In case anyone doesn't get why objectification, misogyny and sexism in the media are a big deal...

[redqueen]

women are vastly underrepresented in leadership positions in this country. The amount of girls that say they'd like to work in leadership positions when they grow up is about on par with boys during childhood. Then, during adolescence, it plummets.

Why is this? It is because we tell girls their worth is in their looks, youth, and sexuality. This is because powerful women in leadership positions are hardly shown, and when they are shown they are often mocked.

We have to address the way women are presented in the media.

The consequence of this treatment is that half the people in this country are almost drummed out of even thinking of participating before they even get out of high school. Half of the leaders who might be able to propose new solutions and new ways of doing things don't ever even get to the table.

So yes, it is a big deal.

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. K&R

[No Joe]

162. Ever notice that everything considered "sexually empowering" for women

just happens to coincide with the predilections of horny guys?

[AlbertCat]

173. just happens to coincide with the predilections of horny guys?

Well.... there are several million years of evolution to overcome if you don't want that to be true.

[redqueen]

180. Many men have already overcome it.

It really isn't that hard. All it takes is an effort at conscious awareness that women are people, not things.

[mistertrickster]

325. Hoo boy, you can totally kiss that women's studies career goodbye now.

The party line says that men can NEVER be rehabilitated. If you allow for the possibility of men to finally see women as equals, then you eliminate the entire raison d'etre for academic feminism.

No, it must be an never-ending wrong in which women make only incremental improvement, if at all.

It's like Operation Rescue and abortion. If abortion were ever made illegal again, they'd lose all their funding and power.

[saras]

202. Yep. And that all the "women's work (like teaching)" is still devalued and disrespected

[caseymoz]

271. Since the baseline biological purpose of sex is reproduction . . .

. . . that would be inevitably true. Would an empowered woman look sexually ugly, you think? Or would she be sexually neutral, such as dressed in a drab green uniform? If she's ugly to men, she'd more likely be regarded as ugly to women as well because we both use variations of the same human template to judge it.

So, question this idea: does sex have anything to do with power for either sex? It can as a means of power and a show of power. In human history, it was inevitably used by royal families as an alliance of power.

However, it's use for and correlation to power is obviously limited. The media does stretch it beyond credibility sometimes, because their purpose is to get people to somehow pay to look.

[MineralMan]

2. Addressing how women are portrayed in the media

is a large order. I'm not sure how one would get started. We can complain about it, but that's not going to change much, I imagine. What do you have in mind?

One thing I've noticed, though, in the past couple of years is that at least half of the businesses I've written websites for are owned by women. That's an interesting data point for me.

[redqueen]

3. First, just talking about it would help.

Just acknowledging that it's a problem. Most people don't think it is a problem to see women's half-naked bodies all the time, used to advertise everything. The concept of using women's bodies as props simply seems natural, and even if people think it's a problem, most won't say anything because it's 'just the way things are'. So first we have to spread the word that yes, it is actually a problem.

As for what do we do about it? Vote with money. Don't buy products that use misogynistic ads. Don't watch shows that use misogynistic themes or casting. Don't go see movies that use women as decorations.

It severely limits one's choices, of course, given how nauseatingly ubiquitous this stuff is... but just a little effort by a lot of people could do a lot. But first we have to at least be aware.

[seabeyond]

5. mens product, perfume.... naked women. womens product, perfume... naked women

WHA?????

how does that work. lol

except old spice

[redqueen]

6. Well... Cool Water uses men's bodies...

to sell men's cologne, so there is that.

But if you saw the breakdown on how women are represented... not just in advertising (though that does seem to be the worst), but also in television, movies, music... I'm sure you have an idea, but the numbers are just shocking.

I can't wait for the day when objectification in advertising (at least advertising) is regulated. Denmark and Norway both ban sexual objectification in ads. I hope Sweden changes their tune on this soon.

[Texasgal]

57. I've noticed lately

in Magazines adds that Womens lips are partially "parted" giving off that sexy come hither look... It's in every AD! Not just ads for lipstick, I'm talking ads for medication, cleaning supplies, eyewear... etc.

[redqueen]

66. Aw geez... yeah... that's not about 'come hither'...

that is an allusion to vaginal lips.

Advertisers use our subconscious to manipulate us. I would think more liberals would be bothered by that... but... yeah... sexy wimminz! *sigh*

[Texasgal]

75. Well, i was going to say that

but I thought I might get some people pissed about it. :hide:

I AM bothered by it!!!! Initially I wanted to say that it looks like BLOW JOB lips. I find it disgusting and it's in EVERY ad. I could pick up a Magazine right now and see pages and pages of those parted blow job lips.

[redqueen]

78. Hah... I don't know who would be pissed...

it is what it is (intended to make you think of), right? Advertisers aren't doing this accidentally...

I'm glad you notice, and I hope you aren't paying for those magazines... or if you are, I hope you make your displeasure known with either the magazine or manufacturers.

Ultimately, it is money that talks... once we get enough people to at least SEE these problems, then we can start using our wallets to start making changes in the way the media portrays women.

And men, too, really. Tough Guise is the documentary to see for that side of this issue. (Oh how much I would love it if A MAN would watch that and talk about it!)

[Texasgal]

79. I'm a surgical nurse for a large out patient

surgery practice.

These magazines are usually in the waiting rooms or in our employee lounge. I've spoken about it on a few occasions and have had several colleagues have an "ah ha" moment.

I don't subscribe to mags anymore, I started finding them sexist and trashy. For instance Cosmo, every other article is about how to please your man... uggg no thanks.

[redqueen]

145. Yes, how to attract men, how to please men (usually in bed), etc.

It's sickening, really. I'm glad people are getting 'a-ha!' moments from them though, so there's a bright side I guess.

Some of this advice is seriously, seriously sickening. "Just because he has sex with you doesn't mean he wants to hang out with you. Don't try to be 'cuddly', or stick around for breakfast." This is the advice to make men like you. Just give them sex, and get the hell out.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

23. I flipped through one of my wifes magazines once... there's more half naked girls in hers than mine!

Now, I'm not talking Payboy or the SI Swimsuit edition... but I'm serious... there's more nalf-naked women in her magazines than most typical guy magazines.

I really don't have a problem with it, to be honest. Whatever floats people's boats, I suppose.
Sex sells and let's be honest, here... Women are way more attractive than dudes. :shrug:
However, I also have no problem with offended people being vocal and/or choosing to boycott such practices.

[redqueen]

24. I wish you'd seen Miss Representation

those magazines are definitely part of the problem. Women are conditioned from birth to believe that their looks and sexuality are the most important things about them. So of course those magazines play a large part in furthering that message.

Why? To sell products of course. Most liberals can get behind corporatism when it means more nekkid (HOT) wimminz, apparently.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. ..."to believe that their looks and sexuality are the most important things about them"...

From a social order point of view... isn't it though? Perhaps it is actually not wrong (incorrect) that young women feel that looks and sexuality are the most important things about them.

Generally speaking, value derived from something is generally the value society assigns to it - there is self worth and then there is real worth. Said otherwise, something is worth what the market will bear. Society places a very high value on attractiveness and sexuality as human instincts are sexual in nature... it's not surprising that tendancies hardwired in our DNA manifest themselves collecively thougout society. When attractiveness and sexuality can offer such lucritive advantages in our society, how can young women not afford to consider these things to be valued supremely?!

I'm not saying I agree with this practice or even ignore it... I'm only commenting/recognizing that reversing such practices needs to be done on the "demand" side of the equation (changing societies view on the mattter). Difficult task, to say the least.

[redqueen]

42. Yes, men shouldn't be conditioned to think that looks are the the most important thing

about women.

ADULTS need to stop acting like this, so that children stop learning the message. When we act this way, we teach children. When we let crap like this pass by in advertising or television or movies or music without comment, we give our consent... that yes, this isn't a problem... no big deal... whatever. We'd never do that if the subject was racism, but when it's misogyny we often just sigh and let it go. That has to stop.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

60. Agreed with everything except the last sentence...

While it's true that such practices would not be tolerated if the actions were racist - the over valuation of female physical appearance/sexuality is certainly not misogyny. I find a major disconnect between placing too much worth in women's attractiveness being called hatred/misogyny. Quite simply it's lust - using sex to sell.

It's not as if the disenfranchisement of young women is the end goal of these artificial appearance standards... it's only a serious side effect. I do agree that the problem, whatever we call it, requires adults to stop perpetuating the cycle.

[redqueen]

65. It is treating women like *things*. That is dehumanization.

If that's not misogyny, nothing is.

You can't dress it up with sex and pretend it's nice, or good willed. It is most definitely not. Never has been and never will be.

[seabeyond]

82. it is a conditioning and acceptance of positioning woman as a thing continuously.

from the tiem a kid is very little of both genders they here... kiss a pretty girl. what a pretty girls. and the boy is addressed, sure are active. all there raising they are taught to look at the girl as a thing and the boy what he does.

they did a study. men look at women in a bikini and the tool part of the brain is activated. use. they look at mom, sister, friend and the part of the brain that sees a person is activated. boys are conditioned from a very young age to see something to use.

it is not about lust. it is about a thing to use. that is what needs to change. and that does not change attraction, but it is seeing a person.

porn reinforces and reinforces the thing to be used. not gonna get off quite as fast, if you thought of her as a person.

[Remember Me]

100. actualy, I am sure that boys could be trained to

"get off" even better and quicker with real, multi-dimensional female partners, fully human "persons." But they'd have to give up the part of the fantasy that grants them superiority and, as you put it, the "use" (and abuse) factor, the objectification. For some, it is that very objectification which is the turn on, that plus her humiliation, if possible.

[thesquanderer]

280. It works the other way too

re: "For some, it is that very objectification which is the turn on, that plus her humiliation, if possible."

That's true... but I don't know if that's always bad. All different kinds of things can excite people. There are plenty of people--both women and men--who get turned on by being dominant or submissive in the bedroom, where the objectification or even humiliation is indeed part of the excitement. (In some cases, these people are behaving opposite of how they do in their professional/public lives.) Do you think this is always wrong? Or is it okay if the man is submissive, but not if the woman is? Or...?

[whathehell]

297. It does?

"That's true... but I don't know if that's always bad".

You asked "Or is it okay if the man is submissive but not if the woman is"?

A. How often do you see men being portrayed "submissively"?

B. I think it depends on what their status is in LIFE....When one group (women, racial minorities)

are less powerful, politically, physically or economically, reinforcing that image is generally NOT

a good thing.

[thesquanderer]

306. different point

re: "How often do you see men being portrayed 'submissively'?"

I don't know how often I see either gender being portrayed submissively, I assume men less often than women... but also, I do not assume that every sexually suggestive portrayal of either gender implies submissiveness, which is part of why I can't quantify my answer to that question in the first place. Regardless, I don't think that has anything to do with what I was trying to say.

Let me see if I can clarify: There appears to be an argument being put forth that objectification of women in advertising leads to objectification of women in "real life." I'm not saying that's not true, but, apart from there being something of a "chicken and egg" scenario there, I think (a) advertising objectifies both genders; and also (b) that objectification is not necessarily a trait in humanity that needs to be eradicated; rather I think it is worth considering that it is something which might have its place, and maybe the goal should be to restrict its manifestation to where it is appropriate, rather than eliminate it. Sure, men and women both may want to be admired for their brains or personality.... but sometimes I think people of either gender are actually happy to be admired for their more superficial traits, too, and even, in the proper context, objectified. Is that necessarily so terrible?

However, I do understand and see the relevance of your other point, that since the genders do not have total social equality, objectification of the genders may not be totally equivalent either.

[Remember Me]

99. FWIW, just about everything you've said exemplifies

exactly why what redqueen said is important to change: YOU think it's okay, it's normal, it's just the way things work, and could care less that it is robbing women and girls of equal treatment and equal opportunities. Who benefits? YOU, as a man, benefit greatly because if women aren't taken seriously, they won't be vying for the jobs YOU want. You won't have to compete with them for anything. And YOU, as a man, will always be superior to a little more than half the human race.

As redqueen tried to explain, reducing women to their physical appearance and sexuality is the very definition of dehumanization, and we only dehumanize those "beings" who aren't quite fully human to start with.

Do YOU think women aren't quite fully human?

If not, then let go of your sexist attitudes because YOU are part of the problem.

Oh, and it doesn't matter if it's the intended goal or a side-effect, it's literally KILLING women and girls, not to mention robbing them of their futures.

[Spazito]

70. I completely agree with you on this....

Children emulate the adults they love and trust. It is up to us, the adults, to model positive messaging to the children, both boys and girls.

Well said!

[seabeyond]

55. From a social order point of view... isn't it though? gasp. ya. and it shouldnt be. point. nt

[seabeyond]

54. personally, give me a naked man over naked woman any day. i never bought into men not being

more attractive than women. i love the male body.

thing art is made of

but i agree. the never ending push that female worth is in looks. but then, if i look in GQ, i bet i would find a lot of pretty fine men.

[Fawke Em]

113. I don't think women are more attractive than "dudes."

I would venture that most heterosexual women would agree with that statement, too.

[seabeyond]

114. from the time i was littlei was told, naked woman? but they are beautiful and the male body is not

it was just a common normalized statement used all the fuckin time why we exploit the female body. today, i say.... wtf? what kind of conditioning was that. i grew up in hot calif, on a swimteam, with yummy male bodies all over the place. give me the male body over female any day. simply awesome.

why would we buy into that shit.

[Fawke Em]

127. I grew up in Tennessee and we had yummy male bodies, too.

It's all that hiking. :)

[whathehell]

299. It doesn't matter what the less powerful think, dontcha know?

[Fawke Em]

112. Ever noticed there isn't much difference between the cover of

Cosmo and the cover of Playboy?

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

115. yes, i have. nt

[mistertrickster]

136. B-b-but you can't criticize women's magazines, man. Don't you know the rules?

The rules are that whenever women do things that feminists don't like, it's because women have been indoctrinated by men.

So men are wholly to blame for Cosmo too . . .

It's so easy once you drink the kool-aide. All the thorny questions are resolved in an instant.

(sarcasm)

[redqueen]

138. So you're just here to make up stupid things no one has said

and then ... what ... what is your point with this nonsensical post?

[seabeyond]

144. isnt it kinda, so in your face, obvious. the least a poster can do is be a bet more clever

about it.

[seabeyond]

141. what a ridiculous argument not to mention inaccurate. kinda like ... making shit up

there are more than enough comments addressing this.

[whathehell]

293. Correct. n/t

[mistertrickster]

133. Venus de Milo "naked woman's body" Rubens "naked woman's body"

Manet's Olympia "naked woman's body" Waterhouse's Siren and Mermaid "naked woman's body" Gustav Klimt Judith "naked woman's body"

Maybe people just really like naked women's bodies . . .

[redqueen]

135. Maybe people should learn the difference between objectification and art.

It isn't rocket science, and acting as if there is some kind of super confusing grey area which makes it impossible to discuss these issues in good faith (that means without making every attempt to muddy the waters with ridiculous 'arguments' like 'but what about nudes in art?') is simply not fooling anyone.

[mistertrickster]

142. Well, that wasn't very good. A real feminist would have argued that "art"

is just part of the "the male gaze" constructed by the dominant male power structure.

You're never going to make tenure in the Women's Studies dept if you can't figure out how to make everything men's fault.

C'mon, get with the program.

(sarcasm)

[seabeyond]

147. maybe start naming all the naked men art, that male artists create. nt

[mistertrickster]

149. Mapplethorp? heh nt

[redqueen]

150. You need to stop projecting your issues about your ex onto others.

Try having a discussion that's in front of you, with the person you're talking to, instead of dragging your old ones with her up, and trying to make stupid jokes about women's studies.

[mistertrickster]

153. What discussion? You post flame-bait and then don't even back it up with discussion

Except to attack my unknowable motives.

Why does Cosmo look like Playboy?

Enlighten us on that.

[redqueen]

155. Flame bait? *roffle*

We've already discussed those magazines in this thread. Maybe if you actually read what was being said you wouldn't be flailing around trying to make 'jokes' or whatever it is you're doing (certainly discussion doesn't seem to be a goal for you here).

This is not flame bait. The 'Pron harms my wrist!' Huh huh huh! Get it! Cause I jack off too much! Huh huh huh!' thread... now that could be called flame bait.

This? Please.

[reggie the dog]

186. the statue of David?

[mistertrickster]

324. Don't confuse 'em with the facts . . . patriarchy, phallo-centric, white male power

structure . . . do not stray from the party line.

[MineralMan]

29. Oh, I acknowledge it as a problem. Women grow up with a

distorted picture of how they are supposed to look and act, and men see the same thing. I know the problem. I'm just saying that it's not going to be easy to change how both men and women are portrayed in the media. There have been many attempts, and some industries have make token efforts, but the problem persists.

What it will take is for women to stop buying publications that feature that kind of advertising and so on. It doesn't appear that they're willing to do that, though, and often it seems like that is part of why the magazines are doing well. So there's your problem. It will take education to change things. And the media is not going to be the place that education will happen. They're selling stuff, and sexual content sells stuff very well. So, you need to look elsewhere, I think for a way to educate people.

[redqueen]

35. It doesn't start with magazines. MM. That is quite disingenuous. (nt)

[MineralMan]

85. No, of course it doesn't, but they're part of the media.

Not every example I offer represents my entire thinking on an issue. I have noticed that many magazines marketed specifically at women perpetuate the very thing you're talking about. Millions of women buy these magazines. The problem isn't just with male-dominated media. It is much more deeply ingrained in the culture. If you're going to attack me every time I provide an example, I'm not going to participate.

Part of this entire thing is related to biology. Human males are biologically evolved to prefer youth and certain secondary sexual characteristics. The same is true for women, with regard to men. It's inborn. Does that create problems? Yes, it does. How do we fight that? I do not know, to be quite frank. I do not know how to change evolutionary biology.

For myself, I don't particularly focus on appearance, either in men or women. I'm more interested in intellect and reason. That does not mean, however, that an attractive, healthy young woman does not catch my eye and my brief attention. I can't imagine how I could change that. It's in my brain and my biology. When it happens, I recognize it and think. When I meet anyone, I assess that person on what I learn after talking to that person, not on how he or she looks. But, a casual visual encounter produces different results. I know for an absolute fact that it is not just men who have such reactions.

No, it doesn't start with magazines. Nothing starts with magazines. But, since those magazines are a reflection of the culture, they are relevant.

[redqueen]

120. "What it will take is for women to..."

Sorry, but that gave me a distinct impression about the rest of that post.

I don't particularly care to discuss any man's personal sexual desires in this thread. It. Is. Fucking. Immaterial. AND offensive.

[MineralMan]

125. You are apparently not actually reading my posts.

That's OK. I'm not going to participate in any more discussions with you.

[redqueen]

130. No, unfortunately I did. Which is how I knew it included a brief foray

into your feelings about hot women.

Thanks for that. And take care.

[redqueen]

131. Also... "evolutionary biology"... can we stop accepting this excuse please? (nt)

[Cid_B]

73. Don't like it? Don't buy it...

Just that easy...

[redqueen]

76. Check out how many products use women's bodies to make money.

It's really not 'just that easy'... but it is worth trying.

[seabeyond]

83. are we allowed to be concerned the effects on our girls and boys? or not allowed to discuss it

cause you say?

[Cid_B]

90. Discuss it all you like.. even judge to your heart's content...

My line comes when laws are put into effect to protect our little fragile minds from the big bad images.

Up to that point... go nuts.

[seabeyond]

92. has anyone said ban, but the pro porn people? no. so quit creating a false argument

that is not being made.

talk about a fragile mind.

[Cid_B]

94. I didn't say you did...

I said that would be the point I would disagree at..

Could have been clearer on my part though.

[Gormy Cuss]

281. I'm all for voting with one's feet but you're missing the bigger picture.

We see ads every day, nearly everywhere. It has nothing to do with whether we as individuals are buying the products. The marketing is responding to the culture. redqueen's point is that that culture needs to change before most women will see themselves outside of that framework.

Look at other cultures with customs that are an anathema to Americans. Listen to their people go through convoluted logic to justify the customs that we find so bizarre and you'll begin to understand that it's not "just that easy."

[thesquanderer]

288. sexuality, misogyny, etc.

re: "Most people don't think it is a problem to see women's half-naked bodies all the time, used to advertise everything....As for what do we do about it? Vote with money. Don't buy products that use misogynistic ads. "

I think the way to do this would be for some organization to track these kinds of ads, and then publicize whose products to avoid... because counting on people to do this on their own will not likely create any change. First, people generally don't buy specifically because of an ad, they often don't even realize that advertising affects what they buy. That is, they buy something in a store, but if you ask them if they can recall any particular ad for it, there is a good chance they will say no. A lot of advertising makes no permanent impression, but just subtly reinforces the desirability of a brand, such that you will be more likely to choose it when you're in the market, without really knowing why. So asking consumers to take note of offensive ads and remember what to avoid is tough when so much advertising is not so consciously noticed in the first place. Second, if sales of such a product *do* drop off, there is no assurance that the company will attribute it to offensive advertising, unless there has been some awareness campaign associated with it. They may simply think something like, "hmm, I guess that billboard wasn't as sexy as we thought it was, let's try again."

All of that said, , and getting back to the first part of the quoted sentence above, sex is indeed used to advertise everything... and that's because it works. And it's not just women's half-naked bodies, there are many products where men's half-naked bodies are used, too. I'm not sure, though, about equating sexuality to misogyny, or whatever the reverse gender version of that would be. Yes, a billboard or full page ad with little more than a somehow erotic image is objectification... but are objectification and hatred-of-women (or hatred-of-men) equivalent? Or let's not even go as far as hatred, let's even just say disrespect. Is it not possible for people of either gender to enjoy seeing erotic, objectifying images of the other gender, while still actual respecting and liking people of that gender? Personally, I see that conclusion of equivalence as over-reaching, and I think over-reaching is what tends to weaken arguments in the first place.

[redqueen]

289. It's not overreaching. Images of women are hypersexualized 5x as offen. 500%.

There are campaigns to raise awareness, and to coordinate and track responses to this kind of crap.

http://missrepresentation.org/
http://www.sexyorsexism.org/

It's very hard getting this message out. Most people seem not to want anything to change.

[seabeyond]

4. i jsut called dr pepper. when they told me it was meant to include women, i was able to read

and article that says, not for women. when they told me they didnt have a site that excluded women, i read them about man only application. and when they told me there was not a game where men shot high heels and lipsticks, i read them the article that said yes... yes they do.

and then when she tried to tell me it wasnt part of dr pepper, i read the part of article that gave the name of the man at dr pepper that said he "was not concerned" about the women.

so i did something

[MineralMan]

31. I know the ad. I saw it on TV the other day. It's reverse psychology,

and it's not going to work to sell their low-calorie diet beverage to men. That product will be gone in six months. It's a fail all around. They also probably figured that some women would buy it just to show that they can buy whatever they like. Again, a big fail on Dr. Pepper's part. Some ad agency is going to lose that account over this bogus ad.

[TalkingDog]

225. Start by educating kids and teens: Killing us softly

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1993368502337678412

I show this to my classes any time I can think of a way to work it into the conversation.

[redqueen]

229. Just curious... have you seen this before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3exzMPT4nGI

It also might be a good addition.

[TalkingDog]

337. thanks! I'll check it out.

n/t

[seabeyond]

278. i am listening as i check out the site. already, ya. obvious and ignored.

but you are exactly right. it is about our kids. and having done with mine, i know it is not hard. they want truth. they want to not be tied to conditioning. they appreciate and value the freedom. and will never feel a loss, cause they have never accept the image.

[seabeyond]

279. the point about black women... oww. hadnt thought about it and so offensively true. nt

[whathehell]

292. Why would it be more a "tall order" than changing how African Americans and Latinos were portrayed?

We've done that, by and large.:shrug:

[redqueen]

296. Because many people really enjoy seeing all the T&A.

Not nearly as many people were so happily titillated seeing ethnic minorities demeaned.

[whathehell]

298. Many "people"?....I think you mean HALF of the people

and as far as the comparison to ethnic minorities are concerned,

I'm not sure that racists didn't enjoy seeing "Steppin' Fetchit"

or "the Frito Bandito"....A concerted effort to rid the print and

broadcast media had to be undertakent to eliminate them.

[redqueen]

300. Oh I'm sure they enjoyed it... just not in the same way.

There is something about titillation that makes people feel entitled to it. This sense of entitlement manifests in many ways... most obviously here, lately, by the screeching, kneejerking overreaction to any criticism of pornography.

[whathehell]

312. Agreed.

The sense of entitlement?..Absolutely...It comes with any and all critiques of porn.

[unblock]

7. hollywood and the media bear a lot of blame for this.

while conservatives widely rail on hollywood for its occassionally outspoken liberals, television and movies lean HEAVILY on stereotypes. the argument is that you don't have time in 22 minutes of a sit-com to truly flesh out multi-dimensional characters. you're lucky if you can do this in five season. sometimes you can do this for the lead character in a feature film, but even then, the supporting characters will almost always lean on stereotypes.

so generally, the casting, the costume, the accent, the vocabulary, the jobs, the situations, everything is designed to push the desired stereotype button.

what passes for "acting" is largely "stereotype impersonation". "hey, want me to pretend to be the middle-aged republican ass-hat boss? sure, i can do that!" actual acting would involve pretending to be a CHARACTER, not a stereotype. but so often hollywood takes the easy way out.

this does great damage to all aspects of the social fabric, be it for women or gays or jews or blacks or hispanics or ....

but we let hollywood get away with it because without hollywood many such categories would be practically invisible.

[redqueen]

8. Many women are practically invisible.

The vast majority of women shown in advertising and on tv are between 20 and 36 years old. There are a few exceptions, of course, but the message is clear.

[unblock]

21. true that; then later there are the occassional granny roles

but very lean years in between.

could it be that women aged 35-64 can't act? hardly; but for whatever reason hollywood decided that there's no particularly useful stereotype best played by women aged 35-64. or more accurately, hollywood decided that it isn't particularly profitable to cast a women in that age bracket when they can cast a younger model or re-write it for a man; gay perhaps if need be.

[Love Bug]

25. Yep. No group is more invisible than women who are over weight and over forty.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

63. I know alot of married men over the age of 40 that would disagree with that statement... (n/t)

[redqueen]

69. This is macro-level sociology. You're conflating it with personal relationships.

That is not conducive to meaningful discussion.

[Love Bug]

104. On a personal level, I'm glad to hear it. But as a group, no.

Socially and politically, women start to disappear as they approach forty, especially if they are no longer physically desirable by society's standards. Even Hollywood loses interest in us. What was it Goldie Hawn's actress character said in The First Wives Club? "There are three stages for an actress: babe, district attorney and driving Miss Daisy." (paraphrase)

The good news is as more and more women run for office on all levels and get elected, this will hopefully start to change. However, until then those women, no matter the party, are usually either praised or attacked for their looks, far more then men are. And God forbid if any of them are fat. I can't think of any elected woman who is over a size 16, although I'm sure there are probably a few. Somewhere.

[whathehell]

313. Yes...The only way they older ones are allowed to become "visible" again is if they

have a facelift....It's almost de rigeur..No so for the old men...Look at Morley Safer (and others)for God's sake.

[county worker]

9. It's one thing to talk about how women are presented in the media but

I doubt any one here is in the media business. I object to a broad brush painting of people based on another's perception of a condition or situation.

There is not going to be a perfect world. Evil exists right along side with good. We need to work on increasing the good I think. We don't spend as much time doing that as we do condemning evil and the evil we perceive on others.

[redqueen]

11. HALF of the people in this country are disenfranchised before they graduate.

Sorry, you are of course free to go on thinking nothing will ever change.

I refuse to buy that lie anymore.

[county worker]

14. I never said things will never change. Your statement to that effect reduces your credibility.

I probably feel as bad about the objectification of women as you do. I am married to one. You need to come down from your ivory tower I think and see that we all are not ass holes!

[redqueen]

16. "There is not going to be a perfect world. Evil exists right along side with good."

I misread that. When I see statements like that, they're usually being used to try to get people to accept the status quo.

What was the point of saying that? Did I project the idea that I expected that we'd create a perfect utopia someday? What gave you that impression?

[county worker]

26. Because it is true.

You can work to make a better world but you can't fix every body.

[redqueen]

27. It's a strawman, as I never said I expected to fix everybody.

It's watering down expectations, as well.... IMO.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

10. Elizabeth Warren for Senate....and twenty more just like her.

For starters.

[redqueen]

15. Men will vote for men. Women will vote for men. Women might vote for women...

men are a lot less likely to vote for women.

This stuff is insidious. We will have to do a hell of a lot of work before we get up to 89th in the world in female representation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Then explain Sarah Palin. n/t

[MineralMan]

33. You're wrong. Men will vote for women. I have voted for many

women. Look at the two Senators from California. Men voted for them, too. I voted for them when I lived there.

It's simply not true that men won't vote for women who are running for public office.

[redqueen]

39. It's statistics. Statistical probabilities, not absolutes. I thought that was obvious.

It also exists in books and stories... boys and men are less able to relate to female protagonists... women can relate to both.

These are serious issues.

[MineralMan]

86. Nothing is obvious, unless you make it so.

I was merely pointing out examples of women who are contradictions to your statement. They exist. Why that is is pertinent to the discussion. I have no problem relating to female protagonists. Perhaps I'm strange, but I don't think so. I have very strong female role models in my life from early childhood. I consider them as much an influence on me as the male role models. I know a number of men who have the same experience. Perhaps you do not. I'm not much for generalities. I tend to look at exceptions and try to understand why they are exceptional.

[redqueen]

123. You were pointing out exceptions to the rule.

This thread isn't about you. This thread is about society. Societally speaking, on a maro level, males tend to not relate to female protagonists. This is proven, and it is often trotted out as Hollywood's excuse for their sexist casting decisions.

[laundry_queen]

89. Interesting thing I saw the other day

I think it's Geena Davis that is trying to get more females on children's programs. Right from the start, the ratio of boys to girls in any given children's show is 2 to 1. She decided that sends the wrong message to little girls and is trying to get it to stop. Good for her. And it IS serious! I have 4 girls and I worry about this all the time. I don't buy any women's magazines for this very reason. I don't want them reading that crap. Instead, I get (through a gift from my parents) one business magazine and one science magazine. I refuse to have them reading, day in and day out, the same crap I read at my home growing up "Lose 10 lbs in 3 days! Your husband will be thrilled!" or "How to make your legs look longer so you can turn heads." Barf.

[redqueen]

124. Yes, she's been very active on this issue.

It's changing, slowly... but it is changing. I'm glad more people are recognizing it as a problem, finally.

[MADem]

43. I am no expert on this topic, so with that caveat, let me say that if

the women can be convinced to vote their best interests--and that means voting for women who will represent them and provide role models for their offspring--that the men will follow.

Real men eat quiche, worry about their six-packs, wear pink shirts, "manscape," wax their chests and stray hairs, fake-bake tan, and moisturize. Fifty or sixty years ago that wasn't happening, except perhaps in Hollywood and no one talked about it. Fifty years ago, a 'couth' male was one who didn't do the "Pull My Finger" joke in front of one's favorite great aunt.

Men certainly don't do all those "beauty regimes" for their own sake--they do it because women expect it of them, and it heightens their desirability at the singles' bar.

Women can pull men along (by the nose or any other handy appendage) if they themselves have the will to "make it happen" by voting for and championing women candidates.

Once women start voting for women as a matter of routine, they'll also start to expect a higher standard of voting savvy from the men they associate with, as well. The men will 'get' the drift--they know what they need to do to be popular with the ladies.

[redqueen]

45. The problem is so much bigger than you realize...

black doctors will treat white patients more attentively than they do black patients.

This is not conscious. This is not intentional. This is the minority absorbing the dominant message.

It is a huge problem, and it's not so easily solved. The most important thing is awareness.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. No.

Men will vote for the candidate of their choice, not the candidate of their wife's choice.

But hey, good try.

You want men to vote for you, appeal to them. Elizabeth Warren is going to kick Scott Brown's ass, but not because she's talking entirely to women and the men they control.

[MADem]

102. The wives can simply go vote, and forget to remind the husbands, if they don't have their

priorities in order.

Many men still don't know to not mix whites and colors in the wash.

EW has a good message, but don't think this is a cakewalk. There are a lot of idiots who like Scott Brown and his barn coat and his dumbass truck.

[reggie the dog]

190. sadly you are correct, sexist men and women

made it so our left wing socialist Mme Royale lost, i knew old women from age 60 up who didnt vote for her because as they said "its not a woman's job" i shit you not leftist 60 something women voted in the bloc with the sexist men and normal right wingers.

[backtoblue]

12. kick and rec

[Spazito]

13. Well said! n/a

[redqueen]

28. Thank you.

:kick:

[myrna minx]

17. K&R n/t

[fishwax]

18. k/r

:kick:

[leftstreet]

19. K&R

[Nye Bevan]

20. Other countries are way ahead of us in that regard. Margaret Thatcher in the UK

became Prime Minister in 1979. Then there's Andrea Merkel in Germany as well as that very pretty lady in Argentina whose name escapes me.

[redqueen]

22. We're 90th in the world. (nt)

[MineralMan]

34. Our Speaker of the House is a woman.

We will have a woman President before too long, I'm sure. Hillary Clinton made a good run for it, and would have been elected, I believe, had she won the nomination. There are many women in high places. Not enough, but many. Their numbers will increase. California's senators are also both women. Times are changing. They are always changing.

[redqueen]

36. Look at how these women are treated in the media.

That sexist treatment, also, is not caused by fashion magazines.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

46. it often seems that women are the acceptable target for aggression

have a look at youtube, for example.....hostile remarks against females, most of the remarks being hateful sexualization. Always depresses me to see the automatic hatred against anything that women do or say.

Women bloggers comment on this phenomenon -- male aggression towards women is frighteningly prevalent.

bit of a side note, but customer service reps and corporate spokespeople are usually women--I've always thought that was because they are unthreatening, and an easy target for angry people to use to dissipate their resentments.

[redqueen]

47. The stuff from bloggers lately has been very eye-opening... or at least it should be

for anyone who cares to pay attention to these things.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

52. yes. A very clear symptom of misogyny.

Deeply entrenched in the culture. Women are raised with a victim mentality and worth based only on looks--sexual commodification...while men are raised with an attitude that women are conveniences, but not truly human.

I think I recently saw an article showing brain imaging research that demonstrated: men shown pictures of women register the image in the part of the brain that controls tool-use, not in the part that registers human interaction.

Eeek. x(

[redqueen]

53. Yes, I remember that study.

Frightening stuff, really. Society is conditioning men to see women as things, and not people.

[reggie the dog]

194. it depends on the image

if i am just looking for sex then yes a woman would be a tool to help me, if i am looking for conversation, or a relationship then a woman would be human interaction.

in all honesty if you are just looking for a one night stand with a guy you dont sort of see him as a sexual toy for the night? i am talking about the kind of sex that involves no feelings between people who just met.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

201. that makes sense....I can't say you're wrong

I haven't seen the actual study, only read that piece from it. I don't even know if women were included in the study.


I can't say I've ever not expected to have some kind of continuing friendship (at least) with someone I go to bed with.

[reggie the dog]

277. sadly i cannot say the same

yet after being single for months i also feel compelled to find someone to have sex with me, it is if i feel worthless until somone has sex with me, then dirty when i realize that it was just a one time thing.

at least i have had a girlfriend for the past year and a half so that is no longer an issue

[BlancheSplanchnik]

339. hey reggie!

well, I'm no therapist, though I've *had* plenty of it. :P ....so I would say that it's good you realize your tendency to *need* a relationship to feel anchored....maybe mistaking sex itself for a deeper intimate connection? Intimate connection is really important to us all, so nothing to feel bad over. Just worth thinking about.

I'm glad you have a girlfriend now, though it could become an issue again sometime if you just let that tendency hide below the surface.


:)

[redqueen]

204. No, not everyone thinks that way.

A woman is not a tool. Ever. People are not tools.

Just because you won't be forming a lasting relationship with someone, that does not reduce them to less than a person. Just because you don't know them that well, that doesn't mean they're an object and you're free to think of them as such. Jesus Christ...

[reggie the dog]

260. i have had women treat me like an object

when i valet car parked older women would come on to me and say things like " i could use you as a boy toy tonight" and if i was up for it i sometimes let them use me. i also tell my girlfriend things like " i am your toy tonight, use me any way you want, dominate me if you want, anything" which is why i posed the question.

i venture to say that men perhaps see many people as tools because of the idea of "what can i get out of this person"

that is why i asked if women ever think of men as tools or toys

in college i had a FWB who was "bi" but really mostly lesbien who wanted a man as a "warm dildo" from time to time.

[Feldspar]

121. And they cost less, too! Still.

[redqueen]

128. You might be surprised how many people believe those studies are lies.

They think the studies are flawed, or that if the wage gap exists, it is justified. Then again, you might not be surprised at all.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

203. you're right! Convenient, aren't we? Still.

:eyes:

[MADem]

48. Really? Boehner is a woman? Who knew?

Our FORMER Speaker, now Dem leader, is a woman....

[MineralMan]

81. Yes, that's true. She'll be speaker again after the 2012 election,

if I have anything to do about it.

[MADem]

87. I share your sentiment--we need to take back the House decisively. nt

[MineralMan]

88. I am hopeful that will happen. The recent elections have been very

positive in that direction. However, we still need to devote as much energy as possible into helping it to happen. Voter turnout will be a critical factor. That is where my efforts will go in 2012. My Congressional representative is Betty McCollum, a very good representative indeed. In my conversations with her, she has shown me a solid progressive nature, and she has the votes to prove it. My Senator, who will be running in 2012 is Amy Klobuchar. Not the most progressive Senator imaginable, she still is a solid vote with the Democratic caucus, and has almost no chance of losing. Two women who represent their state and district very, very well. I'm proud to know and support Betty McCollum, and support Amy Klobuchar as well, although I have not met her or spoken with her.

Since both are almost certain to win, I will be spending a lot of my time in my neighboring district, where Michele Bachmann is now the representative. Also a woman, she is detestable. Not for her sex, but for her politics. I will support whichever Democrat opposes her, whatever his or her sex. That's not really the issue. It should never be the issue, and has never been for me.

[Remember Me]

101. In act, times are changing SO fast, tht they apparently left you behind

the Speaker of the House USED to be a woman. The Speaker of the House right now is John Boehner.

But you knew that. I just had to poke a little fun.

[Withywindle]

38. Here's the Wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_or_appointed_female_heads_of_state



Yes, Afghanistan and Pakistan are AHEAD of us on this question.


Countries that currently have a female President or Prime Minister include: Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, Liberia, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, Costa Rica, Kosovo, India, Argentina, Brazil, and Australia.

[redqueen]

40. Thank you!

There is SO MUCH denial about these issues.

I don't want to think about why. :(

[reggie the dog]

195. Germany

[reggie the dog]

192. Angela Merkel

just pointing it out,

[redqueen]

208. The US is 90th in the world. Did you somehow miss that?

It's great that there are exceptions to this.

I really wish people would stop pointing them out as if it were somehow meaningful.

[reggie the dog]

238. i bet france is even further behind, which is horrible

i was just pointing out that it was angela and not andrea merkel.

our right wing president has been awesome about nominating as close to equal men and women to head our ministries (an odd number of ministries) and made it a point that we should do that from now on. that is one of the greatest things he has done and i truly appreciate that he is insisting on such changes, he went on tv and encouraged young women to go into politics too, perhaps because he narrowly beat a woman in the election his eyes were opened?

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Here's the flipside.

By age 4, girls believe that girls are cleverer, more successful and harder working. By age 7 or 8 the teachers have convinced the boys that the girls are right.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/sep/01/girls-boys-schools-gender-gap

This manifests in poor educational performance by boys, a near monopoly on education by women and a 3:2 ratio of women to men graduating from college.

When you put the boys and girls in separate classrooms both genders perform better, AND the deficit disappears entirely.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=440x133

Much of the backsliding that girls start doing in middle school is attributable to this. If they're going to relate personally to the boys, they have to come down to where they are.

To the extent that men reach leadership positions, it is only by rejecting the lessons they learned in school.

[redqueen]

37. Hello, MRA.

Perhaps if you wish to discuss issues which affect men, you might start a thread about one of those... instead of attempting to make every thread about women into one about men. It depends on your priority really... spreading awareness of men's issues, or hijacking topics about women's issues.

[Bunny]

44. .

:thumbsup: :applause: It's a shame that a new thread couldn't be started, isn't it? Or could it be by design?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

68. +100 The same thing happens in almost every topic about racism

A decided few are just COMPELLED to "change the subject" to the -ism that directly impacts them. It is sickening.

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. Since my response was part of the deleted subthread

This isn't a diversion.

Given the problem statement as you posit it, there are two possible solutions. Convince advertisers that they're doing it wrong, or change their customers.

Since advertisers clearly know how to sell soap, and have the sales figures to prove it, that leaves option 2. Advertisers sell to ignorant boys and young men, and the girls and women who are trying to find common ground with them. Make the young men less ignorant and you'll solve your problem. Girls won't feel the need to dumb themselves down to identify with boys or conform to such antisocial and superficial stereotypes.

Unfortunately, the solution to every problem appears to be to poke the boys with pointier sticks.

[Feldspar]

129. "Make the young men less ignorant [...]"

Ha! And again you'd have women take the responsibility for *educating the boys better*. Nice.

[lumberjack_jeff]

132. Hello? Have you been to a school lately?

80 - 85% of elementary school teachers are women.

Yes. Educators have a responsibility to educate.

[redqueen]

137. You might want to do some research into why the imbalance

in the teaching profession exists.

[lumberjack_jeff]

152. The fact that teachers are college graduates...

... and 60% of college graduates are women is a big contributing factor.

There are many reasons.

[redqueen]

159. Did you read any of the reasons?

The men who do go into education are more likely to seek teaching jobs in middle or high schools, where they can specialize in a specific subject and work with more mature students to help them grasp advanced concepts.

Elementary school teachers are more likely to enjoy working with young children and aiding their development -- traditionally female roles.

(snip)

Another factor could be simple economics. Teaching isn't known as a high-paying field, and male and female professionals who might consider it could be reluctant to give up a more lucrative career in the private sector.

"The pay is a big piece for men," Harris said. "Better pay would make a big difference."

Please consider starting your own thread about this. But know that you seem to be referring to statistics about male teachers in primary education. It would be dishonest to use those stats to try to portray the issue as so very imbalanced at all educational levels.

[lumberjack_jeff]

174. The pointed "Why exactly do you want to be around kids?" suspicion is at least as big a deterrent.

[redqueen]

181. Read more, and start your own OP.

Please stop trying to derail this thread.

[lumberjack_jeff]

183. If you know you're not going to like the answers, stop asking the question. n/t

[Scout]

110. it never fails n/t

[seabeyond]

119. hey sock puppet me....

do you know i have a couple dudes following me around accusing me still of being your sock puppet? can you believe, lol. i know nothing about sock puppet, have no interest adn am computer illiterate, but i am thinking that is pretty stupid. like really really stupid.

[Scout]

242. still? apparently, you and i are the only people on the internet who don't

use capital letters when we type...

:rofl: just remember, simple minds are simply amused. you know, just like your average wanker :-)

if they keep it up, report it to admin ... isn't that accusation the same as calling a fellow DUer a troll?

[seabeyond]

246. it really does not bother me at all. just a heads up, lol lol

it is funny as hell.

never notice you were low case, too. but, i always get my ass chewed out like that is the end of an argument. i have since noticed many do it. never hear the same posters go after them. you know, when losing a discussion, anything fair

[Pacifist Patriot]

109. There's a key problem right there. The belief there is a flip side.

Acknowledging the inherent differences between genders (and we have evolved with physical and psychological gender specialization) while also affirming equal worth, requires us to accept that inequity in treatment affects BOTH genders.

I do not accept your premises, the issues are much more complex than that. I am intimately familiar with the issues of academic readiness, learning styles and multiple intelligences with respect to gender and while I recognize where your comments are coming from, they are limited and lack proper context. Men reach leadership positions only by rejecting the lessons they learned in school? You cannot possibly be taken seriously with an assertion like this.

Western society is founded upon a power differential that favors the male over the female in almost every way. When men realize that resolving this inequity improves their lot every bit as much as it improves the lot of women, then we might get somewhere.

I'm amused when discussions such as the one started by the OP are interjected with comments about perceived oppression of males when the solution for men can be found in eliminating the actual oppression of women.

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. "when the solution for men can be found in eliminating the actual oppression of women"

In the case of the OP, the reverse is true.

Educators systematically (and institutionally) de-emphasize the education of boys for both political and cultural reasons. The results, unsurprisingly and increasingly, are poorly educated boys who don't graduate from High School, don't go to college, and are less likely to find a job upon graduation.

If girls want a boyfriend, they must compete/select from this pool. Unfortunately, by the time they discover boys, the educational damage to the boys is already irreparable. 35% of them will drop out. Of the remainder, about 40% won't go on to college. Of those who do, about 20% fail to graduate. Every step along the way, boys experience a larger mesh and are more likely to fall through. Overall, boys are barely more likely to graduate from college than their grandfathers.

Here's an an example of reporting on the topic "this is a crisis! there are no guys for us college women to date!"

Don't confuse uncomfortable for off-topic. Make boys academic peers of the girls in middle school and the girls won't feel the need to deploy the Snooki act.

But you're right in one way. This isn't a flip side, it's the same side of the record.

[redqueen]

134. This thread is about the Miss Representation of women in the media.

Not the educational issues boys face.

You are most very definitely steering things off topic. Shocked. I am shocked.

[lumberjack_jeff]

146. From the OP

The amount of girls that say they'd like to work in leadership positions when they grow up is about on par with boys during childhood. Then, during adolescence, it plummets.

It's right up there. Do goal posts have wheels where you are?

Advertisers don't create attitudes - there's no profit in it. What they do is exploit existing ones.

[redqueen]

154. They exploit insecurities and fears.

I made that point because it relates to the way the media's Miss Representation of women relates to the US being the 90th in the world in female representation in elected office.

If you'd like to seriously make an attempt to explain why you to think that the issues facing boys in education relates to adolescent girls giving up on certain goals due to the media's hypersexualization of girls and women, please do try to do so.

[lumberjack_jeff]

179. "Due to".

That's where your argument falls apart.

To the extent that they really do give up on goals (a claim that isn't supported by educational attainment or employment statistics) I find it dubious that media portrayal of women is a cause and not an effect.

Media portrays women as hypersexualized and boys as bumbling idiots.

How about this for a troubling theory? Maybe they're right. Maybe girls are hypersexualized to attract idiot boys.

And you're talking to a guy whose governor and both senators are women.

[redqueen]

184. I get that you want to ignore it. Just ignore the whole thread.

The statistics are there. You chose to ignore them. You don't want to know. I get it. You're not alone, obviously.

And I wish men would stop pointing out exceptions to the rule. The US is 90th in representation of women in government.

90th. The fact that your state is different doesn't make a damn bit of difference. There is no reason to keep pointing out exceptions to what should be by now a very obvious situation.

Attempting to ignore it or pretend it isn't real is not doing you or any other man who pulls that crap any favors. It's just making you look like you're desperate to stifle even the ATTEMPT to discuss this serious problem.

If you wish to discuss the ways in which the portrayal of men as bumbling idiots is holding men back, do that. Just please consider starting your own OP, because what you are doing now is just continuing to try to make this thread about men's issues.

[lumberjack_jeff]

193. Privilege

The belief that one should be entitled to the conclusions of one's choosing, free from challenge.

[caseymoz]

335. And that's after 31 straight years of improvement.

That is quite a problem.

[reggie the dog]

233. would you agree that fox news creates culture

through propaganda? that they say things like "some people are talking about (fill in issue that they made up the night before)" and put the idea out into the heads of the people. Hell the whole media does this, the Dean scream,think about it Dean was too progressive so when he said "yeahhh" the elite, through their media, decided that he was not presidential and then that idea went around and became popular.

media in general is propaganda meant to hypnotise, and ads are even worse. yes the media also reflects our culture but propaganda shapes culture

[Warren DeMontague]

50. and in the time since porn became widely available, women in leadership positions have INCREASED.

in fact, you can draw a practically direct line, time-wise and percentage-wise between women entering the workforce and the increased availability of sexually explicit material.

Now, correlation doesn't equal causation, but I don't think you can claim that porn or 'objectifying media' was responsible for the status of women 50 or 100 years ago, particularly not versus today.

[redqueen]

51. The number of women in elected office dropped for the first time since 1979 recently.

Let's try to correlate that with the increase in sexually objectifying ads. I won't even get into the porn debate again since obviously men start having conniption fits if you dare to say anything bad about their wank material.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. For the first time since 1979. Okay, do you have a corresponding statistical increase in

"objectifying ads"? I'd be curious to the the number-crunching on that one.

But think about what you said- for the first time since 1979. My larger point is that it's inane to blame the status on women in our society on "the media". The status of women in our society is way better than it was 100 years ago, when nothing even resembling today's "media" existed.

[redqueen]

58. The status of women has dropped in recent years.

In the documentary Miss Representation, which I'm sure was studiously avoided by many, the evidence was presented for this phenomenon. It has to do mostly with the media, yes. The breaking down of regulations about unfair advertising took place in the late 80's. The women's movement was derailed in the 80's (the ERA). The increase in sexually objectifying ads that occurred in the 90's seems to have played its part. And now we have the internet, and porn on demand, and women's hypersexualized bodies being used to advertise so very much on the net, 24/7.

I'm not sure what your point is about the media 100 years ago.

Women were making progress, that progress all but stopped, and we are now losing ground in leadership. Those are the issues I'm most concerned with, and those have been on this trend since the 70's.

We can open the discussion up further back into history but there has to be more direction than just 'well it was worse for women then'.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. I want to see statistics. Not opinion.

Statistics saying that "objectifying ads" have "increased" and that there is a direct correlation (I'm not even asking for causation) between this and the reduction in elected officials who are women.

If I had to guess, I would say that there are fewer women in elected office right now because the last election swung hard towards the fucktard right-wing side of the fence. You know, the same dickwads that pro-censorship authoritarian lefties love because "at least they take this issue seriously". :eyes:

[redqueen]

64. You had a chance to see it. You chose not to.

Feel free to believe whatever you like. Due to your attitude, I don't perceive that you're interested in honest debate, so I'll leave you to look into it or not as you see fit.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. A documentary featuring condi rice is not the same thing as a statistical proof of an increase of

anything.

Science matters. Facts matter. Saying "there's been an increase in objectifying ads' doesn't make it so, never mind the fact that 'objectification' is a dubious bs psychobabble term anyway.

And beyond that, there is NO proof that advertisements for, say, pants or perfume or deodorant have anything to do with the numbers of women in elected office.

[redqueen]

The studies were cited. Rachel Maddow was in it too.

Well done finding a reason to avoid it.

The denial is strong in this one.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. Got a link to the studies?

I'm still waiting for the statistical analysis proving that there has been an "increase in objectifying ads". You know, with numbers.

[caseymoz]

322. Well, I didn't and I'd look.

There's more than you two reading these discussions, you know.

[caseymoz]

320. I don't think any of those add regulations had to do with fairness toward women.

Or minorities, for that matter. If you go to youtube and look at ads from the '60s and '70s, and even the '80s, they were horribly sexist. In fact, you could almost say open sexism and ownership of women was a selling point.

Now, they were careful on sexual suggestion, but, I ask you, look at "I Dream of Jeannie," from the early '70s. If the whole show was like that, you know the advertising was allowed to be like that. Now, tell me they couldn't sexualize women in the media at that time.

What actually happened in the 80s and 90s was that advertisers began to get manipulation down to a science, and they didn't care a bit about the side-effects.

[caseymoz]

319. One election cycle is not a trend.

And statistically speaking, try to find a product that outsells its previous record 31 years in a row. Or a player in any sport who beats his statistics year every for say, a twenty year career. Or over even a 10-year career. Or a company stock. Try to find anything that increases 31 years in a row.

If there have been more women in office every year for 31 years that's an extraordinary run, statistically speaking. It was bound to go down sometime. Don't expect a single miss to indicate a slide, or show that the effects of advertising and porn are finally being a drag.

[caseymoz]

326. And sexual assaults have declined.

Either that, or women and others have been reporting far fewer than have been happening. It's hard to argue that it causes violence against women when the extreme spike you'd expect with the Internet never happened, in fact, sexual assaults have declined. That's not just true of the United States. You could see reported sexual assaults decline in countries where the Internet was introduced. You could even trace it in some to the very year it was introduced.

In fact, it's hard to argue that a campaign against porn is a high priority at all, other than the fact that it offends most women. Or you could call for it because it's degrading to pornstars, even though few have ever joined the effort. Given the fact that the most women most against porn have deep contempt for the pornstars, it's going to be hard for antiporn crusaders to say they're helping exploited women with a straight face, much less expect others to take it seriously. No, not only will there be no concerted, significantly large effort against porn, the women calling against it most could end up more marginalized than the porn.

Or, another way to gather a strong crusade, they could simply lie about it, or cite studies by others lying about it, which is the current antiporn strategy.

The real problem? I think most women find male sexuality to be disturbing or downright disgusting, at least as far as heterosexual males are concerned. They'd rather not know about it. Worse, I think perhaps nature meant it to be that way.

[Warren DeMontague]

338. I do think there are biological things going on in an evolutionary context

and yes, they go deeper than just 'men tend more towards visual arousal' which I think is fairly friggin obvious but the mentioning of which will still elicit a mass freak-out. (watch :hide:)

No, I suspect there may be deep evolutionary social behavior machinations at work in the female primate brain pertaining to attempting to control the level of general sexual availability in the group; (this could be associated with why it's more often than not women, as opposed to men, who engage in 'slut-shaming' of other women) of course, any and all attempts along these lines evolved in small hunter-gatherer groups and go completely fuckwire when confronted with modern life as well as the brand new circumstances presented by a 24-7 media.

I could probably come up with an extensive analysis of the whole thing, but honestly it's not worth having all the shit in the monkey house thrown at me over it.

[caseymoz]

340. I get very little thrown at me.

I've found that if you give more than three contrary facts to a feminist that she can't answer, or ask questions about the integrity of her sources, she'll call you a misogynist (maybe) and put you on ignore. It's a junior-high way of dealing with an adult problem, and they will marginalize themselves even if nobody else does.

Considering the purpose of this thread, it's an odd way to gain allies and persuade people. My feeling coming in was that I agreed with her overall, but not in the particulars of how the media manipulates us. Redqueen doesn't answer, so apparently she thinks the disagreement is total. Now I wonder if that isn't right.

[LoZoccolo]

59. Would this be considered objectification?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7232158

[jorno67]

96. awesome!

that is brilliant!

[jorno67]

118. it seems that your point is being ignored

that's convenient for this argument...

[redqueen]

139. Because it's not a point. It's a sexist tactic that only the worst kind of men use.

And it's older than the hills to use that tactic, so no one is interested in getting down into the mud with ... certain types of people.

Hope that is clear enough for you.

[seabeyond]

151. i had typed, LZ purely tacky, but then erased post cause why bother. more of the

a bet too obvious.

[redqueen]

160. Their way of trying to get women to shut up.

It isn't working any more.

Would you be surprised to hear how often they use that tactic? It's disgusting really. Going and searching for images to try to silence women.

There is no logic involved at all... just bullying and intimidation. It's sickening and shameful, but they do it proudly. And that says so very much.

[seabeyond]

163. just bullying and intimidation

they learn from the best.... their porn. what can i say. so humorously ironic how both approaches are all one and the same.

btw... if that is your picture, love it.

[jorno67]

171. it is a beautiful picture of a beautiful woman

[redqueen]

172. How about you try to sum up whatever "point" you think is being ignored.

[jorno67]

177. poor choice of word - "point"

I guess what I should said that the question was being ignored. And I want to know the difference between finding beauty in the female form and objectifying. And is it OK to feel lust for the female form?

[redqueen]

191. Maybe you aren't using it as a tactic.

Maybe all the men who try to shame women that way aren't using it as a tactic... they just really do not have a clue about what objectification even is.

There is a little ambiguity I suppose... in that some people think that any time we admire a sexy person we're objectifying them. I personally think that's dumb as hell.

IMO it is looking at a person as a thing. Not everyone who admires a sexy person is thinking of them as a thing.

In a recent study, it was shown that men who were more sexist thought of sexy women as 'tools'. When they viewed images of sexualized women, the parts of their brain that lit up were those areas that correlate to using tools. Less sexist men did not have that response.

So it really comes down to how you relate to other people. Do you see them as a means to your own ends? Or as individuals who deserve to be thought of as people.

[jorno67]

207. I wasn't trying to use any tatics

Personally I found that picture to be sexy and I guess at face value it is just an object as I do not know you. But...I do not look at that picture and conclude that the subject is nothing but a sex toy to be conquered. I actually imagine her (or you) to be a strong willed Redhead who doesn't take shit from anyone and dares any man (or woman) to keep up with her mentally and physically...and that type of strong woman is HOT, in my humble opinion.

[redqueen]

209. .

[LoZoccolo]

253. Maybe when we've performed a similar brain scan, you can tell what I'm thinking. n/t

[jorno67]

185. also...

It is a sexy picture of you. It will and has evoked sexual thoughts about you...I am confused as to how you'd want me (or any other man you didn't know) to feel about it.

[seabeyond]

189. how is it her responsibility?

if a man only views women as their porn, how is that the womans responsibility?

[jorno67]

198. I didn't realize that I said it was her responsibility

and I also didn't realize that all men owned porn. Yes most porn is for and by men, but not all men engage in it - just like war...for and by men...but not all.

[seabeyond]

200. you didnt say it, but it is what you gave her. nt

[thesquanderer]

272. It might be all. Or darn near close to it.

re: "I also didn't realize that all men owned porn. Yes most porn is for and by men, but not all men engage in it - just like war...for and by men...but not all."

I'm quite sure that the percentage of men who participate in war is far, far smaller than the percentage who own porn!

Of course, defining exactly what is and isn't pornography is an old problem. But broadly speaking, if you were to simply talk about "visual aids," I suspect that, yes, the vast majority of men own/owned it, or view/viewed it, at least on occasion.

[jorno67]

276. in that light...

I've seen more war movies than porn...

[caseymoz]

329. Pornography is actually easy to define.

Once people are allowed to use the forbidden pornographic terms to define it.

Pornography is text or images (which are created or recorded) that are made specifically to masturbate with. Granted, someone can use a work as pornography, but to be actual pornography, the wanking has to be its specific, primary purpose. It's why Evil Angel isn't known for it's documentary work as well. There's really no confusion about what their work is and what it's for. They its business plan is very well defined.

You wonder why they used to ban movies and books that look mild by today's standards, it was because with a shortage of porn, people would use the least suggestion or flash of leg as their masturbation image. Of course, they wouldn't talk about this, much less write about it.

It's obscenity that's not easy to define. They sound like they're synonymous, but there not. Some people who like pornography will find images of violence to be obscene, whereas other people find all pornography to be obscene. I'd like to say it's an image that traumatizes you.

[seabeyond]

199. btw... per post 191

this would be a perfect example of what she is talking about. the difference would be, did you look at her as a tool, or did you see a human being, the eyes, the beauty, not... is she fuckable.

[jorno67]

212. I don't find tools fuckable...

and why can't someone be allowed to want to be with beauty?

[redqueen]

213. I want you to see that it was most likely posted as an attempt to shut me up.

And not as any indicator of honest confusion about what it means to objectify someone.

Just the fact that so many people don't even have a clue about what 'sexual objectification' means is a huge issue on its own. How can we ever hope to address these issues when we can't even talk about them, we just get shouted down, insulted, ridiculed, accused of being 'divisive'...

[jorno67]

218. oh...I thought that was an attempt to engage you in conversation

as to the fine lines of this tricky subject. That's why I asked about being ignored, I wanted to see a dialogue about what makes something admiration and what makes it objectification. But I guess the real answer is only the person who vies something truly knows what their motivations are. Do we also take in account the motivations of the subject and artist? I really don't know.

[redqueen]

224. Anyone who doesn't understand what objectification is, and cares about it,

is free to look the term up before engaging in a discussion about it. That is if they actually care. (Think about it... claiming to care about an issue, yet not even knowing what it is... really?)

Showing up in a conversation in which most other people already understand the terms being used, and asking to have them defined for you?

Does that not strike you as just a little bit odd?

This is starting to really annoy me now, that that picture he linked to has drawn this much away from the conversation. I'm done engaging in this particular attempt at derailment.

[jorno67]

236. I think people enjoy discussing issues...

especially when there are vague areas that hard to pin down. I agree with knowing about what you claim to care about...but I also believe sometimes it's how definitions are applied that separates people. So maybe they understand the term, they just treat it differently than you. It is a sticky subject that's for sure, but anytime people try to define other peoples motivations...it's gets a little "odd".

[redqueen]

239. Why not simply ask the question?

Why link to THAT pic to make his "point"?

I don't know if you're really not catching on to this, or if you're playing a game here.

[jorno67]

243. I am not playing games and I can't answer to his motivation...

I just saw it as an attempt to engage in a conversation. Of course you and I had the conversation and he never came back...so maybe you're right.

[seabeyond]

248. he was playing games. just like they were on porn thread

putting some feminists womans picture up for me. really unattractive. then act like no, really, it is not about demeaning me and my looks. even though clueless.

LZ was trying to shame red. and red is not shamed. nor is someone challenging our sexuality, or if we like sex, or if we are ugly, or are a prude, puritan, fundamentalist, asexual, antisex, man hater..... the lest goes on and take note, it is all about degrading women sexually. where do you think men learn this?

[jorno67]

258. where do men learn this?

I would say from their Mom and Dad...
I ignored the porn thread so I didn't know that there was carryover.

[redqueen]

263. It's not carryover. It's an extremely common tactic.

It's used in nearly every discussion everywhere when women try to raise awareness of these issues.

Well, less so on feminist sites, but it's even there. They have trolls, and guess what? Same ****.

[jorno67]

268. So where and how is this learned and who did the study?

[LoZoccolo]

265. How would it be shaming?

I don't think anybody objected to the picture when it was posted; you can see the positive responses there.

[LoZoccolo]

250. Much of the trouble with these issues is that they devolve into attempts at mind-reading like this.

You're ascribing thoughts and intentions to me, which is something of a tactic as well.

I asked you your opinion of the piece and allowed you to make a statement of how you feel about it. You, in return, decided to tell everyone else how you think I think and fell. I think that's a big difference.

[redqueen]

254. Why did you link to that picture?

Sorry, but you're not as sneaky as you think.

[LoZoccolo]

262. Like I said, you've been the subject of a work of art.

I'm actually not sure if you think it's objectifying or not, but if you do not, I thought you were in a unique position, as the subject of the work, to make a determination, and that a useful distinction might be ascertained from that determination. I'm actually pretty shocked that you'd accuse me of these things so aggresively, since you know me a little. I don't think it's fair for you to accuse me of all these things, and like I said, this debate always starts coming down to these fairly-untestable accusations.

[redqueen]

267. No sale. I am not an authority.

There is no special insight to be gained about the nature of objectification vs. art from me.

And furthermore that discussion belongs in a different thread.

This is all very simple, and all very obvious.

[LoZoccolo]

247. Would it hurt this discussion to get some sort of differentiation between what is

objectifying and what is not? You are in a position to give a unique opinion on that particular work.

[seabeyond]

249. do you walk into an art musuem, grab your dick adn jack off to the pictures?

do you take your hustler into a private space, grab your dick and jack off.

i simplified it for you

[LoZoccolo]

256. There's a confounding issue with private and public space that you touch on. n/t

[seabeyond]

285. there is purpose behind both, art and porn. nt

[jorno67]

290. Doesn't history show that many artists used their female subjects as sex objects?

It's kind of like pre-photography porn. And now they are hanging on art museum walls everywhere.

[redqueen]

259. Yes, it's off-topic.

If you're confused about sexual objectification, there is a lot of material out there you can read.

You searched for a pic from 2007 to ask your innocent and oh-so-well-intentioned question. Find someone less aware to bother. Have a good life.

[LoZoccolo]

264. We're having a discussion about objectification and

the boundrary conditions of what is objectifying and not objectifying is off-topic? The personal opinion of the subject of the depiction as to whether or not they are objectified is off-topic?

[redqueen]

266. While there is some disagreement about sexual objectification,

it is fairly widely understood what it is referring to when discussing the media. This is a sociological issue.

So yes, a discussion about what is art vs. what is objectification is off topic.

I'm really tired of this.

[Beacool]

214. No, that's considered art.

;)

[Rex]

317. Wow, of ALL the people on this forum I would NOT expect to hit

the ball out of the park...bravo! Of course, that IS art. Cuz it is about the OP, so that is OTAY. :sarcasm:

[seabeyond]

323. but he swears that is not his intent. oh wait. we know better. why should she be bothered about

the drawing? where is the hit. i see a strike. the point?

[caseymoz]

328. No, but . . .

. . . that doesn't mean that somewhere on the Internet somebody isn't masturbating to it. Some people will jack-off to Darth Vader. Or worse, Guy Smiley. Most the time the one who creates the image and subject of it are not responsible for how people use it.

And thus you see the problem with a term like "objectification" as used.

That brings up another point: since any picture or video is an object that somebody can handle and own, you're "objectifying" someone by the simple fact of recording their appearance. The recording is an object.

So, the whole term is being used wrong. If somebody drew a picture of Redqueen, that means she's been objectified. Or her appearance has.

[Number23]

71. Rec'd. I couldn't agree more.

[redqueen]

77. I hope you get a chance to see Miss Representation...

it goes into all this in so much more detail.

It is a documentary that every adult should see.

[buddysmellgood]

72. Women need to get on board with this as well. Women objectify women.

[redqueen]

74. Yes we do.

That was also mentioned in the documentary I kept going on about last week, Miss Representation.

Minority groups absorb the dominant message. This is a sociological fact. It is scientifically proven. It is not conscious or intentional. It just 'happens' as a result of growing up in the society we live in.

A conscious effort has to be made by women, too. STOP judging other women based on their clothes, their hair, the fact that they haven't got a facelift etc. STOP.

[seabeyond]

84. yes. agreed. nt

[laundry_queen]

91. Many have been raised that way

I had a mother that only cared about weight and looks when meeting new people, and when discussing friends. She constantly picked apart every woman's appearance. "She's gained weight, she shouldn't be wearing that, look at her hair - it's ridiculous, God - she really doesn't know how to put on make up does she?, I don't know why HE married HER, she's hideous!" etc etc. I grew up thinking people would hate me if I wasn't attractive or didn't dress 'properly', or wasn't stylish. I starved myself constantly, obsessed about my weight, and gossiped about other girls' weight. And my mom called herself a feminist! It took me YEARS to process this stuff and that, no, everyone doesn't hate me because I'm now fat, and that it's not true people won't talk to me because of it. The self-hate I had when I put on weight due to medication and a medical condition! And I definitely don't judge others now, on any aspect of their looks.

It needs to stop with the mothers of daughters. I have 4 girls and I'm very careful about this. I'm also careful about what my mom says around them because she still doesn't get it. So many just don't get it, although I must say I'm a bit surprised to see so many of them on this site.

[raccoon]

111. Please consider starting a thread about this. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

169. Not surprising when it's institutionalized.

[Lorien]

80. Yep, the U.S. ranks 90th in the percentage of women in government positions

of leadership.

[Glimmer of Hope]

98. That is pathetic!

[Zorra]

97. Recommend; The Sexualization Of Girls

The APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls

Evidence For The Sexualization of Girls

Virtually every media form studied provides ample evidence of the sexualization of women, including television, music videos, music lyrics, movies, magazines, sports media, video games, the Internet and advertising (e.g., Gow, 1996; Grauerholz & King, 1997; Krassas, Blauwkamp,& Wesselink, 2001, 2003; Lin, 1997; Plous & Neptune, 1997; Vincent, 1989;Ward, 1995). Some studies have examined forms of media that are especially popular with children and adolescents, such as video games and teen-focused magazines.

In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate.

In some studies, the focus was on the sexualization of female characters across all ages, but most focused specifically on young adult women. Although few studies examined the prevalence of sexualized portrayals of girls in particular, those that have been conducted found that such sexualization does occur and may be increasingly common. For example, O’Donohue, Gold and McKay (1997) coded advertisements over a 40-year period in five magazines targeted to men, women, or a general adult readership. Although relatively few (1.5 percent) of the ads portrayed children in a sexualized manner, of those that did, 85 percent sexualized girls rather than boys. Furthermore, the percentage of sexualizing ads increased over time.

Although extensive analyses documenting the sexualization of girls, in particular, have yet to be conducted, individual examples can easily be found. These include advertisements (e.g., the Skechers “naughty and nice” ad that featured Christina Aguilera dressed as a schoolgirl in pigtails, with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop), dolls (e.g., Bratz dolls dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas), clothing (thongs sized for 7– to 10-year-olds, some printed with slogans such as “wink wink”), and television programs (e.g., a televised fashion show in which adult models in lingerie were presented as young girls). Research documenting the pervasiveness and influence of such products and portrayals is sorely needed.

http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx

[redqueen]

140. This should be an OP. (nt)

[Zorra]

158. It was, when the report was first published.

Thanks so much for this thread
:hi:

[redqueen]

161. My pleasure!

I'm going to have to look for that original thread... see how that went.

[Zorra]

170. Found it, it was a reply post, not an OP.

OP was about uncomfortable shoes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=853358#853402

[redqueen]

227. Thanks! I still hope it's the subject of an OP eventually. (nt)

[certainot]

103. relative to recent cain related sexual abuse, attacks on the accusers, and excuses for misogyny

get community-wide broadcast from the local limbaugh radio station that could be getting its community dominance and acceptance merely because it broadcasts the state university sports..

all those stations go a long way to continuing this crap, while the left largely ignores them.

[reggie the dog]

105. and men are supposed to have a fat wallet

if we dont, we are not "real" men.

this is just as bad seeing as most of us men are not rich. this fucks with our self esteem.

[seabeyond]

106. that would be the equivalent. yes. and yea, it is just as bad.

one gender uses as thing for cum receptor, really no emotional attachment. and one as a wallet. neither are reality for most of us. both genders are raised with this and have to consciously work to get past to live a good life.

[Feldspar]

143. Most of us would prefer to have our own wallet

that dudes weren't always trying to get into.

Honestly, how many women do you know who work, go to school and/or raise kids, do the majority of the life maintenence work (grocery shopping, cooking, cleaning, taxi service etc) compared to her man's working and *taking out the trash* if he even does either of those at all?

There are 10 on my block alone.

It's not US fucking with your self esteem Reggie, that's the fantasy you GUYS made up about how you're only successful if you're rich; in fact that's the carrot your 1%-ers dangle in front of your nose. Sad, really. :(

[redqueen]

164. +1... it's just another attempt to derail a discussion of women's issues

by making it about men. It happens every time.

I mean we make almost 3/4 as much as they do... shouldn't we just accept that that's good enough? And start ignoring when we're treated unfairly?

I mean pointing out that we're treated unfairly... why that's just divisive!

Where have you heard that logic before?

[reggie the dog]

182. that really wasn't my intent

wage inequality is a problem, women are treated unfairly more than men, this needs to end i agree, but if we are talking about ideas in pop culture that mess with our heads, and i agree that the stress on "physical beauty" for women is horrible, just as the stress on the "financial security" of the man stresses many men.

do women have it worse than men in general? yes, both genders are given "mission impossible" if we look at ads and magazines,


there is nothing wrong with pointing out that you have been treated unfairly, i agree that you have been and are being treated as such. i raise my daughter and teach my students in a way that they will likely see sexism as a problem to be done away with by future generations.

honestly i thought of barbie and ken when i read this article looks for her, money for him (judge by the car and the clothes)

women are objectified as what, perky tits, a firm ass, with nice legs and a fake face painted on, men objectified as a well dressed fat wallet

[redqueen]

196. We're talking about the overwhelming Miss Representation of women in the media...

and the consequences of that fact.

If men are objectified as well dressed and rich and this is holding them back, please start a thread about that.

[reggie the dog]

244. fair enough

i just thought that i would point out that men are objectified in a different manner which is also unrealistic.

also on this topic of image do you know this song and this singer? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qemWRToNYJY

now she is "fat" but i would argue that she is beautiful, listen to her voice...

she says she makes music for the ears, not the eyes, when questioned about her weight. she has been on many magazine covers and i think that it is great for young women to see a full figured woman as a beautiful person, plus the song is great too.

Adele, "Someone like you" huge hit in the UK and Europe right now.

[reggie the dog]

178. not you women

the message in pop culture that women are supposed to look nice and men are supposed to be wealthy. that bullshit, plus men from their 30's down also do what you list, i did all the grocery shopping, laundry, ironing, we split cooking and cleaning, and split taking picking up the kid at day care, plus yes, i took out the trash too. lots of men from my age group do this.

i dont care to be rich anymore, this messed with me back in high school, when i grew up i came to realize that the ideas that a mans worth is his wealth and a womans worth is her physical looks are bs

[seabeyond]

187. another we dont do in our house. i often have converstion about boys not being expected

to be the wallet and the girls, too, should share in the cost. they are just starting. i want to understand where their worth is, and not where society tells them it is. it is certainly good for them. but it is equally good for girls to get this too, and think about it.

[reggie the dog]

240. i am going to want my daughter to pay for dates too

as a defense against idiot guys who think paying for dinner = girl must "put out".....

[seabeyond]

245. way back when i did

firstly... i was making as much as guys, fair is fair
second, i dont owe anyone anything ever
third, i hear men whine about paying, too much
fourth, want equally, have to be equal
and did i say, it is only fair when i am making as much as they are.

they are all very strong reasons for me. the men would bulk when they asked me out and i said, i pay part. either dinner, or movie or what ever we decide. men had a hard time with it. but a hard and fast rule. it was fun, and funny, and chuckle with them being uncomfortable to the point they appreciated it and probably took a step forward in progressiveness and became more comfortable with it.

when son started dating, i could not believe this had not changed. did a poll on du adn as many men as women insisted they men needed to pay

surprised the shit out of me

another conversation son and i have. want the equality and the perks, too.

[reggie the dog]

252. my girlfriend and i split costs

but she also makes over double my salary, she is management working for the state as a civil servant, but i still like to pay may part too.

[seabeyond]

255. this is how i see it reggie. you and i agree often.

even when the guy made much much more than i, or has a lot more than me, i paid my way. that would be the not owing anyone anything, part.

[duhneece]

107. Closely related to language put-down

I've become aware of people (men AND women) using feminine references in a bad, ugly, less-than way. Examples:
You pussy
don't throw like a girl

[seabeyond]

116. i pointed it out and discussed with my boys when they were very very young.

they got it then, they get it now and it is a huge joke in our family. when we hear another or tv, or anything else, it becomes a laughable moment, but also a rejection out loud, too.

we actually believe, words matter.

[LWolf]

108. Thank you. nt

[ZombieHorde]

117. Recommended. nt

[mistertrickster]

126. Link? "At Colleges, Women are Leaving Men in the Dust"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?pagewanted=all

A quarter-century after women became the majority on college campuses, men are trailing them in more than just enrollment.

Department of Education statistics show that men, whatever their race or socioeconomic group, are less likely than women to get bachelor's degrees — and among those who do, fewer complete their degrees in four or five years. Men also get worse grades than women.

And in two national studies, college men reported that they studied less and socialized more than their female classmates.

Small wonder, then, that at elite institutions like Harvard, small liberal arts colleges like Dickinson, huge public universities like the University of Wisconsin and U.C.L.A. and smaller ones like Florida Atlantic University, women are walking off with a disproportionate share of the honors degrees.

[redqueen]

165. 2nd attempt to change the topic to men's issues.

Using the same men's issue. Did you really not notice this was already mentioned, earlier, in this thread about the media's Miss Representation of women?

Seriously?

[mistertrickster]

331. I don't have time to read 100 plus posts. nt

[mistertrickster]

148. BTW, with the class war waged against the 99 percent, do we really need this divisive BS right now?

I think not.

Let's unify against the real enemies of the state--the motherfreaking rich.

[Feldspar]

156. Devisive bullshit?! Jeez.

That we dare to talk about women's issues is considered divisive?

What if OCW wasn't going on right now? What would the excuse be then? The wind is blowing from the south? It's Saturday? My nose is runny?

Sisters, you'll get yours after we get ours... Yeah, yeah, we know. We've heard it a thousand times before.

[backtoblue]

157. It's not BS

And, yes, we are unifying against corporate greed (not just necessarily all the rich folk) in various threads here.

But, conversations such as these are imperative to changing the sexism in our age.

Overcoming economic adversity still wouldn't solve our misogynistic problems brewing today. nt

[redqueen]

167. HALF the people who could be in government right now,

working on this, are not there.

90th in the world.

But still, derailment, denial, and attempts to rationalize this crap using evolutionary biology.

[redqueen]

166. Yes, shut up, women!

Men simply cannot be expected to discuss or even think about these issues as long as there are other problems in the world!

Please.

[Pacifist Patriot]

168. Has it occurred to you the paradigm of a patriarchal society is related to "class war?"

[Beacool]

211. Spoken like a man..............

:eyes:

[lumberjack_jeff]

283. Way to strike a blow against condescending stereotypes! n/t

[Beacool]

302. I'm not referring to all men, but only a man would make his assertion.

A woman would have known about sexism because most women have experienced it first hand.

:(

[Rex]

176. I have no doubt you will complain without actually doing anything

about the situation. You love to complain about things that everyone already knows. Half? Boy are you way off, why don't you try a real fact for once and not just make up stuff that sounds good to you? :eyes:

[Pamela Troy]

188. And you "have no doubt about this" because...?

Is this some sort of personal feud, or are you defensive because of the subject matter?

[Rex]

221. That is what the OP does?

[Pamela Troy]

235. Your question makes no sense.

The OP "does" what any piece of writing does -- it expresses an opinion, and in this case, points out a problem. What makes you think that the writer does nothing but write OPs or, as you put it, "complain?" Do you know this writer personally? You can tell us all how she spends most of her days?

[Feldspar]

197. Um, Rex, it IS a fact that females are 51% of the human

population.

Women didn't make it up, statisticians (the majority of whom have been historically, and still are, male) did. Sowwy. :(

[Rex]

220. Yeah and not ALL of them are warped like the OP wants to believe

they are. Making up shit won't help her case.

[Feldspar]

226. Rex, are you implying that the OP is saying

women are "warped"? Because if you are, then you've had a major reading comprehension FAIL.

[Name removed]

316. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feldspar]

275. Why so silent, Rex? n/t

[janet118]

205. Are you familiar with the work of Jean Kilbourne?

She's be writing, filming and talking about this for years. Jean Kilbourne She was the first to publicly sound the alarm about advertising's increasing trend toward sexualizing children.

[redqueen]

215. Yes! Killing Us Softly was my first exposure to her work.

I hope we can start reversing this trend. It is (or should be) a huge concern to everyone that half the voices that could be making this country better are being shut out.

[alp227]

206. Good message, but what about the women CEOs? And how women are the majority of college graduates?

like Carly Fiorina (HP), Meg Whitman (eBay), Ursula Burns (Xerox), and Carol Bartz (Yahoo)? I don't recall them being mocked for their business leadership, but I do know that we and I often would mock Fiorina and Whitman when they ran for political office. And the new executive editor of the NY Times is a woman. Still, I do not truly believe that America is a post-sexist society yet, for a truly post-sexist one try Sweden.

[redqueen]

217. There are a few women CEOs. Why is it so popular to point out exceptions?

How does making it even more clear that the rule exists take anything away from the OP?

As for being mocked for business leadership, I don't know. But I'm not talking about business. Business is important, and women are making gains. But we are 90th in the world not in business leadership positions held by women, but women in elected office. This is a huge problem.

And yes, Sweden is on a great track, their efforts to change cultural acceptance of buying sex is a huge breakthrough... but the country is still not post-sexist. It still allows sexual objectification in advertising. Denmark and Norway are leading the way on that front.

[spooky3]

257. compare the % of women CEOs to the % of women in the population

and you will see how the % of women CEOs actually supports the points OP is making.

It's almost the reciprocal of the argument that Herman Cain makes -- "for every woman who has falsely accused me of sexual harassment there are many more who didn't; therefore, I am not a harasser."

Not sure what point you are making about the % of college graduates who are women, so I won't try to respond to it.

[alp227]

269. It's been well-documented that women are out-graduating men

"For first time, more women than men earn PhD" (USA Today, Sept. 4, 2010)

"At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust" (NY Times, July 9, 2006)

"Gender Gap 101" (PBS, 2002)

So why do women still get so much hatred in this country despite their achievements?

[spooky3]

282. Yes, I'm aware of the numbers, but I was not clear on what point you were making.

How would you answer the question you raised?

[Beacool]

210. I learned one thing in 2007 & 2008, sexism is rampant on all sides of the political spectrum

and particularly on the media.

That's why a pox on the media, the Democratic and the Republican parties. They can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

I've been "non affiliated" since the summer of 2008 and I like it.

x(

[redqueen]

228. It's rampant everywhere, yes...

and as we know the last thing a fish would ever notice would be water.

[sulphurdunn]

216. We're not enough generations

removed from chimpanzees to be too upset about the prominence of sexuality in every aspect of human behavior. The problem is a lot of bad wiring between biological and cultural evolution.

[redqueen]

231. See post 38. This isn't biology, this is culture. And it has to change. (nt)

[sulphurdunn]

311. Culture is the creature of biology,

not the other way around.

[seabeyond]

314. maybe when it is actually about biology instead of a cult like evolution behavior psychology

of guess put out by a patriarchy with an agenda.

[sulphurdunn]

318. Females do not run

most Chimp societies, with the single matriarchal exception of the Bonobo Chimpanzees, which are our closest genetic kin. Maybe, there is hope.

[backtoblue]

219. so very true

Half of our species do not get a say in the way the world is ran. And, to be fair, half of it is our own fault. We put on make-up, heels, and revealing clothing in order to receive "positive" attention and conform to our preconceptions on what a lady is. You never see a lady news anchor or politician without make-up. When those brave ladies who do go into public without make-up they are perceived as "not taking care of themselves" - which is a load of bullshit.

Thank you for addressing these issues redqueen. There are many who think this type of conversation is "whining" and overreacting. I see this conversation as conducive to equality and it needs to happen more often.

backtoblue

[redqueen]

232. Yes, we have absorbed the dominant message.

We need to start waking up to that fact, and start making changes in the way we act.

When we conform to this idea that it is normal for women to be valued primarily for their looks, youth, and sexuality, we are teaching the next generation to keep doing it.

Attacking women for their looks or sexuality has to stop, especially attacks from other women.

I mean I guess if you're talking about watching "America's Next Top Model" or beauty contestants or something, then it's topical. I mean just in everyday life.

[msedano]

222. Hate speech quantification methodology

http://labloga.blogspot.com/2011/11/talk-radio-racists-mexicanidad-in-el.html

Readers will find fascinating the methodology’s reliance upon metaphor, such as metaphors that dehumanize members of a vulnerable group. The CSRC Working Paper quotes Otto Santa Ana’s conclusion that “These metaphors are not merely rhetorical flourishes, but are the key components with which the public’s concept of Latinos is edified, reinforced, and articulated”.

Metaphors work to teach the unknown in terms of the known, Santa Anna explains. For a public with little to no observational knowledge of chicana chicano peoplehood, hate speech has the capacity to inform the tabula rasa of audiences, from the innocent to the gullibly prejudiced, as well as reinforce the true believer racist.



The images we feed our kids and empty-headed compatriots make all the difference in the world, in other words.

mvs

[redqueen]

234. Thank you so much for this post!

Some here have tried to dismiss the idea that dehumanization could be linked to violence against the group being dehumanized. They are in denial, IMO.

[JDPriestly]

223. Yes. In that sense, it is a huge deal.

But sex is with us always. There is no reason for prudery.

Women should not have to hide their sexuality in order to be spared from habitual harassers -- and we have had a couple of examples of habitual harassers in the news recently.

[Feldspar]

230. Hide our sexuality.... Hmmm.

How does a woman go about hiding her sexuality anyway? By *covering up* and embracing "prudery"?

[redqueen]

237. This isn't about sex. This is about treating women as if that's all they are for...

for titillating, attracting, and pleasing men.

Prudery is a red herring, it's got nothing to do with this conversation.

[Feldspar]

241. Agreed! n/t

[spooky3]

261. +1000

[JDPriestly]

303. As an older woman, you don't need to convince me.

I just don't want the discussion to turn into yet another argument about porn.

This has to do with women's right to be respected for who they are not how they look. I understand that.

[spooky3]

251. k&r

[alp227]

270. ANOTHER POINT: did you ever learn about the feminist movement in school?

Thanks to right-wing education boards around the country who will cry "THEY'RE TEACHING ANTI-CHRISTIAN VALUES!" if teachers dare include women's rights movement post-19th amendment/Susan B. Anthony in the curriculum, we've got a generation of young folks who are clueless about who Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan or any women's rights activists after the 19th amendment are. That's why we've got so many over-entitled men out there who can't see anything wrong with sexually objectifying women.

[Feldspar]

274. This is true. And even when one reaches college

and would like to learn something about the history of the Women's Liberation Movement they are more than likely to find themselves in GENDER Studies instead.

Two completely different things but a lack of women's history also benefits liberal men. Yet another clue that it's about men and what men want...

[seabeyond]

286. my niece first year in college pointed out one teacher skips all the chapters about women, yet,

he very clear christian teacher works hard at point out ALL the women in position of power and works hard at giving the differing view, making it clear being a teacher takes priority.

i thought that kinda nifty

[DeSwiss]

273. K&R!!! n/t

[thesquanderer]

284. often mocked?

re: "This is because powerful women in leadership positions are hardly shown, and when they are shown they are often mocked."

I don't think of them as largely mocked... except by their political opposition, who will mock anyone in any way they can. But I don't think "the media" in general has mocked Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi, and on the fiction side, there are plenty of movies/plays/TV dramas with strong female characters who are taken seriously. I'm not saying there shouldn't be more of them, but I don't see powerful women as often being mocked (outside perhaps "hate radio").

[Feldspar]

287. Were those young men who posed themselves,

with a cut-out of Hilary Clinton (one feeding her a beer and the other groping her breast) your so-called hate radio?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4596268&mesg_id=4596268

[redqueen]

291. Yes, often mocked. "The Bitch and The Ditz"? Not ringing any bells?

What about commentary on Hillary's neckline?

Sarah Palin was reduced to tits and ass by political pundits on the left and right... and many men here on DU felt compelled to tell us how fuckable they found her.

I honestly am shocked that you somehow don't notice ANY of this.

[seabeyond]

295. it truly was one of the finer WTF's... but i let it go. hey, every picture of bauchmann becomes du

porn

[caseymoz]

294. Powerful women in the media:

Temperance Brennan in Bones, Brenda Johnson in The Closer, Buffy Summers in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Ripley in the Alien series, Olivia Benson in Law & Order: SVU, Agent Salt in, well, Salt . . . you know, I could go on here. There's no shortage of strong female characters depicted, in fantasy or in "real life" drama.

Contrary to what you said, their worths are not depicted to be their looks, youth and sexuality. Though generally they are depicted as having beauty and youthfulness, and having sex life, that's not their worth for any of the plots. They are also depicted as being intelligent, witty, powerful and forceful.

So, the media has no problem depicting powerful females. The actual problem is: the media always has to depict them as being drop-dead gorgeous, too, (and this is mostly true of males, as well). Sexism might have something to do with it, but so does the bottom line. Hollywood knows very well that the moment they stop showing beautiful characters people will tune out and tune into a channel that does. Female and male audiences will both do this. Unfortunately, the rest of the media knows this is true, too.

This seems to have a worse effect on females than it does on males. They compare their looks to the characters they see and it's demotivator rather than an inspiration. I don't know what can be done about it, except maybe have a cable channel committed to showing heroic, powerful female characters who lack extraordinary beauty. (The rating for this will probably be about 0.0.) Even so, the solution is not to depict even more powerful female characters, but it's to show strong female characters who lack the superhuman beauty that makes young women feel they can never rise to the same standard.

[redqueen]

301. This has all been well researched already.

It is definitely not the case that this is solely the result of the media showing people what they want to see.

This is advertising, and the corporations behind advertising. It is used to make money.

[caseymoz]

305. Link?

I'd like to see how they researched this and determined it wasn't "solely" the result of the media showing people what they want see. I'd also like to know if "solely" mean it wasn't "mostly," or it was "only partially" or "almost not at all"? And was this professionally done research? Peer reviewed? And what did the peers say when they reviewed it, if they did?

Social scientists are known for shoddy research that bolsters whatever theory the author is putting forward. The conservative University of Chicago School of Economics being one example, and a very well financed one.

I didn't mention advertising, but even in that case, do you think advertisers could sell a product without associating it to something people want to see, and see most?

And you didn't mention it, but I have to add: weren't the examples I gave powerful, female characters? Aren't they, mostly, over the top in terms of physical beauty?

Lastly, if those characters aren't working to inspire women, how would you change the depiction?

[Feldspar]

304. It also only takes a cursory glance at who is behind

mainstream media in all its forms (which ALL rely on advertising $$$ to varying degrees) to know who is really driving consumerism.

That'd be men, with the oft noted exceptions who also happen to prove the RULE.

[caseymoz]

308. Now that's true, but look at the characters I've presented.

Can you truthfully say that the male influence is reflected in those characters, besides the fact that they are physically beautiful? Would say those characters are brought in to be humiliated or mocked? Or whenever they are discussed by their audiences that it's with a sneer?

No. Now the influence of male owners and executives might be seen elsewhere, but that's not to say the media is not presenting strong female characters, or that it always mocks and shames the ones it presents.

I could even cite some examples in advertising where women are depicted as strong and powerful. Selling to women, that is.

Of course, for any of those, there's also three ads for male-marketed products which are insulting to women.

BTW, "the exception that proves the rule" is a cliche and a downright an absurdity. The only way the phrase ever made sense was to note something so unusual that when it happened people stopped and looked and talked about it for years. If people didn't do that, it's not an "exception that proves the rule."

There is nothing rare or unusual about the examples I gave. If you want, I could cite a dozen more strong women depicted in the media. It is the rule. Or a rule.

[BrendaBrick]

307. Well, I look forward to a day

...in the very near future (I would like to hope) in which the younger generation coming up can start to see PAST all of this media hype and manipulation that girls/women are objects for exactly what it is and I think that films like Miss Representation do a lot towards those ends, I really do - and it is soooooo important that these manipulations and tactics and corporate strategies are brought front and center and exposed for what they TRULY are!!!

Without a doubt!

Having said that and to take NOTHING AWAY FROM IT...I am ALSO of the contention that some segments of our younger generation may be a bit more savvy along these lines than we give them credit for!

Though I can't cite specific examples, it has been my experience in watching various YouTube music videos and reading some of the comments made by teens and tweens that many see right though the objectification/manipulation all on their own!

I mostly like to watch the various older 70's music videos (from my *day*) and I am pleasantly astonished and surprised that many teenagers (according to the comments left) know real music when they hear it and are keenly aware of the shallow objectification crap of females all on their own when compared to the current music!!!

Part cynical, part realistic, I think that some truly *get it* all on their own.

I am not that old to remember the 1967 movie: "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" with Spencer Tracy, Sidney Poitier & Katherine Hepburn and the *gasp* scene in which a black man kissed a white women on screen.

At that time, THIS KISS was truly ground-breaking stuff!!!!

Now, 44 years later, most folks (especially the younger generation) would probably just roll their eyes and think - geesh - how ridiculous and ignorant! You know?

But at the time.....it was a really big deal!!!!

I kind of see this same thing being played out (in the midst) currently.

That before long our younger generation will start to roll their eyes and think geesh - they really portrayed women in a lesser light and really, how utterly ridiculous!!!

That's my sense...and hunch, anyway ~

[Feldspar]

309. Are we free of racism though?

Because black heterosexual people have been allowed to kiss/marry white heterosexual people? (hetero = the majority)

Even if the kids think it's "ridiculous" to portray "women in a lesser light", it's still going to happen. It's been happening for centuries.

[BrendaBrick]

310. Not sure I follow you...

I'd like to - though I am not sure what your point(s) are/is? (Note: NOT sarcastic!)

[Feldspar]

315. What I'm trying to say is that it DOES seem kind of silly

these days that there was once a notion that black people were less human than white people and that it was improper for white people to be fraternizing with those not quite *good enough*. So I'm agreeing with you on that point, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are post-racist just because black people can NOW fraternize with white people.

Black people are more often than not still depicted as "pimps n hoes", for example, entirely for the amusement of white people.

So what if the we think it's ridiculous? It's still there.

[BrendaBrick]

321. OK. I understand now.

"Black people are more often than not still depicted as "pimps n hoes", for example, entirely for the amusement of white people.

So what if the we think it's ridiculous? It's still there."

Yeah. I think you are right along these lines. To a large extent. Sadly.

Though I don't know for sure, (I am a white female) I would still venture to say that (silent?) prejudices still exist even today given a black man trying to hail a cab (for the most part) and this is not to ever forget the gross "misunderstanding"??? (as the media likes to put it) of recent when Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested in July, 2009 in trying to 'break into' his OWN HOME because he simply left his keys (to his OWN HOUSE) and "some neighbor" saw what was happening and ASSUMED and made the snap judgement and called the local police citing (based on color alone) that some black man was breaking and entering!

Yeah. You have a point there, to be sure.

Maybe more of a longer way to go than I would think...along these lines.

What is so entirely ironic to me...is that Gates was/is working on a project: "Faces of America". Which basically and in effect can trace most/everyone of us to a strong genetic, original pool...eventually. That basically (shrug) we are ALL related in one form or another...and how richly ironic that he should be so badly treated like he was ~

Thanks for your post.

[mistertrickster]

327. Bottom line--capitalism objectivizes both men and women. It turns

people into consumers and consumed, with no other function: profits over people.

The fundamental lie of feminism was to focus on gender instead of CLASS. Of course, women are made into things -- that's what capitalism does to everyone. But it's not MEN who do it (just because they lust a lot), it's the moneyed elite and their paid minions (us) who do it to survive in this society created for them.

The idea that a male construction worker busting up concrete with a jack hammer on a 100 degree day is more "privileged" than the women's studies professor sitting in her air-conditioned office making twice the salary is ludicrous on its face, but that's what we're expected to believe: gender trumps all.

"Poor widdle Paris Hilton, forced to let so many men LOOK AT HER perfect body!"

Oh, please.

[mistertrickster]

330. Fewer women are in elected office in the US because more conservatives are in office.

CONs are the root of women's under-representation in gov't, not "men" or "ads."

[Feldspar]

333. Pfft. Like we have been so OVER-represented under DEMS?!

and it's not men, huh? Riiiight.

[mistertrickster]

334. There are 17 women Senators. Five are Republican.

There are some 85 women Congressional Representatives. 24 or them are Republican.

I rest my case.

[mistertrickster]

332. Several posters have cited a study (no links) that claims MRI scans of

men's brains associated photos of bikini women to "tool use."

Actually, what lit up was the part of the brain associated with "taking action." Rather a big difference.

Not only that, at least one study shows that women seeing pictures of erect penises have the same response.

"Consistent with our prediction, the ventral striatum and the centromedian thalamus, showed a stronger neuronal response to preferred relative to non-preferred stimuli. Likewise, the ventral premotor cortex which is a key structure for imitative (mirror neurons) and tool-related (canonical neurons) actions showed a bilateral sexual preference-specific activation, suggesting that viewing sexually aroused genitals of the preferred sex triggers action representations of sexual behavior."

http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2009/02/spanner-or-sex-object.html

[varelse]

336. K&R