Misogyny? Well, DUH!

[Loaded Liberal Dem]

I'm a straight white male who is turning 51 on Sunday. Have I objectified members of the opposite sex in my lifetime? Again, DUH! When I was in high school and college (especially the latter), getting laid > getting grade. Sleeping with a gal when we were both blitzed out of our minds was standard operating procedure. Perhaps some of the girls we fucked felt violated afterward. I don't know, as none of the ones I was with actually told me such was the case.

Of course, as I grew into my mid-to-late 20s, I realized how me and my buds had been total assholes. But a funny thing happened on the way to repentance: A lot of women actually seemed to start embracing the misogynistic tropes that I was learning to abandon.

Item: Man-sharing. This was a prominent argument put forward by some "women's" magazines in the late 80s and early 90s like Redbook and Cosmo, the idea being that there was a "man shortage," and that smart gals should reconcile themselves to membership in a mini-harem in order to achieve happiness. This occurred at the same time that fashion mags, officiallly edited by women, began running lingerie ads using barely-pubescent girls as models.

Two decades later, where are we as a society? Well, girls and young women have role models like Lena Dunham, whose TV show Girls appears to have no problem whatsoever with guys who abuse their girlfriends, borderline raping them, and are rewarded for this behavior, while young men who dare to show "respect" (ugh!) for the female gender are cast aside.

Then, of course, we have the "properly-programmed" like Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, et al, made to specification by the Humbert Humberts of Hollywood. Sadly, these girls are now "legal" in all 50 states, so you can bet dollars to dimes that a new crop of Lolitas is on its way.

And then there's this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/blondie-bennett-barbie-woman-hypnotherapy-stupid_n_4815495.html

And this:

And then, saddest of all, there are these:

Hey, guys, our society is truly fucked up!

[Bonobo]

1. One second of searching.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=my+six+packs

Imagine if I had even half tried.

[Scootaloo]

2. Well, next time the male victim of sexual assault is told it's because his abs were so tight...

Oh wait, that doesn't happen.

Well then, maybe when we have a veritable epidemic of young men ruining hteir health to achieve some impossible washboard... Oh, you mean that doesn't happen, either?

Maybe when society as a whole regards men as toys to be fucked and thrown aside like a used swiffer... Oh... that doesn't happen either.

Reduction of any person into an object is negative and harmful, Bonobo. But the reality of the matter, the reality that you are trying so hard to not just evade but outright lie about - is that it is more harmful to women in our society. Funny how normalized dehumanization has a greater negative impact on those members of society who have always been towards the back of the bus than it does on the people driving the damn thing.

[Bonobo]

3. Forgive me, I thought the OP was about social pressures to conform to certain body types.

You want me to admit it is WORSE for women?

Okay, I do.

Does that end your little red herring and now give me the right to respond that it is a human issue and not one that is restricted to one gender if I stipulate that?

Does it give me the right to discuss the issue from a male perspective -yes, the SAME issue, without being called a whiner or having some snarky "teh poor menz" comment made?

[Scootaloo]

4. Except you're not discussing.

One second of searching.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=my+six+packs

Imagine if I had even half tried.

You're belittling.

Go forth. Watch the set of videos Loaded Liberal Dem posted. Now, watch yours.

LLD's got a list of girls pleading to be told whether they are ugly nor not. Some, close to tears as they ask. It's a half-dozen videos of girls and women expressing their insecurity over what society tells them makes them valuable

Your list?

Guys going "hey youtube, look at my badass abs! Awww yeah!"

Loaded liberal Dem is serving you something that you insist doesn't exist. it's on a silver fucking platter with the crusts cut off, and you're stull going "hurpa durpa no such thing, gyurrr!"

[Fumesucker]

6. It's still considered "unmanly" to complain, men are considerably less likely to go to the doctor

Men are also famously less likely to ask for directions if they are lost.

Men would be less likely to post that sort of video in the first place, we all know such a video by a boy would be savagely mocked by practically everyone. It's "gay" for a man to be concerned about the way he looks. (Not my opinion and I don't consider gay to be a slur but that's what would be said by many)

Not to say that there's not more cultural pressure on women about appearance but culture also has an effect on how likely someone is to speak up when something makes them feel bad.

Men are trained to be stoic, uncomplaining in the face of hardship, big boys don't cry.

Just because they are not all the same size or made of the same material or that we don't talk about them the same amount doesn't mean we don't all have crosses to bear.

[Loaded Liberal Dem]

25. And all six videos start with the same two words

"Hey, guys..." That is truly sad. And possibly dangerous: Five of the six are quite obviously adolescent, and maybe they mean to address the question to guys their own age. But hey, my middle-aged ass saw them, and I can't help but wonder how many men my age, or in their 40s and 30s, are using these girls' painfully obvious demonstration of low self-worth for cultivation purposes. (smh)

[btrflykng9]

24. Ummmm...The OP was not about social pressures to conform to certain body types n/t

[Democracyinkind]

26. There you go ruining a perfect strawman. nt

[btrflykng9]

34. :)

[BainsBane]

85. The OP is about misogyny

of which objectification is part. You don't get to defend objectification threads and then come in and say oh what about me, poor men. This is the result of the world you and your group have been promoting and defending for months now, but particularly strongly over the past week.

I could have responded to your OP about suicide and said what about women, but I decided my ego was less important than the issue at hand. Perhaps you might consider that occasionally.

[chervilant]

31. No amount of snarking, condescending,

dissembling, denying or belittling is going to change the fact that misogyny and sexism are central to the ongoing, patriarchy-driven oppression and objectification of women. That you expend so much time and energy attempting to derail this and other pro-feminist threads is telling -- sad, really, that you're determined to fly your sexism flag so relentlessly.

(Please do not bother to respond, as you're going straight to IL.)

[DanTex]

59. Let me know when a man's lack of a 6-pack affects the way he is perceived in a work setting.

Or whether a man who formerly had a six-pack gains 20 pounds, and all of a sudden the whole office starts chattering about it.

[Blue_Adept]

60. Really?

You don't think that shit happens in plenty of places? Regular offices and more blue collar work? The things that get said about husbands who go through the whole sympathy weight gains with pregnant wives and so on?

Again, it's not to make light of women's problems from most men that bring it up, but it's just willful ignorance to say that men do not go through the same kinds of issues from other men and women. Hell, look at the bullying overweight kids of any stripe go through from their peers that sticks with them - and most of the bullies - when they grow into adults. That shit is still out there and pretty regular.

[DanTex]

61. Not to a remotely comparable extent.

I'm not talking about kids here, I'm talking about adults in a work environment. If you think that the amount of emphasis placed on a man's appearance is remotely comparable to what women face, you are kidding yourself.

Just anecdotally speaking, I don't know any man who has ever mentioned that the way he looks or his weight or anything like that might affect his career.

When a man goes to work in an office, he wears a suit. He has to decide what color tie to wear. A woman working in a corporate environment faces a whole bunch of challenges just in choosing a wardrobe. Is it too sexy? Is it not sexy enough? Skirt? Pants? How much leg to show? How low cut a blouse?

Not saying that men don't face pressures, but appearance really isn't one of them, anywhere close to what it is for women.

[TheFrenchRazor]

5. women's attitudes about themselves do seem to have regressed in the last 30 years.

in some ways their status has improved (more women in high places, i suppose), but it seems like they get less respect than they used to and young women seem to be fine with it. feminism and women's rights seem to be all about abortion and access to birth control; i'm certainly not saying those things aren't important, but so is being truly respected equally with men and being treated as something other than just a sex object.

[btrflykng9]

29. +1

[Warpy]

78. They have been in the "ladies" magazines

that make their nut by pushing stereotypes and selling crap to make women feel a little less ugly and that's the one big truth, no matter how young and pretty we are, we know we're ugly.

The man sharing in the OP referred mostly to women over 35. All the good ones were in the suburbs and breeding and few decent ones were to be had in the cities. So women who knew they were ugly had to settle for being in a harem unless they bought everything the magazine was trying to sell them so they'd be less ugly.

Or, like me, they avoided those magazines like the pox on humanity they are.

[marions ghost]

7. "Porn stars without makeup"

from your Huffpo link. Also says a lot about what it means to be a young woman bombarded by images created by the beauty industry:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/blondie-bennett-barbie-woman-hypnotherapy-stupid_n_4815495.html

Many more of these pix at link:


Thank you for posting

[Beacool]

41. I feel sad for this woman.

She has such low self-esteem that she needs to dumb herself down to become a human Barbie.

Truly sad.........

[Blue_Adept]

53. Don't be sad.

Go watch this film about 16 of the top women of the industry in the last couple of years and actually hear their stories, not the ones that you want them to tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroused_(film)

[Bonobo]

8. Am I Ugly? (Boys version)

Lest you think it is only girls. (Oh, I know, I'm doing "it" again! Daring to suggest this is a human issue and that boys also suffer from the same fucking thing. I know I've got a lot of nerve trying to deflect away from the "woman's issue&quot

[marions ghost]

9. OK

you make the point that boys also have insecurities as they grow up. True of course. But I sampled all the videos and see some significant differences. For one thing, the girls never express hope or solutions, never see it as a matter of building up enough confidence to overcome the question "am I ugly?" in the first place. If told they are ugly, they will buy cosmetics. If told they are pretty, they will buy cosmetics. That is the only solution they have to getting over feelings of being ugly. So that is their only question. Already the boys are putting the problem in perspective.

One of the positive things about the boys videos--is that talking openly like this is becoming more acceptable to express their inner selves, a good thing. With the exception of a couple of these guys who may have more serious depression, this is a phase, something they will work through and get over. They will eventually accept themselves no matter what they look like. Being a male nerd is still better than being a female nerd.

The problem for girls is that this obsession with appearance and image--will carry through their lives, to their graves. It's not a temporary thing. It is crippling.

I still say, there's a difference.

[BarackTheVote]

46. It's the same thing as the 1% vs. the 99%

There are a lot of different sub-strata of males, and misogynistic views can be held by men representing all of those strata. But the cultural definition of manliness is controlled by a relatively small group of Übermensch who perpetuate a regulating heteronormative ideology across society. Men in the beta-classes adhere to the edicts of this small group because they feel like that makes them manly by association, even though they, too, are being controlled to their own detriment. We should not be divided into classes because of accidents of birth; that is a false dichotomy imposed on us by the cultural gatekeepers, who are doing so for their own advantage. There should be no patriarchy, no matriarchy, just democracy.

[marions ghost]

58. And that is why men

should support women who dare to speak against the norms. Because implied in the whole feminist challenge is: raise boys differently. Let boys be who they really are too. The best Boomer parents have done that and smart younger parents today are doing that. So there's hope.

Yes "manly by association" has to go--actually that has to go for both men and women (I'm thinking of women in the workplace who pattern themselves on arrogant, narcissist, aggressive
men--because they know it's the only way to get ahead).

(Feminists don't advocate matriarchy--that would be stupid for anyone oppressed by patriarchy. They advocate the egalitarianism you & we all would like to see).

Thx for reply

[Threedifferentones]

75. I agree with you marions ghost but I think you have left out half the story.

Women also need to support men who go against the grain of gender norms.

Your average woman is not really a feminist by the standards of DU. Most of them never really reflect that what they are attracted to is a stereotypically masculine sort of male:

1 He is to be tall and, if not muscular, at least lean.

2 He is to be in a "high-status" occupation and/or financially well off.

3 He should use those resources to cover all expenses on any dates or other avenues of courtship.

4 He should be assertive almost to the point of aggression, making most of the decisions and shouldering most of the load when life gets heavy.

Correspondingly, most women only begin romantic relationships by being asked out, they would hardly dream of choosing their own date. They are thus comfortable with being the objects of male pursuit, and uncomfortable playing a more active role. In other words, many women, whether they know it or not, want a man's man, they embrace at the very least the forms of sexism which have been referred to as "benevolent."

I too believe that this is mostly the result of our culture, that patriarchy is a social construct which is so old as to SEEM natural and inevitable, when in fact it is a choice people make.

But, sometimes on DU I am puzzled as to why some posters feel that growing up under patriarchy excuses the actions of these women who embrace gender norms, but not the men.

When I observe a man treating his mate as second class, I often wonder:

1How can he treat another human that way?
and
2Why doesn't she fight back against this oppression?

Over and over I am struck by the fact that these two questions have the same answer. Both the man and the woman grew up in a patriarchal system. They are acting out the roles they are familiar with, they are imitating the behavior they observed as children.

Children learn about sex and gender by observing adults. In many ways our gender roles give more power and privilege to men, but that does not mean the current generation of men is responsible for them. This generation of boys and girls will learn by watching the last generation of fathers and mothers, who in turn imitated a lot of what their parents' generation did, and so on back before written history.

And this brings up what struck me most about your post. For those of us who are sick of these rigid gender roles, the only way forward is to be very open about the fact that we are different and very supportive of other people who feel the same. It is imperative that kids today who do not feel comfortable living up to a patriarchal standard see that there are many adults who feel the same way. Otherwise they will probably always feel that there is something wrong with them for not fitting in with society, instead of realizing there is something wrong with society for not accepting them.

That is why these flame wars on DU sadden me greatly. The vast majority of posters agree that we should accept anyone who is open minded and kind as a good person, and that we should evaluate people as unique individuals instead of ranking them in comparison with an ideal man or woman. Unfortunately though in most threads about gender this broad piece of common ground is overlooked in favor of an endless series of relatively minor differences.

Differences like whether a swimsuit cover can be accurately described as porn, or whether a picture of it should be allowed in GD, the lounge, smaller groups, or not at all...sigh.

[marions ghost]

80. The devil is in the details y'know...

I mean we can all sing kumbaya when the time comes, but the new dawn of respect and true equality is only a glimmer on the horizon. I do think it will come eventually. But it has to be hammered out. You don't turn Patriarchical Society around in a single generation.

I think a lot of women DO support men who go against the grain of gender norms. But a lot of men either don't support women who want to change things, or they do but they hide it because they fear negativity from both men and women. Which is why I say that women who do take a stand against patriarchy need to be more clearly supported by men
who also want that to change. I'm aware that for men to do this can cause a lot of cognitive dissonance and there are different issues that need to be addressed by both genders. But yes, we do need to be mutually supportive.

Teach the children. And part of that is teaching them about sexual objectification and the subtle ways it is used for marketing everything--which of course perpetuates the status quo. So I think this is a relevant topic. I don't think we disagree in a big way, except for perhaps the view of the time frame we are working with. (Perhaps I see it as more glacial).

Thx for reply.

[uppityperson]

16. This reminds me of replies to threads on bigotry saying "there is bigotry toward other groups too"

It seems to me to indicate downplaying an issue by saying there are others with issues also.

[Democracyinkind]

27. +1. nt

[bettyellen]

36. the "Opression Olympics" -otherwise know as yours are "First World" Problems" but mine are important

[Union Scribe]

45. I don't see that at all.

If it's the same issue (young people feeling bad about their bodies) coming from the same place in our fucked up society, I think it's dangerous to ignore boys feeling the same things as girls. It would be like ignoring that girls get bullied by focusing solely on boys.

[redqueen]

10. It is truly sad that we can't discuss these issues

without the discussion immediately becoming derailed with "what about the boys/men" type comments.

I don't know if it's because some people really have somehow convinced themselves that these issues affect both sexes equally, or if it's just intentional disingenuous derailment and distraction.

[RC]

11. And there it is...

How dare men/boys be having the same or similar problems as women/girls. How are women going to be portrayed as victims if the male gender has the same or similar problems. Perished the though!

We are all human. We have to live together on this world. Men and women are not natural enemies, even though some try to convince those around them that we are. We are different sexes of the same species. We were literately made for each other.
Stop treating the male gender as some sub-species, not worthy of respect or to be heard.
You say you want equality? Then stop treating the other half with derision and disdain. You think we have it so much better, so much easier? Then strive for that yourself, instead of trying to tear us down to what your perception of us is. That helps no one achieve equality. That is counter productive. Maybe that is what you really want?

I know you don't know this, but most of us at least, prefer the women we deal with in our lives, to be autonomous equals. Most of the people I know and have known do treat others as equals, regardless of the gender. It makes everyone lives easier and better. But you keep trying to make enemies of those that otherwise, would be your friends.

[redqueen]

12. ...

FAQ: What’s wrong with saying that things happen to men, too?

Posted by tekanji on October 18, 2007 in clarifying-concepts, FAQ, FWW, masculinity, netiquette, privilege

Short answer: Nothing in and of itself. The problem occurs when conversations about women can’t happen on unmoderated blogs without someone showing up and saying, “but [x] happens to men, too!” (also known as a “Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too” or PHMT argument, or a “What About The Mens?” or WATM argument). When this happens, it becomes disruptive of the discussion that’s trying to happen, and has the effect (intended or otherwise) of silencing women’s voices on important issues such as rape and reproductive rights.

When and why PHMT arguments become inappropriate

No one is saying that discussions on men and masculinities shouldn’t go on. It is absolutely important to have dialogue on men’s issues, including discussions on violence done towards men. The thing is, a feminist space — unless the topic is specifically men’s issues — is not the place to have that discussion and neither are spaces (feminist or otherwise) in which the topic is specifically focused on women’s issues.

...

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/

[RC]

13. This is General Discussion, not History of Feminism.

[redqueen]

14. I bolded the last half of the last sentence for a reason.

I guess that wasn't enough.

The topic is "Misogyny? Well DUH!"

Not ambiguous at all.

[RC]

15. Apparently you did not read much past the Title.

But what ever, I was responding to your post and attempted derailing. Duh!, right back to you.

[redqueen]

18. "right back out you"? Are you fucking serious with this shit?

"DUH!" is in the fucking post title.

I was QUOTING IT FFS.

Jesus fucking christ this shit is just unreal.

[msanthrope]

19. Did you just post a cartoon to adults? And you want to be taken seriously? nt

[Tien1985]

28. I guess all the polical cartoons

Published in newspapers--and REPOSTED here in DU weekly shouldn't be taken seriously either. Because hey, they are just cartoons.

[Kali]

30. well

it pretty much nailed this thread.

[redqueen]

55. This thread and SO many more discussions online and IRL.

This shit is so ridiculously common, hence the cartoon.

[nolkyz]

87. Yes

For a political discussion forum, it seems to be lousy with gender issues!

[Blue_Adept]

54. What I love...

Is that after after years of men being told to start sharing what they're really feeling about their lives and the things that they've kept hidden, and finally feeling in a lot of cases that they can do so safely as they see more and more women speaking out about it, is that when they do and want to participate, they get told to shut up.

There's assholes all around to be sure. Hell, I've had plenty of instances over the years where my mother complains about what's on various talk shows in the afternoon with what people reveal about their childhoods and pasts by saying they should deal with it but not put it out there. But I've always said that by putting it out there, it can help others realize they're not alone. And that helps to change things.

Yes, women have more than enough to bring out and complain about and take issue with for things that need to be changed. But instead of belittling and berating men that are trying to do the same - meaningfully; not the assholes - they should be swooping them up alongside in a chorus rather than shouting them out.

[bravenak]

76. This is so awesome.

I'm saving it.

[JustAnotherGen]

79. That is the best visual ever

Because it shows precisely how this goes - every. single. time.

And they use it to keep us one dimensional and 'flat' so they don't have to deal with the complexity of emotion and experience in this world.

[Scout]

62. so start your own fucking thread is the point.

no one is saying you can't talk about your issues.

just start your own damn thread about how "it" affects men ... but no, what usually happens is just what the cartoon posted portrays.

[RC]

64. Why? This thread is as good a place as any.

Did you see this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024544913#post54
This is NOT your protected Group. Stop trying to treat it as if it is.

[pintobean]

17. You want GD to become a safe haven?

[RC]

32. They're are most assuredly working on it.

[quinnox]

21. Well, boo hoo. You can only control the discussion in your group, not out here

People don't have to abide to your group's agendas in this forum.

[question everything]

20. Here we go again. Using DU as a portal for pornography

without leaving a "telltale" on one's computer history.

No, I did not click on any of these photos, or on any of the one below.

It is a shame that Skinner et al just shrug their shoulders.

Perhaps it is time to add a woman to their unholy trinity, who will actually demand that "terms of service" be enforced.

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Don't post "shock content" or porn.

Do not post or link to extreme images of violence, gore, bodily functions, pain, or human suffering for no purpose other than to shock and disgust. Do not post or link to pornography.

[RC]

33. I would think you would go nuts in the Sistine Chapel -

A picture of a woman in a swim suit is not pornography.

[Loaded Liberal Dem]

37. Thank you

I don't know where the hell s/he's coming from!

[RC]

40. You're welcome.

We all need to stand up to the disrespect and assumed power they think they have, but don't.
Most of her Group is that way. Even when it was first formed, it was contentious. The arguments spilling out into the rest of DU. There is still animosity toward some people over that even now, after all this time.

[Loaded Liberal Dem]

42. "Her"?

Wow. I really only typed "s/he" to cover all bases. I was 90% certain we were talking about a "he."

[question everything]

50. "swimsuit?" A thread that gives the illusion of any cover?

I visited the Sistine Chapel and all the major museums in Italy. For you to compare classic art to this piece of shit - you may want to brush on your art studies.

Why, otherwise, are so many on DU so excited, perhaps even aroused by these butts? Why does a "sports" magazine, aimed at males mostly, even has this issue if not for creating excitement by men, at the dead season between the Superbowl and college basketball?

Good grief.

[RC]

52. What I hear you saying is, if it is a painting depicting unclothed people, it is OK,

but if it's photographs involving women, it is not.
If you don't understand why there are even magazines aimed at males that have pictures of pretty, mostly exposed women depicted in them, or paintings of naked people in Sistine Chapel, there is a lot more you do not understand about the Human species than can be dealt with here. And what does the season have to do with anything?
Most of the rest of the world does not see the world as you see it. That is a good thing. Some of us have a better understanding of society and the human condition than others.

Some of us see others as autonomous people, with their own views, regardless of gender. You know the "Woman are people too" thing? Well men are also people. All, every one of us, should have the same rights, regardless of gender, skin color, race, economic level, or anything else that some try to separate and segregate the rest of us by.
There are much more important problems affecting us, than pictures of people's skin. The 1%, the NSA, job losses, the lack of Equal Rights for everyone, our crumbling infrastructure, to name a very few.

[marions ghost]

56. The world isn't that evolved

We all should have the same rights but we don't. Talking about the issues specific to each group is important. Until one day maybe, things will change. We are far from it.

RE nude pictures. You can't compare sleezy butt pix of women to the Sistine Chapel. That is laughable. I think you know the difference.

[RC]

57. I do, but do you?

Those "sleezy butt pix of women" are sitting openly and without any plastic wrap, on the racks in the check out lines in grocery stores, where anyone of any age can see and pick them up and look at them.
DU, being an "Adult political web site", why should it be dumbed down to elementary school level, to please a few people, when the exact same thing is widely available and openly displayed almost everywhere else magazines are sold? I am not see the problem with posting it here. It is a current news item after all. That image has even been shown on the local news programs, without any fuzzing.

[marions ghost]

65. No problem with showing the cover & discussing here

It's a pop culture issue and appropriate for GD. Of course it enflames the Gender Wars, which are always smoldering, for good reason unfortunately. But I have no problem with it being posted as a topic. I never agree with hiding things that are unpleasant to consider.

What some of the men around here need to realize is that, for a lot of women, such a photo on the cover of a magazine (any magazine that is about news, sports or meant for general non-porn consumption)--is demeaning and objectifying. Men are mistaken if they think women secretly like this--actually they don't. Not the smart ones anyway.

So it really isn't OK--it's using female enhanced "bootys in a row" to sell the magazine--hoping to create buzz. They look like marshmallow booty Peeps, stuck together ready and waiting for consumption. This is not about nudity or beautiful bodies. All about sex objects. Very detrimental for young girls to absorb the idea that this is "mainstream"--that this is how they should look, that sexual objectification is OK. It makes many older women cringe, for themselves and for their daughters (and sons), and it's not very healthy for young boys either. The blurring of the line between porn and mainstream images is not a positive development, not about freedom from sexual inhibitions. Sure it appeals to the average (aesthetically indiscriminate) male and sells (trashy) magazines. But don't tell me it's Art--it's kitsch. When kitsch is used in Art--there is cultural critique. No cultural critique in SI.

You really don't want to get into any debate with me about art history so let's not discuss the Sistine Chapel LOL

I agree with you on the point that this is a hot topic on DU which proves it has culturally relevant content. But not that it has anything to do with Art, capital A.

[Kali]

69. I ask the question in reverse

Why should DU be dumbed down to the level of the carport man cave by having gratuitous crap like that posted in GD? Seems the owner feels the same way.

[question everything]

66. Yes, there are

"There are much more important problems affecting us, than pictures of people's skin. The 1%, the NSA, job losses, the lack of Equal Rights for everyone, our crumbling infrastructure, to name a very few."

So why has so much space and "bandwidth" been spent on this issue?

Michelangelo, Raphael, Botticelli - are artists whose arts will remain after all of us are gone.

Porn - soft or hard - is here to titillate and extricate money from men (mostly). That you cannot distinguish between them - well, there is nothing to debate, right? Wonder whether the women in your life - if there are any - agree.

But if your underline comment, that I copied here, is really what you mean, how about starting a new thread here suggesting to end that discussion of the magazine?

[RC]

67. Just what DU needs is another thread on this.

I can tell the difference. We don't paint pictures of scantly clad women much anymore. We use modern photographic equipment.
That does not mean one or the other images are necessarily better or worse than the other. Does a picture of a naked painting or stature make that painting pornographic? The why would a photograph, if the subject were a real live person in the exact same pose? Only the medium is different. Why would the age of the medium make a difference?

[question everything]

68. The difference is in the outcome and purpose

The old masters were painted to please art lovers.

The swimsuit issue of that magazine has only one aim: to titillate and to increase circulation.

I think that you understand the difference, you just choose to carry this argument ad absurdum.

I am done, really.

[uppityperson]

38. None of those videos fit "shock content or porn". 1 of someone's butt, others are teen/tweens

wondering if they are pretty or ugly. All of which are sad but not porn at all.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Did you really just call the admins of this site an "unholy trinity"?

....That's funny.

[Iggo]

47. Tell me which of those videos is shock content or porn...

...and explain to me why it is shock content or porn.

[kjones]

48. Pornography?

I'm sorry, I don't think I've ever posted in this whole...thing going on,
but pornography?

Maybe if you're a 12 year old that just discovered masturbation haha.
Sexualized or not, its not porn.

But I guess at some point, ankles were scandalous.

[marions ghost]

70. "Not porn"

but...kinda juicy pornalicious. A bit pornesque. Somewhat porn-ish. Nudge nudge, wink, wink.
A little porny for the horny? Porn for 12-year-olds, but not porn. Not sure. Nudge, nudge.

[kjones]

74. Was never big on Flying Circus. Movies were a little funnier though.

So are you saying it is porn, or should be censored and treated like porn
or something?

Assuming that is the case, then what? Do we make swimming pools and
beaches 18+ only? Black out the windows of Victoria's Secret in the mall
as we do various "adult" stores?

[marions ghost]

77. Really--you don't get it?

Yes, I'm saying it is porny, pornish, pornesque--of the type that objectifies women. You said it was only porn to 12-year-old boys --implying that there's better porn for grown-ups (which for the most part, also objectifies women). These images that fuzz the line between porn and pop culture are damaging to young boys and young girls IMO. And perpetuate adolescent fantasies in older adults.

I'm not for censorship of anything. I think the windows of Victoria's secret are as sad and "revealing" of our insecurities as the windows of tawdry adult stores are, but I don't care whether they are blacked out or not. (Somehow mannikins always look stupid and like they have no brains). It's all about marketing to vulnerable groups--the pix inform me about this and I wouldn't want them censored but at the same time, we can call them out for how they function negatively in society.

So, no censorship (don't worry, you're safe). I would rather see the rejection (by women AND men) to the objectification of women as depicted by SI, and by the more pukable Victoria's Secret windows. But, even at "progressive" DU there are men who defend these provocative images as "not porn" but examples of female beauty...yawn. Gimme a break. At least don't kid yourself.

[kjones]

81. Thank you for opening my eyes

I didn't know objectification and porn were synonymous. Now that I know,
I feel so dirty all the time, I didn't have any idea how much porn, sex,
and general dirtiness were everywhere. The fig leaf is removed and the
disgusting world is shown in full sunlight. Shame never felt so freeing!
Lordy, lordy, I am saved!

--------
Back to reality, here I am, only stating that this is not "porn."
I've said nothing about whether or not it is objectifying (it surely is),
I've said nothing about whether or not it is bad (as someone with their
own body image issues, I would say yes), and I have not personally
attacked, perturbed, harassed, or otherwise instigated things, until I
suppose, the above sarcasm (Oh no, forgot the sarcasm tag, wonder
if anyone will notice) Meanwhile, belittingly "don't worry,
you're safe" "don't kid yourself" "'progressive' men" (as if you cant be progressive
if your definition of porn is different). Because of course, a disagreement on the
definition of word means I must be a porn devouring perv who's blind to the world
and just kidding himself. It couldn't be something minor over which I'm assuming
we agree on 95% of things related to this matter.

I'll give you a break when you give me one.

[marions ghost]

82. LOL

--you sure take comments on a message board personally. It doesn't matter whether my definition or yours is correct. Whatever turns you on. I said I'm not in favor of censorship, except where it concerns children. But let's not deny that this SI cover is soft porn, porn-ish, porny. In general the previous swimsuit issues are not porn--they're a gimmicky ploy to sell the magazine, which is obviously not working as well as it once did--but not porny.

You're the one who said this image was porn for 12-year-olds (implying that there's better stuff for adults). And yet you agree that it shows women as objects (imagine if the same poses featured men). You made the direct analogy, not me.

OK so your definition of porn does not involve the objectification of women. Mkay. Mine does. (I did qualify my definition by saying "porn of the type that objectifies women," implying that some doesn't). Nuff said. No need to debate it. We disagree.

(This kinda reminds me of "depends on what the meaning of is, is"...)

[kjones]

83. I do take misrepresentation of my words personally.

"Maybe if you're a 12 year old that just discovered masturbation haha"
Meaning, no, it's not porn but a young adolescent just reaching puberty
will view anything as potential pornography.
Better stuff for adult? I don't know what you mean by that. If
by better you mean actual porn. "Better," of course, being your word.

Porn can definitely be objectifying to any and all involved, don't say
I said things I didn't.
"I didn't know objectification and porn were synonymous."
They are not. There are things that are objectifying that are not
pornographic. This is one of them.

To be clear, I've never seen the SI swimsuit issue, or any SI
swimsuit issue, and in fact, haven't even read an SI issue of
any kind other than once or twice during the 15 minutes it
takes for the doc to call me in. My comments are in reference
to the OP itself.

And yes, you are right, not much point in going on about it. I'm out too.

[marions ghost]

84. Adios

You've never seen the SI issues in question, and yet they are not pornesque. (?) Unless you see them, how can you know?

"A young adolescent will view anything as pornography..." --so there's the problem. And let's include girls in that. This magazine is not OK for kids, and it is offensive to many women. That's all I'm saying. SI has jumped the shark here. And I hope even some men (fathers & husbands maybe) will tell the magazine that. I know that wouldn't be cool, but it's what needs to happen if this is ever going to change. It can't just be women protesting "womens issues."

[kjones]

86. Strike that.

When you continue to take more misrepresentative swipes at me, I
will be back. What I said is, "My comments are in reference to the OP
itself."
I know, you really, really, reeeeealy want my comments to be about
SI, but they are not. They are about the specific instance above in the OP to which
my original comment was addressed.

If you disagree with me, great.
But if you're just going to attack me for stuff I've never said.

[Iggo]

22. "...made to spec by the Humbert Humberts of Hollywood."

Last edited Sun Feb 23, 2014, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Ouch!

[btrflykng9]

23. Right On, Loaded Liberal Dem!

Two decades later, where are we as a society? Well, girls and young women have role models like Lena Dunham, whose TV show Girls appears to have no problem whatsoever with guys who abuse their girlfriends, borderline raping them, and are rewarded for this behavior, while young men who dare to show "respect" (ugh!) for the female gender are cast aside.

Then, of course, we have the "properly-programmed" like Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, et al, made to specification by the Humbert Humberts of Hollywood. Sadly, these girls are now "legal" in all 50 states, so you can bet dollars to dimes that a new crop of Lolitas is on its way.

This to me is the heart of the problem and you covered it really well, Loaded Liberal Dem!

[Lunacee_2013]

35. Yup, nothing more to say really...

Except that I had no idea about the "man-sharing" thing , but I wasn't even around until 1986.

Oh, and the cries of "what about the mens" on a thread with the word "misogyny" in it are no big surprise. As the cartoon shows, it happens all the time. No one is trying to make GD a safe place, or whatever, but this is a thread about women's issues. It's not that hard to make a thread about men's issues, but that's not the point. This derailing tactic happens all the time on message boards, even this one.

[Beacool]

39. I'm so glad that I wasn't a teenager in this era.

My high school years were spent in a boarding school run by nuns from an Irish congregation (Sisters of Mercy). They were a lot cooler and more progressive than other nuns. I also had a mother who was very independent. I was never raised to please men. To this day I don't give a flying fig what men think of me. I always felt that I was as smart, or even smarter, than most men I met. I never played games with guys. I found that to be boring. What they saw is what they got. If they didn't like it, they could go through the door and keep walking. I find it ludicrous and a waste of time to play silly games of: Am I pretty enough? Skinny enough? Intelligent enough? etc.

Who cares????? Be yourselves. Women need to learn that their identity is not dependent on any given man.

[Drew Richards]

44. Now that is an awesome attitude! It shows intelligence and beauty all of its own that is true

Humanism and equality! Rock on beacool.

[Beacool]

49. Well, thank you.

I just never got why some girls felt the need to become someone else just to please some guy.

[chrisa]

63. Those "Am I pretty or ugly" videos are a knife to the gut

FFS. You're all pretty! Stop it!

[alp227]

71. " Sleeping with a gal when we were both blitzed out of our minds"

Oh shit. Do you realize what you're admitting you're doing, assuming you understand what consent is? I expect a PPR pretty soon...if you wanna know why consider that a DUer got banned last year for posting an OP saying: " For instance, I could tip you off to a coke running/pedophile ring in a small city near me, just from the benefit of living there and having close contact with the seamy underside of the community," because the DUer either was "protecting pedophiles by failing to report suspected child abuse" or posted "some of the most outrageous flamebait ever posted on DU." I think you are in a contest here...you might wanna self delete this now...

[mimi85]

72. Damn, I'm tired of these male/female threads!

And I'm still trying to get over this portion of the OP:

"Sleeping with a gal when we were both blitzed out of our minds was standard operating procedure. Perhaps some of the girls we fucked felt violated afterward. I don't know, as none of the ones I was with actually told me such was the case." The girls you "fucked" would't tell you?? Priceless.

[BainsBane]

73. Those videos by teenage girls exemplify this problem better than anything else

and demonstrate just how destructive a culture of objectification and valuing women based on appearance is to the lives of our young people. This is soul crushing stuff. Do you want your daughters growing with a constant bombardment of messages that they aren't good enough because they don't live up to an unattainable ideal in a photoshopped magazine? That is the status quo some here are defending, and these young girls are the casualties.