An ad I keep noticing here and there. The copy says
How Cruise Lines Fill All Those Unsold Cabins
And the image is
It couldn’t get much cruder, could it. (Well it could. It could skip the bikini and aim the camera up between her legs. But other than that…)
Hay! Look! Legs bum sex! Now click on the ad.
(I suppose they fill all those unsold cabins with women’s bums? That must be it?)
T&A is used to sell everything. But hey, I’m sure there is a very important biological reason why women’s bodies need to be objectified and commercialized.
something tells me no one would ever want to look at the blog owners arse.
Andy provides Everyday Sexism 3.
@Andy:
Have you ever said an original thing in your life? Does it ever bother you that you could be replaced with any number of equally vapid people, and nobody would ever notice? Do you ever look at yourself and wonder why you ever bother to wake up in the morning, when every. fucking. thought you will have will have been covered by countless dipshits before you? You know your epitaph will simply read ‘Redundant’, don’t you?
in a way I admire you. If I were forced to live with your deficiencies, I don’t think I’d be able to summon the strength of will to comment o. A blog post. But here you are, pluckily carrying on as if you were worthwhile, as if your life were meaningful, as if you had something relevant to say.
You’re almost inspiring, until you think of all those other people who could be using those organs.
If you go down the newsagents and look at the magazines you will see rows of magazines aimed at men with women on the cover.
Now have a look at the rows of magazines aimed at women and see men on the cover. Only you won’t, you will see women on the cover.
So perhaps this is sexism, that men and women both seem to prefer looking at women, sexists the lot of them, or perhaps this is just something more fundamental.
It’s sad when you realize that noel thinks they’ve said something thought provoking.
You have on idea what this “something more fundamental” you propose exists would even be, have you? You’re just being stupid.
If I’m wrong, please do share what this mysterious fundamental thing is.
And how many of those same magazines will be written in English?
So perhaps this is culture, or perhaps this is something more fundamental.
You are not wrong, Beatrice. It’s time we stop inviting these STEM shitheads to hold forth on culture as if they know a fucking thing beyond coding and chemistry.
Brownian,
I know I’m not wrong, I’m just a bit curious about what stupid shit he’ll come up with.
(Hey, I’m the M in STEM)
Disney sells their cruises with pictures of happy families and people in mouse costumes. So it’s not like there aren’t alternatives.
I won’t hold that against you.
I thought Andy WAS this blog’s arse.
Heh. Appreciated.
>And how many of those same magazines will be written in English?
Brownian, publications in many foreign languages are as sexist as those in English. Watch a few Latin telenovelas as a good example.
On average men are more likely to be facinated by looking at female bodies than women are at male bodies. Bodice rippers are the feminine equivalent of pornography.
Mind your wants when someone wants your mind. I would like to think I’m not influenced by advertisement. I’m sure I’m misstaken and that there are side-effects. I could never work with marketing/propaganda as I don’t understand how people can be persuaded in that way. I get turned off when a salesperson doesn’t want to answer questions or tries to trick me into buying anything.
When people respond to that picture and get on that cruise, do they feel entitled to sex with slender women? They already payed for the ticket. They were dumb enough to buy the narrative.
Beatrice @7
Well, since you asked so nicely.
Tbh, I am not sure. Some of the most patriarchal societies that ever existed (the Greeks and Romans) clearly held the male physique as the primary source for physical admiration and objectification, at least on the levels that survive to today and on what we base our judgements. that said, i recall reading in the New Scientist over a decade ago that although the concept of an ideal female body size varies across cultures around the world, researchers had found that almost all cultures favoured the same hip to waist ratio and (as i recall) the suggestion being that the overrarching factor being a relatively small waist to denote non-pregnancy.
So if you want my guess (and that is all it is) I would have thought it likely a mix between innate and cultural aspects.
The point I was trying to make is that dressing something such as this up as ‘sexist’ just seems too easy to do. Are women being ‘sexist’ when they prefer looking at images of women? Were the Greeks being ‘sexist’ in preferring to appreciate the male form nude? And so what anyway? Surely the problem has never been objectification of our fellow human beings but when we view our fellow human beings only in that light.
Jim (noelplum99)
PS: I realise you didn’t really want me to respond but I kind of like the atmosphere around here, being unpopular is far more challenging.
Brownian @9
You are not wrong, Beatrice. It’s time we stop inviting these STEM shitheads to hold forth on culture as if they know a fucking thing beyond coding and chemistry.
I just wondered why I am a STEM shithead? I mean I understand the ‘shithead’ part , I just didn’t understand the STEM relevance?
I have to say that I have found some of the posters on FtB to be possibly among the most objectionable individuals I have come across online. Having involved 99% of my efforts with the religious i have to say they haven’t got a patch on some of you. You almost make me feel like I am trolling you without even trying – and I am certainly not trying to. It is like you are oozing anger and resentment out of every pore.
Jim (noelplum99)
Jim (noelplum99), if you find the FTB blogs to be objectionable, you don’t have to read them. There’s a whole internet full of other blogs and websites, some of which you might find more appealing.
Rodney Nelson @19
Sorry Rodney, that was really ambiguous the way i wrote that. It is not the blogs i find objectionable, it is a lot of the commenters.
What puzzles me about the ethos of this place is sort of summed up in your comment though. Why would I want to go and discuss on some blog where everyone agreed with me and i with them? My biggest bugbear with my YT experience has been that not enough theists get involved and there are way too many ‘well said….’ type remarks. I don’t need to be agreed with – you only grow when someone challenges your views, surely?
Brownian: THANK YOU.
Horace:
And none of this has anything to do with culture, nosirree. Everyone knows that. It’s just common sense. Why are you femistasi rebelling against nature?
Dear Rodney,
our relationship with Ftb is symbiotic. You enjoy getting righteously angry at us and we enjoy laughing at your anger. It’s win/win.
Noelplum99:
Unlike, you know, excusing sexism whenever it’s brought up.
Also, to echo Rodney Nelson, nobody is keeping you here, and you might want to consider that if so many of us irk you, you just might be part of the problem.
I so love the assertion of sexism denialists that we’ve never had our views challenged before, when in fact we live in a society that is absolutely soaked in their views, and feminists and our allies have had to struggle to assert ours day in and day out.
Ah, so it can’t possibly be sexism (and dehumanization and objectification) because you say so. Well, I’m convinced.
*facepalm* how does someone this ignorant manage to remember to breathe?
What was their general opinion of women?
Says the astonishingly ignorant dude who isn’t affected by any of this. What’s wrong with reducing a woman to just her ass as long as I remember there’s tits attached to her too?
“You enjoy getting righteously angry” is on the same spectrum as “You enjoy it when your husband beats you/the boss pinches your ass/men on the street yell at you to show them your tits.”
I had no idea I was grabbing your ass, this takes my pleasure to a whole new level.
Shorter horace: PLEASE LIKE ME!!! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LET ME IN THE CLUB!!!
@noelplum99
You’re wasting your time if you think these people are capable of arguing in good faith.
>And none of this has anything to do with
>culture, nosirree. Everyone knows that.
>It’s just common sense. Why are you
>femistasi rebelling against nature?
Can you name a country now, or in history, where women enjoyed looking at naked men more than men enjoyed looking at naked women ?
Shorter poiqui : PLEASE LIKE ME!!! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LET ME IN THE CLUB!!!
Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Human Being @23
Haha, you do realise I am way too privileged to consider that?
Seriously, in the threads I have become involved in I really don’t know how I could have been more civil. So I don’t know what you are suggesting when you say I am the problem because all I could possibly have been is *wrong* and surely unless you folks actually simply despise alternative viewpoints entirely, i really cannot see why I haven’t simply been dismantled on the arguments rather than get the personal put-downs and passive-aggressive nonsense.
I have to say that hasn’t been the entirety of my experience and some commenters (and Greta and Jen when they responded to me)have left the histrionics at the door.
Horace, can you name a country now, or in history, where women were allowed to be sexual and not suffer extensively for it?
C’mon use those three brain cells!
@noelplum99
See what I mean. Save yourself the effort.
Yeah, Poiqui, how dare we not treat this as an intellectual exercise while obeying “gentlemen’s rules” of argumentation. We should totally be willing to consider that nature meant us to be pieces of meat on display. It’s not like this shit affects our lives or anything.
Noelplum, you do realize you can say obnoxious things in a perfectly “civil” tone? This has been a perennial topic of discussion on FTB and I doubt you’ve missed any of it.
This is why I like heavy moderation. It keeps deliberate trolls like noel away. noel makes 3 comments, each one deliberately trying to instigate a fight with other commenters.
Please leave. If you were genuinely interested in having any kind of discussion you would not have walked in with a jeering mocking tone about everything you said. You wouldn’t repeat lies like
accusing everyone here of looking for an echo chamber, when the FtB bloggers disagree on a regular basis. Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy? Prostitution? Pornography? How to approach harassment at conventions?
Did none of those arguments (just the ones off the top o my head) happen?
I’m done engaging with people who’re going to deliberately lie like this. They’re all going into killfile from now on. At least I’ll be spared reading their trolling.
When the sum total of your “argument” is bitches ain’t shit, no matter how “civil” your wording, you’re an incredible dipshit if you think no one notices. I get that you troll think you’re pretending to be “civil” is convincing, but, at this point since it’s so very clear no one is buying your misogyny-couched-in-civil-language game, why are you still playing it?
Actually modern western society is pretty non-judgemental compared to most societies. It is unusual in that men who
screw around on their wives are treated as or more harshly
than women that screw around on their husbands.
Can you think
of any society that is more tolerant of women’s sexuality
than present day western society ?
A great example: The word “histrionics,” which is gendered as all hell.
Again, if people here, and especially women, are greeting your supposedly “objective” and “polite” comments with anger, you might want to consider that (a) you are not saying anything they have not heard before, (b) your assumption that they haven’t heard it before is deeply condescending, and (c) you’re telling them “politely” to just STFU and deal with their lot in life.
Illuminata:
He’s typing it one-handed, let’s just say.
that’s right, poiqui. it’s EVERYONE else that’s wrong. You’re just such a victim of the ebil ebil FTB. They force you to read! They force you to write whiny, content-free comments! the monsters!
Andy must have sent out a troll signal.
This is not an argument. That Western Society is not as intolerant as other societies are or have been does not mean it does not harbor backwards ideas of sex or sexuality.
You might as well ask ‘can you think of a recent society less tolerant of homosexuality and apostasy?’ It’s absurd.
Oh well, someone else to never read again.
You people are nothing more than characters in a soap opera from my perspective. Just tragedy and comedy. 🙂
Julian,
Try to remember, we were talking about an advertisment for cruises that shows a woman in a bikini.
In the range of societies that have existed so far this image is likely to attract men. Perhaps this is societal rather than biological but so what ? Is it the cruise lines job to try and change this ?
Who is taking advantage of whom here ?
My take on this is that the only one’s victimized by this are men who are foolish enough to think with their testicles and end up spending money that they shouldn’t.
The only fair way to stop this would be to have an across the board prohibition on showing near naked bodies in the media. How do you think the art world would react to this ?
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle @24
What I intend to do is provide you with a proper response to your post which you may like to compare against your boorish sequence of cheap (inaccurate) shots.
It could be sexism but that hasn’t been demonstrated, merely assumed. When I watch the diet pepsi ads on the tv with the women in the lift ogling the builder I don’t see sexism, I see a group of women being attracted to and onjectifying a man. So what? What on earth is wrong with that?
Secondly, where exactly did I say it wasn’t objectification? Of course it is objectification. So what? We objectify people all the time, in sexual contexts and otherwise. Tell me what is wrong with objectifying people? Aren’t farm labourers objectified? Sportspeople?
Show me a man who only views women as sexual objects and you will be showing me a problem but allowing ourselves to view but one aspect of either sex at any one time hardly seems an issue, unless you insist on dressing society such that it it suited only to the lowest common denominator.
There is not a lot I can say to that, you have really put me straight there.
So we are in agreement then! At least on this one issue. Either, as the status of women has gone up the last 2000 years they have become sexually objectified more (and men less), or at the very least the two don’t appear to be related. Maybe we can learn a lot about women’s rights off the wahabbi’s in Saudi who go out of their way not to objectify women in the way this advert does?
I haven’t seen any woman ‘reduced to just her ass’ what I have seen is a picture of a woman’s ass used to entice people to buy a product. That is not the same thing.
But then of course i am so blinded by my privilege that you can feel free to simply disregard anything I say without feeling the need to address it. In fact I really must remember this line of reasoning in my debates with the religious. I have spent four fucking years trying to argue from every angle I could conceive of when really all I needed to do was to point out that they are blinded to atheism by their privilege and then walk away feeling great!
Jim (noelplum99)
So, iow, you remember to breath by writing “inhale” and “exhale” on your palms.
tell me, what happens when the ink runs? Do you pass out from self-asphyxiation?
Julain @35
Yes, because this is exactly how it happened, NOT. What i cannot fathom is what the point is of lying when anyone can simply scroll up and see that I originally made ONE comment, that was not aimed at anyone, simply my thoughts on the blog. The comments that followed were ALL responses to people who had responded to me.
I can understand why you might like heavy moderation though.
andy:
Number One: Whether that’s true or not that’s a fucking offensive, shithead thing to say. Just as important, whether that’s true or not, it does NOT undermine Ophelia’s point. In fact, it’s utterly pointless that you would even mention that. Unless you’re trying to prove how sexist you are.
Number Two: Thanks for providing further proof of everyday sexism.
Did you stop to think about Ophelia’s point? The ad uses parts of a woman’s body as an attempt to fill empty cabins. It doesn’t even use her whole body. The image is of a nameless woman’s arms, butt and legs. Wow, that certainly shows the advertisers value women as people. American culture (though this is hardly confined to the US) is oversaturated with sexual images of women. Over and over this is shown on tv, on the internet, in magazines…you can’t miss the blatant sexism in our culture.
Next time before you spout crap like that, ask yourself whether or not your mother would like for someone to say that to her.
LOLOL oh yeah. there’s no mountain of evidence that shows the damage objectification does to girls and women. Nope! the REAL victims are men.
noelplum99:
There is no _perhaps_.
It is sexism.
Do you even know what sexism is?
Have you educated yourself?
Or have you simply decided-based on no effort on your part-that sexism isn’t real?
What I can’t fathom is why you’re still playing this absurdly transparent misogyny-couched-in-civil-language game, when it fools no one. Except you apparently.
@noelplum99 , @AKAHorace , @poiqui
I’m just going to try this approach here, see what happens. I’m sure other commenters are better at putting it into words, maybe they are just tired of explaining the basics over and over.
This is how much of advertisement goes: men are supposed to strive to obtain the woman in an advert. She is the product or an end to the product means. When a woman sees advertisement aimed at her, she is supposed to strive to be the product. Sex sells. Commersialization of sex has unwanted effects.
Someone else could develop these ideas if need be.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle @36
I am not sure on what grounds you think I hate women?
I get the feeling that either one of the following is true:
1) You earnestly believe that anyone who doesn’t espouse the same viewpoint as yourself on these issues must simply be trolling. This is a bit along the lines of the ‘atheists believe in God really, they just deny it’ that you hear now and again.
2) Labelling people as trolls is simply just your convenient way of avoiding entering into a discussion.
Jim (noelplum99)
Hmm let’s see:
“I haven’t seen any woman ‘reduced to just her ass’ what I have seen is a picture of a woman’s ass used to entice people to buy a product. That is not the same thing.”
yeah. it’s just so confusing why everyone thinks you’re a sexist ass.
trazan @51
I agree, that seems a pretty fair rationale. I would have said in many cases it is along the lines of the old marlboro cowboy adverts. In this case, buy our product and you need strive for such a woman no more because she will now be within your reach – you are buying into a lifestyle product commensurate with attaining such a woman.
I don’t think I am disagreeing with you at all on that which is what leaves me somewhat non-plussed.
Jim (noelplum99)
noelplum99:
Go research sexism and patriarchy and come back with an informed opinion. Then your civility might be appreciated.
As it stands, the sheer ignorance in your comments, combined with your insensitivity to the issue at hand are rightfully going to result in people dismissing you.
@trazan
Okay. What are your credentials in the field of advertising?
poiqui:
Please define ‘good faith’.
I suspect you have no idea what that phrase means.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle @53
Okay, but if it was a mans ass I would have said exactly the same thing.
So do I hate men as well?
I will take a break from this comments section now so as not to be seen as ‘trolling’.
Jim (noelplum99)
Oh god, why did I read this? I refuse to believe anyone is that deliberately obtuse. This is just trolling t illicit emotion.
Here, have some. You noel and Andy can have the thread.
I’m out. 3 trolls and what could have been a decent thread went to shit.
And, jimmy, spare us your desperate attempt to maintain the facade of civility in the form of armchair psychoanalysis. the entire reason your absurdly stupid ‘arguments’ are being mocked and derided is because there’s a token sexism-denying troll like you in every. single. one. of these threads.
now, I understand that you desperately need to believe that you’re not making a ridiculous and ignorant fool of yourself. And that you desperately need to believe that everyone else is defective and only you are correct.
to that I can only say: PHMT. Sad but true.
Trazan,
Thanks for being relatively polite. You think that I am avoiding the obvious, I think the same of several posters here.
Two points:
-selling using sex works as men seem to be hardwired to be attracted to looks more than women. I don’t think that this is a cultural construct as as far as I know it is found in every society.
-Given that men are hard wired this way, the only way that you could stop sexual advertisments like this would be some form of censorship of obscene images. This would have to be done across the board, no more bikini girls in advertisments, but no more giant vaginas at demonstrations. I would be OK with this, modern western society is by historical standards incredibly permissive in what we allow to be shown in the public media.
The picture in the advertisment would be considered pornography 70 years ago.
But be honest about this, without some form of censorship you are wasting your time.
@28
@33
@42
@56
See this thread for more examples of poiqui doing everything in hir power to avoid having to defend this claim:
Oh, and poiqui, you lying hypocrite:
That’s who poiqui is. Deal with hir accordingly.
Horace:
I believe your take is wrong (do you have any proof to support the opinion you have?). Men are not the victims of images that reduce women down to sexual body parts.
Try reading this:
Here’s an example that illustrates why the advertisement in the OP is sexist (it even explains why it is sexist and why this is harmful to women):
If you’re an individual who is actually interested in arguing honestly, learn about what you’re talking about with a skeptical mind*.
*Here, the skepticism spoken of (in fact, the skepticism that I find to be referred to in general at FtB**) is scientific skepticism, which is defined as:
**Skepticism is often used interchangeably with scientific skepticism.
Though similar, they are not exactly the same.
Skepticism is defined as:
Great. Another thread at a favorite blog reduced to 101-level bullshit about sexism awareness. Thanks trolls. Thanks so much. Thank you for ruining every goddamn discussion. Thanks for leaving no space at all where we don’t have to listen to you say stupid shit. Thanks for making sure we can’t have grown-up talk.
Thank you.
Irrelevant.
You don’t need to be an expert in advertising to comment on the ad.
noelplum99, andy, poiqui:
Sexist attitudes towards women, and the dominance of men are so ingrained in culture, that women are disproportionately affected in a negative way by sexism.
sexism:
patriarchy:
privilege:
noelplum@17:
I take issue with this — what about the Gothic fitted dress? (link here, images here)
Addendum to my #67: The Gothic Slouch.
“Jewnigger”? That’s a new one. ROFL. Also, troll is confused about which blog it’s on.
Ah, nice to see it’s deleted already. That one seriously had to go.
Now that some basics has been linked too. What do people think about selling stuff with the help of sexy pictures?
Horace asked:
The Juǀʼhoansi (also known as the !Kung). Off the top of my head.
More everyday sexism:
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/gqs-bizarre-cover-edit-20120907-25jc9.html
Ok. This ad is for a luxury expense. In this economy who has money for a cruise? Who has money to pay for advertising a luxury item like a cruise (especially with fuel prices. Those ships must get pretty poor MPG). The ship is in the picture. What else should Anna ad executive use to draw attention to her product?
Women have had second class status due to physical differences. Now that science has removed sex from reproduction and labor jobs have been outsourced a good deal, women are doing very well. Surpassing men in all levels of education, in fact. It has only been forty years since oral contraception. Women have made huge advances since then and we are projected to continue to increase in success. So I don’t think talking about a model’s behind being used to sell a luxury item (that most people can’t afford anyway) is that useful a topic.
Sexually attractive bodies are stimulating to people and attract the eye. I’m sure the advertisement designer had no malicious intent and would a picture of a sea turtle if research showed the human eye is equally or more attracted to sea turtles. But the research shows baby making parts (or nearby parts) are really interesting to the human eye due to very important evolutionary purposes.
I know I’m late to comment and the argum… discussion has gone in different directions, but AKA Horace way back at #15 said, “Bodice rippers are the feminine equivalent of pornography.”
No, they aren’t. The feminine equivalent of men’s pornography is pornography aimed at women. Please recalibrate your time machine since no one has ripped a bodice in the romance genre since the 80s. Romance novels are a separate category and serve a very different function.
Try reading http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/blog/new-approaches-to-popular-romance-fiction
*headdesk*
I apologize for even answering Jim (noelplum99) the first time. This turned into such a shitfest.
Waaahaa! That was funny! Good, hard laughs are always appreciated. And I doubt we’ll ever see Andy ’round here again.
So I don’t think talking about a model’s behind being used to sell a luxury item (that most people can’t afford anyway) is that useful a topic.
Oh, look. A dude pretending to be a Chill Girl Who Doesn’t See The Problem.
“On average men are more likely to be facinated by looking at female bodies than women are at male bodies.”
Hmmm, you’re assuming a lot there. I’m a woman and I like looking at attractive men. I don’t understan women’s magazines. They also have tons of articles on how to please your man. Not sure if men’s magazines care about men pleasing a woman.
I think what people are missing is the text in this ad. It’s not about a girl in a bikini, it’s the implication in the text that she’s a thing you can get.
Admiring someone for their looks isn’t objectifying, reducing someone to a thing that exist for a specific function (for women, our only functuon is sex) is objectifying.
Treating people like things that only exist for you is one of the traits of a sociopath. Just sayin.’
Ugh, please excuse the typos, I need some coffee now.
Is there any scientific evidence that men are more attracted by looks than women? If so, has there been any isolation of the cause?
As it stands, you’re just repeating what we can call the cultural “common sense” of the prevailing social institutions. That doesn’t demonstrate anything at all, to be honest, and works against your claim that the cause of sexist behaviors is not culturally constructed.
In general, this is conflating two different topics. One, that cultural standards with regards to sex and media images have become more permissive. That’s a case that can be made to one degree or another, and some cross-cultural comparisons would succeed where others would fail there. Two, whether any such fact should incline us toward censorship. That’s hardly convincing, and seems to be either deriving an ought from an is or constructing an argument from history, authority, or tradition.
I would have liked to have a discussion about what should be done, but the thread was derailed a long while back. When people can’t even agree that the images in question are discriminatory towards women or cause any harm, it’s really difficult to make any progress towards a solution.
In my opinion, censorship will not accomplish the intended goal and may actually make the situation worse. The law (and associated regulations) are not omnipotent, and we can’t simply legislate away social ills. That approach has been tried with many social problems — drugs (including alchohol), prostitution, and abortion all come to mind. I can’t think of a single instance where law enforcement has been highly effective at solving this type of issue.
Rather, my view of it is that you make progress on these matters through a combination of inter-generational education efforts and competitive media that sends a different message. We can perhaps argue about exactly how effective those approaches are and what other means might be appropriate, but only if we work from the common ground of assuming that something can be done and this isn’t merely the natural and eternal state of affairs.
AKA Horace @61 said:
really? THE ONLY WAY to stop them is through censorship? Not by, possibly, trying to change the cultural acceptance of such casual sexism such that advertisers no longer take the low road in peddling their wares to ‘men’? Might as well throw our hands up in defeat, everyone. We’re dealing with HARD WIRING here. *eyeroll*
There’s so much else wrong with so many of the idiot comments here, not least of which is the assumption that it’s all about the men. I guarantee you that a whole lot of WOMEN will also have a conscious response to that ad. Not a “hey, what a hot ass!” kind of response, but something along the lines of “ahhh, vacation…*worry*…I need to lose 10 pounds/get liposuction/buy a new suit before I hit the beach”, just as one example. It’s NOT all about the men, damn it, it’s about a culture that accepts that an airbrushed woman’s ass is the easiest way to complex but very predictable consumer spending decisions.
I want more than this from the culture I’m raising my kids in. I want them to not be totally bewildered by this and a kabillion other sexualized ads where the featured female flesh has FUCK-ALL to do with the actual product being marketed. Grrrrrr.
“Haha, I smeared shit on the wall, and now people are mad at me! I WIN!!!”
I never quite followed that line of reasoning.
@AKAHorace:
Wait, what? First, the ‘given’ here is not altogether beyond dispute. Or rather, we don’t know what bits are hard wired and what bits are not. At least, I don’t, I don’t know of anyone who does and – I strongly suspect – neither do you.
Second, even if your claim were true, on what basis do you assert that the *only* way to deal with it is censorship? Have you or haven’t you just totally made up that claim?
And third, fuck you. This is not about obscene images, it’s about women being portrayed as body parts that men can own if they buy something else. Which pretty much implies that women are automatically for sale. Or at least that the monetary value of women is something we should feel entitled to discuss.
Sex sells, but these people are not selling sex. Don’t excuse them.
@latsot
I will be honest, I haven’t actually read the smallprint, but I think in this instance you only get the cruise for your money.
Personally, i just wish it was a guy’s ass in a pair of speedos then no-one would give a crap about it and we could all just carry on with our lives.
Jim (noelplum99)
This post is stopping you from getting on with your life?
You should probably talk to a professional about that.
@Jim (noelplum99)
I thought about defending you a little bit earlier. I thought people here were dealing with you a little harshly. We all roll our eyes when 101 types turn up with genuine questions but I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they are really serious about learning. Perhaps they really want to learn. So I thought the response was a little harsh coming right off the bat.
As usual, my optimism was proven wrong. You are a complete idiot and obvious troll, fuck off.
@latsot
This seriously has to be a contender for one of the most humourless places on the internet.
It was obvious what your comment meant but it was written so ambiguously that it cried out for a little tongue in cheek sarcasm. Clearly, i had forgotten just what sensitive flowers grow around here.
One more thing:
This is why some of you fuckers come across as so arrogant and why you attract so much trolling. In all my dealings with even the most clueless creationists I have never dealt with them in such a dismissive way.
I speak for myself here, though this probably also applies to other ‘101 types’ as well, but I didn’t come here for you to teach me and tell me where i am going wrong, I came here to give my views. If during the course of that I end up getting enlightened or my perspective altered then all the better. But your arrogant assumption that anyone who reaches a different conclusion to you must have arrived here to be educated and put straight is just a terrible, not to mention erroneous, attitude to take.
I see the same attitude on the atheism+ forums (which i only browse). Anyone who expresses scepticism in the way some concept is applied is immediately ordered to attend the ‘education forum’, presumably (given the name) not for debate but to be shown ‘where they have gone wrong’. The arrogance is overwhelming, I have really never experienced it anywhere else on the net – not done with such a straight face, anyway.
Oh, and lastly, if you want to start a movement a clue to the clueless: don’t ‘roll your eyes’ when people turn up who think differently to you. The idea of a bloody movement is to get your ideas across to people, and that means people who don’t presently agree with you, not talk endlessly amongst yourselves patting each other on the back for how much you agree on. When a theist posts a comment on my videos I welcome it with open arms – I wish 90% of the comments were from theists, i don’t ‘roll my eyes’ because I am having to deal with someone who doesn’t already agree with me and parrot back to me everything I have just said.
Jiom (noelplum99)
OK Jim, you’ve revealed yourself.
Excuse me, but I find that dubious. Either you respect creationists far more than the commenters here, or you lack the self-awareness to realize how dismissive you have been to even the most trivial premises of the argument presented.
kagerato @90
Explain to me what you mean please. I have certainly disagreed with many here but I have never disputed anyone’s position without giving my own and explaining why. If you think I have then point me to it. It seems to me that you equate someone drawing different conclusions and arguing for them as being dismissive. that isn’t dismissive, this is dismissive:
This one was the best of the lot because the poster did later bother to take the time to link me to a site to give me definitions of these words. the only problem was the site he linked me to was ‘finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com’! Seriously, I nearly died, a site with no citations as to where the definitions came from, no pretence whatsoever to provide impartiality and question begging definitions that exist only in the realm of feminist theory (hawked to me as if they are the de-facto definitions)
Bear in mind, as I have said repeatedly, i have no issue with anyone telling me that i am talking shit as long as they then follow it up with a cogent argument (or at least try to). The only reasonable response I received was from trazan.
In other words, you were given a link to a site which told you things you didn’t want to read, so you’re complaining about the site.
How do I know this? Anyone who isn’t an academic who uses the phrase “feminist theory” is dismissive of feminism. Thank you for showing your true colors.
Rodney Nelson @92
So you think a feminism site is a good place to send someone for such a definition? Would an MRA site be a good place also (or would you ‘complain about the site’? Go and have a look at the link:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/
So where are the citations and references on the site for the definition? I have spent well over an hour now trying to find a legitimate source that outlines why this is the accepted definition of the word. I can find sites that list sources (such as wikipedia) that give very different definitions (and lots of background) and I can find sources that DO give this definition but they are generally feminist blogs that give little or no insight as to why this definition unequivocally takes precedence over any other such that it is reasonable to say ‘you don’t even know what sexism is’ to anyone who works to another definition.
I tell you what, let’s you and I cut through all the bullshit, forget about what has been said here and start again. Please, I ask in all sincerity, give me the best and most reputable link you have that demonstrates why sexism is defined as ‘prejudice based on sex + power’ rather than just ‘prejudice based on sex’. If you do and if it is a good source, then maybe i won’t like reading it (as you state) but I am big enough to suck it up if you can show me why the definitions as listed in the major dictionaries do not represent usage (which is how words are defined) and do not represent the broad accepted usage in technical fields (academia generally, governments, the UN etc); and why the wikipedia entry is a substandard article and should be ignored.
Jim (noelplum99)
I read the the feminism101 post. I saw nothing objectionable about it. It wasn’t a sociological paper, footnoted and with references, but was a general overview written for a lay audience. Your complaints about lack of references is bullshit.
If you want sociological papers on feminism, then google is your friend. Since your original request wasn’t for academic papers but for “information”, it’s pure goalpost moving for you to complain about not being given an academic paper.
Rodney
I didn’t ask for papers on feminism, I asked for a better source to define ‘sexism’
So in your view, where do we draw the line then? can I tell you that you are using the word ‘bullshit’ wrong then and simply link you to someone’s blog who defines bullshit as a small type of South American tree frog?
But this is simply wrong. Tony made his first comment to me @55, I never responded to him or asked him for any information whatsoever. his second response @66 was entirely unsolicited. So where are you getting this from that I had asked him for information?
Jim (noelplum99)
What is the point of the post Ophelia?
You should be less ambiguous.
Are you saying there is something wrong with:
society?
or with advertising standards?
or with men in general?
or something else?
There are plenty of ads out there targetting women which objectify or mock men.
There are certain uncomfortable truths about society that only advertising can truly highlight.
If “men like girls butts” is the worst you can find, you haven’t looked very hard.
Who are you? Why are you commenting on this post? Why are you telling me what to do?
Yes, actually, it CAN get much cruder: genital mutilation, with a sharp piece of bottle glass. Or, the fact that a US army service woman is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier, than by the enemy. Or the fact that innocent females are raped, beaten, burned with acid, and outright murdered for their sex…? But sure, lets all get our panties in a twist vecause some woman got paid to put her butt in a commercial…?
Essentially, GROW UP. Get back to us, when you have address honor killing, or even the fact that GOP wants to return to rusty coathangers, for abortions .
@Nathan
Addressed something like say the UN on FGM she just posted about yestreday?
But look it’s comment type number 1. You can’t talk about that because there’s a bigger problem over there.
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/the-14-kinds-of-sexist-commenters-20120607-1zyii.html
Oh I really shouldn’t but you make it so much fun, Jim:
@latsot
It was obvious what your comment meant but it was written so ambiguously that it cried out for a little tongue in cheek sarcasm. Clearly, i had forgotten just what sensitive flowers grow around here.
Well. Isn’t that nifty? Reduced to a number already? Do you have any idea how hypocritical that is?
The fact is, paying somebody to get their ass photographed is NOT the same as shooting somebody for reading a book. It’s not the same ballpark, not the same league, not the same sport.
@Nathan
Yes and the black dude dying first isn’t in the same league as lynch mobs. Doesn’t mean they can’t both be racist.
@ Michaeld. “It can’t get much cruder…” as the OP says, begs the question, “well… Can it?” And, sadly, it can.
Paying a woman to do a job is not sexist — any more than it is ageist, classist, racist or any of a host of other prejudices. It is just a proven economic model.
“Us”? Who is us?
Who are you, Nathan? Why are you commenting on this post, which is 4 months old? Who blew a whistle, where?
Also, the “it” in “it can’t get much cruder” is advertising, not just everything.
Advertising couldn’t be much cruder? Really?
Who are you? You’ve never commented here before. This post is 4 months old. Why are you commenting on it? Who blew a whistle, where?
@ Ophelia.
Does what you say matter? If it does matter, when/how/why you said something. It’s said. And I don’t even mind you said it. What bothers me is the utter contempt you have for not just your opposition… But for the general principle of opposition. What annoys me, is the fact that you insult and demean every dissenter, as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
Humans objectify. It’s what we do. How much of an object do you think I feel like, because of the way you and your friends have talked to me? Reduced to a number. Dismissed. Demeaned. Likened to a dog, responding to a whistle.
A rational society tries to moderate the human tendency to objectify, to minimize harm. Or, are you saying that an adult woman can’t make rational decisions about her own body?
Nathan – answer my questions. Who are you? Why did you comment on this 4 month old post?
No, you don’t have a grievance. No, nobody talked to you as if you were an object. It’s not routine to comment on a post that’s four months old. I want to know why you’re here, how you got here, why you’re picking a fight on an ancient post. I want to know what your agenda is. I have my reasons, which you’re probably perfectly well aware of (because you probably found this post via one of the many people who spend an incredible amount of time and attention talking about me and a few other perceived enemies).
@ Ophelia. You really don’t like defending your statements, do you? Is paranoia a family trait, or is it just you?
In the realm of ideas, all that matters is ideas. And you seem to loathe that. You seem to accept only that which you are prejudiced to accept. Everything else is an attack dog sent from your enemies. To me, that paranoid, self-absorbed, self-satisfied… Destroys society.
Nathan. You’ve never commented here before. Your first and only comments are on this post from four months ago. There’s no such thing as “the realm of ideas” – there are various places and media where ideas are discussed. It would be bizarre to go to a stranger’s house to talk about something the stranger and her friends were talking about four months ago. The stranger would want to know what on earth prompted you to resurrect a conversation from the past.
And all this bullshit about me – you don’t know that. You don’t know me. You can’t tell all that from one post.
And you haven’t answered my questions. Why not? I simply want to know what prompted you to try to resurrect a discussion from last September.
@ Ophelia. I came here, because a link to your blog showed up on my YouTube feed. But that is more than you need to know. I won’t let you off the hook, by allowing you to retreat to wounded prejudice.
As long as links to your blog are live, a responsible blogger should be ready and able to defend their published views. Echo chambers are gratifying, but they don’t teach you much.
Nathan. I’m not on any hook. You’re not in a position to let or not let me off any putative hook or to allow or not allow me to do anything.
A responsible blogger is under zero obligation to “defend” her published views to anyone and everyone who turns up, especially anyone and everyone who turns up four months after this discussion has ended.
I always like a good teacher, but you’re not a candidate.