In response to my post about my lack of nude Jessica Lynch pictures, Juliette writes:
I do agree that young people should take a lesson from what is happening to Ms. Lynch. And yes, a woman suffers in greater measure than a man for her past when the spotlight is shined on her.I wonder about that. If I have sons and daughters, I fully expect that I'll hold them to different standards (not higher or lower, precisely) because of their genders. As it relates to the example of Ms. Lynch, I would strongly disapprove of my daughter posing for nude pictures, but I would be mostly indifferent to similar behavior by my son. Why? My reactions would be based on how their actions would be perceived by the rest of the world, and it's clear that a man posing nude elicits mostly "eh, who cares", while a woman posing nude becomes a dehumanized object of lust.This is the way it is, but that the way it should be? Of course not. And I say that, in the case of Ms. Lynch, we should start here and now in our own little corner by not casting any more stones at her than we did at Arnold Schwarzenegger. To paraphrase our Governor-Elect, Ms. Lynch hasn’t lived her life to become the subject of a media frenzy, nor should she have.
Because of these differing reactions from society, it's only logical and reasonable for parents to expect different things from their children, based on gender. The issue of posing nude is only one aspect of this difference, and there are many more, some of which are biologically-based and likely impossible to change in society as a whole. Men will always lust over pictures of nude women more than women will lust over pictures of nude men. You may argue that it's not fair, but it's a fact of life.
The issue of gender roles has been beaten to death many, many times, but I thought I'd throw this out there.
Modesty is a virtue for both genders. If it were my kid, I'd be upset, whether male or female, though I'd be more upset if it were my daughter. The reason has nothing to do with the gravity of the action and everything to do with the fact that I'd know boorish men were *cough* doing unsavory things *cough* while thinking of her.
This is the way it is, but [is] that the way it should be? Of course not.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
I could go on ad nauseum about why societies protect their women. Either you get it or you don't.
Yes, there are plenty of biological reasons that have little to do with culture or desire.
Please don't put words into my keyboard. I didn't say that societies shouldn't protect its women, S3. I said that, in cases of public figures being excoriated for past actions, women shouldn't be berated about it any more than men. One has nothing to do with the other.
Juliette: Hm, interesting.
Don't you think that public excoriation (great word) can be a part of how society protects women? It's a social punishment for undesired behavior.
Excoriation means that the girl in the photos is no longer named Cori.
The advantage of having a daughter rather than son posing nude is that the men who were *cough* doing unsavory things *cough* are at least straight ones.
Michael: No. That's not protection, but it is the like "throwing stones at the adultress," though the analogy is imperfect, obviously.
Ohhhhh come on! There's a world of difference between distributed social pressure and physical violence. That analogy doesn't even get off the ground.
I *did* say that the analogy was imperfect. It's about less imperfect than presuming to "protect" a woman by excoriating her verbally in public for some pictures.
Take out the word "about."
The key difference is that in one case, it's an organized, socially coerced sort of (violent) disapproval, whereas in the other it's a democratic, socially distributed (non-violent) disapproval. There's all the difference in the world between many people each independently deciding not to like something, and an organized group conspiring together to affect others behavior.
I'm sorry, I just don't think there's any moral similarity.
Perhaps you'll have to tell me how *whatever* form of punishment is "protection," because I just can't see how it could be so.
Social pressure serves to protect all of us from all sorts of things. For instance, no matter how mad I get at a fellow driver, I'd never run him off the road because I'd be afraid of getting punished. And, of course, it would be foolish and dangerous to run someone off the road just because I was angry. So, that threat of (formal) punishment serves to protect me and others.
Less formal types of punishment are also useful for protection. I could tell dirty, insulting jokes, but then people would probably start to shun me dislike being around me. And so forth.
Or did I misunderstand your question? It seems very clear to me that punishment is very effective and discouraging behavior, and some behavior is dangerous. Ergo, punishment can be used to effectively deter dangerous behavior.