Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Is there such a thing as "dirty" culture?

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 15, 2014, 7:22 p.m. EST by grapes (4989)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

'elf3' wrote in

http://occupywallst.org/forum/developed-cultures-respect-women/#comment-1051140

that wall street culture is perpetuating the objectification of women by influencing teenagers to take on its lopsided unbalanced objectifying culture. Is the U.S. a "dirty" sexually charged objectifying culture? Are there other cultures which are similarly "dirty"? Are there ones which are "clean"? How do they achieve that, by censoring teenage information intakes, by prohibiting sexually charged innuendos, or by being the opposite, very open and not oppressive about sex?

19 Comments

19 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by pigeonlady (284) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

There are no right answers as there is no one culture typifying the perfect society, reflecting the greater good and potential of all its components.

Yes, the US has a lack of culture, disrespect for arts and intellect, constant curtailing of rights for women, perpetuating stereotyping and profiling, and then expect other countries to be SSSOOOOOO happy to see us move troops in!

And yes, Wall Street has promoted ill connotations for females in any industry, especially in finance. The financial control of any entity means they can impose their sexual concepts on a corporation in disguise; as derogatory dress codes, refusals to grant maternity or paternity leaves, in the products carried and promoted by companies backed, bought or sold. The perspective on a company or endeavor is reflected therein. And we all get the message whether we want to or not.

[-] 2 points by grapes (4989) 2 years ago

Would you outlaw the dress code of Hooters for their female employees?

Corporations promoted many products that were exploiting women. I can understand why during World War II, the bikinis were invented to save fabric but why do we keep bikinis around even now when we are no longer short of fabric? Even worse, we have the expensive G-strings or gossamer undies that use even less fabric and supposedly make the women who wear them sexier. I don't see how the exposure or near-exposure of genitalia can be sexy.

[-] 4 points by pigeonlady (284) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Outlaw? Wouldn't changing the policy from inside do? (although I think I see what you mean) As far as butt floss goes, there is a strange denial of the fact they cause UTIs and promote yeasties. You would think that women would worry about their health or that hubbies/bfs/whatevers would be concerned for their partners. It's up there with the trend here in NYC to label any woman ugly for not wearing cropped jackets and skintight pants in the coldest weather. There is an uptick in kidney problems and failures in young women and the likely culprit is fashion; the shorter coats leave the kidney area unprotected and the excessive cold has a debilitating effect on the renal system. Oddly, the men's 'fashion' is that baggies and pants off the butt thing that's unattractive, leaving women back in the spot of showing the goods for a man who looks like a slob anyway! Weird. And unhealthy.

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 2 years ago

Yes, changing the policy from the inside would do but no one inside wants to rock the boat of profits (yes, I am sure Hooters profit from enforcing the [un]dress code). External law imposition may seem heavy-handed but I do not see any other way around that. Perhaps letting the local community impose its values will do.

It makes sense that butt floss smears feces around genitalia leading to urinary-tract and vaginal yeast infections. My only plausible explanation for why the hubbies/bfs/whatevers find butt floss sexy is that they are medically/biologically ignorant, irresponsible, or viewing women as sexual objects of fancy.

The men's baggies and pants-off-the-butt thing came from gangster or drug-dealer subculture. The "tough" ones lived through jail sentences during which they could not wear belts because belts could become weapons. "Cool" also came from the same subculture where the pimp or drug kingpin rides around in limousines with tinted glasses and wears sunglasses to keep "cool" in fact trying to minimize being identified and arrested. I think the more unattractive slob the man is and the sexier or well-dressed the accompanying woman is combine to enhance the social status of the man. People will suspect that the slob must be really really special and important.

The U.S. seems a bit "dirty" and "sick."

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 2 years ago

It is a well known that skirt lengths get shorter in times of war..

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 2 years ago

Good hypothesis - I remember the mini-skirts; they fitted the time. Could testosterone secretion leading to aggressive impulses be enhanced by the sight of short skirts? If yes, the burqa-clad women contribute greatly to peace.

[-] 4 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 2 years ago

A culture that preys upon and destroys the young people as the modern day Western culture does is a sleazy and moribund Culture of Death.

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 2 years ago

Yes, it is most disturbing that the young people are drinking alcohol while under aged, doing illegal drugs, having unprotected sex, womanizing or being womanized, and imitating jailhouse/drug kingpin/gangster subcultures. Much of the very negative racial stereotyping of African-descent teenagers in the U.S. traces its origin to these items but the politically correct crowd muzzles anyone who dares to talk about these issues. How can these issues ever be addressed if they are always suppressed? Aren't Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown still insufficient to start a national dialogue about these issues?

There are Caucasian board members who express disgusts (behind closed doors) at almost anything other than profits that is African in origin. Isn't it time to hang these all out in the sun? Gossiping in behind-your-back meetings can get African-descent (or other minority) people fired, blocked from promotions even if being championed by direct supervisors, etc. so these are important issues.

[-] 4 points by pigeonlady (284) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You know, this is a small point. But as a handicapped and economically challenged female in Brooklyn having to trek about and run many errands on my own, most of the people holding doors for me are black/African American teenagers. Next are middle age black women, and white women with babies in strollers (I guess it opens their eyes to the difficulties, having to propel something and push it while getting through often heavy doors). THEN white men, young to 40s. Virtually no Hispanics. And a lot of the whites look as if they're too good for that, without thinking it could be easily be them. And I look white. The African American kids may be loud or rowdy at times but they are more polite and respectful to me then their elders usually are. And as I've seen lately less prone to believing stupid things or engaging in gossip. A lot of the males wearing these baggy 'fashions' are way too old to go for emulating jail house jeans and no one rocks them. Just wanted to do a shout out for the kids though. :)

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 2 years ago

Black/African American teenagers' politeness towards you and Hispanics' not being so may show a cultural difference - perhaps hispanic cultures are more machismo.

What really riles up people (most often white male workers) is the issue of tax-funded support of procreational results. Children do not just pop out of women's bellies without some men's sperm getting in there months earlier. The questions are, "Where are the fathers who should be supporting their children? Why should taxpayers fund and support these children for decades into adulthood?"

The backdrop is that there are rampant texting, sexting, womanizing, unprotected sex, unplanned pregnancies, etc. going on in the black/African American communities which then become a "dirty" subculture.

[-] 4 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 2 years ago

The defunding of public schools is a huge issue.The program should be the opposite of what it actually is.Schools where the poor students are concentrated really should be singled out for intensive investment.If money can be found to send the equivalent of 15 grand per year to every single citizen of Israel,money can be found that will send poor kids the message:You are important.If the money can be found to buy & supply endless mountains of weaponry to be sent to every corner of the planet,money can be found to invest in underprivileged kids.The issue of what happens when money is invested in human resources has been extensively studied.For example,it has been found that a modest program like Headstart creates a future saving of 8 dollars for every 1 dollar spent.Not sending the message to kids that they matter,are valued and something is expected from them should not be an acceptable option AT ALL because the vacuum is immediately filled by the Gang culture and/or a generalized degraded criminal culture.We are really getting out of poor kids a negative result which is dynamic in nature,when the exact opposite-a positive,dynamic result-is what is desperately needed.FWIW,it is called a "school to prison pipeline." Another opportunity to find profits? Or a completely gratuitous Running Sore that will never heal?

[-] 2 points by grapes (4989) 2 years ago

Due to the blockage by do-nothing school superintendents and teachers' unions covering up for incompetent and/or abusive teachers, U.S. public schools are sclerotic and no longer fulfilling their mission of educating future citizens so defunding is in the correct direction. In fact, the pace should be stepped up to hasten the demise of all public schools. When something is beyond repair, it is best to tear it down to allow "new growths" to take roots. The U.S. Forestry Service learnt this the hard way over many decades. The best way to preserve the forests is to have controlled burns.

What we really need is to increase funding of creative common spaces in which youngsters can freely join to work on their passions with competent staff support. Defunct public schools, libraries, restaurant lounges, religious, and community centers, etc. can all provide space for this endeavor. In public schools, recess time has consistently been reduced (by the collusion of the unions) that the teachers are force-feeding the students on an industrial production schedule to make "foie gras" for the capitalists. There should be more semi-unstructured school time. Set aside a few school days for students to "do things" of their own choosing, such as tournaments, debates, field trips, mini-courses led, taught, and chosen by the students. Playgroups for young children also make much sense. Sunday schools and shortened summer vacations allow more time for education.

Poor neighborhoods' mothers in past decades did exceptionally great jobs in curbing the criminal tendencies of their children and making them into good upstanding citizens. Where the Law was not, "Momma" stood in for God, with motherly Love. I say, let the mothers choose their lives, damn the obsessions of the politicians: more jobs (who wants FOUR jobs to work at, really?) and higher GDP (disgusting vomit-inducing domestic violence drug).

[-] 2 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 2 years ago

A little bit of Freedom goes a long way.Too bad Americans have hardly any left.

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 2 years ago

Indeed, Americans have hardly any left or any right so it is time to learn from the U.S. Forestry Service to burn away the extreme undergrowths to grow new saplings.

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

Sex and sexual objectification are not the same thing...I really cant respond better to this post than what pigeonlady responded. I think it says it all. But I would just add that it is the objectification that is the problem. Not the sex. When you objectify any person for whatever reason this is at the root of evil. When a person is turned into an object and removed from their dignity and humanity...society has proved they are capable of doing terrible things to them. We are seeing Wall Street do this now to employees and consumers...in their eyes or spreadsheets , we have become objects. They no longer mind degrading and harming us. It is especially harmful to turn women into sexualized objects...quite scary as we have seen around the world spikes in sex slavery and the sex trade. Objectifying women as servants for male gratification has proven terrifying results..globally and locally...the more propaganda towards objectification ...over time the worse the treatment and generalized view will be.

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 2 years ago

I am very glad that you have pointed out this distinction between sex and sexual objectification. I saw no wrong, for example, for mothers to breast-feed their babies in public. I saw it as being most healthy and completely natural - it even calmed down the crying babies instantaneously. However, others showed disapproval or even seemed disgusted. The contrast was probably because I knew that societies existed which did not think of women's breasts as sexual objects and I thought that it made perfect sense biologically. Perhaps patriarchy did not indoctrinate me enough.

When you say "Not the sex," do you mean the biological sex (the organs), the gender role, sexual arousal, or the sexual acts of intimacy not being the problem for the U.S.? How do you feel about the depiction of nude women in portraits and sculptures in art?

[-] 4 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

The woman in the video responded well to this...tone and inflection and intention are more important to the context than transcript...which our society has become obsessed with this notion of a clean transcript. And each thing must be evaluated on a case by case basis. What was the intention, how was it said...body language. Threatening or non threatening? These differences can be very subtle and our brains have evolved to pick up on those subtleties and clues. A clean transcipt doesnt equal clean intention. Often it is easy to tell exploitation or intention by what the end goal is. What does someone seek to gain? I am against censorship...but I am also against propaganda which seeks to dehumanize and turn people into objects. What has been gained in return...gives a clue to how one could answer this question. Why nudity is viewed one way or another can also be answered by this question...what is the intention and what do they seek to gain. Same with art. Some artists are sell outs and some are true...and how can you tell? Same response. And since I'm an artist who paints nudes ...I also disagree with censorship in every form. What I seek to change is the attitudes and disposition which ignores and promotes female exploitation. I don't seek to legislate it. That being said, just because one can do something legally, doesn't mean one should. The law doesnt always equate with morality or ethics...just look at the banking industry if you want an example of this.

[-] 1 points by grapes (4989) 2 years ago

What are some ways through which intention can be ascertained objectively? Legislations can be heavy-handed because they are often designed to handle extreme cases (i.e., due to unreasonable moronic or idiotic behaviors). Reasonable and moral people can live well together with minimal laws because they have the Law in their beings. It may sound paradoxical but being free actually means being obedient to the (best if self-imposed) Law.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (3721) 2 years ago

I am not sure it matters your ability to swing your fists ends at my nose...but what happens when reasonable people has now under the law come to include corporate entities...who have no ethics and just one reason above all else...profit. Corporations have no ability to operate reasonably given the constraints of their agenda and as such need to be limited by law however lacking one accountable individual creates a problem for prosecutors. In the cases of law ...your ability to swing your fists ends at my nose. So the question becomes why should groups have more rights under the law than the individual? A corporation has no self and therefore can not self impose any law. If an individual behaved like a corporation poisoning water or robbing you of funds...swinging a fist in your face...they would be arrested. This doesn't happen with corporations. They can swing and keep swinging. Certainly it sets an ugly precedent for the individual doesn't it? What if individuals were allowed this behaviour undeterred? An ugly society would emerge. We have police because we have found people incapable of policing themselves. There are sociopaths among us who need regulation. If a corporation is a person it behaves as a sociopath ignoring the self imposed reason that forms functioning societies. In the case of the street harassment we can rely on society to thwart this behaviour since it causes no physical damages. That is where free will and individual ethics and the ability to think independently play in to shaping the society we want...hopefully one that respects women. I hope to play a part in changing the current trend.