General Discussion

BainsBane

(57,768 posts)

211. "a woman being objectified and not minding it"

Sun Feb 23, 2014, 06:18 PM

Feb 2014

Looks like courtship to me. If you think that resembles the contemporary output of capitalist commercial media, I would respectfully suggest an eye exam.

You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, no idea what anyone is talking about when they refer to objectification, and have no concept of what constitutes historical evidence or historical analysis. But way to miss the point.

You don't contradict my analysis, suggest a counter analysis, or provide anything close to evidence. That you think that picture is exactly the same as rape porn and SI covers patently absurd. What is your point? Everything has been and is always the same? Capitalism changed nothing? There is no difference between a painting and a multi-billion dollar corporate industry that sells disembodied images of women? Ever consider the concept of reception? Of the extent of the audience for whom the images are intended, and what the pictures themselves depict? That a painting was created and hung in the home of a wealthy patron--that you insist is no different from a SI cover or the sacred genre of rape and mutilation porn--is exactly the same as trillions of images transmitted into people's homes every day. Exactly the same. There is no difference between the 18th century and today, absolutely none. Why even bother with learning history because nothing ever changes. The whole purpose of the past is to justify the status quo. If it generates profit and promotes privilege for the few above the rights of the many, it must be natural and immutable. Nature insists on compelling men to treat women as less than human. Biology doesn't promote continuation of the human species. It compels misogynist men to sit alone at home looking at images of body parts on the internet rather than engaging with real human beings. You read the Marquis de Sade and saw an 18th century picture of a woman. That means nothing can ever change.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

377 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Objectification will always be around, advertising depends on it [View all] quinnox Feb 2014 OP

what if there were no advertising? El_Johns Feb 2014 #1

In some utopian world of the future? Maybe, but ain't gonna happen any time soon quinnox Feb 2014 #3

Bruce warned about people like you hfojvt Feb 2014 #62

There would still be objectification going on AgingAmerican Feb 2014 #5

Do you think marketing has any relationship to objectification? El_Johns Feb 2014 #6

Yes AgingAmerican Feb 2014 #12

How about a society in which marketing, advertising, self-marketing in the competition for capital, El_Johns Feb 2014 #17

Even our 'news' is marketing AgingAmerican Feb 2014 #27

Yes, seems so to me too. El_Johns Feb 2014 #30

Prices go down a little? BadgerKid Feb 2014 #100

A fine idea.. how do you propose to sell it to the people? Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #218

No purpose in trying to 'sell' it, as it doesn't exist or not exist because of some conscious El_Johns Feb 2014 #235

The DVR has done more damage to the advertising industry Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #241

I don't think it has; advertising is still ubiquitous, even more so than when i was young. El_Johns Feb 2014 #244

If advertising were suddenly to disappear? Sarah Ibarruri Feb 2014 #328

This message was self-deleted by its author quinnox Feb 2014 #2

heterosexuals would wither and vanish without it lol nt msongs Feb 2014 #4

That's not the point frazzled Feb 2014 #7

Yea, but lets just say this is a very "first world" type problem quinnox Feb 2014 #8

Your post is majestic in its stupidity. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #16

Exactly.....where do you go from there when they don't even understand the irony of THAT VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #28

But, that is his specialty. nt UtahLib Feb 2014 #33

I see. Any problems you don't have are to be minimized and then denied. Warpy Feb 2014 #75

It's actually not solely a first world problem at all. Objectification, properly understood, is El_Johns Feb 2014 #80

Sure, if you expand the definition, any word can come to mean just about anything quinnox Feb 2014 #81

It's not an expansion of the definition. El_Johns Feb 2014 #82

It should ring a Bell. nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #136

The objectification controversy has been centering on sex Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #99

Because commodified labor is where the idea of objectification comes from. El_Johns Feb 2014 #192

Yet you peddle Marxism as if the apparatchiks sitting behind their desk Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #194

I *am* a worker. A low-wage worker. In fact, a minimum wage worker. I walk 40 miles a week and El_Johns Feb 2014 #195

And? You should see the crap my husband and his crew have to deal with. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #197

lol. too much of a caricature to bother. El_Johns Feb 2014 #198

That's a really stoopid thing to say. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #87

No it isn't ismnotwasm Feb 2014 #182

Yep, that's what they told Rosa Parks... CTyankee Feb 2014 #209

This message was self-deleted by its author btrflykng9 Feb 2014 #222

Smoking was a billion dollar buisness LostOne4Ever Feb 2014 #9

Right, funny how anyone who posts an OP not in line with the militant feminists quinnox Feb 2014 #10

And making a post LostOne4Ever Feb 2014 #13

Maybe trolling is in the eye of the beholder quinnox Feb 2014 #15

Oh you mean the ones where they are LostOne4Ever Feb 2014 #25

Fine. I love it when someone who has been here at DU since last year gets to decide all this quinnox Feb 2014 #29

I love it when someone uses an ad hominem when their lack of logic is exposed LostOne4Ever Feb 2014 #41

Whatever quinnox Feb 2014 #43

Certainly! LostOne4Ever Feb 2014 #44

Almost as weak as predicating the validity of an answer on a start date for member status. LanternWaste Feb 2014 #370

You're getting off topic on your own OP. chervilant Feb 2014 #119

P.S. chervilant Feb 2014 #120

As you thoroughly prove, post count is no measure of intellect or ability Scootaloo Feb 2014 #204

Speaking of intellect, I wasn't referring to post count quinnox Feb 2014 #304

Fine. I'll say it to you, too. CTyankee Feb 2014 #210

so anyone pointing out and disagreeing with objectification on DU in GD is a militant feminist? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #31

No not anyone, just the militant feminists and you know who you are. n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #46

no apparently YOU know who they are.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #47

But not I said the guilty party, not I. n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #49

So are you saying I am a militant feminist because I don't think that T&A is appropriate VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #56

You know who you are. I do not pass judgement.n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #60

If that is YOUR description then I will wear it proudly.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #66

Amazing how you twist peoples words into your very own fiction. Cleita Feb 2014 #71

Seems a fair assesment to me. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #88

"Militant feminist" Puglover Feb 2014 #137

I just call them bullies. RC Feb 2014 #151

Agreed. Puglover Feb 2014 #152

Meanwhile, anyone who does not accept an ill-defined or potentially misapplied idea of Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #91

That is exactly the pattern one sees in thread after thread after thread Vinnie From Indy Feb 2014 #148

Unless it deals with a personal and tragic instance in someone's life LanternWaste Feb 2014 #371

I don't know who they are cyberswede Feb 2014 #51

You don't have to. They know who they are and they will make themselves known to you very Cleita Feb 2014 #59

To be fair... cyberswede Feb 2014 #64

Well, good you have been spared. n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #70

+1000 Katashi_itto Feb 2014 #79

The fact that you are using the term, "feminists" in a defamatory manner Sarah Ibarruri Feb 2014 #329

Whenever I see an ad with a woman stripped nearly naked and posed like a whore Warpy Feb 2014 #11

And you have a right to make that choice. Cleita Feb 2014 #45

Do we also have the right not to have it thrown up in GD on DU? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #50

Like I said where should it go, the Religion Forum? Cleita Feb 2014 #57

Do they do it in church? Then it CAN be regulated....it poisons the atmosphere here.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #58

Yes, and you should practice that respect for people who have opinions different than yours. n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #61

THAT is wholly different....this is about preserving a place for women to debate...in a fair playing VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #63

Whatever you say, because you won't give up until I give in. So I yield. n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #65

and you don't give up until you recognize you are wrong.....yeah I notice patterns... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #67

Tsch, tsch. More fiction. No I just get tired of inane bull shit. So again I yield and exit. Cleita Feb 2014 #72

Whatever gets you through the night... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #73

The day I allow a magazine cover to stop me from speaking my mind is the day I Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #101

It is NOT about the magazine cover... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #179

There is a place, in fact several places on DU. RC Feb 2014 #154

Yes, this is what I don't understand. They have their own forums. They can ban anyone they Cleita Feb 2014 #164

Take a look at the GD hosts and the way they work. RC Feb 2014 #170

and I don't think that is coincidence either... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #181

So we must 'respect' the people who post disrespectful photos. M'kay. laundry_queen Feb 2014 #78

I have not seen any disrespectful photos published. Cleita Feb 2014 #92

Well laundry_queen Feb 2014 #166

YOU haven't but apparently quite a few other women HAVE... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #183

So anything that gets displayed at Walmart or a big box store is appropriate for DU? thucythucy Feb 2014 #376

.... Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #90

Please address this to those who are actually doing the whining, not me. eom Cleita Feb 2014 #93

It's not about whining. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #95

Buwahahaha! Cleita Feb 2014 #97

Is that supposed to be an answer? Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #103

You don't get that? Cleita Feb 2014 #105

Then Please stop whining now. Obviously it's the one thing that isn't allowed. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #106

Whatever rocks your world. Just please stay out of mine. n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #107

I won't. I'll answer every moronic post of yours that I'll encounter. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #108

The rules apply to everyone and I'm not the one whining. Get a clue. n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #110

They do apply to everyone. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #112

You haven't had a swarm of trolls alert on you either like a pack of coyotes taking down prey. Cleita Feb 2014 #114

No whining about DU please, ok? Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #116

LOL! The straw man commeth. n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #123

You were clearly complaining about DU. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #125

Nope, I never complain about DU. I was complaining about trolls on DU something every website Cleita Feb 2014 #129

I was doing the same about MRA trolls when you started this. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #133

I don't know your acronym. What do you mean by MRA? Cleita Feb 2014 #134

Men's Rights Activists, which I believe are behind the current flame fest. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #138

All right we agree to disagree. You really should state your whole opinion, otherwise you Cleita Feb 2014 #142

So you are admitting to stalking? RC Feb 2014 #155

If you consider answering someone you disagree with stalking, then yes. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #157

What? Guns is in their? Coulda fooled me. ny Eleanors38 Feb 2014 #316

Aren't you a big Hyundai fan? I guess your walk and your talk don't always agree? Romulox Feb 2014 #143

You need to stop guessing. You're very bad at it Warpy Feb 2014 #190

No insult intended. I'm just pointing out that it's not as simple as pronouncing a rule on the net. Romulox Feb 2014 #249

Whenever I see an ad like that Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #220

Hmmm, what if the product is adult escort services? Flatulo Feb 2014 #332

Well then it's okay then. Iggo Feb 2014 #14

it's called having a reality check quinnox Feb 2014 #18

WOW....just wow....hmmmm "living in clouds....not in reality.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #32

"Sexism is real. Deal with it" Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #111

The human race depends on it. Vashta Nerada Feb 2014 #19

Indeed. Objectification is all around us quinnox Feb 2014 #21

Objectification is not sexual attraction. Seeing people's physical charms is not objectification. El_Johns Feb 2014 #34

Okay, there you go bringing reality into it. rrneck Feb 2014 #38

Huh. Vashta Nerada Feb 2014 #40

I think there's a lot of sloppy talk in the media that would lead you to that assumption. But it's El_Johns Feb 2014 #42

See, I like the way you're engaging me with this topic. Vashta Nerada Feb 2014 #53

Thank you. That's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me here. El_Johns Feb 2014 #55

Objectification is literally the opposite of subjectification. To be a subject... Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #52

So it's removing the person from the person. Vashta Nerada Feb 2014 #54

The word is used incorrectly and without context so often that it can become meaningless. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #69

I'm getting the distinction, and I appreciate an actual definition of terms BarackTheVote Feb 2014 #213

The artistry of magazine modeling is not a passive force. It drives consumption. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #279

Respectfully disagree BarackTheVote Feb 2014 #305

Technical mastery and work ethic mean nil if you possess no meaningful philosophy. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #318

Everybody has a meaningful philosophy. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #322

Definitely not the case. Some people live shallow existences. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #323

I'm not into judging people. rrneck Feb 2014 #327

Because a majority of people want to do right does not mean there aren't many who do not. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #330

Of course I do. rrneck Feb 2014 #331

"Meaningful philosophy" is nothing but subjective. BarackTheVote Feb 2014 #349

Sure isn't ismnotwasm Feb 2014 #248

Does saying the men here at DU "wank off" to SI covers are being objectified? (nt) Inkfreak Feb 2014 #160

Do you seriously think that the human race is going to die off... MadrasT Feb 2014 #139

its not about stopping it....its about it being on DU in GD! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #20

Where should it be? In the Religion Forum? n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #48

... Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #89

According to Skinner. . pipoman Feb 2014 #94

I don't see how locking T+A threads constitutes "strict enforcement" Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #96

My point is pipoman Feb 2014 #98

I'm not hanging on it as the law of the land. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #102

This very discussion justifies it pipoman Feb 2014 #115

I don't see that at all. Agree to disagree, then? Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #117

sure pipoman Feb 2014 #121

You seem to be applying reasonableness and logic to some who can't think logically. Cleita Feb 2014 #109

You seem like s teabagger to me too. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #118

You are starting to stalk me. That's also against the rules and alertable. Cleita Feb 2014 #124

I am free to reply to any and all of your posts. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #126

No. There is a line where it's considered stalking. Trust me on this. n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #128

I don't trust you. I will reply if you're talking about me. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #132

It depends on what your opinion is. RC Feb 2014 #158

He also said to "be ruthless with meta-type threads", after he got rid of meta. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #231

I don't see how that would work. I was in favor of closing META, we couldn't handle it Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #236

I am quoting what Skinner himself said. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #239

I don't think that ANYONE spends ALL his time discussing DU. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #243

Right. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #246

Exactly. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #251

Well, that's an odd statement. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #252

Is there anyone on DU who hasn't "met" you? Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #258

Catchy? Hey, flattery will get you everywhere. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #260

It has a feel of the past. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #298

I've tried to stop taking certain aspects of this site all that seriously, myself. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #302

If One's Offended... KharmaTrain Feb 2014 #22

Screaming about it on DU specifically isn't going to change a thing. Vashta Nerada Feb 2014 #23

+1 quinnox Feb 2014 #26

Can't they also demand that it NOT occur on DU in GD? Isn't that what they are asking for? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #35

Every basic human emotion, motivation, fear and desire has been monetized. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #24

+1 El_Johns Feb 2014 #37

Careful. The morality police are on their way, but I agree with you. n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #36

Yep, they have arrived. The morality thought police can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned quinnox Feb 2014 #39

Many women make a very good.. deathrind Feb 2014 #68

Yes, especially when they are sunning themselves around their swimming pool in a few years, Cleita Feb 2014 #74

as long as they don't complain about "not being taken seriously" Skittles Feb 2014 #319

Yeah, a few decades ago that was the whine. Cleita Feb 2014 #321

That's what objectification is about: "making a living" (good or otherwise) by being a El_Johns Feb 2014 #77

Well, thank goodness those muddle-headed women have the Marxist Morality Police Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #104

Yeah, apparently models are supposed to be muscle bound athletes who don't wear make up. Cleita Feb 2014 #113

A thread I started made an effort to define what constituted objectification. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #122

Yes, I do and many of the women I go to the gym with do it as an exercise. Cleita Feb 2014 #127

And I'll bet these women you describe Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #130

They can because a lot of them have taken up boxing as part of their exercise routine. n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #131

Also, I forgot to add, that one of the new trends they are picking up is belly dancing. Cleita Feb 2014 #141

It's okay to shame women who have been identified as "dogs" or otherwise msanthrope Feb 2014 #145

Huh? I haven't seen any reference to dogs. Cleita Feb 2014 #146

Really? The "dogs" comment is pretty famous..... msanthrope Feb 2014 #149

It's still not part of the conversation here and one of your links was Cleita Feb 2014 #150

I think is part of the conversation here...as you pointed out, what would the models msanthrope Feb 2014 #153

That's easy. There's a cult of women here and I supposed everywhere, who call themselves feminists Cleita Feb 2014 #156

Thank you...I'm sorry my first post wasn't clearer. You've described the crazy here, exactly. msanthrope Feb 2014 #161

Yeah, it wasn't clear to me. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be harsh. Cleita Feb 2014 #165

You weren't harsh...I was assuming everyone knew all the inside baseball! msanthrope Feb 2014 #167

Very good insight there RC Feb 2014 #162

Buwhahaha! Cleita Feb 2014 #163

My name is on that prestigious list also. RC Feb 2014 #168

I'm actually not banned on that one because I never venture in there. Cleita Feb 2014 #169

You're #47 on that list pintobean Feb 2014 #172

Cool. I don't want to belong to a feminist group who are anti-women.n/t Cleita Feb 2014 #173

I've posted in there twice pintobean Feb 2014 #175

Well, give it time. You will fall into disgrace with the regime down the line. Cleita Feb 2014 #176

I asked to be banned, they refused. I sooo wanted the #46 jersey. nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #180

Maybe you can bribe the host. pintobean Feb 2014 #185

She says I have to post in there. Which I never have. Maybe I should just do a Walt Starr homage? msanthrope Feb 2014 #186

See, my suggestion applies. pintobean Feb 2014 #187

You know you are brilliant, right? nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #188

Lol. No. /nt pintobean Feb 2014 #189

I got banned for Defending equal Rights for everyone. RC Feb 2014 #269

Damn - I'm not on that list! GoneOffShore Feb 2014 #336

my wife was a bartender and a waitress pt and ft for for over 30 years madrchsod Feb 2014 #259

I'm sorry that happened to her but not surprised. Cleita Feb 2014 #272

It should ring a Bell. nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #144

par for the course. El_Johns Feb 2014 #191

SRSLY? BarackTheVote Feb 2014 #270

Exactly. Cleita Feb 2014 #317

Whr d u c me tlling nyne wht 2 du? El_Johns Feb 2014 #377

No one cares.....what they do to make their living.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #76

Of course. But does it have to be featured in OP's on a progressive political site? n/t pnwmom Feb 2014 #83

Does the Anti Gay Crusade's leader need to be featured as hero in OPs on a progressive site? Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #140

It will be around as long as people continue to justify it BainsBane Feb 2014 #84

I suggest further reading... rrneck Feb 2014 #200

Further reading in what? BainsBane Feb 2014 #203

You could start with the post you replied to. rrneck Feb 2014 #205

"a woman being objectified and not minding it" BainsBane Feb 2014 #211

Word salad. rrneck Feb 2014 #214

I read art history and I know Fragonard. I also know what happened to his world in Paris. CTyankee Feb 2014 #216

Yes. It was bad. rrneck Feb 2014 #217

Poor you, then. Reading art history is my "thing" in life...being retired I can read a LOT. CTyankee Feb 2014 #224

Hey, I got Rosie the Riveter in there too. rrneck Feb 2014 #238

You have misinterpreted the Fragonard painting. Perhaps you are the one who should Tanuki Feb 2014 #245

Hey, you're right. rrneck Feb 2014 #250

how sad that the arc of history bent not to them but to others in the French Revolution... CTyankee Feb 2014 #278

I just couldn't think of a pre twentieth century painting rrneck Feb 2014 #281

well, we could look to the dear gap-toothed Saskia, painted by her husband, Rembrandt. She is plain CTyankee Feb 2014 #289

Who's to say they weren't hotties back in the day. rrneck Feb 2014 #297

Not judging, describing...Rembrandt was never strongly influenced by the Italian ideal, his ideas CTyankee Feb 2014 #301

How do we know rrneck Feb 2014 #306

You clearly haven't looked at the commonplace looks of his two wives...if he had wanted to CTyankee Feb 2014 #310

I rather prefer the Ash Can school. But that's me. rrneck Feb 2014 #315

Interesting thesis and one I had not heard/read about. CTyankee Feb 2014 #334

Well, it is just Wiki. rrneck Feb 2014 #337

My guess is you are referring to Francois Boucher's famous "Resting Maiden." CTyankee Feb 2014 #339

Porn is art. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #341

when it is art, it is called erotica. CTyankee Feb 2014 #343

Erotica is high class porn. rrneck Feb 2014 #345

Whatever... CTyankee Feb 2014 #347

Whatever indeed. rrneck Feb 2014 #348

I don't get your point. I thought we were having a discussion about art...it's just bizarre... CTyankee Feb 2014 #351

Of course you don't get my point rrneck Feb 2014 #353

You have explained it all! If only I had studied art... CTyankee Feb 2014 #356

Yes, I have. Thank you. rrneck Feb 2014 #359

My secret shame is OUT! You have UNMASKED me! CTyankee Feb 2014 #361

Nah. You deserve all the credit for that. rrneck Feb 2014 #363

funny you should ask. he's coming for dinner tonight... CTyankee Feb 2014 #364

Tell Serra I said he's an asshole rrneck Feb 2014 #365

Oh, my. PLease don't get mad but... CTyankee Feb 2014 #367

He's a helluva artist. rrneck Feb 2014 #368

Actually, I think it got in the way of their lunch break places (and should have been remedied)... CTyankee Feb 2014 #372

Nah, he signed up for it. rrneck Feb 2014 #373

OK, so we can agree on worker displacement and rejection. It is gone, isn't it? CTyankee Feb 2014 #374

Sorry, here's some more. rrneck Feb 2014 #375

And come to think of it... rrneck Feb 2014 #208

Since you clearly don't know what objectification is BainsBane Feb 2014 #212

Just as I expected. rrneck Feb 2014 #215

If you can't bother to watch the video BainsBane Feb 2014 #219

I've already seen it. rrneck Feb 2014 #221

You clearly didn't BainsBane Feb 2014 #229

So you got nothing. Allrighty then. rrneck Feb 2014 #253

"Got nothing?? BainsBane Feb 2014 #268

Y'know, it's a funny thing rrneck Feb 2014 #273

I have an example for you. pintobean Feb 2014 #223

Bingo. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #225

Leave it to you BainsBane Feb 2014 #255

Self reflection or self objectification? rrneck Feb 2014 #262

I guess the mirror sucks. pintobean Feb 2014 #264

Pintobean BainsBane Feb 2014 #271

It has nothing to do with you personally. pintobean Feb 2014 #277

I always found BainseBane to be a great member of this community. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #296

Feeling guilty? rrneck Feb 2014 #274

A fine time, indeed. Women were needed as we were on wartime footing and we needed women to CTyankee Feb 2014 #237

Well, I guess objectification isn't the rrneck Feb 2014 #240

well, I don't know what that means but clearly women got screwed in their job opportunities that CTyankee Feb 2014 #266

No. It's not funny. rrneck Feb 2014 #292

but you are missing the point. The women so affected didn't just fade away. History took over and CTyankee Feb 2014 #303

Maybe. rrneck Feb 2014 #312

Not every woman in those factories wanted to give up their jobs. CTyankee Feb 2014 #313

So what? rrneck Feb 2014 #314

I will tell you why but I am frankly disappointed that you haven't found this out. CTyankee Feb 2014 #335

So they had autonomy and camadarie and solidarity... rrneck Feb 2014 #338

Women were absolutely in the labor movement. Ever heard of Mother Jones? CTyankee Feb 2014 #340

Mother Jones would have been one of the women to which I was referring. rrneck Feb 2014 #342

and why not? Newsflash, factory work has been declining in this country for a good while now. CTyankee Feb 2014 #344

Indeed it has. Why? rrneck Feb 2014 #346

blaming feminists is just wrong. If you don't like feminism, fine, but don't make up stuff about CTyankee Feb 2014 #350

I'm not blaming you for the ills of the world. rrneck Feb 2014 #352

thank you for your concern and advice. CTyankee Feb 2014 #354

I'm waiting for you there. nt rrneck Feb 2014 #355

uh huh...nt CTyankee Feb 2014 #357

That's what you don't seem to understand. rrneck Feb 2014 #358

Oh, dear. And I was going to bring the Merlot... CTyankee Feb 2014 #360

Hey, I like Merlot. rrneck Feb 2014 #362

"advertising depends on it" defacto7 Feb 2014 #85

Is that you, Edward Bernais? Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #86

by chance do you mean ... Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2014 #264

Yes. Forgot that he was spelled with a y. Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #291

I think his work is germaine to this discussion. Thanks for bringing him up. Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2014 #299

Absolutely. Thanks for seconding! Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #300

Why don't some people understand that objectification spooky3 Feb 2014 #135

^^^ THIS ^^^ etherealtruth Feb 2014 #159

Perfect. Thank you. RBStevens Feb 2014 #171

Another objectification thread... DontTreadOnMe Feb 2014 #147

You would need a Taliban-style regime to stop "objectification" LittleBlue Feb 2014 #174

Yes, a little real consideration of what could happen. It's already starting here in Cleita Feb 2014 #177

Pretty much LittleBlue Feb 2014 #178

Jealous? Of what, the money they make or their looks or both? RBStevens Feb 2014 #184

I don't see jealousy but I do see faux outrage. rrneck Feb 2014 #193

I don't think you know what objectification means. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #199

No one does, because it isn't provable LittleBlue Feb 2014 #202

Well, pretty much all porn IS objectification Scootaloo Feb 2014 #206

So sorry, but that's too closely associated with theocratic cultures LittleBlue Feb 2014 #227

Better take that straw man to see the wizard; it needs a brain Scootaloo Feb 2014 #247

The complaint "you're not listening" is the crutch of a weak argument LittleBlue Feb 2014 #254

Well, it's also a statemnt of when someone is clearly not listening Scootaloo Feb 2014 #263

Once again, you're debating me and not the issue, another crutch LittleBlue Feb 2014 #275

Well, because for the moment the issue was your misrepresentations and mischaracterizations. Scootaloo Feb 2014 #308

How do you explain the explosion of pornography? LittleBlue Feb 2014 #325

Yes, social progress is always an uphill battle Scootaloo Feb 2014 #326

What is your definition of "provable?" Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #207

Having a standardized definition, for one LittleBlue Feb 2014 #230

No, you don't know what it is. Plenty of us do know what it is. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #267

There are already so many subjects you can't talk about on DU! My Good Babushka Feb 2014 #196

How 'bout simply not using a human body to sell a product? Laffy Kat Feb 2014 #201

The Boil! It SPOKE to me! Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #226

2 recs Kali Feb 2014 #228

Well, maybe people don't want to run afoul of the folks who brag about making lists of posters who Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #233

maybe the tide is turning on some of the bullshit around here Kali Feb 2014 #234

Yeah, that would be great. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #242

I made the list too! Upton Feb 2014 #307

Three now. redqueen Feb 2014 #257

... Kali Feb 2014 #261

Maybe you should go make a thread about them in HoF quinnox Feb 2014 #280

I just recced it pintobean Feb 2014 #282

Welcome to the "list"! quinnox Feb 2014 #283

I will rec it just as a strong statement against this new "rec policing" fad. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #287

Ditto that! opiate69 Feb 2014 #294

Plus one more against this new "rec policing" fad. In_The_Wind Feb 2014 #333

Many of my threads get hardly any recs. It has never bothered me quinnox Feb 2014 #276

Yeah, interesting how it is all of a sudden the final authority on what belongs. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #285

lol, great cat pic! quinnox Feb 2014 #286

Yes Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #288

Well.. ya know... opiate69 Feb 2014 #290

Is that Socks? pintobean Feb 2014 #295

I guess we have to STOP buying the shit that objectifies us! underthematrix Feb 2014 #232

It's objects in general. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #256

Your thread does not appear to be resonating well. MineralMan Feb 2014 #284

Really? Not my take. I have enjoyed reading it quinnox Feb 2014 #293

So just lay back and enjoy it, ladies. Hell Hath No Fury Feb 2014 #309

Objectification is not just about women, it is about men, and shiny objects too quinnox Feb 2014 #311

You still don't know what objectification means. Which is an exercise in willful igorance... Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #320

Most of this "objectification" talk is just pseudo-intellectual claptrap. gulliver Feb 2014 #324

what are you gonna do about it? HUH? HUH? HUH? HUH? HUH? HUHHHHHHHHHH? alp227 Feb 2014 #366

Quite the accurate example of privilege. LanternWaste Feb 2014 #369