I Am Confused Edition: Sexist for calling someone "stunning"?

[Secondhand Revenant]

Being rude isn't the same as harassment. It does not harm anybody but the clinically weak-willed.

I'm all for the rude get their just desserts. I am against them getting the desserts of the ones who would do acts of actual harassment such as being crass or even touching someone, as that would be unfair. I think that's basic common sense.


Where would you draw the line? If that's harassment as opposed to plain rudeness, what ISN'T harassment.

Being merely uncivil is what I'd call rude. Or being thoughtless. Purposefully hitting on people and sending messages to them in a professional environment would seem more like sexual harassment. Now does one message rise to that level? I wouldn't say so given that it is not explicit or anything. But it's more than just rude.

 

[Olas]

I think regardless of your thoughts on the act itself, we can probably all agree that calling it "sexist" is incorrect. Complementing someone's appearance is not inherently sexual. I hear women call other women "stunning" periodically without any sexual basis, so why is it different if this guy does it? The word can even be used on inanimate objects.

Ya, this isn't sexism, not by any practical definition that I can think of.

So you don't believe in context to comments? One guy calls his friend an idiot so any time he's called an idiot and gets mad it's just incomprehensible why he doesn't like the word then since he didn't mind it before?

When did I say I don't believe in context? I don't believe this is sexist in the context it occurred in.

Your argument was that you've seen other women call women stunning. Therefore... what it can't be sexual?

I assumed that the word had no sexual connotation because I've seen no evidence that it does. I've seen both men and strait women refer to women as "stunning" before based on the same general attributes. So on what basis should I infer that it means something wholly different when men say it?

When done by a total stranger.

Strangers can't say nice things to each other?

On a professional website.

If the accusation was that the comment was "unprofessional" then I'd be on board. Though I don't see the point of professionalism, so I wouldn't really care about that either.

Preceded by him saying he knows it isn't politically correct.

Literally the only thing I have a problem with. The idea that it's politically incorrect to call someone "stunning" makes no sense to me.

Later followed by him claiming he was talking about the compisition of the photo, which doesn't really mesh with the politically incorrect precursor statement.

My guess is he was just trying to backtrack from his statement, which is stupid since there was nothing wrong with it.

Makes as much sense as saying you see friends call each other idiot in a non-insulting manner, why can't total strangers.

Looks like totally ignoring the existence of context to me.

Well I'm not ignoring context, regardless of what it looks like to you. The example you're using has 2 radically different contexts: that of a close friend, and a total stranger. I was comparing total strangers who happen to be women, and a total stranger that happens to be a man. If the word "stunning" does have a sexual connotation when coming from a man that's something I've been unaware of until just now.

Do I really have to explain how sexuality usually comes off in society? Namely that society usually assumes heterosexuality and thus two women complementing each other is assumed to not be sexual because of it?

Which in no way proves that with men it IS assumed to be sexual. I merely referenced this because people who don't have a sexual attraction generally don't use language that connotes one. I know that doesn't prove that all language used in an asexual manner is universally asexual, but it does contribute to the likelihood.

Obviously this topic is a bit of a mushy ball of perspective, which is why I don't think it's wise to make assumptions.

Also you do get the concept of hitting on someone yes? You seem to not get that stunning can be used to hit on someone too. Not only are you trying to say it can be used in a non-sexual context, it can, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that it can be used in such a context if hitting on someone.

I've never thought of it as a word used to hit on someone, no. "You look stunning" "Well aren't you just stunning?" they just don't sound like pickup lines to me. Anyway, you don't have to prove that the word CAN be used sexually, you have to prove that the natural first assumption would be to assume it's sexual, which seems very unlikely to me. Here's what Webster has to say on it:

Full Definition of STUNNING


1: causing astonishment or disbelief

2: strikingly impressive especially in beauty or excellence

"beauty" can have a sexual connotation, but that's hardly the first thing I'd jump to, especially in a photo from the shoulders up.

Strangers could compliment each other. However he went out of his way to do so on the site. It's not like saying "Nice hat" in passing.

So what is it like? I have trouble thinking of any instance where the use of that word would be taken as sexual unless it had already been implied by something else. I will admit I'm unfamiliar with LinkedIn, but even assuming it's the most uptight website on the planet the worst thing I could label this as is "unprofessional".

Maybe it makes no sense to you because you're adamantly refusing to accept the notion that you can use it to hit on someone. If you actually acknowledge that then it becomes pretty obvious why he acknowledged it as politically incorrect.

I'm not adamantly refusing to acknowledge anything. I'm just utterly unconvinced. I wouldn't blink if I heard someone use that word in my workplace. The notion that he's hitting on her isn't an assumption I'd jump to. And frankly, even if he were hitting on her, how would that be sexist? Is it sexist to hit on people? What about asking someone out? Is that sexist? I know he's an older man, which would make it a bit weird, but how does that translate to sexism?

To compare it to your example, just how often do you think women go out of their way to tell someone they're stunning online on LinkedIn? And preface it by calling it politically incorrect then lie about their intentions when called on it?

How should I know? It doesn't sound absurd to me, if that's your point. To me, prefacing it with the line about political correctness is the only odd aspect of the comment. And even then, political correctness is just a general term for using a type of super sanitized language. So saying something isn't politically correct doesn't mean it's sexual, it just means it's not uptight and proper. Like I said, his comment is not very professional, which could be a problem on a website meant to be obnoxiously professional, but calling it sexism just strikes me as a total non-sequiter.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Being rude isn't the same as harassment. It does not harm anybody but the clinically weak-willed.

I'm all for the rude get their just desserts. I am against them getting the desserts of the ones who would do acts of actual harassment such as being crass or even touching someone, as that would be unfair. I think that's basic common sense.


Where would you draw the line? If that's harassment as opposed to plain rudeness, what ISN'T harassment.

Being merely uncivil is what I'd call rude. Or being thoughtless. Purposefully hitting on people and sending messages to them in a professional environment would seem more like sexual harassment. Now does one message rise to that level? I wouldn't say so given that it is not explicit or anything. But it's more than just rude.

How is a compliment uncivil? I may grant you thoughtless but uncivil it definitely is not.

See, it's barely rude at that, never mind more than rude and broaching harassment.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I think regardless of your thoughts on the act itself, we can probably all agree that calling it "sexist" is incorrect. Complementing someone's appearance is not inherently sexual. I hear women call other women "stunning" periodically without any sexual basis, so why is it different if this guy does it? The word can even be used on inanimate objects.

Ya, this isn't sexism, not by any practical definition that I can think of.

So you don't believe in context to comments? One guy calls his friend an idiot so any time he's called an idiot and gets mad it's just incomprehensible why he doesn't like the word then since he didn't mind it before?

When did I say I don't believe in context? I don't believe this is sexist in the context it occurred in.

Your argument was that you've seen other women call women stunning. Therefore... what it can't be sexual?

I assumed that the word had no sexual connotation because I've seen no evidence that it does. I've seen both men and strait women refer to women as "stunning" before based on the same general attributes. So on what basis should I infer that it means something wholly different when men say it?

When done by a total stranger.

Strangers can't say nice things to each other?

On a professional website.

If the accusation was that the comment was "unprofessional" then I'd be on board. Though I don't see the point of professionalism, so I wouldn't really care about that either.

Preceded by him saying he knows it isn't politically correct.

Literally the only thing I have a problem with. The idea that it's politically incorrect to call someone "stunning" makes no sense to me.

Later followed by him claiming he was talking about the compisition of the photo, which doesn't really mesh with the politically incorrect precursor statement.

My guess is he was just trying to backtrack from his statement, which is stupid since there was nothing wrong with it.

Makes as much sense as saying you see friends call each other idiot in a non-insulting manner, why can't total strangers.

Looks like totally ignoring the existence of context to me.

Well I'm not ignoring context, regardless of what it looks like to you. The example you're using has 2 radically different contexts: that of a close friend, and a total stranger. I was comparing total strangers who happen to be women, and a total stranger that happens to be a man. If the word "stunning" does have a sexual connotation when coming from a man that's something I've been unaware of until just now.

Do I really have to explain how sexuality usually comes off in society? Namely that society usually assumes heterosexuality and thus two women complementing each other is assumed to not be sexual because of it?

Which in no way proves that with men it IS assumed to be sexual. I merely referenced this because people who don't have a sexual attraction generally don't use language that connotes one. I know that doesn't prove that all language used in an asexual manner is universally asexual, but it does contribute to the likelihood.

Obviously this topic is a bit of a mushy ball of perspective, which is why I don't think it's wise to make assumptions.

I'm not using it to prove it is automatically sexual with men. I'm using it to show your comparison doesn't work since people do not assume the same intent with regards to hitting on people or sexual things between women as they do between women and man. My point is your example of women doing it is useless to compare to.

The fact that people don't assume sexual attraction between two random women usually would be a pretty clear reason why they don't have to worry about it seeming to be implied. Not only that women are more expected to care about appearance and notice it.

Also you do get the concept of hitting on someone yes? You seem to not get that stunning can be used to hit on someone too. Not only are you trying to say it can be used in a non-sexual context, it can, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that it can be used in such a context if hitting on someone.

I've never thought of it as a word used to hit on someone, no. "You look stunning" "Well aren't you just stunning?" they just don't sound like pickup lines to me. Anyway, you don't have to prove that the word CAN be used sexually, you have to prove that the natural first assumption would be to assume it's sexual, which seems very unlikely to me. Here's what Webster has to say on it:

Full Definition of STUNNING


1: causing astonishment or disbelief

2: strikingly impressive especially in beauty or excellence

"beauty" can have a sexual connotation, but that's hardly the first thing I'd jump to, especially in a photo from the shoulders up.

I don't have to prove that you, who I don't think seems to be approaching this from a very ordinary perspective on human interaction, should take it as the first assumption. Which is what you seem to expect.

Maybe you don't get it, but if some guy walks up to a random girl and says "Hey you're stunning" and doesn't just leave right away then I think most people can pretty clearly assume his intent there is to express interest.

Strangers could compliment each other. However he went out of his way to do so on the site. It's not like saying "Nice hat" in passing.

So what is it like? I have trouble thinking of any instance where the use of that word would be taken as sexual unless it had already been implied by something else. I will admit I'm unfamiliar with LinkedIn, but even assuming it's the most uptight website on the planet the worst thing I could label this as is "unprofessional".

Randomly contacting people to compliment them usually implies some kind of interest. Especially if you don't know them and all you do is comment on their apperance.

LinkedIn is the kind of thing where you add people for work connections. It's not a dating website, which his message sounds like it would better belong on.

Maybe it makes no sense to you because you're adamantly refusing to accept the notion that you can use it to hit on someone. If you actually acknowledge that then it becomes pretty obvious why he acknowledged it as politically incorrect.

I'm not adamantly refusing to acknowledge anything. I'm just utterly unconvinced. I wouldn't blink if I heard someone use that word in my workplace. The notion that he's hitting on her isn't an assumption I'd jump to. And frankly, even if he were hitting on her, how would that be sexist? Is it sexist to hit on people? What about asking someone out? Is that sexist? I know he's an older man, which would make it a bit weird, but how does that translate to sexism?

You've taken a solid side that says it can't based on... well your own assumptions appareny.

Yes you'd just instead assume he complimented a random person out of the blue on LinkedIn because... well I don't see your better explanation for his motive actually.

Yes clearly unwarranted advances, in a more professional setting no less, from men towards women are clearly not an issue. It's not like women get these creepy messages a lot. It's not at all like some people seem to feel it's okay to do this unprofessional crap and it just happens to often be men at women

To compare it to your example, just how often do you think women go out of their way to tell someone they're stunning online on LinkedIn? And preface it by calling it politically incorrect then lie about their intentions when called on it?

How should I know? It doesn't sound absurd to me, if that's your point. To me, prefacing it with the line about political correctness is the only odd aspect of the comment. And even then, political correctness is just a general term for using a type of super sanitized language. So saying something isn't politically correct doesn't mean it's sexual, it just means it's not uptight and proper. Like I said, his comment is not very professional, which could be a problem on a website meant to be obnoxiously professional, but calling it sexism just strikes me as a total non-sequiter.

Its only an odd aspect in your attempted explanation. It's perfectly explained in mine.

I also didn't say it meant sexual. God for someone who talks about not making assumptions... It points out he knows it's improper. And political correctness does not usually refer to lack of professionalism. It tends to refer to more social issues. You do the math.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Being rude isn't the same as harassment. It does not harm anybody but the clinically weak-willed.

I'm all for the rude get their just desserts. I am against them getting the desserts of the ones who would do acts of actual harassment such as being crass or even touching someone, as that would be unfair. I think that's basic common sense.


Where would you draw the line? If that's harassment as opposed to plain rudeness, what ISN'T harassment.

Being merely uncivil is what I'd call rude. Or being thoughtless. Purposefully hitting on people and sending messages to them in a professional environment would seem more like sexual harassment. Now does one message rise to that level? I wouldn't say so given that it is not explicit or anything. But it's more than just rude.

How is a compliment uncivil? I may grant you thoughtless but uncivil it definitely is not.

See, it's barely rude at that, never mind more than rude and broaching harassment.

I was saying rudeness would refer to *mere* uncivility. Try not to forget you just asked what separates it from just being rude.

It's more than rude and it is broaching on harassment.

 

[The Lunatic]

This is the same woman who posted "Hot stuff [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/10/22/2C29AFA700000578-0-image-a-17_1441921657871.jpg]" and "Ooo Lalala [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/10/22/2C29AFAB00000578-0-image-a-18_1441921663187.jpg]" on random guy's pages who she found attractive.


So... Either she's a hypocrite, or this man is being treated differently than she is because he is male, which is sexist, actually, come to think of it.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

This is the same woman who posted "Hot stuff [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/10/22/2C29AFA700000578-0-image-a-17_1441921657871.jpg]" and "Ooo Lalala [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/10/22/2C29AFAB00000578-0-image-a-18_1441921663187.jpg]" on random guy's pages who she found attractive.


So... Either she's a hypocrite, or this man is being treated differently than she is because he is male, which is sexist, actually, come to think of it.

Well aside from it not being too clear from the links alone whether she knew them or not there's also the fact those look like they're from Facebook, not LinkedIn. Part of her complaint is that she's on LinkedIn for business purposes. I'm not sure why you would apply that to Facebook.

Not that the comments seem good but the location makes it worse in regards to him.

 

[the December King]

What did her pic look like on the site?

...

Oh.

I thought it might be a bikini pic or a closeup of bewbs. This... this is a portrait befitting a profile page on LinkedIn.

He probably should have not posted that comment.

 

[Fox12]

So an old man makes an inappropriate remark about a woman half his age on a professional website. Um, yeah, I could see the issue there.

Sexism? I don't know. It kind of reeks of that old 1980's stereotype where women are trying to break into the business world, and the men all slap them on the ass and cat call. Well, maybe not that over the top, but you get my point. I guess it depends on how you define sexism. It does have a condescending tone to it, though.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

For starters, this guy really needs to do a better job on any message he sends: ?Always interest to understant people?s skills...?. Dude, it's called spell-check, and it's not that difficult.

"The eroticisation of women?s physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women. It silences women?s professional attributes as their physical appearance becomes the subject..." No it doesn't, unless you choose to let it.

We're not talking about opposites here, where telling someone "you're tall" means they aren't short. Being complimented on one thing does not mean that you are demeaning something else. If I tell someone they are smart, that doesn't mean I'm saying they aren't athletic. If I tell someone they are good at sports, that doesn't mean I'm saying they are dumb. And if I tell someone they are attractive, that doesn't mean I'm saying they aren't smart, or professional, or any of a myriad of other qualities. If you decide that me telling you that you're attractive means it is the ONLY thing I see in you, then that is on you.

"Misogynistic" (and it's variants) has become one of those words that has been so over-used and abused that it has lost almost all meaning. He gave a VERY low-key compliment to this woman about her appearance, and that therefore means he hates women? I honestly have no response to that beyond GTFO.

In his shoes, I probably wouldn't have said what he did, but I think her reaction is excessive. BTW, do we even know why he connected with her on LinkedIn?

 

[EyeReaper]

Note to self: Stunning is now apparently a dirty word, need to stop using it to describe chandeliers.

Just a heads up to everyone, starting a statement with "This is probably horrendously politically incorrect" is usually never a good idea. That's up there with "I'm not racist but..."

Honestly though, I think she may be blowing this out of proportion. Maybe it's a "grass is greener" thing. She apparently gets so many compliments on her looks her default response is, and I quote, "Oh god another one." I work as hard as I can to get people to stop insulting how I look. If some old guy saying nice things about you, (without crossing into vulgarity) no matter how formal the site, is the biggest thing you can complain about, well, I'd say you have it pretty good sister.

 

[The Lunatic]

Well aside from it not being too clear from the links alone whether she knew them or not there's also the fact those look like they're from Facebook, not LinkedIn. Part of her complaint is that she's on LinkedIn for business purposes. I'm not sure why you would apply that to Facebook.

Not that the comments seem good but the location makes it worse in regards to him.

I don't really think it's appropriate to make such comments on any location towards people you don't know. Facebook or otherwise.

I don't really think the setting changes anything in this instance.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Well aside from it not being too clear from the links alone whether she knew them or not there's also the fact those look like they're from Facebook, not LinkedIn. Part of her complaint is that she's on LinkedIn for business purposes. I'm not sure why you would apply that to Facebook.

Not that the comments seem good but the location makes it worse in regards to him.

I don't really think it's appropriate to make such comments on any location towards people you don't know. Facebook or otherwise.

I don't really think the setting changes anything in this instance.

Like I said, I'm not saying they were good

But you said she was a hypocrite and part of her reasoning involved the more professional setting.

I'd say it makes an already creepy thing worse.

 

[The Lunatic]

Like I said, I'm not saying they were good

But you said she was a hypocrite and part of her reasoning involved the more professional setting.

I'd say it makes an already creepy thing worse.

So, she's not a hypocrite because she did it in a setting that's more acceptable to you?

Uhm... I think we should focus more on "Making creepy comments towards people" than the "Making creepy comments towards people which are fractionally more creepy due to the service used."

I mean, she herself said that such comments are only acceptable in a place like Tinder, so, clearly not even she deems such things to acceptable in a place like Facebook. Though, she seems to only apply this when the comments are aimed at women.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Like I said, I'm not saying they were good

But you said she was a hypocrite and part of her reasoning involved the more professional setting.

I'd say it makes an already creepy thing worse.

So, she's not a hypocrite because she did it in a setting that's more acceptable to you?

Uhm... I think we should focus more on "Making creepy comments towards people" than the "Making creepy comments towards people which are fractionally more creepy due to the service used."

I mean, she herself said that such comments are only acceptable in a place like Tinder, so, clearly not even she deems such things to acceptable in a place like Facebook. Though, she seems to only apply this when the comments are aimed at women.

Sorry for expecting you not to try and strawman me.

I said her reasoning. I did not say it was more acceptable to me.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

...That's not being sexist.
Jesus Christ, what is the world coming to? If that's sexist, then I'm sexist every damn time I call anyone, irrespective of their sex, stunning, or beautiful, or anything complimentary.
Is that how they want it, huh? A world where everyone is put down, and no one gets compliments?

Spoiler

Yes, I've generally been living in a cave.

 

[Rastrelly]

Oooookay, it's just officially went out of sane territory. Whoever blamed that guy in sexism is plane insane and has to undergo psychiatric examination. Period, nothing to add.

 

[Areloch]

I had to go double-check dictionary.com because I guess some people are using a new definition of sexist/sexism than me.

Inappropriate and unprofessional? Entirely probable.

SEXIST?

No. Not by any normal definition I'm aware of.

 

[ZeroFarks]

It's actually very simple. It does not matter what you say, what you mean to say, or what your intentions are. Nor does it matter the context, the implications, or the message that you wish to convey. What comes down is this simple equation when saying anything to a woman:

Are you a Hot Guy?

If YES, then you are a wonderful gentleman, filled with many mental & moral virtues who is simply complimenting a lady for her many well-deserved assets.

If NO, then you are a creepy, perverted basement dwelling stalker who should be burned for having the audacity as breathing the same air as her.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Considering this is LinkedIn we're talking about, I wouldn't have used the woman's looks as an opener. It's inappropriate, sure, but also fairly awkward. This is a site you send employers to so they get a good measure of who you are as a prospective hire - your picture really isn't much more than an addendum. It's something that gets respondents going "Oh, so this is who I'll interview if I contact this person, huh?"

Had I been the guy, I would've focused on her resume and professional skills and would've waited for a few other exchanges to have passed before commenting on her appearance. Even then, I'm not sure it would've been entirely appropriate.