Get yours while you still can.


http://www.hotties4ronpaul.com/

a vote for paul is a vote for misogyny.

Ain't it just!

Edit to add: The man's a chode - or at least has one!

This is a bit like the militia wives calender isnt it?

Well I dont think they are hotties, Ron Paul looks a bit like Skeletor dont you think? In the pic on that site anyway.

The point is the objectification of women in order to sel a product, or service, or campaign, or what ever, - not what any particular woman looks like.

It's been a while since I have heard a He-man reference.

I guess there is kind of a resemblance.

I understand what you're saying but does that still make sense in the post-feminist fame and attention craving world?

Are you implying that feminism is no longer relevant because of the way in which the media portrays women, or some women like to be seen?

Using women as sexual objects or as decoration in order to sell _______ (fill in the blank) is OK because some women don't mind being used in that way?

I still think feminism is relevent, my feminist inclinations have take some serious weathering and battering from direct experience though, I sure wouldnt say that feminisms relevence can be determined with reference to how the media portrays women or some women like to be seen.

I dont think objectification is a good thing for either men or women, whether it is men or women but there are plenty of women even feminists, like the iFeminists, who think that is part of liberation rather than anathema to freedom and that formal restriction, in some cases even admonishing or reproaching it, is a case of "forcing people to be free" which is a mess of contradictions too.

Its only one view.

I'd have to differ here - They ways in which women are portrayed in the media is very much a feminist issue! What images do you assume my nieces are fed about themselves every time they watch a music video, or glance up at the top shelf in the newsagents or see some male is a soap opera offer to wash up for his wife, whose job it is? I could go on and on!
Media is everywhere we turn, it shapes thinking and informs culture. And the ways in which women are portrayed in the media has a huge impact on our self image.


Ah, the freedom to be objectified. Abslutely! Liberation is liberation, after all. But keep it out of the MSM. My nieces have a right to grow-up in a world where their self image isn't determined by the objectification of women everywhere they turn.
I realise this is becoming a two way street no, sex sells, and it sells just as easily to women.
We are certainly agreed that to objectify people (male, or female) in the MSM is bad for both.

Amen!

And men too dont forget that.



I agree people should have that right, although I have to say and I'm not at my ideal weight, that I dont mind some depictions likely to encourage health, fitness, things like that. There should be public ideals which people can aspire to.

What is MSM btw? I think that that recent book Female Chauvinist Pigs was a great take on the whole contradictions of some sorts of womans liberation.

While I've had feminist views for a long time but like I say they've been seriously weathered by experience, repeatedly I encounter women who are totally opposed to feminism in any shape or form, try to affirm themselves or their identity by being as contrary as possible.

I've also encountered a lot of scenarios in which women are no more admirable or worthy than male counterparts, they've been seriously wanting for an ethic of care, nurturing inclination or anything like that. Although I dont think that means feminism isnt any longer relevent.

absolutely. I'm always telling the ladies that I'm more than just a sex object.

MSM = Mainstream Media
"Female Chauvinist Pigs" isn't all that recent, is it? mid eighties - mid nineties, right?
I'm really at a loss as far as feminism... In my interactions, the majority of public political views that are taken up seem to be vocal manifestations of wishes to live in equality, yet, in action, day to day, they wish to endorse male stereotypes and reject female stereotypes... It seems the same with most groups of people who were left to fend off undue prejudice. They speak as if they want equality, but in action, they seem to need a period of superiority to set things right. And I don't blame them... hell, depending on the day of the week, and the particular circumstance, I am them - really, I am.
Look. Here's where it stands... there are those that are hopelessly absorbed in matters of gender, race, etc. the more accepting of difference, the less absorbed you are. everyone understands the harshness of the ruling classes of the past. Everyone understands how fucked up things went in the days of Slavery and Polygamy.
And the invasion of the Americas by the Europeans, and the subsequent atrocities that continued for centuries...
And the constant struggle against a society that degrades one gender, and those that are vague about which side they're on. The daily battle against a society that will allow abuse because of legal contract is something i wish had never arisen, and the question is which rich bastard is ignoring you and making you life miserable, while watching amorously as meaningless numbers get bigger and bigger...
... but here we are...
I'm not saying that we can't do anything about it. (how else to say that, but with a double - negative?)

It's just that we aren't living in the period that would elect Ron Paul anymore...

Why can't we proceed in the knowledge that things have gotten better, to the point where we don't have riots over outright blatant civil rights violations 10 times an hour, daily, in the streets... Under the chimp, the country has used its voice more effectively than it has in decades. we elected a bunch of idiots because they lied to us repeatedly, and most of us aren't impressed, and are using he tools available to us more effectively than the politically ensconced sense of urgency that comes with an over - inflated self-importance can keep up with.
We live in a society that has had heroes that have elevated humanity through knowing their cause was right and due, and acted toward that through non-violence, and passionate charismatic activity.

The embracing of divisions is what creates the feeling of division.
If a Chauvinist speaks as one, and degrades a woman, the woman has every right to be pissed off.
If a militant feminist degrades a man, the man IS EXPECTED TO RISE ABOVE IT.

both extremes feed their opposite.



i now expect a flogging, have at it, kids.

Here's why I think feminism needs to be kept alive as a socio-political movement.
We are all affected by sexism, just as we are all affected by racism. Each of us absorbs the standards of our wider society, and if those standards are divisive or serve to subjugate one or more group(s) within the wider society, then that is t the detriment of all.
If we allow the marginalisation of equality because we wish not to be associated with chauvinism, are we not throwing the baby out with the bath water?

I am sexist. My attitudes and judgements towards certain behaviours of women sometimes surprise me. But I learn from it, and hopefully grow to recognise that I am using judgements which I would reject were they levelled at me.
I judge men too, and I use the standards which my culture allows me to use - wimp is a word I level at men I deem not 'manly' enough. And that is to my detriment!
Socially acceptable as it may be, it demeans all of society, and all of the individuals in that society, when we determine the restriction we place on others not to be fully who they are because they are the wrong colour, shape, size or gender.

But there are practical issues too.
I am a self employed handy-woman. I decorate, I tile, I garden and I assemble flat pack furniture amongst other things. I advertise in my local paper, and I pay by the letter for the space I take in the classifieds. I want to advertises a handy-woman (most of my business comes from those who, for what-ever reasons, prefer a woman). The problem is there is no handy-woman classification in any of the local papers, only handyman. So I advertise under that heading. In order to get this changed I will have to approach the Equal Opportunities Commission, or go through some other long-wined process. In the meantime I am forced to deal with the blatant sexism from some who call expecting 'Karen' to be the handyman’s assistant!

We still have a long way to go.

I'm sorry this response is a bit hurried. - Too much going on at once and I'm trying hard to get out the door!
I hope you get the general ideas I'm trying to get across though....

You dont understand what I'm saying.

The objectification of women has an impact on both of the sexes self-esteem. Men and Women, positive and negative, for each.

I think feminism like soicalism or any other political ideology can be adopted by anyone, men or women, I dont think its one and the exact same thing as womans liberation either.

BUT what I absolutely believe needs to take place is that all theory is seriously qualified or mitigated by DIRECT EXPERIENCE.

What happened to feminism and lead to it tearing itself to pieces in the ninties I think was when it became so divorced from reality, particularly the reality of its primary constituency, women.

I think that may be a large part of my disconnect with some here... I haven't expirienced feminism except in the nineties and beyond... in 1990, I turned 11. I didn't experience women's lib - I expirienced overwhelming PC extremism, and it turned me off.

Gender equity needs to be blind, while sexism is far more prevalent against women, anti male sexism is not unheard of.

Ah! I see now. So being a perp is bad mojo?

Dont understand.

a perpatraitor of sexist attitude and action.

If a guy acts like a sexist and speaks sexist crap, it's bad mojo for his self image?

Bingo (on all counts)! Well said Lark!



Turned me off for a while too - my mum came so close to being a female chauvinist during the 80's it was very off-putting, even though she had good reason for her rebellion.
Turned me off for a good deal of the 90's, and the PC bandwagon didn't help one it.
But we have to look beyond extremists and recognise that there really are issues which need our attention, and we can attend to them without being extreme about it.



Hmmm... dunno: Is not getting laid bad mojo?

I'd need to know what bad mojo is, I dont think its the same as not getting laid because I know some really sexist and even chauvinistic males who get lots of action and seem to be a babe magnet in no small part because of their attitudes.

Why I said I thought it was a bad thing is because I believe most superior-subordinate relationships corrupt both parties, whether they see it that way or not, and you guys can and probably should check out Foucault, Fromm or others if you dont think that some people elect subordinate positions intentionally, deliberately and find them rewarding.

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

Agreed.

This raises a question. I'm not accusing you of anything, Karen, but where is the line between courtesy and PC? Personally, I object to the name of the Washington Redskins, the logo of the Cleveland Indians (it's an exaggerated, grinning Indian in a baseball uniform, called "Chief Wahoo." Lots of Indians call him "Little Red Sambo"), and I have a real problem with people who call me "chief." I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

And I got news for everybody who ever tapped their mouths with their hands and said "Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo." Indians don't do that. Drunk rednecks do that.

Personally, I haven't done that in about 48 years, and back when I did it was cause TV indians did and not because anybody knew better, or cared! Just keep in mind that there are those of us who don't think pro-sports is such a big deal that they can't change the names of a few teams, and that there are some of us with a true abiding respect for Naturals.

Even though individually, naturals are just as prone to be assholy as the rest of us.

Yeah, the whole "not being an asshole" thing. I'm working on that.



I know drunk rednecks. That sounds more like a frat party.
Which, incidently, reminds me of what my college friend said, "[the fraternities] aren't Greek! I'm Greek, and Greeks don't act like that!"

The two aren't mutually exclusive. A House tie merely covers a red neck, it doesn't cure it.

That can be a difficult line to draw but I think the answer lies in simply being genuine. If I wish not to cause offence in my attitude, language or manner, I will not cause offence. And should I unwittingly do so I'll apologies and endevour to make it my business to know where YOUR lines are drawn. And if that means asking a direct question, I will ask.
'Political Correctness' became this hyped up media creation that took the legitimate need to remove common, everyday offences from our language and attitudes. Certainly it made many of us aware of the ways in which we ere being offensive, and enabled us to change that - it encouraged us to be more considerate of another persons, or groups, position. But often it went too far as when they removed the word 'black' from the classroom. - (Blackboards were suddenly called chalkboards or physically replaced with whiteboards.) Or it failed to take a softer line when there was one available.


I assume, from your post that American Indians and others who take offence at the name of the Washington Redskins or 'Chief Wahoo' or other such misuses of your people and culture, are accused of 'just being PC' and 'where's the harm?'?
And that's part f the harm that the media hyped 'PC' bandwagon did.
It took our legitimate right to say, out loud, 'such and such is offensive and needs to be changed' and made it something others could dismiss as 'PC gone mad'.

What is the difference between being 'politically correct' and 'inoffensive'? Sometimes nothing.

I like your answer. I'd agree that it's a judgement call, with no hard and fast rules. You have to evaluate the genuineness of the complaint, and determine whether the offended party is truly offended or just looking for reasons to complain. I think a good rule of thumb is that if most of the complainers aren't members of the "offended" group, it's probably PC (another way of expressing it is BS).

Yeah, we hear lots of "what's the harm," but what's even more infuriating is "it's intended to honour the Indians" (the owner of the Washington Redskins uses that all the time). It apparently never occurs to him that if the people you're intending to honour don't feel honoured, you're probably going about it the wrong way.

"I like your answer." Ditto. I patricularly like your take on BS PC.


Honour!!?????? Way to spin it owner of the Redskins!

Really?

I remember reading a novel Street Boys about a US commando working with gangs of theives and street kids against the germans in italy at the end of the war and he describes US military insignia which has indian connections, I think its the thunder bird and I thought it was cool.

wow... that was one of the most succinct points I've heard from you... And there have been lots.

It maybe doesnt add anything to the debate but I'm Irish and I dont care very much about the toons on the Fighting Irish logo, sometimes it seems to me like these grievances are born of thinking too much or letting tought over ride life or practical experience.

Could be. Or it could be that the Irish didn't have as hard a ride in the U.S. as some other groups did. I've spent a fair amount of time in Ireland, and you can usually get an Irishman to bristle with mention of the Brits, even though upon rational reflection he has no problem with them any more.

700+ years of oppression will do that to you.

500+ years of genocide have a similar effect, yet lark manages to suggest that we have no business objecting to racist portrayals.

That, or he's suggesting some sort of common ground

I have the feeling Lark hasn't been to a rez. It's a big ocean... Nothing personal.

Did I say that? Object to whatever you want, its a free country.

So far.