What was the upside for men?

etfb · on Nov 14, 2013

They were doing what they were told, and would therefore get whatever benefits obedience brings.

Whereas the women now had:

- a bunch of male scientists leering at them [1];

- some photos in the hands of those scientists that could be embarrassing;

- the possibility of those photos being stolen and distributed;

- a strong sense that they have no right to privacy or dignity in the highly male-dominated Ivy League world.

That last one would count as an educational bonus, at least.

[1] I'm only guessing that the scientists were male here, but I think it's a safe bet. Even nowadays, but more so then.

yetanotherphd · on Nov 15, 2013

So if it was such a bad idea for the women, why did they do it?

When it is better for men to do what they are told than otherwise, you classify it as a benefit. When it is better for women to do what they are told than otherwise, you call it oppression. I'm trying to draw attention to this double standard.

To be clear: neither the men nor women gained directly from having their photographs taken.

etfb · on Nov 15, 2013

I don't honestly believe it's possible for someone to ask questions like that without a malicious purpose, so I shall refrain from engaging you henceforth. I pray that the women in your life, if you have any, can see what you are -- but I'm fairly sure it's obvious, so I'm not worried.

yetanotherphd · on Nov 15, 2013

My purpose is to get people to question feminism and see outside a very narrow worldview in which women are always victims. In your case, I have failed. And the way you make this argument personal is really pathetic, although not surprising.