass isn’t sitting around promoting it or endorsing it, they have bigger fish to fry with oh I don’t know, THE WAR.
Lighten up. Life is more enjoyable when you do,
One poster here even told the women posting their “knockers” they were to blame? They don’t have self respect? How is it exactly that you can make this judgement? Do you not respect yourself so you believe that a woman posting a picture of her cleavage must not be respecting herself either. Again, not going to change any opinions here obviously. (One woman proudly claims to be a “feminazi” which is an admission of subscribing to an extreme form of femininsm.) TRY to consider this. Some women actually like and even love their bodies enough to post them for others to see. Just a thought.
No self respecting woman would put a picture of her breasts online for a stranger to look at. Period. If they like their bodies, that’s all well and good – I happen to like mine too, but that’s not what this is. Needing (because that’s what this is) needing to exhibit your body to the world are vastly different. Needing to display yourself in this way is the very opposite of self respect.
self-re·spect [self-ri-spekt, self-]
noun
proper esteem or regard for the dignity of one’s character
Dignity of one’s character. Simple isn’t it? Self Respect is an internal thing. It doesn’t require the approval of some random stranger. Displaying your breasts in public is done to elicit that approval. It’s an external thing.
The opinions that need to be changed are not ours. The opinions that need to be changed are of people who believe that this is harmless. Certainly, don’t look if it bothers you. But my feeling is that somewhere, some little girl is getting the message from her father, her brother, the media that this is ok and that she needs this sort of approval. And at the same time, some little boy is getting the impression that it’s respectful to look. It’s not.
The use of the term “feminazi” is actually reclamation, not an admission to an extreme form of feminism. Really, is there a sliding scale where equality is concerned? By definition, equality means equal. The end. So… whatever.
Feminazi was first used, methinks, by the amazingly bigoted Rush Limbaugh. I know for certain he used the term consistently on his TV show in the early 90s as a blanket term for all feminists. So by using the term, we feminists remove the insult’s teeth.
Just a clarification. And no, you’re not changing any minds here, especially when it’s clear your arguments are based on a foundationally different perspective than the one we have. Just as we won’t change your mind.
I have another question – and since no one answered the question about their moms, sisters, wife… what do you all think of a 13 year old boy being able to access these pictures. They are on FACEBOOK, that means if you have a FB account, or as I read earlier, access to an older person’s account, you can hop over and have a gander. anyone ok with that?
HW – if one more person asks if we are truly connected to the military, I’m not going to be as polite as I am right now. let’s see, we have a couple of Army wives, a couple of Navy Wives, an Army Mom, an AirForce wife or two amongst our family. One of them just found out that her EOD husband lost both legs. Put that in your condescending pipe and place, firmly, in the nearest 4th POC.
LAW
Let’s not forget that I’m sure some of us have served.
Word.
Heres a concept: Let’s call a spade a spade here. This is simply voyeurism at it’s simplest, safest, and (pay special attention here)… most socially acceptable.
What’s the difference between chicks who go on their own facebook page and post pictures of their own tits for everyone they know to see and girls who go and post pictures of their own tits for people they don’t know to see? Answer: Accountability. It’s the “internet” at simplest form – a world where anyone can be anyone, or no one, and never have to face the negative repercussions (society’s view) on whatever they are doing.
You have completely random women (more like “girls” and most of which are logically not spouses of military men) posting pictures of their tits for any person on facebook to view. Again, logically, 99% of these viewers will logically not be deployed service members and it is all done under the socially-favored banner of “Support for the Troops”.
Seriously?
These girls would be labeled whores, trash, and skanks if they were to go and do this under any normal circumstances – but by god, go and slap a “U.S. Troops” stamp on it and all of the sudden it’s “just a joke, fun, and in some comments… “The duty of American women”? Uh huh… and Bush went into Iraq because he thought Saddam was an imminent and potentially catastrophic threat to the U.S., too, right?
Ask yourself… why are the women posting here? Why are the men commenting here? Well, for the guys perspective – I can answer that quickly: Guys like to see tits. Period. Human Nature. THAT is the benefit of this page to all men, as shallow, primitive, and instinctual as it sounds. Now, what is the motivation behind the women’s actions? What do they get out of it? Drum roll please…… tons… and tons… and tons of compliments, attention, and desire – which I would like to take this moment to point out is also JUST as shallow, primitive, and instinctual – thus, making it “natural”, thought not socially acceptable outside of a medium specifically designed to MAKE it seem “ok”.
Ask yourself…
1. Do these women really BELIEVE deep down that showing “deployed troops” their tits is symbolic in anyway of “support” or that it helps to tangibly accomplish some sort of selfless task? No.
2. Do these women really believe that their tits are being viewed by deployed troops? Are they not intelligent enough to be completely aware that 99% of the viewers are Bob from down the street and Mike from the gym? No.
3. Is the creator of the page equally naive? Neg.
The page should be called “Girls who want to make themselves feel better by comment fishing to an endless sea of internet nobodys”. GET REAL. These girls are out there exploiting the very concept that has produced SO many age-old steriotypes for the male gender. You have got to be completely simple-minded not to see through the intentions of both the posters and the commenters. Is what these girls are doing illegal – of course not. Is it feeding a humanistic instinct at it’s truest – absolutely.
In summary, this page is nothing more than chicks showing their tits to guys so that they can fish comments and compliments. From a guys perspective, it’s just a bunch of tits to look at to pass the time.
In closing… I say again… let’s call a spade a spade here, really.
Brilliant! Thank you for putting it so simply! Your comment is absolutely brilliant!
As a man, I fully agree with this comment.
I’ve shortened this dramatically, so if it seems back and forth forgive me:
So, I’ve been reading this thread for the last half hour or so, my wife by my side. I’ve agreed with some of both the pro’s and con’s but haven’t stumbled upon the appropriate question. I fully support your right to write your concerns and objections with this popular site, however I feel like you’re shunning the people who disagree with you and feel that because their opinion differs from yours, you feel that they shouldn’t have a say. This is supported by the long, endless comments of nothing more than you restating your original argument in paragraph form, bullet form, or simple numerical order.
Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, I appreciate your support as a military spouse. If you think about the way you became a military spouse it might surprise all of us. Whether you choose to believe this perspective is up to you, but I’m only pointing out some hard facts. People meet one another based primarily on looks alone. Like it or not, your spouse sexually objectified you when you met just out of pure human instinct. This controversial site supports human nature at it’s most honest and sincere moments as much to many people’s dislike. I agree with you that most of the people looking at this site aren’t deployed troops, but have you ever thought about the few that are deployed that might CHOOSE to see this? These troops, young, old, married, single, gay, straight have every right to look at these images just as you have every right to express distaste in the website. You express your concern that this website creates an environment hostile to women in the workplace dominated by men, but chances are the hostile environment already existed. Blaming men’s objectification of women on websites such as these isn’t completely untrue, but placing the blame on military members (that could include your spouse, sister, brother, children, or parents) isn’t the kind of moral support we need, especially when we’re far from home.
I’m going to cut this short and conclude with my main argument. If someone chooses to look at a site such as this, let them. The person looking at this content will take it for what it is (according to their own opinions) and what happens from there is up to the person and not the website.
Again, thank you for all of your support as a military spouse, there are hardships even we [military members] cannot experience or begin to relate with that you yourself have been through.
I have heard the “nature” argument multiple times, which I might add is an argument that has been used throughout history to justify men’s behavior toward women as well as their determination that women have no place in the public sphere. It derives from early 1900s literature which argued that men were lascivious and utterly unable to control their behavior, thus women being by their nature pious, asexual, submissive and domestic belonged in the home. Though much of the discussion of these ideals has revolved around what this says about women (i.e “the cult of domesticity” also known as the “cult of truewomanhood”), it should offend men as much as women. It argues that men are nothing more than a bunch of knuckle dragging primates unable of higher level brain function, unable to use their well-developed brains to control their baser instincts, in effect unable to truly grasp all the advantages that the evolutionary step from neanderthal to Homo sapiens has given us. Ironically as well, in a culture so heavily dominated by religion, this argument basically states the antithesis of Christian doctrine, that one can choose to be more than man’s animal brain and forgo lust and be pious. Really, it is a fascinating argument.
There is a substantial body of research by neuroscientists on the nature of attraction in the human animal. It might shock you to find out that looks are not all that people are attracted to, smell is actually a very strong predictor of attraction, because one’s scent carries on it information about the health of the individual. It is ironic then that if one argues this is simply about animal attraction, we do not see scratch and sniff porn magazines. Maybe I should patent the idea, just in case. After all, by your argument, all men are capable of is jacking off in between shooting guns.
As to your comment that a hostile environment for women already exists in the military. I wholeheartedly agree. There is ample evidence of this point. AMPLE. The boys will be boys argument is routinely used to justify this hostile environment. I also find this fascinating as I work in a male dominated field that traditionally used this argument and has, minus some pockets of resistance among the oldest crowd, aged out of it. However, your suggestion that the environment exists and therefore things that reinforce a hostile workplace environment are fine is a specious argument at best. Such things are not tolerated in other workplaces. They simply aren’t. One day, whether you like it or not, every soldier in uniform transitions back to the civilian world. Your argument that they should be allowed to behave as animals ultimately does them a disservice when they come to work in a world where such behavior is not tolerated. Moreover, when a group of people far from the confines of civil society routinely engage in the objectification of women it becomes a slipper slope (beyond workplace issues) to make it far easier to consider the rape of innocent civilians as we have seen in other armies in other conflicts, as well as the occasional story about Marines in Okinawa (which is part of why the Japanese are unhappy with our presence there). You could argue that maintaining this low standard of behavior and allowing women into the military may just change it from the rape of civilians to the rape of female servicemembers since all other cultural factors are being held equal (however, we would need to do research to prove that. i will leave that to feminist scholars as it is beyond the scope of this post. However, Cynthia Enloe has made similar arguments.)
Moreover, in response to your questioning of my support for my country and those who serve it, I might remind you that the brass is very concerned about the civilian-military disconnect. I would argue that allowing servicemembers to play by a set of rules that is outmoded, outdated, and generally offensive to civil society only serves to further reinforce the civilian military disconnect. It may be shocking to those outside the military, but everything someone in uniform does reflects on the group and on the nation and it is magnified far and above what one man chooses to do in his home (though I have very good arguments for why in the internet age even this sphere is no longer private). I believe that pointing this out and addressing it within the military community, rather than simply pointing it out and using it as an excuse for why war degrades people (as feminists do, some of them also argue that if women were in power there would be no war, a position I do not share), helps the military community. In the age of mass media, you cannot strictly pretend that your actions exist in a bubble. Anything you do while a servicemember, whether in uniform or not, reflects on the people’s perception of the military and ultimately on how much (if any) they support the war.
I think so many people are resistive to these mainstream ideas because the HARD facts associated with them require change on their part. The fact of the matter is that the military has to join the 21st century. What was acceptable 30 years ago (and really shouldn’t have been) is simply not any more (and there are many O-6 firings for inappropriate behavior towards women and setting bad moral examples to back my position up).
What you say about “professionalism” and “morals” is all well and good, but frankly you’re wrong. I’m a 12yr vet been on 5 deployments and I’ve seen a lot in the course of my “career”. This professionalism you speak of is just a big front so the military doesn’t look like a bunch of frat boy and sorority girls just looking for their next lay. When actually that’s all we are. Everything is sex based and driven, and the only time that’s curbed is when one of us idiots gets a girl knocked up an have to marry her. Even then it’s not really curbed. Educated guess is that over 75% of military guys cheat on their wives. When it comes down to it sex is the reason most guys joined the military. The uniforms pulls vagina out of the woodwork by the boat loads, we (are supposed to) have nice bodies from all the working out that we do so that pulls even more vagina, and then the consistent paycheck is another bonus to the whole deal. Women are objects, so are men. Just get over that fact and you’ll prolly spend a lot less time sitting and replying to this stupid “article” that you wrote. If girls wanna show their tits as their “support for the troops” then get over it. That site isn’t gonna make me objectify women more than I already do. One big thing that you might not have taken into consideration is that maybe these women want to be objectified, and the same can be said for the guys(myself included) that post on the “hot bods” page. The military is a backwards ass society of sex craved alcoholics, and a lot of those have PTSD. If we wanna look at titties or guys abs then leave us alone an let us. Sure the USO and all these other groups do good jobs “supporting” us, but they dont support our most animalistic and primal need and that’s to get off. The “knockers” page is prolly the single best moral boost for me an my guys of anything out there. The fact that these are real women that are willing to bare them for us is a great thing and no one, including some feminist with a false sense of right and wrong should be able to take that from us. Besides a lot of those women talk to my guys if we have a chance to be online and that’s way better for them than talkin to their fat overweight wives that wanna bitch about the house, and the car, and how hard her ass is workin to support her on the couch. sorry. love ya. bye
Human’s as a species require three things to keep from becoming extinct 1. Nourishment (food/water). 2-Sleep. 3-Make baby’s… I’m just saying. Also you should try being deployed for a year away from your lover “if you have one” and see how it makes you feel. I honestly don’t think you could do it.
since I’m in the middle of the 4th deployment – and having lived through a 22 month deployment with my husband downrange – I have done it. Every writer on this blog, has done it. So Cody – climb off that high horse – doesn’t work on THIS blog.
Cody:
Your comment is hysterical for 2 reasons: 1. you are speaking to a group of seasoned military spouses who have spent far more than one year of their lives away from their love and 2. your comment doesn’t make sense. Do you think that Knockers for the Troops really helps with procreation? If so, I could arrange for a copy of “Where did I come from?” for you to read. It makes it pretty explicit that looking at breasts does not cause procreation. Moreover, if you subscribe strictly to your ideology, then it is not much of a stretch to make the argument that any activity you undertake that does not lead to fulfillment of needs 1-3 should be avoided. By this logic, the Catholic Church’s stance on procreation (i.e. “Every sperm is sacred”) should be strictly enforced and beating off to images of breasts would be detrimental to the species. Do me a favor and think next time before you speak. It is one thing to remain silent and be thought a fool. It is quite another to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I previously posted my analysis on the KFTT on this thread (weeks ago) . I just wanted to update this thread and let you all know that there is now an Anti-KFTT page on facebook and it’s link is as follows (hope you don’t mind, host)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Knockers-for-the-troops-ANTI-page/289002724450964?sk=wall#!/pages/Knockers-for-the-troops-ANTI-page/289002724450964?sk=info
You seem to have left out some basic facts…
1. The amount of skin shown in ANY of the photos on KFFT, doesn’t exceed that shown by a swimsuit top, or a bra, in fact many of the photos are taken while in bra/lingerie. You are reacting as if it is full topless when in fact it is not, are we to ban beaches and underwear too?
2. The photos posted were taken and submitted by the women themselves. No one forced them to do such, are they to be labelled sluts and whores simply because they are confident enough to post these photos?
3. Are you REALLY suggesting lewd jokes are causing PTSD in female troops? Way to use a buzzword to connect two wholly unrelated things, maybe it’s another event causing the PTSD, what could… HEY! I know maybe it’s the COMBAT!