General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDU should be collectively ashamed that people here deny that objectification of women is a problem.
On a supposedly progressive message board. It's ridiculous.
Do people really think that David Beckham appearing on billboards in his underwear proves that men and women are equally treated as sex objects by society? Do people really think that taking issue with the objectification of women is somehow calling for a puritanical/Taliban society where we can't listen to Beatles songs? Do people really not think that far too much value is placed on a woman's appearance? Or that it's all OK and unavoidable "because of evolution"?
BTW, I don't really consider myself a feminist, and in fact, I've been on the "other side" of some gender arguments here. For example, I don't think that the thread about how being a straight white male is like playing the video game of life on the easiest setting is very helpful (full disclosure, I'm a straight white male). Not because it isn't true -- it is -- but because language is important, and that particular choice of words carries with it the implication that life is "easy" for straight white males, which may rub SWMs who have faced difficulties in their lives (pretty much everyone) the wrong way. Better would be to say that being a woman, minority, LGBT carries an extra set of difficulties that straight white males don't face.
But whatever beef I may have with things like that totally pales in comparison to the fact that, apparently, a lot of DUers truly don't think that women being objectified is a problem in our society. Somehow this is controversial. Somehow the appropriateness of posting pictures of bikini models on a progressive political discussion board is debatable.
Seriously DU, it's embarrassing.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)It should be pretty basic, you'd think. How is it controversial?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Finding offense in something that wasn't originally posted as offensive.
Trashing this thread.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Would you agree that women are objectified much more than men? That too much emphasis is placed on a woman's appearance?
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)sanctimonious postings an a message board aren't going to solve the problem.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)The "space boobs" thread certainly wasn't offensive to me personally, I just think it makes us look dumb, honestly.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Yes, there is objectification. Everywhere, every day, even here -- which is especially disappointing.
And yes, I find the T&A threads embarrassing because to me it does make DU look as if its populated by adolescent Freepers and folks who have mistaken a political forum for their personal Facebook page. The DU Lounge exists for a reason. I wish some folks would stop diluting the political discourse here by fertilizing GD with junk threads. It's hard enough to sustain political discussion here as it is. The forum moderators could help in that regard.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)I have some strongly feminist women with whom I worked at Planned Parenthood and I have talked about DU with them on various occasions. I will not mention it to them again.
But I'm not just going away. I am looking for another venue right now, tho.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)But I am losing hope.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)Squinch
(50,774 posts)me for thinking it was a progressive site. Then someone points out that Manny is the new hero of the "under the rock" conservative site, and I go look and find - within the slime - that this is true. That's who thinks DU is just great now.
I let my star expire, and I'm not recommending to anyone anymore.
If you find another venue, let us know.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)Friends who visit my art challenges are such a bright spot here. I'd like to have that, too, wherever I go.
I am staying to fight misogyny here and will keep it up...
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Who is "Manny"?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)What is CC?
Sorry... I really AM out of the loop.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)too much time on DU. It's a collection of racist losers and trolls. Sometimes people who have been banned here end up there.
A troll who I pissed off at another site has taken up residence there....this is a wife and mother, btw, but she spends her time reading my posts here and then posting them there and commenting. Pathetic, I know...every once and a while someone will read there and send me the postings. They seem to have a thing out for Cooking and Baking, too.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)good lord, what could possibly be LESS political than that topic?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Their "DUmpster" forum has as many posts as the rest of the site combined
I wonder if I'm a star now
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)attempting reproduction. Be grateful it's there.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Their behavior toward some here is stalkish. They go to great extremes to track down names and whatever else info they can find on posters here. It's frightening how much info they can data mine.
People with issues who have WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much time on their hands -- that's CC in 25 words or less.
Along with Cooking & Baking, another target of their sick fascination is the Mental Health Support group.
Number23
(24,544 posts)If that person DIDN'T have a massive following in conservative quarters, that would be the only surprise there.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Same with the conservative underground.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)were doing a tribute to "The Three Graces". I don't know all you know about art, but I have seen so many interpretations of this and mostly nude, I can't understand how anyone saw anything dirty in it.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2014, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)
guess it is entirely possible. Fascinating thesis, there! Is there a quote on this? I'd love to see an aesthetic interpretation of the SI cover, compared with the famous masterpieces by Botticelli, Rubens, Raphael and Canova:
Rubens' Graces would today be viewed as obese
Botticelli's Graces are all visibly pregnant
Raphael's Graces are a bit boring (IMO)
Canova's Graces are decidedly gorgeous
I would SO love to put this question to Keith Christiansen, who is the Chairman of the European Painting Department (and former curator for that department) at the Metropolitan Museum. He is a fine art scholar (and an expert in Montagna) and I read his art analyses with great joy!
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I wouldn't discount it. Their job is to do the photo layouts artistically. I'm sure they get their creative ideas a lot from fine art. I've seen many fashion shoot photos in the mags that obviously emulate fine art. Just look for it with your practiced eye and you will see it. I would love to be able to ask SI editors if this is so or just a happy accident.
elleng
(130,156 posts)CTyankee
(63,771 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)500 years from now, no one will be holding up an SI swimsuit cover as examples of fine art.
Botticelli is incomparable, which is why I firmly believe Savonarola deserved his fate.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)"venus pudica" pose (that's the art term), as in the placement of Venus' left hand in Botticelli's "Birth of Venus." The term is repulsive. I wish feminist art historians would start a movement to get rid of it. One replacement I read recently referred to it as "her hand covering her belles choses when referring to one of the many Renaissance reclining nudes, e.g. Titian's "Venus of Urbino." I really got a huge laugh, tho...the guy was trying to be "dainty" but just looked silly...altho technically I agree with the description...better than "pudica," ugh...
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)The cover of SI truly does not bother me. Three very pretty young girls. The target market for the magazine ... who even buys magazines anymore ....?
Seems like I read somewhere that artists would sometimes use male models and just paint on breasts and paint out the penis.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)I'm too embarrassed. In addition, while the republican party has women troubles, if DU is any indicator, at least among the rank and file, that the Dems do too.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)CTyankee
(63,771 posts)I view this as a very beautiful work of art, myself. I don't find it objectionable to me as a feminist...
Cleita
(75,480 posts)CTyankee
(63,771 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Not to mention that she was being ravished in the dark by what she thought was a monster.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)The offense is in the underlying philosophy. The work itself is aesthetically beautiful.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They get up on their high horse about how there's no sex in heaven and this is blasphemy.
Then when you point out it's pre-Christiany they write it off as "pagan" and claim it's idolatry.
They want a new Dark Age.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)I don't know if it is better or worse than sex with a pagan god. I'll have to think about it...
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)because they admitted it was posted to offend and stir up shit. Even if you had missed those posts talking about why they post such threads, you know well over 170 people have said they find them hostile. To continue to defend them after knowing that shows that a clear intend to offend, exclude, and essentially show the concerns of the majority of the members mean absolutely nothing.
regnaD kciN
(26,035 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)just wow.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)There's a thread in the Men's Group specifically for that. I've even posted in it myself!
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Why is it not ok to post objectifying women rubbish in GD but it is ok anywhere else on DU? Are women supposed to be grateful or something that crap like that most people want out of the most popular main forum but not other places on DU? Why should women of DU even have to contend with a group on DU that dedicates itself mostly to trashing women by either treating them as evil or slabs of meat or both? Why should women have to steal themselves for that kind of crap before going into the Lounge for what's supposed to be a fun place for EVERYONE on DU? I'd like to be able to go into the Lounge for personal stories or music threads or funny stories or cute animal stuff without having to even think about having to see any threads crapping on women in there which hardly makes it a welcoming place for everyone.
Why does anyone think that it's acceptable ANYWHERE in DU? Where's the group that gets to treat people of color like evil beings, slabs or meat or both? Where's the group that allows people to treat LGBT people like evil beings, slabs of meat or both? Why is it that crapping on people or color or LGBT people not a regular accepted staple of the Lounge?
Just why the hell is it that anyone with two brain cells to rub together in order to form a thought know intuitively that crapping on people of color or LGBT people isn't acceptable anywhere on DU but when it comes to crapping on women hell, DU has a whole group dedicating itself to that and it's a regular staple in the Lounge that's supposed to be welcoming to everyone. Are the women of DU supposed to be GRATEFUL when people "stick up" for us non-penis wearing folk when they say that shit shouldn't be in GD, but hey, perfectly fine for other places on DU and be happy to join in the objectifying in those places.
Jesus Christ on a cracker. Just how is it that so many many people on DU are so bloody dim when the subject is women yet are clear as a bell when the subjugated group is anyone else.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Especially because it was posted at least in part to rile people up, as I think the poster even admitted.
But yeah, in general, it's probably best to avoid posting cheesecake photos on a political discussion site. As I've said before, it's a little like watching porn at work, i.e. not appropriate.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)On all counts.
CrispyQ
(36,231 posts)Well said, Torch.
Regretfully, I let the little red hearts seduce me into updating my star status, but next year I won't.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)yewberry
(6,530 posts)to discuss the burning issues of our time, like what totally hot celebs they'd like to date, or how men are actually the ones who are objectified by society.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Judging by past and current flame wars on DU. Each subgroup in DU tends to see it from it's own perspective, and judging by the activity in those forums and here in GD, they aren't happy with the way their issues are regarded, or disregarded, for that matter. Disrespect and lack of empathy is endemic on DU.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Funny, I don't see these groups anywhere on DU, and there's no way on earth that either the people of DU would accept them or that the Admins would allow one, yet we DO have a "Men's" group that is dedicated itself to trashing women, and the collective DU doesn't give a shit. The Admins hesitated for a very long time in allowing such a group for fear of what it would turn into, it DID turn into that yet there it remains.
No trashing of racial minorities or LGBT people would ever be acceptable in the Lounge, yet the Lounge is full of threads crapping on women regularly. Hell, people right here have been believing they are sticking up for women on DU by objecting to such discussions in GD but don't have any problem with it in the Men's group or in the Lounge when they would NEVER accept any similar filth about racial minorities or LGBT people anywhere on DU.
Certainly there is the occasional racial or homophobic post here and there on DU, but people are quick to alert on such posts, quick to hide them, MIRT is quick to ban newer people that post them, and there's a mad rush of chastising DUer's responding to them. But when it comes to women suddenly it's a war, the posts almost never get hidden, and gits like HopeHoops who was absolutely disgusting in his perpetual masturbatory foul treatment of women took forever to be finally banned and a legion of his pals cried foul and begged him to be allowed back. He even said some ugly creepy sexist shit to another DUer, refused to even apologize for it and still his legion of buddies cried the blues that his sick ass FINALLY got kicked to the curb.
The extensive trashing of women on DU is so incredibly more frequent and accepted than any other subjugated group here, and there is no way to try to deny it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)groups. All you have to do is go to the LGBT forum, or Jewish Forums and you will see plenty of postings complaining about anti-semitism and homophobia here.
Kwassa was right in that most people tend to view things here through the lens of their own group.
seaglass
(8,170 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)I really think your perception is way off on this. There have been major past wars on DU over the unhappiness many LGBT members feel about their treatment everywhere on DU, and African-Americans have felt that many of the white members are completely oblivious to their views and harboring view of their own that could be considered racist.
I think you see it from your vantage point, but there are other vantage points, too. I don't think that women suffer uniquely on DU.
Overall, very little gets hidden anymore. That is just the way it is.
plantwomyn
(876 posts)and usually only read the front page. I was part of the wars in the LGBT forum. Sort of turned off of DU for quite a while. I have to say this though, TorchTheWitch your post is THE best critique I have ever read on DU. Bravo from a lurker.
Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)This is a progressive political site, not a men's entertainment site.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Women/People go in The Lounge, too.
Isn't the Lounge a place to relax and be welcomed for ALL DUers ... ?
I really do not understand why people think this stuff is appropriate for The Lounge.
Honestly, this past year I have seen more offensive posts/pictures in The Lounge than TMG.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)But I understand where you're coming from. I don't think it's optimal for T & A photos to be posted there, either, but at least it wouldn't seem like such a deliberate attack.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)the attacks in The lounge or more subtle, more nuanced and more Passive Aggressive than GD.
Personalities .... they are attacking personally.
They are Jealous of me (the general me/you) because I (generally speaking) am more popular than they( the general they) are. That is their (whomever) defense.
People read GD and then go into the Lounge to subtly attack people that are posting in GD.
Making fun of, not just GD, but the people posting in GD.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)was "outrage" about they them themselves "wearing bikinis", they themselves "lusting" or whatever. I am sorry- not all of you are all that stupid. Everyone who plays dumb like that should be awfully embarrassed.
I don't mind nude or semi nudes at all- in the lounge- but taunting feminists- all day every day? Fuck that. You all care more about your dumb ass cliques of friends than you do about DU. That much is obvious.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)That has actually never been the problem. I'm sure if scientifically polled, 99.5% of DU would agree women continue to be objectified in our society.
I've even been guilty of thinking "Hubba Hubba" when I see pictures of Michele Obama instead of focusing in what a smart, accomplished and yet supportive woman she is.
Just fucking tired of all these gender issues threads continually for the past week.
tea and oranges
(396 posts)"Yeah Yeah it's so effing boring, the women go on & on. They won't shut up about how oppressed they are. We keep telling them we're tired of hearing it, we've been telling them for decades, yet nothing changes, women keep yammering on."
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)we are tired of the very vocal few "men's rights" types who purposefully try to goad women on here with stupid sexist OP's. we are tired of the very vocal few women who seem to focus only on how they can find offense against the female gender in what ANYONE posts including other women.
THe both sides need to shut the fuck up for a few days on this narrow band of issues, but I seriously doubt that will happen. Because there is a third category of disruptors who come in to GD specifically to throw these firebombs just as things are quieting down so we are at each other's throats instead of what this site used to be about.
That is all.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)have you ever seen these "vocal women" post such goading threads as the MRA-trolls do? I haven't, and if I missed them, it can only be because they don't exist in such large numbers as the MRA-troll threads.
mythology
(9,527 posts)The other most likely possible reason is that you don't see some of the threads by vocal women as goading because you agree with them. Which given that you used quotation marks around vocal women but not around MRA-trolls, is more likely to be accurate. You openly insult the group you disagree with but not the group you do agree with.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Defense of MRA is anti-progressive, support of women is a progressive trait.
This is democratic underground. If you wanna jerk off MRA talking points, free republic will be most happy to have you.
And no. there simply aren't any such trolling/goading threads posted by women.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)"Blah, blah, blah. Ho hum. They just need to shut up. We all know about it."
And here you are saying it again.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Ridiculous. The sneering air of superiority coming from a few of the so-called feminists is just as annoying and troublesome as sophomoric and offensive posts by some males who obviously have huge attitude problems.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Or at least the topic was quieting down some, and it was going to go back to regular politics discussion. Also, its generally a silly idea to suggest everyone must think the same way on any particular topic. "collectively ashamed"
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)I think it IS a political discussion.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Evidently you don't think objectification of women is important and worthy of being discussed. Maybe you're also hoping that threads on poverty or healthcare or income inequality will go away soon...
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Their opinion counts just as much as other, lets say, more extreme feminists, who disagree. I'm assuming that this is what your thread is referencing.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There's already at least one such person who responded to this thread.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But I think it's perfectly valid to raise the issue of unrealistic body image/beauty standards, since it's something that affects women and even men to a lesser degree.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Pretending that there are people who "have problems with swimsuit pics" etc. (much like the "they're really just prudes" argument.
This is not the issue.
I'm male and I will give up DU at the point where posting T+A in GD will become the norm. I have no problems with swimsuits, nor am I a prude.
90% of this shit is stirred by a deliberate trolling campaign by some MRA types.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)90% of this shit is stirred by a deliberate trolling campaign, this is true.
However, if you look at the OPs, who's really doing the trolling here? Hmm? I don't see your so-called "MRA types" posting shit-stirring OPs like this one. No, that award belongs to another group of shit stirrers entirely.
I doubt very seriously that posting T+A in GD as you so deftly put it will become the norm, however, I do think that we will never see an end to the myriad of posts alluding to it and complaining about it, nor will we ever see an end to the shitstorms that follow.
Of course, this can't possibly be true, so forget I said anything.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Thanks for nothing.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)RBStevens
(227 posts)Sexual objectification of women is sexism. Sexism is a feminist issue.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Thanks.
Seems to me that objectification theory is a thing of questionable basis. If this is the case, the case for and against can be made, so I'm not sure how either the assertion or the denial is problematic.
However, I don't really see how a discussion board being progressive has much to do with the appropriateness of posting pictures of bikini models. Do progressives, in your estimation, have or should have a problem with this?
Regardless, while shame (collective or otherwise) has become a thing around here lately, I must confess that I've resisted the urge to adopt the current ethos. I appreciate your looking out for my virtue and warning me about potential moral hazards, however, I think I'll manage to navigate this ethical morass pretty well.
Since I am reluctant to join you in this exercise in self-flagellation, I will at least apologize for being a source of embarrassment to you.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If a sizable group of DUers insisted that income inequality wasn't a problem, I'd feel the same way.
Or is there room for debate?
Just because the same people who have been howling about it on DU since DU was a thing doesn't make it a fact. Just because a "sizable group of DUers" insist on the truth of something doesn't indicate anything other than "some people on DU believe that objectification is a real thing and it is a serious problem." It says nothing about how sizable a group are those who fall into the "other" category on DU, and neither does it say anything about the country as a whole, or the world as a whole.
All it proves is that some people here are absolutely certain that it is a real thing and its bad.
That and $4 will buy you a venti at the local 'Bucks.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't think you understood my last post. I'm not saying that a sizable portion of DUers is always right. I'm saying that if a sizable portion of DUers took a reactionary stance on some other issue, then I would also think that would be also cause for collective embarrassment.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Your implication is that you are stating a fact. You are not. The questionable nature of objectification theory has been debated, and, I think at least, well met with honest criticism. Ergo, potential for a reasonable and civil debate exists. If we, as progressives, need to be ashamed of thinking critically, even about those things that some people think dogmatic, to the point of being called 'reactionary' then THAT would be a point of embarrassment.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not really in the mood to debate it, any more than I am in the mood to debate the merits of supply side economics or Mitt Romney's 47% comments. I think it is so patently obvious that, among progressives, there shouldn't be much to debate.
But I'm glad that you're posting in this thread, because it's a good counterexample to the people claiming that nobody here is really denying that women are objectified.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)It is a conjecture on your part and a debatable one.
Your continued insistence on its truth is not particularly compelling in light of this.
But just to your last point, I am not denying that women are objectified. I am questioning objectification as a whole, and that's even more 'problematic' isn't it?
It's like how people who believe in a god can have debates about the nature, purpose, and smell of their god or gods, but can't have a simple conversation about the existence of god with an atheist, because to do so would allow their most base assertive belief to require justification. Nevertheless, the angst this may cause in no way delegitimizes the conversation or any part of it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I also don't want to debate the merits of supply side economics, nor do I think I should have to on a supposedly progressive message board.
I get it. You disagree.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Yes, I got it the first time... when you said it... and yet here you are again... saying it. I'm starting to doubt your resolve on this matter.
I wouldn't want to debate the merits of supply side economics either, because it really doesn't have any. Would be tough to sell the pro side of that one. I got that when you said that before, too.
Thanks for acknowledging my obvious disagreement. That should be helpful to anyone who saw my previous posts where my disagreement was obvious but just not to them.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And a probably fairly comparable number will suffer domestic abuse - though the two do tend to go together. So whatever your quibble over what to call this, I think it would be insane to deny that we have a serious problem here.
I'm not saying the solution is to ban soft-core porn - no one here has advocated that anyway - but these issues should be raised whenever possible, because they affect real people, including (very likely) people you and I care about.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Now correlate that statistic to "objectification". Can't do it, can you? Probably because objectification is a non-thing.
Is the issue sexual assault? Yes. Is it "objectification"? Not so much. Answer me this question. If objectification was such a trigger for this sort of behavior, why has the incidence gone down? I mean, the people who put stock in this idea of objectification predicted a sharp spike upwards when the internet and the ubiquity of the nekkidness within showed up, this just hasn't materialized.
The jury has deliberated. Pictures of scantily clad/nekkid humans do not make people go do bad things.
So, if we really care about real people, very likely people that you and I care about, can we stop this distractive nonsense about bikini models on a progressive board because, not only is it pointless and solves no problem except to satisfy the social and political aesthetic of a very small group of people, it is also an affront to progressives who feel they don't need someone to tell them what is expected from them insofar as shame.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)The problem is not sexual imagery per se. It's a large number of people failing to see that others - perhaps of a different race, gender, or what have you - are just as human as they are. How to make them see that, I honestly don't know, but it certainly doesn't hurt to address the topic at least.
It's really an issue of how we view, and how we treat, other people. I'm not hung up on the cheesecake photos as such, I just don't think they really belong on a political discussion board. And to someone who's struggled all their life with body image issues, I can see how Kate Upton's boobs shoved in their face might be a bit like salt in the wound.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)The problem, from my point of view, does not seem to be that people have a problem seeing other humans as just as human. The vast majority of people can do that even in the presence of boobies.
No, the problem is that this acknowledgment doesn't seem to alter the requirements for desirability. Body image issues are something everyone goes through unless you are one of the rare few who manage to be attractive for the entire of their lives. We all have to come to terms with what we are, and while perhaps Kate Upton's boobs may not be helpful to someone who has body image issues, our burdens with regard to this are our own. Do you think that a society sterilized of Kate Upton's boobs is going to solve body image issues for people thus burdened? Is it going to make that person more attractive to others absent "unrealistic" comparisons? Maybe. However, I believe that we get what we ask for, and that these images are so prevalent because we asked for them. We weren't fed them out of some devious motive, drastically rewiring what would otherwise be a more egalitarian sexual sensibility as a side effect.
You may be right, Kate Upton's boobs might not belong on a political discussion board. But using that logic, kittehs don't belong, jokes don't belong, name-your-favorite-band of the sixties threads certainly don't belong. Groups devoted to cooking and baking don't belong, and don't get me started on those apolitical posts in the science forum... geez, the nerve. Yet they are all here. Why? Because maybe its more than just politics we crave. We're human, as you aver quite nicely. We want to laugh, we want to know interesting things, we want to see beautiful things. I've never thought that austerity of purpose is congruous with human intellectual need, and I would prefer DU not take up such a philosophy.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Believe me, there's very much a time and place for, er, appreciation of the human body. It's about what's appropriate in a particular context - Kate in space might be okay for the Lounge, but posting that in GD seems a bit like watching porn at work.
"A more egalitarian sexual sensibility" is not something I'm especially hoping for either - people like what they like, and attraction is largely an involuntary process. Part of viewing others as fully human is to put their sexual attractiveness - or lack thereof - in perspective, and realize that it's only part of who they are. The solution is not to condemn or repress sexuality in any way, but to perhaps compartmentalize it in a sense, e.g. keep it to appropriate contexts as I said above. If you want an analogy, it's like the difference between asking out a woman whom you've met at a social gathering, and asking a co-worker (especially a subordinate) out.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...I didn't mean to imply that you were advocating personally such a thing, I was merely suggesting it as a hypothetical reverse to what our society currently is, and what some really seem to have a problem with.
Compartmentalization is fine in the way you described, but DU IS a social gathering. Is anyone here on the clock? Anyone here out of necessity and not personal choice? Besides, the way that some will politicize gender around here, I believe that maybe there is a political case to be made for Kate to make a GD appearance or two. As they say, Kate's boobies weren't political until they made them political. OK, maybe no one says that but me, but still...
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)It is -so- Last Century or even The Century Before. Honestly.
The parallels boggle the mind.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)The two things you mentioned are actually things. They were/are real.
Objectification is nothing more than a word made up to make another thing seem scary, evil, and just plain wrong.
There are no parallels. What boggles your mind is how decades of this nonsense have failed to be inculcated into our society.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Keep posting crap, and I'll keep telling you it's crap.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Think I can see China already.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Another bit of nothing from TuesdayAfternoon. I am going to feign shock now. *GASP*
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But that doesn't prevent me from seeing that unrealistic standards of physical attractiveness are damaging to people's (moreso women's) self-esteem. And that when (some) men expect women to merely "look hot" they tend to treat the female gender dismissively at best.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...could be a legitimate start to a reasonable conversation about the very thing OP insists is fact.
For example, my response would most certainly question your second sentence, because my experience is that it is a vanishingly amount of men who see women as a collection of desirable physical attributes without seeing the whole as human. The first sentence has merit, at least insofar as it is possible that women may feel that they are held to an unrealistic standard of attractiveness, and that may impact their self-esteem, however, I'd probably have a different take on the causative agents than "objectification".
However, the point I'm making is that when you take it as fact, you run into two serious problems. One, objectification is not a fact EXCEPT in certain circles. Two, because of one, no reasonable discussion or debate of the idea is possible with people who do take it as fact.
The real issue here is the preponderance of gender-baiting nonsense posting like what the OP has plopped down here.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And you really think it's a "vanishingly small" number of men who mistreat women? Then what accounts for the sizable minority of women (as high as a third) who suffer rape or domestic abuse? Something doesn't add up there...
But yeah, those silly feminists are just complaining about nothing like always, right?
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)I think it is a vanishingly small number of men who see women as a collection of lady parts as opposed to a human being. In my life, I can count on one hand the men who thought that way. I said nothing about the number of men who mistreat women. But if we are going to put words in my mouth, I'd say that what accounts for a third of women who suffer rape or domestic abuse is usually a rapist or an abuser. I'm pretty sure, though, it wasn't a picture of a bikini model. Of course, if you'd actually followed this thread a bit, you'd know that "objectification" is the thing us progressives should be ashamed of, and the bikini model was at least indirectly responsible.
Poor oppressed men? Nice. If you're going to borrow...
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)If they're truly pointless and useless, then "trash thread" should be your best friend.
And okay, maybe it's not "reducing women to body parts" per se that's the issue. I honestly don't know - I've never been a violent misogynist, so I have a limited idea of how their minds work.
I'm honestly concerned about these things, and in some sense I'm looking for answers. And I don't think it does anybody any good to try to dismiss an entire important discussion just because aspects of it are annoying or uncomfortable (in some people's opinion).
And yeah, maybe the "poor oppressed men" thing was a little over the top, but I just get tired of some people's outsized persecution complexes. Not saying you're one of them, necessarily, mind you.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...if they were actual discussions. They aren't. OP says if you don't think X, you ought be ashamed, because X is just a nasty FACT. What discussion follows from the conclusion? None that I'm aware of.
The OP did not discuss violent misogyny, it said, "We're progressives, so how dare you look at bikini models, for shaaaamme." As if "progressive" and "bikini model looking" were mutually exclusive. If you were looking for any answers here, the only one you can come away with definitively is that on DU, the signal-to-noise ratio of gender issues in GD is exceedingly low.
I grow weary of the meticulous attempts at justification of the size of one's persecution complex.
The reason I grow weary of it is because no one likes to have their issues trivialized. That people can puff up their own sense of entitlement in the matter while dismissing others is just the sort of hypocrisy that makes it impossible to solve any real problem that it entails.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Nobody really cares what you look at by yourself, privately - I sure as hell don't - but as I said, there are appropriate and inappropriate venues for this sort of thing. Learning the difference, to me, is just part of good manners.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)That a few people here actually do care about what I look at privately, and they will have none of it if they had their druthers. Why else would they go on about it so?
Look, all I'm saying is that there has to be a community standard which defines appropriate and inappropriate. It has been repeatedly decided by virtue of discussion and a whole PILE of failed alerts that we all seem to be adult enough around here not to lose our shit when a picture of someone wearing swimwear graces our pages.
At what point do we stop making the same argument hoping for a different result, and just simply accept the outcome?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)it honestly doesn't trouble me all that much. I wasn't personally offended by any of the images posted on here, but I do try to understand perspectives different from my own - within reason - so you could maybe say I've been playing a bit of a Devil's Advocate on here, of late.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)What a load of pseudo-intellectual crap!
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)If there's one thing a pseudo-intellectual can recognize it's pseudo-intellectual crap.
Also, overused eyeroll smiley:
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Willing to ignore decades of social science, psychology, and feminism.
Fucked up.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And I have said that there's a huge problem with people viewing those unlike them as less than fully human.
Misogyny, racism, homophobia could all be used as examples of that.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)It doesn't mean we stop using the word, or stop calling it out.
People in denial about the reality of objectification are no different than people in denial about global warming. Fortunately for the environment, scientists are able to measure meteorological data to prove it with. And people still bury their heads in the sand. Objectification? Dependent on the ignorantly-maligned, so-called 'soft sciences' Yeah, its not hard to see why so many don't even bother speaking up about it.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And I will never argue with the fact that even "enlightened" Western societies have serious issues RE: the treatment of women. To dispute something so self-evident would be not just foolish but downright insane.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)at all. It's not about monkeys or the 2nd amendment, it's more about stubborn pride- the refusal to admit what is right in front of your face.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Even if one doesn't agree, they should still be able to listen at least. Especially when they themselves are clearly not an expert on the subject.
RBStevens
(227 posts)experienced and reported by women. Who obviously have no idea what they are talking about and can't be trusted!1!
What's surprising me is that even with a number of men saying objectification is REAL we are still not being believed. But I guess that's the majik of The White Knight - now even when a man says it, it can be dismissed.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)This one, though... it's like people are just blind to it. Willfully blind.
The flailing desperation so obvious in these attempts to try to muddy the waters should be encouraging. No distortion is too outrageously ridiculous, no analogy too torturously flawed, no dissmissive or mocking taunt too low for the advocates of this form of oppression to use in the effort to drown any attempt at thoughtful discussion.
RBStevens
(227 posts)is sort of the last bastion in the power-over model and therefore the most deeply rooted. Men are sold the idea that they are powerful/have power but when it becomes obvious that they do not (as must happen because for most men in most areas of life it's a lie in the first place) they still have this power-over women if only by being able to consume them in magazine/pornography form.
Even if they can't have power/control over women IRL they can still have it in these other ways and it keeps them hanging onto the fantasy that they are powerful like they are *supposed* to be. I'm quite sure that for many, many, many men to give up that so easily obtained power source would be incredibly frightening.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and thanks for the optimistic take on it.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)the more encouraged I get.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)Now it's a THEORY that women are objectified.
Because ElboRUum doesn't really see it. So therefore we can't actually be sure it exists.
What we see before us everywhere we turn, what women experience and have experienced since forever, well, that might have just been all in our heads.
Because Elboruum isn't convinced, and is pretty sure there's just a conspiracy to gratuitously shame him.
Because, you know, it's about him.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)They got a whole huge long thread about how it isn't so, in there.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)"But it's cold in my yard!"
"But I don't believe I objectify. I'm a bonobo. It's not objectification if I'm a bonobo."
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Is one of the few places where gender issues get a fair and civilized treatment. Truth is, most of the people who frequent that particular group would and often do classify as feminists, although I'm sure YOU'D disagree.
And we welcome members of DU to participate who are not men and/or may have views we disagree with, so long as they keep it civil.
So good mischaracterization on your part. I'm sure you're very proud of yourself.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)he's so nice!
a lot of people take this shit too personally to have a clear head -personally as in defending"my clique"- and they will defend anything they do or say. To the extent that mods let them back here secretly. How fucked up is that?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 21, 2014, 09:31 PM - Edit history (1)
His zombies, socks, wife, or whatever, were PPRed. If he's back now, he sure isn't acting the same, and I'm sure admin would can him as soon as they found out.
As to clique defending, your group sure does a lot of it. If someone in your group gets a hidden post, flagged, a 5 hide time out, or PPRed, outrage posts/threads usually follow. Anyone can go to your group or ATA and see it. The recent banning of xulamaude was an excellent example of the hypocrisy here.
It is a wonder to behold.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 21, 2014, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)
DU. And he did have some host here trying to help him come back as a sock without being detected. That was a shitty episode, and probably the only banning I am aware of.
I don't know where you got the idea I have a clique or group? That's pretty weird. I am in GD 95% of the time. I do agree with feminists here often- but certainly not all of them all the time. That is the extent of my "radical activity". All us women aren't some big homogeneous group, LOL. I absolutely do not keep track of hides and all that crap. (And i I start to, shoot me. )
I do notice a lot of hostility to feminists here. Seems to get worse - and more juvenile- as time goes on. If you haven't noticed it bothering people, that's okay, but a few hundred other people also noticed it this week. As did Skinner.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)You have to first accept the fact that objectification is an actual thing.
I do not.
It is a word used to demonize another thing. And quite a few people have taken the time and built up a little narrative to make sure that when they say that word to demonize that other thing, the word they use seems legit.
Moreover those who take it is a fact would of course expect DU to be shamed because good progressives don't objectify, they just don't. Moreover, good progressives pull out the Wagging Finger of Shame (TM). The WFOS is just what good progressives do when they feel that they are around bad progressives. It's on page two of the Good Progressives' Code of Conduct, right after the table of contents.
Seems to me, I am a grand objectifier in the estimation of the OP, a phallopressor of the worst order. Thus I need a good heaping helping of the WFOS.
How is this NOT about me (and others who share the view)? Oh, wait. It IS. It certainly isn't about YOU, is it?
I'm surprisingly OK with this, I suppose its due to the fact that I don't get too bunged up when I'm accused of being a bad progressive. It's just the pile of dung that gets left when progressives disagree on things and one of them can't accept it.
As to conspiracy, well, don't conspiracies require more than one person? Don't they require a bit of secretiveness? It's as though there is, in your mind, the requirement for more than one person to shame another. No, the OP's doing a grand job by him/herself. I see no validity in your statement. Kind of odd for you to even suggest it, really.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)What you don't seem to get is that your opinion on whether it exists doesn't override the experience of others.
And all this coyness about the "other thing." I am assuming this refers to sex, given that every argument that seems to come up to defend objectification on DU seems to begin with the lamest argument of all, "they just don't like sex."
Here's a newsflash: the posting of T&A photos in places where people have said they don't want to see them has nothing to do with sex.
You likely refrain from posting T&A pictures in your office, you likely refrain from posting them in the offices of political organizations you belong to, you likely refrain from posting them in cafes and libraries and community centers and hospitals and other places that you share with women. So somewhere even you understand that the posting of T&A photos in places where people have said they don't want them has nothing to do with sex.
It's not really odd for me to think you are seeing conspiracies when you talk about a "collective" that is out there trying to shame YOU, you personally, because of your innate importance. So no, my conspiracy point has nothing to do with what is "in my mind." It has to do with what you said.
Anyway, are you a phallopressor of the worst order? I don't know. I don't know you. What seems clear from your posts is that you wish you were.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Because that's another made up word too, and I just LOVE it. I feel like a supervillian when I say it, and I've always thought that the best works of fiction have larger than life villains while the heroes seem rather boring by comparison.
What I get is that the experience of others may be real, but the theory is a made up thing. It is there to stand in for something that is meant to be made to feel nasty, evil, and just plain wrong... when it is none of those things.
Coyness? Since you're going to get it wrong again, allow me to just say it. The other thing isn't "sex", it is "basic, natural, human, sexual attraction." And it's clear to me that this is a real problem for some, not suitable in most contexts, and barely acceptable in those that remain.
Some people don't want to see them? I don't want to see food porn on DU. If someone posts another 'kitteh' or embeds another video of some wretched band somewhere I don't like, I'll lose it. I know that people may share my view on these or other visual irritations on DU. But have I asked for a Lounge-wide ban on Caturday? I should, apparently. So why don't I? Simple. I don't OWN DU. I am a member of a COMMUNITY. We, as a community, decide what the rules of engagement are, within a framework provided by the owners of the site. And when the community thinks something is OK even if you don't, you either accept it or leave. And DU, at least for the purposes of discussion in general, has certainly greenlit the posting of some of what we're talking about here. I suspect if it grows beyond that in GD, we may see it go the way of gun threads, and the way that gender-flamebait threads like this one should go IMHO.
I'll explain the difference between DU and the other places you mentioned.
DU is not an office.
DU is not a political organization, at least not one with a brick and mortar presence anyway, and even then only loosely.
DU is not a library.
DU is not a community center.
DU is not a hospital.
Here's a news flash for you: DU is a social place. And in social areas, we all make the decision as to what is and isn't proper. One doesn't, and neither does a few or some. Your displeasure is duly noted, and I appreciate that fact. However, what has happened here is that people just aren't as bothered by these things as you are, or you'd want them to be.
I don't see any conspiracy, and I don't know where you get that. All I see is one person, the OP, taking it upon him/herself to shame the rest of DU (and society at large) that doesn't share his/her particular ideas of what is and isn't proper for 'progressives', although I do see a lot of people in this thread claiming that this isn't what is happening, how people just don't get it, when the OP couldn't be clearer either about message or intent.
And if I identify with those he/she is referring to, it may not be about me specifically, but it is about ME in the sense of the fact that here's this little box I put people into and you're one of them. I don't know exactly how that's supposed to be in some way different, but I assure you it isn't. Of course, I don't really care about the imaginary box someone fabricated out of whole sheet cardboard nor my presence in it, but please, assume I am really hurt by this. It'll make you feel better, trust me.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)interested enough to invest the time required by this wall of words.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)To be expected really.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)If you feel shame, that is on you.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)I shamelessly identify with people who have no problem at all with either the SI swimsuit issue, or bikini models in general, or the presence of said same being posted on DY.
Clearly, I am one of the targets of this stupid OP. I don't have to feel shame to recognize when someone is attempting to shame. I can, of course, call it out, and if so moved, laugh derisively at it.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)you might consider tone.
Did the OP consider tone?
Oh, right. Yeah... that.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)stating that there is nothing innately wrong with a naked human body (to make the point that women can dress provocatively and not mean it to be titillating). The same poster was livid just a little while before that, over the SI swimsuit issue, declaring it the worst of objectification hiding in a sports magazine.
so, yes, objectification is open to debate. It certainly exists and exists to an objectionable degree. But it is also rather vague and subject to interpretation.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Time and time again, the usual suspects trundle around projecting perceived slights and personal dramas that should either be left to the sanctuary of their group forums ... or shared with a therapist.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)and diversity to all being the fault of a "small group of feminists," some of whom they call out by name. That kind of reaction is willfully obtuse and ignores reality, which seems to be the point. They refuse to consider issues and think there is something mentally ill about women who insist on being treated as equal human beings. No one can force anyone to value equality and diversity. The fact is too many people care only about themselves and see opportunities and equal rights for women and people of color as an unacceptable infringement on the absolute privilege. They believe it is only they and those who think exactly like them who matter, and no one else That much is clear. To insist there is something diseased about asserting equal rights is the height of intolerance. It is the opponents of equality that insist on making it personal because they want to pretend that if not for a few loud-mouthed feminists, they could happily ignore the rights of over half the human race.
What is really sad is how much a few resent progress and desperately seek to turn the clock back to over fifty years ago.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)It's a shame we can't discuss racism without someone doing the whole "BUT I'M NOT RACIST!!!" routine.
But certain posters insist on taking every damn thing personally...
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Oh,...you mean Facebook.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Squinch
(50,774 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)cvoogt
(949 posts)in general is a problem. We wouldn't have this objectification without capitalism urging on the objectification of women. Everyone is considered a 'consumer' and TPTB consider men as 'consumers of women' and imagery of women. It sells, so they keep selling it.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)As I said to another poster, "lust" is a perfectly natural, animal response. The capitalist commodification of it is not.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)BainsBane posted a thread full of images of powerful women, depicted as whole human beings, not posed caricatures of female sexuality.
It is the degradation of women that sells so well. Their dehumanization that is sadly considered so desirable by so many.
And it isn't just a matter of capitalism. On Reddit, men post images of women who did not consent to being sexualized, no money involved whatsoever. Capitalism exploits this desire, it feeds it, but it is not solely to blame. Women are objectified in all forms of media, not just advertisements.
It is a cultural problem, and objectification is at the root of this aspect of it.
Here are some informative articles involving these issues.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2012/sep/22/creepshots-revenge-porn-paparazzi-women
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/sochi-volunteer-reddit-online-stalking/
cvoogt
(949 posts)There are exceptions. I would agree that there is objectification of women that is not caused by commodification/capitalism, but I'm not sure your particular examples are good examples of that. Revenge porn and stalking are (in my humble opinion) forms of mental illness whether it's lack of empathy, lack of social skills, general sociopathy, addictive behavior, etc. But I would be surprised to hear those 'men' talked about in such terms in the near future; instead it gets covered as a trend, an interesting social media fad, or whatnot - you know, just 'fair and balanced' "neutral" coverage. There seems very little outrage over it.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)When I started discussing revenge porn and the need for laws against it, the victim blaming, excuse-making and rationalizing in here flew thick and heavy.
Labeling it as "mental illness whether it's lack of empathy, lack of social skills, general sociopathy, addictive behavior, etc." is IMO pathologizing misogyny. It thereby conveys the idea that they just can't help it, when that couldn't possibly be farther from the truth.
cvoogt
(949 posts)They just don't WANT to / don't care. It's a choice. All kinds of people have behaviors that could be pathologized - doesn't mean they are powerless to stop their own behavior. And apparently too many people think this sort of thing is just 'boys being boys' ... well, whoever is raising their boys to act like this needs to take a long hard look at their priorities.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)I see so much unfair or even harmful behavior rationalized 'because biology' - so I do think it's a good idea to be careful how such labels are used.
Not everyone uses nuance!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Tumbulu
(6,267 posts)Thanks for spelling it out so clearly. It has been remarkably disappointing.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Look around you. This is an enormous collection of mostly anonymous people. What the hell am I supposed to be ashamed of? Not getting selected for juries more often? I can't control that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I think the US should be collectively ashamed of the fact that we have extreme levels of income inequality, and that we invaded Iraq under false pretenses. If instead of DU being collectively repulsed by Mitt Romney's 47% comments, debates had broken out about whether people on social security are actually worthless leeches, that would have been collectively shameful for a progressive message board.
That's what I'm getting at, and I think it is a meaningful concept.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)The concept is...
DanTex defines progressive, therefore, DanTex defines what's shameful for progressives, therefore, DanTex shames progressives.
Am I close?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)He couldn't actually have a sincere, thoughtful aim in posting this OP - never in a million years!
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...because, like most people with authoritarian viewpoints, they believe they are the arbiters of what is and isn't proper or acceptable. They make statements from a singular point of view and defy people to contradict them. Often they proceed from a perceived sense of spokesmanship for a larger group as ratifying their authority. This is, of course, pretty offensive to me, as all tarring and feathering of DU as a whole does.
Whether there was a thoughtful aim here became immaterial the exact moment we were supposed to be ashamed of ourselves.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)to me, honestly. The OP was one person's opinion. It doesn't have to be more than that, if you don't want it to be. But you can't just simply disagree, no, you have to accuse the poster of all kinds of nefarious intentions.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)If it was an opinion, he'd be entitled to it. However, he is expressing an opinion as fact, and using it as a springboard to shaming everyone who disagrees, essentially dictating the terms of the "discourse" prior to it even beginning. Authoritarian. Shaming is a method of control, you know that, right?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I'm a cynic in a lot of ways myself, with a not exactly rosy view of humanity as a whole, and while in this case I'm assuming the OP only has the best of intentions, I can see why some might think otherwise.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)you stated the exact same thing I was thinking.
senseandsensibility
(16,713 posts)to miss the point.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Perhaps you did. It would look the same.
Response to ElboRuum (Reply #69)
Tuesday Afternoon This message was self-deleted by its author.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, like telling someone 'pardon the mess' when a place is wrecked that I don't own or control.
Not asking for personal forgiveness, or taking responsibility.
Ok. Fair.
I found the personal responsibility interpretation vexing, because seriously, there's only so much I can do, without pushing to the point I get baited, alerted, and gagged.
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)But another problem is that more and more people are not even wanting to discuss objectification in a mature manner and try to shut down any discussion about issue before it is even given a chance.
I'm sure there are a lot of poster who are tired of hearing about it just want this issue to go away. Thing is, there are many women (and men) here who are sick and tired of not only being (or having a relative or friend getting) objectified, but having their noses smeared into it. But no matter how tired they are of being treated this way, it won't go away.
In fact, it came to a place that is supposed to be a liberal website, a friendly territory if you will, and made itself an issue. I think DU should be a place where one can discuss women's issues and take a liberal position without being shouted down. Especially when that issue has a lot of overlap with other liberal issues like abortion, discrimination, lgbtq rights, separation of church and state, and many others.
Maybe, I just am delusional, but I would have thought DU would be far more welcoming and understanding of this type of discussion than, lets say, a video game forum. Im not even saying everyone has to agree, but that it would at least be discussed civilly rather than in flame war after flame war.
kcr
(15,300 posts)The fact that there can't even be a discussion about it is a problem. It gets dismissed as gender wars, and those who even dare take the position that objectification is a problem get smeared. It's ridiculous that a civil discussion on this subject can't even happen.
senseandsensibility
(16,713 posts)And I have to say that I am disappointed in the administrators of DU. True, they are all men. But I really think that OPS that objectify women should be banned from GD. I kind of think that should go without saying. I am beginning to feel more and more unwelcome here, and I am not even a radical feminist.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But some people are so insistent on their right to say whatever they want, wherever and whenever they want, that it almost seems as if no one ever taught them basic manners.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and the salivating over the cover photo wasn't. And what did it have to do with a progressive political site?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)IMO....
It certainly had the desired effect.
If it were posted by anyone else NOT smack dab in the middle of the feuding, I might have a different opinion.
Agree with your post, nonetheless.
seaglass
(8,170 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Thanks for raising your voice for equality.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)If only we'd known then what convulsions one photo of Kate Upton and a picture of the SISE would bring.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)So IMO we have actually made some progress.
Now people are having to hear why it's fucked up to post pictures of topless women on sports magazine covers in GD.
It isn't the same as freaking out over a halftime show.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)you came to the wrong forum.
Believe it or not, DU has a handful of pro-life supporters. If you look long enough, you'll probably find a few John Edwards supporters hanging around.
Only about a handful of issues truly unite DU, and opinion on bikinis isn't one of them.
This is why I stopped using the label "progressive" and just go with Democrat now. No one has made official what being a progressive is exactly, so people just assume unless you agree with them on all their issues large and small, you're not a progressive. I believe progressive (as a political concept) basically means modern. Some will see comfort with sexually explicit images (and sexuality in general) as "progressive", so there's no real point in continuing this discussion.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)That would be most helpful.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Squinch
(50,774 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)On a democratic message board?
Squinch
(50,774 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... to be liberals so they can stir up shit.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)Where exactly are all of these shame-inducing posts denying that objectification of womem is a problem?
I suspect that it's actually a clash of different perspectives, with diferent people seeing different manifestations of objectification and having different responses to these very different circumstances.
So is theproblem, in your view, that people are truly denying that women are objectified? Or is the problem that not everyone--male or female--accepts the framing dictated by one tiny, vocal subset of DU's population?
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)And that post doesn't deny that objectification might occur; it questions the basis for a certain characterization of what qualifies, to some, as objectification.
Unless we are required to accept an assertion by fiat, with no possibility of debate or differing interpretation, then I don't see how it would be reasonable to expect otherwise.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)...and the poster later said:
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Leaving aside his careless ramblings, it can be accurately said that objectification is not the clear-cut object/objectifier binary construct that it's lately been represented to be here at DU. Using the recent thread about the SI issue as an example, the simple act of ogling a bikini-clad model does not necessarily mean that the ogler is reducing the woman (or any other woman) to the status of an object. It can mean that, and for some men I'm sure that it does. But there is no basis for saying that all men who engage in that behavior are therefore objectifying that woman or all women. That claim presumes to know the intent and thinking of every man who gets scooped up in the accusation, and a monolithic pronouncement like that simply can't be supported
It is indeed simply pointless to claim that objectification doesn't exist. However, it can be claimed that objectification of women is not a distinct or isolated or unique phenomenon unrelated to the behaviors in which everyone engages to some degree or another every day, for good or ill.
plantwomyn
(876 posts)when members of a group clearly express their discomfort, even outrage, about what they view as an inappropriate post and the reply is: "Suck it up buttercup, that's just the way we roll." It's obvious to the group that not all men are objectifying women and that not all men think that doing so is "cool". It's also obvious that there are some in the group that could not care less if they are making other members uncomfortable. In fact from what I have read in this thread alone, making women uncomfortable and unwelcome seems to be their goal, especially if they can then insinuate that anyone who calls them on it are whiners and make claims of misandry.
Perhaps it's time for us to be a little more introspective because it sure looks to me like the Republican party aren't the only ones who have a problem with women.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)in hypersexualized poses, on a sports magazine, that is the very definition of objectification.
You seem to want to focus solely on semantics. You seem to be more concerned with defending the many men who enjoy at least this one example of sexual objectification. The most important issue, to you, seems to be that none of them are referred to with any mean nasty labels like 'objectifiers'.
If anyone is still able to enjoy the dehumanization of women because boners - they're missing the entire point in order to focus only on their hurt feelings and their fear of losing the entitlement to enjoy such portrayals of women, and that's ... what it is.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)I don't suppose you managed to miss the first line of that post:
"Because the balance is off... "
Anyway, now there's no longer any doubt that you are no more intellectually honest than the guy who posted this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024533499
I'll no longer waste my time. I suppose your agenda should have been clear days ago, when you showed such selective outrage regarding "attacks" on women.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Your righteousness is inspiring.
You are a caricature, and it's obvious to anyone who hasn't somehow fallen under your spell.
Since you no longer plan to waste your time on this, I suspect that you'll post something that you think is clever and then run off to HoF to complain about it, as usual. Enjoy your echo chamber.
Back to Ignore for you.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)you're just using distortions and pushing the same dishonest agenda as the rest.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4533652
Another post from another thread where this same fox-news style mendacity was spewed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024506412#post220
But again, I know you don't care about facts or reality. That's why you didn't have shit to say about OAITW's attacks, Cletia's attacks, etc.
Enjoy your blinders.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)If you lack the courage to call someone a liar, you can instead accuse them of "mendacity."
This has the added bonus of allowing you to pretend that you're the intellectually honest victim of a campaign of deceivers, whom you can then accuse of wearing "blinders."
Enjoy!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)John: "OMG women posed on a magazine I saw on the internet - and worse....they were in bikinis and people...hold on a sec, heart is racing.....people thought they looked 'sexy'. Can you believe that????? Is that all they think of women? It must be. I know a guy down the street, Bob, he is just like that. I heard him myself saying he thought a woman was pretty. So that means she is an object."
Sandy: "Oh I know. I was setting up a business luncheon and checking online to see if they had finished washing and detailing my car and I saw that very same magazine cover. I, I just felt scared and had to check if someone had really posted that. Do you know what it was like to see it on my 27 inch monitor? I am getting a meeting together now, bring some steak and beer later tonight and let's face this problem with the rest of our friends. Oh, and bring your wireless keyboards, my cats like to attack cables"
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)People keep telling me that, maybe they just don't recognize it.
We have it better than most other countries in the world. People learn our language more. We drive many of the slave labor and sweatshops. We reap the most benefits from oil and other natural resources in the world.
We have less worries, more wealth, and so on.
But we still have a lot of problems we face, the least we can do is admit our privilege because...well I am not sure why but it seems the right thing to tell people to do.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I guess the argument is that because we have it better than North Korea, then gender disparities here don't matter. Interesting.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Straight white males have privilege here in the US (and we do) and that is relevant to problems how?
I keep seeing this whole issue being floated by similar people. Women are objects (no matter if a person looks at one and doesn't consider them an object, we are telling you what you feel) and the people with privilege we keep telling you about (white males) are the cause of this.
So folks run off working to tell white males they have privilege. Ok. Not sure what that is supposed to accomplish but I'll play along.
On a broad scale, Americans (and the west in general) have privilege. It is our lust for objects that turn many others in the world into slave labor, have their lands decimated for oil, precious metals, diamonds for rings and such, etc and so on.
We have objectified everything and using our privilege made it bad for many others in the world. Men, women, all races and genders here.
And the big fight of the week is over whether or not we should have seen three women getting paid well on a magazine cover.
So yeah - plenty of us have privilege and objectify.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's about the fact that society treats women as objects, and places huge emphasis on their physical appearance. The SI cover is emblematic of this problem, and it also reinforces it.
Yes, there are other problems in the world, too.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)"Do people really think that David Beckham appearing on billboards in his underwear proves that men and women are equally treated as sex objects by society?"
Here is what I think based on all the threads here over time:
If someone sees a billboard with Beckham on it and they say 'wow, he is hot' I don't immediately want to run about telling others that the person who remarked that way only sees men as objects, wants to have sex with them, and should be ashamed of themselves for finding someone attractive based solely on the physical image they just saw (chances are they are never going to meet him and become friends with him to get to know him better).
What is natural, at least in my 48 years on this planet, is that...oh I dunno...people are generally attracted to others and looks are part of that whole attraction thing. We all know that you don't judge a book by it's cover but being a visual species we tend to at least factor that in from time to time.
The idea to shame others and tell them the only reason they like something is they are objectifying and are probably off whacking off to it (as has been alluded to if not directly said) is just plain silly.
Most everything in the media, movies, magazines, etc, centers around selling to the consumer. Women may prefer men in suits and powerful positions, so tv shows mad men or some such show that reflects what that group may want (notice I said 'may' as this was simply an example of consumer/producer relationship).
Do you really think CSI and Bones are realistic? I don't, but still enjoy the show and I don't think all detectives work like that. I don't think all women want to be half dressed on a beach smiling at me either or that they are just objects to be consumed. But I am told that I do because the 'show' I saw on DU didn't offend me enough.
Told I am not offended enough for others and because I am not I just hate women and their causes and am not liberal or progressive.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The reason that David Beckham billboards don't have the same cultural effect is that men aren't constantly being told that they need to look like David Beckham. Men aren't judged based on appearance, or objectified nearly as much as women.
That is the problem. Not that being attracted to attractive people is bad. Not that thinking Kate Upton is hot is bad. It's the fact that everywhere women go, there is a societal expectation that they should look like Kate Upton, and it is to their detriment if they don't. Even in professional environments, the appearance of women gets discussed and dissected.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Men who get business jobs wear suits. They have to decide what color tie to wear.
Women, on the other hand, face a whole quandary just deciding how to dress. You can't be too sexy, or you won't be taken seriously. But then you can't be seen as trying not to be sexy, or you'll be seen as an anti-man feminist. If a man in an office gains 20 pounds, nobody cares. If a woman in an office gains 20 pounds, everyone starts chattering. Yes, this is what happens.
If you are a woman, and you go into a meeting, and someone asks you to pour some coffee, do you do it? If you do, they might think you're a secretary. But then you don't want to specifically not pour the coffee just to prove that you're not a secretary. Then you're being hostile.
And so on. This is the kind of BS that women have to deal with. And part of the reason for it is a culture that places immense value on a woman's appearance, and treats women as sex objects in many ways. It's got nothing to do with being prudish or offended at the sight of an attractive woman in a bikini. It's about reinforcing certain gender values that affect women through society in negative ways.
RBStevens
(227 posts)FourScore
(9,704 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)..
treestar
(82,383 posts)to take it personally - if being a male who ogles objectified woman is something you do, you have to defend it for all society.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)hlthe2b
(101,730 posts)But, DanTex, I see you as a feminist because you "get it" and you are not afraid to show your support. Heaven knows, I don't agree with everything and every position put forward by those who join me in working for female equality--aka "feminists". Big tent and all that..
Thank you for a thoughtful post.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)KitSileya
(4,035 posts)that from now on, whenever a picture is posted of a woman on DU, they'll post sniping, childish jabs about her cleavage and the 'poutrage' they feel we 'should' show, "only to be fair, amirite?".
Skinner definitely needs to take a good look at where he wants DU to from now on, because if his priority is on providing a digital meeting place for Democrats rather than just earn money from page hits, he needs to grow a spine and do something about this.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)But that's just desperately poor me. I am living in a hotel with my family and about to loose that, my daughter is sick, I have an infected tooth that needs to be pulled, the job I am in Florida to do has been a complete sham and it's about to get rained out for the final weekend. For want of a couple grand I am about to lose everything. That's REAL.
How 'nasty minded' men look at women and professional models isn't even on my radar. You want 'Problems of the affluent'? That's it. Men and women look, and they sometimes think naughty thoughts. Get over it, and if you can't tell it to your cats -- they also think it's a bit prudish but they are too polite to say so.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We all agree about poverty. We discuss issues more actively when there is disagreement. If you have action items or information to share about poverty please start a thread.
Your reference to 'nasty minded men' and people 'think naughty thoughts' are distortions. You're either not understanding objectification or you're intentionally distorting the issue.
Your dig about cats and prudery are straight from the rightwingers playbook.
Good luck with your personal situation. Many of us have been there or worse. But dragging that into this unrelated thread is ... well it's something. I get that anyone in your situation would be anxious, but the issue being discussed in this thread affects half the human race in serious ways. For you to try to use the 'more important things' canard, given your posting history with respect to these kinds of issues...
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I saw that happen to someone DU. I witnessed it. I can testify.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)However, whether or not DU discusses a particular issue doesn't really affect your specific situation, or even the food insecurity of children worldwide.
Does the area you're in have a free dental clinic? Infected teeth can cause other problems - I hope you can get some help.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Nobody is saying that poverty isn't an important issue. It's not a contest about who has it worse.
Jetboy
(792 posts)The attacks on you seem a bit harsh to me.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)We talk about this stuff, and better still we LISTEN. There are few posters here I respect as much as Redqueen.
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)is the basis for much of what ails all societies. Yes, ALL societies.
The first genocide of the planet was the genocide of women. During one of my calculations about the 6 million women/girls were killed it averaged 1 murder every 45 minutes for 400 years. Then we all said God the Father.
WovenGems
(776 posts)And that ain't a fifty shades of grey issue.
Beringia
(4,314 posts)I think this subject is important, and I learn from people who post. Also brings out some people who just want to dismiss it and I learn from that too.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)arguments that have come up in support of T&A threads on this nominally liberal website. There is a lot of mental gymnastics around the issue, especially among those who argue that the objections are based on prudery or lack of enlightenment. Those posts do give a real glimpse into the minds of people who behave in ways I have never understood.
It isn't something I have any respect for, but it is interesting in a, "holy crap, seriously?" kind of way.
The empressof all
(29,098 posts)Even those who pride themselves on their open mindedness are often blind to it.
As a middle age woman who was told as a child that my only choice in life was to be a mother or a "spinster" teacher, nurse or librarian I more often see the dramatic difference in the life my daughter lives than my own at her age. We were watching tv the other day and she pointed out the sexism in a commercial I hadn't noticed before....She was correct and I had been blind to it. It just didn't register.
So while it is frustrating to get blow back when these kinds of unjust behaviors or messages are brought to light, I am hopeful that eventually that light will click on for them as well. But I do confess it's hard to not want to hit them on the head with an extremely large wet noodle....
ecstatic
(32,567 posts)objectification. Subtle but important difference.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)It has to do with the idea of treating someone as less than a full human being, but again, that idea is somewhat subjective, beyond the obvious, blatant manifestations like street harassment or sexual assault.
Some of my thoughts on the subject:
"Part of viewing others as fully human is to put their sexual attractiveness - or lack thereof - in perspective, and realize that it's only part of who they are. The solution is not to condemn or repress sexuality in any way, but to perhaps compartmentalize it in a sense, e.g. keep it to appropriate contexts."
City Lights
(25,171 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Seriously, I wish you all the luck in the world on your mission.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)indeed. They were looking at those bikini pictures! OMG!!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're playing dumb...
WovenGems
(776 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)let's not insult men here.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)frequently here. To me, the bullshit - and the quantity of that bullshit (like the I'm wearing a bikini tomorrow thread) is almost as bad as the sexism I see. GD is fucked up because a few hosts will not lock anything unless it's a pet issue for them. Skinner never gave them firm guidelines and there are always libertarian leaning people hosting, and in line to host that will argue to lock nothing at all.
It has changed the experience here a great deal.
WovenGems
(776 posts)Remember the old tune "I'm a girl watcher". Bottom line, boys will be boys.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's not either "stop having boners" or "do whatever you like". Enjoy pretty pictures of women or men all you want, but for the love of God, realize that doing it so blatantly when people have told you it makes them uncomfortable is not acceptable.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Why that wouldn't occur naturally to people is beyond me, but oh well...
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I have no problem with any of these discussions. What's wrong with the idea that we (collectively) should treat each other better than we do? That has nothing to do with anyone denying their natural urges, it has to do with us (ideally) seeing each other as fully human, and behaving accordingly.
There's nothing at all inherently wrong with "bikini photos," or even with more explicit material for that matter - it's how those images are used to reinforce unrealistic beauty standards. If things like the Kate's-boobs-in-space photos were balanced - in the media as a whole, I mean - by more realistic, less sexualized images of women, I don't think people would have such an issue.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Part of me thinks that the people complaining are 19-year-old boys. Another part of me thinks that that this first part of me is wishful thinking.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)even if I didn't voice it aloud. Luckily I've become more nuanced in my thinking.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I couldn't have said it better
whistler162
(11,155 posts)DU's Things To Be Ashamed Of(now in two volumes)
quinnox
(20,600 posts)"All duers who dare to have a contrary opinion to mine, here is reason #23 why you should be ashamed - the weekly thread"
Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)They not only deny any issue but in a typical repug fashion they claim being victims. THAT is embarrassing.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Whether objectification, privilege, racism or someother tortured issue on DU.
First you post an OP about objectification and how it is an evil. At that point you are trolling for a fight. You get the responses you are trolling for then we get a 250 post thread. You're happy.
Then you post this type of OP. You call out the nefarious deniers and start another 250 post thread.
This isn't about objectification this about you getting you jollies acting superior.
This is the same type if bullying tactics the tea party uses.
I wish to hell you do gooders would be called out for your self serving flame bate posts! I am not denying objectification, racism or privilege exists. I am denying your need to climb up your ivory tower and preach to the rest of us!
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)and also liars. they have a lot in common.
kiawah
(64 posts)... I'm not exactly sure what is offensive to me - everything, anything.... (around here it doesn't seem to matter). I just want my right to stomp around and be offended dammit!
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)liberal on most issues but then spend most their time showing their true colors on a single issue, we won't notice.
We notice.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)on my top issue, is a right wing troll.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)was how the SISI models were victims of corporate America and menz, yet they were indirectly, but absolutely, trashed by the outraged. Too skinny, unhealthy, photoshopped, can't bear children, not athletes, etc. etc.
The most ridiculous comment was about the "wise woman" who said that men who liked skinny women, like those models, wanted to possess, but men who like curvy women liked to fuck.
It was all very telling.
I saw three beautiful young women. I did not see them as sex objects, or "holes" as one of the more outraged put it.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)So many women for you to mock in that thread, so little time, eh?
Now here's a perfectly good thread with perfectly good discussion and some constructive comments, and you're going to bring up a week-old thread that one of your pals posted for shits and giggles so you can spread your disgusting hangups about women. :barf:
Response to R B Garr (Reply #226)
Bonobo This message was self-deleted by its author.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I don't have any hang-ups about women. There are plenty of women making reasonable objections to the thread, or just shrugging it off. There were some that were unreasonable. I summed up some of the unreasonable comments. That's not mockery. The one I laughed at was a non-DUer's comments from the past that someone posted. It was a story being told.
If that's so disgusting that you're barfing, maybe you should find a different pastime.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)You could find something different to do if all you can think to do is mock what people are saying.
Will you continue to use this perfectly constructive thread to mock the women's comments from the SI thread one by one? Comment by comment? Or will you group them into say groups of 2 or 3 for your mocking? That thread is like shooting fish in a barrel for someone like you who likes to so much at women's opinions.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)redqueen
(115,096 posts)paint me as a hypocrite - that was classic right-wing disingenuousness. And then another one started a whole fucking thread with that shit.
I really don't want to think it was done out of stupidity, but I suppose Hanlon's razor could apply.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)A great OP.
Best wishes.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)It's just one more item on a running tabulation.
DLevine
(1,788 posts)WovenGems
(776 posts)For prudes, that is. Meanwhile, back in the real world.....
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)and dump all this crap in there... "Seriously DU, it's embarrassing."
LWolf
(46,179 posts)DU used to bill itself as a "left-wing" discussion board.
That's long past. It got swallowed in the determination to nominate, elect, and then support a neo-liberal Democrat for POTUS. The place has moved steadily to the neo-liberal center, becoming more like the mainstream Democratic Party, ever since.
"Progressive" is a subjective term. On some polls I've seen, it's defined as "extremely liberal." Whatever. "Liberal" can mean anything from communist/socialist, socially liberal, or economically liberal, which are all different things. "Progressive" is a term adopted by the neo-liberal DLC and its PPI, "Progressive Policy Institute."
Anyone can call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and not be anywhere left of center, let alone the "left-wing" of anything.
The mainstream Democratic Party, despite the vilification by the right-wing, is not left of center, either. It's center-right, in contrast to the far right-wing. So expecting a Democratic discussion board to be left-of-center is not all that realistic.
Of course, there IS a left-wing of the Democratic Party. The left-wing that got thrown under the bus, and marginalized as "fringe," etc. when a neo-liberal Democrat took the WH. Some of us are even still here at DU; there are just plenty more neo-liberals, Reagan Democrats, Blue Dogs, etc. than there used to be, both here and in the party. So DU probably represents the Democratic Party pretty well.
That's what happens when the Republicans step off the right edge of their flat world into insanity; some horrified moderate Republicans switch parties, bringing their moderate Republican ideology and making the center-right contingent larger and more mainstream.
That reality aside, I agree with you. It's embarrassing that any DUers don't think that women being objectified is a problem in our society. That's one concrete example of what is a problem in the Democratic Party as well as society in general.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)gulliver
(13,142 posts)They just divide. Republicans are at war with women. Stick to the issues.
plantwomyn
(876 posts)you are citing a distinction without a difference. You should easily recognize that after reading this thread.
librechik
(30,663 posts)are in total denial about it.
I just concentrate on the few men i know who are aware of it, or fleetingly aware of it. DU is too big to change the male culture as a whole..
Rex
(65,616 posts)My attitude won't matter the least bit if someone has no shame. I think that is why I usually ignore these type of thread nowadays - there is nothing productive going on and a huge waste of time. Even as snarky as I can be at times, meta-flamebait is just that.
Nothing.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)I am not upset by pictures of naked women because I don't have a problem with male masturbation. There is a reason that those materials are made available in sperm banks and fertility clinics. Many a happy family has been created by the judicious application of a bawdy magazine or two. Male masturbatory practices do not have a one to one correlation with objectification of women in the actual, walking around world.