Can we stop slut-shaming and attacking the looks of women that we disagree with?
Kim Davis recently made some news by stating how she wouldn’t issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It was quickly pointed out that Davis was married four times and the internet didn’t hesitate to lambaste her for her hypocrisy. Yes, it’s a bit odd that someone would impose their views on marriage onto others while having their own marital issues, but this isn’t relevant to why she is wrong. I’m fine with people writing about the intersections of hypocrisy, morality, and religion in a nuanced way, but I’m not fine with this image below or calling her a “slut” or a “whore” for being married multiple times (just search through Twitter if you want to see other awful examples).
These are the insults “progressives” are going with now? A similar case of this happened when Bristol Palin was slut-shamed when we found out she was pregnant again. I don’t agree with abstinence only-education either, but I don’t need to slut-shame my opponents to make my point. The facts speak for themselves.
-snip-
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/accordingtomatthew/2015/09/can-we-stop-slut-shaming-and-attacking-the-looks-of-women-that-we-disagree-with/
Bravo. The comments here about Bristol Palin were creeping me out 
= new reply since forum marked as read
remember yesterday. lol 
but hypocrisy shaming should be fair game. Bristol never had a problem with looks, but her hypocrisy should be held up like a banner.
This woman's hypocrisy should as well, but I don't know when she became a born again christian. Maybe it was after all the divorces and adultery, and you know how the Christian faith deals with sin...forgiveness...you can do anything and be forgiven if you just ask for it.
Ugly men have feelings too.
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — A man was seen running around buck naked on Broadway in Times Square for hours Thursday.
As CBS2’s Steve Langford reported Thursday, police never attempted to arrest him.
“Liberation — this is America!” said the naked man running around Times Square with nothing but a coat of paint.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027139869
make no sense on DU. Your OP makes me
I don't slut-shame here on DU, not because the word 'slut' defines nothing that exists in reality, but because my friends here have asked me not to. And in my world, when a friend asks me to stop doing something, I generally stop it, without needing to hear why. I stop it because my friend asked me to stop it.
I do refer to some of my friends as sluts, and I do it in their presence only if I know they will laugh or agree.
Same applies to looks.
On the other hand, when it comes to adversaries, I'm disinclined to accommodate. If a female adversary has 50 bazillion consensual sex partners, that doesn't make her - as defined in the dictionary - a 'slut'? When Chris Christie furrows his brow and wags his finger at a school teacher, screaming, 'I'm TIRED of you PEOPLE!!!", then no, I'm sorry, I will not be polite if the situation demands a bald reality check.
Anyway, more generally, I think this is the first post I've made to a gender controversy thread in a long time, and it will likely be my last for a long time.
was seen as macho, "real man" etc. And if he "got it" by smooth talk and lies, as is usually the case, then too many see that as just "part of the game", rather than the reprehensible conduct that it really is.
But in judging politicians for office or people in official positions, the reverse is true, at least that's my impression. Its always zipper-shaming if a male, (and yes, almost always considered inappropriate or worse for a woman).
Anyway, for me, whether one's sexual conduct is harmful or not is not a gender issue for me, but rather a Golden Rule thing. Who is being harmed by questionable sexual conduct, especially where dishonesty / deceit is involved.
[font color = red]On Edit: knotches -> notches[/font]. Thanks MADem. It was Saturday knight, what d'ya expect? 
I think Clinton's ratings improved not because of his Monica-thing -- everyone I know saw that as a character flaw -- but as a result of the RepubliCONS over-doing it with the rhetoric, the hypocrisy, and the impeachment stuff. The economy also helped -- kicking into ultra-high gear around that time (the Goldilocks economy -- not too hot, not too cold, Dow Jones doubling and redoubling, damn near every pundit saying recessions were a thing of the past that the Fed has learned to control, yada).
I don't agree that male politicians aren't shamed. But I'd agree that a female politician doing the same things would get a lot more criticism.
There have been female politicians that have had adulterous affairs, I remember about 2 or 3 back around the late 1990s or so. I'd have trouble finding notes that old -- I did keep track for awhile. Maybe I could do the Google.
On control and oppression -- Yes, I don't doubt there is a glass ceiling. They can't jog or walk safely in some areas that I can (I think about that just about every time I jog. Similarly about minorities -- in some areas you'd have idiots calling 911). There is a pay equity issue, and on and on. I wouldn't want to be a female.
And I don't doubt that, as a male, if I was juggling say 3 girlfriends, it wouldn't get my neighbors a-clucking as much as if my single female neighbor had different boyfriends coming and going. (We live in townhouses, so the whole row can see who is coming and going).
I used to feel out - of - control in one key area -- if I had sex, I had no control of the outcome. Even if we both solemnly agreed in writing that I don't want kids, and that she will use a reliable birth control method, and if all that fails and she becomes pregnant then she agrees to have an abortion -- still, it is entirely up to her whether she continues that pregnancy and whether I'm on the hook for 18 years of child support. (As I grew older and less "sensitive" down there, condoms didn't work 
. Would have loved having a workable male birth control option).
But all that is in my past. 
Oh, oh well. Age has its compensations.
Then there's paternity fraud... "State tells Detroit man: Pay for child that isn't yours or go to jail!" http://www.democraticunderground.com/10581303
I didn't realize this was a controversial position to take 
The ugly is on the inside.
[img]
[/img]
It can't be unseen. 
