I am not saying that there aren't male magicians who are jerks. There are male NON-magicians who are jerks. There are women (magicians and non-magicians) who are ALSO jerks. Though I have met more nice people in magic than jerks, to be honest.

I agree with you: Men have their own minds and they do think for themselves. And you cannot MAKE anyone think something different. You can try to influence, you can try to convince, but you cannot CHANGE someone else. Ultimately, you can only change yourself. And that means the responsibility for changing how women are perceived in magic lies with us, the women. And it will not happen by beating men over the head telling them they're terrible people for having a different opinion.

There are many reasons why there are so few women in magic, but I felt most were beyond the scope of this conversation. However, Melinda and what she presented as "The First Lady of Magic" is definitely part of why women are objectified as sex objects in magic: if women magicians, big name women magicians, present themselves AS sex objects then it shouldn't be super surprising that people take that as a cue to objectify them. People treat us how we TELL them to treat us, through conscious or unconscious actions on our part.

If women want to be taken seriously in magic, they we are going to have to take OURSELVES seriously as magicians. And we must understand that what we do, each of us as an individual woman magician, is representing a larger group. There are so few female magicians in the world that opinions are based on the few that people see.

That is a big responsibility and to be honest, women are just barely starting to step up to it. It is easier to be sexy and suggestive on stage than to learn to do a trick well. Either will make money. Either will get you attention. One is just a lot harder than the other. There are a lot of young women magicians today, maybe more than there have ever been, and the ones I know seem to be trucking along just fine (with their clothes on, even) . So instead of going on about how horrible male magicians are, why not focus instead on encouraging these new women magicians? This happens through women standing behind each other. Empowering each other. Letting each other know that they don't have to play dumb, or be cute. They don't have to dress like an assistant to get people to look at them. Just learn some magic and practice! But it's easier to say "Oh, it's all men's fault. They're terrible, sexist pigs." It's an easy excuse. Far more proactive is to do something about it. And constantly whingeing about how awful men are does not count as "doing something". Not something productive and useful, anyway.

Time and tide melt the snowman... things will change. Things ARE changing. But they're not going to change through beating men over the head, telling them what horrible human beings they are for disagreeing, which is mostly what I saw going on in this thread. *shrug*

Maybe, but I was doing something else. In keeping,



"But if you want an ally, you have to at least acknowledge they’re on your team, not your rival."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.maclean......lem/amp/

I just want to thank you Ms. Wylde for not only speaking from a feminine perspective that can be applied to women but to men as well. Where men to substitute "men" in everyplace you said women (which I did) we could learn, more about how to be better magicians. I personally was inspired by your words. Way to go. Us chauvinist pigs, need to stick together. lol

Wendy Wylde I just want to support everything you just said, there seems to be a lot of finger pointing by ideologues that when faced with a reasoned argument resort to ad hominem attacks rather than a reasoned argument of their own.

Objectification as a term needs more clarification as to where it emanates from before we start pointing fingers or whether fingers need to be pointed at all.


Wikipedia classifies sexual objectification as:

Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person as a mere object of sexual desire. Objectification more broadly means treating a person as a commodity or an object without regard to their personality or dignity. Objectification is most commonly examined at the level of society, but can also refer to the behaviour of individuals and is a type of dehumanization.

If according to the above definition, if sexual objectification is based on sexual intent, is it possible that two people can look at the same image/person and one sees it unobjectifying well the other objectifying? If so, does that make objectification subjective by its very nature?



In terms of imagery or media, is it only objectifying based on the intent of the purveyor/artist of the image and their intended purpose or the agency of the subject of the image who is willing to be objectified? If I see a Girl at the bar and say she's hot then that's objectification apparently (I've been told), but if the intention of the girl was to look hot does that mean she is objectifying herself?

I mean the argument always seems to be that a girl has the right to dress any way she wants, however, does that mean there isn't a cause and effect equation here?

I mean one thing that's being lost in this whole discussion is women's agency to want to put themselves in objectifying positions. Look at Krystyn Lambert photo shoot:



Was Krystyn Lambert coerced into doing that shoot or did she do that shoot willingly? Who was objectifying who here, the magazine for projecting her sexualised images to the masses or Krystyn Lambert willingly putting herself in a position to be sexually objectified in the first place or both?

Now one could argue that just because she is dressed in a certain way doesn't mean she is a certain way, which is true, but that doesn't mean it isn't bloody confusing. It would be like me dressing up as a police officer than someone asking me for help then responding to that person that just because I'm dressed like a police officer doesn't mean I am a police officer.

In Krystyn Lambert's example though I think it's pretty much clear what she was going for here.

Magically

Aus

Well besides the problem with men being not "allowed to be men" in society today, there is of course women not being allowed to be women. The above post clearly shows how some women WANT to feel sexy and use it both personally and in business. The point, which I illustrated early on in this thread is that, choice is key. Vilifying choice, helps nobody. Not women not men. Best to once again consider "different strokes for different folks" and move on. FREEDOM to chose is the only way to insure that everyone is being respected. Lack of freedom respects nobody but those taking away the freedom and even they, aren't respected. They are FEARED.

Having said that and read my words carefully, NOBODY is allowed to FACTUALLY hurt anyone, (except in selfdefense situations) without suffering consequences. Should you and I mean any of you, need assistance in a factually threatening environment and I'm there, KNOW that I will defend you regardless of your gender and only if you want me to? See I have a bit of "knight in shining armor syndrome in me) so it will be good for me as well, to be able to act out, my own mental and emotional, dysfunctions. SERIOUSLY!

Men and women are different. Why deny it?

Dude, I don't deny it. Equality of opportunity however, is where I believe we should be equal. Equality of outcome, is where we differ. I won't even begin to talk about biological differences both physically and mentally, as there would be those who would lose there minds, if I did. Not that I care much if people go crazy, just that I don't want to be the catalyst.

Oh no not you.

Speaking of an unpopular position Harvard has taken on the gender wage gap myth.

https://fee.org/articles/harvard-study-g......d-women/

How 'bout:Women’s unpaid work is the backbone of...... economy?

Actually it's true. I don't mind mixing it up a bit and starting healthy debates but I'm not at all interested, in conflict for the sake of conflict. That's just a labor in futility. My goal in most debates is to exchange ideas, in an intellectual and productive way. In those repartee, it's fine to scrap a bit but if I see it going nowhere, I will usually drop out. It's just not worth my time. Not online anyway. Sharing that, will give those who look to dominate conversations and supposedly "win" arguments, my Achilles heal? But in the end, it saves me a ton of energy which is how I win, in the long run.

When you have to go all the way back to 1965, to try proving your point? I'd say you have already lost the argument, in 2018.

So instead of addressing the point, you choose to shift the goal posts. Interesting.

I wonder if the women posting in this thread, would concede that women are better nurturers, than men? And if not, point me to any study that reports differently.

Senor, the article is current and discusses the current nature of a continuing issue.

I don't see this as an argument to win or lose, or, Danny, as a competitive sport. To me, it is a discussion. Men and women are different. And this is an area we often differ in. Many men compete and debate and argue and assume a woman is wanting to do the same, when she is actually wanting to share, engage, connect and expand and be heard in conversation. There is focused awareness and there is open awareness.

Let me make it clear that I see such unpaid, "invisible" work as an issue for men who have filled a traditionally woman's role, as well.

The point is in recognizing the work people do. When economic measurements don't have that work on their radar, people are being denied recognition for the work they do. That is a current and longstanding facet of income inequality.

How can it be a discussion when you just post random points and never address those brought up by others? That is not a discussion but a rant instead.

So discuss the point I made please.

It seems once a counter point is made all you want to do is ignore it. That is OK but please don't then preach about a discussion. It is not a discussion when you do that.

And please stop lumping all women into your convenient categories. PEOPLE differ in the same ways you have just put on men and women. I just get tired of the categorization for convenience, even when in this very thread a woman has put the myth to rest very eloquently.

I think this point is addressed in the legal system, with things like alimony and palimony? But I'm not a layer so don't quote me.

Objectively ... well not on Christmas Eve.

How's the ghost of Christmas past there?

Yes. I haven't said otherwise.

You said,

"Men and women are different. Why deny it?"

What did you mean?

Lawyer not layer I must have been thinking about one of my presents.

Https://www.fastcompany.com/3031631/are-......-blind-s


"Are men and women different? Certainly. Should we celebrate these differences as we learn to work together? Absolutely. Are men always from Mars and women always from Venus? My instinct says no. But the conversation about how and why we miscommunicate, and how to work around those disconnects, can be enormously useful, so long as we don't get too caught up in the minutiae of brain biology and ensure that it is not used as a weapon to disqualify the inclusion of a particular stripe."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o......2138162/