It is not about the swimsuit issue it is about basic respect for women
I am a man and I must admit that I really don't understand women very well. I hear a lot of men say they understand women, but the reality is that none of us really understand women because none of us have ever walked a day in their shoes.
When I first saw the swimsuit issue posted here I was not upset about it at all, in fact I fully admit I found the women on the cover attractive. I did not necessarily think it belonged in GD, but I was certainly not bothered by it. I looked at it found it attractive, but still had to shake my head a bit at the oogling over it downthread. I was not upset about about the image at all, these sorts of images are everywhere and I did not think much of it.
But then something happened; I saw women trying to express their views on the photo and I saw the way they were treated for expressing those views. I may not understand women, but I am not completely ignorant either, I know that this country does have an ugly history of misogyny and I saw far too many misogynistic comments posted in response to the swimsuit photo.
I may not understand women and it is difficult to put myself in their shoes. It is difficult for me to imagine that my Great Grandmother would not have even been legally able to vote when she turned of age. I can not imagine what it would be like to be a women with an unwanted pregnancy in the 1950's where the only option for an abortion was a guy with a coat hanger in a back alley. I can not imagine what it would be like to be a housewife living with an abusive husband who controlled her with violence. I can not understand any of this, all I can understand is what it is like to be a man.
As much as some people try to tell me that misandry is just as big of a problem as misogyny, I am looking over my entire life and I just can't think of a time that I faced any sort of oppression because I am male. I may have been called a gendered insult like "Dick" before, but I can't say it really damaged me in any way. I suspect the women who had "Bitch!!!" screamed at her right before she was beaten and raped suffered far worse than I did when I was called a dick.
My fellow men, we may not understand women but we need to try harder to do so. We need to understand that a number of the women objecting to these photos being posted are likely rape victims. I don't know which DUers are victims of rape, I don't know which ones have a mother or daughter who was raped, but I do know that they are here because the stats show us just how many women have been victims of sexual assault. Victims of sexual violence are a part of our community and we need to respect them.
We need to understand that someone who was the victim of a sexual assault may have a very different reaction to a sexualized photo than you or I, they may have been raped by someone who shoved pictures like that in their face. Now you may say that the picture did not cause the rape, and maybe you are right but that does not mean that the woman does not have a valid reason to be seriously bothered by the image.
You may try and dismiss this as a "personal issue", but the fact is when millions of rape victims across the nation have these "personal issues" it is not really a personal issue it is an issue with our society.
If you want to go look at the swimsuit issue go ahead, but when you do so do it in a way that is respectful to others. If others tell you they don't want to see it there is absolutely no reason to show it to them, be respectful of others and recognize that women may have valid reasons for being upset that us men are really unable to fully comprehend.
Do what you want in the privacy of your home, but let's have some basic respect for the women of this site.
= new reply since forum marked as read
It's good to see you! 
I hope you're well.
of the hundreds of DUers who find such threads offensive are entirely insignificant have cover because women are responsible for all that ails the world. It has absolutely nothing to do with their repeated scoffing at women's concerns, repeated claims that what we want is meaningless, and their ahistorical blathering that objectification has always existed and always will, and that women rather than men are responsible for it because some of us wear make-up and heels.
The excuses have changed rapidly. First it was objectification doesn't exist. A few fringe feminists imagined the whole thing and maligned DUers firmly committed to equality. 
Now that they found out hundreds of members object to their crap, they've moved on to new excuses. It's always been that way, and objectification is the fault of women. White Knighting keeps women dependent and furthers oppression. So they throw their sacrificial lamb under the bus. The key point is under no circumstances will they assume any responsibility for their own posts or acknowledge that anyone but themselves is worth listening to.
It's a transparent game that the vast majority of DUers are seeing straight through. Bonobo even tried to claim he didn't even know she posted in the men's group, despite the fact he had posted a thread there calling out TA for offending her. My guess is someone, or a few someones, put her up to posting that thread. Now that it's clear that people are offended, they throw her under the bus.
You see, for many of us this is about issues of equality and diversity. The gender of the poster of that first thread is less important than the overall sexism and misogyny that has become obviously to virtually everyone on this site. Yet for some, all that matters is blaming women and absolving men of any responsibility because ultimately all they have ever cared about is their own privilege.
I think seabeyond gets more than her share of disdain around here
better late than never, I guess
(you do realize most everybody is fine with nudity, right? for me the issue is whether DU GD is the appropriate place to post sexual images that objectify women)
Just a quick look at the comments by the poster of that thread and you see the context she provided. It's ridiculous that you keep taking things out of context and pretend that no one notices.
FAIL. 
Another fail.
I can post in any group I damn well please.
Provide the links where I often post derogatory comments about women. I haven't had any posts hidden recently.
I said I'll take credit for a spirited discussion regarding the SISI.
Talk about taking things out of context!
Last edited Wed Feb 26, 2014, 08:25 AM - Edit history (1)
or their opinion that it shouldn't have been posted in GD; they're entitled to it.
Unlike you, I don't need everyone to agree with me all the time (male or female) which blows your entire theory about me out of the water.
Speaking of games, you're the one that keeps bringing up the amount of recommendations like it's a fucking contest.
My 7 year old daughter doesn't brag when she wins Apples to Apples JR.
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Spectacularly so.
Too hard on the eyes. You might want to paragraph a bit more .... or lecture less.
Once again, my post was regarding the OTT condemnation of one woman here, who's been treated like shit for a while now by your group, compared to the treatment of one of your own for doing much worse and getting rec's for it. I totally understand why you want to ignore that.
Ass J.R.R.Tolkein once said, "The tale grows in the telling."
What I don't get is the almost constant belittling and put-down of the men here, with anything being put up in our defense by either gender, is deemed to be derogatory toward women.
Someone up above mentioned FOX News. Their way of doing the "news" covers the way used to put the men here on the defensive. Facts and reality have little to do with the misandry being perpetrated here. Twist and make up stuff. When we object, charges of misogyny are tossed out. In fact the misandry here is being denied, when in fact, it is high profile all over General Discussion.
No one should feel to be under attack here on DU for not toeing to any group's rules, outside of that Group. Yet DU is being turned into a war zone and instead of seeing the problem, too many people here ignore it, or assumed it is some petty squabbling. But more often, anyone that can see what is actually happening, is assigned the roll of the enemy, by those that are actually waging the war.
I have mentioned 'blow-back' a few time and was told those pictures were not the blow-back, but were posted to objectify women. No They were not. it is blow-back. Never mind most of those pictures are widely available almost everywhere in the reality of the real world. But for some reason, on this adult political web site, reality cannot intrude, we must defer to the most narrow interpretations of vocal group objecting to widely available pictures being posted here. Never mind DU is supposedly an Adult web site. Never mind there is lots of other stuff here that people object to. It is only what this one group says is objectionable that needs to be paid attention to. Nothing else seem to matter to them. Something is very wrong here.
I was told by a female DU'er, not long ago, that this group reminds her of the Teabaggers. I think she may be correct.
--refrigerator door and the same cheesecake stuck on the public bulletin board at your workplace. 
[URL=http://www.sherv.net/][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
thanks for noticing that I tried! 
emotional pain throughout the ages? to be stoic. to hide the pain. to deny the pain exists.
Isn't that why things need to change?
Hasn't the patriarchal way of doing things affected men, too?
Isn't that what we just witnessed here ... ?
freshwest - a little side bar here . . . There is a grace and dignity to your posts. It's part of who you are and it 'shines through'. The idea that someone would say something like that to you? 
That goes after your dignity.
And sometimes I think - perhaps that's point of some folks. To go after a woman's dignity . . .
That really means everything. You sound a lot like my husband. He is a white male who always says it's not up to him to decide what's offensive to others. If it offends them, it offends them. He doesn't want to offend people. For that reason, he is a very popular person, and I am so lucky to have him. Your attitude should be the rule on a progressive site.
you are not confused as you well know. You are spot on.
I have stayed away from the posts, they hurt to much and I could not post. Bjorns are the only ones I have commented on.
We know all about head games and the dismissive nature of their comments. We've lived it.
Vent away anytime Blanche. You do it well.
That is why I have provided them. Do you realize the answers you provided were little more than an extended kvetch? An answer, an actual answer, assumes you have figured out how something works and are able to deal with it.
I have explained what the images are - fiction. Or do you consider them journalism? You don't like it? You think it's a pernicious evil gnawing away at the soul of our great nation? Fine. Tell us how you are going to regulate fiction. Your comparison to hate speech doesn't work. Hate speech is a direct expression of someone's feelings. You are assuming the intent of the producers of fiction is an expression of malice against you, but you have no evidence. You can't regulate something unless you can punish malefactors. And you can't punish malefactors unless you can produce evidence in a court of law. Do you see the difference?
If you're a teacher do your job and teach. Not your department? Fine. How's the art department in your school doing? Have you even got one? Is there anyone there teaching art history? Is there anyone there teaching children how to deal with the world, or are you all busy trying to create a nice little bubble where children are told exactly what your ideology wants them to hear? Read that last sentence again.
If you think it's bad to present children with unrealistic expectations of themselves based on some a priori set of standards, what is feminism doing? Look inside your own head for the answer. Do you have a standard? Where did you get it? Who made it? Did they make money selling it to you? Do you think it's a good idea to exchange one ersatz standard for another?
Good for you for all those posts. I've done the same. Feel free to check them out, they might give you some surprising answers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467391 (The profiteers in the culture wars)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172136277 (Gaps in liberal ideology third paragraph)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024222212#post130 (reactionary dynamics and HoF)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4197907 (vaginal knitting)
And, just for fun, a picture is worth a thousand words. These are from another OP that sank so fast it bored it's way through the planet and popped out in the Indian Ocean. So don't come complaining to me about nobody listening to you.
Lets see if you and - what was your term? - ilk can some up with something more than pissing and moaning. Has it occurred to you that the whole issue is designed to facilitate tribal cohesion across communication media? And in a market economy tribal cohesion is almost indistinguishable from a brand loyalty. The objectification department of feminist ideology runs on eyeballs and clicks. And on the internet if you aren't buying something, you're the product. Think about that.
I replied in that thread and then left it alone. Thanks for the link.
All minority groups learn very quickly to be conversant both in their own 'language' and that of the majority group's 'language' - it is often necessary for survival. I am sure black people know exactly how white people can behave and how they feel, and how they will react to different things - how they *can* react to different things in ways that black people can't. Just witness the scores and scores of black parents teaching their sons how to behave when confronted by the police/by a vigilante/when in a car accident (I could go on for ages) when these self-same sons know intimately, through mainstream media, through conversations among and with white people, through their education, etc what white people think reasonable behavior in face of these situations is - for white people. ("I would have refused to give my name, man/Just ignore them/You should go to the nearest house and knock and ask for help if you're ever in a car accident"
Women know more about how it is being a man simply because a man's perspective has been the default in most of our culture. Read a book (from any age). See a movie. Watch television. Watch commercials and read ads. Most of it is from a man's point of view. There isn't yet a part of culture that shows women's reality as it is, yet is also impossible to avoid for men. Much of women's reality is glossed over in these media because the male writers cannot grasp it and women writers are such a minority that they cannot risk their jobs to portray it. Whenever a woman in a movie decides to leave a party/their boyfriend's car/whatever in the middle of the night, and starts walking home? That is a man's perspective. Whenever a woman on television wears a low-cut blouse to work without a moment's contemplation of the reaction she might get? That is the perspective of someone who doesn't have to think about being judged about the sexual response to his appearance.
Men don't see women's point of view, but we see plenty of yours. We speak 'man' too, but when we try to teach you to speak 'woman', like we did with the SI SI cover, and the objectification threads, and all the other 'gender war' threads? Well, you can read the result - too many do not want to hear how we experience these things, and so we get shouted down.
So perhaps you missed what you're strenuously denying never took place-- seeing as you've been on DU for less than a week.
I can't imagine these comments are really defensible, you know, on a progressive board.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4499230
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4499889
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4499566
Like I said, you didn't sign up until 4 days after the SI thread was posted, so of course it's understandable that you would have missed the actual thread which precipitated the discussion you are weighing in on, now.
However, I will say this; you sure have done an admirable job of familiarizing yourself with the participants and discussions in a VERY short period of time. Impressive!
Seems to me that was most definitely not the case.
And the nasty things said, all came from people opposed to the thread.
Also, just FYI, you can see your own sign-up date in your profile, that's how I know. No guessing required.
I saw 700 replies in that thread. It was an important discussion on objectification.
Skinner has made it clear in ATA: He generally relies on juries, the community itself, to judge whether this content is appropriate for GD. He has given us far more tools than I've ever seen on a forum to avoid seeing what we don't want: juries, hosts, ignore user, trash thread and hide keyword. I would wager if you put "swimsuit" in the hide keyword feature, or trashed a few threads, you wouldn't have to see these threads again. So it leads me to believe that those who participate want to participate, and those who see want to see. You can say that they don't want to see these things, but that's not very convincing given all the tools that make it very simple to avoid seeing these threads.
At a glance, I have dozens of users and threads on trash/ignore because I don't want to read what they write. There are some topics I don't like, some users I can't stand and some keywords that bore me to tears. I don't see them. I'd advise that you do the same.
Here is Skinner's opinion:
Unfortunately, we're getting mixed messages here. We are told that juries are failing by allowing certain posts to stay. But we have the juries themselves who are rendering their own best judgment -- serving as a proxy for the community as a whole -- and deciding that those posts are within bounds. The admins know exactly who serves on these juries, we see how they vote, we know their histories. They are not trolls. They are for the most part long-term DU members in good standing -- men and women. I have alerted on some of these Swimsuit Issue posts myself, and often found my alerts voted down -- by people whose usernames I can see, and whom I know quite well from years on this website. One juror, a woman whose judgment I respect very much, wrote in her jury comments that if I didn't like a post I should use the trash thread function, and said the alerting on DU was "getting absurd." So whose judgment should I defer to?
I want DU to be a welcoming place for everyone. I also want DU to be an honest and open reflection of itself. And more than anything, I don't want to go back to the days where I was the dictator (benevolent or otherwise). I believe that talking is better than not talking. If the members of DU are genuinely getting sick of all this, we have the power to end it though our jury vote. And yet people consistently decline to do so -- even people who I have seen elsewhere expressing their disapproval of such behavior. So we're genuinely conflicted. Do we lay down the law, or do we trust the community?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595046
That's really the long and short of it. Use your powers of persuasion to convince juries.
So I suppose, technically, that could mean any number greater than one.
I'm only bothering in this subthread because you took the time up there to call me out, specifically, by name. Otherwise, honestly, I think this particular subject has been beaten well into the ground, and if I can take a moment to speculate on how "many" people on this site feel, my hunch is they agree.
That said, I have removed the offending text from that OP. You didn't need my permission before, but feel free to go into the thread and object away. Go to town.
You can't very well have a discussion
When you make a point of not understanding the other person's argument.
Maybe you could explain that to me first? The other things don't offend anyone as far as I've seen, nor are they contributing to a hostile environment. The ones that do offend (like the olympics) are at least moderately political in nature.
Topless women, in barely existing thongs, standing very intimately together doesn't strike me as particularly straight, but your milage may vary. What makes it sexually suggestive is that they're looking at the viewer, as if they want the viewer to join in. The Botticelli doesn't stare straight at you, she stares towards the horizon, as if she can't even see you. It's an artistic trick to show that she's above you, since she's a goddess and all.
I am a big art lover and I don't think artistic nudes are offensive. However, I wouldn't want them in GD either. We have art groups for that. And even if they were posted in GD, art is known for being open to criticism. As far as I saw, the post where people tried to look at the SI photo through a political/critical lens turned into a real trollfest.
I suppose it comes down to how much you value the community. Ignoring people who are offended means they will be alienated from the community. Ignoring people who aren't offended won't alienate them from the community. That is why the SI post was creating a hostile environment, because it was encouraging this alienation. The fact that you can't see it only means you're not the target audience of this alienation.
Here, let me help:
Women are wicked!
Someone should alert on that automated message. That's an abusive alerter message.
Time again for somepetslife.
Even if they get pouty at times.
Posted for no other reason than you said dog and this one is just so darn cute.
Now, back to the topic. I marvel at the capacity for self-deception. Surely 96 DUers couldn't possibly think women should be respected. They must be socks. What was I told? Oh, yes. I must be a Republican man because a Democratic woman couldn't possibly care about equal rights. Since when did Democrats care about inclusivity? And if I were a real woman, I would know my place was to be . . . .what is it . . ."on a leash"? Seems like I saw that on Facebook a while ago.
Frida knows a thing or two about misogyny, and Frida is not impressed.
On the off chance anyone's irony meeting is broken:
My dog needs running (and not me, the actual dog .... ruff!!!).
Does putting someone on ignore make it impossible to also put them on your black list?
It's pretty funny stuff. They can't figure out the jury eligibility requirements and they want to ask in ATA, but they think Skinner won't answer.
You must have a secret admirer. Maybe hundreds of them.
As for the rest,
You're referring to one of the images I have on my Facebook page.. I'm guessing the "submissives" one... it may shock you, but I happen to know just about as many male subs as I do females. So, I'll take "Swing and a miss" for $200, Alex.
?version=106 
For the enth time it was posted by a woman so it's not just men who do it! Women, especially the gay ones and art loving ones like to look at almost naked, photoshopped women too!
ETA
Stolen from RBStevens
These threads are introducing me to so many men I can admire. Thank you! 
Haven't had a post hidden at DU3 and I don't intend to start now. But it doesn't take much digging down in the groups, or even reading through this thread to spot what's being talked about. I'm not fond of double standards, and there's a fair bit of that flying round
I can imagine...
"So while I agree that the SISI cover is OTT (not because of a feminist theory but simply because it depicts women in a degrading way -- ..."
"I have a bigger problem with the SISI cover itself being displayed openly in publc though, which as I see it is just adding to the stifling level of degrading garbage already in pop culture. On that public aspect of it, I'm not going to bend my opinion much. I think it is really damaging to our society as a whole, especially women and girls, and I think it's outrageous that any sector or wave of feminism supports it."
